1976-05-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter is the current $2 billion plus deficit Canada is running under the Canada-United States auto pact, with devastating consequences to the Canadian auto parts industry in particular and to the over-all economies of Pntario and Canada. Inasmuch as the government is not acting to deal with this crisis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House constitute a special committee to inquire forthwith into, report upon and make recommendations with respect to the problems and difficulties of the Canadian auto and auto parts industries under the Canada-United States auto pact.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question concerns the four countries to which Canada is committed to sell nuclear reactors, the countries being India, Pakistan, South Korea and Argentina.
In view of the fact that none of these four countries has yet ratified the non-proliferation treaty, and considering the increasing concern expressed in many quarters of this country with regard to these sales, I wonder if the Prime
Minister could indicate whether in fact before any final sales occur the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty will be a requirement.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire, but my impression is that the facts as stated by the hon. member do not explain the case as we understand it. That ratification is to come from at least one of those countries. I do not know about the others.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS OF NUCLEAR EXPORTERS' AGREEMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It would be very helpful if the Prime Minister could confirm that none of them has ratified. One has initialled or signed the first part of the agreement, but none of them has ratified. In addition, in light of the increasing lassitude with which certain countries seem to be interpreting the agreement reached in London by the Nuclear Exporters' Consultative Group, would the Prime Minister reveal to the House the specific terms and conditions of this agreement, as the secrecy provisions of this particular agreement will certainly prevent any public censure being invoked when in fact the agreement is violated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Part of the agreement, of course, was reached in secret on the understanding that no one country would make the terms of it public. If the terms are being made public in a general way I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not object to making it public also. I would not want him to break that agreement unilaterally, however, nor would I undertake to ask him to do so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister is checking into these questions I wonder if he would also inquire whether the recent agreement includes some kind of threat of collective sanctions by the exporters in terms of an embargo on future distribution of either nuclear materials or technology. I think the present situation with regard to the unwarranted secrecy makes it difficult for public opinion in this country or elsewhere to determine whether our government acted responsibly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the conference and the active role Canada played was predicated on the realization that it was an act of futility for one country like Canada to upgrade its safeguards unilaterally-as we did-and impose more stringent safeguards if other exporting countries of nuclear technology or ma-
2 1804-6814

May 4, 1976
Oral Questions
terials were to continue individually to lower the safeguards. That was the purpose of the congress. As I indicated I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to inquire and I will report to the hon. member.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the meeting held earlier last month when officials of the Argentinian nuclear project were brought back to Canada, presumably for discussion with the department, and in view of the minister's admission that even after renegotiation the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pick up the multimillion dollar tab for these nuclear adventures in Argentina, can the minister now tell the Canadian public exactly how much we are going to lose on the Argentinian deal and if not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House the other day and perhaps the hon. member was not present at that time, these matters are not yet concluded. They are still under negotiation but very substantial progress has been made.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that a report commissioned by the United States energy resources development administration indicates that the Canadian vendors of nuclear power "lost their shirt" on the sale to Argentina, the sale to India and the sale to Pakistan, could the minister clarify, now that he has had these discussions on renegotiations, just exactly what progress he is talking about? How much "progress" are we losing on this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has followed debate on this, as I am sure other hon. members have, he will realize that the issue is the inflation rates in the two countries. When the Argentinian commercial contract was originally negotiated there was a certain assumption about the level of inflation in Canada; unfortunately, the inflation rate turned out to be greater than the basic assumption at that time. Similarly, there was no accurate forecast of the rate of inflation in Argentina; no one foresaw at that time that the inflation rate for Argentina was going to be somewhere between 300 per cent and 400 per cent, which is what it is running at on an annual basis right now. That was the basis of the renegotiations to protect our trading interests.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can we therefore assume that the cost to the Canadian taxpayer is going to be between 300 per cent and 400 per cent greater than the initial cost envisaged by the government? Is that what the minister is telling us?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands arithmetic. I was trying to explain the situation to him. Perhaps we could find the time

outside the House when I could go through the sums with him. Clearly, the object of the exercise was to reduce the possibility of extra exposure because of inflation rates which had not been foreseen. I indicated that substantial progress had been made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As a result of the extra-territorial intervention of the United States Department of Justice, preliminary development work on a new engine being developed by the Canadian Pratt and Whitney Company in Montreal was recently brought to an abrupt halt. Last Friday the Prime Minister said he would investigate the situation and report to the House. Is he now in a position to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that an answer was supplied to the minister, but unfortunately he is at the UNCTAD conference. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to inform himself of the answer, and perhaps tomorrow he can give it to the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question involves broad, general principles which will interest the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Perhaps either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will say what the government intends to do to ensure that the more than 1,000 jobs which would have been created in Canada in that high technology industry will not be lost. I suggest that the matter applies not only to this company, but to other companies which find themselves in a similar situation.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member a partial answer. We have been aware of this matter for some time and have kept close watch on developments in Washington particularly. As the hon. member may know, two engines are involved, a large engine and a relatively smaller one. I understand there is no difficulty with regard to the arrangements between United Aircraft and Rolls-Royce on the larger engine but there is some question about the smaller one which is of particular interest to Canada.
There has not been a resolution of it yet; but neither has there been any development which could be classed as a prohibition or anything which would inhibit development in Canada. We are keeping a close watch on this. I assure the hon. member that we shall use whatever influence we possess and do our best to make sure that the Canadian interest is not affected adversely.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since, as I understand, the United States Department of Justice has ruled on the matter, and, as a result, the parent company in the United States ordered its Canadian subsidiary to stop forthwith
May 4, 1976

its development work; and since that seems to be contrary to what ministers said, as, apparently, development is no longer underway, would the minister clarify the situation. Is work underway, and will it continue?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is complex. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that I will be glad to give him a written explanation of the situation. To the extent that I can explain it orally, I will. I understand-I am not exactly sure of the legal word-that a more or less informal opinion was sought from the U.S. Department of Justice. In other words, it was not a formal representation. The next step-and I hope the hon. member will understand my difficulty in not wanting to be too open; I do not want to become involved at this stage in a public way-is, as I understand it, to seek a more formal ruling. That is my information. I am subject to correction but I understand that may be the next step.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the following question.
In view of the fact that for two and a half years already an inquest on price fixing of petroleum products has been conducted by the federal Department of Consumer Affairs, which seems to be the most important one ever made by that ministry, would the minister indicate to the House what stage has this inquiry now reached?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire tomorrow if possible, even perhaps this afternoon, and shall contact the hon. member directly.


EFFECT ON PRICES OF IMPORTATION OF EGGS BY MARKETING AGENCY-AGENCY CONTROL OF IMPORTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As eggs were imported into Canada last week and purchased by CEMA at a price substantially lower than usual, can the minister say if this substantial saving in price is to be passed on to the Canadian consumer and, if not, why not? Does the minister believe, as his colleague the Minister of Agriculture appears to, that CEMA is justified in indirectly disobeying government policy by seeking control over licensing for egg imports?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree that the Minister of Agriculture would condone in any way, fashion or form anybody circumventing government policy. The question is, is there a government policy? The government policy on egg imports, as I understand it, is that CEMA has 48 hours to make up any deficiency in Canadian production after
Oral Questions
which private importers, selected by IIC, have the opportunity of importing those eggs that are needed for local consumption. I do know, for instance, that the eggs sold last weekend in a local chain store in Montreal were selling at 14 cents less than the prevailing rate the week before, probably the result of importing.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Last week he reported that there were complaints regarding these egg transactions and imports, and that an investigation would ensue. Can the minister report to the House on the progress or otherwise of this investigation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, last week I said that one complaint had been made to the RCMP and that they were assessing that complaint, but that no investigation would take place until they felt it was warranted. I have no information that they have proceeded further.


IMPORTATION OF EGGS-POSSIBLE TIGHTENING OF PROCEDURES
William Heward Grafftey: I will direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the minister's department to tighten up procedures vis-a-vis applications for permits to import eggs? Can he report to the House on the status of CEMA's application to have sole receivership rights for eggs imported into Canada at the present time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if "tighten up" is the word. However, I have had two meetings, one late yesterday afternoon with my officials in which I made it perfectly clear to them, although it was not necessary because they had already taken certain steps, to make sure the process was in fact monitored on an ongoing and continuing basis. I am following that up by further discussion with some of my colleagues who have even more direct responsibilities in this regard. On the second part of the question, no licences will be issued to CEMA for direct importation as long as the current policy stands.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Oral Questions
Agriculture. It arises from the reply he gave last Thursday to a question from the hon. member for Windsor West when the minister said:
In essence, they are using a perfectly legitimate broker bringing eggs into Canada and CEMA is paying them only the brokerage fee.
Can the minister confirm that, in addition to the one quarter cent a dozen brokerage fee, the Porter Produce Company also received, at CEMA's expense, a windfall income of three cents a dozen for handling the eggs? May I ask the minister why the eggs CEMA imported were not sent directly to the distributors to whom they were ultimately destined, thereby eliminating some of the delays encountered in shipping the eggs through the Porter Company and eliminating the need for CEMA to pay Porter the three cent handling fee?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, from the information I have received, they would actually have to do some work in handling the eggs before they would be compensated. I do know if a brokerage firm is doing the normal work involved they are entitled to a brokerage fee. That is all they are entitled to. I will have to investigate this further and check it out.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reply and his willingness to investigate that. Can the minister confirm that the Porter Company has also been used as a first receiver for western eggs shipped into Ontario and has received a handling fee which has not been paid to other distributors? What is the reason the Porter Company was chosen? Why have they received a handling fee that has not been paid to other distributors, and how many cents per dozen was Porter paid to handle western eggs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I know is that the Porter Company is a licensed brokerage firm. If they are doing anything illegal, I will have to determine this through my inquiries. However, no one has pointed this out to me previously.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the first ministers' conference on May 6 will deal primarily with the question of the domestic price of oil and gas, and that the subsequent conference in June will focus on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and since it appears that the issue of the constitution will be dealt with only tangentally at both these meetings, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to propose to the premiers on Thursday the convening of a full-scale constitutional conference similar to the Victoria Conference of 1971 to discuss the proposal contained in his recent correspondence with the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make that proposal to the

provincial premiers. My intention is to report to them on the evaluation of the situation since we all agreed one year ago to explore ways of patriating the constitution with an amending formula-we agreed we should not get into any other areas such as the division of powers. I intend to report to them, to hear their reaction to the report I put in writing to them about a month ago and then to assess the situation. If they wish an open conference on a patriation formula, I have no objection to that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the emphasis which the Prime Minister has placed on patriation, can he assure us that he does not intend to negotiate this vital issue simply via the mails, in which case it might take another hundred years to deal with? Or does he intend to consider this important matter in the time left over after other issues have been dealt with, in which case it would appear he is prepared to regard the discussion of constitutional matters as a footnote to these meetings? Can he give us an assurance that this will not be the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I made it quite clear to the premiers that the item would be raised at this meeting and at the following meeting. I must remind the hon. lady that the premiers, in April a year ago, unanimously decided we should attempt to patriate with an amending formula. This was not something that I alone was pressing for; there was agreement. I still hope this agreement will be carried forth with the consent of all the premiers.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBILITY JUNE CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the Prime Minister indicate whether the June conference of first ministers, which will focus, I understand, on renegotiation of tax-sharing arrangements and the equalization formula, matters vitally affecting all Canadians, will be open to viewing by the Canadian public in part or in whole?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I made it clear, I believe, two or three years ago in this House when responding to this type of question that I, as chairman of these first ministers' conferences, would adopt the course which appeared most acceptable to the majority of first ministers. I indicated then, and repeat now, that I am completely indifferent to whatever option they prefer. In other words, if they prefer an open conference it is my slight preference to have an open conference at all times; if it is the collective assessment that we would make more progress at a closed conference, my preference would be for a closed conference. There is an in-between solution which we shall also examine: it is to have a wider conference than that of first ministers-as will be the case on Thursday-but one not quite as wide as to include invitees from the public and members of various parliaments and legislatures; in other words, a full conference with other ministers and advisers present, but still not open to the press. I repeat that as chairman of the conference I shall
May 4, 1976

not attempt to impose my views on the other members. It is a matter for collective decision.



COMBINES


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The new section 31(5) of the Combines Act recently adopted by the House authorizes the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to issue orders blocking the application of foreign law in Canada. I am therefore asking the minister whether he will ensure that the director of the combines branch carries out an inquiry into the Pratt and Whitney matter so that where appropriate the director can make application to the commission for an order preventing the application of any U.S. department of justice ruling in Canada that could prevent Canadian Pratt and Whitney from doing work here that would provide jobs for hundreds of Canadians.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, that matter has already been brought to the attention of the director.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the phasing out of production in the former Dunlop tire plant at Whitby. It seems as though the minister is going to have another foreign trademark case on his hands. The information that has been brought to my attention is that Firestone Tire, which bought out the Dunlop tire plant in 1974, has relinquished the right to use the Dunlop brand and tires under that name will be imported from the Unites States, so that no manufacturing under that name will take place in Canada. Would the minister therefore tell the House what he knows about this particular situation, and if he does not have the information today, would he assure the House that he will bring the information to the House at the earliest moment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret that it will have to be the latter. It is not a case with which I am personally familiar, but I will make inquiries.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is checking into the details of that particular situation, would he also inquire as to the conditions that FIRA attached to the Firestone takeover in 1974
Oral Questions
and whether those conditions have been met in terms of national benefit? Since the Firestone firm is cutting back on production and reducing the number of its employees, it does not seem to be meeting the test of national benefit.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do that.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which relates to the central aircraft de-icing facilities at Mirabel international airport. I know the minister is familiar with this since I have correspondence addressed to him on this subject. Would the minister confirm that in fact proposals, in the first instance, and tenders, in the second instance, were cancelled in relation thereto, and would he state whether reports that the system in question has never functioned properly are accurate?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the system is a new one and therefore the developmental phase obviously involves some trial and error. That is the only comment that I will make with regard to the second part of the question. It is accurate to say that initial tenders that were called were cancelled when a further technical examination did determine it would be important to have each user of the facility made responsible for his own aircraft, and that is the way the matter is now proceeding.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister further state whether GENAC, a joint venture of Air Canada and General Aviation, to whom the operation of the de-icing facility at Mirabel was ultimately awarded following the cancellation of tenders at the last possible moment, are in fact still ready, willing and able to continue their operations? Would the minister also indicate what is acceptable practice in the government with respect to notices of cancellation of tendering procedures? Does a telegram sent the night before purporting to cancel tenders to be opened the next morning meet the criteria?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, as is usual in a tendering procedure, we are in the position that we need not accept any bid, and indeed at any point we can make a change in our over-all view of the situation. Obviously, we would not do so frequently or lightly because of the problem that it would create for people who were considering putting in bids. In this particular case, however, when it was apparent that technical advice was in favour of individual operation and responsibility on the part of the owners of the aircraft, it was decided that this was the right procedure to follow and therefore the bids were cancelled. That could have taken place after the bids were opened rather than the day before, as the hon. member suggests.

May 4, 1976
Oral Questions
However, I believe he will find that he is in error in saying that the matter was turned over to GENAC. It may be the case in this particular operation in relation to Air Canada and other contracts with Air Canada for other aircraft, but essentially as I understand the situation the individual owners of aircraft have responsibilities for the operation of the de-icing of their aircraft.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that well in excess of $4 million has been expended on this reportedly unsatisfactory de-icing facility, and will the minister advise the House whether his department is now considering any alternate plans, including a possible retendering of the concept?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any thought of retendering. As I understand it, the technical advice still continues to be strongly in favour of responsibility for an individual aircraft. I will, of course, be glad to supply on the order paper the other information that the hon. member seeks. As I understand the situation, the difference between different aircraft is sufficiently significant that it seems wise to allow the owner of the aircraft, the person responsible for the aircraft, to determine the exact technique of de-icing, and that is the reason for the change in plan.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In light of what appear to be favourable conditions for a voluntary arbitration of the grain handlers wage contract dispute, would this suggest Vancouver greatly enhancing its trade reputation for the handling of grain? I have one short supplementary to that question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to indicate to the hon. member that the grain handlers and operators have come to an agreement on voluntary arbitration binding on both sides, which I think is significant and something of a breakthrough in labour negotiations in Canada. I think it also ensures that grain will move through the port of Vancouver without the dislocations that have unfortunately marked this industry for some years, and we are very happy about that.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH RAILWAY WORKERS

John (Jack) Henry Horner: One short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also comment on the labour negotiations taking place with the railway workers, and whether or not the grain will get to Vancouver?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the situation there, I would advise the hon. member, is that the negotiation committee for the railway unions recommended Mr. Justice Emmett Hall's report to the

general conference of chairmen numbering approximately 150. The general chairmen rejected the recommendation of acceptance of the negotiating committee, so it is now in the process of going out to the rank and file railroaders in Canada who will indicate their preference by a vote. That process will take approximately two to three weeks, perhaps marginally longer, but I am still hopeful, and so are some of my officials involved, that this matter may be resolved without either a strike or the intervention of parliament.



USE OF ARBITRATION TO SETTLE DISPUTES-NAMES OF INDUSTRIES ADOPTING ARBITRATION PROCEDURE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in this general area. I am pleased to hear that the minister acknowledges that the arbitration route taken by the grain handlers is one that does call for some thanks. Seeing that his ministry is moving in this direction, is the minister now in a position to advise whether he has had any success with other major industries under federal jurisdiction in adopting such a procedure as arbitration and, if so, would he give the House some indication of the industries involved?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, much of the innovative work that has been conducted on an experimental basis in terms of broader based bargaining has been going on in the grain handling industry with the co-operation of myself, the labour movement and the operators, so I think it is to be expected that this type of development might occur in that industry first. As the hon. member might also know, some months ago I appointed a commissioner to make recommendations that would improve the unhappy state of industrial relations in the industry, and that set the favourable backdrop for this type of approach that is now being adopted in connection with the grain handlers.
It was hoped that we might proceed to look at other industries, such as the air industry and others, through the Canada Labour Relations Council, but there has been what is, I hope, a temporary withdrawal by labour there which is not speeding up the process. However, I hope this will set the example-similar to the example set for the steel industry in the United States-and will bring about a satisfactory, civilized resolution of disputes which other unions and management will follow.



METHOD USED TO ATTEMPT TO AVERT A GENERAL STRIKE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister does have another problem with regard to the CLC. Documents released yesterday by the CLC indicate that 40 of the 440 resolutions submitted by local unions and affiliates for consideration by the upcoming CLC convention call for increased political pressure to halt controls, one at least calling for the mobilization of a general strike.
Given the withdrawal of the CLC from both the Economic Council of Canada and the Canada Labour Relations Council, and in light of our concern about strikes,
May 4, 1976

general or otherwise, can the minister outline those liaison mechanisms through which he is attempting to head off such a general strike, which would be disastrous to the economy of this country?


John Carr Munro: I have said that that would be an eventuality which the government and, I am sure, every hon. member of this House would like to avoid. What we are doing is continuing talks in a bilateral way with leaders of the labour movement, and I think there is a good possibility that meetings will carry on. They will not carry on in the multilateral context of having management, labour and government at the same table, as takes place within the Canada Labour Relations Council, but directly between the government and the business community to try to develop a consensus to arrive at some satisfactory solutions through that technique, and that process is going on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Without the CLC.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the RCMP laid charges of fraud against one Howard Ernest Buchan, former chief of field operations, PFAA, a 1973 appointee of the Minister of Agriculture, has the minister conducted an in depth investigation as to whether that employee acted on his own initiative or on the instructions of another?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the courts have thoroughly investigated what it was alleged this man did wrong. I forget the legal terminology for it, but I understand that the case has not gone any further in the court because it was felt that there was not any evidence against him.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Since someone must be held responsible for such personal appointments and for the conduct of those employees while carrying out their assigned duties, does the minister accept that responsibility?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I accept the ruling of the court.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to give us a fairly firm date when he might expect to announce the reorganization of the infrastructure in Canada for the Canadian forces?
Oral Questions


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that subject is before cabinet. I cannot predict how long it will take for those deliberations to be completed.
* *



WORK STOPPAGES AT HOSPITALS IN QUEBEC AND SASKATCHEWAN-POSSIBILITY OF INQUIRY

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the problems caused by labour disputes, particularly in Quebec and Saskatchewan hospitals, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether his government is conducting an inquiry in these two provinces to ensure that in spite of the reduction of required and necessary services, no patient's life has been placed in jeopardy, as rumours would have it? I would like to add that last week a Montreal physician declared that he had to resort to war time medicine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister who is away on official duties.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour and Immigration.
In view of the intensification of the fighting in Lebanon, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to set up a special team within his department to ensure that Canada welcome a greater number of Lebanese who are facing serious problems in their country? Lebanese citizens wishing to emigrate to Canada would thus allow us to take more humane measures to reach a more equitable linguistic balance in our country.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been watching the situation with regard to Lebanese very closely, and I am considering some further measures upon which I will be in a position to make a decision very shortly.
Oral Questions



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1976

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of the fact that CBC employees who will be working on televising the Olympics reached an agreement with the management of CBC six weeks ago. Since that time that contract has been before the Anti-Inflation Board without any disposition of the case. The employees have set a deadline of May 15, and if after that time they still have no settlement, they will resort to strike action. Would the minister take up the case with the AIB to see that there is some disposition of it, thus avoiding a strike which would have very serious effects on the televising of the Olympics?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to pursue this.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could confirm the truth of reports that the Anti-Inflation Board now has a backlog of close to 6,000 agreements with which it has not yet dealt, and will the minister explain to the House how long employers and employees will have to wait after they reach an agreement before they know what their situation will be for the coming year or possibly two as a result of the board's decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I had occasion to refer to that in debate last week. My understanding is that a very substantial number of the agreements will have been dealt with either by this time or within a very short time. Of course, there will still remain some outstanding and difficult cases, particularly cases in which the question of historical relationship is involved. Naturally, the board will do its best to dispatch these matters as quickly as it can.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I asked a question on Friday which is recorded at page 13031 of Hansard. In an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, May 1 the following quotation can be found:
An immigration department spokesman said there is a general policy that Canadians be placed in vacant positions in Canada if they are qualified for the post.
I am asking the minister if he is saying that by withholding work visas or extensions of work visas for foreign correspondents that the government will insist that openings for these correspondents in Canada will have to be filled by Canadians. I suggest that it would be similar if the United States were asking that CBC openings in the United States be filled by Americans.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to require foreign correspondents of periodicals or media institutions to have work permits if they are reporting on Canadian affairs to a foreign audience. On the other hand, if a visitor from some other country were to apply for a job in a media servicing organization within Canada which serviced the Canadian public, that would be a different matter, and we would then examine the question of his eligibility to work in terms of the availability of Canadians. However, this would not apply in the case of truly foreign correspondents representing foreign publications.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This being an intricate matter, I want to confirm with the minister that when U.S. newsmagazines or news service agencies post correspondents to Canada, they will receive work visas without any disruptions, such as have occurred in the last few weeks.


Robert Knight Andras: With regard to the first category, absolutely. That is to say, a foreign correspondent of, say, Newsweek, covering the Canadian scene for Newsweek and a foreign audience, would be exempted from the requirement of an employment visa. The second category might be slightly different if it is a foreign person taking a job in, say, UPI to service a Canadian news service where certainly there is no foreign audience involved. That might be slightly different.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the department is now three months behind in paying militiamen? Can the minister give the reason or reasons for this, and can he assure the House that something will be done about the situation at once?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that not only will something be done, but also that something has been done. We were putting the matter of militia pay on a computer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: -in order to improve the pay system. It took a little time to achieve that, but the bugs are now out, and the cheques are going forward.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to the hostage-taking which is underway at present, unfortu-
May 4, 1976

nately, at Archambault penitentiary where a guard and an instructor, namely Leopold Mercier and Michel English, are being held and there is a demand for two mediators, Mr. Robert Sachitelle and Mr. Laplante who is presently in Alberta. I wonder if the minister is in a position to give us a report as to the situation with respect to this hostagetaking incident and whether he is in fact considering the appointment of a mediator as requested by the inmates.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the two inmates asked for the attendance of Mr. Laurent Laplante and Robert Sachitelle who had been acting as negotiators in the strike which is taking place. Mr. Laplante is in Alberta and is unable to attend but Mr. Sachitelle has gone to the prison and is attempting to work out a settlement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I gather from the answer of the minister that he is in fact prepared to allow a mediator in these circumstances, since it seems a reasonable request.


William Warren Allmand: I understand that Mr. Sachitelle has gone to the prison to act more as a representative of the inmates in discussions with the administration than as a mediator, but he had been acting as a mediator until now.

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



REASON FOR ERADICATION PROGRAM TO DEAL WITH BLUE TONGUE DISEASE

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the United States has had the cattle disease blue tongue for over 15 years and has never instituted an eradication program, would the minister inform the House why he has allowed an eradication program to take place in the Okanagan when the health of animals department has admitted they do not even know what type of blue tongue exists in Canada or its seriousness?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have instituted an eradication program because there is evidence of the disease and history shows that this is by far the best way to deal with any virus infection such as this. The hon. member knows full well that the virus infection is difficult to identify, but it is not worth taking a chance because leaving it in abeyance and hoping things will go away by themselves is too risky. The health of livestock is much too important to us. Many things are being done in the United States that we do not do.
* *
*
* *
*



FISHERIES


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Following the visit of the minister-who was accompanied by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-last Friday to New York, on the occasion of the 4th Conference on the Law of the Sea, which is to end next Friday, can the minister tell the House whether he expects concrete results, if not considerable progress, from this 4th conference, and whether the participating countries have agreed to meet again for a general assembly in July of 1976, even before the meeting which had originally been scheduled for early 1977?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether the report to be tabled this week will indicate as much progress as we had hoped, but there is no doubt that if the majority of countries agree to meet again in July, it will be because they expect to be able to come to an agreement. As for Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and several of us have already clearly indicated that 1976 will be a decisive year for us.



