1978-01-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House urges the Canadian government to refer the subject of runaway satellites to the United Nations Security Council in order to strengthen systems for early detection and public warnings about radiation hazards, so that public safety can be improved and proper apportionments made in the fiscal responsibility for clean-up operations which, in the present case of the Russian Cosmos satellite, have resulted in heavy and unfair expenses to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made to the House the other day by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that he hopes soon to have some good news for veterans of World War I, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House urges the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce the necessary amendments to the Pension Act so that the compensation for prisoners of war provided therein will apply to the fewer than 200 Canadian veterans still living who were prisoners of war during World War I, as it does to those who were prisoners of war during World War II.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that many farm workers are currently being victimized by the Department of National Revenue and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, that they are refused benefits by the officials of these government organizations on the grounds that their type of employment is not insurable, and that this state of affairs is particularly affecting our young people who will assume tomorrow the farming responsibilities in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House urge both the Minister of National Revenue and the minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to take immediate action to eliminate the many obstacles which prevent the employment of farm workers from being insurable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday much of Ontario was lashed by the worst storm in 20 years, costing several lives and millions of dollars in property damage that will not be covered by insurance. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 ask consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):

January 27, 1978
Oral Questions
That this House notes with pride and gratitude the many acts of courage and dedicated service by Ontarians during the January 26 storm and requests the government to give serious consideration to extending special financial assistance to individuals, municipalities and businesses that have suffered losses because of the storm.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of any such motion for discussion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Charles M. Drury, PC, member for the electoral district of West-mount, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is very simple. Will the Minister of Finance indicate what he anticipates to be the inflation level, average 1978 over average 1977? I ask this as a UPI story yesterday indicates that the minister has said it will be approximately 8 per cent.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the story is not correct. I said by year and we expect the inflation rate will be 6 per cent on average during the year. I explained that I could not make a precise prediction, but I can say it will be between 6 per cent and 7 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On November 18 the Minister of Finance very definitively told the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
For the totality of the year 1978 it is going to be an average of 6 per cent.
That is a mark-up from his October 20 statement. Will the minister indicate why he is getting away from the 6 per cent ceiling target which he initially set on October 20, bearing in mind he has asked Canadian workers to accept a 6 per cent ceiling as far as their wage increases are concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is because in the CPI of the last few months imported fruit and vegetable prices were higher than we predicted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As of last night, excluding the passage within one day of Bill C-23, the employment tax credit bill, the minister had absolutely no legislation before this House with regard to anything that might relieve the unemployment situation or the inflation situation. Have we seen the total package of government measures as far as financial relief is concerned, and unemployment, and are Canadians who are suffering from inflation on their own as far as the government is concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we discussed with the ministers of finance the short-term and medium-term policies for Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about the immediate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, we discussed the immediate. I was very pleased to see that the minister of finance for the province of Ontario, Mr. McKeough, was in complete agreement with our policy.


VALIDITY OF GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC FORECAST
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Last October the minister was quite definite in his forecast of a 6 per cent rate of inflation for 1978. He revised that in the House today to somewhere approaching 8 per cent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Six to seven is not eight.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can further support my argument by telling the minister that inflation is now running at an annual rate of 9.5 per cent, according to the last CPI or, based on the last three months, at a quarterly rate of 11.5 per cent. Therefore, an 8 per cent rate of inflation is logical to accept. Is the government now going to change its economic forecast in order to preserve what little credibility it has left?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have made an economic statement on October 20 last and we have forecast that the economic growth would be in the vicinity of 5 per cent with an inflation rate of 6 per cent at the end of the year. We will not change our projections. My advisers, as well as most economic commentators, agree that 1978 will be better than 1977 and that only Japan could have a better economic performance than Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: As we approach the end of the government's ineffective anti-inflation policy there is a special need for Canadians to be able to place confidence in economic forecasting. Would the government consider asking Statistics Canada
January 27, 1978

to postpone its anticipated change in the base for calculating statistics from 1971 to 1974, so that there will be no statistical hanky-panky or shell game going on at the time an election is called.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in charge of Statistics Canada. I know it has always behaved as a very responsible agency and that it is not submitted to government directives in its professional activities. So, if it plans to change anything, I was not made aware of it. But I have confidence in Statistics Canada because it has always been honest with the Canadian public.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and to Statistics Canada that they devise a new method of measuring inflation, something akin to a poor persons' index, so we might have an opportunity during the post-control period to measure the full impact of inflation on the more than one million Canadians who are unemployed, on the working poor and on those living on fixed incomes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the professional integrity of Statistics Canada and I am surprised that the hon. member now asks the government to interfere with an agency which has such a good reputation.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Macmillan bloedel, b.c.-proposed shutdown of mill-government POSITION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With his well known concern for the plight of the unemployed, would he tell the House what his response was today to the announcement by MacMillan Bloedel, the largest forestry company in British Columbia, that it intends to shut down the Vancouver plywood mill, with a loss of 700 to 1,000 jobs on the lower mainland? What steps has he or the government taken to intercede with the company? Can he now report to the House whether the shutdown will, in fact, take place?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Immediately I received the information from the corporation, officials of my department were on the site explaining the facilities which were available. The union and management have met with provincial government representatives, and the company has agreed to a stay of 30 days before a final decision is made. I believe something like six months' notice is required.
As I understand it, in the final analysis the company will be placing about 250 of the 700 workers affected in the White Pine mill and the mill at New Westminster. An additional shift will be put on to make this possible. The company
Oral Questions
believes that it can place within the corporation about another 150. If these numbers hold, given the six months time frame I think hon. members will see we can handle this problem very effectively.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Might I point out that this company has received from the government, in corporate tax concessions over the past eight years, in excess of $11 million. That money was provided for retooling and measures to make the company s operations efficient. The reason given by the company for the shutdown is that the mill is too old and cannot compete. In discussing this matter with company officials, has the minister brought to their attention the value of the grants, concessions and gifts they have received from the government without them being tied to jobs? Is it the minister's position that in future such grants, concessions and research money will be tied to the provision of continuous employment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member knows as well as I do the conditions which have existed in that industry. He knows the softness of the market in the United States and the difficulties the industry has had to face. I think it is appropriate for a government to make such grants in order to keep the majority of the work force in a particular company employed.
The fact that they are able to move into a third shift at the White Pine and New Westminster plants is an indication that they are not shutting down but are, in fact, expanding. If that is one of the reasons given-and it has not been given to me personally-we will, of course, remind them of these particular grants and ask them to what extent they have made any effort to make that particular plant operational and to keep it up to grade.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question as to whether government policy is that these research moneys and grants should be tied to continuing employment. I point out to the minister that since the last budget of this government this company alone has received an additional $1.5 million in special tax concessions because of the inventory provisions in the last budget. Next year it will receive $2 million for that specific item alone. Is it the minister's and the government's position that we should continue to give out this corporate welfare for which the workers at those plants are paying, without tying it to some guarantee that there will be continuing employment for the workers?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if we were not making these arrangements with corporations, the workers at those particular plants would probably be laid off in larger number. We are endeavouring to maintain employment at as high a level as we can. Where there is overproduction, we have to use the facilities we have in the Department of Employment and Immigration to see that workers are placed in other jobs where they can use their talents and skills.

January 27, 1978
Oral Questions
Macmillan bloedel, b.c.-government action to avoid


LAY-OFFS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With respect to the 30 days to which the minister referred a moment ago, has the minister heard directly from union leaders in the area, especially Mr. Jack Monroe, to the effect that it may be possible to conduct a study of the mill in question but that it could not possibly be done within 30 days, and that over several months such a study might give rise to suggestions for modification and rationalization of the plant, which would enable the bulk of the workers to continue their employment?
The union desperately needs more time before the closedown, in order to carry out this study. Does the minister know about this? Has he been in direct contact with the management of MacMillan Bloedel and asked them to seriously consider an extensive delay of the closedown so that such a study could be carried out?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to one part of the question, Mr. Jack Monroe has not contacted me personally, nor do I think he has been in touch with our department to make that particular representation. I do feel, however, that there is a particular role for the union to play and we do not wish to usurp the responsibility of union leaders. The 30-day delay time is a time limit within which MacMillan Bloedel and the government will try to determine if it is possible to keep this operation going. But the notice is six months. The lay-offs will not take place until that length of time has passed. That will give the company and the union an opportunity to see if, in fact, these on-site jobs can be saved, rather than transferring workers to other regions.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for that answer. Has the minister been in direct contact with the management of MacMillan Bloedel and, if not, would he be prepared to contact Jack Monroe of the IWA to discuss this matter with him and bring to the attention of MacMillan Bloedel the fact that the union believes there must be a further extension of time in order to resolve this problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Monroe's talents and abilities as a union leader have received high commendation. I am sure he is aware of the situation and feels that as leader of this particular union he can take that message directly to the company. It is a matter of mutual interest. I do not think Mr. Monroe needs my intervention, but if he does in this case I would be happy to meet with him and with management if that would help maintain jobs.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As jobs are particularly hard to find at this time of the year, which makes life exceptionally difficult for the unemployed in search of work and who are denied insurance benefits because they do not seek employment-it is somehow like a mother sending her child to pick strawberries in the month of October: there is no way he will find any-can the minister tell the House whether phase three of the Canada Works program can be launched a few weeks earlier to allow the creation of a larger number of jobs and so give workers the possibility of really earning their living through work?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that possibility to our staff when people are looking for a job. We have therefore
decided to do so; I got in touch with every hon. member advising him of our intentions with regard to phase three of the Canada Works Program.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
As recently as this morning, it was reported on the air waves of a radio station that phase three of the Canada Works program would be delayed. I should like to ask the minister whether the program as announced, will be implemented and whether it will start at the time indicated by him. In addition, can the minister tell the House whether a decision has been made with regard to the amount of money to be spent on phase three and, if so, can he inform the House of it immediately?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I shall have to make my remarks in English because technical terms are involved.

We have decided that within the Canada Works program we will build an economic growth component of about 30 per cent to create more permanent and long-term jobs. This has come about as a result of representations from both sides of the House and from the business community. In addition to that, the President of the Treasury Board has announced the $150 million labour-intensive program, and just yesterday we passed the employment tax credit bill. There is approximately $700 million in place now for the direct job-creation aspect of the program, to say nothing of the approximately $ 1 billion for training programs which are in place. All these measures are directed toward assisting the unemployed in the hope of getting them back into the work force.

January 27, 1978


FINANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in respect of construction of the pipeline. It seems to me many of the promises this government put before the Canadian people are now being put into question. Is it the government's position, based on construction of a $10 billion pipeline, that no public money will be involved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the United States general accounting office now indicates that the cost of this pipeline could be in the neighbourhood of $25 billion to $30 billion? Is it the government's position that notwithstanding what it costs, the government is not involving public funds in constructing the pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. As the minister has stated, we must do everything we can to deter and prevent fraud and cheating in respect of the UIC program. Is the minister relying entirely on his $ 1 million advertising compaign to stop abuses of the program, and does he believe advertising will stop criminals from embezzling UIC funds?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think advertising will stop criminals from doing anything. What we are trying to prevent is the idea on the part of individuals that it is a lark to cheat their fellow workers, and who in fact become criminals or acquire criminal records. The Auditor General indicated that we have to tighten up on administration, and we are in fact doing that. Any study of the statistics will indicate just how effective we have been in that area. It seems to us-and this is in keeping with what the Canadian Law Reform Commission indicated-we have an obligation to advertise and get the message across to those who pay the premiums that certain benefits are derived from the unemployment insurance program, but there are also certain obligations. The fact that we are moving in a more effective way and in a better administrative fashion is a reason, I think, for putting people on notice that to steal is to be a criminal, and this is what we want to prevent. It is not a lark to steal from your fellow workers.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the advertising campaign would indicate the government has failed in its responsibility
Oral Questions
to see that no one cheats under the scheme. Will the minister consider appointing a special investigation division, perhaps better known as a fraud squad, which the minister's officials and federal security officials say is badly needed because the UIC is extremely vulnerable to individual and organized fraud?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, a very careful examination of our record on the administrative side will indicate that the conclusions reached by the hon. member are incorrect. We have a most effective administrative authority in place, checking on this particular aspect. Because it is becoming effective, and because of the number of investigations under way and the number of prosecutions which have come about, it seemed appropriate to get the message across to people who are paying premiums so that they will not get caught in that particular net.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as security advisers to the Prime Minister and RCMP officials have stated that only a small portion of internal and external UIC fraud is being uncovered, do they believe advertising is now the answer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied they believe advertising is one of the answers. We had an overpayment of approximately $65 million. We were effective in getting back $60 million of that $65 million as a result of the enforcement and administrative procedures which we have in place. It is more important to prevent that kind of operation so that it does not cost the premium fund money to go after those who are cheating under the program. It is a very small percentage when one talks about $3 billion to $4 billion of payout and $65 million to $95 million of overpayment. We can save a lot of money if we can prevent cheating rather than having to collect afterwards.


ALTERNATIVES TO ADVERTISING PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding the advertising program. Something less than .3 per cent of the Canadian people are being aimed at by this advertising campaign. Why would the government want to waste $1 million by advertising to all Canadians when it would be a much less costly scheme to put inserts with cheques or have endorsements on the back of cheques? After all, the only people who can cheat are those receiving benefits.


James Aloysius McGrath: The old pork barrel is right there, Bud.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the opposition feels we are in an election year, because they are trotting out all the old phrases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Does the minister know what he is doing?

January 27, 1978
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Very definitely. There were 6,200 cases last year, involving approximately $60 million, so we are not only talking about a small percentage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Sixty million?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The small percentage might be applicable to this year. If we can prevent that kind of thing, it is a good investment for the premium account.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, is the minister willing to name the advertising agency which will collect the $200,000 fee for placing these advertisements?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give the hon. member the information off the top of my head, but I will send him a letter. It is public information.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Since the Ontario premier in his letter to Mrs. Gisele Richer, the general president of the Association canadienne fran^aise de ['Ontario, stated and I quote:
The Ontario government does not intend at the present time to take any step to make French an official language of the province.
Does the Secretary of State intend to meet his counterpart, the Ontario Minister of Education, to inquire in what circumstances and on what conditions his government would legislate on this official statute so often demanded or if on the contrary, we will have to resign ourselves for another 100 years to a dribs-like policy-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Order. Does the hon. member have a question?


Eymard G. Corbin: -which seems to be that of Ontario I would say to the members opposite-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Ask a question; don't make a speech. [Translation]


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed my deep regret following the refusal of the Ontario premier to accept that idea. I was quite disappointed. Such a request was made by the federal government in "A National Choice" and in letters sent by the Prime Minister to the premiers. We want them to accept at the provincial level the same policies on bilingualism as the federal

government. From time to time I see the education minister and the Council of Ministers of Education. I will be taking this opportunity to speak to my counterpart, Mr. Wells from Ontario.
* *
*


ELECTIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement made a moment ago by the minister of unemployment-I mean, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I was giving him the proper grading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In that statement he said this House had the appearance of being in an election year. I ask the Prime Minister which of the three suggestions he made during his recent rather unsuccessful tour of western Ontario, when he dealt with the question of the time the election would take place, is correct? In one case the Prime Minister is reported to have said that it might be in June. In another case he is reported to have said that it could be in the fall of this year. In another case he indicated that it might be next year, and in another case he indicated that it might even be the year following, because much would depend on the question of Mr. Levesque and his endeavour to find out the situation with respect to separatism.
In the last couple of days two ministers are reported as saying that it would be in June. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to clear up this matter? After all, the ambiguity of his own prophecies leads me to ask this question which I know he is very ready to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the right hon. member is more concerned with his province and his riding than with the province of Quebec. If he is in some difficulty in his area, I will ask the Minister of Transport to give him a hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is typical of the kind of smart alec answers which the Prime Minister gives. I ask him for an answer. As far as Prince Albert is concerned, I wish he would come out there, because if he did my majority would be even greater.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to consider whether the question is a serious attempt to elicit information from the Prime Minister. In any event, I think it will not be very successful. I am prepared to hear one more question but I think the matter should not be pursued further.
January 27, 1978


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I ask a question I am looking for information. Apparently it has caused the Prime Minister consternation. In his travels through western Ontario he went all around the calendar, whereas two ministers have predicted the month of June. Is that right, or wrong? Does he not let them in on his secrets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I have notified him of my intention to ask a question on this subject. It is my information that the residential rehabilitation assistance program and the accompanying regulations have been changed for 1978 so that repairs to basements and house sidings will no longer be included. Is this true? If so, does the minister think this is a good way to help low-income people who are trying to repair old houses?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my answer is that this issue is under study. Concerning the precise points mentioned by the hon. member, I cannot guarantee that they would not be applicable in the future. I think what we have to do is to make sure that the money involved in this program is used in the best possible way to be useful to those people with low income, which means that this point should remain included.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the minister does not know, because program co-ordinators in some towns have already been given the regulations for 1978. The minister and I have had correspondence about my area which consist largely, in the mining area, of old mining stock that was built by the private coal companies in the past. The minister has been there. I have made a suggestion to him, to Devco and to his predecessor over the last 3'A years that, given the condition of housing there, the RRAP program is going to be a bad investment in the long run.
I should like to ask the minister today, in all seriousness, if he is prepared to accept my ten-year suggestion of special help for mining areas of Cape Breton, where a great deal of housing stock is 80 years old and was built without foundations, and so on? It would save the government of this country, and Nova Scotia, a lot of money in the future if it were done now.


Mr. Ouellet:: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we are trying to help this area of Canada through a different program than the one mentioned by the hon. member; that is, the emergency repair program which is more applicable to those
Oral Questions
parts of the country. We have tripled our allocation for that program and we have just given a special grant of $100,000 to the Citizen Services League of Glace Bay. This will be increased as the activities of the citizen group are carried out through the year.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of Bill C-21. First of all, I should like to congratulate the government for bringing in this bill which refers to the exchange of prisoners. Upon studying it, however, I find there is a big gap in its provisions. Are people in dungeons in Mexico, and that is what one can call them, who have not been charged-some have been there for months and their parents are being blackmailed and have to send money from Canada- to be forgotten and left out of the bill, because in the definitions that would seem to be the case?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has taken an interest in this issue, as has my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would have to review the precise wording of the bill-and the committee will undoubtedly do that-to see to what extent a solution can be found.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We must remember that in Mexico one is guilty until he proves himself innocent. That is the reason they do not lay charges. I would ask the minister to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs before the bill goes to committee. Debate on the bill could be very short indeed. If we are to forget people who have been in jail for months in Mexico without being charged and leave them to fend for themselves, this bill will not do the job I had hoped it would.

[ Translation]


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my qestion is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, but since he is absent I will address it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fears expressed by the municipal authorities of Grosse-Ile, Magdalen Island, and by the fishermen themselves about the possible effects on the lobster beds of the harbour facilities the province of Quebec plans to establish on this site, with the possible financial help of the federal government, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell this House whether the federal government has taken or intends to take

January 27, 1978
Oral Questions
some steps to protect the interest of these fishermen and to be sure that their views will be taken into account? If not, can he get some information about this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the views of the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands will be taken into account and their best spokesman is certainly the hon. member himself. I can also assure him that all the instances he will present on this issue will be very carefully considered by the government and that we will do everything under our constitutional power to protect these fishermen against any negative effects these works may have on their activities.


