1978-04-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that after several years of delay the governments of Canada and the United States have finally settled the terms of a written agreement for the turning over by the U.S.A. of the north side of the Argentia leased base to Canada, so that the land and facilities thereon can be made available to Newfoundland for industrial and economic purposes and job creation for the people of the Placentia-Argentia area, and in view of the fact that the only cause of delay now is the failure of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to set a date for the official joint announcement and for the official turning over of the land and facilities on the north side of the base to Canada, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs announce today a date this week for the official joint announcement and for the turning over of the north side of the Argentia U.S. naval base to Canada and to Newfoundland so that immediate industrial and economic development of the area can commence and jobs be created in this area of high unemployment, and that there be no further procrastination and delay so damaging to the interest of the people of the Placentia-Argentia area.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent before it can be put to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On Friday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) criticized the opposition for supporting the
separatist government in the province of Quebec regarding the federal government's sales tax proposal and, furthermore, criticized the four western premiers for saying that the proposal "contradicted the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and consultation . . . and could be prejudicial to ongoing discussions on national unity".
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House, noting the position of the new Quebec Liberal leader, Mr. Claude Ryan, who has also criticized the federal government's sales tax proposal, requests the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House explaining whether or not in his view Mr. Ryan, an avowed federalist, has also joined the nefarious forces of separatism.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, looking at the benches opposite, I am almost tempted to preface this question by saying, "In the absence of the government-"


An hon. Member:: Look behind you.


Charles Joseph Clark: In my party I don't have to look behind me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it relates to economic policy. Now that the government has had an opportunity to read the whole of the communique of the western premiers and to reconsider, in an atmosphere of greater calm, the concerns expressed by the government of the province of Quebec in relation to the sales tax-which comes under provincial jurisdiction-and the support for the position of that government by all the provincial political parties in Quebec, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Government of Canada is now prepared to reconsider either the formula or the content of the arrange-

April 17, 1978
Oral Questions
ments in relation to provincial sales tax with the province of Quebec or other province which might want a change?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I could make one or two comments with respect to the question, but I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I expect the Prime Minister to be in the House before 2.30 and it might be better to continue then the dialogue which began on Friday.
I explain the absence of the Minister of Finance by telling the House that he is attending a meeting of the board of governors of the Inter American Development Bank, in Vancouver, where he has been elected chairman of the board of governors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the House, I would like to defer the opportunity to put questions until the Prime Minister arrives.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General: it has to do with the study which was done in March of this year, called "Manpower Goals, 1981-1982; Vancouver Retail and Delivery Division". That study proposes the phasing out of 421 letter carriers in the Vancouver area. Was that study done in consultation, in any way, with the letter carriers or the letters carriers' union, and can the Postmaster General advise whether he has rejected the recommendations in that study?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this straightforward question deserves an equally straightforward reply. I must say there is nothing secret about this document. The postal carriers' union must have already been aware of this document, having discussed it with Post Office officials. I want to state emphatically once again that absolutely no major change and no lay-off will occur in the Post Office before management and labour have discussed and reached an agreement on this issue.

I would like to repeat what I said in this House, I think on April 4. If we are to contemplate any changes or expansion in delivery methods, we must re-evaluate the over-all situation and consult the unions to obtain their full collaboration. That still stands.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I expected that kind of answer just before an election. That still will not guarantee the 421 letter carriers that they will not be laid off. The question is not about consultation; it is whether the Postmaster General is
willing to allow the workers in the Post Office-I am referring particularly to the letter carriers-to participate in these studies. It is not a question of consultation; it is a question of whether we are going to have peace in the postal service-and the way to have peace is to allow the letter carriers to participate.
Can the Postmaster General now give a commitment to this House that in future these studies-and this is not the first one that has talked about phasing out letter carriers-will be done not merely on a consultative basis but the letter carriers will be involved in them with regard to their own future and their own jobs?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I think the letter carriers themselves admitted that they knew about this study. I can confirm that the letter carriers are participating in all discussions which take place in the Post Office. We have what we call an intergroup which meets practically every month to discuss with the unions proposed changes in the way the Post Office is administered and to discuss ways to give better service to more Canadians.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, with regard to future service to more Canadians, there are a number of routes in new subdivisions all across Canada.
I do not think many of us in the House have found, especially in urban areas, that delivery has gone forward in new subdivision areas. Can the Postmaster General give some commitment to the House that, in fact, we will see the letter carrier service expanded into those areas-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -so that there will not be someone picking up a dollar and running that mail in. That is the real risk. I am asking the Postmaster General to provide us with a commitment, today, in the House-it is a good time now for a commitment, because we are about to have an election-that routes which are presently underserviced in the suburban areas of this country will be serviced within the next three months by the addition of regular mail carrier service.


Maurice Lamontagne: I would love to say to the hon. member that we will provide more service and expand our letter carrier service all across Canada. However, I have listened to the opposition since coming to the House and I have heard them complaining and accusing us of having too many civil servants. They even said they would be ready to cut 50,000 of them. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that.
Furthermore, we have a budget and we have a deficit. We are trying to do the best we can with what we have. But I can tell the hon. member that all routes in all areas are under revision, and if with a reasonable budget we can expand this service, we will do so.

April 17, 1978


ALLEGED DETERIORATING MORALE OF TORONTO EMPLOYEES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: My question is also to the Postmaster General: it relates to the letter received by him from 28 Post Office line service supervisors in Toronto which warns of the collapse of the postal service because of deteriorating morale apparently brought on by the reinstatement of a number of suspended drivers.
What has the Postmaster General done to avert this potentially explosive situation which, to use the language of the supervisors who have corresponded with him, holds the Post Office on "the brink of collapse and it could go national"?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that some people enjoy turning newspaper headlines into tragedies. I suggest that the letter had been sent to me by the 28 Post Office line service supervisors who have finally conveyed to me their grievance to the effect that their decision to suspend a number of Post Office truck drivers had been cancelled or overturned. During a snow storm on January 26 of this year, these truck drivers had refused to carry out their duties. The superintendent overturned their decision, claiming that their reasons for suspending these Post Office employees were insufficient and that he was looking into this matter. That is exactly what he is doing just now. One of the line service supervisors must have provided the newspaper with this letter. He probably had the right to do so, but he has certainly not contributed in any way to solving the problem. For the time being, we deem this incident to be a matter of internal administration and we are looking into it.


William Herbert Jarvis: I might say to the Postmaster General that the tragedy is not the newspaper headline; the tragedy is the lack of service by the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: With respect to the deterioration of service, morale within the Post Office has deteriorated from the abysmal to the cataclysmal. I ask the Postmaster General: Will the situation to which he has just referred be dealt with by way of public inquiry, which he has the power to order, and will he tell the House whether it is true that the supervisory staff in this area is now constantly subject to open ridicule by workers operating under him? If so, what action has the Postmaster General taken to restore proper labour relations in the Post Office?
[ Translation]


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the conciliation stage with the postal union. I have visited most postal establishments throughout Canada. Last week in Toronto, I held a meeting with all supervisors for the Toronto area to identify the major problems, and I must say that far from being as bad as some suggest, the morale in the Post Office, at
Oral Questions
the administration level and among the employees with whom I spoke, is far from deteriorating. We are constantly trying to improve confidence in the Post Office and we will continue to proceed as we have been doing.


REPORTED LACK OF DRIVE IN CANADIAN ENTREPRENEURS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, and the President of Privy Council, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is having a tough battle getting the Liberal nomination out there in Alberta at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Public Works, "While ITC officials 'bust their behinds' to get export orders Canadian businessmen take it easy." The minister also said that when he reported this to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said, "Judd, Amen; that's the story I get on all the trips I have taken. We Canadians seem to lack the entrepreneurial spirit, lack that hustle". My question to the President of Privy Council, who is in charge of the cabinet committee on GATT negotiations, is whether he agrees with that savage attack on Canadian industry and businessmen that they lack hustle, and whether the President of Privy Council can hustle the House some information on the GATT negotiations that are going to determine the position of Canadian industry and business in the 1980s?
Could he tell us how the negotiations are going? What is Canada now doing as an alternative, now that our argument for sectoral negotiations has been pushed aside? When will a full report be made to Canadian industry and to the House on this question of such fantastic importance to the future of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, the GATT negotiations are reaching a more definite phase. Through the co-ordinator of the negotiations, the Government of Canada is keeping in close touch with representatives of Canadian industry and has conducted confidential discussions with those affected by the ongoing negotiations. At this point I believe it is difficult to be certain about the outcome of the negotiations. It is a negotiation. Representatives of various countries are examining the bargaining positions of their other partners in the negotiations. They are undertaking preliminary examinations, for example, of the offer lists which have been made in agriculture and fisheries. Also, they are examining the general bargaining stance under industrial products.
I expect we will be entering into a much more critical phase of the negotiations probably late next month or in the early part of June if the timetable which has been tentatively

April 17, 1978
Oral Questions
proposed for completion is to serve, and that hard decisions will have to be taken at that time. At the moment it is not possible really to be concrete, specific and definite about the shape of the negotiations.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. President of Privy Council will know that impartial observers such as the Science Council of Canada have determined that Canadian industry is in such weak shape now that we face the possibility of deindustrialization, and that even here in the industrial heartland of Canada we have employment in the St. Catharines region in excess of 13 per cent, in Kitchener 10 per cent, and the like.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is: In view of the fact that our major negotiating suggestion, that we should proceed with sectoral negotiations-we agreed to the Swiss formula and we asked that there be sectoral negotiations, particularly to help our resource industries-in view of the fact that has been rejected by the United States and the nations of the European Economic Community, in view of the fact that our industry only operates at an 80 per cent capacity and its future is dubious-looking at the moment, and in view of the fact that our industry does not have any idea what adjustment assistance they might get-the weaker sectors of our industry such as textiles-if tariffs are lowered in Canada, what steps can the Acting Prime Minister and the government take to give some reassurance to Canadian industry and business that they are going to be supportive of them through this difficult period?
What are the plans for those industries that may have to go by the board if the government continues with these negotiations as they are now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman is incorrect in saying that at this stage there is no prospect of successful sector negotiations by Canada. Ele may turn out to be right in the long run; but certainly in the proposals that have been put forward by the United States, in some cases offering broad tax cuts, they could accommodate Canadian sector negotiations. The United States will, of course, expect to be compensated for whatever concessions it makes. We have not abandoned that sector approach and I think it is much too early to do so. If we did fail and it were not possible to achieve some progress with the sector negotiations, then, of course, Canada would not be able to offer as much to its partners in the way of trade concessions as it would if the sector negotiations had been successful.
The hon. gentleman mentions textiles. I think it should be recognized, because there is concern in the country, that there is very great concern in the negotiations themselves as to the state of the textiles industry in many countries of the world; but it would be my prediction that it is unlikely the textiles industry will have to face deep cuts as a result of these negotiations, based upon the present atmosphere in respect of negotiations. The hon. member is right about adjustment assistance. It will be required in certain cases and will be

provided by the provincial governments and in some cases by the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know there may be some objection to the length of the answer, but there was a series of questions and in courtesy to the hon. member I am attempting to answer.


An hon. Member:: You should make a statement on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. A few weeks ago, members of the federal government were in Lauzon, the site of a very large shipyard and a municipality where the rate of unemployment is very high. They tried to reassure the workers by announcing a project concerning the construction of ships for the Department of National Defence. Right now the workers are very much concerned because the unemployment rate is increasing and the yard lays workers off. In order to alleviate the unemployment plague in the area of Levis and on the south shore, could the Minister of National Defence tell the House whether he seriously plans to award in the near future a construction contract to the yards in Lauzon?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this matter very closely, trying to accelerate specifications so the ship repair and refit programs we have in line can be started as soon as possible. My colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, is also working with my department to accelerate this procedure to the extent we can; but I am afraid I cannot say there will be the immediate placement of orders, because this has to be done through the tender process.
We will do all we can, because we are aware of the situation, to make certain that the shipyards at Lauzon are given every opportunity at the earliest possible moment. I might say, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, that we are also looking at other avenues which might help that shipyard, in response particularly to the great representations that have been made on its behalf by my colleague, the hon. member for Levis.
April 17, 1978


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to be a little concerned about the slowness of the studies on government programs. I cannot believe that, in the present circumstances, there is a lack of personnel to work actively on these studies. I admit the minister has his problems but I cannot accept that on behalf of unemployed workers, of those whose benefit period is finished and who are now on welfare, as well as those who get absolutely nothing and keep hoping that these shipyards will soon be re-opened with contracts from the Department of National Defence. Could the minister tell the House whether he will bring pressure on the public servants of his department to complete these studies and finally ask for bids to put into practice what is supposed to be done before those workers are in real poverty? We must recognize one thing, that workers on the south shore and in the Levis area are not all millionnaires, they are people who want to work. Could the minister tell the House whether he is really going to do something about these studies with a view to carrying out this project?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of this. My friend, the member for Levis, has stated this in equally emphatic terms, and very consistently, over the past several months. I am certain pressure has been brought to bear to the extent that is feasible. You cannot put ships in for refit without the specifications being very tight. As all hon. members know from past experience, we are trying to improve that process. They will have to go to tender. We are hopeful that that can be done in the shortest possible period of time. I forget the exact date that we are aiming for, but in the case of ships of the Department of National Defence, one of our replenishment ships and some of our refitted destroyers, it would be late summer, early fall, before work could begin.
The government is also trying to find other ships that need to go in for refitting and special upgrading. That matter is being looked after by one of my colleagues who is not present today. The interests of the workers at Lauzon are very much in the heart and mind of this government.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council. It concerns the Canada Elections Act. As thousands of Canadians are now finding out for the first time-British subjects, English, Scottish, Irish-that because they have not taken out Canadian citizenship as provided for under amendments brought in by this govern-
Oral Questions
ment, they will be losing their right to vote. Many of them served in the armed forces.
Will the minister do something in order to bring about action in this regard, either to provide the widest possible circulation of the fact that the citizenship courts will be available immediately for those who wish to apply for Canadian citizenship so they may be registered as voters either during enumeration or on appeal? If there is insufficient time for this, would the minister give consideration to bringing in an amendment to the elections act to provide that the section in question, because information is not available to Canadians as a whole, is amended for the purpose of ensuring in this election that these people who voted in past elections, will have the right to cast their votes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will obviously pay careful attention to the representations made by the right hon. gentleman. I am not sure whether I have all the details in mind, but I believe that at the time the changes were made to the electoral system, it was to put every citizen in the country who had the same historical attachment to Canada on precisely the same footing. Therefore, it would be, on first consideration, difficult at this stage to propose amendments that might have the appearance of conferring upon one particular class of citizens a possibility that was not available to others who were in Canada at the same time. That is my recollection. However, I will look into the matter and see whether there is any basis for the second proposal which the hon. gentleman put forward.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. I can understand the argument advanced by the minister, and I appreciate its nature, but surely that does not cover the situation. The citizenship courts should now be given the opportunity and, indeed, enjoined to enable these people who, not knowing the law, find themselves in the thousands today in the position where they will be denied their right to vote. If the citizenship courts were now advised to allow applications, many of these people could secure their right to vote which should not be denied them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not fully clarify my intention in my first reply. I intend to draw this proposal to the attention of the Secretary of State with a view to accelerating the process of citizenship attainment, if that is at all possible under the circumstances.


ALLEGED UNFAIRNESS OF AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is on the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. The minister said that the purpose of the legislation was to bring everybody into the same position. I point out to the minister, as a preface to my question, that we are now dealing with people who have voted consistently, many of whom fought for this country and are now old age pensioners.

April 17, 1978
Oral Questions
My question is this: Where is the fairness in asking these people now to put out money to go through an application, then to be told that there are delays, and to be getting conflicting evidence as to what is required when the enumerator comes to them at their homes ahead of the next election and asks, "Are you a Canadian citizen?" These people are getting conflicting evidence to the effect, "Well, you dont't have to prove you are. You can just go ahead and not be completely honest with the enumerator." That is the kind of advice some of these people are getting. That has come back to us as members of parliament. It is a very bad situation and I would ask the minister to treat this matter with the utmost importance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the right hon. member for Prince Albert that I will treat it with seriousness. I have nothing further to add at the present time.


ESTIMATES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the very serious concerns raised by various native associations, particularly in Alberta and New Brunswick, with respect to the 1978-79 estimates, the increased allotments for internal administration and the very significant decrease in terms of program moneys for the various reserves which could affect such things as hot lunch programs, the education of Indian students by Indian teachers, and fire protection services. These are issues of which the minister is well aware.
I understand the minister had a meeting earlier today with officials of the National Indian Brotherhood. What kind of assurance was he able to give the National Indian Brotherhood that vital services to the Indian people of this country would not be very detrimentally reduced or cut off?


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue is no longer accountable to this House in that he has been called to glory at a higher plane, I would direct a question to the minister who answers questions in this House relating to the Department of National Revenue.
I ask the minister if it is the government's intention to change the ridiculous regulations that were circulated last week to charitable organizations in Canada, whereby they were enjoined not to conduct letter-writing campaigns to politicians, and/or organize demonstrations against the government or write editorials on political topics. This is obviously their democratic right and would appear to be an infringement of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I ask the minister if the government will change these ridiculous regulations, given the fact that most groups in this country have legitimate grounds for demonstrating against this government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question, but I will read it in Hansard and try to provide an answer for him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Mr. Corbin:: My question was for the Minister of Labour who was in his seat a moment ago.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that along with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I had a meeting with members of the National Indian Brotherhood and some provincial organizations this morning. Without evading the basic question, I would say it should more properly be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has responsibility within the over-all allocations to that department for the distinction between various programs.
We both agreed to address ourselves to this question. We are very concerned about some of the evidence or indications that we received this morning. We will be looking at this matter in all seriousness because it is one of considerable concern.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could indicate whether he, or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was unaware of the very great impact these budgetary announcements would have on native peoples. If they were unaware of it, are they going to take steps now to alleviate some of the very serious problems already being created for bands in Alberta and British Columbia with respect to services for native people?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add to my response of a minute ago to the hon. member. The question of awareness of departmental programs within an over-all allocation for a particular department is the responsibility of that department. Treasury Board would know about it in a general way, of course. I have been receiving other indications of this problem. We are seriously concerned about it and will be looking at it.
April 17, 1978


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having had the opportunity to read the communique of the four western premiers and to reconsider the position put forward by the government of Quebec, supported, as the Prime Minister knows, by all the provincial political parties in Quebec, in relation to the operation of the provincial sales tax within the jurisdiction of that province, has the government reconsidered its rejection of the Quebec proposal as to the operation of the sales tax within the jurisdiction of that province?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the question about all parties agreeing with the position taken by the Parti Quebecois. In so far as the western premiers are concerned, I have the communique and I understand that their problem is one of form rather than of substance. They feel that this was generally a good tax, but they did not like the way the consultation went forth.
I am honestly somewhat puzzled at that, Mr. Speaker. I have here a list of dates on which this subject was discussed with the provincial ministers of finance. It is incredible, the extent to which the federal Minister of Finance went to make sure that every province was involved.


An hon. Member:: What dates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks, "What days?" I can begin to read them, Mr. Speaker, or we might-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, they would not like to have a recital of the consultations which took place, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that they were very very numerous and that-


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are prepared to stand on the record and indicate that we went as far as we could in consulting with the provinces. There may have been some areas where they would have proceeded differently, but on the consultations in general we reassert that they were numerous and they were with every one. At no time did the premiers contact me and indicate that they were displeased with this procedure. On the contrary, two of them changed their budget dates and the form of their budgets in order to accommodate this federal-provincial co-operation.
It is still a puzzlement to me that after the fact, when they have all accepted it and all adjusted to it, when they have had consultations amongst themselves, suddenly, when it is all done, they should find there was not the right kind of consultation. I really do not understand the cause of this.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us find it unfortunate that this government cannot make the federal system work more effectively. This is the latest example. I am sure the Prime Minister would not want to leave the impression that the discussions the Minister of Finance had with his provincial counterparts, whenever those began, were specific discussions. The Prime Minister knows they were not. He also knows that the provinces received very late in the day the final, precise proposals that the Government of Canada was putting forward.
That was not my question, however. My question was whether the government has reconsidered its rejection of the concerns put forward by the government of Quebec, with the support of the other political parties in that province, relative to the application of the provincial sales tax within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, it was only at the very end that the federal finance minister said that this was going to be the budget. Already we know that accusations were made against him by the Leader of the New Democratic Party for having broken budget confidentiality. So in that sense, of course, the provinces did not know with certainty until the very end what would be in it. The provinces do know, and did know for a period of a few weeks, however, what we were going to put into it in general terms and what adjustments we were making-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am answering the remark made by your leader. You don't want me to remark on the falsehoods that were put on the record by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: We can see through you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On Thursday, March 23, the Minister of Finance discussed the sales tax proposals by telephone with Mr. McKeough of Ontario and Mr. Parizeau of Quebec. On March 24, the minister was in contact with Mr. Parizeau to discuss the sales tax proposals and other issues. On Monday, March 27, he was in touch with all deputies except Mr. Collins of Alberta. The proposal was elaborated and discussed by finance officials on Monday afternoon.


John Allen Fraser: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue is one of consultation.


John Allen Fraser: The issue is whether you will answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is that to which the provinces object and that which has the support of the Leader of the Opposition. He said we are not making federalism work because we do not consult enough. I am informing the opposition of the consulta-

April 17, 1978
Oral Questions
tions which took place. I should think they would be interested in having the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty is not in principle; it is with the length of the reply that may be required.


Charles Joseph Clark: The very real difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that I have asked a question on one topic, but the Prime Minister has twice deliberately avoided replying to that question, for reasons that I do not know.
I ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm whether officials of the department of finance in Quebec are in Ottawa at present, or whether officials of the federal Department of Finance are in Quebec City, and whether any discussions are under way that might lead to a change in the application of the budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance to the province of Quebec.
While he is answering that, perhaps I could try for the third time, and he could also address himself to my original question of whether the government has reconsidered its rejection of the proposal put forward by the government of Quebec in relation to the application of the provincial sales tax within the jurisdiction of that province.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question-


Mr. Hees:: And you will never get to the second part.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is possible, if I have hyenas on the other side. The interjection was that I would never get to the second part of the question. If they keep on shouting, I may not even get to the first part of the question.


John Allen Fraser: An honest man on the other side would help.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are you so grumpy about?


John Allen Fraser: Have I got a few minutes to respond to that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, go ahead.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I, at least, consider the effective functioning of the federal system to be important in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I always considered parliament to be a place where members of parliament need not keep their mouths shut. When the Prime Minister opens his mouth, I would very much appreciate it if he would answer the simple question I have now put to him three times. I need not repeat it; the Prime Minister knows the question. Will he give us the answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the reason I sat down was because the colleague of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon.

member for Vancouver South, asked if he could stand up and elaborate, and I said yes.


John Allen Fraser: You are not the Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, but you are asking if I will yield to you, and I am saying yes.


John Allen Fraser: I think Mr. Speaker has something to say about that.