SUGGESTION PRESSURE NOT BE USED TO PREVENT OPTING OUT OF STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that producer contributions to the western grain stabilization plan became effective on April 1 and it has been very difficult if not impossible for producers to opt out, can the minister give the House an assurance that undue pressure will not be used to prevent opting out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be taking every possible step-and I hope the hon. member and his colleagues will join me-to bring the advantages of the stabilization plan to the attention of each individual farmer. To the extent that we do that, if the hon. member wants to call that undue pressure, I will gladly not only confess to it but claim it. There is no difficulty in opting out. The producers should realize as well that there is no particular hurry in doing so, even if they want to opt out for this year, because if they opt out at the end of or just after the end of 1976 their entire levies for 1976 will be returned to them. I hope therefore that the hon. member will join me in making farmers aware of the financial advantage to them and to the prairies this plan will be, so that they will not end up a year or two later being hurt when payments are made to all their colleagues in the farming business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 4, 1976
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS



EFFORTS TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF FERRY SERVICE TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN EVENT OF WORK STOPPAGES- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a brief question to the Minister of Labour, and it is really supplementary to some earlier questions. What progress is his department making toward an arrangement which would allow the continuation of the operation of the main ferry services to P.E.I., on which all surface travel is dependent, in the case of a work stoppage on the CNR?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the policy that we have been adopting in conjunction with the Department of Transport and with the union leadership is to have a voluntary agreement that the strike weapon would not be resorted to, despite what happened throughout the rest of the industry, with respect to this particular ferry service. I have received a very encouraging word from the union leadership to the effect that they think they can accommodate this particular objective, so I am hopeful that a successful conclusion along those lines can be reached.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar about the hostage taking at Archambault. It is directed to the Solicitor General. Surely in this case the penitentiary service of Canada had ample warning that serious trouble would ensue. Can the minister comment on the fact that there was a good deal of insensitivity on the part of the penitentiary service with regard to the warnings that many of us had in our ordinary duties as members of parliament?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the inmates at the Archambault penitentiary have been on a type of strike for some time now. They had made certain suggestions to the administration. It is my understanding that the administration came to an agreement with them on all suggestions expect one, which was that they be allowed to have open visiting. That was refused by the penitentiary service on the basis that this was a maximum security penitentiary, a lot of contraband had been going into the penitentiary, and open visits should not be permitted. Open visits are permitted in the medium and minimum security penitentiaries and in part at a few of the maximum security penitentiaries, but they felt that if inmates at Archambault wanted open visiting they could improve their conduct and in time be transferred to either Leclerc or Cowansville or one of the medium security penitentiaries where they could get that.
On the whole, the administration was very open to negotiation and came to an agreement on all the proposals

except this one. After all, it is the administration and not the inmates that is running the penitentiaries.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he say whether he has yet received the report of Dr. Noel Hall who has been working on the question of railway pensions for quite some time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that Dr. Hall has communicated with the department. He has indicated that the actuaries are taking a great deal of time but they are doing a thorough job of examining the present methods and basis for funding plans. Another area that is taking him more time than he anticipated is comparing railway pension plans which, as you will recall, the terms of reference call for, with the plans in the public service, Crown corporations and other plans in the private sector. All this is of greater complexity than he first anticipated when he gave his deadline. I hope to have a new prognostication from him as to when he will have it ready within the next few weeks.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is in two parts. Since the government has placed such great importance on contractual links with the European Common Market, can the minister give the House examples of advantages to the agricultural industry as a result of this relationship? Second, on a very relative subject, what submissions are planned by agriculture Canada, either directly or indirectly, through our negotiators at the present GATT discussions?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on the last part of the question about representations to GATT, I am sure the hon. member is aware that our department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have had consultations with their provincial counterparts asking them for input. We also asked the farm organizations for input. This is being done in preparation for the talks at GATT. With regard to formal arrangements, the fact that we have a European Community representative in Canada now is very important to us for exchange of trade and of agricultural products, including cereal grains, livestock of all descriptions, farm implements and many other things. I think this is most impor-
May 4, 1976

tant and also the fact that we can talk directly to them about exporting subsidized cheeses to Canada.


John Wise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to encourage and promote discussion regarding Canada's need to convert from our traditional method of tariff calculation to the constant percentage of value, or ad valorem, particularly during periods of high inflation?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by the Department of National Defence, Transport Canada and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. National Defence: (a) Three CH 135 utility helicopters. $570.59 per flying hour for each helicopter, (b) $15,805.35. Transport Canada: (a) MOT Jetstar CF-ETN. Cost per hour-$970. (b) Total MOT cost-$1,445. (c) The itinerary was as follows:


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be assured that all these things are being discussed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the Law Reform Commission report on family law, pursuant to Standing Order 41(1).


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following 167 questions will be answered today:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: They are: 2,708, 3,120, 3,706, 4,154, 4,620 to 4,765, inclusive; 4,931, 4,933 to 4,939 inclusive; 5,097, 5,117, 5,132 to 5,135, inclusive; and 5,235.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In regard to the trip by the Prime Minister during the weekend commencing June 6, 1975 to certain places in southeastern Ontario (a) what specific government aircraft were used for any aspects of transportation and, in each case, what is the cost per hour of keeping such aircraft in the air including fuel, salaries, and all other factors (b) what was the total cost involved for all flights (c) where did each flight begin and terminate and what are the names and functions of all persons who travelled in the aircraft carrying the Prime Minister and in any other accompanying government-owned aircraft?
2.	What are all the details of the use of government-owned aircraft in advance party arrangements for the trip including (a) number and description of aircraft involved (b) names and job designations of all those on board at any time (c) cost per hour and total cost?
3.	Will the Prime Minister discontinue using government-owned aircraft at public expense for purposes of political or personal travel and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
Date
Leave
Arrive
June 6, 1975 June 6, 1975 June 6, 1975 June 6, 1975 June 7, 1975 June 7, 1975 June 7, 1975 June 7, 1975
Toronto 0830 Muskoka 1010 Collingwood 1330 Barrie 1600 Hamilton 1015 Waterloo 1445 St. George 1615 Port Dover 1900
Muskoka 0915 Collingwood 1050 Barrie 1350 Hamilton 1650 Waterloo 1045 St. George 1500 Port Dover 1640 Toronto 1945
MOT Jetstar: Ottawa-Muskoka: Prime Minister, Bob Murdoch-PMO, Colin Kenny-PMO, Ian Macdonald-PMO, Derek Brown-Industry, Trade and Commerce. DND Helicopters: Muskoka, Collingwood, Barrie, Hamilton, Waterloo, St. George, Port Dover, Toronto. Aircraft I: Prime Minister, Bob Murdoch-PMO, Colin Kenny-PMO, Insp. Wagner-RCMP, Dave Glaikie-Press. Aircraft II: Muskoka, Collingwood, Barrie: Derek Brown-Industry, Trade and Commerce, Peter McGuire-PMO, Sgt. Turnbull- RCMP, Catharine McQueen-Press, Geoff Scott-Press, Neil Sandy-Press. Waterloo-St. George: Hon. Judd Buchanan, Penny Lipsett-Indian Affairs and Northern Development. St. George, Port Dover, Toronto: Hon. John Munro, Ferd Viola-Labour. Aircraft III: Ian Macdonald- PMO, Orland French-Press, James Ferrabee-Press, Hal Jones-Press, Bert Plimer-Press, Chris Rose-Press, Cpl. George Duggan-RCMP. MOT Jetstar: Toronto, Quebec City: Prime Minister, Bob Murdoch-PMO, Colin Kenny- PMO, Ian Macdonald-PMO, Hon. John Munro, Ferd Viola-Labour, Hon. D. S. Macdonald, Mrs. Macdonald.
2.	(a) and (c) See Part 1. (b) Mr. C. Kenny-PMO, Mr. P. McGuire-PMO, Two members of the RCMP.
3.	See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister take a holiday trip with his son to and from the Northwest Territories during the recent Parliamentary recess and, if so, what was the cost to the taxpayer?
2.	(a) What government aircraft was used (b) what was the cost per flying hour (c) how many flying hours were involved (d) what was the cost per hour of waiting time on the ground for such aircraft (e) how many waiting hours on the ground were involved?
3.	(a) What are the names, addresses and job designations of all persons at any time on board such aircraft from the time it left Ottawa until it returned (b) on what date did it (i) leave Ottawa (ii) return to Ottawa (c) what are all the places it took-off from or landed at during the intervals involved and, in each case, for what purpose?
4.	What are the (a) names (b) job designations (c) annual salaries (d) total cost of expenses for each member of the crew on the trip?

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. The
Prime Minister visited the Northwest Territories during the Parliamentary recess last summer.
2.	(a) MOT Jetstar. (b) $970. (See reply to question 4,110 answered March 12, 1976). (c) Twelve hours, (d) See 2(b). (e) 15'/2 hours.
3.	(a) The Prime Minister, Master Justin Trudeau and guest, (b) (i) August 23-Ottawa to Frobisher; (ii) August 29-Frobisher to Ottawa, (c) See 3(b).
4.	See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC SERVICE CLOSED COMPETITIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of National Defence aware of the answer to Question No. 2,849 and, if so, does he accept its implications as to the ability of members of the Canadian Armed Forces born in the Atlantic Provinces but not stationed there to enter closed competitions offered by the Public Service but restricted to residents of the Atlantic Provinces?
2.	Does this policy and its workings advance morale within the Canadian Armed Forces for those members finding themselves affected by the policy and, if so, in what manner?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. The concept of closed competition in the Public Service is to provide career opportunities within a region and a designated section of the Public Service, when competent candidates are considered to be available in the region and section designated. The regulations for such competitions are applicable to all public servants, including members of the Armed Forces. The place of birth of a member of the Public Service has no bearing on his or her eligibility for the competition.
2. There is no evidence that this policy has affected morale in the armed forces.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue list OXFAM as a charitable organization and, if so, are donations tax deductible?
2.	Do liberation movements in Africa receive support from OXFAM and, if so, does the government (a) approve of each liberation organization receiving such support (b) financially support such liberation movements and, if not, is it considering giving such support?
3.	Does the government register organizations which engage in funding of political liberation movements as charitable organizations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows; 1. OXFAM-Canada, an Ontario Part II no share capital corporation, has been registered as a Canadian charitable organization with Revenue-Canada since January 1, 1967. Accordingly, donations to it are tax deductible by the donor within the provisions of paragraph 110(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Some liberation groups in Africa have received support from OXFAM, and OXFAM has sought financial contributions from CIDA for such assistance projects as might qualify under Canada's humanitarian aid program for

southern Africa. To date, CIDA has given financial assistance to OXFAM/Quebec for its humanitarian assistance program for the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union. This involved a grant of $5,000 to OXFAM for the purpose of sending clothing, food and medical supplies for refugees who fled from Rhodesia to neighbouring countries. At the present time CIDA is considering a request from OXFAM-Canada for assistance to the South West Africa People organization in Namibia for a project involving Adult Education, (a) The Government approves the receiving by liberation organizations of support by Canadian non-governmental organizations for humanitarian purposes. However, firm assurances are required that the aid is utilized for purely peaceful purposes involving strict accountability by sponsoring bodies for any CIDA funds. Funds are not made available directly to the liberation movements. While it is obvious that the ultimate recipients of this type of humanitarian aid will include both those who are politically militant and those who are not, the ultimate test of the value of this aid is the peaceful and humanitarian nature of the project itself.
This humanitarian aid goes to sponsoring bodies that have in mind medical, educational, agricultural and other humanitarian projects. Under this program, CIDA considers requests for contributions from reputable Canadian non-governmental organizations and international bodies for projects of a humanitarian nature in Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa, (b) No, and it is not considering giving such support.
3. Revenue-Canada in its determination of what is and what is not charitable in the legal sense, relies heavily on common law established over a period of some 300 years. It has been held at law that if the purpose of a trust is the attainment of a political object, the purpose will not be charitable. The financial support of a liberation movement would be a political purpose and an organization engaged in this activity would not qualify for registration as a charitable organization with Revenue-Canada. A Canadian charitable organization may, on occasion, find it necessary to utilize the facilities of an organization outside of Canada to assist the Canadian organization to carry out its charitable activities outside of Canada. The intermediate organization may be a political organization but if the activity is charitable and is carried on in the name of the Canadian organization the activity normally would not be considered to be a political one. Revenue-Canada is seeking further information in regard to OXFAM-Canada dealings with a liberation movement in Africa.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	How many court applications to enforce compliance with undertakings attached to the approval by the agency under the Foreign Investment Review Act have been made to date?
2.	How many persons or corporations have been deemed eligible under the Foreign Investment Review Act and what are their names?
3.	(a) How many persons or corporations satisfying the conditions of non-eligibility under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Investment Review Act have been deemed eligible on the grounds of actual control (b) what was the evidence for actual control in each case (c) what are the names of such persons or corporations?
May 4, 1976


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. None. In the Agency's monitoring of undertakings to date, no investors have been found to be in default of their undertakings. Undertakings are in principle binding and enforceable through the courts. However, where it is established that a foreign investor has not fully complied with his undertakings due to unforeseen circumstances such as a major change in market conditions, every effort will be made to negotiate new or substitute undertakings so that the original objective of significant benefit to Canada is achieved. Enforcement action through the courts is likely to be a procedure of last resort.
2.	As of March 12, 1976, 28 corporations were found to be eligible persons. The following is a list of names of those corporations: Bow Valley Industries Ltd.; Brascan Limited; Canadian Enterprise Development Corporation Limited; Canadian Keyes Fibre Company, Limited; Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Limited; Denison Mines Limited; Federal Industrie Ltd.; Hastings West Investment Ltd.; Horne & Pitfield Foods Limited; The International Nickel Company of Canada Limited; The Metropolitan Trust Company; Alcan Aluminum Limited; Nordair Ltd.; Numac Oil Gas Ltd.; Oakwood Petroleums Ltd.; Panarctic Oils Ltd.; Ventures West Capital Ltd.; The White Pass and Yukon Corporation Limited; Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd.; Voyager Petroleums Ltd.; Waltec Enterprises Ltd.; Chieftain Development Ltd.; Consumers Glass Company Limited; Peyto Oils Ltd.; Placer Development Limited; The Big "0" Drain Tile Company Limited; Ranger Oil (Canada) Limited; Maritime Agencies Limited.
3.	(a) The 28 corporations referred to in 2 above were deemed to be non-eligible under Subsection 3(2) and were considered to be eligible persons on the basis that control in fact resided with Canadians, (b) Information submitted to the Minister in the course of the administration of the Act is privileged under Subsection 14(1) of the Act. However, as all the eligibility opinions have concerned corporations, the Minister has considered all pertinent information as to where "control in fact" actually lies. In general, this information includes the following: (i) the identity and holdings of substantial non-Canadian voting blocks; (ii) the identity and holdings of substantial Canadian voting blocks; (iii) the description of the proxy practices of the company; (iv) the identity and holdings of each Canadian and non-Canadian director; (v) the identity and holdings of each Canadian and non-Canadian senior officer; (vi) the description of decision-making practices of the management; (vii) the details of agreements or arrangements with outsiders which may affect control of the company's affairs, (c) See 2 above.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd. to acquire control of certain assets of Sulpetro of Canada Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment
(iii)	increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as share-
Order Paper Questions
holders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the
Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The privileged information provisions of Section 14 of the Act specify that the Minister may not be required to disclose undertakings given by an investor where in the opinion of the Minister the disclosure of such undertakings would prejudicially affect the person who gave the undertaking in the matter of conduct of his business affairs. Accordingly, as a matter of policy and consistent with the Act, undertakings are only disclosed when and to the extent that such disclosure is not prejudicial to the business interests of the parties concerned. In such circumstances the undertakings are indicated in press releases issued by the Minister announcing the decisions of the Governor in Council with respect to the cases concerned. The Government is reviewing the nature and extent of the information that may properly be made public concerning proposed investments reviewed under the Foreign Investment Review Act. However, with respect to cases that have already been reviewed, the disclosure of information and undertakings given in confidence, and in the knowledge of the government's existing practice and policy regarding disclosure, would be improper. The Foreign Investment Review Agency monitors and reviews compliance by an investor with all undertakings, at appropriate intervals after allowance of the investment by Governor in Council. As was indicated in the first Annual Report to Parliament on operations under the Foreign Investment Review Act, it is normally impractical to commence the monitoring process until approximately one year after allowance of the investment by the Governor in Council.
2. As the monitoring of undertaking in this case has not commenced, the information specified in the question is not available. Even if it were available, public disclosure of such information with respect to the specific business would not be permitted under Subsection 14(1) of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of BP Oil Ltd. to acquire control of Retail Gasoline-car wash of Golden Triangle Oils Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
(iv)	additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Furnco Construction Canada Ltd. to acquire control of Walker Vacuum Services Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Crown Zellerbach Ltd. to acquire control of Elk River Timber Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-

pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Henry Siegal Co. Inc. to acquire control of Monarch Wear under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Zapata Canada Limited to acquire control of assets of Ocean Maid Foods Div. of Atlantic Consolidated Foods Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
No. 4,621.
May 4, 1976


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Emerson Electric Co. to acquire control of A.B. Chance Co. of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Childers Products Co. Inc. to acquire control of Terkel Insulation Products Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Graphic Controls Canada Ltd. to acquire control of EIL Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource
Order Paper Questions
processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports
(v)	Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Sunbeam Corp. to acquire control of Schaefer Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Cotts Beverages Ltd. to acquire control of Private Brands Beverages Ltd. and Stewart Hall Co. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Granada TV Rental Ltd. to acquire control of Colorvision Rentals Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Leonard Monheim KG to acquire control of Comet Confectionary Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Liquid Flavour Associates of Canada to acquire control of certain assets of Liquid Carbonic Canada Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional expprts (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Tonolli Company of Canada Ltd. to acquire control of H. Bernard (Canada) Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Dental Depot (Canada) Ltd. to acquire control of United Dental Supply Corp. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
May 4, 1976

(iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Japan Oil Sands Co. Ltd. to acquire control of Japan Oil Sands Co. Primrose Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
(iv)	additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Midco Equipment Co. to acquire control of Ferguson Supply Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports
(v)	Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new
Order Paper Questions
investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Kaladar Planing Mills to acquire control of L.E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Roboserve Ltd. to acquire control of Gilron Holdings Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. to acquire control of Pacific Inland Resources Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Cargill Grain Co. Ltd. to acquire control of National Grain under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Insofar as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The privileged information provisions of Section 14 of the Act specify that the Minister may not be required to disclose undertakings given by an investor where in the opinion of the Minister the disclosure of such undertakings would prejudicially affect the person who gave the undertaking in the matter or conduct of his business affairs. Accordingly as a matter of policy, and consistent with the Act,

undertakings are only disclosed when and to the extent that such disclosure is not prejudicial to the business interests of the parties concerned. In such circumstances the undertakings are indicated in press releases issued by the Minister announcing the decisions of the Governor in Council with respect to the cases concerned. The Government is reviewing the nature and extent of the information that may properly be made public concerning proposed investments reviewed under the Foreign Investment Review Act. However, with respect to cases that have already been reviewed, the disclosure of information and undertakings given in confidence, and in the knowledge of the Government's existing practice and policy regarding disclosure, would be improper. The Foreign Investment Review Agency monitors and reviews compliance by an investor with all undertakings, at appropriate intervals after allowance of the investment by Governor in Council. As was indicated in the first Annual Report to Parliament on operations under the Foreign Investment Review Act, it is normally impractical to commence the monitoring process until approximately one year after allowance of the investment by the Governor in Council.
2. Public disclosure with respect to the specific business is not permitted under Subsection 14(1) of information obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Babcox and Wilcox Refractories Ltd. to acquire control of Holmes Insulations Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Royal Industries to acquire control of Pacer Trailer Man. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced techno-
May 4, 1976

logical development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of The Canadian Fuel Marketers Group Ltd. to acquire control of St. Lawrence Tankers Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Delaware Brunswick Corp. to acquire control of Ozite Corporation of Canada Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development
Order Paper Questions
been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Suntrack Manufacturing Ltd. to acquire control of Mulder (Canada) Limited under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Maremont Corporation to acquire control of Van der Hout Associates under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,642.

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE CONTROL 
Question No. 4,649-Mr. Leggatt:
1.	In the case of the proposal of Orenstein & Koppel Aktiengesell-schaft to acquire control of IM Division of Clark Equipment of Canada Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Cosmair (Canada) Ltd. to acquire control of Du Barry Cosmetics Division of Warner-Lambert Co. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Hughes Tool Company to acquire control of BJ Well Services Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii)

enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Tomeson-Alexander Associates to acquire control of Retirement Plan Services Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Bestpipe Ltd. to acquire control of Flex-Lox Industries under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation
May 4, 1976

occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Proline Pipe Equipment Company Ltd. to acquire control of Conspec Controls Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: The Government has not considered an investment proposal involving the parties specifically named in this question.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Newconex Holdings Ltd. to acquire control of Union Tractor Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,642.
Order Paper Questions PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE CONTROL 
Question No. 4,656-Mr. Leggatt:
1.	In the case of the proposal of Griffith Laboratories Inc. to acquire control of Griffith Laboratories Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Mont Ste. Marie Ltd. to acquire control of Lac Ste. Marie Ski Lifts Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Sparkford Estates Ltd. to acquire control of Rocking Chair Ranch under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Imperial Oil Ltd. and the Canadian Fuel Marketers Group to acquire control of St. Lawrence Tankers Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Felten & Guilliaume Carlswerk Aktiengesellschaft to acquire control of Fabricon Manufacturing Ltd., under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Canadian Auto Carriers Ltd. to acquire control of Atlantic Automobile Transport Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
(iv)	additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Kleen-Flo Corp. to acquire control of J.A. Tumbler Laboratories Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports
(v)	Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Black Clawson Co. to acquire control of Hydrotile of Canada Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource
May 4, 1976

processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of to acquire control of Consumers Glove Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation
(ix)	beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Cow and Gate (Canada) Ltd. to acquire control of Foxboro Cheese Company Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition
(x)	compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-
Order Paper Questions
pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Robert McAlpine Ltd. to acquire control of Robert B. Somerville Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Nashua Canada Limited to acquire control of Johnson Photo Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,642.
13128

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Seren Ltd. to acquire control of Consolidated Northern Exploration Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Canada Bluebird International Inc. to acquire control of J.H. Corbeil Lteehe under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Barcley-Lane's Shoes to acquire control of Savage Maher under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with

the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Brown Boveri to acquire control of Canron under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of CIL to acquire control of Hutton Farm Supplies under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
May 4, 1976


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Canadian Industries Limited to acquire control of J.D. Lee Engineering Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of EG&G Inc. to acquire control of Reese Power Products under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 
Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Four-Phase Systems to acquire control of Parvac Corp. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of W.R. Grace to acquire control of under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and
2 1804-69/4

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of International Paper to acquire control of General Crude Oil under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Res Star Express Lines to acquire control of Marcoux and Marlese under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Sun Oil Co. to acquire control of Forest Oil under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Theany Vertriebs to acquire control of Lippens Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Union Carbide to acquire control of Roncar Oxygen under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with
May 4, 1976

the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of George Wimpey to acquire control of Richter-McLeod under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Exprover SA to acquire control of Galaxy Glass under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Order Paper Questions


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Eyelet Inc. to acquire control of Candylet under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of George W. Endress to acquire control of Toronto Mill Stock under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Gulf Agricultural to acquire control of Perkins Adhesives under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Cana-

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
dian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of HMK Manufacturing to acquire control of Skiroule under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Maurice & Godbout to acquire control of Lewis Apedaile & Hanson under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-

pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Pacific to acquire control of Wizard, Clover & Brassard under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Permaseal to acquire control of Weatherseal under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
May 4, 1976


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Standard Industries to acquire control of Haldimand Quarries under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Southampton Sawmills to acquire control of Southampton Contractors under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Reed Paper to acquire control of Alpa Industries under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) bene-
Order Paper Questions
ficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of American General to acquire control of Financial Life under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Crown Cork and Seal to acquire control of International Lab. Foreign Investment Review Act under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Franklin Pipe to acquire control of Franklin Pipe under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Newconex to acquire control of Industrial Sales under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
(Mr. Leggatt.)


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of HBOG & Pacific to acquire control of Candel under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Philadelphia to acquire control of Key Oilfield under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of GWS Krupp to acquire control of Edmonton Structural under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced techno-
May 4, 1976

logical development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of ASEA to acquire control of Harland Systems under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Continental Can to acquire control of International Spring under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development
Order Paper Questions
been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Golden Eagle to acquire control of St-Laurent & Freres under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Liquid Carbonic to acquire control of Alberta Oxygen under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
13136
May 4, 1976

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Liquid Carbonic to acquire control of Leclair Gas & Welding under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Pettibone (Canada) Ltd. to acquire control of Consolidated Dynamics under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Marks and Spencer to acquire control of Peoples Department Stores under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or mana-

gers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Pacific Petroleums Ltd. to acquire control of Buffalo Creek Oil Field under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Climax Molybdenum to acquire control of United Chieftain under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and
May 4, 1976

industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Congdon and Carey to acquire control of Hallmark Resources Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Easton Holdings to acquire control of Crownco Holdings under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of General Crude Oil Northern to acquire control of Hunter Explorations under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of General Crude Oil, Northern to acquire control of Canadian Hydrogas under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Leows Corp. to acquire control of CNA Insurance under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced techno-
2 1804-70V2

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
logical development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Leows Corp. to acquire control of Canadian Premier Life Insurance under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Phoenix Assurance to acquire control of Century Insurance under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development

been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Marvel Lighting Corporation to acquire control of Commercial Lighting Products under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Bestpipe Limited to acquire control of Vibrapipe Concrete Products under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
May 4, 1976


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Columbia House to acquire control of Capital Record Club under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Ceutsche Canada to acquire control of Trizec (Calgary Place) under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Generics Corporation to acquire control of Micro Chemicals under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhan-
Order Paper Questions
ced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of International Harvester to acquire control of B.C. Equipment Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of J.K. Smit & Sons Diamond Products to acquire control of Federal Drilling Supplies under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of McGean Chemical Co. to acquire control of Armalite Company under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Simpson Timber Co. to acquire control of Swan Valley Sawmills under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
[Mr. Leggatt.1


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Sun Oil to acquire control of Ponderay Exploration under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Turner Valley Holdings to acquire control of A-l Rentals (1956) under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Sun Oil Co. to acquire control of Aldona Mines under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Cana-
May 4, 1976

dian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Union Carbide Canada to acquire control of Borstad Welsing Supplies under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of AMAX Petroleum to acquire control of Production Operators under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-
Order Paper Questions
pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Canadian Ingersoll Rand to acquire control of Canada Machinery Corp. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of The American Packaging Corp. to acquire control of Wrap-O-Matic Machinery under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE CONTROL 
Question No. 4,734-Mr. Leggatt:
1.	In the case of the proposal of Cyanamid of Canada to acquire control of Canada Machinery Corp. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the
Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: the Government has not considered an investment proposal involving the parties specifically named in this question.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Dead River Ltd. to acquire control of Bayshore Lumber Co. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Esmark, Inc. to acquire control of Playtex Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi)

improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Gelco-feld Corp. to acquire control of Transport International Pool under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Georgia-Pacific Building Materials to acquire control of Evans Products under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and
May 4, 1976

industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Gulf Resources & Chemicals to acquire control of IRECO of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Keen Industries to acquire control of Tompkins Contracting under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Petrofina to acquire control of Tom Pollock Services under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Sony of Canada to acquire control of General Distributors under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of State Automotive Corp. to acquire control of Combines Automotive Products under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial effi-

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
ciency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Citicorp Leasing International to acquire control of North American Business Equipment under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment
(iii)	increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Anchor Hocking Corp. to acquire control of Amerock Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-

pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Bell Pole Co. Ltd. to acquire control of Bell Sawmill Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Dow Chemical of Canada to acquire control of Iroquois Chemicals Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.
May 4, 1976


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Frank W. Horner Ltd. to acquire control of Demver Laboratories (Canada) under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Harthind Corp. to acquire control of Arrow-Hart under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Lucerne Foods Ltd. to acquire control of Oakville Dairy Co-operative under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource
Order Paper Questions
processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Multi-Elmac Company to acquire control of Multi-Elmac of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Stauffer Chemical Co. to acquire control of Marine Colloids Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Turner Development Ltd. to acquire control of Van Hil Realty (3 office buildings) under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Turner & Seymour to acquire control of J.I. Dick Manufacturing Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce): See reply to question
No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. to acquire control of Squamish Industries Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
(iv)	additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of CIBA-CEIGY Corp. to acquire control of Airkem Industries Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Continental Can. Co. of Canada Ltd. to acquire control of Packaging Converters Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as sharehol-
May 4, 1976

ders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Hayes-Dana Ltd. to acquire control of Byers Truck and Trailer Equipment Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Diversified Products Corp. to acquire control of Nadco Health Equipment Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian partici-
Order Paper Questions
pation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Prentice Holding Co., Inc. to acquire control of E.V. Prentice Co., Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports
(v)	Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Tricil Waste Management Ltd. to acquire control of LaSalle Oil Carriers Inc. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
No. 4,621.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Turner Development Ltd. to acquire control of Petrona Atlantic Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of CIBA-CIEGY Ltd. to acquire control of Stewart Seeds Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Allis Chalmers of Can. and National Steel of Can. to acquire control of certain assets of Falconbridge under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and

industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Altana Exploration Co. to acquire control of Intercontinential Energy Corp. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a new investment proposal made by World-Wide Construction Services, Inc. of Witchita, Kansas, requiring the dismantling of a petroleum refinery located in East St. Louis, Illinois, and its redesign, transport and reconstruction near Lloydminster, Alberta and to render its services to the Husky Oil Limited Company, also of Lloydminster, for the completion of the Husky Project and, if so, what is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
2.	Who are the principal shareholders of World-Wide Construction Services, Inc. of Witchita, Kansas?
3.	Does World-Wide Construction Services, Inc. of Witchita, Kansas control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
May 4, 1976

4.	What will be the effect of the establishment of this petroleum refinery on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada?
5.	How many persons will be employed once the new plant is established?
6.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
7.	How will the establishment of this plant be (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the new plant?
8.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the transaction?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: a new investment proposal to establish a business near Lloyd-minster, Alberta was made by World-Wide Construction Services, Inc. The proposal was allowed by the Governor in Council on March 2, 1976 (P.C. 1976-487). All information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act is privileged and may not be released except as provided in section 14 of that Act.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Inchcape Canada Ltd. to acquire control of Universal Fastening Devices Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Simpson Timber Co. (Alberta) Ltd. to acquire control of Meunier Lumber Co. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respec-
Order Paper Questions
ting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Thank You Stamp Co. to acquire control of certain assets of Gold Star Sales Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services
(iv)	additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1. In the case of the proposal of Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada to acquire control of Dunlop Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2. As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,642.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Baker Oil Tools Inc. to acquire control of Reed Tool Company of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of MacDonald Tabacco Inc. to acquire control of Simon Cigar Co. Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports
(v)	Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In the case of the proposal of Standard Brands Ltd. to acquire control of Tea and Soup Operation of Powell Foods (1973) Ltd. under the Foreign Investment Review Act (a) what conditions were attached to the approval respecting (i) increased employment (ii) new investment (iii) increased resource processing or use of Canadian parts and services (iv) additional exports (v) Canadian participation (such as shareholders, directors or managers) (vi) improved productivity and industrial efficiency (vii) enhanced technological development (viii) improved product variety and innovation (ix) beneficial impact on competition (x) compatibility with industrial and economic policies (b) what time was permitted for compliance with the attached conditions (c) what was the last date of government review of compliance with the attached conditions?
2.	As of the last date of review or as of January 31, 1976 (a) how many new jobs were created (b) what was the level of increase in new investment (c) what was the increase in resource processing or use of Canadian parts or service (d) what improvement in Canadian participation has occurred (e) what has been the increase in productivity and industrial efficiency (f) in what respect has technological development been enhanced (g) in what respect has product variety and innovation occurred (h) in what respect has competition been beneficially affected?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 4,621.