FINANCE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am sure he is very much aware that Ontario has suffered extraordinary weather conditions this winter. Yesterday, much of Ontario suffered from the worst storm in 20 years, a storm which caused several deaths and millions of dollars of property damage, much of which will not be covered by insurance. The storm disrupted the lives of millions of Ontarians.
In view of the extraordinary circumstances caused by the storm, is the Prime Minister prepared to extend to the affected businesses, municipalities and individuals extraordinary financial assistance on behalf of the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a well establish policy of assistance to provinces in defined circumstances. When, through natural causes such as this, they incur great distress the government is always anxious to come to their assistance. The first rule is for the province affected to apply to the federal government for assistance, and we then study the problem. As the hon. member knows, in a large number of cases the federal government has assisted the provinces in circumstances such as those described by the hon. member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister is probably aware, President Carter of the United States has designated some states as disaster areas. Can the Prime Minister give this House some assurance that if Ontario makes a request to the federal government for extraordinary financial assistance, it will be given?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, under the regulations made by the Department of Finance, if Ontario establishes the distress as being of such a nature that it cannot assist the area from its own economic means. I would remind the hon. member that just a few years ago in northern Ontario - I believe, in the Sudbury area - a natural disaster occurred

which called for the assistance of the federal government, and we were very forthcoming.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and is related to some statements made a few days ago by the right hon. Prime Minister in southwestern Ontario. The Prime Minister has indicated over the last weekend that during the next parliament we might see some amendments regarding the universal scheme for family allowance payments. I would therefore ask if the Minister is now in agreement with the Prime Minister's statement that perhaps, in the future, some of the recipients might be faced with a reduction of family allowances?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: We do not cut those programs on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is assuring me that he never mentioned that.


ESTABLISHMENT OF MEANS TEST FOR RECIPIENTS OF BENEFITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to know if, following his statement a few days ago, he has announced that the government may adopt a policy that would reinstate the means test for family allowances, or if it has found a formula that would abolish the universal allowances without reinstating, in the future, tests for those who are presently receiving family allowance payments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already said, in reply to a question, that the government has no project under study to change the family allowance system. I referred to a bill presented in the early 1970s to change the family allowance system. I reminded my audience that this bill was defeated principally because of a vote by a Progressive Conservative member, but that, for the moment, we had no intention of coming back on this matter.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Small Busi-
January 27, 1978

ness). In announcing his program of assistance to small business, on several occasions he has mentioned a reduction in paper work, that is, a reduction in the regulatory process that has been imposed upon this important sector of our community.
Could he bring the House up to date on the progress made with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the breakdown in the issuance of permits for quotas for textile imports? As I understand it, an audit is going on with respect to each quota, and the auditors are either away sick or away giving lectures. The mechanism is at a standstill, which is causing great anxiety to the importers and retailers involved in this aspect of our commercial life.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I will initiate inquiries on this specific matter. I am surprised to hear the situation has reached the grievous proportions which the hon. member cites. On the broader question, I am hopeful, optimistic and determined that in a very short time I will be coming forward with measures that will help combat this disease of paper burden and the type of problems occasioned by the bureaucracy at all levels of government. I know the hon. member will want to support us in that endeavour.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend the statement of the minister for small business, but it seems the government is saying one thing and doing another. The other example I would like to bring to his attention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he please put it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I ask the minister if he would also make representations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the plight of the retail shoe industry and the confusion which exists in that area. I know at least three or four retailers who are facing bankruptcy. Is he making representations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, from Langelier. I congratulate him on leaping over many of his colleagues and getting into the cabinet. Some have been waiting long and patiently. I would like to ask him a question now he is a member of this cabinet which is approaching batallion size. What role has he been given by the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister? What special function is this minister going to perform in this very large cabinet?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Minister Without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer my hon. colleague that I think my role is the same as that of the hon. member of the opposition, that is, first, to help my colleagues to fulfil their mandate, second, to try to find solutions that might make the people of the Quebec City area happier and third, by using all the means and powers that have been given to me as a minister, to try to find solutions which will help keep Canada united.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I ask the minister, do his responsibilities involve ribbon cutting and the acceptance of applications for government jobs in the Quebec area?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Opening gas stations and grocery stores.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of Indian affairs, I would like to direct my question to the minister of health and welfare. It concerns the mercury pollution problem in northwestern Ontario. The report which Dr. Pritchard made to the minister's department is the most conclusive evidence to date that Minamata disease has been confirmed in North America. A victim of this disease who came from the Grassy Narrows reserve was diagnosed and it showed a probability scale of zero to three, at level two. Will the minister recommend that the cabinet ban sports fishing in the English-Wabigoon River system, and begin remedial action on behalf of the natives in the area?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to confirm the need for any such action.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the minister's lack of action, since this report has been with her officials for a number of months. In view of the requests of the former minister of Indian affairs that the Ontario government ban sports fishing in the English-Wabigoon river system, in view of Ontario's failure to do so, and in view of the legal opinion of the fisheries department that if the federal government felt that Ontario was dragging its feet, it could "arbitrarily, unilaterally . . . enact regulations, without consulting Ontario, that would close the English-Wabigoon", I would ask the minister, if she agrees with this report when she has read it, to recom-

January 27, 1978
Oral Questions
mend that the federal government take unilateral action to close this river system.


Monique Bégin: I am ready, Mr. Speaker, to consider the possibility and the results of taking unilateral action. Authority to close a river or lake for sports fishing has been delegated to the province of Ontario, which has systematically refused since 1971 to take any such action.


FINANCE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It concerns the discussions which the hon. gentleman and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, have had with Ottawa-Carleton regional and local municipal officials involving grants in lieu of taxes, as it affects the national capital area. Of course, it affects other areas of Canada as well. As a result of that meeting, certain legislation was promised which would be ready for June.
Based on that promise, could the minister let me know, in the absence of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, whether the legislation is in the course of preparation and whether it can be introduced at a reasonably early date, so that it can be discussed by the municipal officials involved, prior to the matter being first raised here in the House of Commons.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be dealing with this question in the very near future.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, do I gather from the minister that it is, in fact, the intention of the government to introduce this legislation? Could he inform the House whether that legislation will be introduced today, or tell us when it will be introduced? Have there been discussions with any other municipalities in Canada, or any association representing those municipalities, because this question of the federal government paying its share to municipalities is quite important?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Finance will be followed through in the very near future. 1 would prefer to have him deal with this question when he is in the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. With the help-and he really did not need much help-of the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the food policy conference slated for late February has become a joke in the agricultural communities of Canada. My specific question is this: At the food policy conference, will the government be announcing specific proposals, or will we continue to have just vague, contradictory statements such as we have heard mentioned at the various meetings held across the country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think many people would agree with the hon. member when he suggests the food strategy meetings we have been having, and the food strategy conference that is to take place in late February, are a joke. Some 60 different groups in Canada have already submitted briefs and have indicated how many people will be attending. The provinces sent their ministers, and it has been one of the most successful ministers' meetings we have held in many years, as far as I am concerned.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the opinion of the provincial ministers who attended the meeting at Winnipeg, and a good many people were involved.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask if he was serious in a statement which he made in Winnipeg, that he would be in favour of reducing import quotas, reducing tariffs on imports when prices rise, and that he would also favour placing controls on exports of agricultural products when domestic supplies are tight? Is this the kind of fuzzy thinking that we are going to have at this so-called food policy conference in February?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that food policy is something that embraces much more than agriculture. It includes fisheries, warehousing, processing, retailing and a number of other departments and interests. That is the reason many of the people in attendance were in addition to those connected with agriculture. On that particular point, we put to the provincial ministers some proposals for consideration, not that we had adopted them but as proposals for discussion and for feedback; and that was one of them.
January 27, 1978


RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In his absence, I will direct it to the acting minister. With the incorporation of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act program into the new urban transportation assistance program, can the minister explain what method is being considered for transferring funds from the former program, which was set up under a specific act of parliament, to the new plan?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I take good note of the question.


Howard Earl Johnston: While the parliamentary secretary is considering that matter, will he also tell us whether the minister can assure the House that projects negotiated under the old Railway Relocation and Crossing Act will retain priority and will proceed under the same terms as if the program had not been incorporated in the urban transportation and assistance program.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to give the hon. member a complete answer as soon as possible.


POINT OF ORDER
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It will not take more than a minute and I did not want to rise on a point of order during the oral question period because I know the standing orders too well. I would like to point out that as the member for Madawaska-Victoria, I am also allowed, I would even say that I am obliged to deal with all questions of national importance, and I will not tolerate being shouted down as I was today by members opposite who vainly tried to shut me up by raising spurious points of order. As a French Canadian, I have an obligation to work for all French Canadians, no matter where they live in this country. My family lives in Ontario with-


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member and other hon. members will understand, it is for the Chair to decide whether a member is being unduly interfered with in the putting of a question. In my opinion the interference that was met by the hon. member today was certainly no greater than that which occurs on a great number of occasions when questions are being put in the House. The hon. member was able to put his question and get
Order Paper Questions
his answer like any other member. I do not think he has any cause for grievance.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 179, 187, 190, 270, 345, 405, 412, 508, 509, 548, 679, 689, 728, 824, 825, 827, 832, 907, 908, 994, 996 999, 1,000, 1,001, 1,002 and 1,003.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Bureau of Management Consulting and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. As of October 20, 1977, 18. None of these were retired public servants.
2.	This information was provided in the answer to question No. 1,596 tabled October 17, 1977 since the Bureau of Management Consulting is part of the Department of Supply and Services.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Council on Rural Development and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Canadian Council on Rural Development is as follows: 1. Total number on contract: 2-no retired public servants.
2. (a) 1975-76, $35,500; (b) 1976-77, $14,000. None to retired public servants.

January 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Government Expositions Centre and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Nil.
2. (a) 1975, $7,325; (b) 1976, $23,529. Nil to retired public servants.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Bureau of Management Consulting obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Bureau of Management Consulting in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Nil. (v) 109. (b) Not applicable.
2.	Main estimates.
3.	This information was provided in answer to question No. 1,526 tabled August 5, 1977, since the Bureau of Management Consulting is part of the Department of Supply and Services.


Mr. Rynard: Are there any departments situated in the City of Barrie, Ontario and, if so (a) which ones (b) in what locations (c) what is the total square feet of office space occupied by each (d) what is the rent per square foot for office space?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: (a) Departments	(b) Location	(c) Square frontage occupied	(d) Rental rate per square footEmployment & Immigration	48 Owen Street	12,887	N/A-Crown OwnedPublic Words	48 Owen Street	750	N/A-Crown OwnedCanada Employment & Immigration Commission	48 Owen Street	22,365	N/A-Crown OwnedEmergency Planning	44 Collier Street	3,529	N/A-Crown OwnedCustoms & Excise	44 Collier Street	2,326	N/A-Crown OwnedPost Office	44 Collier Street	16,749	N/A-Crown OwnedSect, of State	44 Collier Street	609	N/A-Crown OwnedVeteran's Affairs	44 Collier Street	466	N/A-Crown OwnedAgriculture	320 Bayfield Street (Bayfield Mall)	2,454	$6.50 (Leased)Employment and Immigration	70 Collier Street	3,010	$7.00 (Leased)Customs & Excise	70 Collier Street	2,720	$7.00 (Leased)Canada Pension Plan	70 Collier Street	2,001	$8.00 (Leased)Post Office	11 Collier Street	775	$5.81 (Leased)Nat. Parole Board	89 Dunlop St. E.	410	$5.50 (Leased)


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Nil.
2. (a) Nil. (b) $6,765. This total amount was paid to retired public servants.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Nil. Activities of New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation Limited as an incorporated body ceased on September 1, 1976 when its functions were taken over by the New Brunswick government.
2. (a) $369,246 (1975-76); (b) $124,674 (1976-77). All employees of the corporation were hired on contract; however, it is not possible to determine which of these were retired public servants.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From November 1, 1976 to November 1, 1977, how many applications for DREE grants were received from New Brunswick and how many (a) were approved (b) were rejected (c) were withdrawn (d) are under consideration?
2.	How many have been under consideration for more than three months?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. From November 1, 1976 to November 1, 1977, a total of 88 applications for DREE incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act were received for projects in New Brunswick. Of this number, (a) 29 applications have resulted in incentives offers, of which 18 have been accepted by the companies concerned; (b) 6 were rejected; (c) 39 were withdrawn; (d) 14 are under consideration.
2. As of November 1, 1977, two of the applications had been under consideration for more than three months.

January 27, 1978


Mr. Howie: Since January I, 1977, has DREE made any effort to Find or assist in the finding of industries willing to locate in the Industrial Park at Nackawic, New Brunswick and, if so, what are they?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Please see the reply to question 1,063, House of Commons Debates, January 24, 1977, page 2290. One application for assistance was received on June 23, 1977 from an applicant willing to locate in Nackawic Industrial Park. The application was subsequently withdrawn on October 19, 1977.


Mr. Murta: 1.	What was the value of grants awarded to Manitoba companies under all programmes of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for (a) 1969 (b) 1970 (c) 1971 (d) 1972 (e) 1973 (0 1974 (g) 1975 (h) 1976?
2.	For each of the same years, what were the names of the companies receiving such grants and, in each case, what was the value of the grant?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1 and 2. Under Special ARDA, a number of grants have been offered to Manitoba companies from 1972-77. A list providing names of each project broken down by fiscal year is attached. In the case of development grants made under the Regional Development Incentives Act, this information is provided in the "Monthly Report to Parliament on Regional Development Incentives" which is tabled in accordance with Section 16 of the Act.
Special Arda
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year	Order Paper Questions	
	Forest Grove Trailer Court Ltd. Thunderbird Lodge Ltd. Gunisao Lake Lodge Ltd.	$121,150.00 $138,648.00 $ 55,700.00
	Total	$688,726.00
1975/76	Cormorant Logging Ltd. Easterville Harvesting Co. Northwinds Service Station Nanuk Enterprises O-Pee-Pun-Na-Pwee-Win Ltd. R & R Manufacturing Ltd. Stoneybrook Fisheries Ltd. Irwin Goodon Ind. Ltd. Valley Loggers Ltd. Win-Roy Ltd.	$ 30,125.00 $ 27,433.00 $ 63,981.00 $ 40,860.00 $ 71,000.00 $ 43,875.00 $ 72,750.00 $ 52,392.00 $ 68,346.00 $ 61,483.00
	Total	$532,245.00
1976/77	Canadian Arctic Co-op Ltd. Stadnick Logging Co. Channel Area Loggers Ralcor Ltd. Arctic Grain Co. Ltd. Monkmans Cab & Garage Co. Ltd. B & R Willows Ent. Ltd. St. Theresa Point Lodge Garden Hill Motel Mountain Log Builders Ltd. Pineview Chapel	$ 37,304.00 $ 41,700.00 $126,875.00 $ 19,425.00 $109,723.00 $ 55,490.00 $113,717.00 $ 93,500.00 $188,000.00 $ 57,000.00 $ 32,811.00
	Total	$875,545.00


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, were any contracts awarded for the construction, renovation or maintenance of roads, buildings or houses at CFB Gagetown and, if so (a) to whom (b) in what amounts?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Construction and Maintenance Contracts Awarded Since January 1, 1977 at CFB Gagetown
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
Lake Manitoba Co-op Fisheries	$ 3,450.00			
South Indian Lake Co-op	$369,432.00	Defence Construction	(1951) Limited Contracts	
Arctic Grain Co.	$ 33,500.00			
Crane River Feedlot	$ 44,609.00	Contract Award	Contract	Date	Value	Name of ContractorTotal	$450,991.00	March 7, 1977	$105,426	Melanson Brothers Painting ContractorsSasagiu Rapids Lodge	$111,281.00	Ltd.Interlake Custom Killing Co.	$ 38,957.00	March 15, 1977	56,414	S.R. Shears and Sons Ltd.Pine Tree Inn Ltd.	$ 25,040.00	March 18, 1977	62,700	S.C.R. Construction Engineering Ltd.Northern Meat & Sausage Ltd.	$ 52,786.00	April 7, 1977	25,055	Safety First Fire Protection Ltd.Louis Riel Ind. Co-op	$ 80,950.00	April 12, 1977	34,390	H.D. MacMackin Ltd.Tri-Star Const. Co.	$ 16,500.00	April 20, 1977	149,665	Brunswick Roofing and Sheet Metal Ltd.Oak Point Hotel Ltd.	$ 51,570.00	May 4, 1977	269,248	H.D. MacMackin Ltd.Moak Lodge Ltd.	$ 62,582.00	May 13, 1977	145,900	Atlantic Fence Ltd.Slumber Motel	$ 42,829.00	June 9, 1977	189,523	Boudreau Sheet Metal Works Ltd.Nor East Enterprises	$ 29,196.00	June 10, 1977	93,750	Parker Brothers (1972) Ltd.Lake Manitoba Narows Lodge	$ 64,568.00	June 17, 1977	91,709	Cocagne Painting Co. Ltd.Ashern Auto Body	$ 40,042.00	July 8, 1977	170,665	Boudreau Sheet Metal Works Ltd.Indian Rice Producers	$ 71,712.00	July 14, 1977	66,515	Melanson Brothers Painting ContractorsMolson Lake Lodge	$ 15,047.00	Ltd.August 8, 1977	283,900	Arcon Canada Div ABP Service LteeTotal	$703,060.00	August 11, 1977	163,378	Wm P. Dowd & Sons Ltd.September 1, 1977	23,412	A.N. Clarke & Son Ltd.Grand Rapids Service Ltd.	$126,563.00	September 9, 1977	151,084	Biso's RoofingCo-op Fisheries Ltd.	$135,075.00	September 19, 1977	64,785	Gorman Construction Ltd.Camper Villa Inn	$ 92,290.00	September 21, 1977	29,700	United Contractors (1975) Ltd.Lakeside Boat Works Ltd.	$ 19,300.00	September 30, 1977	77,652	Delta Electric Co. Ltd.
80031 -5