Mr. Speaker:: One way or another, I wonder if we could solve this impasse before the next seven minutes go by. We have to get through by three o'clock.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. I mentioned last week that considering that in the province of Quebec we have definite problems in the textile and furniture industries, in the clothing and footwear sectors for example, and that before presenting his budget here in the House of Commons last Monday the Minister of Finance was flexible enough to accommodate the other provinces as far as the sales tax is concerned, why is he not prepared today to negotiate with the province of Quebec as he did, I admit this, by consulting the other provinces of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the province of Quebec, our Minister of Finance spent three weeks discussing the matter with his Quebec counterpart, Mr. Parizeau. He made certain proposals, while making them as well to the other provinces. In the case of the other provinces, they said: We agree, or we do not agree unless you make certain changes. In their case, the Minister of Finance negotiated with them in good faith and made a number of accommodations. In the case of the province of Quebec, the minister refused to say whether he would agree or not. We then brought down a budget. That budget made a proposal to the province of Quebec, as all the others, whereby federal funds would be at their disposal to reduce indirect taxes. The other provinces reduced theirs as had been agreed. But Mr. Parizeau reached no agreement with the federal government. He informed us later on that he would have a different budget. We will see tomorrow night what that budget is. We will see whether, in fact, he is willing to use the $200 million or so the federal government is putting at the disposal of Quebecers and we say that, as far as we are concerned, we do not want to see Quebecers penalized. We hope Mr. Parizeau finds a formula that is not unfair to the other provinces, that will not be unfair to the taxpayers of the other provinces,
April 17, 1978

and that will allow Quebecers to take advantage of the money the federal government is offering them.


COMPENSATION OFFERED TO QUEBEC FOR LOSS OF SALES TAX REVENUE
William Heward Grafftey: I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that, as he stated a moment ago, the Prime Minister does not agree but that, according to the information I have, all parties and their leaders in the Quebec National Assembly support the main thrust of the policy announced by the Quebec finance minister regarding the sales tax, and also in view of the fact that, in my opinion, most of those people in Quebec City are as staunch federalists as we are here in Ottawa, could the Prime Minister tell the House what kind of compensation he has in mind for Quebec taxpayers if he intends to categorically refuse the present requests of the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we must wait and see what the Quebec finance minister has to propose.
For instance, the federal government agreed to some arrangements following the request submitted by British Columbia. There were also some arrangements that followed the request by the province of Saskatchewan. Had Mr. Pari-zeau submitted some requests of his own, we could have tried to find a solution agreeable to all concerned. However, what is unfair-and I think the hon. member will agree-is that once everybody has come to accept a formula, saying: "Well, all in all, this formula is fair to everyone", Quebec came afterwards to ask for an amendment that would be to its sole benefit; that is what is unfair in the Quebec legislation. Perhaps Mr. Parizeau will find a way to remedy that.
I am sure the hon. member will understand that, from the time each province agrees to co-operate with the federal government on a tax measure which is in the interest of all Canadians, it would be unfair-and I do not think that opposition parties would agree to it-it would be unfair that a province say: "We do not want federal funds to benefit all Canadians, we want them to help a limited number of Quebecers." I think the hon. member of the opposition will agree with that.


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that a study on the tax proposed by the province of Quebec had been
Oral Questions
prepared by the federal Department of Finance well in advance of the budget and it confirms that on an equity basis the proposal made by the government of Quebec is more equitable than that suggested by the federal government?
Having already made special arrangements with the Atlantic provinces by giving them all the sales tax, will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that that special consideration has already been given? What is so fundamentally different in doing that, acknowledging now that the federal government will give over to the province of Quebec the $184 million they have been shortchanged for job creation programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the question again. The cutting of the sales tax across the board, as happened in every other province, has a tendency to increase consumer demand and to encourage small businesses and manufacturing in all parts of Canada regardless of the province from which they come. The federal government's purpose in the budget was to make sure that this stimulus was applied fairly across the provinces from one end of the country to the other. That is why we sat down and discussed many times with the provincial finance ministers modifications which might be brought in and which would be in line with provincial priorities, but at the same time would always aim toward the objective of having people in Canada treated indiscriminately: they would be treated equally by the federal tax measure in every province. This deal was put together without the federal government knowing whether the province of Quebec would come in or stay out.
After the deal had been put together, the province of Quebec came forth with a special request saying they wanted this federal money, not to benefit Canadians generally, not to benefit small businesses and consumers but to spend in Quebec to benefit only themselves. The leader of the New Democratic Party will understand that if each of the other provinces was apprised of that deal, they would obviously say, "If you are going to do this for Quebec, if you are to permit Quebec to spend federal tax abatements in a way that is advantageous particularly to the industries of that province, then surely you should give us the same deal".
That is the reason why, once a deal has been put together with every province and without Quebec saying no, it becomes difficult to sort of say now that everybody has been treated fairly and forget the maritimes, for example, which do not have many manufacturing industries. They accepted our proposals. They know that in many cases the consumer will be buying goods made in Quebec, Ontario and every other province. Everyone accepted it, not only with an eye to his own province but to the general Canadian economy. We now have one province saying that everyone has accepted a measure for the good of all, "we want that measure to be applied to us particularly for the good of Quebec and not for the good of all". We think that is not a very fair propositon. I am surprised that the opposition parties in this House are supporting it.

April 17, 1978
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister knows as well as anyone in this House that the answer he has given will not stand up to hard-headed analysis. Considering that, for the reason he indicated, the sales tax reduction would benefit industries which were producing a lot of goods and services, and the federal government gave special consideration to the Atlantic provinces because they do not produce as much as, for example, Ontario, and in that case the federal goverment agreed to pay the complete tax write-off for Atlantic Canada, and considering that the proposal the federal government made disproportionately-not proportionately-favours industry in Ontario over Quebec, why is it the Prime Minister is not willing to take compensatory action for Quebec, given the fact that more than 500,000 Quebecers are unemployed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as compensatory action is concerned, the hon. member knows that this side of the House has indeed taken a great deal of action in the case of Quebec and the maritimes. I have even heard it said on the other side that we are favouring Quebec too much with our DREE program and our decentralization program.


An hon. Member:: You have not heard it from over here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I have heard it from a premier of that party, though, who said publicly we were favouring Quebec too much.


An hon. Member:: Who was it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell you later. You don't have many premiers around.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as helping Quebec is concerned, I am very glad that the parties opposite are telling us we should do more with federal tax money. I hope they will be saying that during the election campaign, because many of them say exactly the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a question of not wanting to help the provincial economy in Quebec. But when we put a budget together and try to get ten provinces to agree, surely there must be a point at which the provinces say "Yes, we do", or "No, we don't".
In this case nine said they did agree. One said they didn't know, but would tell us later. Surely, this is not an unreasonable position. If they wanted particular treatment, as some are asserting now, that request could have been made before the budget was brought down. We might have said, "Well, this is not too good, but if you need it we shall offer it to the other provinces." The result, as hon. members will appreciate, is that each province would have accepted the application of the sales tax in a way which would benefit that particular province, and

that is not our idea of the Canadian economy as one unified model.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that Mr. Claude Ryan, the new leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, is quoted in today's paper as saying, with reference to the unreasonable position of federal priorities on all the provinces, "It is surely not desirable that measures be taken which seem to want to impose in the area of financial development changes which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces", and since Mr. Ryan, in saying this, is joined by all the other provincial premiers, does the Prime Minister not think his little lecture about Quebec being unreasonable in not replying at the same time as the other provinces is a little unreasonable on his part?
Further, would the Prime Minister reply to my other question pertaining to the fact that the tax cut of the federal government provides benefits disproportionately-not proportionately-to industry in Ontario, which has led Quebec to look for equitable treatment just as the people of the Atlantic provinces got equitable treatment in the special approach taken to the tax in their case? Will the Prime Minister finally attempt to answer the questions which are being put to him today by members on this side of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall attempt to answer the question. I note the words of the hon. member, that we were proposing unreasonable federal priorities. I think that is what he said.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Claude Ryan said that.


Some hon. Members:: Call an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We shall let Mr. Ryan speak for himself. The hon. member is not quoting him accurately. We will take those words as his own. Anyway, it is not what Mr. Ryan has said that matters to the hon. member. He wants an answer to the question whether we were imposing unreasonable federal priorities: that is the substance of the question, I take it.


John Edward Broadbent: No, it is not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, it is not. Then the hon. member was just quoting words which were not substantive to the question. Let me point out that in terms of imposing priorities-


John Edward Broadbent: Call the election now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am enjoying myself. Hon. members opposite want to have an election. Don't they want to finish the budget debate? Would they not be interested in passing that legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are insufferable.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
April 17, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a question and I think I should be entitled to answer it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I am asked a question and I refuse to try to answer by shouting through their noise, they say I sit down and sulk. When I stand up and try to get silence, they shout, "Go and get a dissolution". I will tell them, I will go and get a dissolution-maybe right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On April 10, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) raised, by way of a question of privilege, a story which appeared in the Toronto Star on April 8 indicating the sales tax proposal to be included in the budget. On April 11, after the budget had been presented, the matter was pursued further by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and at that time he made reference to stories in the Toronto Star of April 7 and 8 and on CTV National News on April 9 respecting sales tax changes and, in the CTV broadcast, changes in research and development benefits for corporations.
In the debate that followed the minister explained his position with respect to the negotiations with the provincial governments preceding the budget and denied the possibility of a leak of budget information respecting the sales tax through his office or his officials. The House, of course, accepts his word on that.
Moreover, the minister made it clear that there was ample room for speculation with respect to research and development benefits, for this subject had been discussed at the recent first ministers' conference. However, the actual budgetary proposals respecting research and development benefits were different than those which had been considered.
To deal first with the narrow point of the notice given by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on April 10, that is, on the sales tax issue hon. members may wish to refer in this connection to the words which appear at page 4382 of Hansard on April 11.
In addition to those, it seems to me that the matter has been disposed of in a complete way, as far as this House is concerned, by the minister's explanation that he was not able to discover and did not take any responsibility in any way for any leak of budgetary information.
On the broader issue which came out in subsequent argument, but prior to the offering of the motion by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, that is to say, the general matter of budgetary secretary which would, of course, include the research and development benefits as well as the sales tax
Point of Order-Mr. S. Knowles
reductions, I must express some serious doubt whether the conventional budgetary secrecy falls within the area of privilege at all. Certainly the two British precedents upon which the hon. member relied heavily in putting forward his argument, and which were cited by him, were not dealt with through that means but by ordinary notices of motions, one of which was in fact put down by the government after the minister responsible had admitted his complicity in a budgetary leak.
The second, which was not accompanied by a similar admission by a minister, was a motion which, although put down by a private member, enjoyed a certain priority of debate because the government indicated in the circumstances that it would not oppose the motion. In other words, in both circumstances the House brought itself to examine this matter of its own volition in a way entirely independent of the procedures related to privilege in the ordinary way, and therefore I cannot accept that there is a precedent which argues that the general matter of budgetary leaks falls within a question of privilege. I do not, of course, say that they cannot do so. I simply say that in the circumstances here it would seem to fall somewhat in line with these precedents which did not treat them as privilege in those circumstances.
Finally, even if these precedents had persuaded me that this was a matter which ought to be dealt with in a preliminary way under privilege, which they do not, I would have some difficulty with the rather general nature of the motion because I think hon. members will realize that in similar circumstances in the past general motions under privilege have proposed that "this matter" or the general question of a certain circumstance be referred to a committee somewhat under the assumption that the committee would perfect the investigation and come to some conclusions as to whether or not in fact a matter of privilege existed. General motions of that sort, without specific accusations, have been rejected by the Chair. Therefore, even if I were to accept the fact that these precedents place this matter within the area of privilege, which I do not, I would have some difficulty on a procedural ground in that regard. Therefore, for those reasons I am not able to find in the matter put forward by the hon. member a subject of privilege which I think should take priority over other business of the House.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the last words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) before he left the House. The Prime Minister contended that when he was asked a question, he had the right to answer. No one quarrels with that, but I suggest that he does not have the right to make a series of long speeches in the question period, with the result that many questioners are denied the right to ask other questions of the Prime Minister or other ministers. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that

April 17, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
you will know that you have our support and our sympathy in what you have been through today and that you will be able to contain the Prime Minister for the days left while this session lasts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can allow that sanctimonious utterance to be left uncontested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Even if we are, as the hon. gentleman believes, close to the end of this parliament, I experienced the same difficulty today with a very long series of questions from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and when I attempted to answer them in detail and in accordance with his request, there were objections made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
I believe it is unfair for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to complain about the conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when we all witnessed the difficulties under which he was working today. I believe, if the television cameras were able to focus on the whole House as it operated during the time the Prime Minister was being interrogated, the public would understand how hypocritical are the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) lose his temper and leave. It is almost as bad for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to lose his temper synthetically, and stay. I think all of us know-and most of all you, Mr. Speaker-that there were answers which were rather long, and all of us have to presume that they were rather long because certain members were preaching for a call and, when people are preaching for a call, sermons tend to be rather long, as we found out.


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-THE STOPFORTH CASE-SUGGESTION MINISTER WITHDRAW ALLEGATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing with House business, I think there is another very important matter with which we should deal. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) left the House, he indicated, or at least implied, that he was going to the Governor General. While parliament is here it is important that this matter be brought forward, and I am bringing it forward. I refer to an action brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario by a public servant, Mr. Stopforth, against the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). This action led to a judgment. The monetary amount is unimportant to what I have to say. However, the judgment of Mr. Justice Lieff is quite important with respect to the business of this House.

In rejecting the claim of the Minister of Supply and Services that Mr. Stopforth, a public servant, had misinformed the minister and was grossly negligent, Mr. Justice Lieff said this:
The evidence discloses no act or omission on the part of the plaintiff-
That is, Mr. Stopforth.
-which could reasonably be characterized as gross negligence.
That is a judgment outside this House by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario which exonerates Mr. Stopforth from the negligence which was alleged against him by the Minister of Supply and Services, outside the House of Commons for the purpose of the action, but the statements outside the House of Commons were a repetition of a statement made inside the House of Commons on June 1, 1976, as reported at page 14031 of Hansard.
I raise this matter here today because for his own reasons, which I do not question, the Minister of Supply and Services has decided to leave public life. That may be soon because of what the Prime Minister has indicated, and if that is the case, unless those words with respect to a public servant which were said on June 1, 1976, are repudiated, they will stand forever on the record of the House of Commons.
I raise this matter as a point of order at the end of this session to suggest that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the words now found to be untrue with respect to Mr. Stopforth outside the House be cleared from the record inside the House of Commons before the Minister of Supply and Services leaves public life. It is quite safe for the minister to do this.
Some may argue that the matter could be under appeal and so forth. It is quite safe from the point of view of the case which the minister may have on appeal-I do not know anything about that, nor do you, sir-for the minister to make that statement in the House of Commons because that statement made here would be privileged. However, aside from all those things, I respectfully suggest to the minister that it would be decent and appropriate of him to withdraw that allegation made in the House of Commons against Mr. Stopforth, privileged as it is, that same allegation having been found to be false outside the House of Commons in a court of law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some grave reservations-no matter how meritorious or important the matter by be-as to whether the matter in any way effecs the order of the House. The matter is a matter before the courts. Disorder in the House might be a matter which we could take into consideration. However, I have great difficulty finding this matter as it now stands to be a procedural matter which in any way would involve a decision of the Chair.


MR. DIEFENBAKER-REPLIES BY PRIME MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was deeply distressed today to see the conduct of the
April 17, 1978

Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in treating the House of Commons with such arrogant indifference.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: I am one who admires those who sit opposite who are parliamentarians, such as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), but today the Prime Minister of Canada treated this House with an arrogance that is indescribable and unbelievable. He ought to come back and apologize to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize at once that the whole issue of the length of questions and answers and of the decorum of members during the question period is my primary concern. I think we all feel the strain of the uncertainty under which we are operating at present. Whether or not the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is on his way to the Governor General, I hope that whatever happens in the next day or so will inject some certainty into the proceedings which will force my hand a little bit. All hon. members know that Friday's question period was a similar experience-very few, very long questions responded to by very long answers.
The difficulty is neither on one side nor the other, nor is the lack of decorum. On both days we had the spectacle of members shouting at each other from one side to the other, equally on one side and the other, and the curious spectacle of members shouting during a question or during an answer, telling the others not to be so impolite during the other's intervention, and so on. All this was contributed to considerably by the tension which invariably arises in the uncertain circumstances in which we find ourselves. I hope that some certainty will be injected in the next day or so, so that we do not go on in this way for too long.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Motions:
April 3, 1978-Mr. McGrath-That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 22, 1978, be concurred in.
Mr.   James. A. McGrath@St. John's East: Mr. Speaker, before you call that motion I would like to suggest to the House, given the importance of that report, that the House might be agreeable to setting aside time today during the hour normally set aside for private members' business between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., as this report deals with the subject matter of ten private members' bills. If the House were so disposed to setting aside the hour, I am sure there would be an equal
Order Paper Questions
disposition on the part of those who are interested to put the report through in an hour. I wonder if the House leader could react to that suggestion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, normally I would agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member. However, I understand that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), who wished to make some observations in the course of the debate, is not present, and therefore I would consider deferring the request until later in the week when the Minister of Justice could be present, if that were agreeable.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if the House leader could give the House the assurance that there will be time to deal with this. He told the House that he was relaxed, and I believe him. Now perhaps he could relax the rest of us and tell us that we will be able to deal with this report later on this week.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is at a loss for words on a bill that is not very important-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a committee report.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -I should like to refer to Bill C-46 relating to the discounting of overpayments of tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was dealing with the motion which stands in his name. Before going on to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), perhaps we could first consider questions on the order paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 787, 1,296, 1,303 and 1,403.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Was the West Coast Oil Ports Enquiry funded through the Estimates and, if so (a) under what vote (b) in what amount (c) how many persons received payments and what are their names?
2.	What salaries, allowances and/or other emoluments were paid to members of the Enquiry?
3.	What funds were made available to interested intervenors to prepare their interventions and, in each case, what was his/her name and the amount received?
4.	What expertise was hired or contracted for, by the Enquiry, in the specialist area of (a) tankers (b) oceanography (c) superports and, what amount was paid to each individual or firm hired?

April 17, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: 1. The West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry was authorized by Privy Council No. 1977-597 on March 10, 1977 and Treasury Board circular No. 749596. The necessary funds are being provided from within approved expenditure ceilings for 1977/78. (a) and (b) Operating votes and approved amounts: Operating expenditures, Vote 20, $1,157,000; Capital expenditures, Vote 25, $20,000; Grants and contributions, Vote 30, $260,000. (c) Persons receiving payments to November 30, 1977: Dr. Andrew Thompson, L. Lewis, J. Steeves, P. Fraser, J. Service, N. Napier, J. Wigmore, A. Ho, R. Snow, G. Harland, C. Zick, M. Gates, D. Baba, R. Epstein, R. Anthony (Edwards, Kenney & Bray), Peter Bernard (McCrae, Montgomery et als), A. Pape, M. Shaffer, B. Williams (Williams, Swinton & Co.), N. Hannum, C. Aspinall, D. Elliott.
2.	Members and staff of the inquiry: Dr. Andrew Thompson, $51,450; L. Lewis, $15,450; J. Steeves, $10,133; P. Fraser, $4,197; J. Service, $3,342; N. Napier, $7,670; J. Wigmore, $8,125; A. Ho, $8,182; R. Snow, $7,424; N. Hannum, $8,654; G. Harland, $7,254; C. Zick, $4,750; M. Gates, $3,641; D. Baba, $1,800; R. Epstein, $1,272. Consultants paid other than members and staff of the inquiry: Edwards, Kenney & Bray, $84,781; McCrae, Montgomery et als, $29,178; A. Pape, $19,050; M. Shaffer, $22,300; Williams, Swinton & Co., $7,321; C. Aspinall, $17,042; D. Elliott, $6,355.
Note: These individuals were paid by contract through the operating expenditures vote 20.
3.	1. Kitimat Oil Coalition, $100,000; 2. United Fishermen & Allied Workers Union, $60,000; 3. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, $35,000; 4. Nishga Tribal Council, $25,000; 5. Labour Advisory Committee-Victims of Industry Changing Environment (VOICE), $15,000; 6. B.C. Wildlife Federation, $10,000; 7. District of Kitimat, $5,000; 8. Coalition against Supertankers, $5,000; 9. Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine $5,000; Total intervenor funding, $260,000.
4.	(a) Columbia Survey, Navigation of large oil tankers, $543.00; (b) W. McKay, Impact on native commercial and food fishing, $2,811.43; (c) Blue Peace C.A.S.E., Evaluation of oil terminal and spill clean-up capability, $5,000.00; K. Busswood, Social impact of oil port development at Kitimat, $2,812.68; Eaton, Barley, Consulting on economic impacts associate with construction of oil port project, $12,552.00; Western Montana, Studies on environment and human health associate with oil port, $1,611.91; Can-Guard, Consulting on spill control, $3,533.21; Captain McNail, Feasibility study on oil ports, $1,000.00; B. L. Smith, Consulting engineering services, $4,992,61; Tussing, Economic and Policy consideration in the choice of west coast oil port, $7,791.09.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	For the years 1973-77, from which companies did the Royal Canadian Mint purchase nickel strip for its coin production?

2.	For each company, by year, what was the value by country of origin of such shipments?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. During the years 1973 through and including 1977, the Royal Canadian Mint purchased nickel strip for domestic coinage production from the following two companies: Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited, Toronto; the International Nickel Company Limited, Toronto.
	Sherritt-Gordon	International Nickel
1973	$4,385,931	$ 2,792,8841974	7,174,367	9,991,4261975	6,001,504	14,650,0351976	1,860,270	6,238,6991977	4,933,640	8,545,867
The Royal Canadian Mint is not in a position to know the nickel ore sources of these companies.