Mr. Cossitt: 
Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 
Mr. Matte: 1.	Since 1971, has the government made purchasing proposals to Canadian businesses under the Foreign Investment Review Act and, if so, how many?
2.	Were any such proposals accepted and, if so, in each case (a) how many (b) what was the name and address of the business concerned (c) in what year was it accepted (d) what was the amount negotiated?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The Foreign Investment Review Act was promulgated on December 12, 1973. Its first stage, namely, the acquisition of control of existing Canadian businesses by foreigners, was implemented on April 19, 1974; the second part, which prescribes the review of some categories of new enterprises established in Canada by foreigners, was implemented on October 15, 1975. The purpose of this law is to ensure that the acquisition of Canadian businesses and the creation of new Canadian enterprises by foreign Companies would result in significant advantages for Canada. There is nothing in the text of the Act concerning the acquisition of businesses established in Canada, by a Canadian buyer, whether it is a government or a private company.
2. Please refer to the second paragraph of the reply to the first question.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Carson Northern Division of Alltrans Express Ltd. of Burnaby, British Columbia, which is controlled by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. of St. Peters, New South Whales, Australia by Soo-Security Motorways Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba, what percentage of control will Soo-Security Motorways Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba, which is in turn controlled indirectly by British Electric Traction Company Limited acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Carson Northern Division of Alltrans Express Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of British Electric Traction Company Limited of Piccadilly, London and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does British Electric Traction Company Limited, of Piccadilly, London control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Carson Northern Division of Alltrans Express Ltd. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Carson Northern Division of Alltrans Express Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
Order Paper Questions
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954, answered March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Netherlands Overseas Corporation Canada Limited and Canneth Corporation Limited, both of Toronto, both wholly owned by Bank Mees & Hope Groep, by Algemene Bank Nederland N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands, what percentage of control will Algemene Bank Nederland, N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Bank Mees & Hope Groep and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Algemene Bank Nederland N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Algemene Bank Nederland N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Netherlands Overseas Corporation Canada Ltd. and Canneth Corporation Limited and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Netherlands Overseas Corp. Canada & Canneth Corp. Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954, answered March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1. In the takeover of Paul Gendron Electrique Inc. of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec by Westinghouse Canada Limited of Hamilton which is controlled by Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pa., what

May 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
percentage of control will Westinghouse Canada Limited of Hamilton acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Paul Gendron Electrique Inc. of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pa. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pa. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Paul Gendron Electrique Inc. of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Paul Gendron Electrique Inc. of Trois-Rivieres employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954, answered March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a new investment proposal made by Selly Oak Diecastings Ltd., of Worcester, England, which is 51 percent controlled by A.L. Dunn (Holdings) Ltd., of Nuneaton, England, which in turn is controlled by Central & Sheerwood Ltd. of London, England, to establish a new business in Brampton, Ontario, under the name Selly Oak Pattern and Mould Ltd., to be engaged in the production of moulds, patterns and tools for general industrial use and, if so, what is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
2.	Who are the principal shareholders of Central & Sheerwood Ltd.?
3.	Does Central & Sheerwood Ltd. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by percent of control and value?
4.	What will be the effect of the establishment of this petroleum refinery on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada?
5.	How many persons will be employed once the new plant is established?
6.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or

industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
7.	How will the establishment of this plant be (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the new plant?
8.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the transaction?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the
Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: a proposal was made by Selly Oak Diecastings Ltd., of Worcester, England, to establish a new business under the name Selly Oak Pattern and Mould Ltd. in Brampton, Ontario. The proposal was allowed by the Governor in Council on March 9, 1976 (P.C. 1976-545). All information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act is privileged and may not be released except as provided in section 14 of that Act.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is the position as head of the Equal Opportunities for Women Section of the Department of Agriculture filled by Ms. Helen Hogan and, if so, within what salary range is the position?
2.	What are Ms. Hogan's projected expenses for 1976?
3.	Does Ms. Hogan have any staff working directly for her and, if so, what are the costs for such staff?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. Salary range-$14,937-$16,934.
2.	1976-77-$50,000, including salaries.
3.	Yes. Salary range-$10,394-$11,364. (CR 4).


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 4,083 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


M. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	How many Vietnamese citizens are residing in the National Capital Area in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec?
2.	What does the government offer to those who come to Canada as immigrants from Vietnam under the special programmes for (a) direct financial assistance (b) assistance through the provision of native food (c) shelter (d) clothing (e) furniture (f) basic medical services (g) basic dental services (h) educational facilities to enable them to learn English (i) tuition assistance (j) job training (k) child care services (1) other social services?
3.	Which of the services in Part 2 are offered by the government and/or regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton?
Return tabled.
May 4, 1976


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions 2,679 and 5,339?


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Were any government aircraft used in the advance preparation of the tour of Southwestern Ontario, on the weekend of June 6 to 8, 1975, by the Prime Minister and, if so (a) which aircraft (b) for how long was each used (c) what was the exact itinerary of each (d) what was the cost of use of each (e) what reimbursement was (i) sought (ii) received from the Liberal Federation of Canada or the Liberal Party of Ontario (f) what was the (i) name (ii) job description and who was the employer of each individual taking part in any of the trips?
2.	Is it general practice of the government to allow government aircraft to be used by individuals making advance arrangements for trips by the Prime Minister, which include partisan functions and, if so (a) what is the authorization for such practice (b) what guidelines cover such practice?
3.	For each year 1974 and 1975 (a) on how many occasions (b) on what specific dates were government aircraft used for such purpose and, in each case (i) what was the name (ii) who was the employer (iii) what was the job description of each passenger (iv) what was the exact itinerary of the aircraft (v) what was the cost of the use of such aircraft
(vi)	what remuneration was sought or received from the Liberal Federation of Canada or any other organization and what are the identities and amounts paid by any such organization?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Here is the answer, Mr. Speaker. Paragraph 1. (a), (b), (c), (d) see reply to question 2,708. (e) None. (/) See reply to question 2,708.
2 and 3. It is not general practice. This is the only instance in the calendar year 1974-75.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister use a government owned aircraft for his 1976 Jamaican Easter holdiay and (a) if not, who is the owner and what is an exact description of the aircraft (b) if so, what was the (i) cost per hour of flying time (ii) cost per hour of waiting time (iii) amount of fuel consumed and its cost (iv) total cost to the taxpayer of all flights made?
2.	What is the (a) name and job designation (b) reason for being on board the aircraft, at any time, of all persons (i) from Canada to Jamaica (ii) from Jamaica to Canada (iii) during other flights?
3.	(a) What were the (i) names and job designations (ii) annual salaries of the crew (b) did they remain in Jamaica while the Prime Minister was there and, if so (i) what were their total salaries earned for the period of the trip (ii) in what locations did they stay (iii) what was the total cost of their accommodations, meals etc. to the taxpayer?
4.	Were any expenses paid by the government other than transporta-ton for the Prime Minister or anyone in his party and, if so, in each case (a) for whom (b) for what purpose (c) in what amounts?
5.	What was the overall total cost to the taxpayer of all aspects of the Prime Minister's Easter holiday?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the answer, to question
Energy
No. 5,339 is as follows. In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned the answer to paragraph 1. is no. (a) Schedule commercial flight, (b) Not applicable. 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. Nil.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley) moved:: That this House regrets the government's failure to develop an effective energy strategy for the Atlantic provinces and in particular deplores the callous attitude shown by the government to the plight of hundreds of those families living in the Atlantic provinces who in many cases can no longer afford to heat their homes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise the subject of this important motion as a member from central Canada because, unlike government members, I believe Canada can only prosper when all Canada prospers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It is imperative, if we are to have an energy policy, for Canada, that it is a policy for all Canadians and not just western Canada or, indeed, central Canada.
The policy document "An Energy Strategy for Canada" presented an opportunity that has been sadly wasted-the chance to take leadership on the Atlantic power issue. In 23 pages of policy recommendations, Atlantic Canada was mentioned only eight times. No new policies were announced which will answer the special problems the region faces. Moreover, the policy of moving to world prices, aside from whatever other benefits may accrue, will certainly put a heavy strain on already fragile economies, the Atlantic region, consuming 40 barrels of oil per capita, uses a third more oil per head than Quebec, the next largest consumer. Half of the region's electricity is oil-fired.
Even with subsidies, the escalation of oil prices in the past two years has created real hardship. In Nova Scotia, electricy prices have risen by approximately 70 per cent in one year. There is only a vague reference to the problem in the report, as follows:
-(the government will be) encouraging substitution of electricity generated from domestic energy resources, including hydro and coal, for electricity generated from imported oil.
Beyond this the government has nothing to say about this crucial problem. The people of the Atlantic provinces do not want jam tomorrow; they want leadership today. The arrogance of this government is summed up by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie)

May 4, 1976
Energy
who seems to believe that what benefits central Canada is in the national interest, but what harms Atlantic Canada harms that area alone. The federal government offers no special assistance of any kind to alleviate the region's pressing problems. To date, the principal forms of aid offered by the federal government have been grants to cover 50 per cent of the cost of nuclear power stations, grants to cover half the cost of regional interconnections between provinces, and Fundy tidal power studies, but nothing has been done to help alleviate the problems-and it is obvious from ministerial pronouncements that nothing will be done.
The federal policy of giving grants to cover half the cost of the first nuclear station purchase by a province is not motivated by any compassion for the east coast's energy problems, but is simply a loss leader for nuclear sales. Aside from considerable doubt about the safety of nuclear power stations, their reliability and the hazards of waste disposal, the economics of nuclear power are coming into serious question. Last month it was announced that the anticipated costs of the New Brunswick nuclear power station had increased by $100 million to $600 million, an increase of 20 per cent. The net result is this: at present coal prices of about $30 per ton delivered, nuclear and coal-fired electricity cost about the same.
Despite not knowing what the impact of nuclear generating will be, the government insists on going ahead with nuclear generators. Would it not be a great deal better for the provinces concerned if the construction of coal-fired electricity plants was encouraged, thus avoiding the problems associated with nuclear power and encouraging the growth of an indigenous coal industry.
An examination of the proposal for research and development as it affects Atlantic Canada shows that it is totally inadequate for meeting the needs of the Atlantic provinces. The policy document spells out exactly where the special research and development needs of the Atlantic provinces are as far as federal research funding priorities are concerned-namely, at the end of the line. Renewable energy, which includes as its biggest component the Fundy tidal power scheme, is second to last in terms of federal priorities. Transmission system research ranked last. But transmission systems are of vital importance to the Atlantic provinces if the full benefit is to be derived from a regional or national grid. Transmission losses from ordinary power lines over long distances are substantial. Research taking place at the moment indicates that supercooled conductors could reduce power losses almost to zero. Yet the federal government put research and development in this area at the very bottom of the list. Another area of research taking place in Britain is in wave power. Preliminary findings indicate that more power generators may well be economic at current oil prices and could generate a significant proportion of base load electricity in the Atlantic provinces. Yet the government has neglected this area entirely.
It could be said that the Nova Scotia power crisis is partly the fault of the province's Liberal government. Nova Scotia, as a province, is hit hard. It is to some extent a victim of the provincial government's own energy policy. Following the provincial takeover of the industry, Nova

Scotians were subjected to a barrage of advertising designed to encourage the growth of all electric heating. There was substantial response: some areas, such as new developments in Halifax's Sackville suburb, are virtually all electrically heated. Home owners now pay as much as $350 in power costs every two months during the winter. In a significant number of cases, individuals have had to sell their homes because of power costs.
We now need some scheme in the Atlantic provinces which will encourage home owners whose principal residence is electrically heated to convert to more efficient fossil fuel fired heating systems which should take the place of their electrical heating systems. A given quantity of heat in an electrically heated home in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island requires three times as much oil as the same home would require if heated with an oil furnace. In addition, great strides have been made in coal fired central heating in Europe. Some of this technology could be applied in the Atlantic provinces.
In summary, my party believes that an adequate energy policy for Canada must include a positive program for dealing with the high cost of fuel which the people of Atlantic Canada must pay. We do not think that the policy of continuing to support the Atlantic provinces' energy costs with the type of subsidy which has been paid in the past is viable. We think it essential that the federal government should take strong action in research and development so that the Atlantic provinces can use their potential energy resources for the generation of power. That part of the country should not be dependant on changes in price governed by OPEC countries. It should not be the victims of the federal government's insatiable need for tax revenues. Its energy program should be indigenous, using the resources of the area so that the people of Atlantic Canada may have energy at prices appropriate to their incomes.
It was totally unacceptable for the minister to bring down a report on energy strategy for Canada which ignores totally the substantial needs of the people of Atlantic Canada. In the report, the government showed, again, that it is interested in technology and techniques but is not at all interested in people. The report should have dealt with an energy policy for all Canadians. It ought to have evaluated what the people of Canada, of all regions, need- not just of the west, of the central part or of the eastern region. But it did not do this. Also, this report does nothing at all for the people of Atlantic Canada.
We ask the government to reconsider what it is doing in research and development, to reconsider its priorities, to reconsider its proposals for nuclear energy and to provide realistically for the energy needs of Atlantic Canada. We ask it to develop an energy program which will meet the needs, not in 15 years, not in 10 years, but immediately. The government is responsible for developing a realistic energy program for Atlantic Canada. We must move in that direction. The purpose of the opposition motion today is to bring to the attention of the government as forcefully as possible the need for responding to the energy requirements of the people in an important part of this nation, namely, in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) for introducing the important topic of energy
May 4, 1976

on a Tory opposition day. Nova Scotia now has the dubious distinction of having the second highest power rates in Canada, next to Prince Edward Island. These rates, combined, are now about double the national average, Nova Scotia being some 27 per cent above the national average.
Let us briefly summarize our position from the point of view of power sources and our position relative to other Canadian provinces. Prince Edward Island uses oil for 100 per cent of its generating capacity. New Brunswick generates about 40 per cent of its power from oil, 50 per cent from hydro and 10 per cent from coal. Nova Scotia depends on oil for 70 per cent of its requirements, on coal for 16 per cent, which is contractually tied to the price of oil, and on hydro for 14 per cent. Newfoundland and Quebec derive between 90 per cent and 95 per cent from hydro sources. Ontario derives about 50 per cent of its energy from hydro, but also has a substantial nuclear base and depends on United States coal as well to fuel thermal stations. United States coal used by Ontario has increased but has not gone up at the same percentage rate as oil in the Atlantic region.
The western provinces have substantial hydro generation in their systems. Their thermal operations use coal, in most cases from their own leases, which is provided through what the English call open cast mining and which we usually call strip mining. The price of coal there is less than $5 per ton.
In early 1974 the Canadian wellhead price of oil was $3.80 per barrel. It rose to $6.50 and on July 1, 1975, to $8. We know that very likely it will rise to $9.50 or $10 per barrel by July. The federal government is pursuing its goal of allowing the producing provinces to go to parity with the world monopoly price established by the OPEC cartel. Meanwhile, oil which in 1971 was brought from Venezuela and the Middle East to the east coast for less than $2 per barrel now costs more than $13 delivered by tanker from the same two sources.
The federal government estimates that for the fiscal year 1976-77 it will cost some $1.41 billion in subsidy payments to make up for the difference between the Canadian and the world price. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), when replying to a question of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) on April 27, 1976, as reported on page 12915 of Hansard, misled the House, I think, when he said:
The numbers I have seen indicate that very close to $1 billion has been paid indirectly to the consumers of Atlantic Canada as a result of the compensation program; that is, very close to $1 billion will have been paid to them by this summer.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel), when he used the figures for compensation payments in the House on March 16 in replying to me, used the figure quoted earlier of $1.41 billion for the 1976-77 fiscal year as referring to all the territory east of the Ottawa Valley line. This means that anywhere from two-thirds to 75 per cent of the total compensation payment was going to the province of Quebec. On that premise, I conclude the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources misled us, perhaps inadvertently, on the compensation payments made to the Atlantic region.
Energy
Last year, power rates in Nova Scotia increased by 50 per cent. As every member from Nova Scotia knows, there have been citizen protest meetings held all over the province. Now, if we assume an increase by July 1 of $2 a barrel, the province's power rates are estimated to increase by an additional 10 per cent. However, that is not the end of the story for Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Power Corporation gets about one-half of its heavy fuel oil from Imperial Oil. A long-term contract with that company expires at the end of the year. We are purchasing that oil now at $1.75 a barrel. There will be another 20 per cent increase in our electrical costs when that contract expires. Incidentally, Imperial Oil has the Power Corporation before the courts on the interpretation of this contract which, if the Power Corporation loses, could cost the province another $100 million more or less.
In any case, Nova Scotians are faced with a maximum increase of 100 per cent in cost over a two-year period. In a have-not province, these are formidable obstacles to development, even with a special federal government subsidy which cabinet members who have spoken so far seem to frown on. It is estimated that it would take a total subsidy of $15 million to $16 million to bring Nova Scotia's electrical costs in line with the Canadian average.
The fuel bill for the Nova Scotia Power Corporation in the fiscal period which began April 1 is forecast to be $85 million. On the basis of 1972 oil prices, this would have been $20 million to $25 million. This I submit, Mr. Speaker, is a valid indicator of the extra burden now being shouldered by Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders and, to a lesser extent, citizens of New Brunswick and Newfoundland. With the exception of Ontario, where imported coal from the U.S. would have a much less significant impact, this unfair situation applies to no other electric consumers in Canada outside of the Atlantic region.
Some of Ottawa's energy planners have, through the press, suggested that the present Liberal government in Halifax has brought the trouble upon its own head. The reference by the hon. member for Don Valley to electrical heating that was promoted by the Nova Scotia Power Corporation is, in my opinion, valid. I hold no brief for the government in Halifax, especially since they, along with the Tory government which ran the province before them, badly messed up the redevelopment and modernization of the vitally important steel plant in Sydney. However, I find it difficult to fault Nova Scotia's claim that they were led down the garden path on power costs by the federal government.
It is a fact that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), who was then minister of energy, mines and resources, in 1973 tabled a document in this House entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada". That document projected that foreign oil would be less than $4 per barrel by 1976 and would not reach $7 per barrel until the year 2000. On March 30, in response to a question of mine, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that they offered Nova Scotia the opportunity to participate in a regional nuclear reactor. He went on to say: "That offer was not taken up." As I understand it, that offer was one of a loan, or loans, to help build a second nuclear reactor at New Brunswick's Point Lepreau nuclear complex which is slated to be on-stream by 1980. The last estimate that I saw

May 4, 1976
Energy
for the Lepreau plant amounted to $650 million. That was a couple of years ago. I understand-and maybe the minister can give us a better figure-it is now estimated to cost well over $1 billion.
The power officials in Nova Scotia said they would not take part in the Lepreau complex because they could not get a guarantee on the price power and they were concerned about escalating capital costs over which Nova Scotia would have no control. They also argued that Nova Scotia would not get any economic spin-off if the plant were built in another province, and from their point of view it would be unsound to get a large block of power from a single source susceptible to breakdowns in an electrical system as isolated as that of Nova Scotia. I doubt whether the minister can claim that nuclear-powered electricity will be cheap at the New Brunswick plant. The experience of these plants in the United States has not shown that to be so. In fact, nuclear costs keep rising at a great rate.
Ottawa claims that its other offer was to pick up 50 per cent of the tab for the study of a regional power grid, plus 50 per cent of the capital cost. The Nova Scotia government denies flatly that they ever refused that offer. In fact, the Premier of Nova Scotia tabled a submission in the Nova Scotia House recently showing that is 1971 the Nova Scotia Power Commission, as a member of the maritime power pool, made an offer to the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion for assistance toward an accelerated generating transmission program between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. No federal action was taken on that submission.
A regional power grid involving the five eastern provinces would be helpful, but it requires the co-operation of all provinces and it seems that they have not been eager to go ahead. In fact, New Brunswick has given notice that it will charge what the market will bear for any electricity crossing its territory between Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia. It was at Nova Scotia's suggestion that the interprovincial advisory council on energy was established in late 1974. Last September, on the initiative of Premier Bourassa of Quebec, the premiers of the five eastern provinces agreed to a study to determine the availability and the economics of transmitting any surplus power. The manager of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, Mr. Kirkpatrick, told the industry committee of the Nova Scotia legislature at the end of March that the preliminary report was not optimistic. It appears that there will be no surplus power from Quebec or Labrador in the near future. Every indication points to the fact that the regional power grid would not bring in cheap power from Nova Scotia.
I was glad to see, in the minister's submission last week, the renewed effort to get the Fundy tides studied again, but I think we have to be realistic on this score and realize that if this is going to be a steady power contributor, rather than one depending on the peaks of the tide, it will be extremely expensive and very capital-intensive. What the government of Nova Scotia should do is open two additional coal mines in the Cape Breton area, one at Lingan on the Phalen seam, and one at Donkin, which was recommended in 1971 after the closure of No. 2 mine in Glace Bay by the then special adviser on coal to the federal government, Mr. Alex Brown.

I think that in terms of British thermal units, one ton of coal is equated to four barrels of oil. The usual estimate for Cape Breton coal is 26 million Btu's per ton; for one barrel of oil it is six million Btu's. If oil is to cost the Power Corporation of Nova Scotia between $15 and $17 a barrel by 1980, then surely, given the high rate of unemployment in Cape Breton and the diseconomies which come from depending on buying nuclear power from New Brunswick or obtaining cheaper power from the regional grid, the province should return to coal to provide a great deal of its thermal needs, although we must admit that up to now the reserves capable of being mined are not accurately known. However, Devco intends to carry on an active program of offshore drilling.
Of course, it takes time and money to open new coal mines and the only answer to the short run problem of Nova Scotia from now until 1982 is a special subsidy or special equalization grant from the federal government to keep that have-not province from becoming even worse off economically. If we neglect to do this, not only will development be hindered but many pensioners and others in low income groups will face an unbelievably cruel situation as human beings and as citizens of this nation.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this difficult and complex subject I thought that there would be somebody on the government benches with at least enough interest, if not enough comprehension, to rise and take part in the discussion. The minister waves his hand and says they want to hear me first.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is an opposition day. It is your day. I hope the hon. member will have something better to say than we have heard so far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister wants to make a speech, why does he not get up and make it?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think the minister is anxious to make a speech, in view of what he has been saying today and what he has said in the past. Regardless of what they believe the approach to this problem should be, every one has to agree that the maritime provinces, especially Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, are confronted by an alarming prospect. Whether a solution is difficult or whether it is reasonably within everybody's grasp, one gets the impression here in the House that the minister and the government are not really sympathetic in terms of finding an approach to this problem.
There can be no question about the prospect in store for a good many individuals, some of whom are obliged to get along on low incomes. In any event, I assume the government of Nova Scotia will have to show some leadership, hopefully in association with the government here, in finding some way of alleviating the conditions in which those individuals find themselves.
I want to take the limited amount of time available to me today to talk about the effect of higher increased fuel costs, both the increase which has already taken place and the increase which is to be expected, on the economy of the
May 4, 1976

region. In doing so, I do not in any way play down the effect of those increases upon individuals, but I am concerned this afternoon to place before the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie)-who is in the House and who is the responsible minister-the effect of those increases in power costs upon the government's whole program for fighting regional disparity in the maritime provinces. This is a subject in which the minister responsible for DREE should have an intense interest.
Fighting regional disparity has been an important aspect of government policy during the lifetime of the administration under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, indeed, prior to that time. The results have not been particularly sensational, but the government has made this a priority and certainly it has spent a good deal of the taxpayers' money in an effort to reduce regional disparity by encouraging the development of the maritime economy. Ever since 1968, the year in which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established, I have contended that one of the great weaknesses of the government's program of regional economic development has been the lack of co-ordination within the government of Canada itself. The minister responsible for DREE would take some initiative which would be helpful, only to find it counterbalanced by action taken, for example, by the Minister of Transport.
Today we are discussing a striking example of a development which will clearly undermine the efforts of DREE to develop the economy of the maritime provinces generally. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, but in my opinion he, as the minister responsible, has shown a most cavalier attitude toward this whole question. I am not referring to the minister responsible for DREE, but to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Here is a striking example of a development which is taking place and threatening to escalate, one which is most discouraging to the development of industry in the eastern provinces. It affords a striking example of lack of co-ordination in terms of government effort.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said in the House the other day that the government of Canada is not likely to get into the business of equalizing power rates across the country. I accept that statement, but I have to ask the question: What will be the economic consequences of what is taking place with respect to power costs in the Atlantic provinces? What is likely to be the effect of increases in power costs on the movement of the economy in those provinces? Is it possible to develop some answer, if only a partial answer, which will not have the effect of offsetting any forward thrust which has been generated by DREE, by the provinces or by the people themselves? Is it possible to develop such an approach, rather than simply taking the attitude the minister seems to have taken, that the government of Canada has already done a great deal for the people of the maritime provinces, and let it go at that?
I accept the minister's point that a good deal of money has been spent in terms of tax-sharing and equalization. But I would ask the minister: What is the sense in the government of Canada involving itself in the kind of expenditure about which the minister has boasted, and
Energy
then letting the effects of all this go down the drain by allowing an increase in power rates? Let us give the minister and his government whatever credit they may seek for equalization payments and other special programs; but if they accept that credit then they must explain to the people, not only of the maritime provinces but of Canada why, having embarked on those programs, why they are sitting back coolly and allowing to happen what is happening to power rates while permitting the price of oil to move up toward world prices.
The minister and other spokesmen for the government have inferred from time to time that there are solutions available to the province of Nova Scotia, but they try to leave the impression that somehow the government of the province of Nova Scotia, or somebody down there, did not take advantage of the wisdom handed out in various emanations from the federal government from time to time.
What are the alternatives in Nova Scotia, for example, to the development of power from oil? There is the possibility of a switch to coal. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and my distinguished colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) of the NDP spoke about this. I should like to think that there is some prospect of a significant increase in the use of Nova Scotia coal in the development of power, but this would represent a substantial investment that would take a fair amount of time. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond understands all too well that we do not open a coal mine, for example, in six months, a year or even two years. It takes time.
I want to be frank with the House, Mr. Speaker. How much would a switch to coal really reduce the cost of power in Nova Scotia? I think it is an excellent idea in that it would involve additional employment in Nova Scotia and would add to the economy of the coal mining areas there. But I rather suspect that the price of coal from the mines would tend to follow upward the price of oil. I see the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond nodding his head in agreement. So that I am not misunderstood, certainly I favour the use of coal in the development of power in Nova Scotia, but I doubt very much whether, in terms of Btu's, over the years, coal would be a cheaper source of electrical power than oil. I gather from his nod that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond tends to agree that that is probably the case, though like me he has indicated that he favours the use of coal for this purpose in view of the development and employment opportunities involved. In any event, any movement in that direction would take time.
Federal ministers have also talked about development of an interprovincial grid. That, too, takes time. Recent inquiries have indicated that there is not likely to be any power available from sources outside the maritime provinces for a good number of years. There is no reason to believe that if a grid could be constructed, even within six months, it would result in the availability of cheaper power for Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. There is absolutely no indication that any such power would be available from Quebec, Newfoundland or Labrador for many years to come.
Another alternative is nuclear power. The station in New
Brunswick, I understand, will not be finished until 1980.
But how much is this power going to cost? For the sake of