January 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Department of Supply and Services Contracts
Contract Award Contract
Date	Value	Name of ContractorMarch 21, 1977	$958,800	Jet Janitor Services Ltd.January 6, 1977	3,300	ATCO (Eastern) Ltd.January 20, 1977	50,000	AN Clarke & Son Ltd.February 4, 1977	50,000	Robert A Shears, Esq.February 4, 1977	50,000	Coates & Haines Ltd.June 15, 1977	8,500	Pourmatic of Canada Ltd.February 28, 1977	16,000	Town & Country App. Ser.February 21, 1977	10,000	Mr. Gordon RichardsMarch 18, 1977	107,420	Ivan Henry McCoyMarch 1, 1977	1,500	Romeo Godbout Esq.February 28, 1977	2,500	Oromocto Electric Co.February 15, 1977	4,264	Darmar Services Ltd.March 1, 1977	8,830	Delta Electric Co. Ltd.March 4, 1977	1,000	Melanson Septic Tank Service Ltd.March 7, 1977	8,000	Cummings Construction Ltd.March 1, 1977	4,000	Bailey Meter Company Ltd.March 2, 1977	1,584	Rusco Windows of NB Ltd.March 22, 1977	600	Environment Chemistry LaboratoryMarch 9, 1977	875	Springhill InstituteMarch 9, 1977	1,125	Springhill InstituteApril 15, 1977	1,935	Ron Moffatt Plumbing & HeatingMarch 7, 1977	3,000	Dept, of Health Laboratory Svcs. Div.March 22, 1977	50,000	Oromocto Plumbing & Heating Ltd.March 28, 1977	1,000	M&H Mechanical Ltd., Plumbing & Heating ContractorsApril 1,1977	3,240	Rusco Windows of NB Ltd.April 1, 1977	1,700	Frank E. Haughn ElectricMay 25, 1977	35,000	Oromocto Electric Ltd.March 29, 1977	9,500	Stephenson Machine & Manufacturing Co. The NB Telephone Co. Ltd.March 24, 1977	16,000	May 11, 1977	21,900	W.E. Kelly Ltd.June 1, 1977	4,000	Ministry of TransportApril 6, 1977	12,000	Controls and Equipment Ltd.April 6, 1977	12,000	Controls and Equipment Ltd.April 4, 1977	3,900	Lloyd de Long Esq.April 26, 1977	5,200	Rise & Shine Construction Ltd.April 29, 1977	5,892	Sussex Crushed Stone Ltd.May 5, 1977	18,000	Melanson Septic Tank Service Ltd.April 26, 1977	1,000	Fischer and Porter (Canada Ltd.)May 12, 1977	1,000	HD MacMackin Ltd.June 30, 1977	1,600	Mr. Eugene MilburyJune 2, 1977	5,000	Great Eastern Landscaping Ltd.May 20, 1977	15,000	Rise & Shine Construction Ltd.May 25,1977	6,500	ATCO Eastern Ltd.June 14, 1977	100,000	Oromocto Construction Ltd.June 2, 1977	6,585	Kent Manufacturing Ltd.June 2, 1977	3,100	Brunswick Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd.June 20, 1977	100,000	M&H Mechanical Ltd., Plumbing & Heating ContractorsJune 17, 1977	100,000	Willard C. Boyd and Sons Ltd.July 6, 1977	2,986	A.R. Shears & Sons Ltd.June 29, 1977	7,525	Wilkinson Glass and ScreenAugust 25, 1977	25,000	Fredericton Drywall & Plastering Ltd.July 22, 1977	4,500	Don Mowat Well DrillingSeptember 9, 1977	8,000	APU-Crepaco Montreal Ltd.September 6, 1977	6,680	Robert A. Shears, Esq.September 16, 1977	900	Douglas J. KellySeptember 23, 1977	4,500	Edward M. Delay, Esq.September 23, 1977	1,000	E.J. Cummingham Ltd.September 23, 1977	1,500	Leonard H. Cook's ConstructionSeptember 12, 1977	15,000	Exyl Concrete RestorationSeptember 27, 1977	10,000	Pickington Glass CentreSeptember 28, 1977	100,000	Loman HoganSeptember 30, 1977	2,080	Roy S. Linden, Esq.September 30, 1977	360	Services Sanitaires, Edmundston, Esq. Edmunston Sanitary Services Reg'dSeptember 26, 1977	520	Kearney's Hygienic ServiceSeptember 23, 1977	1,040	James A. Rowan ContractorSeptember 23, 1977	4,800	City of Saint John, Sanitation Dept.September 20, 1977	2,640	Robertson Machinery Co. Ltd.Contract Award	Contract	Date	Value	Name of ContractorSeptember 30, 1977	900	Leo DuchesneauOctober 6,1977	8,500	The B. Phillips Co. Ltd.September 27, 1977	16,512	Eastern Fence Ltd.October 11,1977	1,465	Rusco Windows of NB Ltd.October 21, 1977	10,000	M&H Mechanical Ltd., Plumbing & Heating ContractorsOctober 24, 1977	1,279	Elm Glass Ltd.October 28, 1977	100,000	Rise & Shine Construction Ltd.


Mr. Howie: In investigating applications submitted to DREE for assistance, does the Department make allowance for facilities to undertake research and development projects and, if so, since January, 1976, how many applications for assistance from the Atlantic region have included specifications for research and development facilities?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The Regional Development Incentives Act enables the Department to offer incentive grants to eligible manufacturing and processing operations. Projects which are solely of a research and development nature are not eligible for RDIA incentive grants but may be eligible for a loan guarantee under RDIA. No applications for loan guarantees for research and development facilities have been received in the Atlantic Region since January 1976. Some applications for RDIA incentive grants provide for research and development facilities as an integral part of the manufacturing or processing operation. The Department does not compile statistics on applications involving an element of research and development.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion granted a loan or subsidy to Coulter Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Noranda Mines Ltd. and, if so (a) in the case of a subsidy (i) what was the amount (ii) how many jobs will be created (b) in the case of a loan, what was (i) the amount (ii) the interest rate (iii) the term (iv) the repayment conditions?


Donald Paul Wood: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No; the Department has not approved an incentive to Coulter Manufacturing under the Regional Development Incentives Act or the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.

January 27, 1978


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was loaned by CMHC to organizations in New Brunswick for construction of senior citizens residences?


Harvie Andre: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Since the beginning of 1977, CMHC has approved one loan under Section 15.1 of the National Housing Act for a 30-unit project for senior citizens in New Brunswick, in an amount of $462,360; the Corporation has also approved three loans under Section 43 of the NHA for 26 units for senior citizens in a total amount of $555,268.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was loaned by CMHC to organizations in New Brunswick for the construction of nursing homes?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: The construction of nursing homes is not financed under the National Housing Act by CMHC. CMHC is prepared to fund "care" homes, and those facilities considered an essential part of residential accommodation for the elderly and the handicapped, provided the users are supported financially by the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Howie: How many laboratories does the National Research Council operate in Canada and in which locations?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 10 laboratory divisions which have facilities in Victoria, Vancouver, Penticton, Saskatoon, Churchill, Lake Traverse, Ottawa and Halifax.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) What criteria are used to decide the issuance of "A" licences on the West Coast (b) is a quota attached to the licence (c) is the quota decided after the season opens and, if so, is the over-all quota pro-rated amongst licenced holders?
2.	(a) How many "A" licences were issued on the West Coast in (i) 1972 (ii) 1973 (iii) 1974 (iv) 1975 (v) 1976 (vi) 1977 (b) how many were granted to native Indian applicants (c) what was the revenue derived in each year from "A" licences?
3.	What criteria are used to decide on the issuance of "B" licenses on the West Coast?
4.	(a) How many "B" licences were issued on the West Coast in (i) 1972 (ii) 1973 (iii) 1974 (iv) 1975 (v) 1976 (vi) 1977 (b) how many were granted to native Indian applicants (c) what was the revenue derived in each year from the issuance of "B" licences?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. (a) The vessel licence must be renewed annually and the vessel must record landings at least every second year.
(b)	No. (c) Not available.
2.	(a) 1972, 5046; 1973, 4996; 1974, 4823; 1975, 4775;
1976,	4700; 1977, 4703; (b) 1972, 390; 1973, 441; 1974, 419;
1975,	467; 1976, 446; 1977, 445. (c) 1972, $216,600; 1973, $946,500; 1974, $936,800; 1975, $921,800; 1976, $918,400;
1977,	$917,300.
3.	"B" licences were available to salmon fishing vessels that recorded landings in 1967 or 1968 but did not meet the required level of landings to quality for an "A" licence.
4.	(a) 1972, 897; 1973, 934; 1974, 697; 1975, 642; 1976, 623; 1977, 597. (b) Indian licences are designated as Indian "A" licences. Indian fishermen do not take out "B" licences.
(c)	1972, $1,600; 1973, $7,340; 1974, $6,970; 1975, $6,420;
1976,	$6,230; 1977, $5,970.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many civilian personnel were employed at CFB Gagetown on December 1, 1977?
2.	Do any plans exist to increase the number in view of the anticipated increase in military personnel?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Nine hundred sixteen.
2. There is a tentative plan to increase the number by five.


Mr. Howie: On December 1, 1977, was there a position for a Public Relations Officer at CFB Gagetown and, if not, are there any plans to create such a position?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No.
There are no plans to create such a position. Public relations is one of the duties of an officer of the base headquarters.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, were any stores in Fredericton, New Brunswick visited by representatives of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to check against possible infractions of the law and, if so, approximately how many?


Mr. Alan G. Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, during calendar year 1977, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada visited 265 stores in Fredericton, New Brunswick, to check against possible infractions of the legislation enforced by CCAC.
80031 -514

January 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs conducted investigations or provided any information leading to the prosecution of any person or firm in New Brunswick for the violation of any federal law or regulation?


Alan Gray Martin: Since January 1, 1977, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has conducted investigations which led to the conviction of 15 persons or firms for violations of federal legislation enforced by CCAC, in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: Since September 1, 1976, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs give grants to persons or organizations in New Brunswick?


Alan Gray Martin: Yes:		
1976-77	$5,000	Northumberland Information and Referral Centre, Chatham
	3,500	CHIMO Information Centre- Fredericton
	1 1,000	Centre de Communication et d'Information Mobile-Bathurst
1977-78	$11,660.	Centre de Communication et d'Information Mobile-Bathurst


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs employ (a) part-time employees (b) outside consultants (c) advisers (d) other non-permanent staff persons in New Brunwick or administrative personnel other than clerical and, if so, how many?


Alan Gray Martin: (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Nil.
(d)	Three food talk officers (one each in Tracadie, Moncton, Saint John), one consumer help officer (Saint John), two summer students (one each in Fredericton and Moncton).


Mr. Howie: How many field workers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are employed in New Brunswick?


Alan Gray Martin: As at December 15, 1977: 17.


Mr. Howie: How many (a) full-time (b) part-time employees of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are now employed in each office of the Department in New Brunswick?


Alan Gray Martin: As at December 15, 1977: (a) As follows: (including 1 casual employee) Moncton, 10; Saint-John, 9 (including 1 casual); Fredericton, 7; Bathurst, 2; St. Stephen, 1. (b) Nil.


Mr. Howie: How many offices of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are in operation in New Brunswick?


Alan Gray Martin: There are three district offices and two sub-district offices in the province of New Brunswick.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-19, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister is on his way; but if he were late in coming to the House, I should seek permission to proceed with Bill C-7, and should the need arise, the minister would be in the House to introduce it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we had a long discussion yesterday about what the order of business would be for today, and also there were private discussions. I regret to inform the Chair that no one came to me today to say that we would be doing anything but Bill C-19. The whole process breaks down if ministers or parliamentary secretaries are not ready. Is the government saying to us now that there is no one here who can handle Bill C-19? The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the Conservative critic, is here. He has inconvenienced himself to come here. He is prepared to deal with that bill.

January 27, 1978


An hon. Member:: Here comes the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: After that brief interlude, perhaps we can resume discussion of the question which is already in the possession of the House, namely, that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I appear to be slightly out of breath-


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is because you are out of shape.


Alastair William Gillespie: I was downstairs at another meeting, when I received notice that Your Honour was ready to proceed with my bill. I apologize if I have caused any difficulty to the House by being a few minutes late and causing this delay.
This is a very important bill. I believe there has been some discussion between the government House leader and the House leader opposite with regard to the debate today. I am delighted that it may be possible to move expeditiously on the bill during the course of the day.
I am pleased to introduce for second reading today Bill C-19 which amends the Petroleum Administration Act.
The principal purpose of this bill is to enable the government to fulfil its commitment to provide international prices for the synthetic oil produced by Syncrude Canada Limited from Athabasca oil sands. It enables similar treatment to be extended to the production of other selected domestic petroleum sources at the discretion of the governor in council, a very important provision. By introducing this legislation, the government is taking a further significant step to ensure that Canada's net dependence on foreign oil is reduced by encouraging the development of our petroleum resources.
Canadians are beginning to recognize the severity of the problems presented by the rapid decline of our conventional petroleum reserves. The National Energy Board report on Canadian oil supply and requirements of February, 1977, projects the expected fall-off in conventional oil supply, and the corresponding need for oil from other sources. It indicates that by the early 1980's the total supply requirements of Ontario and the western provinces can no longer be met by indigenous crude oil. By 1990, the board foresees Canadian oil providing only about 42 per cent of our oil requirements as compared with about 82 per cent in 1977.
This potential growing dependence on foreign oil will not only place a heavy burden on our economy by increasing our balance of payments deficit but also endangers our oil supply security by increasing our reliance on sources which may be reduced or cut off by disruption of overseas production, as happened in 1973, by an embargo, or simply because of world demand beginning to outrun available supply.
Energy
It is imperative that we limit our dependence on foreign oil. It is therefore a cornerstone of national energy strategy that we restrict our net dependence on foreign oil by 1985 to no more than one third of our domestic demand or 800,000 barrels a day, whichever is lower. This means we have to take advantage of a number of opportunities available to us. We have to lessen oil consumption through conservation measures. We have to find substitute energy resources to replace oil, particularly foreign oil. We have to find new supplies. In particular we must recognize the potential of our heavy oils and of our tar sands out west. The government has already taken action to reach some of these targets. I believe it should be possible to produce close to a million barrels a day from the tar sands and heavy oil sands out west by 1990. I believe Canadian industry is gearing up to meet such a target by that date. I think the date is a realistic one. There are some who suggest it may be somewhat optimistic. Well, I think the problem we are facing requires us to reach for a target of that kind. The government has already made a commitment.
Steps which have already been taken by the government include the following:
1.	A commitment to move Canadian oil prices toward international levels in order to encourage conservation and resource development.
2.	The establishment of a comprehensive program of energy conservation which is already showing results in terms of reduced energy demand.
3.	The creation of a financially attractive environment for oil and gas producers.
4.	The conclusion of a deficiency agreement with the Interprovincial Pipeline Company which allowed the company to raise the funds to extend its system to Montreal. This gives Montreal refineries a secure supply of domestic crude oil into the 1980s.
Other measures which the government has taken include the formation of Petro-Canada to stimulate activity in petroleum exploration and development and our support for the Syncrude project by way of equity participation and the assurance of international prices for its output. The principal purpose of the legislation I am introducing for the second reading today concerns this latter step.
Consequent upon the withdrawal, in December, 1974, of Atlantic Richfield Limited as a participant in Syncrude, negotiations among the remaining participants, the federal government and the governments of Alberta and Ontario, culminated with the signing of the "Winnipeg Agreement" on February 3, 1975. As a result of this agreement the federal government acquired a 15 per cent equity interest in Syncrude, and the governments of Alberta and Ontario 10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. In addition, the federal government undertook to assure to all participants the availability of international crude oil prices on the sale of synthetic crude from the Syncrude project.

January 27, 1978
Energy
Production is scheduled to commence this April, with daily volumes rising to 108,000 barrels a day by June, 1980, and then to 129,000 barrels a day. That is the rate of capacity on the basis of existing engineering. There is also the possibility that this production could be further expanded to a level of
200,000	barrels a day. Participants are currently considering the marketing alternatives of disposing of their shares of Syncrude output. To allow sufficient time to complete marketing arrangements before the first product becomes available it is necessary to put in place the mechanism to be employed to afford international prices to Syncrude output.
A number of mechanisms were considered. After discussion with the other Syncrude participants, including the provinces of Alberta and Ontario, it was decided that the objective could be best accomplished by permitting Syncrude output to be sold in Canada at international prices and then compensating refiners and other users as if the crude were imported. The calculation of the rate will be in line with the current methodology with respect to import compensation.
This approach will allow the international market to establish the value of Syncrude output relative to other crude oils. It will be comparatively easy to administer as it makes use of the existing compensation mechanism. The bill also authorizes the funding of this program by a levy on all crude oil refined in Canada and oil products imported to this country. This financial burden, equating to a maximum of approximately half a cent per gallon, will be placed on the consumer of petroleum products, who I believe should be prepared to pay the price to secure such development, both with respect to Syncrude and other petroleum energy projects.
I believe the mechanism I have just outlined for providing international prices is attractive, not only because it is consistent with our self-reliance objective, but also because it can be employed to encourage the future development of other energy projects.
Earlier I mentioned the need for Canadians to recognize the severity of the problems presented by the decline in our conventional petroleum reserves. We are fortunate, however, in having the option to develop the great potential of our vast non-conventional and frontier hydrocarbon resources. The oil sand and heavy oil deposits of Alberta and Saskatchewan, combined with our gas reserves in conventional and frontier areas, together give Canada a potential petroleum resource base which satisfy our country's energy needs well into the future.
I am encouraged to see that the Canadian oil industry is proceeding rapidly to develop these as yet largely untapped resources. Imperial Oil has recently announced a 140,000 B/D heavy oil project at Cold Lake. There are proposals to construct a 100,000 B/D heavy oil upgrading plant at Lloydmin-ster. Shell is examining the possibility of a third oil sands plant with a 125,000 B/D capacity in the Fort McMurray area. And Great Canadian Oil Sands is considering an expansion of its existing facility.