Mr. Leggatt: Did G.T.E. Lenkurt Electric (Canada) Ltd. receive grants from any department or agency and, if so, what was the total amount?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, G.T.E. Lenkurt Electric (Canada) Ltd. received contributions as follows: (excluding assistance given under the Industrial Research Development Incentives Act)
Fiscal Year	Amount
1977/78*	1,535
1976/77	24,819
1975/76	177,037
1974/75	200,349
1973/74	244,556
1972/73	153,784
1971/72	438,083
1970/71	203,663
* Period April 1, 77 to February 22, 78.
In accordance with section 13, information cannot be divulged with respect to assistance given under the Industrial Research Development Assistance Act.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned, G.T.E. Lenkurt Electric (Canada) Ltd. accepted, under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act, an incentive offer in each of the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1975-76. The amounts of development incentive were estimated at $549,000 and $530,425 respectively, at time of offer.
In so far as the Departments of Finance, Employment and Immigration and the National Research Council are concerned: None.
;f

April 17, 1978


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Number of Persons in Receipt of
		3.	Full
2.	Guaranteed	Guaranteed1. Old Age	Income	IncomeSecurity	Supplement	SupplementNewfoundland	38,969	31,788	19,016Prince Edward Island	13,750	10,065	4,262Nova Scotia	83,479	55,398	22,914New Brunswick	63,536	42,355	18,424Quebec	505,547	320,344	142,674Ontario	763,373	349,855	100,956Manitoba	110,312	62,945	20,153Saskatchewan	105,882	58,178	19,321Alberta	141,323	79,730	27,531British Columbia	246,620	126,310	42,575Northwest Territories	1,142	926	732Yukon	616	366	228Total	2,074,549	1,138,260	418,786
Average Amount of Guaranteed Income Supplement Being Received Each Month by Recipients of the Old Age Security
Newfoundland	$91.49
Prince Edward Island	86.90
Nova Scotia	85.27
New Brunswick	85.85
Quebec	85.17
Ontario	79.01
Manitoba	81.25
Saskatchewan	82.31
Alberta	81.42
British Columbia	80.68
Northwest Territories	98.69
Yukon	89.79
Average in Canada	$82.39
Order Paper Questions
The Figures in List I and II Include Persons Living Outside Canada who are in Receipt of the Old Age Security
The Number of Persons Outside Canada Receiving Benefits
Newfoundland	101
Prince Edward Island	54
Nova Scotia	410
New Brunswick	366
Quebec	3,269
Ontario	9,290
Manitoba	668
Saskatchewan	403
Alberta	961
British Columbia	2,103
Northwest Territories	-
Yukon	-
Total	17,625
	* *


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 831 and 1,107 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In the fiscal year 1976-77, what amount did the Post Office Department pay to the Department of Public Works for the use of buildings as post offices?
2.	How many categories of Department of Public Works buildings are used as post offices?
3.	At what price per square foot is the building rented in each category and are cleaning services included in the price?
Return tabled.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	(a) What are the details of all work taking place at present, and future works contemplated, by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the Gros Morne National Park in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe under FLIP, as it concerns trail maintenance and construction, roadside cleanup, work on Berry Hill Campsite (b) how many jobs will be available in addition to those presently employed throughout the winter and additional numbers to be hired during the summer?
2.	What are the details of the amounts of monies being expended for road work in the Gros Morne National Park area and what is the expected date of completion for such work?
3.	What are the details in regard to the upgrading and paving of highway 430 where it falls within the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
4.	What are the details of road work to be completed and future road work contemplated under the federal-provincial DREE agreement, particularly where it concerns the (a) upgrading and paving of the road from Woody Point to the Park boundary (b) upgrading and paving of the road from the Park boundary to Trout River (c) completion of the Rocky Harbour subdivision (d) construction of the Norris Point subdivision?
5.	What are the details of the works contemplated under the same DREE agreement in regard to the (a) servicing of the West Link Access road with boundaries (b) study for the Woody Point sewer system (c) completion of the St. Paul's water and sewer system?

April 17, 1978
Business of the House
6.	What action has the government taken to provide information to tourists at Wiltondale and to provide additional facilities at (a) Berry Hill (b) Western Brook (c) Lamond (d) Shallow Bay?
7.	What are the details of the government's intention to charge camping fees in the Gros Morne National Park?
8.	Are changes contemplated on the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park as related to the consideration of the development of a master plan?
9.	Is consideration being given to changes in boundaries and the direction of the highway as it affects the community of Sally's Cove insofar as it concerns the contemplated master plan?
10.	What are the details as to the status of the establishment of a marina under the DREE agreement between the government and the Province of Newfoundland?
11.	Has further consideration been given to the serious loss of income by way of cutting rights and timber availability to the residents of Glenburnie, Shoal Brook and surrounding communities who have been denied this opportunity as a result of the restrictions caused under the Park development and, if not, for what reason?
12.	What consideration is being given to remove the restrictions affecting residents of the Gros Morne National Park area under the non-hunting area factor?
Return tabled.


Roger Carl Young: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House, and in particular to that of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the importance of Bill C-46 relating to the discounting of overpayments of tax under the Income Tax Act and related payments. I understand that under the provisions of the bill any discounting amounting to more than 15 per cent of the tax rebate coming to taxpayers will not be allowed. Obviously it is an extremely important bill at this time, in view of the testiness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and given the fact that April 30 is just around the corner and that many people are involved with discounting and rebating. In view of all that, I have been authorized to say by the spokesman for our party, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that we in this party would be prepared to give speedy passage to this bill. I ask the President of Privy Council whether he could acquiesce in this request, which seems to me a reasonable one, given the fact that we are in a very strange position as a result of the attitude of the Prime Minister this afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my I say in reply to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that certainly I am agreeable to having this bill given speedy passage at the earliest possible moment. I would conclude that by speedy

passage we mean we could put the bill through all its stages in the House speedily and we would not find it necessary to send it to the standing committee. On that understanding, I will try to fit it in at an early point in our deliberations, assuming that the comments by other hon. members will be brief.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think I can help in this regard. I have been authorized to indicate to the President of Privy Council that we will give this bill speedy passage, that means second reading, report stage, and third reading. I do not know what my friends to my left have to say to this, but this is an extremely important bill which would prevent rip-offs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend does not know where we stand because we said a few days ago that we are prepared to give this bill second reading, consideration in committee of the whole, and third reading, during the course of one session, and we would be prepared to do it quickly.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a matter arose during the question period today when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in allegedly responding to questions, read from a memorandum which he had in his hands. I believe that under the rules of the House, when a person reads from such a document, it is permissible to request that the document be tabled, and I am so requesting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will certainly examine precedents to see whether or not that document, to which reference was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I believe, was in the nature of a memorandum prepared for his instruction, which would be a document not falling under that general classification. In any case, the Prime Minister wanted to read the whole document and obviously, because of its length, could not. I do not know whether or not he would have any objection to tabling it, but I will give the matter some consideration.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Do I understand that we will be proceeding with the postal bill today, the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), followed by the Petroleum Administration Act, and is there anything else that the government House leader has on the plate in the way of legislation for today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that it is my intention to call the postal operations bill, to be followed by the report stage of the Petroleum Administration Act. I understand that there have been some discussions with the opposi-
April 17, 1978

tion parties on the suggestion that we should give speedy passage to the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) having to do with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. I should like to explore further the suggestion made that we deal with the tax discounting bill. If that can be done, I will call that bill, followed by the export development bill, and then resume the budget debate tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about Wednesday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And Wednesday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-45, to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations, as reported (with amendments), from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-19, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief at this stage of the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act. The purpose of the bill before us is to Subsidize Syncrude, in order that it may receive the world price for its product from the Athabasca tar sands. We in the New Democratic Party objected to the Syncrude project when it came before the House of Commons for ratification, because
Energy
we considered it to be a sell-out of the interests of Canadian consumers. Also, we feel this bill is a consequence of the Syncrude deal. It is detrimental to Canadian consumers in that it means, because the domestic price of oil is not at the world price yet, whereby Canadians have had some relief from inflation, that Syncrude, unlike any other oil company or energy undertaking, will be given the world price for its product.
The only way it can be guaranteed the world price, which is higher by approximately $2 or $3 per barrel than the Canadian price, is to institute a levy on all other energy oil products and thereby compensate Syncrude. We know what the escalation of the price of oil and its products has meant to the Canadian economy. We have seen the price of oil, which was about $3 a barrel in 1972, continue to escalate upwards to around $13 a barrel today. It will continue to increase to the world price of $15 or $16 a barrel.
The escalation in price has had a tremendous impact on Canadian consumers. It has meant our food has become more costly, because farmers are some of the greatest users of energy. It has meant our manufacturing has lost some of its competitiveness in world markets because fuel costs increase the price of goods. It has meant the consumer has had to pay more in practically every area of purchase because energy costs are involved in some way or another. Now the government has come before the House of Commons to increase that consumer burden even more, by giving a special favour to Syncrude which no other company in this country has. It will not stop there, because the projections concerning the price of oil at the world level rising to $35 or $45 a barrel over the lifetime of the Syncrude project indicate how Canadians, using oil from that plant, will continue to pay the cost year after year. This bill is really after the fact. It is a legislative implementation of a contract signed between the Government of Canada, the governments of Ontario and Alberta, and the Syncrude consortium.
We must look at the impact of inflation on this country, despite the anti-inflation program instituted by the government. In October 1975, when the anti-inflation program was brought in, inflation was approximately 9.5 per cent. Last week, when the program officially came to an end, inflation was approximately 8.8 per cent or 9 per cent. Thus, we see that the program has failed to control price increases in any significant way. One of the reasons it has failed to do so is the year by year increase in energy prices to which the government has committed itself. On top of that year by year increase in prices, now we will levy on the consumers of Canada an additional charge, so that one particular company can receive a special favour which was negotiated a few years ago.
The government's record in terms of energy policy is a dismal one. The government was convinced by the oil companies in 1973 that we did not have to worry about curtailing exports to the United States. I think of the annual report of Imperial Oil which indicated that we had hundreds of years of domestic supply of oil ahead of us. When the price of oil went up world-wide, because of the OPEC consortium, suddenly the
4556

April 17, 1978
Energy
oil companies of Canada changed their tune, and no longer was there a great surplus. We were facing an imminent shortage, and the only way to overcome it was to give oil companies some kind of economic stimulus so that they would go out and explore for more Canadian oil. This came about despite the fact oil prices have risen gradually between 1971 and 1973 when the international crisis was upon us, and that oil companies in Canada were showing record profits.
As weak-kneed as the government is, and without any comprehensive policy, it gave in to the Canadian oil industry, which is 90 per cent foreign-owned. It allowed them gradually to increase the price year by year in an attempt to bring the price of Canadian oil up to the world price. This is despite the fact that there were no cost increases for the domestic wells which were already pumping oil. The oil companies received their price increases and the resulting tremendous increases in cash flow and profits. It is interesting and discouraging to note, although they received those benefits, the amount of exploration, at least in the early years, did not significantly increase in Canada. Much of the cash generated from the increased domestic price was spent on exploration outside Canada.
In 1974, amidst the crisis of shortages and rationing, the federal government, led by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the President of the Treasury Board, went and negotiated under the gun with the Syncrude consortium, which indicated that, unless a deal was signed by the end of January, the company would close down its Syncrude project, and Canadians would be freezing in the dark. It did not happen. The Syncrude consortium got what it wanted, namely, federal subsidies to the tune of about 70 per cent of the $2 billion cost of this project to the Canadian people through their provincial and federal goverments, and in return for these hundreds of millions of dollars investment they only end up with 30 per cent ownership.
We in the NDP opposed that deal as a sell-out then, and likewise we oppose this kind of deal now before us, although we know it is after the fact. This is merely confirming a price advantage given to Syncrude which the government negotiated some four years ago. All I can say is that it will continue to exacerbate the state of Canadian industry, especially manufacturing.
We have lost 80,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry over the past three years because of a number of factors, one being the lack of an industrial policy on the part of this government. Surely another factor is the increase in the cost of fuel, which is in turn an increase in cost to our manufacturing industry.
We have lost jobs because of the lack of a comprehensive and sensible energy policy on the part of this government. Consumers have seen their home heating costs increase dramatically, as well as the cost of gasoline, so they too are paying the price not only in terms of lost jobs for some but in terms of higher energy costs for all, mainly as a result of the

incompetence of this government and, in particular, of this most recent minister.
We in this party are opposed to this bill for the reasons I have outlined. It is a discriminatory piece of legislation in that it favours one company, and it probably will set a precedent allowing other tar sand development to receive the world price for oil, with all the inflationary implications of that. The projected continuing increases in the world price, unrelated to production costs here in Canada, will automatically be given the Syncrude oil sands development. This is a projection that the Canadian consumer will have to face for decades ahead. We are all paying for this bad deal and the lack of any comprehensive policy on the part of this liberal government. I regret this, and we oppose the bill.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is, unfortunately, not untypical of the kind of legislation frequently brought before this House for examination by members of the House of Commons. We support the intent of the bill, which is simply to provide mechanisms through which the federal government can fulfil the commitments it negotiated in respect of the Syncrude arrangement.
During those negotiations Syncrude and its partners, including the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, were promised by the federal government that Syncrude production would receive the world price. This production is due to go onstream within a very few days. For that reason it was necessary to have in place the authority for the federal government to fulfil this commitment. We understand that and support the bill, as we did at second reading. This does not justify the atrocious draftsmanship of Bill C-19, or the means to accomplish this goal of fulfilling contractual commitments to Syncrude in respect of production.
Let me refer to the manner in which this bill was drafted in the first place. It provided for a levy or a charge against all domestic consumption of oil and gas in Canada, the proceeds of which presumably are to be used to subsidize Syncrude. We have to question the validity of that measure providing this extra tax or charge because of the export tax now being charged by the federal government.
Notwithstanding that, sir, the legislation should state, as it stated in the first instance, that the government could impose a levy. That is what it originally said; it simply authorized the government to collect another tax up to $1 a barrel. There was no indication in the bill that the tax should be used or could be used for any purpose whatsoever. This was just an additional tax.
I suggest there is a procedural question involved. The government did not call this a tax, it called it a levy, and through that little game of semantics it avoided the necessity of having the bill discussed in the committee of the whole. We did not raise the point at the time. Perhaps we should have raised the point because this step represents another way in which the House of Commons has been demeaned by the approach of this government.
April 17, 1978

The original bill provided for a ministerial discretion to exempt certain domestic production from the levy. This again is an atrocious provision. The House of Commons is being asked to authorize the minister, without any recourse to legislative authority, to exempt certain production from this extra levy. If the minister wants to make Petro-Canada look good, or some other company, he could easily exempt such company from this extra charge. That kind of discretionary authority should never be given by parliament to any minister.
In addition, this measure gives the minister the discretion, without recourse to parliament, to deem any production in Canada as imports for the purpose of compensation. The intent clearly is to allow Syncrude products to be deemed to be imports for the purpose of compensation, but there is nothing in the measure that restricts the minister's intention to Syncrude production.
The minister's intent is, as he indicated to the committee, to allow for subsidization to world prices of future heavy oil production, including the expansion to the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant, the proposed new Shell plant, the Petrofina plant, and possibly some heavy oil production from the Lloydminster and Cold Lake fields. We can understand that and we may agree with it, depending on the circumstances that prevail on those particular occasions. However, it is absolutely atrocious for the minister or this government to ask the House of Commons to give the minister the authority to deem certain productions as imports for the purpose of compensation, at his discretion and at any time he wants.
There is nothing to prevent the minister from declaring all Petro-Canada's production as imports for the purpose of compensation, or doing other things like that to ensure Petro-Canada a decent balance sheet, or one a lot more decent than the one produced last year.
There is another clause, the impact of which is not so important, which contains a ministerial discretion. This is a discretion that anyone who believes in the parliamentary democracy system, which is supposed to exist in this country, must find offensive. During committee meetings we had discussions about these various ministerial discretions, I may say to the government's credit. It did redefine the clause providing for the levy on certain domestic products. It was provided that the funds from that levy would be used for satisfying the conditions of this bill-meaning that it would not be another tax that could be used for anything. It would be a tax specific to this particular bill. That was an improvement, and I congratulate the government on at least going that far.
There was considerable discussion, Mr. Speaker, on the question of ministerial discretion in regard to deeming any domestic products as imports for the purposes of compensation. In our suggested amendment, we moved at committee that such action taken by the governor in council or by the minister should be subject to an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. That is, in reference to the fact that we are supposed to be a democracy, there would be the provision
Energy
for the House of Commons to validate a recommendation by the minister to deem certain products imports for the purposes of compensation. At least this would say that the people's representatives were deciding where these tax funds were to be sent. It is a very modest and reasonable request.
It seems that the minister, the minister's advisers, the Privy Council bureaucrats, or whoever controls these matters, would not consider or tolerate such a move, and we were faced in committee with either being rather tenacious, and thereby causing some delay in the progress of this bill through committee, or backing off and conceding to the government this very undemocratic clause in the bill.
I must say it is times like these that one's conscience and principles as a member of parliament are sorely tested. However, after much discussion, there was one little motion in regard to that clause, namely, that orders in council granted pursuant to that particular clause-which is clause 2 of the bill-shall stand permanently referred to the standing committee which normally considers oil and gas matters. That is not as satisfactory as having parliamentary control over the spending of public funds, but at least it potentially allows some public airing of these matters through a committee which is knowledgeable in the area. It does allow us some discussion and, therefore, any step that a minister may take that is out of line would have the potential of being exposed to the light of day. It is at least a minor political check. I say political, Mr. Speaker, because there is no guarantee that reference to a committee allows for such discussion. In this particular committee during the discussion of this bill and during all of the meetings, not once was I, as the spokesman for my party, asked whether I would be available at the time the meetings were scheduled. Not once during all of that time was I asked, Mr. Speaker. It is common decency in the operation of this House and of the committee system to check with the members opposite who have special interests or responsibilities in an area, to find out whether they are going to be present or do not have conflicts regarding the scheduling of meetings. As I indicated, not once, not a solitary time did the minister, the chairman of the committee, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, or anybody on that side, ask whether I would attend the committee meetings on the dates scheduled. As it so happened, there were a couple of committee meetings I was not able to attend.
As a consequence of my non-attendance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), on that campaign junket of the cabinet to western Canada, made a speech in Lloydminster accusing us of filibustering the bill and of not being there to participate in meaningful committee sessions. Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister's words do not cast a very long shadow, if you like, and no one pays much attention to them in western Canada, so I am not really concerned about the impact of that speech.
What I am concerned about is the morality of that kind of behaviour and then pointing an accusing finger when, in fact, it was the performance of that side of the House that precluded me from being at those particular committee meetings.
80033-75Vz

April 17, 1978
Energy
That lack of courtesy makes it very difficult to accomplish the business of the House with some dispatch. I hope the people of Canada will recognize that as we go into this campaign and when the government makes its usual claims about the business of the House being too slow because of the irresponsible opposition. The people will realize that the business of the House is controlled by the government, and normal courtesy from their side would have a lot to do with the speedy passage of legislation.
More important than the question of courtesy is the fact that I was deceived, deliberately deceived-deliberate is difficult to establish-but certainly deceived in regard to certain aspects of the bill. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to proposed section 65.13 in clause 1 of the bill which, as the bill was originally reported from second reading, would have allowed the governor in council to exempt domestic production from this special levy. My original objection to this on behalf of my party was with regard to this ministerial discretion again. We felt it was important that there should be parliamentary involvement at least in one step or another.
I was then approached by the minister and asked if I would mind if that whole clause was dropped and whether or not that would satisfy my concerns. I indicated that if that was what the government wanted it would be fine, that it satisfied my concern. Subsequently, I became aware of some companies in the petrochemical business which had a desire for the retention of this clause because they felt they had a case for special exemption. I asked in committee whether the government, the minister, deputies or officials were in receipt of any applications for special exemption under that clause. I was told they had not been in receipt of any applications.
Since I had in my hand a copy of two such applications, I was able to challenge the reply immediately, which I did. As a result of that challenge, I found out there were five petrochemical companies which had applied for exemption under that particular clause of the bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, lack of courtesy is going to bring the business of this House to a grinding halt, but deceit will guarantee that nothing happens. I resent bitterly being lied to in that fashion by whomever is responsible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on a point of order.


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member intended to use the language that I thought I heard him use. I would suggest that he be given a chance to withdraw that word. It is a well recognized practice in this House that that word shall not be used.
I would also suggest that if he were to re-read the record, the hon. member would find no reason to suggest there has been deception. I do not think that he has chosen to report very accurately on the record.


Harvie Andre: I have in fact, Mr. Speaker, reported very accurately on the record. The choice of language I will withdraw, but the fact that I was deceived as to what had

happened-and it was only as a result of having independent evidence come to me from a separate source-is not something that I will withdraw because that is in fact what happened. If two of these companies had not given me copies of the submissions they made to the government, I would never have been aware of them, and, therefore, would never have been able to determine what in fact had happened.
My good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has led a long crusade for freedom of information. I was convinced long before that incident of the need for a freedom of information act but, if I had any doubts, they ended there. If a member of parliament requires separate collaborating evidence from an external source to get an accurate answer to a question, then our democracy is in deep difficulty.
Related to that question on that clause is a very important question, and that is the nature of the request-


Alastair William Gillespie: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a suggestion by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that steps were taken to conceal information from him regarding submissions made to the government. He specifically referred to petrochemical companies. I should like to ask him if at any time he asked whether that information had been provided and had received contrary information. My recollection of the events is that he asked whether that information had come forward. Some information had come forward, not to me or the department, but to the committee, and that was dealt with that day. It had come in that day. He also asked whether my department had received information and was told that it had.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, the minister did not rise on a point of order. He rose to make a point in debate and abused the rules of the House by virtue of his position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to all hon. members that the offensive language has already been withdrawn and now there is a dispute as to facts. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind the facts as I presented them because they are accurate. My exact words were: "Is the minister in receipt of submissions from any companies in respect of this clause?" I was told no; then I-


Alastair William Gillespie: That was accurate.