May 4, 1976
Energy
New Brunswick, I hope it is not going to cost too much. I doubt that we will get any firm indication today from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of what will be the cost of power generated by that nuclear power station. If the minister and his colleagues are going to talk to the House about sources of power other than oil, and are going to push nuclear power in Canada and its use in the maritime provinces, then they should be prepared to give us some pretty firm prices.
If these ministers are going to suggest to members of parliament in this country that this source of power constitutes an alternative-leaving aside for the moment any questions of safety in the CANDU system-and if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to suggest to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that they should turn to nuclear power, then they have to be able to give some pretty firm assurances as to cost, and I do not think they can do so. So I suggest that some of these alternative sources are pretty dubious. It seems difficult to put a firm cost on nuclear power.
Access to cheaper power through a grid seems to be based on the assumption that cheaper power from somewhere else is available, whereas in fact inquiries reveal there is no such power available, at least for quite a number of years into the future, if then. Where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? I think it leaves the government of Canada in the position where it will have to stop talking in general terms and get down to actual cases. The government was told in the House today that there is no power available in the future under a grid system. Use of nuclear power has been questioned on the basis of how much it is going to cost. Is it going to be any cheaper than power generated by oil, even with oil at world prices?
I do not want to talk too long, Mr. Speaker, but may I just say that these alternatives will take years to develop. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that it will take ten years to bring about any significant change in the cost of electric power in Nova Scotia by turning to an interprovincial grid or to nuclear power to any extent. I should like the minister, as well as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), to indicate to the House what they think is going to happen to industry of all kinds in the maritime provinces during that ten-year period. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should get together with the power authority down there with a view to working out a longer term solution which would hold together, not just generalities such as they have cast out to date. Certainly that is part of the answer. Part of the answer is for the responsible minister in the federal government to work out a longer term solution with the maritime provinces. They have not done that yet, at least I do not see any sign that the minister has put forward concrete, hard-headed alternatives to the way in which power is presently being developed there, unless one wants to talk about coal.
I ask my colleagues opposite what will happen to the economic development of the maritime provinces during the ten-year period when they switch to an alternative which the government of Canada has not yet developed. Does it make any sense to have embarked upon a program

of regional economic development in that area and let all else go down the drain by simply sitting back and refusing to work out some kind of interim solution?
I was amazed, in the committee on regional development, to find that the department has not had any study made of the effects of the anticipated higher power costs on the economic development of those provinces. They can ascertain very easily what the projections are about power rates. The Nova Scotia Power Corporation and the authorities in New Brunswick and in P.E.I. can tell the ministers what they expect the power rates will be, based upon changes in oil prices. But the responsible authorities in this government have not conducted any studies to ascertain what the effects of those high power rates will be on the economic development of the maritime provinces.
How can one possibly justify such a lack of interest? I do not pretend that the problem is easy to solve, but I cannot accept what seems to me to be the very cool, detached, cavalier attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to this problem. I do not want to be unfair to the minister. I do not think it makes sense for the government of Canada, having involved itself deeply in a program of regional economic expansion, to refuse now to attempt to work out a selective and transitional program which will enable the economy of those provinces to continue to move forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is probably a pretty fair percentage of the industry-I am not talking simply about the manufacturing industry, but I am referring to farmers, fishermen, and so on-which will be hurt by the higher power rates but which can carry on and still continue to develop because power costs will not be a large proportion of their costs. On the other hand, there is probably a significant proportion of the economy of those provinces which could well be obliterated completely if those industries had to operate with the anticipated power rates for a period of five to ten years. Yet the indications are that this government has not even attempted to find out what those industries are likely to be and what might be done in conjunction with the provinces to enable them to carry on. I think that is inexcusable.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are starting to rise in order to remind me that my time is up. I am almost ready to sit down, in any event. I call upon the ministers present, and the members behind them, to ask themselves whether they are not sufficiently committed to the program to fight economic disparity, both in terms of commitments already made and moral commitments to the people of the maritime provinces and the people of Canada, and whether they are not sufficiently committed to the policy of fighting regional economic disparity to come seriously to grips with the effects of the anticipated higher power rates on the economy of these provinces. Are they not prepared to sit down with the provinces and work out, perhaps not a solution-that would be too much to ask for-but a method of enabling the economy to go forward, to work out what I call a selective and transitional program? It is not good enough for the government simply to say they have already done a lot for the maritime provinces. Maritimers

can talk about what they have done for the people of Canada, as far as that is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not good enough simply to talk in these terms and to waste the taxpayers' money that has already been spent by allowing industry after industry to go down the drain as a result of higher power costs. So I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he should come to grips with this problem, face it, and for goodness sake I hope he does not get up and talk in general terms about long-term solutions that are vague. I ask whether he is not prepared in principle to accept the program of selective and transitional aid to preserve the validity of the government's program of fighting regional economic disparity.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity that this debate provides for us to discuss a very important question to Canadians, particularly to Atlantic Canadians. But I do not think we should see the problem just in Atlantic terms. As important as that problem is to Atlantic Canada, it is quite clear to me that other communities in Canada can make their own claims for special treatment. However, that is not the debate today. The debate today is on special concerns of Atlantic Canada- and I want to address myself to that debate.
I listened with great care to the energy critic of the official opposition. Indeed, I had already had the benefit of reading his new release which went out yesterday, in which he stated:
During this debate the Progressive Conservatives intend to press home the government's responsibilities to the people of Atlantic Canada and make positive suggestions to ameliorate the situation.
I listened very carefully to hear what those positive suggestions were that he would offer us and the people of Canada, more particularly the people of Atlantic Canada. Quite frankly, I have to say that I could not find them in his words. I listened carefully to the former leader of the opposition, and if the Tory party has some ideas, I hope during the course of the debate there will be more specific information provided to us.
Quoting the lead-off speaker, I think he said that his party does not want to hear from the government about grants toward the future and that they want something for today. I may not have quoted him exactly, but he seemed to opt out completely from the problem in Atlantic Canada. The former leader of the opposition was careful to point out and explain to us the problem and its over-all effects. He pointed out the long-term problem and the problem with respect to the industrialization of Atlantic Canada. I can understand that, but I had great difficulty when I listened to the energy critic, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), turn his back on the long-term solutions. He referred to nuclear power as if that was something we should not even consider for Atlantic Canada. He called it a loss leader for nuclear sales in Canada. That was his phrase. It was a great phrase, but that is the problem with his party; it is faint-hearted when it comes to the best piece of technology Canada has ever developed.
Energy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The CANDU system has already demonstrated that it is a system which is second to none. If the hon. member disagrees with me or questions that, I ask him to ask his colleague from a provincial riding very close to his, the minister of energy for the province of Ontario, Mr. Timbrell. It seems to me that is the only basis upon which the Ontario government can justify spending millions, if not billions of dollars in the future. We in Canada have the best nuclear system in the world. I think it might be useful if I were to spend a few minutes dealing with the dimensions of the problem and, more particularly, with the reasons for there being a specific problem.


James McPhail Gillies: We know the questions; what are the answers?	.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is the glib, superficial approach of the hon. member for Don Valley. He would like to be instant expert, without knowing what the problem is.


An hon. Member:: Better an instant expert than no expert at all.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is suggested time and time again that the only problem the Atlantic provinces have is that they are dependent upon foreign oil and that a very large proportion of their electrical energy is generated from oil. The hon. member for Don Valley said so. That came through. That is all that usually comes through. There is very little recognition of the fact-I have not heard anyone opposite say this-that probably the most important fact is that the energy efficiency of generating plants in Atlantic Canada is about 50 per cent of those in other parts of Canada.


Andrew Hogan: That is because they use oil.


Alastair William Gillespie: It has nothing to do with the fuel; it has to do with the size of the plants and their efficiency. That is why grids and interconnections are important. They are important because the people of Atlantic Canada can benefit from very much larger, more efficient generating units. If the hon. member would listen, he might recognize where some of the leaders of Atlantic Canada have been rather shortsighted.


James McPhail Gillies: To say nothing of the leaders of the federal government.


Alastair William Gillespie: If we look at the generating efficiency of plants in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, we find that in Ontario roughly 665 kilowatt hours per barrel of oil can be produced. In Nova Scotia, that figure is 550 and in P.E.I. it is 445. If we put the fuel requirement ration for Ontario down as 100 per cent, we find that Nova Scotia's is 120 per cent and Prince Edward Island's is 150 per cent. In other words, the ration is very important when it comes to the cost of generating and converting oil into electrical energy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?
13160

May 4, 1976
Energy


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be pleased to answer questions at the end of my remarks. The second problem is that of dilution. Every increase in the price of oil will have a greater effect on Nova Scotia and P.E.I. than elsewhere because of the higher proportion of their electrical energy which is generated from oil. The net effect of these two factors, lower efficiency and greater dependance on oil, is the real problem as far as the increase in electrical energy costs in Atlantic Canada is concerned, particularly with respect to Nova Scotia and P.E.I.
There are several other problems which I think are important to place on the record at the present time. One has to do with the rate of change of electrical energy costs. The Nova Scotia government did not increase the price of electrical power between 1958 and 1974, a period of 16 years. During that period most of the public utilities of the other provinces were moving the cost of their power up, so that their consumers were becoming adjusted to higher power rates. The Nova Scotia Power Commission, on the other hand, waited a full year and a half after the oil price increase before it moved its price up. Subsequently, of course, it had to move it up very much more dramatically, with all that that entails for the people and the squeeze on their incomes. Perhaps it might be worth noting that the real cost of electrical power today in Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic provinces, when compared with the average hourly wage of Nova Scotians and those in the Atlantic area, is lower today than it was ten years ago. To put it another way, wages have increased much more rapidly than power costs over that ten-year period, so that they have to work 35 per cent less time to purchase the same amount of electrical energy in 1976 compared with 1966.


James McPhail Gillies: What about the last two years?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not trying to make the case that electrical energy is cheap, but I am trying to put it in some kind of context so that hon. members can understand the problem. Another point which the hon. member for Don Valley overlooked was the whole question of insulation standards. His remarks were really geared to the electrically-heated house. As I understood him, the one measure he would promote and advocate would be some kind of temporary assistance to convert from electrically-heated houses to houses heated by coal or some other form of energy; but he did not spell that out. If he has any particular views as to how that should be done or what amounts of money should be devoted to it, I would be very interested in hearing from him. The point which has to be made is that in many electrically-heated houses the costs have gone sky high, and they have done so because electric heat has gone into the wrong kinds of houses. The houses have been either poorly insulated or not well designed for using electric heat. Hon. members pointed out a number of very unfortunate incidents, but I think they are for the Nova Scotia Power Commission to deal with. I think they should introduce insulation standards and regulate the use of their own resources.
Over the years, the federal government has put together a number of particular thrusts with respect to the energy future of Atlantic Canada. I think the best way for me to deal with this is to'put them into five different categories.

Let me start with those policies which are aimed at increasing access to large units of generating capacity. I refer to the efficiency of the average-sized generating station in Atlantic Canada. The federal government has provided assistance for the upgrading of the size and financing of power generation. I am referring, of course, to the Gull Island project in Newfoundland. The federal government said it would underwrite the transmission costs for this with loans to cover half the transmission costs, providing access to a larger unit. There is the interconnection from the mainland to Prince Edward Island, with loans and grants of $27 million to provide, for Prince Edward Island, access to larger units of generating capacity. There is also the access of which New Brunswick took advantage, namely, to an interconnecting grid arrangement.
In July, 1972, officials of my department made proposals to the electrical utilities departments in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for a joint power pool plant in the Atlantic provinces which would give access to larger, more efficient units. These proposals were made more than a year prior to the oil crisis of October, 1973. I regret to say that these types of initiatives have not been picked up as we would have liked.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out that grid arrangements are not going to solve the problems of the Atlantic provinces and that, indeed, this would take some years. He is right. But if the Nova Scotia government, in its wisdom, had chosen to avail itself of some interconnecting possibilities several years ago-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Where?


Alastair William Gillespie: -it might today be using the power which is now exported to Maine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Does the hon. member realize that New Brunswick is exporting power to Maine?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes. And the other way around; it is coming back.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would invite hon. members opposite to look at a missed opportunity when it comes to grid interconnections. I have referred to larger units, Mr. Speaker. I would hope it would be possible to bring on the Gull Island development project, at least in the transmission stages. In that connection, the government has an offer on the table of $343 million, being 50 per cent of the estimated transmission cost.
I have already referred to the other interconnections that the federal government is involved in with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Perhaps I should put on the table an overview of the amounts which the federal government has made available to the provinces of Atlantic Canada over the last ten years through grants or loans. I am speaking now only of electrical generation, not the total picture.
There is the oil import compensation program just for electrical energy, which is modest when you compare it with the total; the grant to the New Brunswick interconnection; the grant to the Prince Edward Island interconnection; grants for interconnection studies for Prince

May 4, 1976

Edward Island and Newfoundland; grants for the tidal power program; grants for present tidal review; Atlantic Development Board grants for electrical projects; grants for coal subventions under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, 1958-1969, and the losses which have been picked up by Devco on the pricing of coal, which is a form of subsidy to the' electrical users of the Atlantic provinces. These grants total $269 million.
In addition to these, Mr. Speaker, loans were made available to the Atlantic provinces under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act for transmission and thermal power plants, to the Prince Edward Island interconnection, to the Point Lepreau nuclear plant, and the offer for Gull Island transmission. These total $927 million. That does not include grants under the oil import compensation program which have been paid to Atlantic provinces consumers directly or indirectly over and above the oil import compensation program of approximately $90 million for electrical generation noted above.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) asked some questions about this, and I think I can satisfy him on the reconciliation of the two sets of figures. The first point is access to large units of generation. The second point is that the thrust has been made to provide alternative sources of power which are not subject to the same kind of escalation as oil prices when they are under the control of the OPEC nations' cartel. Clearly, I am talking about nuclear power and the offer made to the province of Nova Scotia. I would hope the province would find it in their interest to re-examine plans for their participation in a nuclear plant for the province, probably in conjunction with other provinces in the region.
With regard to research and development for new types of energy such as Fundy power, I have referred to grants made with respect to tidal power. There have been demonstration projects in Prince Edward Island on solar and wind power, and Iles-de-la-Madeleine this summer will have a wind power demonstration project, costing roughly $250,000, which should provide enough electricity to light approximately 600 houses. These are alternative sources of power and I believe each has a particular relevance to a particular type of community need.
The opposition has made no reference to Petro-Canada. I can understand their reluctance to give it any credit. After all, they held up debate in this House for weeks last summer when they tried to stop passage of the bill establishing Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I find it passing strange that when Petro-Canada puts together a deal along with two other oil companies, a consortium, which in all likelihood would not otherwise have been formed-a deal of $25 million a year on the Scotian shelf for five years-to stimulate the search for oil and natural gas off that coast, there is no comment by the opposition. Mr. Speaker, you might ask about the long-term plans. I would ask you to look at the operations of Petro-Canada in the eastern offshore: you would discover some real benefits for eastern Canada.


Mr. Jarvis:: You told us yesterday in the House that that was hypothetical.
Energy


Alastair William Gillespie: If you would read the question and answer, you would discover it was right on. Over the years the federal government has provided a good deal of assistance to the Atlantic provinces in regard to coal, and for very good reason: it hopes to assist consumers in the Atlantic provinces to use their indigenous resources. But we also have to recognize that some of that coal has pretty high sulphur content. I should like to hear how hon. members opposite would rationalize using high-sulphur coal in a dense urban environment.


Mr. Forrestall:: Is the minister worried about the environment?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am talking about environmental concerns. Many in the Atlantic provinces, particularly in urban areas, are concerned about the environment. The hon. member may not be, but I am sure many of his constituents are.
A number of times in the House I have referred to the need for energy conservation. I should like to be able to say that all provinces in the Atlantic region have adopted conservation as a major priority. Unfortunately, I am not sure that their heart is in conservation. It would not be helpful to identify particular governments, but I can say that some governments are reluctant to accept the federal government's suggestions about conservation. I am talking about speed limits, which are important.
I do not think there is any comprehensive program in the Atlantic region concerning insulation or building code standards. If heating costs in Atlantic Canada are high, it is up to the people of the area to ask why there is no building code and why the provincial governments have not established insulation standards. Why have they not insisted on certain insulation standards?


Andrew Hogan: But they have.


Alastair William Gillespie: If they are in place, it is not clear they are being properly enforced. I think my time has nearly ended, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Alastair William Gillespie: I refer to the point made by the hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). He said we should work with the provinces. I assure him that we are anxious to work with the provinces and have taken initiatives in the past to work with them. We tried to interest them in interconnections We tried to work out with them new regulations governing existing resources off their coasts. I admit that we made progress slowly. Regulations concerning offshore drilling have been in a sort of hiatus condition for two years. I hope that that particular problem which affects Newfoundland, perhaps uniquely, and involves the federal government and the other maritime provinces will be solved this summer.
I assure the hon. member that the federal government is anxious to sit down and work out the rules. I hope that particular bottleneck can be broken. Until it is broken, the oil companies will not show much interest in drilling offshore in eastern Canada. They will stand off, and that is not in the interest of the people of the Atlantic provinces.
13162

May 4, 1976
Energy
We wanted to discuss interconnections, or grids, with the provinces. So far the provinces have regarded this as being a matter for their public utilities bodies. In a sense, the various provincial public utilities must work out the problem. Until we are invited to take part in the discussions we shall have no way of influencing grid arrangements or interconnection arrangements other than through the sort of measures already taken; that is to say, with conditional loans or the sort of grants made in the past. I hope the Atlantic premiers will show an increased awareness of the possibilities of joint action in these areas. I hope, also they will show a growing commitment to energy conservation- because, as hon. members know, a large part of the energy conservation job is the responsibility of the provinces. They must consider building standards for houses, and insulation standards. They must consider speed limits on highways and lighting standards in buildings. In these areas we think we can assist.


J. Michael Forrestall: How are you doing in Ottawa with your lighting standards?


Alastair William Gillespie: We hope, also, to work out with the provinces the kind of fuel use which the energy strategy document makes clear. We want to encourage greater use of nuclear fuel, greater use of coal and of tidal power. For our part, we are committed to working with the provinces. I invite hon. members opposite to put forward any specific suggestions, and I invite hon. members from the Atlantic provinces present in this House to work actively in their own backyards to encourage their provincial governments to move forward in this area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) may ask a question only if he has consent.


Alastair William Gillespie: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister many questions. I grant the importance of pursuing conservation even more vigorously than the government of Canada has, but I wonder how this will meet the problems of industry in Nova Scotia. I grant that Petro-Canada is looking for oil off our coasts, and hope it succeeds, but I wonder how this will reduce electric power costs in Nova Scotia.
I grant that the size of electrical generator units has an important relationship to costs. Does the minister contend that any generating units built in Nova Scotia in the last 10 or 20 years, since the Nova Scotia system was tied in with that of New Brunswick with federal aid almost 20 years ago, should be abandoned? There is an interconnection between the systems of which the minister may not know. Does the minister suggest abandoning some of the smaller plants built in earlier days, as a means of reducing the cost of electric power? That is the real question. Further, am I correct in assuming that the minister will not recommend this year or in the next few years any method for overcoming this problem but, rather, that he is counting entirely on working out some long-term solutions with the provinces concerned? Is that the minister's position?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a series of questions. I shall do my best to answer. The longer run strategy for electrical generating is that it must be based on more efficiency. That means access to larger units. It also means interconnections.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But there are interconnections. Am I to understand that that is the minister's long-term solution?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to carry on the debate, I shall be pleased to do so. I was trying to say, succinctly, that there must be access to large units and that interconnections are important for that purpose. I do not think existing interconnections are sufficient to look after the longer term needs of Atlantic Canada, and in Atlantic Canada I include Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know whether the hon. member includes those parts of Canada. Perhaps he does not.
My second point was that nuclear power will be a most important future source of energy; that nuclear costs for electrical generation do not escalate in the same way as for coal or other fossil fuels which are subject to the influence of a cartel. The comparison probably is a good one between the cost of generating power from hydro projects, which are capital-intensive initially, and nuclear. That is the reason I think nuclear power is very important for the future of Canada, including Atlantic Canada.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the recently proposed energy strategy for Canada tabled in this House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was received with great disappointment and some disillusionment in Atlantic Canada because the strategy does not seem to fully contemplate or to appreciate the severity of the impact of increasing electricity costs on consumers who live in an area which suffers from the effects of chronic regional disparity.
Hon. members may recall that people in Atlantic Canada, where wages in many cases are one-third below the national average, were among the first to feel the sharp edge of the government's anti-inflation program when the Irving firm dared to raise the wages of its employees above the guidelines. Some people in Atlantic Canada, particularly in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, are facing electricity increases of 200 to 300 per cent and they have absolutely no hope of seeing wage increases to compensate for it. It is important that members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces make our colleagues in this House aware of this situation, and in my opinion it is imperative that any energy strategy for Canada should contain a thorough discussion of this situation if it is to be national in scope. Any attempt to ignore this problem or to avoid it is to tell maritimers to go back to the wood stove and furnace.
There is an uprecedented need for real statesmanship from our federal and provincial government leaders, and a greater need than ever for objective thinking and technical competence on the part of all professional people dealing with the short-term and long-term energy perspective. Compared with other nations, we are fortunate in that our problems are more in the nature of making choices between different energy sources and designing export poli-
May 4, 1976

cies in relation to surplus resources rather than of allocating supplies and rationing consumption.
In the field of energy development in Atlantic Canada, the federal government has not given the necessary leadership in developing, with the provinces, a master plan to provide a complete assessment and future development of the tremendous energy resources of Atlantic Canada which have been placed too far in the background in the minister's considerations and in his energy strategy. Without a full evaluation of the abundant hydroelectric and tidal resources of Atlantic Canada, the energy strategy for Canada and its policies for self-reliance are inadequate. The development of these resources for use in concert with other energy sources will provide an energy surplus for possible export at prices that can ameliorate the effect of accelerating fossil fuel costs.
One has to go no farther than the maritime provinces to see the sharp difference emerging in the cost of electrical energy produced in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, from basically a fossil fuel base, with the cost of electrical energy produced in New Brunswick where the development of hydro resources now in place has diluted the effect of fossil fuel increases. An energy strategy for Atlantic Canada must consider the combined uses of our four basic, potential energy sources. These are: nuclear, fossil fuels, the tides, and hydraulic resources.
The escalation of fossil fuel prices has placed a burden on economic development in the Atlantic provinces in general, and in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in particular, to the extent that producers and manufacturers in these provinces have a very grim future indeed, and that future may very well be complicated by the existing restraint policies of this government.
I would like to outline some of the region's power resources. First, hydraulic resources. The major undeveloped water power resources of the Atlantic region total 38,130 gigawatts per hour annually. Of this amount, Newfoundland has some 36,000 gigawatts of undeveloped hydro potential, of which the Gull Island site on the Churchill River would produce 12,000 gigawatts, and Muskrat Falls 4,000 gigawatts per hour. The Saint John River in New Brunswick has an undeveloped potential of some 1,160 gigawatts in three sites. The 20 sites in Labrador amount to 35,000 gigawatts of the total potential. In addition, there are two sites in Newfoundland, five in New Brunswick, one principal site in Nova Scotia and miscellaneous smaller sites there. Of the five sites in New Brunswick, one contemplates the addition of units five and six to the Mactaquac dam site, and this is just about accomplished. The site in Nova Scotia that I was referring to is Wreck Cove in Cape Breton. This is under construction.
The maritime provinces coal reserves are set out in "An Energy Policy for Canada," volume 2, page 59. These indicate a total of 1,286,000 units of coal reserves measured in terms of thousands of short tons. Of this number, all but 10,000 units located in New Brunswick are in Nova Scotia. The price of coal in Nova Scotia has been tied to the price of oil and this has been a factor in the elevation of the price of coal. Obviously, coal will continue to make a major contribution to the generation of thermal power in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Most certainly, one worthy federal project is to inventory the lower grades of coal and
Energy
include in that peat moss and continue to support the modernization and mechanization of the coal industry in the maritimes. The gasification of coal and waste wood has reached a relatively high degree of technology and it, too, should be considered.
With regard to oil and gas, it is thought that most of Canada's ultimate potential for conventional oil remains to be discovered, with a large proportion of these resources being found in the frontier areas such as the continental shelves and the slopes of the Atlantic coast. Since 1959, some tens of millions of dollars have been spent there on geophysical surveys, and some hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on exploratory drilling. Over 200 million acres are now under permit.
The first offshore discovery was made by Mobil Oil on Sable Island in 1971, with significant oil and condensate finds. With 83 wells having been drilled, some would have been commercial discoveries had they been drilled on land, but with the high cost of collecting the oil and gas they will not likely come into commercial production until cheaper sources have been exhausted.
With regard to tidal power, the tides of the Bay of Fundy have, with possibly one or two exceptions, the greatest amplitude in the world. In Minas basin, the eastern branch of the upper bay, the maximum spring tide reaches an amplitude of 53 feet, and in Chignecto bay 46 feet. Thus, an immense volume of water moves in and out of these inlets every 12 hours and 25 minutes, which is the period of a tidal cycle governed by the rotation of the earth and its position relative to the moon and the sun.
Obviously, the energy contained in the moving mass of water is enormous. For centuries man has pondered way of recovering this energy. In recent years the problem has been studied in great detail. The dynamic and physical problems have been largely solved, and our technology and capital resources exist whereby there is no question of the capability of man to harness the tides. There are, however, a number of difficulties in the way of successfully and economically generating firm electrical energy from the tides. The first is the fluctuating nature of the tide, which means that in its present form there is no firm energy available except by adopting what is known as the two-basin scheme, which adds greatly to the capital cost of the structures. Thus, the form of processing or retiming involving additional generating facilities must be introduced before the tidal energy can serve a normal electrical power system.
A second difficulty lies in the magnitude of the structures and the problem of building these in what is essentially the open sea. The schemes which are being considered for the Bay of Fundy consist of dams across the inlets containing a large number of turbines connected to generators and a series of sluice gates. When the tide is rising, water flows through the gates and to some extent through the turbine openings into the basin formed by the dam. The basin can thus be filled to approximately the same level as that of the incoming tide. The gates and turbine passages are then closed and remain so until the tide has dropped sufficiently to create the head necessary to turn the turbines. The turbine intakes are then opened