As I have said, the total cost of these projects runs into billions of dollars. The development of these resources may now seem expensive, but they will, as the world's conventional crude oil reserves decline, be cheap at the price. Canadians must recognize this and be willing to pay the price to ensure not only that the problems of the present are solved but also that the promise of the future is fulfilled. Moreover, by creating thousands of jobs both in their construction and operational phases, these projects will help our economy to recover from the present recession.
The bill also authorizes two other minor changes to the Petroleum Administration Act. It provides for payments of special compensation to importers of petroleum in cases of undue financial hardship. This provision would be employed in situations where the regulations did not foresee special types of circumstances faced by importers.
The bill also changes the name of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to the Petroleum Compensation Board, which more accurately reflects the current duties of the board. That is a technical change. The board was originally established under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act to prepare and implement plans to handle shortfalls of petroleum in times of emergency. This function of the board ceased on June 30, 1976. Its current and ongoing duties involve the administration of the oil import compensation program plus the administration of the program to provide international prices for the output of Syncrude Canada, which 1 have just outlined.
This legislation represents another important step toward implementation of established energy policies designed to assure Canadians of adequate and secure future supplies. As such, I commend it to the House for its prompt debate and passage.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the minister's reports on our discussions with regard to this bill are accurate. We have no intention of delaying this bill. We support the basic principle behind the bill, but there are a few remarks I would like to make specifically about the bill as well as about the minister's remarks.
I think it is worth reminding the people of Canada that this is the third in a series of bills resulting from the attempts of the government to come to grips with the question of petroleum pricing in Canada. The first was the emergency energy supplies bill, the second was the Petroleum Administration Act, and now we have this amendment to the Petroleum Administration Act. I wait with bated breath for the fourth of these attempts to come to grips with a policy on petroleum pricing in Canada.
I am sure the House recalls the very unpleasant history of the evolution of these bills and of this problem which goes back to September 4, 1973, when, after publicly declaring he would never take such unilateral action, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) unilaterally put a price freeze on crude oil, causing friction to develop between the province of Alberta
January 27, 1978

and the Government of Canada. This action ultimately involved other provinces as well and lead to a period of serious and debilitating friction between the federal government and the provincial governments which hurt the nation as a whole and caused severe economic hardship for individuals. It was very disrupting to the industry and resulted in some net economic loss to Canada. It is difficult to come up with a realistic price tag, but it would certainly be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. That is the cost of an inopportune, politically motivated declaration by the Prime Minister during that minority parliament. I hope we will never have to go through that kind of exercise again because the economy and the Canadian fabric just could not tolerate it.
I would like to comment on some of the remarks of the minister about the so-called great things the government has been doing for Canada in terms of energy. At least that was the tone of the remarks of the minister, and I take exception to that. In his opening remarks the minister pointed out that, according to the National Energy Board, by 1990 Canadian domestic supplies will account for only 42 per cent of total Canadian consumption. If that projection turns out to be true, it will have devastating consequences for this nation.
The cost of importing the oil necessary to make up the 100 per cent we will need is enormous. It is a cost we cannot afford. It is in the order of $7 billion or $8 billion, based on today's prices. If we add that to the $12 billion trade deficit we suffer in terms of manufacturing, we encounter an incredible combined trade deficit of $20 billion. We think a 90-cent dollar is a depreciated dollar, but that is an extravagantly high priced dollar compared with the dollar we will have if we encounter trade deficits of that magnitude.
It is unacceptable and intolerable that the government should casually say that we are going to import more than half our oil by 1990. Instead, aggressive initiative should be taken by the government to ensure self-sufficiency and that we import zero per cent on a net basis. That is not an Utopian ideal; we are unique among western industrialized nations because we have the potential to do that. No other nation in the western industrialized world, with the possible exception of Great Britain because of petroleum in the North Sea, has the potential to be self-sufficient. Canada does, and that gives us a unique opportunity.
If this government were to dissipate that opportunity through inaction or inappropriate actions, that would cause great damage to future generations, and that should not be forgiven. We have that potential, and our party feels that self-sufficiency is an absolutely essential policy. It is a fundamental cornerstone of an energy policy for this country.
The minister articulated some steps he and his government are taking which are supposed to help ease our problem. The minister talked about trying to lower demand through conservation. There has been some progress, but not nearly enough. We feel that a reduction in demand to 2 per cent annual growth is possible. The minister talked about finding substitutes, but we have yet to see any concrete proposals in that
Energy
regard. It is a high ideal, but until we see what the government has in mind, it is hard to comment.
The minister talked about finding new supplies, particularly tar sands and heavy oils, and he expressed the expectation of the government that by 1990 one million of barrels of oil per day would be produced from tar sands and heavy oils. Where did that figure come from? What is the basis for that figure?
The government has no policy with regard to tar sands and heavy oils. The government has stated that it will treat each project in an ad hoc fashion. How can developers allocate resources when they do not know what the rules are? Companies are faced daily with decisions on how to allocate their financial and human resources, and if they are considering tar sands and heavy oils and find a situation where the rules are not defined, they cannot calculate their returns. The government suggests they put together a plan or come up with a program, and it will talk about it, but who in his right mind is going to spend the $5 million, $10 million or $20 million which is necessary to put together this type of plan, only to come here on the odd chance that, after discussions with the minister and his officials, everything will turn out all right? That approach shows such a dismal ignorance about the operation that it is disturbing.
The minister apparently does not even know how many companies are interested in developing these heavy oils. He mentioned Imperial and heavy oils, that Shell is looking at another tar sands plant, and Great Canadian Oil Sands is expanding its plant. For the minister's edification I should inform him that Husky Oil and Pacific Petroleums are two other companies actively looking at heavy oils.
All these companies would very much like to have some definition of the rules so they can in fact get to work on the meaty part of their proposals. If they do not, there is not a hope in the world of achieving that goal of one million barrels a day by 1990, because the lead time in planning and putting together resources to build one of these plants is very substantial. In order to achieve the goal the minister talks about-he blandly throws out the figure of one million barrels per day by 1990-we will need one new plant every year starting next year, and there are not any that are anywhere near-


Alastair William Gillespie: Way off.


Harvie Andre: Use your own figures. Syncrude is going to produce 100,000 barrels a day. If you multiply that by ten, because you said we were going to do this in roughly ten years, you are talking about one plant a year coming on-stream. When you add into that the lead times required then you realize it is time to get off one's behind and start defining some rules so these companies can begin to get to work.
We agree with the Syncrude development and the Syncrude agreement. We agree with the notion that Syncrude should be paid at world prices. We therefore understand the reasoning behind Bill C-19 to provide this subsidy to Syncrude, or to provide the government with the ability to designate Syncrude

January 27, 1978
Energy
in the same category as an importer so it can get this subsidy and sell its product at the world price. We can understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but the minister neglected to state during his remarks that there is a tax to be put on all oil consumed in Canada of not more than $1 a barrel. The estimates are 15 cents to 20 cents but, nonetheless, the consumers should recognize they are going to have another half a cent a gallon of tax tacked on to their gasoline and heating oil.
There are some provisions in the bill which cause some concern in terms of the mentality of the draftsmen or proposers of it that I should like to bring to the attention of the House, and possibly at the committee stage we could get consideration of these matters.
In particular, proposed Section 65.13 states that the minister shall, at his discretion, exempt any petroleum or petroleum products from this extra tax. That put in a flexibility which I can understand is appreciated by the minister and his officials, but in my opinion it is contrary to the responsibilities inherent to operating in a democracy. That type of discretionary ability resting with the ministers and their officials is really contrary in general philosophy, and we wonder why that discretionary power is required. Is it perhaps necessary to make certain friends of the government such as Petro-Canada look good? Who is going to get the privilege of the exemption, and for what purpose? Is this exemption to give the minister another opportunity to treat his friends, associates or party colleagues, in appropriate ways?


Mr. Baldwin:: How does it relate to party contributions?


Harvie Andre: That involves another possibility, but we do not see the necessity for this sort of discretionary power.
There is another discretionary power provided in clause 3 at page seven which says that the minister may decide to provide an extra subsidy to special hardship cases. Again I find this a very strange type of clause where, at the minister's discretion, there could be these sorts of handouts.


An hon. Member:: For instance, Exxon.


Harvie Andre: Yes, Exxon may be a hardship case like that. Again, there is a temptation to make some of the friends of the government look good through the use of this clause.
The minister indicated in his comments that this bill is specifically designed to allow Syncrude to receive world prices for its production. In fact the bill does not talk about Syncrude specifically. The bill states that the governor in council can designate any production as those imported and, therefore, eligible for the import subsidy. Why go through this exercise? There is no other tar sand plant that is going to be completed for years in the future. We do not know of any heavy oil plants that are coming up. Why not look at those cases as they occur?
It strikes me as strange and inappropriate that we in the House of Commons are again being asked to give this open-ended authority to the government to deem any production it chooses as imports and, therefore, eligible for the subsidy. Is

the government going to deem all the production from Petro-Can's producing wells, if it ever finds any oil, as imports in order to make that bottom line look good? How is this discretionary power going to be used? We should build into this clause some check back to the House so that, as producing facilities are added to the list to be deemed as importers, the House or a committee of this place will have an opportunity to examine and consider it before the fact rather than after the fact.
The other thing I should like to bring to the attention of the House, giving it notice, is my intention in committee to introduce a firm amendment to provide a termination date for this whole program. The Petroleum Administration Act was designed to administer over that period of time during which Canadian crude oil prices were less than world prices and it was necessary to collect export taxes, to pay the subsidy on imports, and so on.
It is government policy, which we support, to get out of the business of controlling oil prices eventually and let the market place dictate. At that point there is no further need for the Petroleum Compensation Board. The government took some pride in stating it took an awful lot of work to disband the Halifax Harbour Relief Commission which had been in existence for 60 years. Members opposite suggest it is extremely difficult to disband something once it has been created within this government. For this reason, why do we not build into this bill right now a provision to allow this thing to die gracefully and with dignity when its usefulness is finished, rather than carrying it on, in a way to which we have become habituated, almost in perpetuity?
It is my intention at the committee stage, and I hope to be able to convince government members of the advisability of this provision, to introduce a clause which will provide for the demise of the Petroleum Administration Act on June 30, 1983, unless a positive resolution of the House is introduced to extend that life for another five-year period. This would allow all the flexibility in the world, while providing for the dignified death of this organization once its usefulness is finished.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today the Syncrude chickens which were hatched in 1975 are coming home to roost. Having been outbluffed and outwitted by two of the major oil companies into a give-away of public funds, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) finds it necessary to come now and tell the people of Canada that there is a bill which has to be met, there is a price which has to be paid for the deal which was concluded in 1975.
On January 24, 1975, Mr. Geoffrey Stevens in his column in the Toronto Globe and Mail stated, "This is one of the highest stakes poker games in Canadian history".
On February 4, 1975, when the then minister of energy, mines and resources made an announcement, I said, "This is the greatest sellout of our natural resources in the history of Canada". Every day which has passed since has reinforced
January 27, 1978

those two opinions. It has been the "highest stakes poker game". There is no doubt who won the game. It has constituted the "greatest sellout of our natural resources in the history of Canada".
The time has come for the government to present the legislation by which we shall have to pay. This is not only for Syncrude, because the bill gives sweeping powers to cabinet by order in council to allow levies to be placed and taxes imposed on many forms of oil, as well as giving grants and concessions for different kinds of oil. Thus, we do not know from this legislation how big the bill is. We do know the government is asking parliament to give it the authority to pay the bill. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We do not know what the amount of that cheque is going to be.
We have to begin to recognize that when we talk about the oil sands of western Canada we are talking about one of the world's greatest reservoirs of oil. This legislation is asking us to pay for having it stolen from us.
In the 1973 booklet entitled "Energy Policy for Canada", reference is made to the geological survey of Canada which estimates that there are up to 700 billion barrels of oil in the tar sands of western Canada. If it could be extracted, that represents a larger accumulation of crude oil than there is in the Middle East. At the same time the estimates quoted are to the effect that 65 billion barrels of this oil can be recovered with the present known technology. It estimates that some 15 billion barrels can be recovered at a price of $5 a barrel wellhead, and 35 billion barrels at a price of $6 a barrel. The same report indicates that at a price of approximately $8 a barrel we have up to 40 billion barrels of crude oil which are economically recoverable from conventional reserves.
I ask the House to look at those figures. They were given in 1973, and this is only 1978. Approximately five years ago these were the optimistic statistics which were given to the people of Canada concerning the great unlimited reserves of oil that Canada has. Today the minister indicated that we are now a net importer of oil, that in the matter of a few years we will be able to meet less than half our oil requirements and that our bill for imported oil will be a staggering one.
Not only did the government paint this optimistic picture, the oil industry was equally euphoric about our oil supplies for the foreseeable future. The Imperial Oil Company's annual report for March, 1973, read as follows:
In the current debate, the export of Canada's energy resources is being questioned: in effect we are being urged to bank our petroleum resources. Canada is not in any way deficient in energy resources. Our present energy reserves, using present technology, are sufficient for our requirements for several hundred years...
That statement was made less than five years ago. This misleading information was fed to the public assiduously for many years, deliberately to persuade a supine government to allow United States oil companies to ship 60 per cent of our oil production to the United States, despite the fact that geologists and academic authorities, who were familiar with the field, had been telling Canadians and committees of this House that within a matter of ten or 15 years Canada would
Energy
have to import a very large proportion of its oil requirements. That day is already here, and we find that not only do we not have these large reservoirs of oil, which were allegedly available with the present technology, but we are now going to have to pay through the nose for companies to develop some of our oil sands.
In 1973 when the OPEC Nations acted in unison to force up oil prices, the oil industry in North America saw an opportunity to hold the public up to ransom, with the result that the wellhead price for oil has risen from approximately $3 per barrel to $12.75 per barrel, which is an increase of over 400 per cent. Certainly no one could attribute a 400 per cent increase in the price of a barrel of oil to inflation or to the cost of producing that barrel of oil.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is the other way round-it has caused inflation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right. As the hon. member says, the reverse is true. It is this horrendous increase in the price of oil which reflects itself in the cost of operating a car, a truck or a diesel engine. It reflects itself in the price of electric power and of home heating. It affects our whole economy, and particularly the farming and fishing industries are affected adversely.
The rapid rise in the price of oil from $3 a barrel to $12.75 has resulted in a situation where we paid in 1977 about $1.8 billion for imported oil, and it is estimated that by 1985 we will be paying $6 billion for imported oil. We are only beginning to realize what this will do to the cost of living for Canadians when we see what the future holds for us in terms of what we are going to pay for petroleum products. We will then realize how we have squandered the large accumulation of petroleum products which we had and which we gave away at fire sale prices. One then begins to realize that we have not had in Canada a national energy policy which was devised and designed to serve the interests of the Canadian people.
Let me just take a few moments to run over quickly the history of the oil sands development in this country. In October of 1962 Great Canadian Oil Sands, which is a subsidiary of Sun Oil of the U.S., was granted permission to build a small plant to extract oil from the tar sands. Later they enlarged the size and in 1974 the plant showed its first profit on oil, which they were selling for $6.50 a barrel. They have been making a profit ever since without any subsidy. They are a smaller plant without the modern technology which Syncrude has, and yet they have been able to do quite well on the domestic price. Yet we are being told that Syncrude cannot produce for the going price, which at present is $12.75, and needs a guarantee of the world price, no matter what the world price may be.
In February of 1972 the Syncrude consortium, which was made up of Imperial Oil, Atlantic Richfield, City Services Ltd., and Gulf Oil, secured approval from the Alberta government for the construction of a plant capable of producing
125,000	barrels a day. They estimated the cost to be $750
2318

January 27, 1978
Energy
million. In September of 1973, syncrude and the Alberta government announced that it was going to cost $800 million to build this plant and that it would commence production in 1978, with the Alberta government agreeing to invest $500 million of the taxpayers' money to build a power plant, a pipeline and all the infrastructure. In December of 1974, Atlantic Richfield announced that it was withdrawing from the Syncrude consortium because the estimated cost of the project had risen to $1.6 billion from the original $750 million estimate.
On January 16, 1975, the remaining partners of the Syncrude consortium threatened to drop the whole project unless a partner could be found who would put up $1 billion to get the plan started on its way toward completion. The former minister of finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), and premier Lougheed of Alberta appealed to Syncrude for a 60 to 90 day extension to give the government time to canvass the situation to see what could be done. That reasonable request was refused, and so a hasty meeting was called in Winnipeg on February 3, 1975.
On February 4, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, the hon. member for Rosedale, announced that an agreement had been reached under which Syncrude would get the following concessions. First, they would get $600 million of equity, which was to be made up of $300 million put up by the federal government, $200 million by the government of Alberta, and $100 million from the government of Ontario, plus a $200 million loan from the government of Alberta which could later be converted, if it chose, into equity.
The second concession was a remarkable tax concession by which the company could go back to the terms of the 1973 budget, by which they received greater exemptions, were allowed to charge their royalties against their income tax payments, and were allowed lower rates of tax than were imposed in the 1974 budget. These tax concessions were worth to Syncrude, and are worth today, hundreds of millions of dollars which represent a loss to the Canadian treasury and which must be replaced by levying higher taxes on the other taxpayers of this country.
The third concession was that there would be no limit on the production of the Syncrude plant in the event that any pro rata plan were introduced by the government of Alberta, and the fourth concession was that Syncrude would be guaranteed the international price for any oil that it produced, irrespective of what the domestic price might be in Canada.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was in the process of pointing out that, as a result of the agreement which was reached on February 3, 1975, between the Syncrude consortium and the governments of Canada, Alberta and Ontario, it was decided to proceed with the construction of the Syncrude plant for the extraction of oil from the sands of western Canada on the basis of four concessions. I was enumerating those concessions when we recessed.
The concessions were that the three governments concerned would put up $600 million, plus another $200 million loan from Alberta; that Syncrude would get special tax concessions which would take them back to the 1973 budget; that they would be guaranteed no limits on their production; and finally, that they would be guaranteed the international price for the oil they produced. I think it should be noted that when we say they will be guaranteed the international price we are really asking this parliament to give the government a blank cheque and to guarantee to this company amounts of money that we have no way of computing.
When the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works was discussing this matter with the former minister of energy, mines and resources, I produced a copy of one of the studies done for the government of Alberta by Foster Associates. The minister of that day took no exception to the fact that the study based the economic feasibility of the Syncrude project on the assumption that the price they would get would start at $15.50 per barrel and would go up to reach $35.00 per barrel eventually in the last year or two of the life of the plant.
I think this House and the people of Canada should be given some idea of what we are underwriting when we say we are going to guarantee this company will receive the international price. That price now is above the domestic price. The minister said today, and has said before, that he wants to see this country get to the international price. We had better know what we are talking about; we are talking about prices far in excess of anything we have ever dreamed of in this country.
The strange thing is, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada entered into this Syncrude agreement despite the fact that it had never at any time commissioned an economic feasibility study, it had not hired any experts or called in any consulting firm to do an assessment of the project.
It is true that the province of Alberta had commissioned four studies, but none of those was available on February 3 at the meeting in Winnipeg. On the night before and on the morning they were meeting, a rapid summary was hurried to them by telex giving them a fragmentary picture of what the reports were going to say. The other two reports did not reach them until after the agreement had been entered into.
January 27, 1978