Harvie Andre: What is strange about that is that the minister's chief official, when I challenged him and said I had a couple of copies of the documents-I was then informed-and then the deputy minister informed the minister that there were five companies which had petitioned the minister in that regard. Had I not been in receipt of two of these I would not have known about the other three. I guess that is a warning to anybody dealing with this particular government, albeit a
April 17, 1978

temporary government, that if they are to make a reasonable and proper request they had better send a copy to the opposition or the request will never see the light of day.
I want to deal for a minute with the specificity of those requests. They were reasonable requests from petrochemical companies which used crude oil as their feedstock, and in particular, petrochemical companies which produce fibres for textiles which end up in clothing. Anyone who has been in this House in the last few months or years recognizes that this portion of Canadian industry is in dire straits. The fibre and textile industry in Canada is sick. There are hundreds of lay-offs, companies are closing down, and it is a sector of our economy which is in a very precarious position at the moment.
I am led to believe by some of the companies involved that the effect of this levy will be to make their feedstocks more expensive than the feedstocks of competing companies, primarily those operating on the gulf coast of the United States. It seems to me reasonable and proper for the government to examine closely the submissions of these companies in order to ensure that, through this act, they are not driving them over the ledge to where they can no longer compete and so must those close down.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has imposed a quota on imports, that the sickness of the industry caused the government of Quebec to remove the sales tax on textiles entirely, and that there is such great unemployment in the textile areas of the country, surely it behooves a responsible government to examine these submissions. It chose not to do so, however. It chose first, not to inform the committee of them. Only through prying was I able to determine that the government was aware of them and had received them. Instead, it choose to remove this clause entirely, thereby precluding the possibility of those industries gaining exemption from this extra tax at this time. The government has a majority. It has every right to do that, but let it be responsible for that action. Let the public be aware that we on this side of the House are endeavouring to ensure that our textile industry is not hurt further through any action on our part. The government precluded that possibility and chose to pursue that line. Presumably it will have to live with the results.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the principle of this bill. We recognize that the government signed an agreement with Syncrude which guaranteed it world prices for its production, which will start within days. We therefore wish the bill to go through with dispatch. However, we are most upset and annoyed at the details of the legislation and the ministerial discretion that is granted. This is a continuation of a trend which must lead to parliament passing one bill which says, in effect, that the government shall do whatever it wants-full stop. If we do that we need no longer worry about legislation. That would give ministers all the discretion they need. That seems to be their goal, when one examines the way in which legislation is drafted and the types of clauses in the legislation presented to us.
Energy
We hope and trust there will be a change when this party assumes power. We will have an opportunity to put in place wiser and more intelligent legislation to deal with the ongoing questions of handling Canada's heavy oil and tar sands production.
Any careful examination of Canada's energy situation indicates that we will need enhanced production from tar sands and of heavy oil. These represent enormous potential reserves to which we must have access if we are to achieve our goal of energy self-sufficiency and self-reliance, thereby reducing reliance on energy imported from the politically unstable Middle East and reducing our horrendous trade imbalance. We can only bring on stream the production of crude oil from the tar sands and from the heavy oils if there are clear rules which indicate to potential investors what prices, royalties, taxation, rules and regulations they can expect. Without those rules there would be a ridiculous situation.
We know that Shell Oil Company is interested in establishing a tar sands plant, with several partners. Two or three other companies are involved, and so are the government of Alberta and the federal government. We have a situation where we are trying to put together a business deal involving the investment of $3 billion or $4 billion, three or four companies, and two levels of government. Contemplate for a moment the difficulty of trying to arrive at a decision in a circumstance like that. The only one to benefit from that kind of arrangement is Air Canada, with officials and high priced lawyers flying from Edmonton to Ottawa, back to Edmonton, to Calgary, to Toronto, to Ottawa, and round and round, trying to find out the rules so they can make a decision.
Talk to those in Ottawa and they say, "Talk to those in Edmonton." Talk to those in Edmonton, and they say to go and see those in Ottawa. You talk to your partners, and they say, "Don't talk to us about investment until you know what are the rules." Round and round it goes. It is a totally non productive activity, an activity which gains for the Canadian economy absolutely nothing. It certainly does not hasten the day when this new tar sands plant comes on line, Canadians get access to the production, and we reduce our reliance on imported crude oil. It makes me laugh, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) says that he is appalled at the cost of the paperwork burden and bureaucracy. He says it costs the economy $1 billion a year. He said the government is going to do something about it by appointing a "comptroller of paperwork burden", or whatever he calls it. On the other hand we have a minister, through indifference or incompetence, imposing a bureaucratic structure the cost of which will certainly be in the tens of millions of dollars. The ultimate cost of putting together the paperwork for this next Syncrude plant will at least be of that order of magnitude by the time all the details are arranged. That is an appalling way to run a country. It is an appalling way to run a business or anything else.

April 17, 1978
Energy
The role of government is to define rules, and let people, either individually, or collectively through company structures, act within those rules and pursue their own goals. The rules should provide incentives and encouragement consistent with public policy goals. The minute you put the government in there as an active participant involved in the nitty-gritty of the details, you impose a bureaucratic burden, the cost of which will be at least the $10 billion talked about by the Minister of State (Small Business). With a million unemployed, we could use that $10 billion for productive activity within the Canadian economy, not simply shuffling paper around and around with nothing worth while gurgling out.
It is with some reluctance we concur with the passage of this bill. It is necessary to get Syncrude going. Were there any worth to it, I would plead for some intelligence over there, some definition of rules for the establishment of a Syncrude policy and a set of regulations that are firm and reasonable rather than this continued ad hocery. Were it worth while, I would similarly pray for a little more respect for democracy, a little more concern for the role of the peoples' representatives. A continuation of this trend does not bode well for the future democracy of this country, for the future of a parliamentary democracy. I would not feel comfortable sitting idly by watching this happen without raising a voice of concern at this time.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes to make some comments on this bill. I do so because at second reading I made it quite plain that unless there was some improvement at the committee and report stage, I was going to vote against it.
There has been a very limited measure of improvement, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). It is rather nice to see that, small as the progress has been, particularly after the pitiful parody of parliamentary performance this afternoon on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the course of the question period. It adds to my perception. I hate to say it, but watching from outside rather than inside in recent weeks, one sometimes gets the impression that this place is assuming some of the characteristics of a sick joke.
The right hon. gentleman is playing games. It was a juvenile performance, saying he was going to go and talk to the Governor General. I admit there was some fault on this side of the House. I do not deny that. However, the right hon. gentleman fought for the right to act as first minister of the Crown, and that is the way he should be acting. I was ashamed of the performance we witnessed this afternoon. It was absolutely shocking. I do not say the fault was all on one side, but the responsibility lies over there. In the exercise of that responsibility, there should be greater effort made on the part of this government, by the right hon. member and his colleagues.
I am going to vote for this bill because there has been some improvement and because, after the next election, there will be another minister and another government looking after it. If it were to be left to this government, I would have very little confidence. If the right hon. gentleman, the Solicitor General

(Mr. Blais), and his colleagues should, contrary to the wishes of the people of Canada and through some misfortune, come back as the Government of Canada, they will need people like myself and my colleagues to keep them in order. I have not seen for a very long time a group of assorted dinosaurs so completely incapable of exercising their responsibilities and duties. If God so wills that we do not form the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member get back to the terms of Bill C-19, which is under discussion.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was provoked by the raucous shouts of the members opposite. There has been one improvement in this bill, as pointed out by my friend from Calgary Centre, in clause 2(3), that every designation by the board under subsection (4) shall stand permanently referred to the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers oil and gas matters. That is a very minor degree of progress.
I say to my friends opposite that we are in a mess with regard to legislation. This and other bills are out of date. They are delayed. They are going to go to the country with a lot of legislation left on the order paper.
There should be a willingness to have clauses of this kind inserted in legislation, as well as additional clauses, such as those suggested by the hon. member of Calgary Centre, through affirmative and negative resolution to retain in parliament the right to ride herd on what government does when we have granted to government the vast power and tremendous responsibility envisaged in Bill C-19, with particular reference to Syncrude.
I agree with the minister and with my hon. friend from Calgary Centre that some aid of the kind proposed here is essential. But we all know it will be extended to other ventures-we may be looking at assistance involving between $20 and $30 million. Parliament is granting to the minister and to a small group of men and women this fantastic amount of authority, and I would always feel more happy if there were contained in the legislation the right to examine the way in which this authority has been used. This is why I was objecting earlier to the attitude taken by the government.
I realize that in the complicated world in which we live, legislation cannot always be self-contained-it may be skeletal in nature, with provision for the right to delegate authority. But it would be far easier to get such legislation through the House if parliament were given the power in the legislation to call back certain aspects for study by resolution. My hon. friend from Calgary Centre said this had been suggested but that the civil servants, the bureaucrats, the mandarins, said no. Who runs this country, Mr. Speaker? We all know it is not the minister but his advisers. But his advisers do not speak for the people. This House speaks for the people, and it must insist on its right, through an affirmative or a negative resolution, to limited debate on these issues.
April 17, 1978

We are not suggesting lengthy debates. We are suggesting that action taken by order in council, by regulation, should be susceptible of being brought back to the House on the resolution of a limited number of members for discussion. The government, after all, has the weight in numbers and, if it has a case, its view will always prevail. But at least we and the people will know that questions of considerable consequence can be brought back here and discussed. The government has walked half a mile and declined to go the whole distance. It was the same with the northern pipeline bill. I was happy to see in that legislation provision for a permanent reference of the same nature as I have in mind. That is one of the reasons the bill was so quickly passed, in my view. I should like to ask the minister to give us, when he replies, some real reasons for not including a provision by which ten, 20 or 30 members of the House could proceed by way of an affirmative or negative resolution which would bring back to this Chamber for limited debate significant actions taken by order in council, regulation or decree. After all, a great deal of money might easily be involved.
Hon. members may recall that the Committee on Statutory Instruments has suggested that negative and affirmative resolutions should play a far larger part in the proceedings of the House. I put it to ministers who are here, and to ministers who are not here but who may yet find the time to read what is being said in the House of Commons today, that legislation would be much more acceptable to the House if it contained safeguards and precautions of the kind I have mentioned. This parliament is dying. It should have been dead a long time ago. The stench is beyond bearing at the present time.


Mr. MacFarlane:: The prevailing wind comes from over on that side.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let us hope that the new parliament will be more lively, that a great deal more independence and objectivity will be shown by its members. I think the public takes a very dim view of this parliament, and it is much to be hoped that the parliament which replaces it will act in a more reasonable and independent way and insist upon making the government more accountable. That, after all, is the duty of parliament. We do not govern. We do not want to govern.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear about the bill!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am talking about the bill. Some of the hon. members over on that side should take these words to heart. Making government accountable is what parliament is all about. If it fails in this task, I think parliament will have a very short life because the public has had just about enough. If they see, contained in legislation, measures of the kind I have described, the people will know they have some protection. They have no such knowledge today. Although it falls far short of what is desirable, I will go along with the bill. There has been an opportunity to rectify some of the omissions. Besides, I have the very firm knowledge that there will be a better government and a better man to look after the bill when the election is over.
Energy


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we are continually providing assistance to Syncrude to produce synthetic oil. There is probably no objection to doing so because some people in this country believe there is an oil shortage. However, a lot of people do not think there is an oil shortage at all.
A year or so ago there was supposed to be a shortage of gas as well. While travelling on the highway yesterday I was surprised to hear an advertisement by companies asking people in Ontario to instal gas furnaces. Incidentally, I heard that 70 per cent of the new houses in Ontario are being so equipped. If you put gas from a private monopoly gas company in your home, the companies assure you that fuel bills will be 10 per cent less than if any other kind of heating system had been installed. The company also guarantees a three-year supply. A number of other concessions are available. First, no payment on the furnace is required for the first year. Thereafter, payments are spread over a ten-year period, I think it is, and the interest rate is lower than the normal rate. They also said they would instal a burner in an existing furnance free of charge. Thereafter there would be a small monthly rental fee. In addition, they would put the gas line into the House from the street free of charge. All the customer had to do was agree to take gas for a one-year period.
If there is, indeed, a gas shortage, all this sounds very strange to me. I draw attention to it because I do not believe the gas companies. I do not believe the oil companies. I do not believe we know what the situation is. The price of gasoline has gone up considerably and we do not know what the government is doing to ensure we are getting a fair deal.
A few years ago premium gasoline with lead was introduced for high compression engines. It cost five cents more for gasoline with lead. Now we have new cars which use catalytic converters and which require unleaded gasoline. It now costs five cents more for unleaded gasoline than it does for gasoline with lead in it. At one time the oil companies charged for putting lead in gasoline, and then they charged to take it out. That is not honest or fair. The oil companies are cheating and stealing from us. We are charged extra for gasoline with lead and then charged extra for gasoline without lead. These changes have cost us ten cents a gallon, because it costs five cents to put it in and five cents to take it out.
I am not at all sure that the minister knows the potential of the oil companies of this country. The minister never talks about the oil which was pumped ten years ago at 15 cents a barrel. At that time the oil companies were having trouble getting rid of it. No new machinery has been put into the oil wells, and I doubt if it costs 30 cents a barrel to pump oil out of wells now.
When we talk about setting the price of oil for the Canadian public, we talk about the highest possible price, the world price. The minister is getting information that there will be a shortage, but the general public doubts that. The public does not believe that the information being given is correct, because

April 17, 1978
Energy
people remember that a few years ago oil was coming out of our ears. We were paying a subsidy to export it. We were begging to export it ten years ago because we did not know what to do with it. Then all of a sudden we were told there was no oil. Four or five years ago there were heating oil shortages in Canada and the United States. We were told that we would be out of oil in two years. Well, we are not out of oil. I think the minister will agree that the eight to 12 year projections being made today vary, depending upon who is making the projections.
We have decided to take oil out of the tar sands, and we have put up 70 per cent of the capital in Syncrude, but for our 70 per cent we do not get 70 per cent equity. We get only 30 per cent equity.
Much of the capital we have put up is in the form of tax rebates, tax reductions, grants and other kinds of assistance, but we have only 30 per cent equity. That capital was put up not only by the federal government but also by the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. Because we have a 70 per cent investment in Syncrude, we should be interested in knowing what Syncrude is being developed for. Imperial Oil and its friends, the seven sisters, have 70 per cent equity but made only a 30 per cent capital expenditure, and I think we should ask what we are going to get out of this and what changes there will be for drivers, people who heat their homes with oil, or people who use oil to produce electricity, as is the case in most provinces.


Reginald Cyril Symes: There will be higher prices for them.


William Arnold Peters: My colleague says there will be higher prices, and there will be higher prices. This bill says that we have to be prepared to provide a subsidy to bring Syncrude prices up to the world price. No matter how fast we move the price up to the world price, there will be a never ending escalation because world prices go up rapidly at almost every meeting of the OPEC nations.
The OPEC nations know that oil is their basic resource, that it is not renewable, and that they are using it up at a fast rate. They are going to ask more and more for their product, and therefore the world price will escalate. I point this out because I think the Canadian public agrees that we must have an oil base in Canada for security of supply, for industry and for the development of our country. We must produce as much of the resource as we can for the future, but surely the public is entitled to something in return.
I suggest that this bill should not be passed until we equalize the cost of gasoline and home heating oil. Years ago a man with a big idea escaped the potato famine in Ireland to come to Canada. That man established the T. Eaton Company. He knew that Canada was a big country and that he should be able to sell his products everywhere in the country. Originally he wanted to sell food and a number of other commodities. He put out catalogues which said that a dresser purchased in Nova Scotia would cost exactly the same as it would in downtown Toronto. The same price would be paid in northern Ontario or in Yellowknife.
Not long ago I was at an auction sale where a dresser originally sold by the T. Eaton Company was up for sale. It was shipped to northern Ontario in about 1900. It was shipped by rail to Mattawa, transferred to another small branch line at Mattawa, shipped to Temiscaming, put on the old Meteor steamboat and taken to New Liskeard by boat. The tag on the back of the dresser indicated how it was transported. With all the difficulty getting that dresser into a newly developed frontier area by boat, the cost was the same as it would have been in downtown Toronto.
What I am saying is that if we want to be fair to the public and if we do not want just to take money from the public and give it to the oil companies so that they can make huge profits and do many things which are, in our opinion, not in the interest of the consuming public, should we not stabilize the price of gasoline for all Canadians? Why should the price not be the same in downtown Ottawa as it is in Renfrew? Why should it not be the same in downtown Toronto as it is on Vancouver Island? Why should we not make that decision? If we added a cent to the price of a gallon of gasoline at a service station in downtown Toronto, where as much as 500,000 gallons a month are sold, that would equalize the price of gasoline for northern Ontario without any great difficulty.


Reginald Cyril Symes: They have equalized beer prices.


William Arnold Peters: My colleague says they have equalized beer prices. We equalize many things.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Not milk.


William Arnold Peters: Because someone lives in an isolated area like Comox-Alberni we do not take anything off his taxes. We do not take anything off taxes for people living in Kirkland Lake. We equalize only when it is good for corporations or for the government, but we never emphasize the need for equalization for the consumer. Before this bill passes we should give serious consideration to this. We should consider it in the light of what the public deserves and what companies deserve.
Gasoline prices should be equalized across the country just as the Eaton company equalized prices for all commodities in its sale catalogues. Perhaps I should use Simpsons as an example because its catalogue sales are continuing. I am not prepared to argue the financial structure of Eaton's or what happened to that company. During the whole time that Simpson's has been in business, their prices on heavy commodities, have been the same throughout the country, but the price of gasoline in northern Ontario has been higher for years, and the reason we have been given for that is the cost of transportation.
Gasoline has always been 5 cents cheaper in Timmins than in Kirkland Lake. Why is that? The gas company has set out a number of zones and they placed Timmins in a zone which is farther south than Sault Ste. Marie, yet from Kirkland Lake it must be hauled another 80 or 90 miles, so it should cost more. The oil companies have administered prices for gasoline and

April 17, 1978

for fuel oil for years. Now is the time for us to decide if we are going to equalize the prices and if we are going to charge every consumer in Canada a levy to allow the equalization of the price which Syncrude will get to the world price. I think it is about time we did something very small and insignificant, but very important for the consumers of this country, namely, we equalize the price of gasoline and fuel oil across the nation. I do not see any argument against that.
Not long ago a young chap came down here from northern Saskatchewan where they have some oil. He was very surprised to find that in Ottawa gasoline was being sold at a cut rate, that it was cheaper here than in northern Saskatchewan. I imagine that is also true of Alberta and that there are places outside the major markets where the price of gasoline is considerably higher than in Calgary, Edmonton, and some of the larger centres. I think the time has come when we should protest being discriminated against by the oil companies.
If the oil companies were operating on the free enterprise basis, I would have no argument, and they would be able to set their prices. But they are not free enterprise operations at all. From the point of view of a free enterprise operator, if you can get 70 per cent of the capital and only have to give 30 per cent of equity, it is probably a pretty good deal, but nobody in their right mind would call that a free enterprise operation. We are subsidizing Syncrude, and we are subsidizing the whole oil industry.
Who will benefit from Syncrude? Benefits will flow to Imperial Oil and the other oil companies rather than to the governments involved. There will be no benefits flowing to average Joe Citizen. It is the average citizen who should be benefiting. We should develop some equality in this country, and one place where that equality is needed is in the price of gas.
Because of subsidization, you and I contribute to the public transportation system in Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto and Vancouver. We have assisted them in moving around in their areas, but in 90 per cent of the land mass in this country, where probably 30 per cent of the population is affected, a car is not a luxury, a furnace is not a luxury. These are absolute necessities in our nation, and I see no legitimate reason for people in some areas of our nation having to pay more for gas or fuel oil than in others. I should like some hon. members to rise and tell me why I am wrong. I see no legitimate reason for that, if we are willing to subsidize oil companies-that is exactly what we are doing in this operation-we are not subsidizing the users of oil.
If we wanted to subsidize the users of oil we would have put 100 per cent into Syncrude and we would have distributed 100 per cent of the oil extracted by Syncrude at whatever price we wanted. Another way of doing it is to equalize the price of oil to all Canadians regardless of where they live. But we have the Liberal government trying to accommodate both the free enterprise system and the government corporation. I see nothing wrong with that kind of cooperation, but surely what we are doing is giving the corporations a handout.
Energy
It would be reasonable, and no businessman would object to it, if I put up 70 per cent of the capital to develop the operation and got 70 per cent of the equity. The difference, or 30 per cent, on which we do not get equity, would give us the few cents necessary on the total volume of gasoline used in Canada to make gasoline prices equal all across the nation. You can only drive a car so far and burn that much gasoline, but the same is not quite true of tractors and farm equipment.
In the last year, farmers have had an increase of approximately 75 per cent in their fuel oil for farm equipment. This has become a huge operation. We have not subsidized our farmers and we did not tell them they could raise their prices to recoup their losses. Farmers are not able to reclaim that increase in fuel oil which has become part of their cost of production. Each and every Canadian wants farm prices to remain low so that we can distribute food to all Canadians at a reasonable price. But we have not subsidized farmers and their fuel costs although we are subsidizing the oil companies.
Let us look at it realistically. We are not talking about a large amount of money. We are certainly not talking about anything like the 40 per cent we have put in, and much of this money continues to be paid out. Our payments will not remain at 40 per cent. As the minister says, we will have to increase it every time there is an increase in the world price. A levy will be paid by all Canadians to ensure that this operation is maintained at the world price.
I would like to hear members argue why they do not believe in the Eaton's catalogue principle. I think they would all agree that if you lived in Carp, you would be paying six, seven, or eight cents more for gasoline than in Ottawa. They would agree that half a cent more on the gasoline price in Ottawa would cover Carp and all the other little communities around Ottawa. It does not take much more because some people living in Carp find that they can drive into Ottawa, buy gas here, go back to Carp, and still make a saving. It does not take much to equalize the price of gas. If we are really interested in providing equality, let us provide it for everyone, not only for the oil companies so that they can develop a synthetic product from a new source, which we all agree they should do. At least some of the subsidy should go toward equalizing gasoline prices and, if I had the opportunity, I would dearly like to move such an amendment and divide the House on it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very brief contribution to the debate on Bill C-19, which is of interest to every Canadian, whatever his province of residence. The general public is not adequately informed about the real volume of oil reserves contained in our land. I am at a loss when I see reports from highly intelligent and educated persons who seem to be able to tell us with confidence that there is enough oil to satisfy Canada's needs for so many years, while other scientists as knowledgeable as anybody else tell us those reserves are inexhaustible, non renewable yet immeasurable.

April 17, 1978
Energy
The public has many unanswered questions. How come in one part of Canada the gas we use for our cars costs $1 a gallon, elsewhere 90 cents and elsewhere again $1.04, as in some areas of the province of Quebec? Even within that same province, along Highway 20, gas sells for so much but if you leave that road and drive to a nearby village, the price is different. I admit these prices are under provincial jurisdiction. I realize that but how come, Mr. Speaker-because it still is within Canada-we are unable to establish a uniform price? It is a shock when you get near a gas station to fill up your car and you look at the price. In some places, where the price posted is 52 cents a half gallon, that means $1.04 a gallon. If you leave Highway 20 ten miles farther it goes for 89 cents. The company is not important, whatever the company that provides the gas to fill the retailer's tanks, at one place gas costs 89 cents and at another $1.04. This is for the same grade. I should add that the price at both stations is for unleaded gas. Why can there not be a uniform price?
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is not the responsibility of the federal government. I am well aware of this. However it should be possible for the federal and the provincial governments to come to an agreement so that the consumer might pay a uniform price for the same product. The same thing applies to heating oil. In one municipality it costs 54 cents and in another one 48 cents. I imagine that the distributors are honest men and that they offer products of the same quality, that they do not sell us heating oil of a given quality in one region and heating oil of another quality elsewhere. I am not qualified to do quality analyses. Not at all. But I regularly receive representations. Again yesterday I was asked for explanations. I cannot reply because I do not have the necessary information. I believe that during such a debate perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) could give us information on this subject when he speaks at the report stage.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the predictions of the great geniuses who tell us that our resources are limited to so many barrels. I had the opportunity to visit the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories with the committee of the House. We even visited an artificial island in the Beaufort Sea in the Arctic, and I was able to speak to those responsible for exploration in that area. There was one well more than 3,000 feet deep. I asked: Are you finding oil? Of course, they are finding oil. The operator who replied to me said: "I have been doing research for the same company for 18 years and this is the first time that I find such a productive well." What do you do with that? "Well", he said, "when we have finished exploring, we will install a valve and close it; that will be part of our reserves for the future." I am very happy about that, Mr. Speaker, but what struck me was the wealth Providence has provided us with in that whole territory. I had slightly different ideas from what I say in the Arctic. I thought that land was so cold that God had forgotten to put anything there.

Then I discovered that the Creator had thought of everything. I marvelled at the sight of banks of gravel in those frozen territories. With loaders they could get better gravel there than in Quebec, in the form of crushed ballast.
I was absolutely amazed, and then we drove over miles and miles of roads built of gravel spread over ice. I also found it absolutely extraordinary that companies had managed to build villages with the possibilities for all the services we find back home.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Status of Women-Equal opportunity programs for women in Public Service; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Transport-Future of ship canal at Sault Ste. Marie; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Trade-Discrepancies in retail price of gasoline-Request for investigation.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is agreement to proceed at this time with notice of motion No. 27 standing in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). If that is agreeable to the House, I would ask that all notices of motions preceding motion No. 27 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent to stand notices of motions Nos. 4, 11, 21, 24 and 26?