May 4, 1976
Energy
and the water passes from the basin through the turbines and into the open bay. Thus, during every 24 hours and 15 minutes there are two periods of roughly four hours when generation takes place. There are many other arrangements of generation and filling cycles, but I shall not go into these as the one I have briefly described is the simplest.
Present studies indicate that the easiest site to develop on Minas basin would produce about 8,000 gigawatt hours per annum, and the two other most attractive sites on Chignecto bay could together produce about the same amount. Other arrangements might be found which would produce more energy. Studies carried out in 1967-1969 resulted in the conclusion that the cost of this energy was not competitive with that of other sources at the assumed interest rate of 7 per cent and considering the market price of fossil fuel at that time.
Subsequently, serious doubts have arisen as to whether these findings are applicable under conditions prevailing now. Retiming the tidal energy through hydro pumped storage or other means can serve the peak or middle range of the load demand. As such, it would be much more valuable than it would be as fuel replacement. Furthermore, with today's confused oil supply situation and current rates of inflation, a source of energy which once built can serve for decades at an assured cost is very tempting. Fossil fuel, nuclear and even hydro plants create some disruption of the environment. The environmental effects of a tidal development would be minimal.
The annual energy available from these principal sites that have been studied is just about equal to the total electrical energy consumption annually of the Atlantic region at the present time. It would provide for seven years' growth requirements of the region. To generate this energy in an oil-fired plant would require some 28 million barrels of oil a year.
Five potential pumped storage sites in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were examined in a preliminary way in 1968. The smaller sites of the order of 100 megawatts were found to have a cost of $90 to $130 per kilowatt at that time, excluding transmission, while sites of the order of 50 megawatts were estimated at $65 to $80. These sites will become particularly attractive for peaking purposes when nuclear plants are added to the system, with their low incremental energy costs. The pumped storage plants would also complement the development of tidal projects by upgrading the tidal energy from secondary to primary.
If nuclear power is used for load purposes, tidal power can be retimed to supply maximum and intermediate demands above the base load of an interconnected system. A power pool in eastern Canada involving the four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec, with interconnections to central Canada and the United States, has tremendous potential for both the economic development of the region and the provision of power from renewable resources for all of Canada. This consideration should be heavily weighted in any energy strategy for Canada, but it is not mentioned in the paper presented to us.
The maritime electric utilities have made more progress in deriving benefits than interconnections and integration of their electrical systems and from interconnections with neighbouring regions than any other area of Canada. Since
[Mr. Howie.j
the action taken on October 17, 1973, by a number of Arab states, the whole world has suddenly become aware of the fact that drastic changes in our supply and use of energy, and no doubt changes in much of our social and economic structure, are a reality which must be faced. The era of cheap energy is passed. Every effort will be needed to conserve, especially, expendable fossil fuels.
We are told that oil and gas upon which our present society depends so greatly could be depleted within the next three decades if the ever-increasing rate of consumption is continued, and certainly the cost of these present basic energy sources will continue to increase at rates which will place further severe stress on our economic structure. It has been stated by most authorities that in the decades ahead the rate of consumption of oil and gas must decline drastically. However, the prospect is for a sixfold growth in the demand for electrical energy in the next three decades, and by the year 2000 some 50 per cent of Canada's increasing energy consumption will be in the form of electricity. In the future, our basic electrical energy supply will tend no doubt toward nuclear fuel generating plants, and the variable component of this massive electrical demand will be carried by such facilities as conventional hydro plants operating at low load factors, smaller existing thermal units and tidal power plants.
The maritime region is most fortunate in that there exists within its boundaries the largest tidal power potential in the world, a source of energy the cost of which, after being constructed, will not be affected by inflation. Another very important natural resource which the region possesses is the availability of large bodies of cold water which cannot ecologically be degraded by thermal pollution and which are essential to the nuclear or high load factor component of future integrated electrical systems.
The maritime region has a very great potential in meeting the energy needs of the region for the future at the lowest possible cost, and it is suggested that this challenge can only be effectively met by a very close co-operative and completely co-ordinated effort by all the Atlantic provinces and the government of Canada, and in giving leadership in this field the government of Canada has been more distinguished by its omissions than by its acts of commission.
In the longer term search for new energy options, the government places in the same category the feasibility of using renewable resources represented by solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and biomass techniques. From this one can infer that the foot-dragging which has marked the government's performance to date in regard to the Fundy tidal power potential will continue. The government has not learned the lesson that the New Democratic Party taught so effectively, namely, "tomorrow begins today". There is a real need to develop blocks of energy in excess of the immediate needs of the region and the necessity of integration with other power systems in regions of Canada and the United States. A great deal of mutual benefit has resulted from the existing transmission interconnections New Brunswick has with Nova Scotia, Quebec and New England.
The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, for example, has demonstrated great leadership and courage in pioneering much activity which has lead to these benefits.
May 4, 1976

There is no doubt that these benefits will be shared by Prince Edward Island when the cable interconnection is completed. However, there seems no doubt that if the maritime region is to acquire full use of its natural advantages in supplying the electrical energy needs of its people, and at the same time meet the challenge created by the oil crisis and the magnitude of the future requirements, then, as emphasized before, it is essential that the federal government provide an imaginative plan and give leadership and work in co-operation with the provincial governments who own the assets that this nation needs so greatly.
The energy from the three tidal power sites would save Canada, in balance of payments, at least $3 billion each decade and would generate electrical energy to the equivalent of 28 million barrels of oil per year every year. The sooner the tidal projects are developed, the more likelihood of lower capital costs due to inflationary trends. Even if present and future contemplated studies are accelerated by a crash program, the lag time to in-service would likely be 12 to 15 years. Very lucrative markets now exist for surplus energy which would be developed over the immediate requirements of the region. This could provide a return on investment to the region and would certainly assist in the amortization of borrowed capital. Contracts for the sale of this surplus could also provide collateral for borrowing in the United States in particular.
Some of the major power generating facilities on the Columbia River were built and owned by small rural communities through the use of taxes and bonds and contracts for the sale of power. These avenues of financing the tidal projects warrant investigation and have not been mentioned in the so-called "Energy Strategy" paper. An energy strategy for Canada should treat as a priority the development of the great potential in Atlantic Canada so that the region can take giant strides forward in its battle against economic adversity and all Canadians can share in the benefits of these great resources. All we need is a government which has the wisdom and courage to undertake great tasks and perform great deeds. It is a pity we did not have it ten years ago.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 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 Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Industry-textiles-Refusal of Dupont to put into production new polyester yarn plant because of low-priced imports-Government position; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Post Office-Closing of canteen at Calgary-Government position; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Request for estimate of unemployment rate and level of inflation for the year.
Energy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillies:
That this House regrets the government's failure to develop an effective energy strategy for the Atlantic provinces and in particular deplores the callous attitude shown by the government to the plight of hundreds of those families living in the Atlantic provinces who in many cases can no longer afford to heat their homes.
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in indicating quite clearly that I support the motion presented by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). It should not be necessary for the House to spend time debating a motion of this type, but the philosophy behind the government's paper on energy seems to indicate that something happens to Canadians from parts of Canada other than the Atlantic provinces. Some of these people, particularly cabinet ministers, seem to be obsessed by the belief that Canada ends to the east at the St. Lawrence River. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, it does not.
Let me remind the House, and in particular the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), that Canada started in the Atlantic provinces, the provinces by the sea where the natural energy is. The document called "An Energy Strategy for Canada" presented to the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seems to be mainly dedicated to a solution of our oil problems, oil being a depleting resource. Little or no reference is made to the renewable resources in this country. In the maritime provinces, our seaside provinces, the good Lord has provided us with a natural, renewable resource. I refer to Fundy tidal power to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) has already referred. This power is, proportionately, cheaper than a barrel of oil.
For most of my adult life I have heard time and again of studies being undertaken of Fundy tidal power. Again this year I understand another study is being made. One of the consultants is also one of those who made a study as far back as 1946. The studies in 1946 concluded that the harnessing of Fundy tidal power was possible, feasible and practical. The Fundy tides are not only the highest in the world, but the strongest. Anyone who has watched them and observed their effect knows that this is true; you do not need a study to find that out, Mr. Speaker.
One study that I know of had to do with the erection of facilities in Shepody bay, one of the bays in the bay of Fundy, at the junction of the Petitcodiac and Memramcook Rivers. In 1946, harnessing the tides was considered possible. Owing to the way the tides flowed in that particular location, it was possible to get the benefit of them, not once or twice a day but four times a day; and there was provision for storing power. This sort of thing has been done successfully in European countries and I see no reason why Canada cannot do it in the maritime provinces.
Since the forties, some progress has been made in the Atlantic provinces in relieving regional disparity. In addi-

May 4, 1976
Energy
tion, since that time the federal government has seen fit to spend millions of dollars on the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, even though this had a detrimental effect on the ports of Atlantic Canada.
The solid solution to the shortage of energy in the Atlantic provinces is the immediate development of tidal power. We need it now. There have been enough studies made of the question. It is essential that the federal government realize that the people of Atlantic Canada are as true blooded Canadians as those in any other part of this nation. We want to share in the progress of this nation along with the rest of Canada. We think we are part of confederation, yet when we read the document tabled by the minister we wonder if we are considered at all by those who prepared it.
In order to share in the growth of Canada, the people in the Atlantic provinces must be given greater attention by harnessing the power of the Fundy tides. I suggest that the minister of energy become more cognizant of what are the energy problems in Atlantic Canada. I take issue with the misleading conclusion reached by the minister today, though perhaps he did not intend to do so. He stated that the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission exported power to the state of Maine. That is true, but he did not indicate just how much power was imported by the province of New Brunswick through its electric power commission. As late as last night I was speaking to one of the ministers in the cabinet of the province of New Brunswick, and he told me that he believes imports and exports of power by the province of New Brunswick either balance or that the province is in a deficit position. This was not mentioned by the minister today.
The minister also made reference to insulation. I happen to be one of those in the maritime provinces who acted in response to the advertisements placed by all governments across the country for the installation of electric power. I put it in, but I put in the kind of insulation required by the power commission. There is a code and there are rules in the maritime provinces, and I suggest that the minister misled the House when he said there were no regulations. He also referred to speeding on highways. I contend that speeding in Ontario and other provinces in Canada is far more prevalent than in the maritime provinces. Our roads are not that good, Mr. Speaker.
There are several other items to which the minister and his department should direct their attention when it comes to providing electric power in Atlantic Canada. We need electric power immediately, and this energy is there. The good Lord put it there, and as minister responsible for energy, he can do something about it. An energy report of this nature so far as the maritime provinces is concerned is absolutely ridiculous.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the motion before the House moved by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). It relates to the government's energy strategy paper which was introduced in the House last week. The motion makes particular reference to Atlantic Canada, whereas the document placed before the House last week refers to an over-all strategy for Canada. I think it is regrettable that the hon. member

for Don Valley did not make specific proposals for overcoming the increased cost of power in the maritime provinces, especially in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. He indicated that he would do so, but today he did not give any specifics when he spoke.
I was interested in the speech of the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who spoke about the regional development aspects of the problem. As a member who comes from a designated regional development area, I have great concern, along with him, for that particular aspect.
I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), when he spoke about the need for co-operation between the four Atlantic provinces and the federal government made an important point. This is really the key to solving the problem before the House today, especially the electrical power rates in the maritimes. This has been the approach that the federal government has taken through the years to the problem of providing assistance to provincial governments on a regional basis. Surely this is a region with special problems in that regard.
I want to refer briefly to the strategy paper, because it is important. I believe that all parts of it have significance for Atlantic Canada. The over-all plan laid out in the strategy paper is to reduce demand in the country through an active and aggressive energy conservation program and to balance this demand, which has been increasing at a rapid rate, with increased supplies of energy. Indeed, the paper foresees a reduction in the kind of growth of energy which we have had from 1970 to 1973 of about 5.7 per cent to about 3.5 per cent and perhaps much lower than that over the next ten years.
I think the government's program on conservation as introduced in February and as implemented now is very commendable. It has tackled the problems of the automobile. It has told auto manufacturers in this country that they must manufacture cars with an average fuel consumption of 24 miles to the gallon by 1980, and 33 miles to the gallon by 1985. It has indicated that the National Research Council has to produce a new set of minimum building standards for insulation which will be implemented by the end of this year either through a federal energy conservation bill or through provincial building code systems. It has provided an outline of minimum standards of energy efficiency for appliances, furnaces and home equipment. It has provided a proposal for the reduction of energy in industry.
Last month I had an opportunity to attend a conference of some 300 people from major industries across Canada which was attended by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand). It was interesting to see representatives from each sector of the economy outline how they would reduce, during the next six to ten years, energy consumption in their industries even though the industries are growing. Most of them indicated they would affect a 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in the energy consumption of the industry. The chemical industry, for instance, suggested they would be able to reduce their
May 4, 1976

consumption by some 11 million barrels of oil a year by 1980. The federal government, in its own in-house use of energy, uses a large percentage of energy in Canada and it has indicated that its target for this coming year will be a 10 per cent reduction of energy and that that level will be maintained during the next ten-year period. These are positive plans and proposals to reduce the increase in use of energy in this country to less than 3.5 per cent during the next ten years. A1 the same time, the paper outlined how we plan to increase the production of energy through exploration and development by doubling the exploration effort during the next three years in offshore areas and in the Arctic region to increase our supply of energy.
Likewise, the paper indicates that the pricing of our crude oil will move up during the next two to four years to world prices, not necessarily equalling world prices but approaching them. I think it is rather interesting that many of the newspapers in the country have extrapolated this figure to 25 cents a gallon increase. If we look at the price of oil, at $8.80 a barrel in the east, and the world price of around $13, we see a difference of $4.20. The figures given to me indicate that this would result in an increase in the cost of gasoline by some 12 to 15 cents a gallon, rather than 25 cents a gallon. By moving up toward the world price we would reduce the amount of compensation that has to be paid for oil imported from offshore to eastern Canada, we would increase the incentive for exploration and development, and the increased price would have a strong effect on conservation.
The paper also indicates there will be increased resource information so that companies exploring in the offshore areas or in the north, at least under federal jurisdiction, will have to make this information available earlier than they presently do, which will provide more information for the exploration of hydrocarbons.
The paper also indicates that interfuel substitution will be an important aspect of the strategy-the use of coal for gasification and to back up oil and natural gas, and the increased use of nuclear energy to save on oil and gas-fired thermalgenerating plants.
It also suggests that there be new delivery systems, whether they be pipelines from the Arctic, pipelines across Canada from Sarnia to Montreal, or other delivery systems which would be required with the new, increased use of western oil in Central Canada. It also talks about emergency preparedness. We are a member of the international agency, and we have responsibilities there. In the event of curtailment of energy supplies from offshore, there would be a sharing of shortages. This agency also provides us with an opportunity to exchange information on research and development in energy use. This is a very important aspect of that International Energy Agency.
Increased research and development is another point in the strategy. Our budget in the past year has been some $113 million. This will be increased during the coming year by some $10 million, which will put additional funds into the research and development programs for energy conservation, the policies which the hon. member for York-Sun-bury spoke about, increased studies in tidal energy and the other renewable resources of wind and wave action, as well as solar energy.
Energy
The last point in the strategy relates to increased Canadian content and participation in our energy programs through Petro-Canada and through the oil and gas regulations which will be tabled in the House later this year. If we look at the special problems of Atlantic Canada and their use of crude oil and fuel oil, whether for heating, gasoline or electrical generation, we find that during the past 2Vi years from January 1, 1974, to the end of June this year over $900 million will have been spent in subsidizing the crude oil used in Atlantic Canada, whether for use in automobiles, for heating or for electrical generation. This is part of our plan for one price oil and it gives Atlantic Canada a price which is competitive with other areas of our country.
Likewise, the coal which is used in Nova Scotia for thermal uses, whether for heating buildings or for use in generating electricity, has been indexed. The coal which is produced by the Cape Breton Development Corporation has been indexed to the price of crude oil. Up until the last couple of years the price of crude oil in the maritimes has always been lower than the oil coming from western Canada, and this coal has been indexed to the crude oil price. This amounts to a significant subsidy to Nova Scotia through the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
The problem is electrical energy. Prince Edward Island uses 100 per cent crude oil. Nova Scotia uses some 62 per cent of oil in generating its electrical power supply, and about 24 per cent is from coal. I have already indicated that both these commodities are presently subsidized by the federal government. In fact, for heating oil used for electrical generation about $120 million in subsidies has been paid or will have been paid between January 1, 1974, and June, 1976.
I think it would be well for hon. members to remember that the generation of electricity and the running of provincial electrical utilities is primarily under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and they jealously guard that jurisdiction. In fact, when considering matters of emergency before the Energy Supplies Allocation Board it was pointed out that the provincial governments have primary jurisdiction for the generation of electrical energy. However, in spite of this, I think it would be well to note that during the past decade or so the federal government has made significant contributions toward the generation of electricity in Atlantic Canada. These include the subsidies I already mentioned for the fuel used in electrical generation.
Under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, loans of some $225 million were made, a grant for New Brunswick interconnection of some $4 million, a loan and grant for Prince Edward Island interconnection of some $27 million, a loan for the Point Lepreau nuclear plant of $350 million, an offer for the Gull Island transmission of some $343 million, grants for interconnection studies for P.E.I. and Newfoundland of $600,000, a grant for the tidal program from 1968 to 1969 of $1.6 million, and for the tidal study which is now taking place of $1.5 million, as well as Atlantic Development Board grants for electric projects of $55 million. This gives a total of $1,127.7 million which the federal government has contributed toward energy
13168

Energy
projects in Atlantic Canada and for the construction of these projects.
It would be well for us, also, to look at electrical rates across Canada. In March of this year the average rate across Canada was $23 per thousand kilowatt hours of electricity. By comparison, the Halifax rate at that time was $27.24 per thousand kilowatt hours. The Vancouver rate was almost $25-so they were both in the same ballpark. In the Ottawa area, the Kanata rate of Ontario Hydro is some $25.08 per thousand kilowatt hours. By comparison, the Charlottetown rate is higher, some $42 per thousand kilowatt hours. But I think we have to realize that all rates of electricity are going up in Canada. For instance, Ontario Hydro will be increasing its rate by some 22 per cent per year over the next five years. Manitoba Hydro has indicated that in April of this year its rate will be going up by some 28 per cent, and New Brunswick has indicated an increase of 12 per cent. So there are many areas in our country which have rates which at the present time are comparable with Halifax, and in practically every province these rates tend to be moving up.
I should also like to mention the exploration which will be taking place this year off the east coast under the auspices of Petro-Canada which will cost some $25 million in each of the next five years. This represents about 25 per cent of the budget of Petro-Canada. It is interesting to consider whether the official opposition, and especially those hon. members from Atlantic Canada, would support their leader's proposal to wind up Petro-Canada if the Conservatives ever were in power-which, of course, is very unlikely to happen for a very long time.
In reviewing some of the points I have made, I want to mention that Atlantic Canada does have some higher electrical rates, but coal rates and heating oil rates are comparable to other parts of Canada and those rates are subsidized by the federal government. The federal government has provided a great deal of assistance-almost $2 billion- over the last few years for electrical and other energy assistance to the maritime provinces. It intends to continue its assistance by providing for interconnections, the assistance I have already indicated as well as the assistance which it has already offered for nuclear plants in that area.
I think this is a strong indication of the kind of commitment the federal government has made, not only in the past but also in the future, to equalize opportunity in Canada and especially in Atlantic Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that sometimes during these opposition day debates hon. members may wonder whether any real progress is made, particularly when dealing with very difficult issues for which the government has responsibility. It may well be argued after this debate that not much progress was made with respect to the government's altering its insensitivity and lack of concern with respect to the very serious problem of skyrocketing energy costs in the Atlantic provinces.
I suppose that after listening to the parliamentary secretary just a moment ago, and previously to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), members on this side of the House might be consoled by the fact that at
(Mr. Foster.]
least to some degree we have their attention. While that may not seem like much progress to the people of Prince Edward Island or most of the citizens of the Atlantic provinces who are very concerned about this issue, I can tell my constituents and others that it is no mean feat to get the attention of this government. That we now have their attention, and the admission of the parliamentary secretary that there is a problem, is some progress. Perhaps when the subject comes up again in questions or debate they may treat it seriously enough to try to deal with it in some fashion.
The motion of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) which is before the House is quite specific. It says that this government has failed to come up with any effective strategy for an energy policy for the Atlantic provinces, and in particular "deplores the callous attitude", and so on, with respect to the problem as it will affect many people in the Atlantic provinces in relation to heating their homes.
My former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), referred to the "cavalier" attitude of the government, and the motion refers to its "callous" attitude. To this point I find it a more or less "unconscious" attitude. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to a dense urban situation, I wondered if the use of the word "dense" could have a double meaning in this instance. I would direct the attention of the minister and his colleagues to a recent report of the National Utilities Service, an international organization which examines energy policies for 25,000 corporations. It says that in Canada energy costs will continue to rise fastest in the Atlantic region. Lest the minister and others assure themselves, with some kind of false concept, that we have reached the outer limits of the problem, I want to indicate them that this will likely get worse if it continues to be dealt with in the unconcerned manner expressed in the minister's speech today and his response to questions on the problem recently.
While the parliamentary secretary was forced to acknowledge that there is an alarming discrepancy between the average consumer costs for electricity in Charlottetown compared with any other part of the country, he did not refer to the fact that this estimate was taken before the announcement made by the provincial government that, because of all the other pressures it has been under with respect to its interdependence on the federal government, it will be forced to removed the subsidy of some 12 per cent for users of electricity in Prince Edward Island. This was before the meeting of the first ministers to be held this week which will try to arrive at some upward pricing formula for petroleum products. I cannot understand the sanguine attitude of the minister and the parliamentary secretary in regard to this serious problem.
I understand, of course, that the minister has other responsibilities and other pressures. Perhaps his orientation and basic frame of reference is from another part of the country. I cannot understand his somnolent attitude, however, when since 1969 the government has repeatedly announced the elimination of regional disparities as a cornerstone of its policy. I cannot understand how anyone can assess the logic of allowing this very large disparity to
May 4, 1976

grow in Atlantic Canada with regard to the basic cost of energy and the cost to the economy.
I do not think the minister was entirely candid about some of the information that he placed before the House this afternoon. He talked at some length about the inefficiencies of the present generation of electricity in Atlantic Canada, but did not relate it to the age of the units or the scale of units that we must work with, given the population in the area. One fact conveniently omitted was the actual usage of electricity in Atlantic Canada. In Prince Edward Island the kilowatt use per hour per customer is 5.146; in Newfoundland it is 7.104; in Nova Scotia, 5.633; in New Brunswick, 6.158; and the Canadian average is 8.170. This means that Prince Edward Island is consuming only about two-thirds of the average consumption on a per capita basis, of the rest of Canada.
These figures indicate that it is not the Atlantic provinces that should be lectured by the minister on the subject of energy conservation, seeing that at the present time they use less than the Canadian average. It seems to me that one of the reasons for this is that individuals are suffering very directly because of factors which have been in existence for some time, some of which have been exacerbated by the energy situation.
The abnormally high cost of electricity in Prince Edward Island, particularly Charlottetown where the average cost per consumer is $41.53 per month-that is before the increase which is to come shortly-compares badly with a town of the same size in Ontario where the average cost per month for electricity is $22.68. I am equally concerned with the effect on the industrial structure of the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Halifax dealt with this at some length, pointing out the discrepancy between the present energy policy with respect to the Atlantic provinces and the attempts of the government, through DREE, to alleviate regional disparities.
I should like to give an example of the type of problem we face in the Atlantic provinces. Prince Edward Island industries which are involved in exporting basic products such as potato processors-perhaps the most significant export industry-are worried about the effect on their competitive position. Power rates are higher in P.E.I. than anywhere else on the continent. One food processing company indicated that in January their electricity bill was $35,000, claiming that for a similar company in Ontario the bill would have veen $18,000. The problem is compounded by the additional burdens of distance from markets and communications. The government's position in regard to this question is totally illogical.
Referring to the over-all question of electrical costs, the APEC Newsletter of December, 1975, stated:
It is obvious that higher electrical energy costs in the region point to this as one possible cause of continuing disparity.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the lack of concern expressed in the minister's speech this afternoon. At the end of his remarks, the hon. member for Halifax asked in specific terms what the government was going to do. It is all well and good to talk about the establishment of a much larger power grid or bringing a nuclear power plant into production some four or five years hence, or eventually starting a Fundy tidal project when studies and surveys have been completed; but problems that exist for
Energy
the people in Atlantic Canada today and tomorrow are growing daily. Nowhere is this more acute than escalating electrical costs. The minister was somewhat critical of the hon. member for Don Valley for not speaking specifically to this point and making suggestions about what should be done. Somehow the minister forgets that he is responsible for energy, mines and resources. Many in my province wish that he could be transferred form that portfolio in the not too distant future.


Alastair William Gillespie: I was quoting his release. He said he was going to make positive suggestions, but I did not hear them.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There were suggestions. The minister showed, by not expressing an opinion, that he is without ideas. That is bad enough. But I am more worried because he seems to show no basic concern.


Alastair William Gillespie: Read the record.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, not only have I read the record; I am about to quote the minister's previous comments.


Alastair William Gillespie: How? Today's record has not yet been printed. How can you have read it?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will not quote what the minister said today. Perhaps the minister will say why he no longer thinks this afternoon what he thought yesterday afternoon. I shall reach that point in a moment.
I want to deal with the minister's gratuitous comments concerning conservation. He hypocritically accused the Atlantic provinces of not being concerned about conservation. He talked about their hearts not being in it. I tell him that in Atlantic Canada we consume less energy per capita, on average, than people in the rest of Canada. We do it of necessity. I am concerned about the minister's hypocritical approach.
It is well known that in 1974, in the year following the OPEC embargo, every industrialized nation except Canada decreased its consumption of energy. Our consumption rose by 7.75 per cent. That is a publicly acknowledged statistic which I have not heard the minister refute. He talks about leadership, and about responsibility for conserving energy, but no government has been more irresponsible in conserving energy than the government which sits opposite us this afternoon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He talked about establishing better insulation standards, as if provincial governments have sole responsibility in this area. Where has the minister been? Does he forget that his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), is responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing, which sets these standards?
If he is worried about insulation standards not being applied in homes built in this country, why has he not leaned across his desk and conferred with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? Or does he think that that minis-
2 1804-72/4
COMMONS DEBATES	._________May 4,1976
Energy
ter has no influence with that Crown corporation? Suggesting that the provinces are not concerned about energy conservation is trying to pass the buck to the provinces. The minister's action was shoddy.
He suggested yesterday afternoon that Nova Scotia had not raised electric power rates substantially between 1958 and 1974; then he suggested that the rise in electric power rates has not been as great proportionately as the price rise in other commodities. I suggest that such statements could badly mislead this House and the general public. Allow me to quote some figures to the minister. We are talking about average, annual energy costs in the Atlantic provinces. I will compare those costs with other costs in other parts of the country and relate those costs to wages. For example, the average yearly wage or salary in Toronto is about $11,000 and the average annual cost of energy about $525, or roughly 4.8 per cent of income. Average annual income in Charlottetown is about $8,100, and the average annual cost of energy about $980, or about 12 per cent of income on average.
There is a disparity of 250 per cent in the proportionate annual cost of energy. I could quote other figures but do not have time. When the minister suggests that the cost of energy has risen less, proportionately, than the cost of other commodities, he is doing his own credibility a disservice and not dealing satisfactorily either with national or regional energy concerns in this country.


Alastair William Gillespie: You do not believe that, do you?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do. That is why I put the figures on record. Can the minister explain why the man in Charlottetown pays 12 per cent of income for energy, whereas the man in Toronto pays roughly 4.8 per cent? Has the federal government no responsibility in this regard?