I think that the governments of that time were stampeded into entering into an agreement which was not in the public interest and for which we are now being called upon to pay. This legislation asks that parliament approve the power to impose a levy or tax on all domestic oil and on all imported oil in order to create a fund sufficient to pay the difference between the domestic price and the international price.
I notice the minister now uses the term international price. His predecessor kept using the phrase internationally oriented price. We used to try to get him to define it. It is not defined yet, and it is not defined here. One of my objections to this legislation is that almost everything is left to the discretion of the government, and its boards, and it has no real definition of what we mean by international price or on what it will be based. There is no indication at all of the types of oil to which it will be applied. As a matter of fact, if I understood the minister correctly, he said this morning that the cabinet would have power by order in council to apply it to any type of oil it wished. I assume the government can apply it to oil extracted from the heavy oil deposits in Cold Lake and Lloydminster. It can apply it to any particular company which has some problem.
There are very wide discretionary powers of taxation. There are arbitrary powers which I doubt any parliament should give to a government. But most serious of all it means that these powers will enable the government to give the same concessions to other companies which may develop the oil sands. As a matter of fact I do not see how it can refuse. The minister's predecessor kept saying that no commitment was being made with respect to other companies that might go into the tar sands to extract oil. Will it be possible to do that?
I notice from press reports that Shell Oil is now negotiating with the government of Alberta with a view to building a plant there. I hope it does. This country certainly needs the oil, and we certainly cannot afford to import the amount of oil we are importing now with the effect it is having on our balance of trade and on the Canadian dollar. But how will this government justify saying to Shell Oil, "We are not going to give you any international price; we are giving it to Imperial Oil, we are giving it to Gulf Oil because we made a mistake on February 3, 1975, when we were stampeded into reaching an agreement"? Will it say "We are not going to give it to you"? You cannot do that. There will be other companies, Husky Oil and others which may decide to build plants in the oil sands area and surely they will be able to claim in all justice that they should have the same concessions, and those concessions are going to cost the people of this country tremendous sums of money.
I think what should be recognized is the concessions which were made on February 3, 1975. First of all they consisted of these very large sums of money, some $800 million, $600 million in equity and $200 million in loans. These companies will have had and will continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public treasury as a result of the tremendous tax concessions which have to be paid for by the other taxpayers of Canada. Now on top of that we are going to tax
Energy
the consumers of this country to give to Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil a special price for oil that is not enjoyed by other companies and is not enjoyed by the only other company that is producing oil in the tar sands, namely, Great Canadian Oil Sands, which has been producing all along, producing at the domestic price and with a much less sophisticated plant.
If ever a couple of oil companies have had preferred treatment, it is certainly Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil, under this agreement. I am saying to this House that these two companies and the oil industry as a whole just do not need this kind of handout. They have had the privilege given to them by this government of increasing the price of oil fourfold over the last five years. They have made hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Canadian people from their increased revenue.
Let me draw to the attention of the House for a moment the government's own monitoring survey for 1971-1976. I will have a chance to deal with it in more detail when we come to Bill C-12. To quote from page 5 of the monitoring survey, there is one sentence which I think ought to be emblazoned all across this country:
Over the 1971-1976 period internal cash generation for the monitoring aggregate totalled $13.3 billion. Of this total, $6.7 billion or 50.4 per cent is represented by after tax profits.
I ask the members of this House: do you know of any other commercial operation or any other industry in Canada where its profits represent over 50 per cent of its total cash revenue? Do you know of any store, any businessman who, out of his total cash take, receives over 50 per cent in after tax profits?
President Carter said a short time ago that the oil industry in the United States was robbing the American people. Well, he ought to have a look at this statement and see how it is happening in this country. The oil industry in this country has made so much money out of the profits it has had from its domestic production that I claim that Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil do not need this extra money which is going to be provided by levying a tax on the Canadian people. It depends on what the world and domestic prices are, but if the difference between the two prices is three or four dollars per year then the Canadian consumer will have to pay $140 million to $150 million a year more than he is paying now.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows we have already put a tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline and home heating oil in this country. We are already taxing our people very heavily. In addition, we are going to tax them because a consortium in Canada is extracting oil from the tar sands and has managed to get a commitment from the Government of Canada, not just that it will get hundreds of millions of dollars of money which the public treasuries have poured into that consortium, not just that it will get these tremendous tax concessions, but that it is going to get a guarantee of a world price, something no other company in Canada has. It is going to get that no matter what happens. It is going to be paid for by the consumers of Canada who are already paying too much for both their motor fuel and heating fuel in light of what it costs.
80031 -b'h

January 27, 1978
Energy
If there were any assurance that these higher prices were going to be ploughed back in to ensure supplies for the future, it might make some sense. We will get to that when we come to Bill C-12. However, there is no such assurance. All we are asked in this legislation is to give the government authority to levy a tax on the consumers so that the government can take the money and turn it over to those poor, downtrodden, poverty sticken companies, Imperial Oil Company and the Gulf Oil Company of Canada.
I say that this is an iniquitous piece of legislation. Any government which has introduced it has lost all sense of shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has put his finger on one of the real problems of this legislation. Toward the conclusion of his remarks, he suggested in so many words that what we are being asked to do is buy a pig in a poke.
In his introductory remarks, the minister dealt with the particular situation of Syncrude. It might well be that a clear examination of all of the facts, and some indication as to the probability of what will happen in the future, might persuade this House that in the interest of doing something about the energy situation in Canada a certain type of arrangement should receive the support of the House.
I consider it most improper, and I think I would not be discharging my responsibility to my constituents and to the people of this country, to accept, without something more being done to bring home to us the actual facts, the statement of the minister that we should relate the general to the particular and that this situation with regard to Syncrude justifies the passing of this legislation.
As a Conservative I thoroughly believe that the private sector in general is the best weapon, best means and best vehicle to sustain progress in our society. However, that does not mean 1 am automatically opposed to intervention by the state when it can be established to be essential.
I can cast my mind back a great many years to the inception of programs with regard to the development of the tar sands. Under the premiership of a very distinguished gentleman, later a law partner of mine, the late John Brownlee, the government of Alberta established a program with regard to dealing with the tar sands. The then expenditure in today's terms would appear an extremely modest amount of money each year.
A very considerable amount of the basic research and study was done with regard to the tar sands in the McMurray area. At that time the government of Alberta saw fit, in collaboration with one or two companies, to continue its basic research. This in due course led to what progress has since been made in the McMurray district.
This legislation is something entirely different. It applies to what I like to call the great skin game of 1973. Because of the

actions of the OPEC nations, the blindness, and possibly the collaboration of governments with some of the larger international companies, people on the North American continent and in Europe were frightened to death. They were persuaded to intervene in assistance, to engage in programs and to sponsor and enact legislation such as the Petroleum Administration Act and the energy allocation bill.
Several bills were passed at that time, having been introduced by the then minister, who has since left this House. At that time I participated very actively in the debate, both in committee and in the House. We attempted to move amendments. We said things then which have since been repeated by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). This shows that what the opposition stated at that time has now come true. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said, the chickens have come home to roost.
The legislation was conceived in panic, enacted in haste, and contained what at the time I characterized as an inordinate amount of authority given to the government. As a result of the power which the government took, against our opposition and contrary to the votes of the opposition, I never thought it would need to come back here. But now it comes back demanding an even greater degree of blanket authority on issues which may involve billions and billions of dollars.
The United States is in a very serious situation with regard to its balance of payments. President Carter has been attempting to secure enactment of a legislative package which will include, among other things, legislation dealing with the proposed pipeline coming down from Alaska, through the Yukon, into Canada. He has indicated that, if nothing is done, the United States may well have to contemplate a balance of payments deficit running into $100 billion or $125 billion in the not too distant future. I ask the House to consider what that might do to the question of inflation in the United States and, incidentally, to us, as well as the dangerous situation it would put those people in who directly rely on petroleum products for energy. We are heading down the same road.
I would like to feel that what the minister said might be correct, that a program such as he has intimated and such as has been referred to in the House might be essential in order to get this particular program going. However, we should be confronted with figures, particulars, an itemized statement, and some prognosis as to what will be involved. How will the people of the eastern provinces, who are faced with a staggering measure of inflation and unemployment, be involved, and how will they bear the burden of this particular program?
I know that if the production of petroleum were to cease the industrialized world would come to a crashing end because we have predicated our existence on the motor vehicle, on the internal combustion engine, and on the use of oil for fuel and heating.
I sometimes wonder whether in the excitement of these great projects which are pending we have not lost sight of their


ultimate cost and the effect this figure is likely to have on the balance sheets being presented. We have been talking about a gas pipeline coming down from Alaska through the Yukon into southern Canada. The cost has been estimated at between $13 billion and $14 billion. I notice that the other day in Washington some fairly responsible members of Congress suggested that between $20 billion and $25 billion would be more realistic. Of course that might be alarmist information given for political purposes, but I would suggest that whatever figure the minister presently has in mind he will have to double or triple by the time the pipeline is finished. What effect is the final figure likely to have on the inflationary spiral?
I,	for one, am not inclined to give the government the blank cheque it is seeking in legislation of the kind before us. I will make up my mind on the issue after hearing what the minister has to say during the committee stage. So far he has not been very informative. He is a good minister. He came into this Chamber just in time to inject a feeling of excitement about this bill and he read a very good brief which had been prepared by his officials-I do not know whether he had had a chance to read it before he delivered it. During the committee stage the missing information, part of which the minister may not have been able to soak up like a blotter, will be supplied by the officials who will be present to jog his elbow and put words and figures on his tongue-


Alastair William Gillespie: I have just had a holiday.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister says he has just had a holiday. I have been on holiday too, in Yucatan, looking at the ruins, and now I have come back here to look at the ruins of the government. I might say that the ruins of Yucatan with their great stone faces were much more pleasant to gaze upon; at least they did not make the kind of speech the minister made today.
I once heard it said that genius could be defined as a capacity to take infinite pains. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should put that motto on his wall instead of the one which 1 imagine is there at the present time-"A Prime Minister can do no wrong". Ministers should be knowledgeable about the programs they bring before the House. They should know what they are doing, and why. There is more to this issue than the question of energy produced from oil derivatives under the present system.
Not long ago I was up in my constituency in the far north. I had a telephone call from a constituent, a farmer, who had conceived and developed a simple device for producing energy. He had a dozen cattle and he put the wastes from those cattle into a device which generated enough gas to provide electrical power for his furnace and for his lights. He has been in contact with both the provincial and the federal governments to work out a subsidy program through which the necessary equipment could be manufactured and sold to farmers at the price of $1,000 or so.
The beauty of this system is this: the end product is a valuable, highly enriched fertilizer which goes back into the field and is used to help grow feed for cattle. The cattle
Energy
produce wastes, and the cycle begins again, so there is a kind of perpetual motion. By this little story I am trying to show that there are a great many sources of energy still to be developed, for example, thermal power, wind power, solar energy. I know the minister has gone through his repertoire of what the government is doing in this field, but personally I am not convinced by his statements. I do not think he knows what the department is doing, and I doubt whether the department knows either.
The minister is right in saying petroleum products are finite. There are limits. Maybe there are 180 billion barrels in the east, maybe more-we do not yet know what advances may be made in measures of recovery. Within 25 miles of my own town on the Peace River the Shell Company-and I give the company full credit for this-has been working steadily on a pilot project to develop methods of utilizing the tar sands some
1,000	feet down. It is estimated that between 25 billion and 30 billion barrels of oil are secreted in the tar sands of the area. The great virtue of this experiment is that the environmental hazards associated with the operations at Cold Lake and elsewhere are largely avoided. Therefore we may look forward to a process of recovery of a much larger percentage of tar sands energy in Western Canada than either the minister or the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands contemplates at this time. We know, however, that the time will come when these reserves will be exhausted.
We owe it not only to our constituents but to those who come after us to ensure that adequate steps are taken and that money is spent under proper supervision to bring about a comprehensive program which will permit us not only to be independent but to be generously supportive of other peoples in the world who are in need of energy. We are one of the better equipped countries in the world, because of our experience, knowledge and expertise, to offer assistance. I include my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who is very knowledgeable in this regard. He is a scientist, and in his speech he gave sure indication of his knowledge.
I just do not like the ad hocery which this bill puts before us. The minister says this bill is to deal with Syncrude. It could deal with any situation. I will read some of the parts which are obnoxious and repugnant to me. Proposed section 65.13 says the following:
Where it is shown to the Governor in Council by the Board that it is in the public interest to do so-
Who decides what is in the public interest? Is it the board? This board has not shown the degree of knowledge and competence necessary to make an adjudication regarding public interest. It should be this House. It should be this parliament that should decide what is or is not in the public interest.
-the Governor in Council may ... exempt any petroleum or petroleum products from the charge imposed thereon ...
If this parliament has any task at all, surely it is to tax and to relieve from taxation, and not to leave it to any board to do so. For too many years we have dribbled away our powers to

Energy
the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy and the government are not composed of bad people. I think generally all governments are bad, but we should start on the basis that the men who conduct them are well intentioned but engage too much in deceit and are incompetent. I am not inclined to give this kind of power to people of that kind.
Surely it is the duty of this parliament to say to the minister that we will grant him this blanket legislation, but let him introduce into it a clause which says that any particular device, scheme or program with regard to any special area such as Syncrude shall be brought to the government by the board, and the government may indeed approve it by order in council, but subject to an affirmative resolution by this House. It is about time we started asserting not just our independence but also the necessity that we, as a parliament on behalf of the people of Canada, say to the government that programs of this kind which could involve over a ten-year period billions and billions of dollars will not be allowed to proceed without certain assurances.
We should not allow the minister to introduce them on his own, to deceive us, and to tell us about them only when they are all over. If the minister thinks he has a good program, let him bring it before parliament with facts, figures and detail, and if it is good we will give him our support. I believe that this parliament should reassert its independence from government. Hon. members opposite should assert their independence from the government and say that they have a right to be consulted about issues which affect us. I believe if that were done hon. members opposite could go back to their constituencies and be well received.
We are delinquent in our duty if we allow legislation of this kind to pass without making speeches such as the ones made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. There may not be profit in everything, but if we do not make those kinds of speeches, before ten years have passed I suggest that this House, this parliament and this country will be very sorry indeed for passing a bill of this kind.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us which deals with a special levy or tax on oil products in order that Syncrude may be compensated at world price levels for the oil production at its plant in the tar sands of Alberta is but one further instalment in a sad record of mismanagement of energy and tax policies on the part of this government.
In a sense this bill comes after the fact. In the original agreement with Syncrude the company was promised, no matter what, that it would get the world price for the oil produced from those tar sands. That price has not been guaranteed to any other Canadian energy producing company. Therefore this bill merely confirms something that was agreed to a number of years ago. We in the New Democratic Party objected to the Syncrude deal-or sellout, as we described it- and likewise we object to this bill for many of the same reasons.

I think it is worth while to refresh the memories of hon. members on some of the pertinent details relating to the agreement which lead to the bill before us. In late 1974 there was a crisis energy shortage in this country and in the United States, and there was great panic among consumers and government that we might see a repetition of the lineups of automobiles at gasoline stations and that people might freeze in the dark. In that panic atmosphere the government was forced into making a deal that in reality sold out the Canadian consumer and future generations in terms of assuring that our energy supplies would be controlled by the people of Canada, who own the oil or natural gas that lies beneath the surface.
In June of 1974 when oil companies only were involved in the planned project to extract synthetic oil-oil of a very high quality which costs less to refine than conventional oil-the cost of the Syncrude project was projected to be about $960 million. Then we found that by December of 1974 it had escalated mysteriously to $1.6 billion. Five weeks later, after one of the original partners in that private consortium of international oil companies operating in Canada pulled out, the cost jumped to $2 billion. By the time the government bailed out those multinational oil companies in the project the cost was well over $2 billion. That in itself should have led any astute minister of energy to question.
What happened was that not only had the oil companies manoeuvred this government; they had done so at a tremendously inflated cost. In the negotiations at that time the government was given an ultimatum; "Either pour money into this enormously costly project, or it will collapse and Canadians will be facing more serious shortages of energy, and there will be panic in the streets."
Along with the governments of Alberta and Ontario the federal government bailed out the Syncrude project by putting up tremendous sums of public money. This money was paid to the private companies. This party has argued in the past that energy is owned by the people and therefore should be controlled by the people. That principle has been accepted in every province with regard to electricity. The wisdom of having electricity owned by the public is no longer debated. Yet we still allow one of our most precious and important energy resources, oil, to remain in the hands of private companies.
The oil industry in Canada in terms of refining is 99 per cent foreign-owned, so not only is it in private hands, it is in private foreign hands. As a result we have the very odd situation of the governments of Canada, Ontario and Alberta pouring money in to help out these private companies. If I were a negotiator or sound businessman putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a project, I would want to get something from it in return, either in terms of ownership and control, or benefits in terms of the products produced. One would assume that the Liberal government would operate on that logical premise. But we know from the past record of this government in energy policy that logic does not prevail. In this
January 27, 1978

case it was a panic policy in a situation that helped the multinational oil companies.
Let us examine what happened. This project, involving more than $2 billion, was bailed out to the tune of some $600 million in investment money from the three governments; another $200 million in loans from the government of Alberta; another $600 million in assistance for the power plant and the pipeline from the public treasuries; and another $230 million in assistance for the building of roads and town services.
In addition to that kind of financial assistance in direct aid, the governments at both levels through their tax dollars gave the Syncrude partners tax concessions of immense dollar value; more tax concessions than private companies elsewhere in Canada were able to achieve. These included the writing off of provincial royalties, which has been denied every other company in computing taxes owed the federal government, depreciation allowances, and so on.
In return for all that capital investment and tax concession, how much ownership did we as the people of Canada obtain? I suggest it is not 50 per cent, not 60 per cent or 80 per cent, but a mere 30 per cent. We end up with 30 per cent control of the Syncrude project after putting up that kind of money.
When you total the grants and concessions and take into account the $1.4 billion of the more than $2 billion the private companies were supposed to have put in, you will find that we, as the taxpayers, are subsidizing even that amount. In reality we as taxpayers are putting up the majority of the money for the project but end up with only 30 per cent of the control. What a sellout! I do not see how the government can justify that kind of investment for that kind of control. It ends up with six directors on a board of 20, and 30 per cent ownership of a project in return for hundreds of millions in investment. The government was taken to the cleaners, and we as Canadians have, indeed, been taken to the cleaners along with it because we end up paying, in terms of our taxes, huge subsidies to Syncrude and, even more important, in terms of our consumer dollar we are subsidizing the Syncrude project.
What this means is that any refined oil product coming from Syncrude will now be subsidized to the extent of what the world price of oil will be. We are paying twice over for this project called Syncrude. Today the price of oil per barrel in Canada is $12.75. It is hard to believe that back in 1973 we were paying $3 a barrel for that oil. The world price which has been guaranteed to Syncrude is about $15 or $16, and the projections are that it will continue to increase. Therefore, because we have been able to cushion the world price for the Canadian consumer, holding it to $12.75, and the government will eventually bring it up to the world price now being received by every other oil company, we will allow Syncrude to get the world price. That is what this government has before us in this bill.
We as taxpayers have to make up the difference between $12.75 per barrel and the world price of $15 to $16. We are faced with an increase imposed in respect of other energy products we consume in order to pay Syncrude the equivalent of the world price.
Energy
We have already seen what has happened as a result of this tremendous escalation in the price of energy in the form of oil, from $3 a barrel five years ago to $12.75 at this time. It has been reflected in the cost of heating our homes, in the cost of public and private transportation, in the cost to the farmer for his machinery, which in turn is reflected in the higher cost of food, and in terms of unemployment. High energy costs have driven some of our industries into a non-competitive position. This has meant less sales and the layoff of many people.
We are paying many times over for this horrendous deal negotiated by the Liberal government. In return we are getting 30 per cent ownership and have to pay the world price for the oil produced by the Syncrude project. If ever there was an argument for full public ownership and control of the energy industries in this country, the Syncrude project is that argument.
We as the people of this country own the resources, but the policies of the Liberal and Conservative governments have been to pay the multinational oil companies large subsidies with our tax dollars and allow them to charge us the high world price for our domestic oil. What a ludicrous and ridiculous situation we have to face! It seems to me that the logic of seeing our oil industry as a public utility, as we do in respect of our electric industry, is very evident.
We now have this bill which will levy a tax or charge on conventional oil produced elsewhere in Canada in order to guarantee Syncrude the world price. What is that going to cost us as consumers? The bill does not spell this out, and that is another of the reasons we object to it. It gives carte blanche to the government to calculate what that charge will be. Several estimates report it to be $140 million a year in extra cost to Canadian consumers in the form of subsidies to the Syncrude project until we reach the world price for oil right across Canada. This is taking place at a time when inflation is on the rise and with unemployment at record high levels. To me this is a disastrous policy into which this government has locked itself.
We as consumers and workers have to put up with this immense folly perpetrated on the Canadian people by mismanagement. In addition, this means that we are going to be paying more for imported oil as the cost continually rises at the world level, and as we continue to import foreign oil instead of moving toward self-sufficiency, as we should have years ago. This is the result of the government allowing the control of pipe-lines to be in the hands of private industry. We have never moved toward an east-west pipeline in this country to isolate ourselves from the necessity of having to import oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. We will end up paying at least $1.8 billion a year for imported oil, as we do now, with the prospect of it going up to $6 billion by 1985. Already we have seen what this deficit in the balance of payments has done to the Canadian dollar. It has reduced its value to 90 cents. That will worsen, and indeed the consequences for our economy are very grim when one looks ahead. This legislation provides Syncrude with the world price, and one must worry about the projected world price a few years down the road.