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, at this late date in the session the action I am intending to take is only as a result of some rulings which were made earlier in the session. Since the motions that precede the motion which is going to be considered this afternoon were placed on the order paper almost six months ago, this should be recorded as the first time
April 17, 1978

of calling. Under our House rules, these motions will drop the next time they are called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Item No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis); shall the item stand?


Harold Thomas Herbert: No, sir.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
Item No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies); shall the item stand?


Harold Thomas Herbert: No.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
Item 21; shall the item stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
Item No. 24; shall the item stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
Item No. 26 in the name of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall); shall the item stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
I call item No. 27.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian delegation at the Belgrade Conference on the Helsinki Accords should gain guarantees from the Government of the U.S.S.R. that individuals be permitted to send or personally bring with them bibles and other religious publications when visiting friends or relatives in the U.S.S.R.
He said: During the past four years I have often expressed my constituents' concerns on material matters such as inflation, unemployment, and the economy. I have supported, opposed, and proposed programs that sought to provide the
Bibles
basic life support structures of food, clothing and shelter; programs and structures that have in fact met all of our basic needs and, in fact, most of our materialistic greeds, but all for what vain purpose? Surely this House, this parliament, is preoccupied with materialism, and too seldom do we turn our attention to man's inner spiritual being.
Today the subject I should like to deal with is that of religious liberty. Christian religious liberty is biblically rooted firstly in God's nature and secondly in His dealings with persons. Freedom is represented as a gift of God through grace extended to man throughout the New Testament. Freedom is in fact rooted in God. God gives man the capacity to receive and experience the inner peace of freedom. For a man to be truly free is for a man to be at one with God, for freedom is where God is present.
Paul wrote:
Where the spirit of the Lord is present there is freedom ... Freedom is what we have-Christ has set us free.
By Christian definition persons reconciled to God are therefore free persons. Christians have therefore demonstrated throughout history that even in the face of persecution, prison, and martyrdom, a Christian can be free and at peace through God's love and the commitment of Jesus Christ for eternal life.
God's revelation of Himself to man is made on the basis of freedom. Jesus Christ came not with wordly majesty and power to force and subjugate man to His will. He came and chose to make Himself known instead freely through love. God's approach is, "Listen, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his house and eat with him and he will eat with me." The freedom which God has given in Christ implies a free response to God's love.
For faith to be faith it must be a voluntary personal and free act born out of freedom. God does not compel faith, for faith itself is a gift of God and is by its very nature a free and voluntary act.
Though this inner Christian freedom does not require an external civil or political freedom, civil and political freedom is desirable primarily for creating the kind of environment that will allow an unhindered expression of religious faith and commitment without civil political advantages or disadvantages. It is this environment that allows the free flow of religious information and free flow of bibles throughout the entire world that is of concern, because it is this inner Christian life that is the basis of external or social religious liberty. This external freedom is thereby the outward expression of that inner freedom with which God set us free. By its very nature external force or interference in religious matters is a denial of religious liberty and thus God's purpose for man. The human right to religious liberty, is therefore, first of all the right to give outward expression to or manifestation of the inner freedom one has found in God.
While the exercise of one's conscience must be limited by the protection of another's rights and the maintenance of a just social order, even these limits must not be imposed arbitrarily

April 17, 1978
Bibles
or partially, but in the spirit of equality and non-discrimination. One essential duty of every state is in fact not only not to prevent or not interfere with, but rather to protect the inviolable rights of man, principles endorsed by all nations in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.
While religious freedom has, in principle, become almost universal, multitudes of people are in practice denied the right of religious freedom.
Under Part 2, Section (A), No. (II), printed information of the Helsinki Final Act on Cooperation in Humanitarian Fields, the U.S.S.R. undertook:
To facilitate the improvement of the dissemination on their territory of newspapers and printed publications, periodicals and non-periodicals, from other participating states.
Further according to Article 124 of the constitution of the U.S.S.R. "Freedom of conscience and separation of church and state" is assured, and it is presumed that non-interference of the state in the affairs of religious denominations is thereby equally assured.
Because of the U.S.S.R.'s adherence to these principles it should be easy enough for the U.S.S.R. to accede to Canada's request to send, or allow Canadians to bring with them, bibles and other religious publications when visiting their co-religionists in the U.S.S.R.
Talk of religious liberty is just so much wind, of course, unless guarantees of religious liberty are institutionalized, and unless social machinery is set up to protect religious liberty against violation. I would suggest that is one of the courses of action that would seem to be needed in the U.S.S.R. It is reported that in fact a person may take, by Russian law, one bible and one individual copy of a religious publication with him. If you press the matter I have heard of people who have managed to take ten bibles with them into Russia. While the Russian constitution proclaims one thing, the practice at the border crossing in the experience of those I have talked to seems to be considerably different. While the U.S.S.R. state apparently talks constitutionally and rhetorically about making such provisions, actual practice is somewhat contradictory. Confiscation of Bibles and religious publications is a widespread practice at U.S.S.R. border crossings.
Members of the Alexander Koshetz Choir of Winnipeg tell of being prevented by Soviet customs officers from bringing records of their choir into the Soviet Union, and then once in the Soviet Union of having to restrict and delete religious numbers from their program for presentation to Soviet audiences. Can you possibly imagine the indignation of the Soviet Union were the Red Army chorus in Canada restricted in the singing of its nationalistic songs in Canada? Equity is certainly required in this case.
Personal friends who have visited have come back to tell of tremendous shortages not only of religious publications but also of bibles. They tell of bibles being produced in Russia which are denied to the people to read because most of the production is exported. They tell of such statistics as one bible for every 250 believers, and of grown men crying with the pleasure of being able to receive a Bible from abroad.

I will be anxious to hear a response by Soviet authorities, and I hope that an occasion will arise when I can visit the Soviet Union to verify what I know to be truth, because the people who have verified this to me walk in truth and light and in the way of the Lord, loving freely and with willing hearts serving Him with joy and righteousness.
While the Belgrade conference has concluded, the principle of the motion is still intact. In fact, I heard within just a matter of weeks of people returning and the confiscatory problems still continuing of Bibles and religious publications being confiscated at the border. There are very few getting through. I would like to see the Soviet Union demonstrate to the world-in the spirit that they came to the Belgrade conference with and that they participated in Helsinki with- that not only was their talk sound but it was carried through into action.
This is a very important motion, Mr. Speaker, and I make it with all seriousness and in a totally non-partisan manner. 1 appeal to Christians throughout this House and to people who believe in religious liberty in all fields throughout the world. I urge the members of this House to speak briefly as I have done so that this motion might pass, although the Conference is completed, so that the government can carry the spirit of this motion through the ambassador directly to the Soviet Union, so that once again believers throughout the world will have an enlightened view and religious liberty that their birthright under the United Nations Human Rights Charter.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we would certainly like to express our admiration for the deep commitment on the part of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) that he brings to politics and for his particular commitment to the gifts of the spirit as they ought to guide our decisions and approaches not only at home but also in international relations. We would also like to commend him for the initiative he has taken in bringing this matter before the House, thus permitting hon. members to devote time and attention to this issue.
In conducting a brief research this afternoon on the subject in order to deal with the recommendation of the hon. member, and in search for a source that would be the most complete possible, I came across two statements which I would like to put on the record and bring to the attention of the members of the House, because they seem to have been conceived and expressed with exactly the same concern in mind and with the same objective as that of the hon. member. The first statement I came across was expressed in Belgrade and put forward by Monsignor Achile Silvestrini on behalf of the Holy See on October 7, 1977. I will quote a few passages from Monsignor Silvestrini's speech in the hope that its content will be informative and give an idea of the assessment of the situation on the part of the Holy See.
As I understand it, the Holy See was entrusted by churches throughout the world to represent them at Belgrade and in subsequent follow-up conferences in the field of religious free-
April 17, 1978

dom and implementation of the spirit of the seventh article, as I recall it, in the Final Act of Helsinki. This is what Monsignor Silvestrini had to say, and I am quoting from page 5 of this statement:
Mr. Chairman, to be sure anyone, I personally did too, whoever took part in the laborious formulation of the Final Act could never think that the signing of this document although a gesture so solemn, of such commitment, could lead to immediate over-all modifications, almost spectacular ones. However, it was clear immediately that the spirit of Helsinki could not fail to demand in the first place that every area of liberty, recognized, even to a limited extent, in the laws of various countries, the rights of individuals and social groups, that this area of freedom should be preserved and protected and no longer reduced or compressed by rules and regulations.
Indeed the truly important aspect of the Final Act beyond the actual immediate application registered so far in every country lays in the very impulse given to a progressive motion, although laborious and too slow in some places for the people's expectation, towards an irreversible development of an ever broader liberty.
As regards religious freedoms it is an undeniable fact that the Final Act said "go" to this positive process although it is still at the start. This is, in particular, sufficiently clear as regards circulation and meetings of person and communications from country to country.
Indeed, there have been confirmed encouraging developments in this field as far as we are concerned, by the various churches and various denominational grounds. But in particular, as regards the Catholic church, of which I am particularly competent to speak, it is satisfying to note that a certain number of positive facts without doubt have been proved. Above all, there has been recorded a broader flow, a fairly steady one, of travel facilities for religious motives. Travel for bishops to come to Rome for their visit "ad limina" (as we know this is a visit which should be made every five years to the Pope by the bishops, and this year indeed it includes the turn of the European countries), or also for travel for bishops and other ecclesiastics to attend important meetings of the Holy See, or participation by monks and nuns in the general chapter of their order, or other conventions in Rome, or other places in Europe and America; or again, participation of bishops, priests, groups of the laiety in major international manifestations of a religious nature; like the Holy Year which took place at Rome in 1975, and the International Eucharistic Congress of Philadelphia in 1976-or for pilgrimages to European sanctuaries, both east and west. Furthermore we can note more frequent meetings and exchanges of visits among representatives of the Episcopy of various countries, more numerous concessions for priests who have emigrated to visit their own families at home, and a certain number of young ecclesiastics who have been sent to take study courses in cultural theological university institutes in Rome and elsewhere.
In the same way in the field of means of communication and information, we can record the concessions given to religious communities to print locally a certain number of prayer books and catechisms, the authorization given to send some thousand religious publications (gospels, bibles, catechisms) or liturgical publications (missals, ritual for the administration of the sacraments, brevaries for priests and religious) or works of piety, to catholic communities who previously could neither print nor import; furthermore, the now unhindered reception without interference for some radio religious programs, like the Radio Vatican broadcasts.
These measures, which we stress with satisfaction, correspond to commitments in the Final Act and have begun to modify-even though it is but partially so far, and not to the same extent everywhere, a previous situation which in the field of communications and relations from one country to another, was previously one of rigid and discouraging frustration.
Monsignor Silvestrini goes on to say:
-it is more arduous, more delicate, and more complex, to speak of religious freedoms within the States. Here appeals, testimonies, requests, continue to multiply, sometimes with anxiety and urgency, because the situation in several regions is still far from a normal life of sufficient freedom.
There are particular complaints of difficulties concerning religious practice of certain categories of persons, difficulties for religious education of young people,
Bibles
restrictions concerning the training of candidates for the priesthood, restrictions of freedom in pastoral action for certain bishops and priests.
This completes my quotation from the statement of Monsignor Silvestrini. I would be more than happy to make the full text of the statement available to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
The Canadian delegation in Belgrade played a very active role between October and March when the conference took place. The delegation was outspoken both in public, in committees and in plenary session, as well as in private conversations with delegates from other countries, particularly those from the Soviet Union and eastern European countries. I had the opportunity for such conversations on a number of occasions. On one occasion I showed a Soviet delegate a brief prepared by a group of citizens on the question of religious freedom and pointed out to him the shortcomings identified by that group.
I note that the motion before us was put forward on November 3, 1977. Just a few days before that, on October 31, the head of the Canadian delegation at Belgrade made a major intervention on the subject of human rights. I should like to quote part of what he said on the subject. He dealt with problems being encountered in the area of religious freedom and said:
Why is it that in 1977 we are hearing complaints that members of religious groups in a few participating states are constrained from practising, alone or in community with others, a religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience' as specifically provided for in the third paragraph of the seventh principle, and in paragraph 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why are there charges that in some participating states the practitioners of certain religions-in particular Jews and Baptists-are subjected to especially severe restraints in the exercise of their communal religious life notwithstanding official constitutional guarantees that all citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion? Examples of this penalization are the prohibition of organized religious instruction, restrictions on private worship, communal, social and fund-raising activities, harassment at church festivals, restrictions on the importation of religious literature and even the prosecution and imprisonment of believers, especially those advocating more religious freedom. Why are contacts between practitioners of the same religion living in different participating states sometimes discouraged or prevented, despite the fact that in the third chapter of the Final Act it is explicitly stated that 'religious faiths, institutions and organizations, practising within the constitutional framework of the participating states' can have such contacts? These matters are of real and continuing concern to many Canadians ...
One of the objectives Canada had at the Belgrade meeting-and it made this clear early in the meeting-was to get participating states to agree to facilitate normal communication of ideas and information between individuals, particularly through the freer flow of printed material. This objective included religious information. This objective was put into concrete form as a western proposal that Canada co-sponsored, by which governments would take the following action: express their intention not to impede the satisfaction of the demand existing on their territory for the newspapers and printed publications, periodical and non-periodical, from the other participating States and will to this end avail themselves of the ways and means set out under the heading 'printed information' including, inter alia, the development of the possibilities for taking out subscriptions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us speaks of individuals being permitted to transmit religious materials. At Belgrade the Canadian delegation put particular stress on the
4568

April 17, 1978
Bibles
role of the individual in the implementation of the Final Act. That was not a new concept we tried to inject into the CSCE discussions. Quite the contrary, it is a concept already in the Final Act and, in a proposal we eventually co-sponsored on this point, we simply wished to reaffirm as follows:
The relevant and positive role which institutions, organizations and persons as well as governments have to play in the process of developing co-operation between governments and peoples and in the process of securing the implementation of the provisions of the Final Act.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has asked us to make short interventions and I will, of course, respect his wish. I conclude by saying that the closing statement Canada made on March 9 makes it quite clear that Canadian interest in humanitarian questions will not cease just because the Belgrade meeting has ended. On the contrary, our commitment to those goals will be vigorously maintained in the months and years ahead as we prepare for the meeting in Madrid in 1980. At that time there will be another opportunity to scrutinize the performance of this Final Act by all participating nations in this very important area of human rights which includes the area of concern of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West which he so eloquently put to us this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on his initiative in presenting this motion to the House, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian delegation at the Belgrade Conference on the Helsinki Accords should gain guarantees from the government of the U.S.S.R. that individuals be permitted to send or personally bring with them bibles and other religious publications when visiting friends or relatives in the U.S.S.R.
I agree that we should not debate this motion very long. I want to urge members to give the motion unanimous consent so that it can become a landmark of our posture on the Helsinki agreement and the relationship we want to establish with those people in the U.S.S.R. who are labelled there as dissidents and, in one sense, are unwanted people.
My grandparents came to this country from the Ukraine over 100 years ago. They had lived there for a generation or two, having come from Germany. It has been the history of the Mennonite people to move from one country to another in search of freedom of conscience. They had been promised that kind of freedom in Russia by Catherine the Great and had enjoyed it for many years. In the latter part of the 1800's, however, they became nervous because czarist Russia was experiencing revolution and feeling more and more the need to arm. As a result, my ancestors looked for another place and so came to Canada over 100 years ago. I still have many distant relatives there.
In the 1920's, 25,000 more Mennonites came from Russia to settle in Canada in search of religious freedom and to escape the persecution they were experiencing from the statist Communist regime of the Soviet Union. They were not allowed that freedom of conscience that had been promised to them by the previous government. Even to this day, although the Russian

constitution guarantees to them freedom of conscience and freedom of worship, they really do not enjoy that. Members of the Mennonite faith, the Pentecostal faith, the Baptist faith and many other religious denominations have to meet in secret. They have to meet in the woods or in basements. They meet at a moment's notice so that the KGB does not know when that meeting is going to take place and cannot find them. This in spite of the fact that the constitution guarantees them freedom of worship.
It is because of knowledge that I have that many of my far distant relatives are still suffering prosecution that I really was not very happy with the fact that Canada was signing the Helsinki agreement. As far as I was concerned, it was a charade and a farce. Having signed that agreement, I find there are opportunities to point out to that government it is not living up to the agreements on human rights and the human rights accord which they promised in that document. They are not living up to that. Just last night in one of the local churches in my community we were given a report of the very latest incidents taking place. When the so-called tourists come to the Russian border, their cars are literally torn apart in search of Bibles and New Testaments that are being smuggled into the country in some kind of clandestine fashion. It has come to the point where each tourist is allowed one copy of each kind of book. Therefore, they can bring into the country one Holy Bible and one New Testament. These are printed in Germany for the Russian people.
Many people are not allowed to have bibles in their homes. According to the law, children up to the age of 18 are not allowed to participate in religious worship. It is the attitude of the Russians that up to that time they are being brainwashed by their parents. Up to age 18 they are under the protection of the state. They are not allowed to worship freely. There are no Sunday schools; that is considered brainwashing. People there cannot understand that in our country children can freely go to church and Sunday school. They cannot believe there are stores in Canada which specialize in selling Bibles and religious books.
The Russians make a big deal of the fact that in the city of Moscow there is a very large Baptist church in which leading religious leaders are invited to speak and do speak there. The common experience when people from the United States and Canada speak there is that the Christians there are inexpressibly hungry for the kind of preaching that is presented to them on those days.
While the large cities have large churches, when you leave the metropolitan areas and go to the villages and hamlets you find there are no churches, or at least very few. The people are being hunted out and punished for having religious convictions. I think of the case of Mr. Georg Vins, a Baptist preacher in that country. There are many well documented rumours that he is being poisoned while in prison.
His son is following in his footsteps and is now a Baptist preacher. He was recently fired from his job; he cannot
April 17, 1978

maintain employment because he is a Baptist preacher. Because he is now unemployed, he is considered a vagabond and therefore punished and fined for not having a job. It is the catch 22 situation in Russia. You cannot propagate or express your faith. If you do, you lose your job. If you lose your job, you are punished even more for being a burden to the state.
In addition to the children, those who suffer most are the people on pension. These people earned a pension during their hard-working years. If they are found and convicted of participating in religious worship, they are fined 50 per cent of their pension. This is in a country that has signed the Helsinki agreement and supposedly is allowing for free access to scriptures. I think of the experience of a man called Brother Andrew. He has been dubbed "God's smuggler". He has made it his mission in life to smuggle bibles into that country. If the Russians allow freedom of worship, how can one man make it his mission in life to smuggle Bibles into that country? How can that be if there is free access to the scriptures?
The Mennonite Central Committee formed a delegation two years ago to meet with Russian officials. They asked to be allowed to import 10,000 Bibles into Russia. Some time later they were given permission to import 10,000 hymn books. That is something, I am glad for that, but it is strange that the request was sidetracked in that way.
The Russian government has adopted a means of isolating believing Christians by using the term unorganized or unrecognized churches. That is their euphemism for labelling or dealing with people whom they consider to be dissidents because they want to worship God in the way they have chosen as a result of the commitment they have made to the person of Jesus Christ.
Two years from now we will have the Olympics in the city of Moscow. I am sure it will be an extravaganza par excellence. The government of the U.S.S.R. will want to have thousands of tourists present on those days to see the Olympics and the accomplishments they have made in a material sense. Tourists will come from around the world to see the Olympics and other parts of their country. I wonder what it will be like for tourists who want to bring more than one Bible into the country. How much will they be frisked? How much freedom will they be given to travel around that country and visit their fellow Christians, their brothers and sisters? Will they be allowed free access to little groups who worship around the country or will they be hassled and harassed as they come to the border? If they have ten, 20 or 30 bibles, will they be confiscated?
I speak on this motion because I am concerned for those of my brothers and sisters in Russia who do not have the freedoms that we enjoy here. They hunger for the kind of fellowship that ought to be theirs and was promised to them under the constitution that was passed by their government.
I commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for bringing this issue before us and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for updating it and pointing out that we will have another day of scrutiny in 1980. After the 1980 Olympics, we will have an opportunity to examine the record
Bibles
established by the government of the U.S.S.R. in relation to all of the countries that are signatories to the Helsinki agreement.
I urge hon. members to make it a personal responsibility to examine what is going on in that country in relation to Christian and Jewish believers in particular, who are suffering for their faith. I urge them to do their own research and at the 1980 conference in Madrid bring the question before the Russian delegation to make sure they give a proper accounting of their mandate to live up to the Helsinki agreement.
I should like to close by referring to one of the resolutions presented at the Twelfth Ukrainian Congress held in Winnipeg in October, 1977. It points out that the U.S.S.R. forbids the Ukrainian clergy and lay people from sending bibles and other religious publications to their co-religionists in the Ukraine either by mail or by personal delivery, and concludes by expressing the desire that there should be freedom of worship and freedom of access to the scriptures.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). The issue he raises is one of great concern to us in Canada; it comes sharply into focus when we hear from other parts of the world about limitations upon human freedom which, fortunately, are outside our own experience.
The motion before us, in effect, seeks guarantees from the government of the U.S.S.R. through the forum of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe that bibles and religious publications will be able to enter the Soviet Union without hindrance. In view of reports received about difficulties experienced by some who have tried to take or send such material into the Soviet Union, the objective of the motion is certainly understandable and deserves our sympathy. Indeed, it is completely consistent with the basic aims of the Helsinki Final Act.
That document, among other things, tries to promote freedom of religion and the freer flow of information and ideas. The Final Act, however, is not an agreement in the sense of an international treaty with legally binding obligations which, if not adhered to, may be considered as violated. It is simply a declaration of intentions or guidelines for future action by governments. There are no deadlines by which it must be implemented nor any hard and fast rules on how it is to be implemented. It is by its very nature a long-term process and one should be under no illusions about the obstacles that lie in the way of its full implementation. We cannot, in other words, insist that the U.S.S.R. give the kind of guarantees the motion before us suggests.
Having said that, I have to add that human rights are a matter of concern to Canadians, particularly freedom of conscience and belief which are fundamental rights. Where these are not permitted to exist or are hindered, it is difficult to see how the process of increasing confidence and overcoming mistrust which are at the heart of detente can be promoted. Whether certain governments like it or not, therefore, human
80033-76)4

April 17, 1978
Bibles
rights and humanitarian issues will continue to feature prominently in East-West relations and will be the means by which the vast majority of the public will gauge the sincerity of undertakings within the CSCE context. This makes it all the more important for governments to move in the direction of better respect for human rights and humanitarian co-operation and to be seen to be doing so. This is most important, in my opinion. It is not just a case of being seen to be doing so, because as was once said you can con the people some of the time but not all the time, and the rest of the world is watching.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency on the part of some governments of Eastern Europe to dismiss the importance of what the public in the west thinks. That is a serious mistake on their part and we have to find ways of impressing that point on them. Those members of the House who were able to participate in the Belgrade meeting of the CSCE had perhaps one of the best opportunities of doing so. Certainly the Canadian delegation made the point repeatedly about the importance of living up to the undertakings in the Final Act: otherwise, there was a real danger of public skepticism about the value of the CSCE process and even about detente itself.
We did not get agreement on the various human rights and humanitarian proposals Canada and other western countries put forward at Belgrade and the concluding document that emerged fell far short of what we hoped at the beginning it might be possible to achieve. In fact, the document was no more than it was primarily because the reality of the situation at Belgrade was that the Soviet Union and its friends were not ready to see any forward movement on the vital questions of human rights and humanitarian co-operation and the western delegations refused to agree to an unbalanced document that did not take into account their concerns on these issues.
As the Belgrade meeting is over, the question we have to address ourselves to is what we can do to encourage the kind of progress sought in the motion before us between now and Madrid when the 35 CSCE participants will meet again.