Alastair William Gillespie: Would the hon. member like to hear my figures?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps the minister could mention them some other time. My time is limited. I am making a few comments in order to assist the minister.
The minister talked about alternate forms of energy. He cannot seem to make up his mind. Today he seemed to suggest that there is merit in developing alternate sources of energy and in doing more research and development in this field. But what did he say yesterday? Answering the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the minister said, as recorded at page 13059 of Hansard:
The second point I should like to make is this: the main thing is to spend money where it can be most useful. I think in terms of solar energy, in terms of wind, in terms of tidal energy, in terms of bio-mass. In a number of these areas we shall have to move rather slowly because very large sums of money would not generate any immediate pay-back. All the experts tell me this is an area in which we can expect significant amounts of energy, but not for 15 years or more.
This afternoon the minister spoke more favourably of alternate energy sources, but this government is committed to spending only about 2 per cent of its total research and energy budget on alternate energy sources other than nuclear.
Time and again we have asked the minister if he is considering alternate energy sources. As far as he is con-
(Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).]
cerned, energy sources apart from the nuclear source are simply a waste of time, or are to be developed in future and hence are scarcely worth considering at present. I ask the minister why the United States Government, which has been spending almost twice as much proportionately as we have in the last few years on alternate energy, has again doubled its budget in the last year? We live in a dream world. The minister thinks alternate energy sources are fantasies. Apparently he thinks it enough to show us the odd demonstration project, or another survey on Fundy tidal power. He thinks we are doing enough to find alternate energy sources. Frankly the government's position is less than satisfactory. Denmark, hardly an underdeveloped country, is sufficiently committed to developing alternate energy sources that it is preparing for the day when all its electricity will be generated by wind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member whose time has expired.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased for the opportunity to participate in this debate which concerns all Canadians, particularly those in the maritimes, as the motion suggests. Without question the rising price of energy, as the minister said, has had devastating effects on practically every one in the world. When the world price of oil increased in a short period by a factor of four, hardly any person in the world was unaffected. Probably the people in the maritimes in Canada were affected more than other people in this country.
Hon. members raised several points today. I think the previous leader of the opposition raised a point which is of great concern. He wondered how rising energy costs will affect the industrial health of the maritime area. It is difficult for the individual homeowner to rationalize rapidly energy costs, costs which must be faced when people pay their energy bills.
Perhaps the more important question is what is the long term energy cost for industry in the maritimes. If industry cannot be competitive there is an unemployment problem, and many other social problems resulting from that. We should look carefully at some areas where it might be possible to improve energy efficiency within industry. In all of the conservation efforts that have been talked about and introduced, the area of the industrial sector is the one that has perhaps been overlooked the most to date.
I was most encouraged to have the opportunity of attending the meeting recently held in Ottawa with various energy groups meeting with the minister, and sensing what a tremendous difference there has been this year in industry as opposed to last year. In other words, they are now indicating that they sense the urgency of doing something about energy conservation in industry. At the present time they are doing a good deal of study and research in their own industrial sector on what can and should be accomplished in a certain time frame.
There is one basic question that has come up in this, and it is something we should not entirely pass over. When we had this substantial change in price for energy, and even some problems with availability, it brought home the fact that for the past 20 or 25 years we have been overlooking
May 4, 1976

the need to build a strong infrastructure in all parts of the country to deal with problems like this. It has been politic and even correct to be more concerned with glamorous types of projects in the industrial sector, from many points of view.
In retrospect, in not only the maritimes but many other areas of Canada, some of the infrastructure relating to the energy field has not been put in place. We are paying very dearly for it now.
Previous speakers made the point very well that the maritimes is not the only area where the cost of energy, particularly electrical energy, is increasing rapidly. This reflects a number of things. First was the putting off investing in capital projects at the time that they should have been advanced.
Initially when the price of energy started to move, people became very concerned about the impact on consumers. They set aside capital projects and capital investment in the energy fields that should have been proceeded with, thinking it would level off and there would be a more opportune time to do it in the future. The problem is that in terms of pricing, the future got worse. For new electrical utilities across Canada the construction program is costing a good deal of money. Interest rates are high. That is a problem. All of this adds up to some very large increases in the cost of energy.
It might be a good lesson for the future that when we are faced with a situation where costs are increasing and, where it makes sense, we should do something about it at the right time. We should have the courage and fortitude to do it then because putting it off will only will make the situation considerably worse.
Another point has been the fallacy of it being very opportune to go around the basic problem when we should attack it head on. The Maritimes is not the only area where this is a problem, that is, in terms of using fairly high quality energy, oil and natural gas, to generate electricity, rather than using coal substantially to do that. It was very understandable at the time, and this is prevalent throughout much of the United States, particularly the eastern seaboard where a good deal of the generation of electricity was changed from coal to natural gas and oil for environmental reasons and, perhaps in some cases, cost reasons.
If we have that period to run through again, it would make a good deal more sense to attack the pollution problem sincerely and work on the technology very hard, pay the price of pollution control, and continue to use coal as a fuel source. For a variety of reasons it is incorrect to use natural gas or oil to generate electricity at this point in time. This is needed for many other areas, many of which are related to higher technology and a good deal of employment.
There is a point upon which we take issue with the mover of this motion. I have had a good deal of difficulty with this since coming to this House. I refer to the debate in committee and in the House where the opposition opposes any government intervention in the energy field.
There was long and bitter debate on the Petroleum Administration Act and on the establishment of Petro-Canada. However, when there is a problem the first thing to surface is a motion asking what the government is
Energy
doing. Members opposite once and for all will have to make up their minds about the role of energy. What are they in favour of the private sector doing, and of the public sector doing?
Had Petro-Canada not been established the problem in the maritimes would be a good deal more severe. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, there is a good deal of exploration ongoing through Petro-Canada, and more is planned for the future. If I am correct, between 20 and 25 per cent of its entire budget is for offshore exploration. This indicates an interest in making that area more self sufficient in energy.
It seems this type of approach is the answer to many of the outstanding problems, particularly in the Atlantic area. But it does not seem to be in tune with the debate we heard from the opposite side at great length some time ago opposing the establishing of Petro-Canada. I understand from the newspapers that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) says that if his party is elected to government, they will wind up Petro-Canada. I also note from the newspapers that since becoming leader he has visited the maritimes once. On his next trip he might wish to look at the energy situation a bit closer. Perhaps he will understand that Petro-Canada is a key part of the solution to the energy problem in the maritimes.
There is the other policy issue, and I just comment along that vein because these are difficult issues on both sides. Perhaps that is what the opposition has tried to be. I refer to the establishment of the Petroleum Administration Act. This act gives authority to negotiate one price across Canada. I cannot think of any area in Canada that benefited more by that than the maritimes.
These are policy initiatives the government has taken in the last year and a half, particularly the establishment of Petro-Canada and the Petroleum Administration Act, of which members opposite, particularly those from the maritimes, should be very strongly in favour.
There is both a short term and long term problem to be dealt with. In the long term the objective must surely be to make Canada, particularly the maritime area which is dependent on imported crude, as self sufficient in oil as possible. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) will probably support this, when he speaks in a couple of minutes, that some of the ideas put forth today in terms of wind, solar, and tidal, great as they may be, are not short term answers. The only short term answer that we have nationally, and supposedly in the maritimes, is to have a fundamental commitment to a conservation program that works.
It has been suggested we should be making substantial use of solar, wind, and tidal power, but I do not think this is a good short term solution. First, the capital costs involved are enormous, and then again the technology still has a long way to go. If we were to count on these systems in the short term I think we would be disappointed.
I have some small knowledge from my own background of heating in the residential sector. I know that when electrical heating was introduced great emphasis was placed on home heating standards; most of the participating utilities spent a good deal of money and effort not only

May 4, 1976
Energy
to establish those standards but to make sure they were adhered to. Part of the problem may be that in some parts of the country the emphasis on inspection has been left to the industry itself, with the result that a number of substandard insulations have been put in place. I do not intend this as a reflection on builders and electricians, but this is a part of the argument one always has to make on the necessity of doing a good job of insulation when using that form of heating.
A few years ago, when the price of oil was relatively low, anyone who was not particularly interested in putting up a quality building or insulating to a high standard, installed oil heating. Today, as the price of oil keeps rising, we realize that it might have been better to have insisted on electric heating standards in the case of all types of fuel.
I hope the government will adopt a suggestion I have made on two or three occasions that consideration be given to providing some type of tax write-off in respect of energy conservation equipment such as is presently available in connection with devices designed to ensure a better environment. Industry has available to it a preferred tax position in respect of money spent on equipment to diminish environmental threats. Many times this equipment has worked against the best interests of conserving energy sources. It might well be in the best interests of the energy situation to extend an equivalent tax concession so that a company trying to conserve energy would gain the same tax advantage as one installing equipment to handle an environmental problem.
Part of the problem we face today is the high wastage of energy by industrial users. Those who are concerned about this energy loss and who wish to make their plants more efficient find it difficult to purchase any equipment of proven reliability. The government could play a useful role here by stimulating this sector; perhaps this could be done through assistance in development costs. In my opinion such a policy would pay off handsomely. Indeed, in the final analysis the government might well find itself in a plus position.
One only has to look at the situation in the commercial sector where energy conservation equipment is available "off the shelf". We are finding now that when any commercial building of importance is constructed in Canada consulting engineers and architects instal such equipment as a basic feature of the building. This is not the case in the industrial sector, however, although industry uses close to 50 per cent of all the energy consumed in Canada.
The case for the development of tidal power as a source of energy in the maritimes has been raised on a number of occasions. I believe the first debate I attended in this House was on that subject. I did not know much about it at that time but I spoke in favour of it, and I am glad to learn that a significant study of the prospects of such a scheme has now been completed. My hon. friend from Wellington has a far better background in science than I have, and I believe he will be making some comments on the role he sees for energy development in that sector.
Nuclear energy is one of the relatively short term answers. I noticed in the question period today that members on the other side of the House were expressing a good deal of opposition to the nuclear option. I rather feel they over-estimate the problem associated with the CANDU

nuclear system. Had the nuclear option been put in place two years ago when the rise in oil prices first became apparent, it seems to me the maritimes today would be in a much better position. One thing which is overlooked very often is the fact that though the initial cost of establishing a nuclear plant is high, once they are in place the cost of production is extremely low-the cost of the uranium which is used can probably be doubled without causing the cost of the energy produced to rise more than 10 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate today one has had the tendency to get the impression that the energy crisis in the Atlantic provinces is confined primarily to two provinces, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. That, Sir, is just not the case. First of all, the magnitude of the problem stretches into every part of the region. For example in my own city of St. John's consumers are now paying the third highest energy costs in the country, and that in a province that has been blessed with an abundance of hydro resources.
The island of Newfoundland, as distinct from the whole province which takes in the great territory of Labrador with its vast storehouse of energy, depends on sources other than hydro-primarily thermal sources-for approximately 44 per cent of its total energy. That, of course, explains why energy costs are escalating in the island part of the province of Newfoundland. Indeed at the present time there is before the government of Newfoundland an application by the power companies for still further increases in power rates.
The principal hydro development in the province initially received a grant from the now defunct Atlantic Development Board which made possible the development of the great watershed of Baie d'Espoir, producing a total of 450 megawatts, which brought the total capacity of the island part of the province by 1970 up to 762 megawatts. All sources today within the province provide approximately 1,062 megawatts of energy.
The second biggest single source of energy in the province comes from the Churchill Falls power development. This great development has an approximate capacity of 34 billion kilowatt hours, by far the largest hydro power development in the world outside of the U.S.S.R. However, the bulk of the Churchill Falls output is locked up in a 65 year contract with Hydro Quebec, and in my estimation that contract has to be the single biggest sellout of energy resources in the history of Canada.
To give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of why I say that, about the deal with the province of Quebec for hydro power from Churchill Falls works like this: for a fixed period of 40 years, with an extension of 25 years, all power
May 4, 1976

must be sold to the province of Quebec. This brings into the province of Newfoundland approximately $99 million a year. This power is now sold at 3.5 mills per kilowatt. Contrast this with the fact that the Newfoundland Light and Power Company, the largest utility in the province, presently has to pay 9.7 mills for its power at wholesale rates. Since there is currently an application before the province for a still further increase by the Newfoundland Hydro Power Commission that would boost that to 12.2 mills, obviously this will mean there will be a rate increase. Whether it will be that extensive or not remains to be seen.
The deal with Quebec provides for a de-escalation in the rate, and this will reduce the cost of energy to 2.4 mills by the end of the century. Newfoundland energy minister, recently speaking in the legislature of the province, had this to say:
Churchill Falls energy today is worth about 15 mills per kilowatt-hour on the North American market.
Yet that power, Mr. Speaker, is locked into a 65 year deal with the province of Quebec at 3.5 mills. I say shame.
The minister went on to say:
If we could get that price, Churchill Falls would be generating over $200 million in extra revenue for the province today.
In other words, we would be realizing from the sale of Churchill Falls power in today's prices over $300 million a year in revenue for the province.
In order to meet the needs of the island part of the province of Newfoundland two things must happen, otherwise we will have an energy crisis by 1980. There will be an actual shortage of energy in the province of Newfoundland by 1981. We either must have the capacity to produce the additional resources of the Churchill river, the lower Churchill known as the Gull Island project, or else we will have to depend upon thermogeneration. At present only 9 per cent of our energy resources come from this island part to the province. I am told that unless we can produce other sources of energy by tapping the resources of the lower Churchill or by renegotiating the deal with the province of Quebec, this will grow to 48 per cent by 1980. It is interesting to note that based on the present rate of inflation this means we would have to pay $16.50 a barrel of oil in 1980, which would mean that we would have to pay about $100 million a year to produce this additional energy source by 1980.
The minister made reference to the Gull Island project in his speech, albeit a very brief reference. I am sorry he did not enlarge upon the current policy of the government with respect to how hydro energy fits into the over-all government strategy. I am told by the Churchill Falls Power Corporation, for example, that in the Labrador part of Newfoundland at present there is an undeveloped potential of approximately 5,000 megawatts which, when added to the 5,225 megawatts flowing from Churchill Falls, amounts in Labrador alone to a hydro potential in excess of 10,000 megawatts. Yet it is interesting to reflect that the first ministers of the five eastern provinces meeting in Quebec addressed themselves to this vast potential and recommended to the government of Canada that hydro power be included in the total energy policy of the govern-
Energy
ment. We must have government policies addressing themselves to the generation of hydro power, otherwise we will have a crisis of considerably greater proportions in the Atlantic provinces than we have at present.
This great undeveloped, unharnessed potential in the Labrador part of the province has to be developed, and will be developed eventually. But unless it is developed soon we will have a crisis of major proportions in Newfoundland. I am advised by the Newfoundland Power Commission that the Gull Island project has the best potential for meeting Newfoundland's present energy needs. However, the minister knows better than anyone else that Newfoundland is unable to finance that vast project on its own-there has to be federal participation, indeed there has to be substantial federal participation.
We know that the federal government has offered $341 million toward the development of the lower Churchill, but that is not enough. Because of the escalating costs, as a direct consequence of inflation, the total cost of developing and harnessing power from the lower Churchill is now in excess of $2 billion, and we must have greater federal participation. As a result of the attitude of the federal government, that project is at present in limbo. We cannot undertake the development necessary to transmit that power to the island part of Newfoundland, the substantial expenditures involved in building the hydro transmission lines, and the 11 mile tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle, unless we have some assurance from the Government of Canada that it will reassess its position with respect to the development of the lower Churchill.
Of course the other alternative to meet the energy needs of the province of Newfoundland would be to retain some of the power that is now going into the province of Quebec for 3.5 mills. That power is worth today on the northern American market 15 mills. We should have the right to renegotiate that contract because, shortsighted as it was, it was entered into at a time when no one in Canada could foresee the energy crisis in which we find ourselves today as a result of the raising of oil prices by the OPEC countries. So we must be able to reopen that contract.
Negotiations have been taking place with the province of Quebec, but I am sorry to say that these negotiations have been fruitless. There has to be federal participation, we must have input from the federal government, in order to regain some of that power.
With the coming on stream of the James Bay project in Quebec, some of that power should be available to us. It is power which is now surplus to Quebec's needs and we should be able to regain some of it without having the gun put to our heads by the province of Quebec, and without being forced by that province to reopen something at the bargaining table which, in the opinion of province of Newfoundland and its people, is not negotiable, namely, the boundary between Quebec and Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Yet we are told by the province of Quebec through their minister of energy that if we want to buy back in excess of 300 megawatts, which we can now have under the contract and which we need in order to make it feasible to finance the transmission lines and the building of the tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle to get that

May 4, 1976
Energy
power into the island part of the province of Newfoundland, we must be prepared to renegotiate the boundary. Indeed we are told that if we want that power we must be prepared to sell all the land around the head waters of the rivers flowing into the north shore of the St. Lawrence so that Quebec can tap that undeveloped resource potential. That is the same as asking us for a hunk of our territory, and we are not prepared to even consider that. But we are prepared to sit down and negotiate.
Surely we should be able to recap that power that is going into Quebec from Churchill Falls now and then flowing into Consolidated Edison in upper New York, and here is where the bargaining power of the federal government should be used to help one of the Atlantic provinces which is suffering the consequences of the energy crisis.
The consequence is very simple, and I am afraid this is something which the minister does not seem to understand, namely, that until we resolve this energy crisis in the Atlantic provinces you can forget about regional economic expansion because DREE policies are unproductive. No industry is going to settle in an areas which has an energy crisis because most industries require vast energy resources in order to be able to operate. I hope there can be some meetings of minds on this. I hope there can be some input by the Government of Canada, and I am hoping that the Government of Canada will take to heart seriously the recommendations of the five premiers that it consider hydro potential in the over-all energy policy of the government. With this realization there will hopefully flow a decision by the Government of Canada to assist in the development and the building of an eastern power grid which would tap all of these vast resources of the great Labrador storehouse, not for the good of Consolidated Edison in the state of New York, but for the good of eastern Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely in that regard the national government has an ongoing responsibility with respect to regional development. If we are going to continue with the present DREE policies, then we must ensure that the energy infrastructure is in place. Otherwise all the regional incentives in the world will not entice industries to establish in power hungry provinces.
I can talk about the unemployment statistics of the four Atlantic provinces, and I can talk about the hardships of the consumers of electric energy in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and in eastern Newfoundland, but the fact is that if this region is to develop its full potential, then obviously the last major power resources in the region, that is, the undeveloped portion of the lower Churchill represented in the Gull Island project and the headwaters of the rivers flowing into the north shores of the St. Lawrence, have to be tapped. Once that decision is made we can think in terms of developing a regional eastern power grid which could be developed in the over-all context of a national power grid. It is only by that kind of thinking that we will have this great renewable source of energy developed for the good of the people of Canada and for the good of the people of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

I submit to the minister that he has more than a passive role to play. As the minister responsible for energy in Canada he has to provide leadership. We can certainly sympathize with the problems he has with respect to the cost of oil in Canada, but he has to realize that there are other sources of power in this country not yet developed, and the most important underdeveloped potential source of hydro power resides in Newfoundland, a portion of Quebec, and in that great flow of energy going into the Quebec grid from Churchill Falls, much of which is now flowing into New York state and which should be recaptured by a renegotiated contract based on more realistic bargaining in the context of today's energy crisis and used for the over-all development of the region. Some of that power must be brought back to Newfoundland, and some of that power, through the development of a regional grid, can be brought in to the power hungry Maritime provinces.
These are the kinds of questions to which we would have liked to have heard the minister address himself today, instead of taking the very defensive and passive attitude he took. Of course he has to be apologetic because of the present energy problem, as witnessed by the very serious problems in federal-provincial relations which are developing and as exemplified by the meetings which will take place in Ottawa later this week. He has to reassess the total energy picture today, and he has to be able to come to the conclusion, which is obvious and self-evident, that unless hydro power is included in the total energy policy of the government we will continue to have a crisis of very serious proportions in the four Atlantic provinces.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Certainly.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to ask the hon. member if he would clarify his position. If I understood him correctly, it seemed that he was advocating that the federal government move into the electrical power utilities in the provincial jurisdiction and impose a solution with respect to the power generated in the Atlantic community, and more particularly, the Labrador power. Is it his view that we should impose a solution?
The second question I should like to ask is whether he is advocating that the federal government impose an electrical grid on the Atlantic provinces regardless of what the feelings of the provincial premiers might be.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, obviously I did not get the message through to the minister, or he was not listening. What I am saying is that the Government of Canada should provide some leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I suggest that the federal government should develop an energy inventory of the region, and in the light of that energy inventory assess what the needs of the region are and then work that out in the context of a regional power grid, which the five first ministers are advocating at the present time.
In reply to the minister's second point with respect to federal government involvement in what is essentially a
May 4, 1976

provincial jurisdiction, the minister could provide the same kind of leadership which was provided by the Atlantic Development Board when it made substantial capital grants toward power development, not only for the Baie d'Espoir power which developed as a result of a $25 million grant, but also for the power which was developed with federal government help on the upper Saint John river. That is the kind of help we want. That is the leadership we want.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic members in the House support this motion because it seeks to draw attention to the appallingly high costs of electric power in the Atlantic provinces and the hardship which follows therefrom, and seeks to censure the government because it has not yet presented any constructive policies to meet that situation, and also because we think that this is a good opportunity to discuss some of the things which might be done to improve the lot of the people in the Atlantic provinces. There can be no doubt about the fact that hardship is being suffered in the Atlantic provinces because of high electrical rates. I keep getting letters from people in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: And Manitoba.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -
enclosing their power bills, and how they are able to pay them is beyond me. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) says "and Manitoba". I should point out that his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said in the House yesterday that Manitoba has the lowest power rates in Canada. The hon. member ought to remember that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It has still doubled up, just the same.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
hon. member wants to make a speech I will let him do so, but not on my time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can do that, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member ought to do it. He has a big voice. I should like to hear if he has anything to say.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have a lot to say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not
only have the high electrical rates caused hardship to individuals in the Atlantic provinces, but as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out this afternoon, they can have disastrous results for the economy of the Atlantic provinces. In order to be competitive today any industry must be able to get power at reasonably low cost, and I must say that I was disappointed to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) treat this matter in what I thought was a somewhat callous and offhand manner. He discussed the problem. He found fault with what everyone else had to say. He blamed almost everyone he could think of because of the plight of the Atlantic provinces, but he did not once come
Energy
up with a concrete commitment as to what the federal government is prepared to do about this situation.
If I have any criticism of the motion presented by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) it is, first, that it did not give the reasons why the Atlantic provinces are in this predicament and, second, it did not make any concrete proposals on what might be done. Let me deal with those two items briefly.
Why are the Atlantic provinces in the position where their energy costs are higher than any place else in Canada? As a matter of fact their industrial power costs are 100 per cent higher, and in comparison to some provinces they are 150 per cent higher. The dream of Cape Breton for years, for instance, has been for a steel industry but there cannot be an economically viable steel industry there unless these power rates are substantially reduced.
We are in this situation, Mr. Speaker, because there has not been a coherent energy policy in Canada. I was interested to notice in this morning's paper that the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario said that yesterday in the Ontario legislature.


Mr. Woolliams:: He has to say something.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
federal government has never come up with an over-all, integrated energy policy. We did have an oil policy which the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced in 1961 following the report of the Borden commission. That oil policy was a disaster. It was based on the assumption that we had unlimited supplies of oil and gas and could afford to sell 60 per cent of our production to the United States, without any thought that we had less resources than the United States and that our resources were dwindling very rapidly. That was carried on by the successor government of Mr. Pearson, and under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the government has constantly refused to face up to the realities of the energy situation in Canada.
In 1969 the report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources claimed that by 1990 we would not only be able to meet our own oil needs but also to export four million barrels of oil per day. By 1973 they have modified that somewhat and said we would be self-sufficient by 1985. Last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources brought in his so-called self-reliance program, in which he said that by 1985 we will be importing one third of our oil requirements. That statement is not quite accurate, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the figures in the report it is much higher than one third. I suggest that by 1985 we will probably importing over 50 per cent of our oil requirements and will probably be paying in the neighbourhood of $15 per barrel for it. That is a bill of $4V4 or more, that the Canadian people will have to pay to import oil.
There has been no long term planning with respect to energy. I attended a federal-provincial conference 20 years ago at which we urged the federal government of that day to assist the provinces and to give leadership in establishing a national power grid. Because of the various time zones in Canada it would have been possible, by a national power grid, to have reduced the amount of installation for