January 27, 1978
Energy
Along with some of my colleagues in this House, I had the privilege of visiting the United States, specifically Washington and a number of other communities. We met with American officials to discuss its energy conservation program. In one of our meetings at the energy department in Washington with some of Mr. Schlesinger's officials, charts were pulled out which projected the world price, as well as what Americans were expecting to pay in 1985 for an imported barrel of crude oil. The figures were very sobering and were corroborated by other independent forecasters. It showed that by 1985 the world price, which is currently $15 a barrel, will be $25 a barrel in 1977 dollars and approximately $40 a barrel in 1985 dollars. This piece of legislation guarantees Syncrude the world price which has been projected for the years to come. Although Canadian oil will not cost that much to produce, we will end up paying Syncrude the world price because of this iniquitous legislation. The minister should resign in shame for this kind of betrayal.
The minister places great hope on the tar or oil sands as a great supplier of energy for Canada in the future. If one looks at the projected costs of such a development, one shudders because they amount to billions of dollars. I do not think the minister has looked at the oil sands situation from an energy point of view. The tendency is always to look at it from the dollar cost point of view. Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources conducted a study of the energy cost of extracting energy from the Alberta tar sands? Do we end up putting more energy into the tar sands in order to get energy back out and delivered to the consumer?
There was a study conducted by an American university on the whole question of the energy costs of the different developments which are occurring in the energy field. The oil shale situation was looked at by this group. I suppose that is not comparable to the oil sands, but it is an illustrative example and I hope the minister will provide a similar study at committee stage. The study group concluded that to obtain 1,000 BTUs of energy from oil shale, at least 1,238 BTUs of oil shale in the ground is required in the first place; another 359 BTUs of energy is required to build and to operate the extraction system, the great drag lines, etc.; and then another 483 BTUs of oil shale in the ground is required to supply the aforementioned BTU energy to build the system. In other words, an equivalent of 2,080 BTUs of oil shale is required to produce
1,000	BTUs for delivery to the consumer.
If that is placed on the energy equation scale, then is it worth while to invest so much money and time in that kind of extraction system or should we not spend our time and dollars on alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or enhancement of conservation? The government's record in that regard has been dismal, but in terms of alternative development we are behind most other countries in the world. From an energy point of view, as well as from a dollar point of view, perhaps we should go slowly into the future of oil sands development and look at alternative conventional sources of energy.

I reiterate our profound objections to the Syncrude project as well as the bill before us. It will continue to penalize Canadian consumers for the bad deal which was negotiated a few years ago. Indeed it gives the government and its anonymous officials a blank cheque and immense power in terms of defining the dollar levy consumers will end up paying to subsidize Syncrude. It gives wide and arbitrary power to cabinet. This cannot be allowed because the government has usurped the powers of this elected House. This will set a precedent for future oil sands development in terms of special deals, concessions, and prices for other oil companies involved in tar sands extraction, which no other energy company has in Canada. In its entirety this is a bad bill. The taxpayers will end up paying two times over for this very, very bad Syncrude deal foisted on the Canadian public a few years ago. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) advocating public ownership. I do not think we can say that public ownership has always been within the public good, or that it has always been the most profitable in terms of goods produced and services provided. I do not think we can say public ownership is all bad. Each case has to be examined on its merits.
The Syncrude project is a rather unique partnership between two provincial governments, the governments of Alberta and Ontario; the federal government, which came in at a later stage in order to fill a vacuum that had developed; and the private sector. In terms of the future of Canada, it is a project of some considerable value. It does not lie in the mouth of any member of this House to condemn it, because its work is important in terms of the development of Canadian energy resources.
I do not intend to give the government an inordinately large pat on the back for its incentives in energy. I would be surprised if the minister did not come before the House indicating that he and his department are the next best thing since sliced bread. Some people have said that rather than sliced bread I should have used the phrase "sliced baloney", but ministers do this kind of thing.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is right, however, that in terms of developing alternate sources of energy this government's record of talking on this subject in the House of Commons has been better than of taking any action. As time goes on our country will have to pay very dearly for the fact that thus far the development of alternate sources of energy has not proceeded too well.
What surprises me somewhat is the silence from the Liberal backbenchers on this bill which gives the government such extraordinary powers. I wonder how the Liberal backbenchers, who, I assume, are as concerned about the propriety of legislation as are any other members of the House, can sit by and allow a government to bring before the House a bill which may quite properly apply to the Syncrude project because of its
January 27, 1978

particular nature, but which contains provisions allowing the government access to the public taxing power with respect to private organizations and, indeed, access to public funds.
The bill is broadly based and, I think, is the product of a lazy draftsman. It is much easier to draft bills which apply to everybody, bills which grant powers which the government might not need in particular circumstances but which would give the government a lot of regulatory power, than to design legislation for particular cases. It should go against the grain of any member of parliament to accept a bill which, by its very terms, denies us the right to examine the use of public money and the use of public levying power. We are very concerned about that.
The provisions set forth in Bill C-19 may be perfectly all right for Syncrude because of the nature of that company, but this might not apply to other cases, and I think parliament should be at least in a position to be consulted about it. At present that is not the case with respect to this bill. In effect, the government is being given a blank cheque with respect to those other oil companies. That could be an advantage to the oil companies but it can also be a great disadvantage to parliament and to the taxpayers. If we have any job here as members of parliament, it is to watch that kind of matter very closely.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that the job of parliament is basically a watchdog job; that the government creates legislation and comes to parliament to take part in the enactment of it, but that the first and foremost job of parliament is that of a watchdog. I am greatly surprised that some of the watchdogs on the other side are not equally concerned.


An hon. Member:: They are pussy cats.


An hon. Member:: They have lost their teeth.


Walter David Baker: That may be so but I am surprised that it is the case.
My predecessor in the role of House leader of the opposition asked the minister in an aside this afternoon whether he was in an amending mood. The minister said, quite properly of course, that he could not amend the bill on second reading. He is quite right that he cannot do that, but the question was not put to the minister lightly, nor was it with respect to amendments on second reading. The hon. member put his question with respect to amending the bill in committee.
I think it is proper that I lay out the matters that concern us with respect to this bill. We are very concerned about the clause with the notation in the margin "deemed importation" whereby, for the purposes of administering this statute, the product of the work of certain companies, the output from certain private organizations, can, by the stroke of a pen, be deemed to be importation and have the advantages set forth in the bill. We intend to address ourselves to that provision in committee.
The other aspect which concerns us regards the special subsidy for hardship cases. We are not suggesting that there
Energy
will not be hardship cases, but we are concerned about giving the government a blank cheque in that regard. Frankly, we do not want this kind of power in the hands of the government forever. When there is a difficulty which must be faced by any industry in Canada, the statutes should not be so broad as to allow the government to step in at any time and expend public funds without first coming to parliament. That is why we are here. If we do not believe we have the right to review this kind of expenditure-and this could be a massive expenditure- then I assume we should not be here. We intend to bring forth amendments at the committee stage so that this power, which the government clutches to its breast in this piece of legislation, is not granted to it forever.
We are also concerned about the length of time that this measure will be in existence. The life of this legislation can go on forever and ever until the government decides it is time to come to parliament and repeal it. In the whole period of time that I have been here the only bill I have heard repealed in the House is one dealing with the Halifax disaster. Governments do not repeal bills because they do not wish to denude themselves of power. We hope to advance during the committee stage an amendment in the form of the bill which will permit the House to determine, by way of an affirmative resolution, whether within a reasonable period of time this bill and its powers should continue in existence.
The answer to that might be that we will be taking up all our time debating these affirmative resolutions in the House. I want to say to the minister that it is not our intention to do that. If the government were to agree to this limitation in time, I would be prepared to advance the proposition that the affirmative resolution be dealt with without debate, and that would end the matter there. I do not think it is appropriate that the government should garner this power to use public funds forever on such a broad scale without this parliament having an opportunity to step in at some stage and have the government come to the House to justify why it should continue to have such powers. It is a very simple matter, and on the terms and conditions I have mentioned I think ought not to offend the government if it cares about the operation of this parliament.
I rise only to lay out in this general way, the conditions that will apply. We do not regard the matter of second reading as of too great importance in this case. In fact, it is not our intention to stand in the way of the bill going to committee, but rather to help propel it to committee, where we hope the government will accept and see the reasoning behind our amendments. That, of course, is without prejudice to the position we may take after the committee has dealt with our proposals. If it deals with them in the way that I hope the minister will recommend, then the government may find us in an unusual position, with respect to what I have said, on third reading. I do not want the minister to think that because we hurry the bill to committee we will necessarily support it on third reading. We will look at the bill when it is reported from

January 27, 1978
Energy
committee, we will consider the attitude of the government in committee and then make our decision on third reading.
I want the minister to know that we take exception to the may I say lazy draftsmanship of the bill or the easy route approach that has been taken. This is repugnant to the parliamentary process and it is time it came to an end.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I decided to participate after listening to the response of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to the speech of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). It seems to me that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton needs a lesson in the rudimentary principles of private enterprise and capitalism. For the moment he will have to take that lesson from a socialist.
It has always been my understanding of sound business principles and of private enterprise and capitalism that whoever puts up all the money owns all of the project, and whoever puts up the majority of the money owns the majority of the project. I could hardly believe my ears when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said that it was all right for this project we are dealing with to remain what he called a partnership; the public partners put up most of the money and the private partners have the majority ownership. I am sure his business friends would be horrified if he asked them to participate in that kind of deal. Perhaps I should find some investors and set up a plant to manufacture bologna slices and ask the hon. member to put up 70 per cent of the money and take only 30 percent of the ownership. I wonder if he would agree to that.
The Conservative party should be reminded that the Syncrude project is just another CPR; we are going to pay for it twice and still not own it. I read the debates of the 1880s in Hansard when the then Conservative government proposed putting up most of the money for the CPR. The Liberal opposition wanted to know why, if the government put up most of the money, they did not own it. When their leader was reminded that this would amount to public ownership he was horrified and, of course, when the Liberals took office they kept the deal going. The same thing is happening now. Twenty or thirty years from now our children and grandchildren will say the same things about Syncrude as have been said for almost 100 years about the CPR.
The government should blush when putting a proposition like this before us. And if the official opposition would only stick to the principles that I know they have, the bill would read differently. It would be bad enough if the government agreed to a limit on the world price to be received by Syncrude. Even if it were today's world price and nothing more, the company would still be laughing all the way to the bank and would end up owning the plant that we are paying for. That would be difficult enough to swallow but what they are offered is the world price on into the 1980s and 1990s. Mr. Speaker, how many times are the taxpayers to pay for a project they do not own? They do not even have a majority interest although they put up the majority of the money.

Many Liberal backbenchers have argued with me on occasion on the subject of sound business practices. I would be delighted to hear them object to this unsound business practice of a majority of public money going into an operation in which the public will have minority ownership. No self-respecting businessman would have anything to do with such a proposition.
How can a private enterprise government and a private enterprise official opposition who advocate sound business practices accept and perpetuate the nonsense offered in this bill? When I tell the Regina Chamber of Commerce about this they will be horrified. I do not understand how my colleagues in the official opposition and the Liberal backbenchers can hold still for this.
This is an economic tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it will perpetrate social tragedy. It is a tragic example of "sell-out." It is a betrayal of new nationhood and sovereignty. I am a strong nationalist-not the old nineteenth century kind of nationalist-but by the gods of war, if we cannot control and run the development of our natural resources, particularly energy, I say we show weakness and cowardice. The government allowed itself to be held up to economic blackmail because of the threatened withdrawal or cancellation of the Syncrude project. There was a panic meeting in a motel room in Winnipeg when they gave away the store. What kind of Canadian nationalism is that? That is betrayal and leaves me ashamed and insulted. It is embarrassing for all of us but the minister and his colleagues. It would be nice to be a little mouse in the boardrooms of Imperial Oil, Gulf Oil and City Services and to be present during their cocktail hour to see them chuckle and rub their hands in glee at this marvellous return on investment they are receiving at the expense of the Canadian public as well as the concessions that they will receive through taxes and other benefits for years to come.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a real private enterprise deal for them, but it is not for us, and it is not for Canada. However, this government did not have the guts or the backbone to stand up and tell a few corporations; "Look, you either do the job or get the hell out of the way and we will do it ourselves." We can still tell them that, so that not only the government but the rest of us will be able to hold up our heads as Canadians with some measure of pride and say that we are developing and running our own resources for Canada first.
This kind of national betrayal which has occurred throughout the history of our country commenced with the CPR and now they are foisting on us another CPR. When I look at the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) I am reminded of the photograph of R. B. Bennett that Bob Edwards carried in the Calgary Eye Opener. Underneath the heading was "Another CPR Wreck". That is what we have in this legislation with the Syncrude project. I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and also to my hon. friend for Grenville-Carleton that you cannot stand up, support private
January 27, 1978

enterprise, sound business practice and principles, and then support an operation whereby we, the public, put up the majority of the money and have a minority of the ownership and a minority of the say, if any say at all. Surely we should have some backbone to put a stop to those kinds of supine and weak-kneed activities by a government which should know better, and does know better. It should be made to act better. This is an opportunity for all of us to do something constructive on behalf of our fellow Canadians, rather than ignore the weakness of some cabinet ministers who are carrying out an effort that will cause all of us to rue the day and pay the bill many times over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise only for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to indicate what may happen in a moment or two.
First of all, I should like to thank my hon. friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for quoting those words he attributed to me concerning the fact that it is our role here to act as watchdogs. We find in this party that we have to be watchdogs with our eyes not only on the government of the day but on the members of the official opposition. They are just as ready to give away to private enterprise the people's heritage as are those who are on the government side right now. Watchdogs we are, looking both ways.
As my colleagues the hon. members for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) have indicated, we are opposed to this bill. I wish to say that in a moment or two, if the debate is over, we intend to ask for a recorded vote. In that connection I might point out that there was an agreement yesterday among the House leaders that if any votes were called for today they would be deferred until next week at a time or times to be settled by consultation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Accordingly the vote stands deferred until next week.
Petroleum Statistics


PETROLEUM CORPORATIONS MONITORING ACT
Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-12, to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of certain petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to introduce for second reading a second bill, being a companion bill to the bill that has just finished its second reading debate and which will be voted upon next week.
Bill C-12, the petroleum corporations monitoring bill, concerns the vital matter of energy self-reliance. As I have indicated, it too is concerned with the increasing of Canadian supplies of hydrocarbon energy. As the title suggests, the purpose of the bill is the monitoring of the expenditures made by petroleum companies to search for and develop new energy supplies, which is a vital factor in our policy of achieving self-reliance.
From time to time members opposite, members from my side and the public generally are asking whether the oil companies are reinvesting their revenues so as to increase our own supplies of hydrocarbons and related energies in this country. If so, to what extent and how? The aim of this bill is to obtain the relevant data necessary to assure Canadian consumers, who must pay increasingly higher prices for petroleum products, that an appropriate proportion of the increased cash flow accruing to the Canadian petroleum industry is being reinvested in domestic energy related projects. This bill provides for a standard method of reporting of relevant capital expenditures and cash flow items by all petroleum companies in Canada which have gross revenues exceeding $10 million or total assets in Canada exceeding $5 million. It provides specific penalties for non-compliance or falsification of data.
Over the past three years there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the energy crisis following the first round of crude price increases initiated by OPEC. In the winter of 1973-1974, for some countries, because of the embargo imposed by OPEC, the energy crisis was more than a crisis of price, it was a crisis of supply. It has been well documented that those countries, finding themselves in a position of near absolute dependence on this international cartel for petroleum supply, found themselves most vulnerable.
That supply crisis was underscored this past winter in the northeastern parts of the United States. Because of severe weather conditions and possible misjudgment by certain gas utilities, many cities in that region found it necessary to close schools and shut down industries in order that sufficient fuel could be allocated for the heating of private homes and hospitals particularly. The cost of this shortage in economic terms was enormous and served as a warning to both Americans and Canadians that any significant interruption in energy

January 27, 1978
Petroleum Statistics
supply is potentially catastrophic. Many Canadians were made all too aware of that catastrophic event because they were thrown out of work. Many of the parts manufacturers in the United States for the automobile industry are located in Ohio. Those plants had to shut down for the reasons I have mentioned. Energy supplies were feeding Canadian manufacturing plants and assembly plants just as they were feeding American plants; therefore, Canadians suffered also. The energy crisis was brought home, albeit in a very discriminatory way, to Canadians as well.
The question of more secure supplies in the future and the need to reduce our independence on foreign imports, as I said earlier this afternoon, which is related to moving our prices up both for reasons of conservation and new supply, needs to be examined against those cash flows which are being generated by the higher prices. This nation too is dangerously vulnerable to any interruption of energy supply, particularly of oil supply, in the future.
Major steps have been taken in order to achieve this goal of self-reliance. There was discussion this morning that self-reliance was not a particular objective which the lead-off Tory spokesman would like. I remind him that self-reliance is a much larger concept than the narrow one he has chosen. He has chosen to pin his faith on a very narrow concept.
The hon. member talked about self-sufficiency. It sounds great. However, when you look closely you see it implies all sorts of things such as supplies at any cost regardless of where they come from. I suggest to him that self-reliance is far more sensible and a far more effective objective of Canadian energy policy because it has a flexibility built into it. It recognizes that if we can get supplies from other sources and get them at a lower price than we can develop them in Canada, then we should take advantage of that option. His particular articulation of self-sufficiency would clearly rule that out.
If you push the hon. member's theme on self-sufficiency to its logical conclusions, you could not take advantage of cheap electrical power from the United States during the winter season. It would deprive a large proportion of Canadians of the advantage of cheap electrical power during the winter season in the same way that it would deprive the American consumer of power from Canada during the summer season when they have their peak load. 1 suggest the hon. member re-examine this from the narrow view that he has with regard to the objectives of the energy policy in this country.
To return to the goal of energy self-reliance, it is to allow for domestic petroleum and natural gas prices. One aspect of our policy to achieve the goal of self-reliance is to gradually rise toward international levels, to promote conservation, and also to provide the necessary financial resources required to develop an adequate supply base. That clearly is based upon the present fiscal system which is aimed at making a large flow of internally generated funds available to oil companies so that they can be invested in the search for and development of domestic energy sources.