Mr. Paproski:: Let the motion pass.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: We cannot simply carry on as though all our problems were resolved at Belgrade and the slate had been wiped clean. The Eastern European governments have to understand that the questions we regard as urgent have to be taken seriously and that their unwillingness to do so cannot fail to have an effect on our dealings with them. We as members of parliament have just as much a role to play in bringing about an understanding of this point during our encounters with Eastern European officials and parliamentarians at international meetings and during visits.
This is an issue about which all of us are most concerned. Again I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley West whose comments I appreciate.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to this debate because I believe Firmly in the thrust of the position advocated by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). However, I am bound to

take exception to one aspect of the presentation of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). It is important that we use terms accurately in this debate. He used the word "Russia" throughout and I think it is very important that we should understand that this is not a problem with Russia as such but with the Soviet Union.


Benno Friesen: I used that expression, true.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I have no doubt. But this is a point well worth making. There are many important nations within the Soviet Union from the point of view of national origin. Our issue is not with those nations but with the Soviet Union and its policy position.
The question of the importation of bibles and other religious materials into the Soviet Union is directly linked to that of religious freedom. As such, it falls squarely into the Agreement on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Helsinki accord, as it is called. Basket one contains provision for this very type of thing. In accordance with the seventh principle, the participating states undertake to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. It may also be said to fall into basket three, which pertains more directly to human rights and relates to such things as humanitarian principles involving the freer movement of people, ideas and information.
However, even beyond that, the Soviet Union's own constitution guarantees for its citizens the right to observe any religion they choose. The problem is that the actual practice of religion in the Soviet Union is much more difficult. Opposed to the theoretical freedom of religion are the practices and ideals of communism. The Soviet Union officially espouses atheism and, as a result, ensures that atheism is taught to all children in the Soviet Union.
To counter the effect of religion, obstacles are placed in the way of its practice. The most important are the banning of public proselytizing and strict limitations on the teaching of religion to children under the age of 18. Religion is also interfered with by the strict controls that are kept on the churches and their priests and by the limitations which are placed on the availability of religious materials.
While bibles are printed in the Soviet Union, they are printed in numbers that are woefully inadequate for the need. In order to prevent proliferation of such material from other sources, a ban is placed on the importation of such materials as well. This ban takes the form of customs regulations. Tourists and visitors to the Soviet Union are allowed to bring with them religious material for their personal use only.
Freedom of religion is one of the issues which clearly separates east and west. Canada, as part of its contribution to the east-west dialogue, has always insisted that basic freedoms such as that of religion must be fully respected if relations not only between Canada and the U.S.S.R. but also between east and west generally are to progress. Canada has pointed out that people here care about issues such as this. They care that
April 17, 1978

people of whatever faith in the Soviet Union are not able to obtain the materials which are necessary for the free practice of their religion.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Sit down.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not understand clearly the words the hon. member opposite is saying, but I believe he is probably not aware of the fact that this resolution could not be passed by the House in its present form. I recognize that when the hon. member introduced this resolution this matter was before the conference, but there is no way now that we can pass a resolution in this House which says that we should do something at a conference which is already over.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Amend the resolution.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Great as are the powers of this government and its good intentions, even it cannot undo what has already been done.
The Soviet Union has replied and will undoubtedly continue to reply-unfortunately-that freedom of religion exists in the Soviet Union, that what limitations there are and what apparent hindrances exist are not real impediments and are in any case matters of purely internal Soviet concern. The Soviet Union has been very firm in stating that it will not tolerate interference in its affairs and has indicated clearly that it will resist outside pressures which it feels are intended not to meet human rights purposes but to undermine the strength of Soviet Union control. In practice, however, the Soviet Union normally sees all pressure of this kind as directed toward weakening its control and seems unable to distinguish a category of outside pressure which would be seen by others as directed only at human rights.
Detente in terms of east-west relations is an important process for both sides. As such, we must all work to further it, but this can be done only if there is an increased understanding between the people of the east and the west. Such improved understanding is possible only if both sides can accept fully that basic human rights must be respected. In the present circumstances respect for human rights is the main yardstick people in the west use for measuring progress in detente.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: It is the intention of the hon. member to talk this resolution out anyway. The hon. member says he believes in detente and that getting to understanding each other better is an important experience which we must go through. I wonder if the hon. member feels the same way with regard to South Africa.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the problem we have with South Africa is different from the problem we have with the Soviet Union. However, with respect to questions of human rights there is no difference between the standard I expect from the government of South Africa and that which I expect
Bibles
from the Soviet Union. From my point of view, I am not very satisfied with the practice of human rights in either of those states.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Would you accept an amendment then?


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is not for me to accept or reject amendments. My purpose is to express my views on this important issue of the day.
The Belgrade meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is over. It ended without a substantive concluding document which spelled out any progress in the human rights field. However, the meeting did take place and during it a thorough review was made of the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act which covers explicitly the issues we are discussing here. Canada made it very clear that its people expect progress in areas such as human rights, including particularly freedom of religion and the free flow of information and printed material.
I want here to express the gratitude which many people in Canada feel to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) for the strong position he took on behalf of our government at the Belgrade conference. We were able to send many observers from this House who contributed to the discussions and to our understanding of the problem, but it was especially fortunate that we were able to send the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) to make the final statement for our government at the conclusion of that conference.
It is impossible for us to force the Soviet Union to make specific concessions in this area. International relations do not work that way, so it would not be possible to obtain a guarantee as such, to use the word which the motion uses. However, the Soviet Union must be made aware, and has been made aware by our minister and by our government, of the concern of the Canadian people in this matter, and it should have no doubts in the future about the intention of the Canadian people as a whole to pursue this matter further.
Freedom to import bibles and other religious materials is one specific example of an area in which progress must be made in human rights if the CSCE and detente are to be seen by the people of Canada and by the people of the world as valid processes.
Some people will raise the question of whether the whole process of Helsinki and the follow-up conference in Belgrade were worth while. I want to quote briefly from the words of the Minister of State (Multiculturalism), who said the following at Belgrade on behalf of our government and our country:
We had hoped that Belgrade would be the occasion for all signatory governments not only to reaffirm their pledges to respect human rights, but also to act on them. We have never claimed that human rights are all there is to detente. What we have claimed and what we do claim is that, to the extent that detente rests on confidence, we cannot muster that confidence among our citizens unless it is seen to have a human dimension. Respect for human rights is part of the structure and balance of the Final Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of

April 17, 1978
Energy
private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-19, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: At five o'clock the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) had the floor.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: the good if we could use the same persons to channel solar energy.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like my words to be interpreted as those of a waster, far from it. 1 have been using oil, gas and kerosene for a long time. We used to buy it 30 or 40 years ago at 25 cents a gallon. I bought some about two weeks ago at $4.50 a gallon. It is far from being the same price. The container has changed, it has been coloured, some odour has been added to it so that it does not smell oil so much, and they find a way to sell it to us at $4.50 a gallon.
Furthermore, I would add that I favour the energy conservation program. Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I made a personal experience when I left the House at five o'clock like many of my colleagues. I got my bags ready and then left by car for my riding which is some 300 miles away. While driving I paid attention to the traffic regulations and to my great surprise, when I reached the station where I usually fill up my tank, I noticed that my car had consumed two gallons of gasoline less than usual. That was a personal experience.
I favour such action and measures should be taken to try saving these resources while carrying out all our daily business and doing our work in a normal fashion. Yet between that and pushing the panic button, thereby allowing prices to be considerably increased by those who have the monopoly on the exploitation of these natural resources, there is a world of difference. I would like the government, through its ministers, to keep its eyes open on that situation so that the public can take us seriously. Canadians are urged to insulate their homes properly. I support this program because it is quite sensible. I have never believed that a father, even if he is a millionaire, should encourage his children to waste. I have never believed that myself. I think that a millionaire is most able to give wise advice to his children so that they can better manage their own affairs. Someone who does not own anything cannot ask his children to save anything, because they have nothing to save, nothing to safeguard. The affluent people are those who are in the best position to try to invite others to do something so that altogether in Canada we may make better use of our natural riches, even electricity. When we are 20 miles from Montreal, I look at the street lights on each side of the Trans-Canada highway and by God, they are all turned on even in bright daylight. We are told to save electricity, to be careful, to turn lights off when there is no need for them, yet the government does not even set the good example.
Mr. Speaker, how many buildings, even those occupied by the federal and provincial governments are lighted all day long, all night long, thereby wasting energy. Yet that good example should be given, Mr. Speaker, and it is-


Mr. Marceau:: Sometimes it costs less that way.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: My colleague, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), says that sometimes it costs less to
Energy
leave the lights on! Perhaps it is cheaper, so let us leave our engines running.


An hon. Member:: It depends.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, it depends. So I think that consuming uselessly is spending. 1 am convinced that the hon. member for Lapointe made a very serious reflection. Quite possibly what he said could be true in certain cases but in any event one has to be able to distinguish. One must also distinguish in the use of our natural resources.
In any case I do not want to delay unduly the passage of Bill C-19. I merely wanted to make a few remarks at this stage to further urge the government to be careful vis-a-vis those who have the possibility of doing research work. They are given tax benefits. They are given benefits to allow them to be able to do more. But they should not laugh at people either. At the end of the year we should not hear about shocking profits and hidden profits on which no taxes are paid. It is important to keep our eyes open and really see how the wealth of the people is being administered because natural resources are a common good. We agree that this common good should be exploited, that it should be put at the service of the people as a whole and that funds should be voted to go further ahead, but only after it is found that they are not hiding the truth away from us so the people will be filled with hope and will co-operate in an intelligent and well-informed manner instead of being distrustful. That is the whole difference. And when you have people who co-operate with government because they are well enlight-ed I think that makes running things a lot easier and all people can finally benefit from it.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is a bill we have to put through for a very simple and obvious reason: we need access to the oil sands of Alberta to guarantee that we will have sufficient of the so-called traditional types of oil to keep our industrial machine operating. 1 do not like this Petroleum Administration Act, as the debates of several years ago will testify, because it is a major infringement of the rights of the provinces to control their own resources. I will not speak on that subject tonight; we had a go at that several years ago.
Tonight I should like to refer to the practical problem which this particular bill brings to mind, and I want to put forward a positive suggestion on how to cope with that problem. Bill C-19 is using the powers of the Petroleum Administration Act to control prices. That is a movement toward restriction, under the powers of trade of the government, in the economic affairs of this nation. Not only is it an infringement of the principal rights of ownership over the resources as laid down in 1867 in the original British North America Act, but it was also made abundantly clear in the amendments to the British North America Act in 1930 and 1931.

April 17, 1978
Energy
One thing I should like to make very clear as a starting point is that the cost of producing oil in Canada has set the world price. We have the mistaken notion, as has been evidenced this afternoon, that the price is set in the world by OPEC nations. The OPEC nations base their economic philosophy and the price level at which they set their oil on two factors. The first factor is that they calculate the cost of producing oil from the oil sands in Canada as the major guide. They know the tremendous resources of this country's oil sands are greater than all their resources, and they know that if we cannot find a cheaper way of producing oil than the way we now use that should be assumed as the foundation of the oil price for the next fifty to one hundred years. The second factor they use, or are trying to use because they have not been successful as yet, is an indexing of oil prices based on the average cost on world markets of the goods they have to consume.
Let me emphasize the fact that when we debate this bill we should remember it is concerned primarily with getting Canadian oil costs up to world levels and the subsidization of the efforts of oil companies to produce oil from the oil sands. It is with that background that I make these remarks. I am very pleased to note that the minister is here tonight. Some two weeks ago I asked him whether he was aware of the proposal I made to Mr. Turner when he was in the House and was minister of finance in an effort to get across to the government the idea that the financing of these oil sands developments was of paramount importance. Tonight I am going to take advantage of the offer of the minister to accept a description of this proposal in some detail.
I have discussed this matter with the premiers of the provinces and with the heads of several of the large oil companies in the world, and I will send the proposal to him so that he may once again put it before his officials for their assessment. When he does I am certain he will find out, as did Mr. Turner, that it is a good idea; it is a good idea; it is sound, and one cannot shoot it down on the basis of economic impracticality.
The only answer the minister was able to give me several years ago when I put this proposal to him, at a time when we were first discussing oil sands financing, was that private companies did not use this method of financing. That remark by the minister was very true then, but that does not mean that we as a parliament should stand by and watch such poor financing being used in respect of a product so vital to the economic health of this and every other nation of the world.
I will start out on this explanation by using a simple analogy. It is based on the true fact that the biggest cost in any capital intensive entreprise is the interest cost. The cost of interest is hard to visualize when you look at cash flow based on discounted cash such as businesses use. However, put in terms of purchasing a home I think it is understandable to us all. These are round roughly worked out on a calculator, but they are accurate to within a decimal point. If a young person takes out a $50,000 mortgage on a home today for 30 years at a rate of interest of 12 per cent per annum, before the

mortgage is paid off that home costs that young person, over the 30 year period, $202,000. This means that the total cost of the home, which takes the greater part of that young person's life to pay for, is over 75 per cent interest. We can all understand and visualize that, and the same situation applies to any capital intensive enterprise.
In the case of the oil sands the percentage is the same. Using the figures I used some years ago, which turned out to be very accurate, I calculate that under the present method of financing the Syncrude plant being built now in Alberta it will cost the company about $11 to produce one barrel of oil, and of that $11 over $8 is interest.
When you realize the immensity of the interest charged you can visualize the tremendous load on a company trying to finance such a development and refinery and get into production. When you realize the next step, Mr. Speaker, you will know it is also a load on the consumer in Canada. This represents a load on all people whether or not they use oil, because we are being asked to subsidize through the treasury in terms of this bill this very type of construction in the oil sands.
When I put this proposal forward now I want the House to understand it has been shown to every premier in this country and to the heads of nearly all the big oil companies interested in this type of development. It has also been mentioned and described before in this House. If it is as sound as I claim it to be, I hope it will be tried on for size by the various consortiums being developed or pulled together to develop our oil sands.
Fundamentally, this proposal is based on the principle of economics that when you are faced with high capital costs, in addition to which interest rates are high, the trick is to find some way to obtain a fast payout. This principle was accepted many years ago in Canada by this parliament in relation to the three year tax hold off in mining. If you go back over mining history in Canada, Mr. Speaker, you will note that as long as we had that three year tax free period for the company that invested its money in this very great risk enterprise-that is, a three year period in which they could pay off their capital before being subject to federal tax-the mining industry was healthy and growing. We took that three year period off some seven years ago and our mining industry in Canada is now just as unhealthy as it is in the United States, because the tax laws are competitive. Our tax laws now in respect of mines-and this could just as well be applied to oil and gas and other things-are ruinously heavy, with the result that we are not getting the mining development we should have at this time.
I know the fault lies with both provincial and federal governments. For years the federal government tried to get the provinces to tax their mining industries a little harder. All of a sudden, with rising mineral and metal prices in 1973, almost all the western provinces jumped in and increased their taxes three or four times. That is when the mining industry went into the slump in which it is still today.
The crime of the provinces being too greedy was compounded by the federal budget of 1974 under Mr. Turner. The government refused to accept provincial royalties and taxes,
April 17, 1978

now much greater, as deductible under federal legislation. So, in effect, we had double taxation of a mining industry and the tax liability jumped up to 60, 70, 80 and in some cases over 100 per cent. That is why many mines with ore left to be mined had to go out of business over the last number of years. In the House I have been trying by questions and by speeches to get the provinces and the federal government to sit down and get rid of this problem. I know the minister is aware of it, and I think he is trying to get a consensus among the provinces; but the fact is that we have had this double taxation on the mines for over four years now.
Now, what is the proposal? The answer, if you are up against this high interest charge, is to have some form of fast payout, and the trick is very simple and old fashioned. You simply agree under contractual arrangement that there will be no dividends to the shareholders, no royalties to the provincial government, and no taxes either to provincial or federal governments, as long as all the revenue from that particular project-in this case the oil sands plant-is devoted to paying off that debt.
In the calculations that I did some three or four years ago the cost of the oil sands plant was $2 billion. It is now 2'/2 billion. But using the figure of $2 billion, hypothetically how long would it take to pay off a debt of $2 billion? In an enterprise of this sort, backed up by the size of companies that will be in this type of operation, and backed up by governments who are interested in getting this development, one can safely assume an interest rate of 10 per cent. It can also be assumed that operating costs to produce a barrel of oil will not be much different from what they were three years ago. At that time the operating cost per barrel was about $1.50. Even if you assume it is $2 a barrel, if the oil brings in $12 a barrel-and that is a very conservative figure-your net per barrel after operating costs is $10. That is a net operating profit. Under the present system of financing it has to go through a long spread-out payout period, and that is how you get the cost up to $ 11 or $ 12 a barrel.
However, if that particular operation was broken down into a leverage factor of about one to three-say, $500 million in equity and $1,500 million in senior bonds-you would have a situation if you applied the old rule of a fast payout where you could pay off that debt in four years and four months. The timetable that I have here is reasonably close to the fact, assuming that the first three years the money is required for construction. That gives you a certain amount of debt that has been capitalized at the end of that three years. In the first year of the second stage of operation you have a big interest payment to make, and if you took the net at $10 a barrel, which is very close at the present time, and multiplied by the number of barrels per day for the number of days in the year, your net income on this assumed plan of 125,000 barrels a day would give you a net income per year of $456 million. If you applied the whole of that net $456 million to a debt which has been rising, it could be paid off completely in four years and four months.
Energy
This means that at the end of that time, instead of having a cost of $11 or $12 a barrel, you would only have an operating cost of, say, $2 a barrel. Replacement costs to build the new plants would be approximately 50 cents to a dollar, giving you $8 left over per barrel to distribute among those who had done without the taxes and the dividends.
When this matter was discussed in the standing committee on energy, mines and resources I asked the then minister, Mr. Macdonald, what he thought if we assumed a system like this one-a fair division based on the constitutional ownership of these resources belonging to the provinces, the traditional share that would go to the federal government out of profits and the amount that should go to equity to pay for the risk. I do not hold Mr. Macdonald to his statement, but it was his estimate of a fair equitable portion that I have used in these next figures. He assumed that it was fair to give 50 per cent of the net to the owner of the resources-I am speaking of profits-20 per cent of the net to the federal government, and 30 per cent to those who had taken the risk in the form of equity. In the group who took the risks would be included the private investor, the institutional investor and the governments that wanted to invest.
Working that out you find that if this proportion were followed for the 22 to 25 years that are left in the life of the field after you have paid off all the debt in the eight years- three years of construction and four and one third years of operation-you would have a very nice profit for each of the partners. The provinces with their 50 per cent would get $228 million out of each plant, the federal government's share would be $91 million per year, and the equity holder's share would be $137 million. As I said, the equity holders could be the federal government, the provincial governments, individuals and institutional investors.
If you put this down and relate it back to interest rates, and if you base it on the equity at the very beginning and compound it, it will give them roughly a 13 per cent return on their money. If you based it on the original amount they invested, it would come up to the normal amount needed in a risk enterprise of roughly 25 per cent. If the federal government was in the equity as well, they would get their share of 27 per cent return on equity investment plus their share of 20 per cent of the total. If you work this out based on a period of 30 years of life in one of these plants, you will recognize that everyone benefits.
Using this hypothetical example, the federal government would receive approximately $90 million a year. The provincial government would be the lucky one with $228 million, but they own the resources and they are being sold off. And, of course, the equity people would have enough return to balance the return that this type of money gets in other operations.
If one compares this proposal to the solution of the British government in handling the risk enterprise in the North Sea, one will see that it comes very close. In the North Sea, with little or no taxes in the first payout period and a high proportion to the government after the payout period, the government of the United Kingdom gets approximately 60 per cent of
4576

April 17, 1978
Energy
the net value of every barrel ol oil. The private investor, government investor or equity share earns roughly 25 per cent of the total capital invested. That satisfies the risk takers that they are going to get a good return if they have a successful operation, and it also leaves a great share to the people who own it, the people of the United Kingdom. If a socialist government in Great Britain can adopt such terms and regulations, so can we in Canada.
Our own government used this philosophy last year when they announced the oil and gas regulations. If you look at the new oil and gas regulations announced in parliament, you will find that in all new discoveries of oil and/or gas in the far north under federal jurisdiction the costs are all accumulated under the parameters or boundaries, and when they are paid off a certain proportion goes to the risk taker and the balance, on a sliding scale, goes to the federal government on behalf of all of the people of Canada, who are the owners at the present time. This particular philosophy-paying off your capital debt quickly so there will be more money left over to divide among the people who have a right to it-is accepted in so far as our oil and gas regulations are concerned in the territories.
We put that through last year. I am suggesting here and now that it would be more statesmanlike and economically sound if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, (Mr. Gillespie), with the support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chr6tien), were to call in the companies interested in these consortiums and ask them how the proposals affect their interests and whether they would be willing to go along with them. When you are dealing with an oil sands plant you are not dealing with the risk of finding oil-you know it is there. The risk is in the tremendous cost and the difficulty of getting the oil into a form which can be used for refining. There is also the difficulty of having to go deeper and deeper for it over the years ahead.
I think the companies would respond positively. Two or three years ago I wrote letters to all of them. One replied that if the government would agree to that kind of contractual proposal they would not have any trouble getting the money. They also claimed they could bring it in at 7 per cent instead of 10 per cent because of the fast payout. These are mostly international oil companies and their primary interest is to gain access to oil for distribution purposes. They are content to give all the equity to Canadians. What is the matter with equity for Canadians, Mr. Speaker, if under contractual arrangements they are pretty well guaranteed a 25 per cent return? Certainly there will be a period of eight or nine years when there is no return, but as compensation for that delay the going rate is about 25 per cent.
I said the world price of oil was not set by OPEC but by the cost of producing oil from the oil sands of Canada. These are not my words, Mr. Speaker. These are the words of the men who drafted the OPEC agreement. Dr. Zuhayr Mikdie has been in Canada many times and knows more about the cost of developing these things in Canada than many Canadians do.