May 4, 1976
Energy
peaking periods. That could have reduced capital costs and operating costs by about 25 per cent, and consequently reduced the cost of electric power. Some of the provinces on their own worked out arrangements on interconnection but the federal government has never put before the provinces a plan for for a national power grid such as has been done in many countries in Europe and other parts of the world.
It is distressing to look back over the last few years and realize the mistakes we have made with respect to the development of energy. The Atlantic provinces have become mainly dependent upon imported oil, which means that they will be paying ever increasing prices for it as the years go by. That means their economy will be vulnerable if at any time the OPEC countries decide to cut off supplies.
The Atlantic provinces have two major resources. They have large coal deposits, particularly in Cape Breton, and they had high potential. But they have done very little with them. Nova Scotia, which has large coal deposits, generates 62 per cent of its power from oil and only 23.5 per cent from coal. In Prince Edward Island virtually 100 per cent of their power is generated from oil. They have made very little use of the coal they have which is readily available.
With reference to hydro power, history will record with irony that the great Churchill Falls development has not benefit the consumers of Newfoundland. As the hon. member for St. John's East very properly pointed out, that power is sold to Quebec at 3 Vi mills, the most scandalously low price on this continent. What is more, Quebec has been selling some of that power on an interruptable basis to the State of New York after a mark-up of 200 per cent or 300 per cent. It is inconceivable that this great resource which could have helped the Atlantic provinces has not been used for that purpose.
The James Bay project, one of the largest in the world, is being developed in the province of Quebec and much of that power is for service to the United States. Power which was going to be used for a uranium enrichment plant is now going to be available. It will be interesting to see whether that power is also allocated to the United States at the very time the people of the Atlantic provinces need cheap electric power for hydro.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources asked the hon. member for St. John's East whether he would impose some controls on the provinces. I would point out to the minister that power cannot be exported from this country without the consent of the National Energy Board and that board is subject to policy decisions laid down by the government. If the government had wanted to make sure that the power stayed in Canada for the benefit of the people in the Atlantic provinces it could have done so if it had possessed the vision or courage to give leadership in this country with respect to power.
The result is, of course, that our energy policy has not been made here in Ottawa or by governments; in the main our energy policy has been made by powerful corporations which have used the energy resources of this country in whatever manner would bring the greatest financial return. Our quarrel with large corporations is not just that they take a higher share of the national income than they

are entitled to; our objection also is the fact that they use their economic power to make major economic decisions without any regard to the public welfare or the public interest. That is certainly why the maritime provinces face the very difficult situation they do at the present time.
What can we do to remedy this situation? First we must recognize that the day of cheap, abundant oil supplies in Canada is over. Even Middle East reserves of oil may not last more than 35 or 40 years, which is not long in the life of a society or civilization. The price of oil will rise steadily.
Foster Associates, which did the study for the Syncrude consortium, showed in their working papers that they predicate the success of the Syncrude project in the Athabasca tar sands on a price starting at $15.50 per barrel and rising to $35 per barrel within the lifetime of the plants. We can get some idea of what oil will cost in the next 35 years. Therefore we must recognize that the Atlantic provinces face economic disaster if they continue their dependence on oil as a means of generating electric power. Perhaps they will be fortunate and find oil offshore; if they do that oil will be needed to produce petroleum products for fishermen's boats, and to power tractors on farms and cars. The entire world faces a growing shortage of oil. Increasingly, oil must be diverted away from the generation of electric power.
I suggest, first, that the federal government should step in and give financial assistance, particularly to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which depend largely on oil. When the government raises the price of oil on July 1 either to $9 or $9.50 per barrel, which probably will happen, the price rise will place a tremendous burden on those two provinces.
I agree that we need lead time to fing solutions to the energy difficulties of the Atlantic provinces. That lead time can only be bought if the federal government is prepared to make large sums of money available to enable the Atlantic provinces to generate electric power for a limited time with subsidized oil. But that is not the solution. It is only a temporary expedient which will give the Government of Canada and the governments of the Atlantic provinces time in which to deal with the major difficulties.
Second, we must consider the possibility of using coal, because the development of hydro and nuclear power are longterm projects. I shall return to that in a moment. I understand that practically all power plants in the mari-times, except one, are convertible and can use either oil or coal.
This afternoon the minister mentioned the high price which would have to be paid for coal. I point out that even if the government paid a subsidy on every ton of coal used for generating electric power, the cost would be less than what the government is now paying. It will pay less than what it now pays the oil companies in order to keep the price of oil down in Canada. If you work on the ratio of four to one, that is, four barrels of oil being equivalent to one ton of coal, even if the federal government paid $10 per ton on coal to enable the Atlantic provinces to have coal cheaply for generating electric power, the government
May 4, 1976

would pay less than it now pays the oil companies. Also, there is this important side effect: It would create employment in Canada for many unemployed and boost economic growth in the Atlantic provinces; on the other hand the money we pay the oil companies simply enriches the coffers of the OPEC countries.
The government should consider making available funds to enable additional coal seams to be opened on Cape Breton Island, and consider a subsidy program, to be in place for a stated period of time, to enable electric power to be generated in the Atlantic provinces at rates lower than possible at present.
This afternoon the minister talked of difficulties with sulphur in coal. I point out that we have been using sulphur coal in many parts of Canada for years. You can extract sulphur from the coal successfully if you use scrubbers which eliminate pollution. I remind the minister that the oil we have been burning east of the Ottawa Valley, which comes from Venezuela, is sulphur oil, and we have been able to eliminate the problem of pollution. I do not think the difficulty is serious. If the coal possesses an adequate BTU content and a subsidy is paid on it, it will be possible to bring down the cost of electric power generation to a reasonable figure.
The other possibilities are hydro or tidal power. I agree with the hon. member for St. John's East that we should renegotiate the agreements governing power generated at Churchill Falls. If it wants to renegotiate these agreements, the federal government can bring to bear much power. It can force the phasing out of the export of power, if we need the power in Canada. We would do if if we were at war, and we are war, at war against poverty and the lack of opportunity available to people in the Atlantic provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
federal government should show leadership in bringing together Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, to see that some of the power being generated at James Bay can be used in the Atlantic provinces instead of going to the state of New York.
We should also keep in mind tidal power, the development of which faces snags. But it should be kept in mind as a possible source of power in the Atlantic provinces. We must also remember nuclear power. New Brunswick is already planning to produce nuclear power. It is possible that if the hydro power-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I shall take only a few moments more. I was saying that if coal thermal plants and hydro power do not meet the full energy requirements of the Atlantic provinces, nuclear power is a possibility down the road.
Energy
If we are to solve the energy problem of the Atlantic provinces we must set up an interprovincial grid. The minister asked the hon. member for St. John's East if he wanted to "impose" such a grid. I suggest that it is not necessary to talk about imposing a grid. I suggest that the federal government should sit down with the four Atlantic provinces and say, "Look, here is your situation; we can help you at present with oil, by giving financial assistance. We can help you to generate electricity by helping with coal. We can also help you to renegotiate some power contracts, but nuclear power down the road may be your ultimate answer. We are prepared not only to help you with the financing of a nuclear reactor, but with the building of an interprovincial grid". If the government were to say that, I am convinced that the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, facing the situation in which they presently find themselves, would readily comply.
I close by saying that ultimately we shall solve the energy difficulties of this country only if governments, federally and provincially, are given a greater voice in the decision-making process and are involved in long-range planning.
I agree with the minister that Petro-Canada must have an important role to play. I see one of my Tory friends shaking his head. I want to say to him that if there is any group of people in this House or in this country who ought to recognize the need for public intervention in the development of energy, it is the Conservative party. The man who piloted this whole idea was Sir Adam Beck who, when he set up Ontario Hydro which has produced one of the greatest power systems on this continent, did it with the slogan "The gifts of nature belong to the people". That is still true. Whether it is coal, gas, oil, hydro or nuclear power, these belong to the people. This government and the provincial governments have a responsibility to see that the gifts of the people are developed for the benefit of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the hon. member's time has expired, Mr. Speaker, but if the House agrees I would like to ask him a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The distinguished member has always been most fair. He was quite critical of the national oil policy of 1962. I think he will agree with me that Saskatchewan and Alberta oil was brought to the Ottawa Valley. We exported to the western United States exactly what we imported from Venezuela. The reason was that the mari-times and Quebec could buy it cheaper in that fashion and we could export it to the United States in an equal amount; both exports and imports being equal so that we were self sufficient. That is the real reason the national oil policy was developed under the Diefenbaker government. We were exporting equal to the amount we were importing because it was cheaper for the maritimes and Quebec to do it in that fashion. That was the reason for the national oil policy which the Liberal party continued and which they endorsed. I hope the hon. member will be fair in that regard.

May 4, 1976
Energy


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair. However, I point out to the hon. member two things. First, his figures are wrong. The amount of oil which we imported was much less than we exported. We imported around 750,000 to 800,000 barrels a day and exported anywhere from 1.2 million to 1.5 million barrels a day. We exported almost twice as much as we imported.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It depends on what year you take.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You
can take it over the average of years and you get the same answer. Second, by making all of the area east of the Ottawa Valley dependent on imported oil we left that area in a very vulnerable position, and the people of the Atlantic provinces are paying the price today. Incidentally I came to Ottawa with the Independent Petroleum Producers Association of Canada to plead with the government at that time to extend the pipeline to eastern Canada to keep our oil in Canada so that we would be self sufficient against the day we would not be able to get imported oil at reasonable prices.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: At last, Mr. Speaker, at long last someone else besides the federal government has recognized that there is an energy crisis in this country. The day of cheap energy is gone. The House, indeed the whole country, owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). However, it is unfortunate that his flash of brilliance did not continue into the second half of his motion where he failed to present some solution to the problem.
The motion under debate, Mr. Speaker, represents another attempt by the opposition to have the federal government come to the rescue because a provincial government has been unable to manage its own affairs. They would have us believe that the skyrocketing price of energy has come as a complete surprise, when in fact the handwriting has been on the wall for at least the last two and a half years.
As has already been pointed out, the responsibility for electrical power generation rests with the provincial governments. It was the provincial governments which decided to burn oil to produce electricity. Security of supply was of less importance than low price in the decision to rely on foreign imports rather than western Canadian crude oil.
While the dramatic price increases which resulted from the actions of the OPEC members could not have been foreseen, the possibility of such action taking place always existed and therefore should have been allowed for. The Atlantic provinces are now paying the price for having chosen the wrong long term option. If the hon. members opposite choose to see a statement of fact as representing a callous attitude, then they are unduly sensitive. The free enterprise system, which they admonish us not to destroy, rewards those who make the right decision and penalizes those who are wrong. Surely no one who loses money in the stock market expects to be bailed out.
The federal government is being asked to bail out the Atlantic provinces now that they are faced with a serious situation. The opposition fails to recognize, however, the fact that the federal government has initiated, during the

last two decades, a number of endeavours designed to provide that region with a stable and affordable source of electrical energy.
These have included loans under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act totalling $225 million, grants of over $3 million to study the possibilities of tidal power, a loan of $350 million for the Point Lepreau nuclear plant, a grant toward the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia interconnection of $4 million, and a loan and grant totalling $27 million toward the P.E.I. interconnection with New Brunswick. As well, the federal government has contributed $120 million in oil import compensation for the production of electricity. Over-all financial assistance totals more than $1.2 billion.
In a further attempt to stabilize the price of electricity the federal government has pressed the maritime provinces since 1972 to co-operate in an inter-provincial grid and has offered funds to support the establishment of such a network. Another product of federal initiative, Petro-Canada, plans to devote $25 million or 25 per cent of its exploration budget over the next five years to exploration for oil and gas on the east coast. Until the discovery and development of significant reserves, though, the maritime provinces, and especially Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, will have to rely on existing energy sources. It will be several years before any alternative sources become available.
Considering Nova Scotia's abundant coal supply it would appear logical to devote a larger amount of that fuel to electricity production in order to decrease reliance on oil. However, this does not provide a short term solution. Problems are encountered in transportation, including the need for sea rather than rail transport, and the upgrading of port facilities. The process of converting generating plants from oil to coal burning would be expensive both in time and money. Problems of air pollution from the high sulphur content coal must also be considered. It may be reasonably assumed that a three to five year lead time would be required before the use of coal would alleviate the problems currently being experienced. As world oil prices continue to rise, coal will look increasingly more attractive. At present the price of coal is tied to the price of oil, but there is no reason why that policy must be continued indefinitely.
Nuclear energy holds the answer to future requirements in the maritimes, but reactors cannot be built overnight. This is where the need for responsible long-term planning becomes very evident. Nova Scotia Light and Power has had an agreement with Imperial Oil Limited since January 1, 1970, and running to December 31 of this year, whereby the utility is guaranteed its fuel requirements at $1.75 per barrel-the cheapest oil in the world right now. Surely it did not take until 1976 for the province to realize that it was in a very favourable position because of that contract.
When it became clear that petroleum prices were rising, steps should have been taken immediately to prevent the situation now facing the population of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) demonstrated, the price of electricity remained constant in Nova Scotia from 1958 to 1974 while the cost of all other goods and services continued to rise. The province had a responsibility throughout that period to explore possible alternate energy forms,
May 4, 1976

especially after the OPEC oil price increase in October, 1973.
Although the outlook for the future appears dismal when one considers the lack of substitute energy forms, there is one very worth-while step that not only can but must be taken now, that is, to increase public awareness of the need to conserve energy. Every incentive must be offered to encourage a more responsible use of our energy resources. Unfortunately increased cost has proven to be the most effective incentive.
Significant increments in supply can be realized by lowering thermostats a few degrees and driving our cars only when really necessary, and then at lower speeds and with more efficient engines. Conservation is a priority before we begin to discuss new sources of energy to replace those we are using up at an unsustainable rate. Conservation is now. It is the immediate solution which will buy time until the other solutions can be implemented.
Hopefully it is becoming apparent to all Canadians that the federal government is not an endless source of funds ready to save publicly-funded enterprises or other governments within Canada from the excesses of poor management. Whether we are discussing electricity rates in the Atlantic provinces or the cost of the Olympic Games, the same problem emerges. The government has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that their money is used in a responsible manner.
The hon. member for Don Valley wants more money for research and development. I entirely agree. It is one of the things I have been stressing for some time. But we cannot complain; in this time of restraint and budget cutting the government recently announced an increase of $9.7 million in funds available for energy research and development. This indicates how high a priority the government places on this line of endeavour. I understand, too, the provision of additional funds is presently under consideration in connection with the fusion program.
The hon. member wanted the government to change its priorities. He did not elaborate on that theme, but I would be very interested to hear what his priorities happen to be and how they happen to differ from those set out in government policy which are almost identical to what was suggested almost a year ago by the Science Council, an independent group to which the best brains in the country contribute. What does the hon. member or his party know that the best talent in the country doesn't?
As indicated both by government policy and by the conclusions of the Science Council, in the short term, conservation will buy us time and reduce demand. We will increase supply in the short term by using coal and nuclear fission. No new technology is needed in these fields; it is a matter of implementing what we already have. In the intermediate term, the oil and gas resources of the tar sands, the Arctic and the Atlantic offshore regions should be brought to the market place. In the long term, solar energy and energy from fusion should be the largest suppliers of our energy needs, but this will not be until the end of the present century. Energy produced as a result of novel techniques; e.g. wind, biomass, geothermal and tidal
Energy
sources will not make any significant contribution until the end of the century.
The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) proposed the early use of tidal energy. He mentioned the several studies which have been carried out in this connection. Studies have certainly been made, but their conclusion is that it is not economic to proceed with such projects at the present time. Even if a decision were made to begin such a scheme today it would be many years before we could expect energy to be derived from that source.
The hon. member for Moncton also commented on insulation standards in his province. I happen to know that in his own riding there is an insulation factory under construction right now but the project has been delayed for many months because there has been no increased demand for insulation in that part of the country. The standards may exist but they are certainly not being implemented. Conservation is for now. Now is the time to save energy while we bring more energy on stream to supply our future needs.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down will be happy reading for Mr. Regan, the Premier of Nova Scotia, as an indication of the tremendous support his Liberal allies are giving to his province. It might have come from the back benches but that speech was applauded by everyone on the Liberal side. It was prepared and, we must assume, researched prior to delivery. It was not an off-the-cuff statement. It was Liberal policy and must be considered as such in view of the way in which it was presented.
The hon. member mentioned energy from wind. I do not want to speak in a derogatory way about anyone who advocates the conservation of energy or the exploitation of new forms of energy, but it might be of interest to the hon. member to learn that wind energy is so important in the Atlantic area that when a meeting connected with the preservation of the environment was held last week in New Brunswick they tried to run their PA system by means of batteries charged by a wind-driven generator. Their meeting was constantly interrupted because the fan failed to run; it did not generate any energy, the batteries ran down. That sort of situation, I suppose, is one to which he would relegate the Atlantic region. It is typical of Liberal party policy, historically and traditionally, to take that kind of position as their supporters look eastward.


J. Michael Forrestall: Exactly so. It reminds me of what Mackenzie King said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has the floor. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech he can make it later on.


Fred Alward McCain: My hon. friend may be disturbing, but at least he has his feet on the ground and he has some knowledge of the requirements of the Atlantic provinces. He is therefore far ahead of some of those on your right, Mr. Speaker.
I suppose we might go to biomass as was suggested by the last speaker, but this is an alternative which has not

May 4, 1976
Energy
been researched by the Research Council; the process has not been developed in practical terms even for individual farm use. It is certainly worthy of research, and indeed one member on this side of the House has been promoting this suggestions for years-it has fallen on deaf ears until tonight, and now it becomes a practical source of energy which the Atlantic area ought to consider.
There is no question that we should consider conservation. It is a must. But up to this moment there has been very little concrete policy to indicate that the government itself is promoting research in this direction. Have we researched a new carburetor? Have we researched a new motor? Have we researched anything in this field which has become commercially viable? Not to date.
In the speech we just heard, we were called gamblers. I would point out that the Atlantic area and New Brunswick in particular have gone far ahead of some of the ideas which have been presented today. We have tried nuclear power but we were delayed by red tape for years. We have tried to take advantage of the need to refine offshore oil but we were denied this opportunity as a result of National Energy Board policy which refused to allow the refining and processing to go to the Atlantic area.
I think it is high time that we took a solid look at the Atlantic area. We have been given a couple of little books lately. I have not read them word for word, but I have studied them and I have asked others about them. I am told that the Atlantic provinces are not mentioned by name in these books anywhere. I have in my hand a news release which followed the tabling of these books and their presentation for public consumption. The Atlantic provinces are not referred to as a problem area in this news release. One must assume that the Atlantic provinces, in the mind of the government today, have no energy problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have a study by the government that indicates that we must have self-reliance. This means reducing the vulnerability of Canadians to arbitrary changes in prices or the supply of imported energy by using domestic resources to the greatest extent possible, and protecting against interruptions in the supply of energy we must import. And, Mr. Speaker, we must import energy in the east. According to the study, a strategy of self-reliance does not mean self-sufficiency at any price unless, I might add, Mr. Speaker, it is for the maritimes.
We are going to reduce net Canadian dependence on imported oil in 1985 to one third of our total oil demands. Economists are predicting that this target will bankrupt us before we reach 1985, not only in the Atlantic area but in Canada as a whole. The next 10 to 15 years are crucial for both the short-term and long-term energy future.
Let me examine the situation in the Atlantic area. For example, let me talk about our residential energy. I would ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat to take what I propose to say into consideration. He should take some lessons from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who, though I disagree with him philosophically, has objectives that are admirable and much preferable to those on your right, Mr. Speaker. He has made a study of his subject and he knows what he

is talking about. He was a credit to himself and he spoke as a supporter of a total over-all policy for the good of all Canada. He was not accusing anyone; he was merely pointing out the problems.
While the east has been experiencing energy shortages that could have been anticipated, the Government of Canada has been saying that oil in Alberta belongs to Alberta, that oil in Saskatchewan belongs to Saskatchewan, but that oil lying offshore in the Atlantic area belongs to Canada. The manipulation of offshore permits for drilling has been such that drilling has been discouraged. Those who have had the courage to drill have had to apply both provincially and federally, not knowing the regulations that the federal government would impose. I submit that the search for and development of energy off our coasts has been set back by at least ten years as a result of negative and controversial policies. Ask some of the responsible premiers of the Atlantic area what their opinion is.


Mr. Breau:: That is nonsense.


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member had better check with some of his political friends down there.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, when I am through. I should like to plead for one other position, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. The Atlantic premiers should at this time recognize the fact that, regardless of their political faith, their prime loyalty must be to the Atlantic area and to each other. The members of the Atlantic legislatures must recognize that in unity there is strength and in discord there is weakness. We have operated from a position of weakness for too many years. There are not many seats in the Atlantic area but there are enough to change a government. It is high time they recognized, as the west has already recognized, that there is no sympathy from those on your right, Mr. Speaker, for people in need anywhere in Canada, whether they be native people, maritimers or northerners. The needs of Quebec and Ontario are prime in the minds of those to Your Honour's right. The Atlantic premiers must recognize this and act as one. There have been too many quarrels among the premiers to have a united policy.
The Hon. Jugh John Flemming, a Conservative, started the maritime and Atlantic premiers get togethers. The next premier of New Brunswick practised politics and caused dissension to the point that unity could not be obtained among the premiers of the Atlantic area. He played politics with this crew of which the hon. member is a member and for which he must assume some blame.
We now find ourselves in the position where the Hon. Richard Hatfield, a Conservative, is pleading with the maritime premiers to take a united position, and the only thing interfering with that position is politics. It is becoming more and more obvious to maritimers at this time that the policies proposed and the united position won by Premier Richard Hatfield are indicative of the course they must follow if they are to survive remarks of the kind we have heard a moment ago which will, by the way, be widely read as Liberal policy in the Atlantic area. We will like that speech very much.
May 4, 1976

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does the government propose that the pulp and paper industry use as money? On the basis of the cost of energy in the province of Nova Scotia, which is dependent upon oil, on the basis of the cost of energy required in New Brunswick which is derived from a combination of oil, nuclear and water power, which is still not competitive when related to the cost of power which is being distributed from Churchill Falls to Quebec, Ontario, and in a small way to New Brunswick, and on the basis of the cost of power located beside coalfields of almost limitless extent in the prairies and in British Columbia, how, is it proposed to keep the forest industry and its pulp and paper mills working?
I also ask, Mr. Speaker, how do those on your right expect a mining industry to survive which at the moment is dependent, not because of poor planning but because it has no alternative, on a thermal plant located in the northeast of New Brunswick to provide its power? How will it remain competitive? I suggest it will be among the earliest industries in the mining areas of Canada to close down if it becomes a marginal producer, and there will go the jobs that so many have pleaded so hard for in the northeast. Where will we get the money to pay for energy to operate farm machinery in the Atlantic area?
I suppose it is ridiculous to say that at some point we must pay a higher price for oil. But let me get one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker. The money that comes from higher prices for oil must be spent on research, exploration, and development. It must not be grabbed by the Government of Canada fallaciously under some policy that is intended, to better Canada. We must step up all aspects of our energy structure, including conservation, but research, exploration, and development are essential. Those are the areas in which our money should be spent regardless of what may be the philosophy of those on my left and of many on Your Honour's right.


An hon. Member:: That is all spelled out in the energy paper.


Fred Alward McCain: It is also spelled out in one of these little books that the tax structure has discouraged research, exploration and development. It is also spelled out in another of these little books that the tax structure has now been corrected. That statement has to be qualified and you have to go into the situation a little more deeply to see how much incentive is actually left. Mention is made somewhere that if you do not spend this money correctly you will not have very much of it left, perhaps 25 per cent. The government lays down rules and regulations governing how any additional money accruing to the oil companies may be spent. Those regulations are fickle; we have seen that throughout various years of government opposite.
I think it is absolutely necessary that the Government of Canada adopt some policies in the energy field. One of its proposals is to pay 50 per cent of the cost of studying new sources of generation. Another is to finance 50 per cent of a distribution line, and the government might finance 50 per cent of a construction program. The figures read off by the last speaker did not amount to the $300 million that was put into one project by the federal government, namely, Syncrude, which admittedly will produce oil but at a price that will make it uneconomic to transport to any other area
Energy
of Canada. That oil must be used on the spot or nearby if it is to be used practically and economically.
The amount of moneys the government has said will be spent in the Atlantic area comes to just a little bit more than what the government has chosen to spend in one lump sum on the Syncrude project. I do not quarrel with putting money into the Syncrude project. It could come virtually under the heading of research, if you wish, Mr. Speaker, because some element of research is required. But I submit that a new look must be taken at undeveloped sources of energy.
Should we look at a new way to extract coal from the Nova Scotia fields? Should there be a new, more productive and more economic way of extracting such coal as may be left in New Brunswick? Should it be the development of existing hydro power which may be in neighbouring provinces but which might be the salvation of energy prices in the Atlantic area? Should it be the removal of restrictions with respect to exploration offshore, thus removing the uncertainty of knowing where I stand if I find oil? To whom will I pay the tax, the federal government or the provincial government? Who will let me remove it, the federal government or the provincial government? What is the conflict that exists?
Are we in the position in which Premier Moore says we are? "It is all mine", says Premier Moore, and I support him. Or are we in the compromise position of Mr. Regan who says "We will let you have some"? These are items which will have to be resolved and these are uncertainties which must be resolved.
It is time that Quoddy power was developed. Reasons were given why it was economically unfeasible. One of the reasons was that there was no sale for the total possible production of the tidal power which might be generated in the Bay of Fundy. This has been an ongoing piece of research which has been continued since the 1920's by U.S. forces. An application was presented to the Government of Canada for permission to go ahead in the late 1900's, and it was presented by a constituent of mine who was their lawyer. It was not considered feasible by Canadians, although it was by Americans, but we never resolved that dispute because we did no research into it. We know there has been some problem with respect to the economics of it and that it was not economical initially.
We now have the techniques; we know that at the present prices it is probably viable. It should now be immediately researched and, if necessary, the Government of Canada should finance the development. It should not subsidize it but I think it should finance it and operate it if it so wishes-that is the government's privilege-and the energy should be available for the Atlantic area. Initially some of it would have to be exported because the market is not at home.
We have alternatives. We have a broad range of interprovincial, federal, co-operative programs which could bring power electrically from other sources. We have coal, although we need more research on it; we have Quoddy power, which should be researched. We need an immediate answer, not a commission which would start its study in 1976 and report only in 1979. Now is the time when the

May 4, 1976
Energy
research needs to be done. We have an industry which will not be competitive with Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or any other part of Canada or with world-wide competitors if we do not get some kind of rational federal program to give us energy at competitive prices, which we cannot have now.


Herb Breau: Would the hon. member entertain a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not the decision of the hon. member because his time has expired. The only way in which he can answer a question is by unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies)-


Fred Alward McCain: You have had your chance to speak for New Brunswick. You have been in the House for a long time but you have not spoken for New Brunswick yet.


Herb Breau: I am on the list.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my gratitude and extend my thanks to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who introduced that motion which in my opinion deserves very special consideration.
There is no doubt that the prospection for traditional oil resources has decreased more quickly than expected by the National Energy Board. Just the same the federal government must meet as much as possible the energy requirements of Canada with our own resources.
In that connection, on April 27 last, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) tabled in the House a paper entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada". To that end the federal government is considering making Canada self-sufficient in energy within the next ten years. However, Mr. Speaker, I remember quite well that three years ago, that is in June 1973, the present government published a paper on its energy policy which was to make Canada self-sufficient by approximately 1983. And barely three years later after that publication, we were told once again that Canada will be self-sufficient only in 1986.
It is therefore easy to realize that the ten-year goal set by the Canadian government has deteriorated from year to year. On several occasions I asked for the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to discuss some measures the federal government had to bring in to save energy as much as possible. As usual, my proposals did not receive unanimous consent. Among some motions that I wanted to move, there was one to maintain daylight saving time throughout the year.

I am convinced that this measure would enable the federal government to save thousands of barrels of oil, not to mention electricity. All that is needed is to recall the experiment conducted in the United States in 1973, which proved to be very conclusive when one considers the saving of energy that was realized, that is 2.5 per cent. Moreover, we have ready access to wind energy which appears as a replacement formula, specially for a country like ours where the winter season limits the possibilities of solar energy.
Mr. Speaker, since the days of cheap oil are over and those of oil itself are numbered, why should we not take advantage of the energy potential of the wind which is really tremendous in our beautiful country?
Mr. Speaker, what I find really curious in all this is to see that the federal government does not yet have real means to assess scientifically the Canadian oil and gas supplies which it has up to now consistently overestimated. We, in the Social Credit party of Canada, deeply feel that this government should establish, with the consent and the participation of the provinces, a Canadian energy resources board. That board would be responsible for the assessment of the energy requirements for the next 25 years and the availability of adequate supplies to meet those requirements. For the moment, as I was saying a while ago, our energy resources cannot be scientifically assessed, yet it would be really urgent to see that our energy resources be rightly assessed, given the fact that we consume much oil and that this energy source is not renewable.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) also announced that the price of Canadian oil would move up to the level of the world price. But one way or another, it was to be expected, considering that the present government has always lacked foresight, as far as I can remember. Because of the inability of the government to develop an efficient energy strategy, Canadian taxpayers will pay even more for oil.
There is no doubt that a real policy cannot be separated from a global economic policy. Now, as was foreseeable, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announces sharp increases in oil and gas prices. But before announcing such increases, did the government realize that they would have a direct impact on inflation in Canada, that this so-called energy policy is working directly against the price and wage control policy of the Trudeau government? In this document, the minister invites taxpayers to save energy, oil in particular, when the policy of the Department of Transport encourages air rather than rail transportation. Is there anything to understand in all this, Mr. Speaker? I, for one, cannot understand. It is inconsistent to the point of being staggering.
Under those circumstances, one may consider, Mr. Speaker, that Canada stands at a crossroads where not only the future of its oil industry but of its whole economy is at stake. May we seriously continue to produce enough oil from Canadian sources to satisfy domestic demand or must we become increasingly dependent on foreign oil as we are at present?
We all know that huge oil and natural gas supplies have
been discovered in the Arctic and that we now have the
technology required to develop oil from tar sands in super-
May 4, 1976

ficial fields and at the same time process it into thick oil. Indeed, our great country has huge potential supplies of crude oil and natural gas. It also has limitless coal supplies that can be processed into gas or synthetic oil, but in order to really develop new sources of hydrocarbons in Canada, the Canadian government must spend over $50 billion to achieve the goal it has set for 1986.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful to recall that as a whole, less than $9 billion have been spent these past few years on exploration and development. And what about inflation of construction costs which increase by 40 to 50 per cent each year, a problem which is becoming more and more serious?
Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic, our economic policy is such as to continously promote an increase in capital at the expense of the work and purchasing power of our fellow citizens. At any rate, one can easily realize that with our present laws, the rich are making net profits of millions of dollars, the effect of which is to substantially reduce the purchasing power of Canadians.
Those who suffer most from this situation, Mr. Speaker, are low wage earners and those citizens who do not have a sufficient purchasing power, simply because the present financial system does not reflect the reality. As a matter of fact, the present system finds no justification in the nature of things and perpetuates a wrong conception of money in a human society.
Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an article published in "Le Soleil" on March 25:
Through interest rates, a huge financial spider-web surrounds us and becomes tighter, leaving us just alive ... or nearly so.
As it snowballs, interest accumulates and centralizes money in the hands of a select group of financiers ... On the other hand, being hunted down from all sides, the small people are divided against themselves, abandoned and exploited by their leaders who are eager to get rich, they are left at the mercy of these loathsome heartless financiers in top hats; they have no revolver but from their ivory tower they are more efficient than the armed forces in making us accept smoothly a way of life which is impossible, disgusting, even revolting and which does not take human values into account, in which money prevails.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the present financial system prevents consumers from really living. It prevents them from enjoying the advantages of their association because it eradicates these advantages which should belong to all citizens; if Canadians are to take real advantage of the fruits of their association, it is absolutely necessary to put financial credit in line with real credit or social credit, if you wish. In other words, we should be putting money and credit in line with what Canadians produce and supply.
A little further, the same article went on to say:
These financiers represented by chartered banks, ably disguised by the Bank of Canada which makes only pocket money with 8 per cent of the money supply of the country, while they are making the rest-92 per cent of the nation's credit.
It must be said that a country should not buy money: it should create it itself so as not to owe it to anyone else. That is strictly a sovereign right, that belongs to the state. In other words, a government cannot administer a country if it continues to buy money abroad, thus distorting and disrupting the economy.
With multipliers, single strokes of the pen, chartered banks convert the wealth of the country into money and unjustly cash in interests in the process. They take over
Energy
our wealth, become the masters, the tyrants from whom we must ask permission to draw a breath. Nothing will change, Mr. Speaker, unless we have the courage to ask the government to alter this importing monetary system, to which we owe directly the hardships of most Canadians and the ceaseless borrowing and indebtedness of our municipalities, the provinces and the central government.
If the Maritime provinces better controlled their money, today we would not have to deplore their shortage of energy, and especially, the price those people now have to pay for their energy and will have to pay in the future for heating and transportation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the main source of energy our government should put at the disposal of the people; in that way, many other energy problems would be solved automatically. Mr. Speaker, those are the few notes I took with a view to supporting the motion of the hon. member for Don Valley.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise on this opposition day and contribute my views on the problem of the Atlantic region energy crisis. First of all I should like to congratulate the minister for "An Energy Strategy for Canada."