In order to assure the accurate and useful measurements needed to assess the performance of this policy in stimulating increased exploration, a carefully designed cash flow monitoring program as stipulated in this bill is essential. The bill provides for a standard method of reporting for those petroleum companies to be surveyed on a semi-annual basis. A monitoring questionnaire, which reconciles our need for detailed information with our desire to minimize the administrative burden on the respondents, has been designed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in consultation with industry members. Much of the information required in this questionnaire is available from no other source.
While the information obtained will, as a rule, be treated strictly confidentially, it will be the prerogative of the minister to disclose any or all of the individual company data in the House of Commons or elsewhere if, in his opinion, such disclosure is in the national interest. The moral value of the minister's powers to expose companies which do not use their financial resources provided by the Canadian consumer in the search for new energy must not be overlooked. An exception will be made where such disclosure will, in the opinion of the minister, impair the competitive position of a company. The minister will give every opportunity for a company to make representations as to the effect any disclosure might have on its competitive position before the final decision on this subject is made by him.
Certain penalties for non-compliance are prescribed within the bill and there is provision for selected spot audits of company records to be made at the discretion of those administering the bill. Officials conducting the monitoring survey will not disclose individual company data to any person other than the minister. The bill is an integral part of what we believe will prove to be a far-sighted energy policy that results in maximum net benefit not only to present but future generations of Canadians.
The cash flows accruing to the industry as a result of the increasing prices will doubtless continue to come under attack by many energy critics. It is understandable that, as allowed semi-annual price increases become reflected in pump prices, the Canadian consumer will perhaps become more concerned that the additional sacrifice he is asked to make should be a positive contribution in securing energy supplies for our economy, and rightly so. We believe that the readjustment entailed by the rising prices is inevitable for our society, and while it is important to minimize the disruptive effect of large price increases, through a gradual phasing-in program, the problem of future shortages in domestic energy supplies should be faced now.
The United States of America recognizes the potential havoc which any interruption of crude imports would have and is presently developing strategic petroleum storage reservoirs which will be filled largely with imported oil.
The strategic reserves of Canada can be developed at home. I refer in large measure to the tar sands and the heavy oils. The vast deposits of crude oil locked up in the tar sands, the heavy oil deposits of our western provinces and the untapped
January 27, 1978

potential resources of our frontier areas can supply this nation with the security of supply which Canadians in future years will require. However, that is going to require very substantial investment.
We believe that investment should be made by the private sector. We also believe that while the private sector has shown every inclination to re-invest those funds, it is essential in the public interest that parliament and the Canadian people have the legislative right to examine how those cash flows are being spent and whether they are being spent to the advantage of Canadians. It is the purpose of this bill to ensure that such surveillance can be carried out to the satisfaction of the Canadian public.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I shall naturally begin my remarks by straightening out the minister, if I can, as to the importance of terminology and as to the importance of understanding why self-sufficiency is an important policy objective. Based on the figures he gave this morning, by the year 1990, or perhaps earlier, we shall, given a continuation of the present policy, be facing a fuel bill with the Arab countries and Venezuela of $6.5 billion at today's prices. We shall have to generate this amount by means which are not obvious at this point in time because we are already running tremendous trade deficits in the manufacturing sector.
Since this $6.5 billion is being used to pay for consumer imports, the expenditure represents a direct loss to the Canadian economy, one which can be translated into lost jobs and so on. What will happen to the value of our dollar when the nation is subjected to a continued drain of that nature? It might well drop to 85 cents or to 80 cents. What will be the effect on the cost of living of the increased price of the goods we are obliged to import?
Canada has the geological potential to be self-sufficient, to be independent of the political intricacies of the Middle East oil trade. Since we are not obliged to pay out these large sums of money, every opportunity for self-sufficiency should be seized and pursued. The minister has suggested we would be opposed to importing cheap oil from secure sources. That is an absurd statement. But would the hon. gentleman like to tell us where we can find cheap oil from secure sources today?


Alastair William Gillespie: Do you disagree with swap arrangements?


Harvie Andre: Not at all, if the minister is talking about trade back and forth.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is self-reliance.


Harvie Andre: That is producing as much as we consume and it means a change in priorities. In my opinion the attitude of the government has not changed since 1973, when the first energy policy was produced. It still holds the view that the prime function of the oil and gas producers is to be a source of revenue for the federal treasury. An examination of policy statements, an examination of the motivation behind this bill, leave one with the impression that the role of government is
Business of the House
considered to be that of taking as much of the pie as possible. Of course, to change the metaphor, they do not want to kill the goose altogether, but their attitude remains unchanged: it is to take as much of the pie as possible. A government which views the issue in this way is guilty of distorted perception, because the first priority is to achieve self-sufficiency-to produce as much as we consume. We are, of course, dealing here with the total package, not just with oil and gas.
This is not the type of bill we welcome with great enthusiasm but it is not one which invites very much opposition either, so we shall not hinder its passage. Nevertheless, there are aspects which cause concern. To begin with, I question the motives for bringing it forward in the first place since the information which the government now seeks to compel companies to provide is already being given voluntarily. This has been the case for five or six years. Why bring out the whip when, all this time, the carrot has proven to be effective? Why these compulsory tactics?
Then again, the clause which would permit the minister to disclose confidential information when he deemed it to be in the public interest is abhorrent on philosophical grounds. Is the next step to be the disclosure by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) of confidential information supplied by taxpayers on the ground that it would be in the public interest to do so? Corporations are not anonymous bodies despite the inclination to regard them as such. There are people involved-employers, workers, shareholders. If the minister were to use the blackmailing capability provided by the clause to which I have referred, it might be a comfort to him to think he was using it only against corporations, but he would be using it against people, the people who own and manage and work for these companies. As I say, the clause is abhorrent.
Another clause which I find abhorrent is that which would allow officials to burst in and seize records should the minister believe there was reason to do so. We know what happens when officials are armed with powers of this sort; I hardly need to explain why provisions of this kind should be opposed.
In our opinion, this bill is another candidate for a "sunset clause". We see no reason why this legislation should still be on the books 50, 60 or 100 years from now after we have used up all our petroleum and are relying on solar power or nuclear fission. We do not like the idea of some official sitting in a back room compiling forms and having them filled out simply because that is what the law says. Let us limit the life of the bill to five or six years; if the government thinks its operation should be extended it could be done at that time. I have no doubt parliament would agree to consider whether it should be extended or not.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is four o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the parliamentary secretary whether we shall be proceeding to

January 27, 1978
Business of the House
finish this bill on Monday, and, if that is the case, what order of business we shall be following thereafter.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we will follow the order of the bills indicated yesterday in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), but I must specify that, barring unforeseen circumstances, we will resume study of the bill first thing on Monday.


PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will interrupt the proceedings for only a moment. There has been consultation on this matter.
A group of private members' bills were discharged and their subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The motion referring these bills was moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) prior to the Christmas recess. A bill was omitted from that grouping, and it is my purpose to attempt to have that bill included. If the House will give its unanimous consent, I wish to have Bill C-239, in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), discharged and its subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: That Bill C-239 be withdrawn, the order discharged, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered. I am advised that there is unanimous consent to stand orders Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 16. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION ACT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved: that Bill C-218, respecting senior citizens, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens of Canada, working in far more difficult times than we have experienced, have created for us a better way of life than they themselves enjoyed. For many senior citizens living in their golden years the sands of time are running swiftly. The opportunity for us to recognize their contribution to our society is limited in time, and every day we wait this opportunity decreases dramatically. That is why I have introduced this bill.
I suggest that there is a need for a commission as a full-time job to identify the needs of senior citizens. These needs are very visible and large in number. I would like to mention a few of them.
The first problem that comes to mind is that of poverty. Many senior citizens grew up in the hungry thirties when pension plans were few and old age security was difficult to buy. Pension plans that were available did not envisage today's high prices and dramatic increases in the cost of living. Large numbers of our senior citizens are living below the poverty line, and the sole source of income for many of them is the old age pension and supplement. Their meagre incomes are ravaged by inflation. The cost of living, particularly food, clothing, shelter, energy and heat costs, have risen very rapidly, causing economic hardship and mental anguish. These costs increase faster than the increase in the old age pension and supplement. For workers who are being retired earlier than age 65 the present old age pension system offers no assistance, and these early retired workers suffer an unfair hardship.
How do we define poverty? There are four poverty lines defined by three independent organizations. They each provide unofficial measures which are useful in assessing poverty by income level. The Economic Council of Canada in its fifth report used the Statistics Canada approach to measuring poverty: a family is poor if it spends 70 per cent or more of its income on food, clothing and shelter. The Special Senate Committee on Poverty judged that this criterion was not satisfactory as a permanent yardstick of poverty.
In 1973 Statistics Canada revised its poverty line. It decided that family is poor if it spends 62 per cent or more of its income on basic essentials.
The Senate committee formula and that used by the Canadian Council on Social Development put poverty levels at 50 per cent of average Canadian family income with varying adjustments for inflation, taxes and gross national product.
There is no official poverty line; at best, any measure will be faulty. Last March Senator David Croll, Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty, put on record the 1976 poverty line using the four bases.
January 27, 1978

In the year 2031 there will be 8 million elderly Canadians. Those people are alive now. Some 2 million Canadians today are old age pensioners. In eight years' time that figure will rise to 3 million. Some two thirds of them, according to a recent Global Television feature program, are living below the poverty line. In its July, 1976 paper on the changing age structure the Science Council notes at page 3 the following:
The most glaring fact in regard to the distribution of income by age, and one which promises to be perpetuated in the future, is the relative poverty of the aged, compared with other age cohorts-
In 1974, 26 per cent of old age pensioners received the full GIS and 32 per cent received a partial supplement. Thus over one half of Canada's elderly needed supplementary income to bring them at least to the poverty line.
It is true that the apparent poverty of the aged is somewhat mitigated by the fact that many of the elderly own outright such assets as a home or car. However, these tend to be of older vintage and thus have a greater likelihood of incurring maintenance costs. In inflationary times, the burden of escalating repair costs and taxes can be nearly intolerable to a person on a small fixed income (i.e., pension).
The aged are our poorest population group, women being the worst off. Kevin Collins, senior economist for the Canadian Congress of Labour, says of his recent study for the Canadian Council on Social Development that, and I quote:
If you look at all the different population groups, like young people, single parents, the elderly, it's the elderly who are the poorest. But among the elderly, it's the women who are the poorest of the poorest.
Mr. Collins said that in an interview published in the Globe and Mail on January 13, 1978 at page 12. Mr. Collins was the program director of income securities at the council. His year-long study on women and pensions was his last council project. Rather than recommending pension reforms that relate exclusively to women, the study calls for changes in the private and public pension plan systems and slams the federal government for its old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits program. Mr. Collins said of this program:
It guarantees a level of income for the elderly that is inadequate. It's below any realistic poverty line. In other words, it guarantees poverty.
One of the study's many recommendations calls for the combined income guarantee for the elderly to be substantially increased to meet 1977 poverty lines, which the Canadian Council on Social Development has estimated at $4,400 a year for a single person, and $7,300 for a couple.
Statistics Canada's booklet "Income Distribution by Size in Canada", published in October, 1977, reports that in 1976 31 per cent of single persons over 65 and of families headed by persons of that age, taken together, earned less than $4,000; half of them received less than $3,000 yearly. About 62 per cent of individuals aged 65 or more earned less than $4,000; 42 per cent earned less than $3,000.
If we agree that this is a legitimate problem of senior citizens, what do we do about it? I personally feel for one thing that the old age security pension should be increased to $200 per month immediately and that the guaranteed income supplement should be increased proportionately. I feel too that old age security should be made available to persons 60 years of
Senior Citizens
age and over who are retired and that the supplement be paid to those who otherwise qualify at that age.
The cost of living index should be amended to fully reflect the increase in the cost of living to senior citizens. The basic requirements of senior citizens pretty well gobble up their slender incomes and it is these basic requirements, food, heat, light, shelter and clothing, that should be used as the criterion for indexing the old age pension and supplement. I am suggesting that the increase in these staple items should be averaged and form the multiplier for indexing the old age pension and supplement.
I feel too that the spouse's allowance should be continued for any spouse aged 60 and over who is widowed. The spouse of a public service pensioner gets one-half of the pension when the pensioner dies, but the fixed costs of living, including real property, tax, heat, light, repairs, telephone, all continue unabated. This is a cruel and merciless provision that should be rectified.
It is a blot on the conscience of this nation that our disabled war veterans did not receive the full increase in their pensions related to parity with the control group of five categories of public servants, instead of the increase being related to the much lower consumer price index. I sincerely hope this tragic error in judgment will be rectified.
The world of the senior citizen is sometimes much smaller and shrinks much faster in terms of friends and acquaintances that it does with younger people who are more active and make their way in the world.
Barbara Reynolds, in a paper entitled "Problems of Aging", produced by our own research library, May 3, 1974, reports that only about 5 per cent of those aged 65 or more need to live in institutions and that most elderly persons are reasonably healthy. Hence feebleness, sickness and other mental or physical handicaps are not the dominant obstacle to the good life for most elderly poor folk. Their critical need is for a chance to better themselves.
The Special Senate Committee on Poverty commented that Canada has spent billions on income security and welfare programs to little purpose. They have "only made the lives of the poor a little less desperate". The committee's report continues:
While the poor lack many things, their most fundamental lack is one of opportunity-of the liberty to exercise meaningful choice in our economy and our society. If they had that liberty, in ampler measure than today, they, or at any rate their children, would perform the greater part of the job of lifting themselves out of poverty.
In short, we cannot expect major accomplishments unless we guarantee the necessary preconditions of sufficiency and opportunity.
In each generation there are some poor people who are able to escape from poverty against all the odds and obstacles. But for most, it is simply impossible to control their economic destinies.
It will continue to be impossible unless we find the means to increase their choice, to expand their liberty . .. and to convince them that they were not born to the "small loaf'.
It seems to me, with high vacancy rates in our air carrier and land transportation systems, that senior citizens should be encouraged to do some travelling to visit friends, relatives and

January 27, 1978
Senior Citizens
see our great country, and that when they travel in Canada they should enjoy a 50 per cent reduction in fares.
Another basic need of senior citizens is accommodation, but there surely can be no substitute for senior citizens remaining in their own homes as long as they wish and are physically able to do so. Competent but poor old folk often end up in nursing homes because they cannot pay for low-care or no-care housing. In 1976 in Ontario, according to provincial health minister Frank Miller, there were 35,000 persons in homes for the aged who should not have been there.
In earlier times they might well have been with younger members of their family, looking after grandchildren with a room of their own in the bigger homes of those days. But today the families are smaller, houses have shrunk and costs have climbed. The system tends to discard older persons.
Even elderly people living in their own houses are forced to sell because they cannot keep up the property taxes. They get a good price in inflated dollars for the family house but, in Ottawa, many have to pay more than $600 monthly for board and a shared room in an old folks' home subsidized by the province. It is a "no-win" situation especially for a childless person who has paid school taxes for decades and now is forced out by taxes.
It may be hard for older persons to keep a house; even harder to buy one if they need financing. Banks and trust companies generally do not issue mortgages on properties if the sum of the applicant's age and the term of the loan exceeds 80.
City planners and developers appear to favour destroying whatever has lost the glitter of newness. They raze the old to make way for sterile, costly apartments renting at prices beyond the reach of the elderly. Governments too seem mesmerized by the passion to plant huge office buildings in city cores, whether or not there is a valid demand for offices. Kicking out the poor and old on the pretext of upgrading an area is more fashionable than renewing accommodation so that the elderly may stay in districts they know and love among friends of a lifetime.
I suggest strongly one need that can be identified is the need to meet expenses and be financially able to continue living in one's own home on a slender retirement allowance. Personally I think this type of living should be encouraged and, if necessary, financial assistance should be given to senior citizens to enable them to do this. One goal of our nation should be to see that our senior citizens receive at least the average of the minimum wages established across the country.
For disabled senior citizens who require nursing home care, existing facilities are not sufficient to meet the demand. The financial technique presently used to build these facilities is to borrow money from CMHC, obtain federal grants where they are available and construct the facility. About 80 per cent of the cost of operating these facilities in New Brunswick is paid for by the provincial government through social assistance programs. In making these operating payments the provincial

government in effect repays the CMHC mortgage to a great extent.
The federal government has not come to grips with this problem to the financial degree it should, and I would think the great need for facilities like this would attract the early attention of the commission that I propose be set up by this bill. I can indicate that in my own riding, areas such as Stanley, Millville, Nackawic, Oromocto and Fredericton come quickly to mind. There are many others as well. I would like to see greater use made along these lines of the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton. Wherever possible senior citizens should be located in or near their own communities.
One project that appeared in the Canada Works program in my constituency and which I should like to share with the House is one involving a one-on-one service by volunteers for senior citizens. The volunteer under this program would be available to assist a senior citizen, who perhaps is unable to get out of his or her home, with such things as grocery shopping or shovelling out a front walk on a bad winter day. This type of service I find extremely useful and is appreciated by senior citizens.
Mr. A. Allentuck in "The Cost of Age", Toronto, Fitzhenry & Whitside, 1977, prescribes single-issue politics as a powerful weapon in the hands of the elderly of the future. "More for the elderly now" might be their motif. Their platform contains the following elements:
1.	No compulsory retirement.
2.	Private pensions openly managed and properly insured against mismanagement and fraud.
3.	Public pensions, principally the Guaranteed Income Supplement, increased to levels adequate to support lives that are comfortable and secure.
4.	Relief from real estate taxes.
5.	Construction of more and better nursing homes.
6.	Reduction of the cost of eyeglasses, hearing aids and other prosthetic devices either by subsidy or government intervention into the respective industries.
In the same book Mr. Allentuck suggests the following:
1.	Patients shall be treated, dressed, clothed, housed and cared for in a manner befitting their stature as adults.
2.	Patients may refuse medical treatments and medication to the extent permitted by law.
3.	Patients shall not be compelled to participate in any experiments of any nature.
4.	Patients shall be given explanations of their conditions, care and treatment, and such explanations shall be phrased in terms comprehensible to them.
5.	Patients shall not be restricted to their beds or to their institutions unless their medical conditions so warrant.
6.	If patients or their families make supplemental contributions to their institutions as entrance contract payments, such payments shall be refunded if they withdraw in protest against service rendered.
7.	The patient's religious and cultural preferences shall be respected.
Mr. Reuben Baetz, when executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, had the following to say about the elderly:
Retired persons must themselves be engaged in the planning and implementation of programs, services, recreation, education, from which they are to derive
January 27, 1978