He is one of the men who brought the oil companies together first in APEC and then in OPEC and he has written two definitive books on OPEC. According to him, they are going to continue to watch the costs we incur in the development of oil from the oil sands. We must not let these costs get out of hand because of lack of research and new technology, or lack of nerve to use new technologies-because some do require some nerve-or through the old fashioned technique of financing that we have followed for the last 50 years on the North American continent. Naturally they know what that price will be. If we can get our costs down we will still sell oil to consumers at world price, but we will know the profit is going to the people of Canada. That is the point I am trying to finish off with.
This is not a kooky proposal, it is sound in every way. I have tried it out on the best minds I can find in the business world as well as in the more theoretical areas of finance, and there is agreement. The federal government is going to get nothing at all out of Syncrude because, as this bill indicates, there will be no profit. Through this proposal, however, the federal government has the possibility of about $90 million each year for the next 25 years. The province of Alberta will be the big winner because they own the resource. It is their capital that is being sold off, so why should they not be the winners? Those people who take the risk, whether private companies, provincial governments or big institutional investors, want access to the resource and they will get a return as good as they could get any place else in the world.
I remind hon. members again and again that, for the safety of this country and in order to secure our supply of oil, we must build one of these capital intensive enterprises every three years to keep up with the growing demand for oil. If we can shift home heating and much of the industrial heating into renewable resources, economically it will be of great benefit. This must be done by individuals, however, which makes things difficult because individuals must be persuaded to spend capital on the equipment necessary to get access to cheaper renewable resources. In effect, what they are doing is replacing with one capital payment now a lifetime supply of free solar energy through the technology we already have. I am not referring to direct heating from the sun but to the stuff that is in the economic ballpark now. We have the economic capacity, the research facilities and the technology to heat all our homes, businesses, and high rise buildings a lot cheaper than at present. This would relieve the pressure on oil. In spite of this, however, a new oil sands plant will be needed every three years to keep up with the market demand.
It is therefore a matter of national security, when this bill goes through, that we make sure the government know that if they want to be competitive and keep the world price from rising they must assume the responsibility. It will not be difficult to persuade business that this type of structure is a good idea. The difficulty would be to persuade someone to take the lead, and the obvious person to do that would be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
April 17, 1978

This whole petroleum administration bill is an evil bill, I think, in our type of federal structure. It gives all this power to the federal government. I simply suggest that the minister take the opportunity to use it for the good of Canada in keeping prices down.
I feel that what I have just said has made sense to most people in the House. I should like to see the same theory applied to every type of capital intensive enterprise that we undertake in Canada over the next few decades. The Minister of Finance and the government are held condemned and found guilty of letting our costs rise. We use the phrase "inflation" to describe it. One of the biggest factors in the cost rise of the last ten years has been the consistent rise in interest rates. If they follow a policy like the one I have proposed here-not just with one capital enterprise but with several and all new ones- it will mean that instead of paying out this money over a 20-year period, it will be paid out over a four or five-year period. In effect, the same amount of capital would be used four or five times over a 20-year period, which is the same as increasing the amount of capital stock four or five times.
Whether we deal with building an oil sands plant or building a home in Canada, the responsibility falls on the Minister of Finance. He can check inflation by calling for restraint. Price and wage controls are inflationary, but if he can make capital flow and use the velocity of repayment of capital, that would reduce interest rates which are one of the basic causes of inflation. Costs of government, land costs around cities, costs of labour-management computation techniques and the use of money supply are all cost factors and can be controlled. This government, however, has made no move to get at those five basic causes of inflation.
For ten years costs have been rising and for ten years the government has refused to take a single positive step-except for this silly business of rhyming off the Philips curve, which has been proved false by quantitative analysis. This proposal, Mr. Speaker, would not only get capital flowing faster but would bring more revenue to governments, which would reduce taxes and costs. It puts more people to work. You can have both unemployment and inflation at the same time, and a pox on all this drivel about the Philips curve.
The legislation and actions we need today are to fight inflation and unemployment at the same time, and they go the opposite way to this nonsense we have had to endure for the last 30 years from financial advisers, that if you help or fight inflation you are hurting employment, or vice versa. That nonsense is proved false by every test of quantitative analysis. Let's throw it out.
Here we have a glorious opportunity for the minister to take the lead. When he gets this bill through, he does not have to change the terms. He can still sit down with his particular consortium under Syncrude and put it before them. Make them explain to him why it is not a good idea. It is not too late because they are not yet into production.
Energy
When the new consortium comes forward with their proposal, it should be put before them as well. Put the arm on to Alberta and they will see that they will be the big gainers. With the province and the federal government talking to business face to face about how all of them are going to make more money, we cannot help but get a better deal, not only for the companies, the province and the federal government, but for every person in Canada. It will be the best brake the whole world has on keeping oil prices down over the next few decades.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill because the energy policy of this government is certainly a tremendous monument to its incompetence. One would think one could look at some aspect of this government's record and feel that one might be able to give it a bit of praise. However, I have been in this House week after week and I have not come across one aspect of this government's record yet, except spending money, which I could give any praise. Their energy policy has been bankrupt both in thought and in action or rather inaction.
This Bill C-19 should be A-19, abysmal 19. Apparently it is a bill to permit the government to carry out their commitment to Syncrude so that Syncrude will receive the world price for its oil products, synthetic oil, when it comes on stream. Syncrude, as hon. members know, is a company owned by the government of Canada, the government of Ontario and the government of Alberta, now engaged in building our second tar sands oil plant in Alberta. This bill is to carry out a commitment that was made to Syncrude some years ago to assure them that they will get at least the world price for oil.
I probably would not have spoken on this bill except that the minister, as he is wont to do, made a number of fatuous and inaccurate statements in the House several days ago. I was going to bring this up in another speech in the House, but now I have the opportunity to bring it up while this bill is before the House. We look at the minister's statements, a repetition in the House of his disgraceful performance at the first ministers' conference, the first ministers' "con game" in so far as the contribution of the federal government is concerned. The minister stated in this House, as reported on page 4486 of Hansard of April 13, and I quote:
I believe we have made a lot of progress on the second thrust of our energy strategy, which would use every indigenous source of energy to replace foreign oil imports.
Where is the progress? What progress has been made? This bill only makes it possible for the government to carry out its commitment to Syncrude, to start construction of their plant three years ago, in 1974 or 1975. He said:
-we have made a lot of progress on the second thrust of our energy strategy, which would use every indigenous source of energy to replace foreign oil imports.
Where is this happening? Just this year, Mr. Speaker, net imports into Canada will be in excess of 400,000 barrels of oil a day. How do you like that for its effect on our balance of payments? Twenty-three per cent of our total oil consumption in Canada this year is going to be imported. Where is this fantastic progress under the second thrust of our energy
4578

April 17, 1978
Energy
strategy? Where are all these indigenous sources of energy that are replacing the foreign oil imports? Where is the third tar sands plant we have been waiting for now for two years? Shell has been actively interested in it and trying to put it forward for at least a year or two years.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Five years.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some more knowledgeable member says five years. Where is that project? What has happened to that? This great policy of the government is a policy that now has us importing net 23 per cent of all the oil consumed in Canada this year. This is going to rise to about one third of all our oil consumption in Canada by 1985, and even higher beyond that, because it is now too late. It does not matter what actions are taken now. The lead time is so long for these projects that we will be in worse shape after 1985 than those figures indicate.
Major energy projects such as trunk pipelines, development of oil sands plants or heavy oil plants and the like require about ten years' lead time for their completion. Where is the minister's sense of urgency? All we hear from him in this House is a lot of gas about what the government has done and is going to do, but nothing of substance has been produced to show that anything has been accomplished.
The minister appeared before the committee last year. I asked him about the third tar sands proposal. He gave me his usual flip reply, that this matter was moving on, that it was all Alberta's fault that it was not going forward. In Hansard several days ago he got out the same nonsense again. Just to finish the quotation on page 4486 the minister said:
I believe we have been able to do it because we have been able to work out with the provinces a co-operative approach to the development of our massive energy resources.
What a sick joke. Where is the co-operative approach he has worked out with the provinces? All he has attempted to do is bully the provinces into falling into line with what he wants. There has been co-operative approach. All the minister has done is to go before the Canadian people in February at the first ministers' con game conference with his pointer and a blackboard with an alleged 40 great projects that he said would create one million jobs. The minister knew there were one million unemployed, so he got up with his pointer to pretend that he had 40 huge energy projects which would provide one million jobs to give the people of Canada watching the inference that the government was going to produce in the next few months a million jobs and 40 huge energy projects. He did not want to explain it would cost $80 million and it all had to be done over 25 years, if it was going to be done.
The patent dishonesty of this approach, the skullduggery of it, would make one throw up if one had not developed a hard constitution as a result of listening to this crew for the last 18 months. I sympathize with members who have had to listen to them for the last four years, put with any luck we won't have to listen to them after the next election. Anybody who wants to speak can get up and speak, including the "honourable Sim-ma"-she should be honourable-from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member please address the hon. member by her constituency and not by her name.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I have in my hand the evidence of the minister's patent malarkey. He tabled it at the federal-provincial ministers' conference, February 13 to 15. I have a list of the projects the minister tried to pretend to the Canadian people were just about to go ahead. This marvelous minister, this super minister, would create one million jobs.
I look at No. 15, Kitimat oil port and pipeline. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the next week the minister announced that that was kiboshed, that it was cancelled? One week he is up telling the Canadian people over television that this is going to create a number of jobs. I can give the figures later about the number of jobs. A week later the Canadian government announced they had cancelled it. We do not need an oil port for importing oil on the west coast of Canada, yet here it is listed so that the Canadian people will think it is going ahead.
Project No. 19(a) was Oil Sands III. It just staggers the imagination. The minister had the audacity to get up in February and say to the Canadian people that Oil Sands III was going ahead and that it would create jobs. Let us look it up and see just how many jobs the minister created at Oil Sands III. By golly, he created 20,000 jobs. Well, I want to know where the 20,000 jobs are. And the Canadian people will want to know that if this bill passes through the House. The minister estimated it to be a $3 billion project-the annual number of jobs for operating the plant would be 3,200, the construction total of man-years would be 20,000. But what we want to know, Mr. Speaker, is when will Shell confirm it is going ahead? It was announced by the minister in February. Will the minister admit to the House that he tried to fool the Canadian people in this disgraceful manner? The one million people are still unemployed. They were unemployed in February and they are unemployed now, because not one of these 40 projects has gone ahead.
The minister then had the gall to announce the expansion of the Great Canadian Oil Sands Company. Following that he announced the expansion of Syncrude. He said it was another project. The voters of Canada are not going to permit the minister to get away with this; they are not going to reward him. He also had the gall to announce the James Bay hydro development. It was started by Quebec Hydro in 1974 with not one nickel of federal government money in it. Not a nickel; not a muckle. It was pushed ahead despite the federal government, not because of it. The minister even included in his figures jobs which had been created on that project for the last three years. He included them in the total of jobs he said would be created. And in those million jobs he promised would be created he included jobs which had been filled for the last three years at James Bay. I say the minister should resign here tonight. I have never seen, in ten years in politics in Newfoundland, anything to match this. I thought our politics were a bit raw.
April 17, 1978

Our politics were a model; it was a political heaven after the chicanery I have seen up here in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: How about Come-By-Chance?


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister announced the Fundy tidal power project in February and just two or three weeks ago we heard another announcement by the minister. He said he was going ahead in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with another study on the Fundy tidal power project. The government would spend $15 million on a study which would take two or three years to complete. How can they now claim to study something which they previously announced as part of a one million job project back in February at the great first ministers' conference?
I call the minister the "bionic windbreaker" after his attempt to put this kind of thing over on the Canadian people. Something which strikes closer to home and which cut me to the quick when I discovered what lay behind it was the minister's announcement about the Gull Island transmission program to develop Gull Island power at Gull Island, Labrador and the Lower Churchill; to develop 1800 megawatts of power and transmit it to Newfoundland by a transmission line and through a tunnel into Newfoundland. That was one of the 40 projects announced by the minister. All that he announced then was that they were going to form another corporation which was to do another series of studies on the Gull Island project.
How long are the people of Canada going to tolerate this pile of hypocrisy? I have to keep my language parliamentary, but it is a fantastic struggle. How in the name of heaven can I keep my language parliamentary when I consider things like this? I am almost tempted to let go and become unparliamentary for the first time in all my experience-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -I am so upset. Let us add up the jobs on just these five or six projects. The minister promised 5,000 direct jobs and 15,000 indirect jobs on the Kitimat oil pipeline project. He cancelled the project the next week. That is 5,000 unemployed. Mark that figure down-5,000 Canadian unemployed who were deceived. The people who thought they were going to get jobs out of the Kitimat oil project are not going to get them.
Tar sands III is another project the minister said would give
20.000	direct jobs and 60,000 indirect. This man is a veritable superman in job creation. We'd have to hand it to him if there were any truth to it at all. So that was another 80,000 jobs.
Then there is the Great Canadian Oil Sands expansion with 250 direct jobs and 750 indirect; Syncrude expansion, 8,000 direct jobs and 24,000 indirect. Ye gods! We have a veritable hurricane of a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when it comes to creating jobs on paper! But he has not created one job yet, not one which was not paper.
With respect to James Bay the minister said there were
65.000	direct jobs and 195,000 indirect. This government had
Energy
nothing to do with it-not financially, and with no assistance. In fact, they tried to block, attack and crack the Quebec government at every opportunity, trying to crush it and knock it in a great example of co-operative federalism. But they don't mind stealing jobs from the Quebec government. They don't mind trying to take credit for the 65,000 direct and the
195.000	indirect jobs. They don't mind stealing from the separatists. Imagine a minister of that great government over there having something to do with the separatists, stealing credit for jobs away from the separatists, that government led by the right hon. gentleman opposite who on Friday put on a disgraceful exhibition of the cheapest kind of guttersnipe politics. It is no good shaking one's head, Mr. Speaker. I witnessed the event myself. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that because someone did not agree with him and his policies toward the province of Quebec they were separatists. He will not do that again very soon, I trust.
The hon. minister went on to list the Gull Island project, Mr. Speaker, and said that project would create 11,000 direct jobs and 33,000 indirect jobs in Newfoundland. Now, we have
35.000	unemployed in Newfoundland. It would have meant that one third of our unemployed would be going to work if there had been one iota, one scintilla of truth in it. One third of our unemployed would have been working. But there was not one scintilla, jot or tittle of truth in the minister's tergiversation-I think that's the word.


Mrs. Holt:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) will not be with us next year. She has added to this House, but I won't say what.
I could go over all 40 of these projects to show just what the minister attempted to do to what he thought was a gullible Canadian public back in February. He has here the Polar Gas project, the East-Can exploration program-and Eastcan is not even exploring off the Labrador coast this year. He has included the gas swaps-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Has he got the wheel in there?


John Carnell Crosbie: He hasn't got the wheel or the horse in here, Mr. Speaker, but he has everything else. There is the Delta Beaufort gas. That one's set to go. There is the Dempster pipeline, Westcoast Transmission and then there are the gas swaps. I wonder who could swap gas with the minister? That would be some swap! He has the Quebec and Maritimes Gas pipeline, the Panarctic exploration program, Petro-Canada, conventional areas-whatever that means-heavy oil development, oil storage. What a con game! What a shell game! And the minister was playing a shell game with Shell.
We should have had that third project under way long ago. Why is it not under way? Because we have a minister who is not going to get off his duff to do anything. He is not going to move off centre plate, and centre plate for the minister is where he sits. Why do I say that? Have I any proof for that statement? Members of the House might say this is a hard thing to say about the minister. It cannot be that we have a

April 17, 1978
Energy
minister in a Canadian government who has gone to sleep right in the centre place of his importance. That is the place where he sits. All right then. I will refer to Hansard as my authority. As reported at page 4488 of Hansard for April 13 the minister said:
As hon. members will agree, the government has taken several important and very necessary steps to encourage expansion of non-conventional oil production.
We do not agree, Mr. Speaker. The government has not. But the minister went on to say:
However, the government cannot do everything.
That is right. They cannot do anything. The minister should have gone a little further. He should have said "However, the federal government cannot do anything". And in that we would have agreed with him. It certainly cannot do everything. Then the minister went on to say:
Alberta has already acted to provide heavy oil producers with alternative royalty incentives.
He said "Alberta has acted". Then we see what the minister's policy is. The minister says:
It is my hope that Alberta and Saskatchewan will announce in the very near future measures they are prepared to take so that the total fiscal regime, including income tax and royalties, will lead without doubt to commercial development of these massive oil reserves in western Canada.
The minister is waiting for somebody else to act. No wonder we are in such slack shape in Canada in energy. No wonder we are importing 400,000 barrels a day. No wonder our prospects are dim and dubious for 1985, because the minister is waiting for Alberta to act. Who is the national government? Is it Alberta or is it this government here in Ottawa? I have the impression that it is the government here in Ottawa, the national government. Alberta has to look after Albertans. The Alberta government looks after Alberta. The national government looks after the nation. Who should make the move? Who should be getting this thing going? Who should be seeing that the tar sands are developed? Alberta does not need any oil from the tar sands. They do not need any "gas" from the minister. Alberta has got enough conventional oil and conventional gas. They do not need the tar sands. They do not need the expensive stuff. It is Canada that needs it. It is Canada that needs the tar sands oil. It is Canada that needs the gas.
It is Canada that should be giving the incentive. Why should Alberta and Saskatchewan have to give the incentive? It is us Canadians, all of us, who need it. It is the nation. It is the national government that is responsible for not getting that project under way. It is a national disgrace. The minister's salary should be dropped to $1. The minister's salary should be withdrawn for the last five years because of the ineffectiveness of what he has done.
The minister went on further at page 4488. The member for Edmonton, our whip, asked a question, and the minister said this. I am just quoting from Hansard; I do not want to offend the rules.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we are now waiting to hear from the provincial governments as to what royalty changes they are prepared to make.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is Canada, you know, with the old seat out of the pants as far as oil is concerned, no longer self-sufficient, no longer self-reliant, having to import 400,000 barrels a day, a huge deficit on current account and the balance of payments. Everywhere you look, grim disaster stares us in the face. As long as we have got this government, the only ray of hope is that the election is about to come if the Prime Minister can screw up his courage and call it this week. He was afraid last week. He would not call it for the 12th. Will he screw up his courage and call it for the 19th or the 26th or the 12th? We do not care when he calls it, but call it. Or is he going to leave it until next year, or is he not going to have an election because of the big national emergency, the emergency being the disastrous state he has got the country in so that we should not have an election at all?
Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister is waiting for Alberta and Saskatchewan. The tar sands are in Alberta. The nation needs the oil, and the minister should be sitting down with Shell Canada Limited and the Alberta government and solving this tomorrow. He should have solved it a year ago, and if Alberta will go no further and the private entrepreneurs need more incentive, the minister should give it to them. That he has not should be the topic. I wish I could introduce a motion of non-confidence here tonight. I did not think of it until I got to my feet here, but the more I am talking, the more convinced I am that we must get this minister gone, gone, gone before too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for a third oil sands mining plant at Athabasca, for that to go ahead, they have got to have room. They know they have got to pay taxes and royalties, but what they want is an appropriate fiscal and royalty environment that will support the risk taker, as they say, in the early years. Now, the risk taker, for those opposite who do not understand that, is the one that puts the money in and takes the risk of losing it. The government is not going to be involved in this. There is no direct involvement of government. So what they want is a kind of fiscal regime which supports them in the early years when they are taking all the risks and generates revenue for the government later when the venture generates profits. That sounds reasonable.
Here we have the Great Canadian Oil Sands, who were unlucky. They started early. They were the pioneers, and the reward they got for that was to be ignored by the government. Now we have got Syncrude that had to stop and could not go any further unless governments lashed in the money. Now we have got Shell who are going to put the money up themselves with their partners, but they want some assurance that while they are taking all the risks on this huge investment, $3 billion, in the early years, they are not going to be taxed then but will be taxed later when they are generating profits.
It is not the government of Alberta that we are waiting for to do anything, Mr. Speaker. The government of Alberta has its own problems, it has its own priorities, it has its own oil and gas. It is lucky. Theirs is under the land. Newfoundland has
April 17, 1978

been ground into the ground by the minister and his compatriots because our oil and gas is under the water first and then it is under the land. There is no difference except the El20 is in the way, and the government has seized on to the excuse of the HjO to screw Newfoundland into the dust. But we are not taking it because the P.C. party, when it is elected this year, Mr. Chairman, is going to reverse the government's centralizing policy, the government's "greedy guts" federalism. We are going to change that, and we are going to confirm the provinces as being the owners of the oil and gas and minerals under the continental shelf off their shores-Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Newfoundland, British Columbia and some of those other provinces that have got coasts too, such as Manitoba and a few of the other provinces in western Canada. We are going to confirm that they own and control the oil and gas. We are going to stop this heavy-handed, ham-fisted brutalization of the provinces by this government.
We are going to instil co-operative federalism. We are going to do what the Prime Minister said ten years ago he was going to do before he put the jackboots of federalism on and stamped all over the provinces for ten years. Brutality gone berserk. Mr. Speaker, all that is needed is for the federal government to stop playing this con game, pretending it is up to Alberta, and put forward to Shell a fiscal regime for the federal government that will induce Shell to go and start this tar sands plant immediately.
With the figures staring us in the face, with the effect on our balance of payments, this crowd has got us now quasi bankrupt. Dare I say it? That is where they have got us. I am only saying "quasi" to cover myself and be polite. What state are we going to be in in 1985 when a third of our oil imports will come from outside Canada? And what is the price going to be? The estimates are something like $20, $25, $30 a barrel that we will have to pay, and we have not even got the time now to get a tar sands plant on by 1985 because of the hesitation of this government, because of the kinds of games it tries to play in federal-provincial relations.
Now, there is a heavy oil situation. That we are hoping is going to get under way too, but the tar sands is a better prospect or a surer prospect than just the heavy oil. Frontier oil is the same kind of game being played by the hon. minister.
The legislation, Mr. Speaker, that is before this House now is not going to do great things for Canada. It only carries out promises that were made to Syncrude several years ago. It does nothing to get the third tar sands plant under way. It does nothing to get a heavy oil plant under way. It does nothing to get the frontier gas and oil developed. It is hogwash. It is not even oil, not even seal oil. And for the minister to try the other day to blame Alberta, well, it shows a bankrupt government, Mr. Speaker, when they are always looking for some other government to blame.
What else did the minister say the other day? He said:
I am confident that in the spirit we have been able to work out these other arrangements we will also be able to work out the new fiscal regime ...
What spirit? We saw the kind of spirit the government has, Mr. Speaker, last week when the government kicked the
Energy
province of Quebec in the teeth when the province of Quebec wanted to deal in its own way with its own sales tax. The federal government kicked them in the teeth and said "No, although it is one-third of your own money you have got to put up and two thirds of ours, we are not going to listen to what you want to do with your own sales tax". That is the kind of spirit. That is the way they are offering matters to Quebec and Alberta and the rest of the provinces. The minister said:
I hope we will be successful in being able to produce close to one million barrels a day from the tar sand and heavy oils of western Canada by 1990.
Now, how are we, Mr. Speaker, going to meet that objective with this kind of temporizing and indecision, with this kind of inaction, with the minister sitting back waiting for Alberta? It is like that play "Waiting for Godot", or whoever he was. He never did come. Godot never did come, Mr. Speaker, and Alberta may never come; but the tar sands are still going to be there, and the Canadian people are going to need them. We cannot afford to wait for Godot, or for Gillespie either. We have got to have a government that is going to act now.
Our assistant whip said the other night, and he is quite right, that it is useless to try to persuade hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. Speaker, why should I waste my time trying to persuade the hon. members opposite? He said we are whistling in the dark. Well, this is a government that governs in the dark. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The digit finger does not know what the other finger is doing, the "indiginet" finger. Whistling in the dark is quite right.