Mr. Paproski:: You don't mean that.


Coline M. Campbell: It is certainly full of good suggestions for the provinces to take up. Energy is not just a problem in the Atlantic provinces and in particular Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; in Canada it has become a very grave problem. Internally we hear rumours of disputes between the provinces, and internationally the United States has still not forgiven us for cutting back our oil exports. Other countries are also finding things difficult.
The problem has been recognized by the government which has held many federal-provincial meetings, the most recent in March this year, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intends to meet with provincial premiers on Thursday when I am sure this will be one of the main topics to be discussed.
The provincial minister in my province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Bill Gillis, spent a good part of his Easter recess touring Canada to look at existing energy systems and the long range potential to serve the needs of the people and to bring the problems of Nova Scotia to the attention of all Canadians.
Governments, both federal and provincial, are working toward solutions. It just happens that we are a big country. Many areas in the world are in worse shape than we are and we hear about that, but when one area of Canada is in trouble, such as Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia, it seems that the rest of Canada does not recognize the dilemma. In fact New Brunswick is not too eager to look at the interprovincial grid lines and other systems.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Coline M. Campbell: Well, we cannot arrive at a solution. I just mention that for members of the opposition. Is it unreasonable to say at this time, perhaps Nova Scotia is in

May 4, 1976
Energy
trouble but the solution we obtain for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island should help all the provinces as well as Canada? It is time for us to forget our regionalism in the light of such a problem. We as a province enjoyed having access to the cheap oil producing countries, therefore we did not get subsidies on pipelines or on oil and gas production in the west. We do not have gas piped to us on the trans-Canada pipeline and we do not have oil pipelines. In fact, we do not have any oil. Unfortunately we are at present in need of some attention from both the federal and provincial governments across Canada and priority should be given to us by other provinces at this time for our future plans.
Nova Scotia depends on oil-fired electricity generation for 65 per cent of its needs, with an additional 23 per cent being supplied by coal-fired generation. The rest is in water. In the search for a form of power to reduce the province's dependence on oil the Nova Scotia Power Corporation is looking very closely at the coal situation. As has been mentioned today, the use of coal might well offer an offset to oil costs since most thermal plants could be modified to switch from oil to coal. Before this happens, however, the coal-which is currently hitched to the cost of oil-would have to be made attractive in price. Again, coal generated power is not the long term solution-even though Nova Scotia holds good coals reserves-as pollution and environmental problems become magnified. At present, however, an accrued benefit is that incomes are circulating throughout the province. As well, the province has stated that any further expansion will be coal generated.
What are the alternatives? Perhaps tidal power development and the possible importation of power from Quebec and Labrador, but both projects would take many years to materialize.
At this time I should like to refer to an article, "Energy by Fundy Tides," by R. H. Clark, which appeared in the Canadian Geographical Journal of Novemeber, 1972. Clark stated that the one and only area in Canada and in fact in North America where it is feasible to harness tide waters for energy purposes is in the Bay of Fundy. The world's most powerful tides are experienced in the inlets and estuaries of the Bay of Fundy. We also have the highest tides in the world, achieving up to 53 foot tides. Many locations have been indicated as ideal in the Bay of Fundy. Studies of tidal power have been going on since 1915. In 1967 the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board was established to deal with the study. It cost $2.5 million when it was finished in 1969. It reiterated former studies, that is, a tidal power development is technically but not economically feasible.
Because of the quadrupling in oil prices brought about by the formation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), however, the federal government, along with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, instituted the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board on February 29, 1972. This board was charged with reviewing the detailed findings of the report done by the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board. The preliminary investigations of the Tidal Power Review Board were made public in November, 1974, in which it was noted that tidal power's economic position had significantly improved, vis-a-vis oil-fired

electrical generation, since 1969. I wonder what the position would be today if updated.
The latest study, as recommended by the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Board, was announced in November, 1974. To be known as the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study, it is to cost some $3 million and will again be sponsored by the federal government, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia- with the federal government putting up half the funds for the investigation. Nova Scotia, which is more affected by oil price increases than New Brunswick and is thus vitally interested in tidal power development, has been concerned for quick advancement of the study. Its purpose is to make a more in-depth study of certain areas. In my view the Annapolis Basin or Digby, which are not being studied at this time, would probably be prime locations because there are no mud deposits as there are up higher. Mud seems to be one of the problems in establishing tidal power.
In the case of tidal power, if construction commenced in 1980-after completion of the current study ended-it would still take ten years to 1990 before first power was produced-and this is assuming all schedules were met and no technical drawbacks were encountered.
The first, and to date only, operating industrial scale tidal power project in the world is a double flow turbine plant located at Ranee near St. Malo in France. It cost $80 million to build approximately ten years ago. Great Britain is now looking at that project and France is also looking at it.
I should like to read from a very interesting article entitled "Fringe Energy" which appeared in The Economist of March 27. Under the subheading "Water" the article states:
On the Ranee estuary in France, the first major effort to harness tides to generate electricity is seven years old and has proven a greater success than expected. It is said to generate electricity more efficiently than other hydro electric sites and has worked at virtually full capacity since 1973 without failure. There is now talk of a second French tidal plant, but a decision is still far off.
Britain is still flirting with the idea of tapping Channel tides for electricity, but drawn-out discussions on the Severn estuary tidal barrage are continuing. The chief drawbacks to tidal projects are the costs. The Severn project could eventually cost much more than the estimated $3 billion.
I bring this point up because one of the assets of tidal is that it is not exhaustible, unless the tides go out and do not come back.


Alastair William Gillespie: That would be lunar power.


Coline M. Campbell: I do not profess to be a scientist. I merely want to compare the $3 billion estimated cost with the $10 billion the federal government plans to invest in the exploration and the development of unknown areas. That is how much we shall spend in the next ten years in our search for oil and gas.
Perhaps Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other provinces should bring this matter up at some provincial conference. The $10 billion figure does not take into account the subsidized cost of oil and the need for subsidized oil in future. Actually by mid-summer this year the subsidy for the Atlantic provinces will amount to about $1 billion.
May 4, 1976

The Point Lepreau nuclear project was estimated to cost between $400 and $500 million. It will be in full operation in six to ten years. But my sources tell me that the estimated cost is now $700 million. Further, nuclear power is an exhaustible source of energy, and the costs will probably be much higher than estimated. Tidal power is not exhaustible, as I said. The Atlantic provinces should consider as a priority the development of tidal power, and perhaps bring up the subject at the next federal-provincial conference.
An alternative solution is to import power from outside Nova Scotia, for example, from Quebec or Labrador. But we have no interprovincial flow of power. For instance, power cannot be transmitted interprovincially as crude oil and gas can be through an interprovincial pipeline.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not think the present speaker who has the floor wishes to be inaccurate, but I submit that there is provision for a power interconnection. It is being constantly extended in New Brunswick. It was pioneered in New Brunswick and is hooked up to Nova Scotia. It can bring power from Churchill Falls to Nova Scotia.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member has his sources of information, and I have mine. I do not see evidence of any existing interprovincial flow of energy which could reach Gull Island.


Fred Alward McCain: There is provision for transmitting power right now from Churchill Falls to Halifax. The system is in place now.


Coline M. Campbell: I understand that New Brunswick and Quebec will not allow us to be involved in this. I understand, for instance, that the project at Gull Island could go ahead if it has markets, but there is no interprovincial grid to carry the energy, as there is in the case of interprovincial gas.


Fred Alward McCain: Nonsense.


Coline M. Campbell: I ask, should this not be a national priority? As an aside let me say that perhaps Atlantic union would bring one benefit. We should not triple expenditures in the Atlantic provinces and most of our provincial problems would be done away with if there were one system in the Atlantic provinces for carrying energy. I say that as an aside. That should not prevent the National Energy Board from becoming involved with the question of the interprovincial flow of energy. This has already been done in the case of oil and gas.
I think that we should look beyond the interest of the provinces and consider questions of national importance. Under the Churchill Falls agreement Newfoundland perhaps is not receiving as much as it should. When the time of the agreement runs out, Quebec will be the sole bidder for that power. I suggest that no province except Quebec will be in the position to bid for the power.
That brings me to another point. In the last few years in Canada we have seen cartels arise in the west and cartels arise in the east. Nationalism goes out of the door when one begins to think in terms of provincial priorities rather
Energy
than national priorities. I feel that the provinces should be entering into arrangements and taking advantage of the federal government's new energy strategy for Canada. They should consider energy self-reliance within 10 years. But their endeavours should be directed to new areas.
I return again to tidal power. Tidal power is not new, as it has worked at Ranee, and other countries are looking into its effectiveness as an endless source of energy. Let the province consider this source of energy. At present we are heading into unchartered areas. We are entering unknown areas. For example, we do not know how much oil and gas we will find; what is the lifetime of nuclear power, and what is the cost of coal and the cost of delivery.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) said that in the next ten years we shall spend more than $10 billion in 1975 dollars on exploration and development with regard to oil and gas. So, why not consider tidal power? It is proven and certainly an inexhaustible source. We could consider this possibility without lessening our search for oil and gas.
Perhaps the provinces should strongly stress conservation measures at this time. The insulation of homes should become a priority and there is need, for a scheme which will involve an incentive to individuals, perhaps with easy financing. No doubt we could lower room temperatures without any of us being hurt. The short term elements of saving will be in the conservation area, and we will be looking at coal-generating power. But let us not think that Nova Scotia is unique, and that other areas will not be looking at the example we set. I feel that the provinces should take advantage of the schemes laid out in "An Energy Strategy for Canada", particularly at page 28 where it is said that:
The Government of Canada will continue its policy of funding 50 per cent of approved studies of interprovincial and interregional electrical interconnections, and financing up to 50 per cent of the capital cost of approved projects. In view of the objective of minimizing Canadian dependence on imported oil, the federal government believes that the development of regional electrical interconnections, particularly in eastern Canada, should be accelerated.
I	see that it is almost ten o'clock. I look forward to greater consideration by all provinces of what I consider a national issue and I do hope that the best solution will be achieved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section
II	of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1976
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote three paragraphs out of the 1975 annual report by the Dupont of Canada Company Ltd:
The net sales amounted to $410,219,000, that is an 11 per cent increase over 1974, which is mainly attributable to higher prices to the consumer.
The net profit in 1975, including extraordinary items, reached $2,419,000 or 28 cents per ordinary share, compared to $21,491,000, or $2.70 per ordinary share in 1974.
Construction works on the latest of the company buildings, the Coteau plant, near Montreal, have progressed at a satisfactory pace in 1975, and the operation of the facilities for Dacron polyester yarn is expected in late 1976.

In the letter which the Dupont Company addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commence (Mr. Jamieson) on March 26 of this year they point out that the present position of the polyester yarn industry has arisen for two reasons. First, imports of garments, fabrics, and yarns have pre-empted over 50 per cent of this market. The nature and the extent of these imports has caused major problems for the industry. Some are from low cost countries, some are normal competition from developed countries, and some are distress priced imports from developed countries. In total they have risen from about 25 million pounds in 1970 to over 50 million pounds in 1975.
This situation was exacerbated by a sudden market slowdown in the U.S. yarn market in January which has led to a collapse in prices. U. S. producers are now selling below their cost. Sales and offerings by U.S. producers have driven Canadian prices down from about $1.30 per pound to just over $1 per pound over the last two months.
The import supply line is a long one, particularly for fabrics and garments. Import supplies cannot be quickly cut back. As a result, when a market slowdown occurs, virtually all of the adjustment is directed to domestic suppliers. Thus when imports have 50 per cent of the market and there is 20 per cent market slowdown, the domestic suppliers can be cut back by as much as 40 per cent suddenly.
The company have just had to reduce their operating rates in their polyester facility at Kingston from 90 per cent of capacity to 50 per cent as a direct result of the above import pressures. This volume reduction, combined with the price reductions, are causing them to incur serious losses. In addition their market development program to support the fall start-up of their large new facility at Coteau du Lac is in a state of disarray. The company were to soon start hiring and training over 300 employees and now this is a questionable plan.
Employment is also being affected at Kingston. They are trying to avoid a layoff there by transferring workers to other parts of the plant, by building inventories till summer vacation period and by sharply cutting back student hiring for vacation relief.
Through the Canadian Textiles Institute they, in company with Celanese Canada and their throwster custom-

ers, have brought the polyester yarn problem to the attention of the Textile and Clothing Board and have asked them to make an urgent investigation leading hopefully to the quick implementation of remedial measures.
The Du Pont Company then comment on their new facility at Coteau du Lac. This plant can make a significant contribution to the domestic economy and to the balance of trade. It will be a serious setback to all associated with this venture if it is made non-viable by imports, particularly since it is the most modern facility of its kind in the world and well able to deal effectively with normal competition.
The company vice-president who wrote this letter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concludes that this is an urgent matter for Du Pont of Canada as they are faced with a decision on Coteau du Lac in the next few weeks. Therefore they are asking for a review of the polyester textured yarn situation at the earliest convenience following the board's recommendation.
This same gentleman, the executive vice-president of Du Pont of Canada, appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on February 18 of this year. He outlined the position as he found it to the Senators, and received a sympathetic hearing. He stressed the need for urgency in arriving at some decisions.
That is why I posed my question to the minister when the company announced that, due to the delay and the tardiness in arriving at a decision, it was forced to stop the introduction of its new plant at Coteau du Lac which was built at a cost of $50 million, resulting in a loss of 325 employment opportunities at Coteau du Lac and a layoff of 125 permanent employees at Kingston and the decision, as I mentioned earlier, to cut back entirely on their summer student hiring program, some 200 positions.
In view of these circumstances I implore the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to realize that we cannot wait several months. We must have a decision in the very immediate future.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for expressing his concern to the House about the expansion of the Du Pont company which planned the construction of a new $50 million polyester plant at Coteau. He indicated to us how many jobs would be created by such expansion and also expressed his interest concerning the generation of summer jobs for students.
This matter is all the more interesting that it concerns a dynamic and efficient company. As the vice-president of Du Pont said when he appeared before the banking, trade and commerce committee, all the studies undertaken by the government and by experts from outside indicate that Du Pont can compete with most of the foreign countries as regards production costs. He was speaking, at that time, of polyester yarn. Once again, I quote: "We can meet our responsibilities towards the consumer".
The government has received many protests because of the problems faced by polyester yarn producers and caused by bad market conditions and the supposedly disastrous reduction of import prices.
May 4, 1976

In February 1975, the Textile and Clothing Board recommended to the previous minister the imposition of a surtax on certain polyester yarn imports. This could only be done under Article XIX of the GATT, which provides the following criteria, and I quote:
Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products
1. (a) If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions-
I could read the rest of the article, but I shall refer the hon. member to Article XIX. It was decided that, under this article, evidence of import increases alone could not justify the proposed surtax at that time. In view of this decision and other circumstances, it was decided to maintain a certain surveillance with an import control list.
During the second half of 1975, the polyester yarn market improved considerably, but a reduction seems to have occurred just recently. The Textile and Clothing Board has already started an urgent investigation on this situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that following comments made during the hearings of the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, it was decided to ask an advisory committee to study present conditions and the future outlook of the textile and clothing industries, as well as their business situation; to examine the administration of the policy concerning import competition; and once again, to examine the timeliness, in view of present legislation and instruments, of implementing the policy under articles 3 and 4 of the Agreement on Textile Trades and of Article XIX of the GATT; to report its conclusions and recommendations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce by June 30, 1976. And finally, I wish to ensure the hon. member that the minister will deal immediately with this report and that we shall inform the industry as soon as we receive it.


POST OFFICE-CLOSING OF CANTEEN AT CALGARY- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26 I raised a question with the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) regarding a third attempt to close the canteen at the Calgary Post Office terminal. I return to the subject tonight because this is the third attempt to discontinue canteen service to the postal workers on the graveyard shift when morale is lowest, and again on weekends, another difficult time for Post Office workers.
The first time it occurred the Postmaster General and I happened to be visiting the terminal at the opening ceremony. The hon. gentleman was so incensed that he immediately reordered the canteen opened on the basis of the fact that if you are going to maintain good morale you must provide good working conditions. When it occurred again, it evoked the same immediate response.
Adjournment Debate
I was pleased to see in the Postmaster General's reply that he was going to investigate the matter. He said:
I would be surprised if no food is available to employees on the graveyard shift or any other shift.
Later on he said:
Obviously, well fed postmen on the midnight shift will do a lot to increase morale.
So we are in agreement thus far. Just to indicate that the canteen has in fact closed let me say that I receive regular communiques from the CUPW people in the Calgary Post Office and they inform me that the canteen in the Calgary mail processing plant is to be closed for the midnight shift and for weekends beginning April 1, 1976. In one letter they say:
The reasons given last time were that Caterplan was incurring losses in revenue. The Post Office, I understand, agreed to underwrite the losses. This was one of the more positive investments made by the Post Office.
The letter was signed by Jim Hall, Business Agent of CUPW in Calgary.
This might seem like a small issue but it is in line with the thesis that the Postmaster General has been preaching since the new year. According to an article by Guy Demari-no in the Montreal Gazette issue of January 30:
... Postmaster General Bryce Mackasey has begun unveiling his Post Office salvation plan.
His philosophy is that only co-operation between postal workers and management can save the Post Office from future disaster ... Mackasey is ready, he says, "to set up employee-management teams in one or more Post Offices" ... "Each team will set its own goals and decide how to achieve them," Mackasey said in a recent Montreal speech. Supervisors will no longer tell employees what to do and how to do it, they'll ask how they think it should be done .. .
Mackasey knows "It won't be easy. In the inside workers are bitter and suspicious. There isn't a lot of trust on either side. But we need their help, so we'll have to convince them that we are sincere".
The Calgary Post Office happens to have one of the labour management committees to which the Postmaster General has referred in the quotations by Mr. Demarino of the Montreal Gazette. They meet regularly with the management of the Post Office and they try to come to grips with the little irritants that concern good human relationships. This particular Post Office is an excellent example of the malaise to which the Postmaster General has referred on many occasions which infested the Post Office Department and caused all the problems that are only too well known in this country. I refer to the 24 wildcat illegal strikes between 1970 and 1975, for example. I trust that now the investigation has been carried out this particular irritant will be resolved.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member that this is not a small issue. I believe-and I think the minister agrees-that perhaps the most pressing problem in the Post Office is corporate morale, the esprit de corps which has not been present for a long time. I think there is another very serious problem and that is the very high cost differential between revenue and cost in the Post Office. In this situation we are caught between two very difficult problems, one of morale and one of cost. Let me give you some background.

May 4, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The canteen at the Calgary postal plant is operated by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for the Department of Public Works. When it was first opened in April of 1975, full, 24 hour service was provided. It soon became apparent to CNIB that this service was not being used to a great extent, and during its first 12 months of operation $20,000 was lost. As a result service during the night shifts and at weekends was reduced to vending machine service.
A senior officer of Canada Post Office prevailed on CNIB to restore full service. This was done, but just before last Christmas CNIB proposed withdrawing completely and the service was stopped. Again the intervention of a CPO official prevented this.
As of April 1 last discussions between DPW and Treasury Board have brought about a changed relationship between caterers and employers in all federal government departments across the country. The new arrangement allows caterers to withdraw from unprofitable situations while at the same time limiting their profit to 6 per cent on productive shifts. While the Calgary situation did not bring this change about, the change does affect the Calgary problem. Canada Post Office continues to look for alternative ways to provide equal service to all shifts.
Both the Postmaster General and myself are concerned to see that everything possible is being done to provide the level of service necessary to maintain the morale of the postal workers.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND LEVEL OF INFLATION FOR THE YEAR
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 I put a question and a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). If I may repeat my question, first of all I asked:
Considering that last month's brightening of the unemployment picture proved transitory and noting that the unemployment rate has remained near 7 per cent for nearly a full year, can the minister tell the House when improvement in the unemployment rate may be expected and what he anticipates the unemployment rate to be for the balance of this calendar year?
Unfortunately rather than give the House the information to which I believe hon. Members are entitled-certainly the Department of Finance officials have some estimate of the unemployment level in Canada for the coming year, if not even for two years ahead-the minister used a stall. He said there was a budget coming down and that in the context of the budget he would be pleased to refer to that matter.
Then I asked a supplementary question as follows:
In view of the minister's forecast of a 5 per cent rate of growth in the economy in the current year, could he explain the basis of his forecast of the rate of growth at 5 per cent with a specific indication of job creation for the year, the level of inflation he anticipates and the trade deficit for the current calendar year?
Again the minister unfortunately said:
Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that in a budget debate.
This is nothing but a stall. Earlier this evening I had an example in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of a very deliberate stall on the part of

administration members who sit on that committee. They were, in short, protecting the minister from any further questioning. I think it is too bad that the government has chosen to put a shroud of secrecy around what is the favourable or unfavourable nature of our economic indicators in the country.
In tonight's adjournment debate I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) will shed some light on these important subjects. Budget or not, there is no reason why the people of Canada should not be given the true facts as to what the Finance Department of the government believes to be in store for the coming years. I say that because in sharp contrast to what is happening here in Ottawa we find that in Washington the administration and Congress are going out of their way, year by year, to give more and more detail as to what they see in the nature of the economic future of unemployment, inflation, real growth, their trade deficit and their own budgetary deficits, and in fact it is now the law of the land in the United States that they have to show these figures at least two years in advance. In short, instead of talking only about the 1977 fiscal year at the present time, it is now the law in the United States that they have to be showing 1977 and 1978 figures.
They have even gone beyond that. In the President's economic report and in the annual report of the council of economic advisers in Congress they are giving a five year estimate as to what is to be anticipated along the lines of unemployment, employment, and the trade figures. For example, I find it very startling that while we cannot extract these figures from this administration, in the United States they are predicting that their output from 1975 through to 1981 on an annual basis will be 5.9 per cent per year, and they point out that their inflation rate will be somewhere around 4 per cent by the year 1981. That is the type of openness they are now experiencing as far as the administration and Congress in the United States are concerned. Unfortunately the public in Canada is not being given this type of information. That is the purpose of my question.
I believe that tonight the parliamentary secretary should be able to indicate what his department is anticipating. After all, the government is asking for an estimate to clear $19 million for some 690 personnel. Incidentally that estimate is 15.5 per cent higher than last year, well above the 8 per cent guideline the government is asking other people to abide by under the anti-inflation program. With that type of personnel, including highly technical people and economists, there is no reason that the parliamentary secretary tonight cannot indicate to us what the government estimates to be the employment level for fiscal 1976-77, what the government anticipates the unemployment level will be for those two years, what it sees as the inflation level for those two years, what it sees to be the real growth in this country for those two years, what it anticipates the trade deficits to be, both on a merchandise basis and on a total trade deficit basis, and what the budgetary deficits, based on the current expenditures and revenue forecasts which are available to the government, are likely to be in fiscal 1977-78.
May 4, 1976

Those are the two years we are asking about, and I believe it is time that the Minister of Finance and the administration started to take the people of Canada and the members of this House into their confidence, because if they want co-operation in an anti-inflation program the least they can do is to be open with the Canadian public as to what their own estimates are.
That is the purpose of this debate tonight, and I hope it will be worth while and that we will learn, for example, the anticipated real growth for 1976. We know that it was only 0.2 of 1 per cent last year, in spite of the fact that the former minister of finance at one time predicted it would be over 4 per cent. That is why I suggest that the government is now hesitant to make forecasts of real growth. It has been so wrong over the last two to three years that it is now a little timid about offering forecasts in case they prove to be wrong. That is not the purpose of a forecast. A forecast is an honest estimate of the officials of the government as to what they see ahead for our economy.
That estimate is really public property and should be open to review by those in the financial community, economists, universities, businessmen, and members of this House. That is what I am seeking tonight.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member does not expect me to cover in three minutes all the points he mentioned.
However, I would like to answer one of the charges he made when he said that the minister had refused to answer the questions asked in committee. I would urge hon. members to read the report of the committee meetings. The minister repeated time and again that he was ready to answer all the questions that the hon. member for York-Simcoe or his colleagues would like to ask him. And I think that the report prepared by the House employees will prove that.
Mr. Speaker, he raised another point, but I am wandering away from his question. I shall come back to it before my time is up. He talked about the 15 per cent increase, and it has been proved that they were only talking about the Vi per cent left from the 15 per cent. The political argumentation in committee deserves also to be mentioned.
Answering directly the question of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) about the economic prospects
Adjournment Debate
for Canada, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) indicated that he will deal with all these questions in May, as is usual, in the budget speech. Declarations about the economic prospects are not usually made while the budget is being prepared, just before it is submitted to Parliament.
During the last few months, and I agree with the hon. member, independent research institutions have made a certain number of careful statements about the economic situation and the economic prospects for Canada. Among these are declarations from the Conference Board in Canada, from the Institute of Quantitative Analysis of the University of Toronto, from Informetrica Ltd., and from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For 1976, all those organizations are expecting a higher output in Canada, a significant increase in employment, a slowdown of inflation rates and an improvement of the current account situation in Canada.
In Canada, financial institutions, labour organizations and enterprises also published their forecasts which however are of a rather smaller scope. In spite of some discrepancies there seems to be a certain unanimity as in the case of the four big organizations mentioned above.
As for job creation, the hon. member should note that if the economy were to progress at a rate of 5 per cent as he said in his question, the number of jobs would have to increase by more than 220,000 so that national productivity reaches or slightly exceeds the 2 per cent provided in the white paper "Attack against Inflation".
As to inflation rates, we should mention that none of the independent research agencies and no serious economic observer suggested that a basic rate other than 8 per cent, would be more appropriate to establish the basic protection factor provided under the terms of the anti-inflation program.
Finally, with the economic recovery in the United States and the rest of the world, Canadian exporters will be in a better position than they were recently.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I did not deal with all the other subjects raised by the hon. member, but the minister or myself will be in a better position to do so before the committee or the House as mentioned in the budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.


END OF VOL XII