benefit. Why can't the aged be more involved in the operation of homes for the aged? The revolution against paternalism is now well advanced on the university campus. The students are no longer ready to have handed down to them an education which the university fathers feel is best for them. They insist on being involved .... It is therefore high time that the aged assert clearly and forthrightly that they too want to be masters of their own destiny. They should make it perfectly clear that they too have human rights which must be protected and enhanced, and that these rights are more than a pension sufficient to keep body and soul together. They include the right to dignity and self-respect. In many cases, to protect these rights, they must have the opportunity to continue to make meaningful contributions to society. The decision as to when, how, and how long an individual should continue to participate in the mainstream of society must be made by that individual, and not by some computer clock which "rings down the curtain" at age 65.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I am so well aware of how terribly difficult it is for most senior citizens to live on what is provided for them now. It is difficult especially for them at a time when there is an increase in the cost of living on a year to year basis of 9.5 per cent. They despair when they see the cost of living increase to some 11.5 per cent, which is what happened during the last three months.
The basic amount of old age security is presently up to a little over $150 per month, and there is a $105 per month guaranteed income supplement for those who have nothing to live on. Therefore, $150 a month is paid to everyone 65 years of age or over, and $255 is paid to those who have the supplement. During these times of very high cost of living, the least one could hope for is an increase in the basic amount of old age security from $200 a month during this year, with a goal of $250 or $300 by 1980.
The guaranteed income supplement should be raised also this year to at least $130 a month, with a goal of $175 by 1982. This would be no great fiscal or financial burden on the nation, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has indicated that the growth in real terms this year will be 5 per cent. These figures would be the minimum amount of rough justice the younger citizens of Canada owe to older people who are no longer in the labour force. Just as young union employees are often hesitant to vote for increases in the pension plan under the collective bargaining process and prefer immediate wages, we find creeping into our social thinking the notion that the nation is doing about as well as it can for those citizens who built this country during extremely trying times and suffered greatly during the depression and wars.
There are a great number of senior citizens, some of whom are veterans of World War I and others veterans of World War II. On June 28, 1973 royal assent was given to Bill C-202, which provided for an increase in the basic war disability pension to an amount equivalent to the composite of five public service categories. At that time it was felt that the Department of Veterans Affairs finally had arrived at an equitable basic rate of pension. A recent announcement by that department indicated an increase of 7.2 per cent. That fails to fulfil the spirit of the legislation passed in June of 1973, because the government did not repeal section 58.1 and 58.2 of the Pension Act. Bill C-202 increased the basic rate for veterans in an amount which was equal to the average wages of the composite group I have referred to. However, the
Senior Citizens
provision remained in the Pension Act for increases in the years following the approval of Bill C-202 to be based only on the Consumer Price Index.
In comparing the basic rate of pension of a war disability pensioner, who is totally disabled, with the average wages for the composite group of five in the Public Service of Canada, there is a differential of approximately $600 to $700 on a yearly basis in favour of public servants. The government should take steps this year to close this differential, if it has any sense of gratitude for the veterans. Whether the government uses this during a political campaign or not is of little importance; the fairness and the spirit of the June 1973 legislation should be adhered to by the government.
A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) say, in reply to a question before the House, that the spouse's allowance providing for a payment to either a man or woman between the ages of 60 and 65 would apply only to a spouse who is married to, or living with, an older pensioner and would not be changed to include single people, whether widowed or unmarried. This is completely ridiculous when one considers that the total cost of including these categories would be approximately $4 million a year.
Recently in my constituency office a spinster, who was 62 years of age, said: "If I lived in a common law marriage with someone, I could get this allowance". People feel incensed about this kind of discrimination with regard to the present spouse's allowances. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in answering the question, said that one of the reasons for her refusal to include these people would be national pressure to reduce to 60 the age at which old age security benefits are granted, and she said that the government could not afford that. This is a lame excuse for not including the above categories of people who are now being discriminated against.
Like Sweden, Canada should have a national study which would embrace the notion that people should be allowed to retire at various pension levels between the ages of 60 and 70, if not 75. Many senior citizens in Canada, including women who are heads of households, are suffering badly under our national and provincial assistance system. The low income groups in this country, such as, for example, the bottom 20 per cent of our income earners, receive only 4.4 per cent of our national pie, called the GNP, while the top 20 per cent skim some 40 per cent off that pie. That should concern us as parliamentarians and we should determine to really do something about it. I do not care if it is done in an election year or at another time. There is a great need for us as Canadians to provide a sufficient income for senior citizens who have done so much for this nation. Let us as parliamentarians accept the responsibility for bringing in needed reforms, not next year or the following year, but now, in 1978.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have

January 27, 1978
Senior Citizens
the opportunity to speak on Bill C-218 which was introduced by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). Like him, I too have great concern about the needs of the senior citizens, but in reading Bill C-218, one wonders what the proposed senior citizens' commission could be expected to accomplish. The bill states that the commission is to study and identify the needs of senior citizens and make recommendations concerning these needs to the governor in council.
The establishment of a commission such as that proposed in the bill would more appropriately be a matter for action by the provinces. Indeed, some provincial governments have appointed bodies to identify the needs of older people, make recommendations on how these needs can be met, serve in an advisory capacity in the establishment of programs and services to meet the needs, identify gaps in information and services, promote research, and, in some cases, carry out research. Called by any one of several names, such as senior citizens commission, advisory council, or provincial senior citizens council, these bodies are appointed by government and responsible to a provincial minister of the Crown.
Several provinces have bodies operating under voluntary auspices either as independent councils on aging or as divisions of provincial social planning councils. In some urban centres, similar structures have been organized locally. In addition, some provinces have an office, bureau or division on aging, usually located in the department of social services. All these bodies are engaged in identifying the needs of older people and in establishing, in co-operation with other bodies, services for them.
Such developments are not surprising when the needs of older people are considered, namely, economic needs, physical and mental health, nutrition, living arrangements, transportation, leisure activities, education, employment, retirement and spiritual wellbeing. The federal government's responsibility in the economic sphere is fully recognized. Furthermore, federal financial participation with the provinces in the development of health and social services as well as the construction of housing and institutional care facilities has been in effect for many years. But the fact is that health and social services, housing, institutional care facilities, education and so on, are all under provincial jurisdiction.
There are those who argue that if older people were provided with enough money, they could look after their own needs. We have heard some of that rhetoric this afternoon. This is a fallacious argument. It assumes that the services needed are available, that they are accessible, and that whatever their cost old people could afford to pay for them regardless of the quantity required or the length of time the services are needed. The recognition of the lack of supportive services to help elderly persons to live independently in their own community, despite socioeconomic and physical problems, was the motive behind the federal government's initiative in introducing the social services act in Bill C-57 during the second session of the thirtieth parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happened to it?


Mr. Andres:: The announcement by the province of Quebec of its opposition to the cost sharing arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, and the lack of enthusiasm of a number of other provinces including Ontario, resulted in the bill's withdrawal. Admittedly, there was no guarantee under the proposed social services act that the provincial governments would include or extend services, but the federal government had opened the door for the development, with federal participation, of services as wide ranging as those of homemaker or home help, handyman or handywoman, preparation of meals, laundry, counselling services, day care for adults, special transportation, volunteer visiting and information and referral.
The problems of the aged and aging are as diverse as those which afflict all of society. We know, however, that the aged of the 1970s are very different from those of the 1950s and 1960s. Those of the 1980s will show even greater differences. It is estimated that about two-thirds of those aged 65 and over have no single identifying characteristic except age-they mingle largely unnoticed in the community. Indeed, the majority of older people can function in the community if society permits and encourages them through the provision of special services. Thus, an integral part of the planning process should be the provision of services and resources which would provide opportunities for senior citizens to participate in the community.
The New Horizons program of the Department of National Health and Welfare was established five years ago to help and encourage retired people to engage in activities of benefit to themselves and other members of their community. The result has been a dramatic increase in the number of community groups established by, and for, retired and elderly persons. Many of these groups have joined provincial and national senior citizens organizations, and these organizations have become extremely effective in speaking on behalf of their members. No one could be more thoroughly familiar than they are with the needs and aspirations of retired and elderly people.
On many occasions these organizations met with the former minister of national health and welfare, the present Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), to discuss their concerns and to present their recommendations for improving the quality of life for retired Canadians. Many of their proposals have been incorporated in government programs for pensioners, and there is a continuing dialogue between the department and the spokesmen for senior citizens organizations. Ways of making this dialogue even more effective are being considered.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has recently granted funds to one New Horizons project group, composed of very knowledgeable seniors from across Canada, to undertake an independent look at the kinds of structure that might be most effective as a focus for the concerns about aging at the national level. Furthermore, they are presently considering with the provinces the merits of holding a national symposium to examine a range of issues related to this very

January 27, 1978

important subject. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal is already being done, and I do not believe that the appointment of a senior citizens commission at this time would contribute anything to the measures which are already underway.
The paradox in respect of the older population is the tendency to view success as a problem. It is a particularly frustrating irony that progress in man's search for a longer life should produce the problems of aging. In fact, the very successes in economic, social, medical and industrial progress that now permit such a large number of people to reach old age have also produced the changes that make elderly people a generally dependent group and have robbed them of their most important and traditional functions, roles, and statuses.
Since World War II, scientific and technological advances, with increasing industrialization, have changed both the way people live and the way by which they earn their living. The impact of population growth, urbanization and industrialization on the lives of older people has been heightened by the fact that these changes are occurring rapidly. Coupled with these rapid changes has been a new phenomenon-retirement. For the first time in the history of the world, thousands of persons each year leave the labour force and enter retirement.
It is here that difficulties have arisen. The right of persons to spend their later adult years not tied to the demands and responsibilities of the working world has become accepted, but we have failed to take steps to provide people with systematic preparation for their retirement years. Preparation for adulthood, and particularly for work, is an institutionalized part of the system; preparation for the later adult years is left to the individual and as a result is haphazard and often incomplete. With the end of the work role, the value of the older person's contribution to the family, the church, the neighbourhood, and voluntary associations has been downgraded. Society has developed negative attitudes towards the aged and aging; older people now carry these attitudes, developed earlier in life, into their own retirement with the result that they have negative attitudes about themselves and their peers.
Each of us must develop positive attitudes toward our own aging and old age. It will be necessary to supplant the misconception that many incapacitating illnesses, either physical or mental, are inevitable and irreversible characteristics of the aged. Good health and a clear mind are as much the right of persons over 65 as they are of adolescents, or younger and middle-aged adults.
Overcoming the negative attitude society has concerning the aged and aging is the challenge we face. Like all age groups, older people have problems and we must continue in our efforts to solve them. But we must not allow our efforts to aid the helpless to become synonymous with the whole spectrum of aging. Stress on the negative side of aging has contributed to the stereotypes and myths which have grown around it. Most of us have in some way contributed to the false picture that has been created. Until we come to terms with our own aging
Senior Citizens
and accept it, we will continue to endow the later years with all the misconceptions and untruths that society has built up, particularly over the past 30 to 40-some years-insidious and ultimately disastrous in terms of society's acceptance of its older citizens.
There are older people, many who are frail and not in the best of health, who are demonstrating that chronological age, in itself, is a meaningless measure. They continue to contribute to society, to their families, and to grow as individuals. When we see them, aging takes on a new dimension. Mr. Speaker, we all know such people; indeed some are in this House.
Changes in attitudes cannot be legislated. These will come about only through teaching in the homes, the schools, in the training of professionals who will be working in the community with the aged as well as other age groups. Each of us as individuals has a responsibility in this. Older people themselves have a responsibility. Increasingly they will have to demonstrate that they remain socially responsive and responsible, that they can and do continue to contribute to society, that there are new roles which they are able and willing to assume. We have to help them find these new roles; we have to provide the aged themselves with opportunities to do so.
Leadership is necessary to effect the kinds of developments required to allow older persons their rightful place in society and provide the services they need. Quality service, in the quantity needed, is essential. Effective leadership planning in aging requires real commitment for meeting the concerns and needs of older Canadians. Further, to enable a genuine exercise of leadership necessitates statutory authority, funds, energy and creativity, and status. Obviously it is only within the appropriate jurisdictions where the necessary statutory authority can be granted that authentic power lies.
Anyone familiar with the reports of the president's task force of older Americans of 1968 will know the problems there in respect to this whole matter. As we know, jurisdictional responsibilities are quite different in the United States from those in Canada. Besides some 20 agencies in the federal government in the U.S.A. with statutory responsibility for an extensive variety of programs and services for the aged and aging, there are dozens of additional federal operations that have considerable, if indirect, relevance. Co-ordination is therefore difficult to achieve, as is leadership planning. The result in 1968 was recommendations for new structures-thus adding to those already in place.
The 1970 task force explored the same range of issues as did the one of 1968. By the time of the 1971 White House conference on aging, leadership planning in aging was still more of a goal than a reality-a situation which continues to be of great concern. Various mechanisms, including some proposed mechanisms, have been given a variety of responsibilities for leadership planning in aging, but there have been difficulties in developing effective means to provide the appropriate authority to carry these out.
The president's council on aging serves as one example. Composed of very able members, its mandate limits what it can do in guiding federal efforts in aging. Its work has centred

January 27, 1978
Senior Citizens
around such matters as determining that certain programs for the aged require more financial support, upon occasion developing a proposal for a demonstration project, and issuing an annual report. Although these reports provide evidence of the concern of the council about the problems of older people in the United States, and of the time and attention devoted to discussion of them, they unfortunately cannot be said to reflect a policy focus for the government's work in aging.
The U.S. federal government agency which receives the most attention from Canadians is the administration on aging. It has gone through many changes; from time to time efforts have been made to strengthen it. Its actual accomplishments have been limited because it has been difficult for it to assume a role of leadership. Its national visibility, prestige and power within government are limited. Its budget is relatively small in comparison with those of other activities of importance to the aging in the U.S.A. Preoccupation has centred around administering its grants-in-aid program to the states, its research and demonstration programs and the like. Staff resources devoted to government-wide activities and issues of over-all federal government policy on aging are not significantly emphasized.
I have a purpose, Mr. Speaker, in making these few brief comments about developments on aging in the U.S. federal government because these are so frequently referred to in Canada. That many departments of government in the U.S.A. have staff devoting time to aging, and that many commissions, task forces and the like are all operating on a continuing basis, is a fact. But recommendations for something else that will be effective are still being made. Some are acted upon, resulting in the emergence of another new structure; those already in place continue and the new creation establishes but another layer. To date we have avoided such proliferation in Canada.
I am not saying that some specific structure charged with responsibility in aging at the federal level should not be established. I am saying that before it is established we should define its role, its goals, and establish the appropriate authority, statutory or otherwise, under which it should operate. It should not duplicate the work on aging presently being done within several departments of government. Presumably it might serve to co-ordinate this work. Certainly it cannot assume, even by implication, the responsibilities which belong to other jurisdictions in Canada.
No one denies that there is much to be done. No one denies the challenge which faces us as such a large segment of our population continues to age. However, I do not believe that a senior citizens commission such as is proposed in Bill C-218 would resolve the tasks which are required to identify the needs of our senior citizens in this country.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the outset that I am pleased to support the proposal that has been made by my colleague from York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) which would create a commission. This commission would be unpaid and it would not cost the taxpayer a penny. It would make recom-

mendations and study the problems of senior citizens and suggest to the government what should be done to come to grips with those problems.


An hon. Member:: That would embarrass them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to learn that the government is in opposition to this proposal. It is a matter, as I have said, which would not cost the government a penny. The time has come to recognize that priority has to be given to the problems of senior citizens in Canada. They should not be forced to wait until election time, when the government will rediscover senior citizens and their problems. Action should be taken now.
In a very few minutes it will be evident whether this bill will go forward or whether the government will talk the legislation out and refuse to allow it to come to a vote. If the government has the courage and the desire to allow this bill to go ahead, two priority items should be dealt with by this commission. The first one is the question for spouse's allowance for widows.
Nothing during the time I have spent here has been more disgraceful or more disconcerting than the treatment accorded to widows in Canada between the ages of 60 and 65 who are heartlessly cut off by this government from their allowances. I am sure that every government member has received telephone calls, as I have, from widows between the ages of 60 and 65, as well as letters from them, respecting spouses' allowances, finding that upon the death of the senior pensioner those spouses allowances are cut off cold.
Most of these calls and letters come anonymously because the pensioners concerned are so ashamed. Their dignity and pride is attacked, and they are so frightened they will not identify themselves. The government has done nothing to alleviate this problem. The government should recognize that under the spouses' program in Ontario it is possible for the neediest in our society, the neediest pensioners, to receive over S500 a month. However, upon the death of a pensioner over 65 years of age whose spouse has yet to reach that age, that $500 is cut off cold. They just receive a letter from the government and they are told they are to fend for themselves. The widows are told to go out and get a job. This government just does not care.
On March 29 the then minister of health and welfare told the health committee of parliament that the savings made by the government in cutting off widows whose spouses have died amount to only $4 million a year. If the benefits were to be continued for these spouses the cost to the average Canadian would be 25 cents per year. What cruelty! The government is not even prepared to do that. Some 200 widows receive letters from the government informing them that their spouse's allowance will be cut off because they have had the misfortune to be married to someone who has died before reaching the age of 65.
I suspect the government will rediscover the spouses and the widows in Canada when election time comes. They will discover that they can find that $4 million. But action should be taken today. It should have been taken long ago to provide
January 27, 1978

those benefits. These people are entitled to them. Surely those of us in society who are working and drawing incomes should recognize with appreciation the contribution that has been made by Canada's senior citizens through two world wars and a depression. We should not begrudge them what is necessary to grow old in dignity and without fear.
As was disclosed today this government can afford to spend $1 million in advertising for the UIC, on one program. Surely that money would be better directed in paying for the spouses' allowances for widows. There are numerous other examples of where this money could be found without asking that this government's extraordinary deficit be increased at all.
There is one other area I would like to touch on before closing and that is the question of the government's handling of the economy and the effect it has had on the weakest and poorest in our society. The cruellest tax imposed by any government is the tax of inflation. Take, for example, a couple who retired in December 1968, the year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power and who had life savings of $25,000. In December, 1977, that money would have been worth only $13,710. Literally thousands of senior citizens and pensioners have found their life savings stolen from them by the cruel tax of inflation, an inflation that this government has been unable to control.
Surely the time has come when the government must get serious about inflation. It must recognize that we cannot continue to have a year over year inflation increase of 9.5 per
Senior Citizens
cent. We must recognize that inflation most cruelly attacks the weakest and the least able to look after themselves, such as people who will have their spouses' allowances cancelled if the senior pensioner dies. I think that all Canadians and certainly all members of this House should be made aware of the hardships-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism) is rising on a point of order.


William Andres: Mr. Speaker, I was accused by the member of talking this bill out. I have given him an opportunity to speak. The member on the opposite side is talking the bill out.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that is a spurious point of order and it is beneath the dignity of the House to put up with that. I ask that the question be put and support given to this bill.


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few seconds to rebut some of the foolishness which has been tossed towards the government. When hon. members realize all of the services that have been provided for senior citizens in past years, I am sure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 30, 1978