Did the minister say anything else? Yes, he did. Imagine, after making those silly statements, he went on to make more. He was asked a question by one of the hon. members from Calgary, I do not remember his riding, about when Canadians can expect the next agreement on the Alberta oil sands to be reached. The minister's answer, as reported at page 4489 of Hansard, was as follows:
The first question had to do with when the next agreement with respect to the tar sands will be reached. 1 would be much better able to answer the hon. member if he could tell me when the Alberta government will decide upon the royalty system it is going to introduce with respect to the tar sands.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this kind of guff impresses no one. It did not impress the Canadian people when they saw it. They could not believe their eyes until they saw the Liberal policy-swiping convention a week or two later and realized it was true that these people were actually governing the country.
The minister says he can give the answer if the hon. member over here could tell him when Alberta could decide on something. Do we have a national government concerned about our energy situation or do we not? Have we a government that is doing nothing but playing politics with the hopes and aspirations of the people, as they did with the people in Newfoundland, the 11,000 unemployed who thought they would get work on Gull Island only to find out two weeks later that Gull Island will be studied again? Or the people in Kitimat, British Columbia, or the people in James Bay, the thousands who had

April 17, 1978
Energy
already done the work and were included in the one million man-years of work? What a policy!
There are all kinds of policies on strategy. Mr. Speaker, have you ever collected together all the strategies and booklets and pamphlets of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? They have a huge volume of paper that has been used in outlining their strategies. What is the good of a strategy if there is no action? They have a policy called "self-reliance for Canada". What is the good of the policy if nothing has been done to develop the tar sands? There is nothing but talk, bluff, deception, that is all it is, but no action. There is a policy, but nothing is done to carry it out.
What happened at the first minister's meeting, that dim farce of a meeting which we saw on the television screen which was to come up with some resolutions? This was all done by the federal government. I have been at these things. They arrange the whole thing; they are the master of ceremonies, they decide everything, they plan it. They have 500 public relations staff to smother every newsman. The four provinces cannot afford one apiece, but the federal government has them outweighed 50 to 1 in PR flack.
Here is what they said about energy: that the first ministers' strongly affirm the importance of reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. Gee whiz, that is progress for you! Imagine, the first ministers agreed we should reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy! Who was arguing that we should increase our dependence? Was there a mighty debate in Canada about what should be done, and these ministers got together and said: "By golly, despite all the arguments we think it is important to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy"? In all my time in politics I have never heard anyone say that Canada should become more dependent on foreign sources of energy. That conclusion was a fantastic, gigantic leap forward!
Then they went on to say that they thought that intensive programs of conservation were necessary. Yes, they sure are- conservation in the statements the minister is making. They also said that, in addition, they agreed to collaborate in accelerating major energy developments wherever appropriate.
I should like to know what major energy developments have been accelerated and agreed upon since February 15, 1978. All that has happened since then is that the Prime Minister has engaged in this fantastic fracas with the four western premiers, who have pointed out that the recent goings on in the budget with respect to the sales tax have been an infringement of provincial rights and have badly affected the federal-provincial relationship. How will the minister now get Alberta to soften up? The premier of Alberta was driven to say that it was a lousy deal and a lousy way of doing things. Does that sound like the words of a premier who is in love with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister? Not on your life. These are the words of a premier who is disgusted by the brutal way the federal system is being treated by the jack-booted government.
So what major energy developments have been accelerated? Not one that I know of, and I hope the minister can think of at

least one. If he had thought of one, presumably he would have said so the other day.
They say they will expand grain storage facilities at Prince Rupert-that is good. They will open mines in Cape Breton- they have announced that. They will encourage the application for a natural gas pipeline to eastern Canada, the Fundy Tidal power, the Dempster pipeline-we will see about that-the Polar gas project, the Tenneco-Lorneterm project, the Arctic pilot project. If we had as many pilots as they have projects, we would be filled with aviators in Canada. They said that the Ontario government will continue to support Ontario Hydro, Bruce, Pickering, Darlington, Wesleyville, Atikokan. These are all Ontario Hydro projects. What do they have to do with the federal government?
I cannot say that we should pity the government more than be angry with them. I cannot pity them. I am so angry at them that I cannot wait for the election to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to see the minister travel across this country, go to the Canadian people and put forward his program of one million jobs, this flimflam man. Mr. Shaheen is an expert flimflammer. The minister should take lessons from Mr. Shaheen if he wants to get into the real flim-flam. He would not sell much snake oil in that way. He is not a natural snake oil salesman, trickster, charlatan.
Time is passing and we want to pass the bill so I will wind up, Mr. Speaker. I would not have spoken except that sitting here this afternoon I thought to myself: why should I suffer in silence?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Actually, I was called over because we thought another bill was going to come forward. The bill not having come forward, I decided to speak tonight about petroleum administration. But if the government wants to call the bill on the Export Development Corporation, I am ready to speak on that piece of legislation this evening.
In concluding-I will not use up all my time because I do not want to waste the time of the House-I will say that here we have a bill to assist the tar sands project which was started three years ago. There is not another project under way in sight, and when the minister is asked a question about the next tar sands project, he tells us that we must ask Alberta about it. Did we elect a national government to sit on its backside and when we ask questions about national policy to tell us that we should ask Alberta? We did not. We elected a government to govern Canada, and let Alberta look after itself.
If we had been asked to vote tonight on the government's performance in the field of energy, I would vote against the bill. But since we are only asked to make it possible to get Syncrude under way, and perhaps, if the government ever acts, another tar sands plant, I will vote for the bill. But it is with a great deal of reluctance that I vote for any bill brought
April 17, 1978

forward by this government. It turns my stomach to vote with the government on anything.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it always grieves me to sit in the House and see a minister treat the truth with the frivolity with which it has been treated tonight. The minister cannot be accused of anything more serious than frivolity as he sat and listened to the remarks of the two previous speakers. I wish to join them in one regard, and that is in believing that this is evil legislation. It is typical of a government which cannot make up its mind about what it wants, which wants to be given free rein to regulate and to do as its sees fit at any given moment, without respect for legislation which might control its action in a resource as important to Canada as energy.
This is a measure of incompetence in draftsmanship, ideology, planning and capability. It is a mockery of government, and the minister is the instrument of the mockery. His lighthearted treatment, and that of other members of the government, does not indicate any sense of responsibility in a subject matter which has the seriousness of this bill. If the government had not imposed and superimposed frivolous taxes, which were demeaning to the resource industries of this country including the oil industry, we would not have to reach into the public coffers of provincial or federal treasuries to finance private enterprise in a field which could be an opportunity for them and Canada. Because of delay in decisions, regulations and procrastination, now we have to give the government the capability of dealing as it sees fit according to its ideologies.
Regardless of the needs of Canada, the government will unquestionably take the years in time, as they have done in the past. In the six years it has been my privilege to be here, we have not had progressive and developmental legislation. Also we have not had progressive research in energy, nor a national conscience. We have had an element of subsidy collected from Canadians to equalize energy costs. Beyond that, the government has nothing constructive to go into the hustings with at this moment in time. Whether it be the Newfoundland picture, the British Columbia picture or the New Brunswick picture, they are equally deplorable in results and inflationary in their tendencies. Delay has meant inflation and extra costs to Canadians.
One must remember that representatives went to New Brunswick in an attempt to deal in Washington on behalf of the LNG project which was approved by the National Energy Board. They went to Washington to negotiate and were advised by people in high places, I have been informed by reliable sources, that they could not look with much favour on an LNG project in New Brunswick because Canada is now classified as one of those unreliable foreign sources of energy. The minister must take that upon his shoulders as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has all the gas which has been piped in by the Liberal government and all the shenanigans surrounding TransCanada. That is already in Toronto. Now, we have to speak from eastern Canada, because no one
Energy
on the government side will speak for them. The government has proven itself to be a bunch of political Liberal hyenas. Those were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Government members are well trained and obedient.
The eastern coast of Canada has refining capabilities which were built in the days when international relations between Canada and the United States were amicable and reliable. Not one of those is presently operating at capacity, because of the term which was used in high places in Washington-that Canada is one of those foreign and unreliable sources of energy, and on the long-term basis Canada cannot be dealt with confidently.
Not so long ago, in a blind move of stupidity, the former minister of energy, mines and resources shut off the shipments of oil and refined products from east coast refineries to the state of Maine and to points south. Those contracts have not been renewed. The refinery which was supplying Maine was built in good faith that there would be a long-term, reliable, friendly structure between Canada and the United States. That has not developed. We are subject to duty. We do not get the same privileges, as other countries, to move refined products from Canada to the United States. We are one of the few who cannot do that because we are an unfriendly and unreliable source of energy.
I attempted to resolve this by commencing negotiations in a quiet, non-political manner. I approached the ministers of the cabinet in the maritime provinces. I asked for some immediate and meaningful negotiation along these lines. I have received no reply from them. I have seen no sign of interest, except that they would be happy to meet, when I suggested that they should initiate a meeting and get in touch with me.
The government of Canada should take a look at the eastern coast. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) should express some concern for the energy sources presently existing there, which could put products in Canadian hands on a cheaper basis if plants were operating at capacity to supply the east coast of North America. Whether it be Newfoundland, whether it be in the Canso Strait, or whether it be on the Bay of Fundy, these plants deserve strong, hard selling by the government of Canada, and a strong conviction that it will be a long term, friendly and reliable contract.
I appeal to the minister: in the name of all that is good for Canada, we must get these shipments moving again. We must get these refineries working at capacity again. We must make a deal for LNG which Americans can trust. Proper consideration must be given to fisheries and the environment, as was suggested by the National Energy Board. We must provide some of the people in eastern Canada, who are presently unemployed, with a chance at just a few jobs in the field of energy. It will be contributory to a better long-term supply for us and a lower cost when these plants are operating at capacity. There is an increment of income available to the government of Canada if these plants continue to operate. It would be beneficial to all of Canada. I appeal to the government on behalf of Atlantic Canada. It is strange that $1 billion

April 17, 1978
Energy
or so can be spent to build Mirabel, and that $1 billion can be written off the deficit of the CNR.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Newfoundland should be given the change. That province requires assistance. Hon. members opposite should speak for their provinces rather than for their leader. They would receive more votes if they stood up in the House and spoke on behalf of their provinces, instead of ridiculing hon. members who go out of their way to speak on behalf of their provinces. What I have said applies to Newfoundland, just as much as it applies to New Brunswick. Hon. members opposite should return to their constituencies with that message.
In all fairness, Atlantic Canada deserves the negotiations which could be brought about by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if they were seriously interested in Canada and could look beyond the two central provinces which hold the vast majority of their seats, with a scattering of loyal support in Newfoundland and New Brunswick. The Atlantic provinces require that help, as well as development. I plead with the minister not to down-play any other region, but to up-play the Atlantic requirements along with all other requirements in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is seeking the floor. The Standing Orders do not allow the right of reply at third reading. The only way the minister could speak at this time would be with unanimous consent. Second reading is considered as a substantive motion, as indicated in citation 166 of Beauchesne. The mere fact of moving the motion, or having the motion moved in the name of the hon. minister, is interpreted as his having contributed to the debate. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to close the debate at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their indulgence in according me this privilege. I intend to speak for only a very few minutes, five minutes more or less. It is my understanding that all parties have agreed with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to proceed very quickly, after my closing remarks, with one particular bill before the House.
There have been all kinds of allegations during the course of this third reading debate. Quite clearly I am not in a position, in view of the time available and the subject of the debate, to answer all of them. Many, of course, were irresponsible, and one got the impression at times that the weaker the argument the louder the noise. Hon. members will be able to identify the particular hon. member from Newfoundland who best qualifies for that particular cachet.

Members on this side recognize that the official opposition was agonizing over this bill. They demonstrated to all of us and to those watching this debate on television that they are prepared to debase their own credibility when they have to vote for a government bill. They seem to find every opportunity to discuss everything but the bill, and that was very clear in their remarks this evening.
One hon. member, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), for example, said that they will vote for it; that it is a very important bill; it is a bill which is very important to national security. Then obviously he recognized he had gone too far and said: "But it is an evil bill."
The noisy failure from St. John's East went on and on and, as I have indicated, the weaker his argument the louder he shouted. I think the Conservatives in particular showed a great deal of ingenuity in avoiding the main issues of this bill and in trying to divert attention from its provisions.
I think the NDP did a pretty good job too. I was impressed by the ability of two NDP spokesmen who addressed themselves to the question of gasoline prices, the difference in the retail price of gasoline as between one community and another, or in some cases, differences within one city. Indeed, one of the members asked why it could not be like beer. It was pretty obvious where the mind of that particular party was in this debate. It required a member of the Creditiste party to bring them back to order by pointing out, quite rightly of course, that the whole area of retail pricing for gasoline is not a federal responsibility at all but rather a provincial responsibility. It is surprising to those of us on this side that members of the NDP have taken so long to recognize what is fundamental to the Canadian constitution.
We on this side have always listened to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) whenever he has talked about freedom of information. He has developed quite a reputation over the years as a man who has espoused the case of freedom of information. He used this debate to raise the issue of freedom of information, suggesting that this bill in some way concealed information. What he did not do was to make the point, and what he did not do, of course, was face up to the issue which has been raised by his own colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), that there is another bill, Bill C-12, the Petroleum Corporation Monitoring Act, which attempts to provide greater disclosure of how the funds from an oil price increase are used. Those members who have followed that particular debate in committee will realize that the Tories are not the slightest bit interested in the freedom of information. Indeed, they have done everything they can to prevent that bill from coming before this House so the Canadian people could receive that information on how those funds are being spent.
This bill is an important bill. It should be seen as a part, but only a part, of an integrated series of measures by the government to increase the development of Canadian oil resources. I refer particularly to the fact that this bill has been brought in to provide the international price for Syncrude, a very high priced resource, and a price which was promised at the time
April 17, 1978

the federal government joined with the provinces to salvage this massive project. This bill provides the government with authority to provide international prices in respect to other major projects such as the expansion of GCOS, tar sands number three, such as the Cold Lake heavy oil project, a Saskatchewan heavy oil project and another Alberta heavy oil project. That is an important part of a series of measures. The other two measures are well known to those who have followed government policy in the area. I refer to the package of incentives which was tabled before the House on budget night, barely a week ago, and the other intention of the government to increase the throughput of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline by 100,000 barrels a day.
That surely is a clear signal to producers out west and governments there that this government wants to move western oil into eastern markets, along with other measures we have taken, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I said I would take five minutes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Actually, when I did intervene to request unanimous consent I mentioned that the minister on third reading did not have the right of reply, which would automatically close the debate, but in requesting unanimous consent I used the words "allow the minister to close the debate". I do not think I was right. 1 was more or less allowing the minister to intervene a second time. I know the hon. member for Medicine Hat has just come in by plane and wants to say a few words. I think he should be allowed to do so. The rule does not provide for any minister to close the debate on third reading.


Alastair William Gillespie: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make life difficult for anybody and I would, of course, be interested in the remarks of the hon. member, but I did enter the debate on the understanding I would be closing the debate, and on the further understanding that agreement had been reached by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and his colleagues opposite in respect of another bill that is to be concluded this evening. If it is possible to hear the hon. member and still make good on those understandings, I think it would be in order and I would be prepared to withdraw any concern I have already expressed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my feeling that the minister is just using up time that could be very useful in achieving that purpose.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the minister that I will require only a very few minutes. As Mr. Speaker indicated, I have only just returned to the House. I have specific comments to make regarding recent production
Occupational Health and Safety
of some heavy crude in the Suffield area, which is totally within my federal constituency of Medicine Hat.
The minister may recall that when he opened the third reading debate he commented on the application of this bill to the products of Syncrude, as they come on stream, as well as to other heavy crude products. The specific remark I was interested in had reference to other sources of heavy crude, mainly in Alberta, such as additional production by Great Canadian Oil Sands, the Shell consortium, the Cold Lake project, Pacific Petroleum and other heavy oil projects. I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that quite recently there have been a number of wells brought into production in the northwest corner of the Suffield military reserve. They are producing a heavy crude somewhat similar to the Lloydmin-ster crude.
After the minister was through speaking at the beginning of this third reading debate, I asked him whether or not these heavy crudes that are being produced in the southwest corner of Suffield might come under the terms of this bill. The minister indicated that they were not included but that perhaps they could be by negotiation, if I recall the minister's remarks correctly. This is the whole point and purpose of my remarks now, that provision for that new producing heavy crude field-it may be rather small right now but indications are that it will grow-be included in this bill.
I would also point out that in the recent energy update manual that his department put out it was indicated that the costs of drilling and producing wells in that part of Alberta are only a fraction of what the costs are in some of the other areas. Surely this should be an added incentive for bringing this kind of oil producing well into production.
That is all that I wish to say at this time. My hope is that that heavy crude that is now being produced in the Suffield area northwest of Medicine Hat comes under the terms of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT
John Carr Munro: that Bill C-35, to establish the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand that-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this bill is to be referred to the committee of the whole House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I did not hear what the hon. member was saying.

April 17, 1978
Occupational Health and Safety


John Carr Munro: I did, Mr. Speaker. I think what the hon. member is referring to is the fact that, as a result of consultations with the House leader, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party, this bill will pass all stages today. Because of the time-frame and the fact that some members had not anticipated speaking on the previous bill, I take it that there is unanimous consent to extend the sitting for an extra half hour. That is what I understood.


Walter David Baker: As 1 understand the situation, the minister is anxious to get this bill through, and we are not anxious to cause the ministry any difficulty with respect to the matter. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to extend the time in order that the minister may get that bill through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have two alternatives, either to operate by unanimous consent or by Standing Orders. The minister may wish to request unanimous consent to extend the hour of sitting, but I think the most appropriate procedure would be to use Standing Order 6(5)(a) in moving a motion to extend the hours of sitting for the purpose of completing the bill or reaching a point in the consideration of the legislation, and at the same time seeking consent to allow a change to the motion so we may go into committee of the whole if the minister wishes to achieve his purpose.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer):
That this sitting be continued until all stages of Bill C-35, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, are completed, with the debate on third reading to be concluded no later than 10.30 p.m. this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) (a) it is my duty to inform members that on putting this motion, if ten hon. members stand up to indicate that they do not agree with the motion, the motion is deemed to be withdrawn. Otherwise it is deemed to have been adopted. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I consider the motion carried. At the same time, as I indicated, the passing of this bill on second reading shall be modified to the extent that the bill be referred to committee of the whole instead of to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of brevity, and I do appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members, I will just highlight the essential items of the bill. In essence, it is a bill to establish the centre which is seen as an organization that would promote the concept of a safe and healthy work environment and the attainment of physical and

mental health by all working people. It would encourage federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions to use appropriate suasions and sanctions for the establishment and maintenance of high standards of occupational safety and hygiene appropriate to the Canadian situation and compatible with recognized international standards. Although primarily concerned with in-plant working conditions, the centre would act in collaboration with environmental authorities.
Secondly, to effectively serve the interests of Canadians at work-and that includes all of us who have jobs or professions of any kind-I believe the proposed centre should have certain basic characteristics. There should be an automony permitting it to report directly to parliament through a minister of the Crown. It should include a governing body representative of federal and provincial government agencies, labour, management, scientific and professional organizations, universities and the public.
The structure should consist of a board, an executive, scientific and technical advisory committees and staff. The autonomy, multilateral and multidisciplinary participation should be such that it assures a high profile and ease of access for interested parties, and the capability to take a firm stand of its own on any specific issue. Although, Mr. Speaker, the centre will be financed by the federal government, there should be a provision for provincial, institutional or industrial underwriting in whole or in part of particular research projects, surveys or services of special interest to them.
Those are the main characteristics of the bill, and I would appreciate hearing what hon. members have to say with respect to this particular bill, which will be of great assistance to the promotion of safety and occupational health for all working people in Canada.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to discuss this bill extensively not only with the hon. minister but with some of the officials who have been doing the preparatory work necessary before the centre can be established. This party endorses the principle of this centre, and we wish also to say that it is because we endorse the principle that we are prepared at this late stage tonight to give the necessary consent that it become law. I know that the minister would not expect me to sit down, however, without reminding all hon. members that perhaps the government could have managed things so that this bill might have been brought in earlier.
I am not going to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, by saying anything further at this point. I want to say through you to the minister, however, that I expect that when we go to committee I will have the privilege of asking specific questions, notice of which I have already given to the minister.
This party supports the bill because we believe that health and safety in the work place are of vital importance. We believe there is need for better co-ordination. This is the kind
April 17, 1978

of thing that can only assist working people and in the long run assist labour-management relations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Definitions.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this would be the appropriate time for some questions to the minister. I understand he is prepared to accept them. Could he elaborate a little on the expected cost of this organization during the first year? From the press release I understand it will be about SI million and that he is expecting it to rise eventually to $8 million. Could the minister tell the House what development he expects over the first year, at what stage will the additional money have to be raised, and what will the source be?


John Carr Munro: In the first year or so the cost will run about $1 million. This will permit the centre to get its organization under way and will enable some funding to be given to high priority research work. It may also be expected that there will be a substantial one-time outlay for equipment and facilities to establish a first-rate, modern information system for the technical and scientific data that the centre will assemble, evaluate and distribute to interested parties. Such a system will not duplicate what other existing data sources do, but will be supplementary to them and perform a co-ordinating service.
Regarding the capital expenditure that the hon. member inquires about, for the purpose of the information distribution system it will be $2 million to $3 million. Cost will gradually increase as the centre's functions are established and more research is assisted or initiated. Ongoing expenditures will be $8 to $10 million yearly when the centre is fully operational. This, it may be noted, amounts to about $1 per worker per year.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell us what provincial contributions are expected toward the cost of this centre, and can he tell us whether there is any commitment by any province to make financial contributions? At the moment, as I understand it, and I would like the minister to confirm this, the only funds going into the centre come from the federal government and that will only change if there is agreement from the provinces. At the moment I understand there is no such agreement.


John Carr Munro: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Nine of the ten provinces have agreed to participate on the executive board and have done so in writing. Some have already named people to the board but have not agreed at this stage to financial resources. There is provision in the bill to permit that. We hope that in future the worth of the centre will be well recognized, and the fact that the provinces actually
Occupational Health and Safety
have more votes than the federal government on the executive board, will show them that it is in their interests to make it financially possible for it to carry out its aims and objectives.


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the minister what reporting mechanism will be established. How will members of parliament know what is being spent on an annual basis and what the public, especially the working people, are getting for their expenditures?


John Carr Munro: It is entirely autonomous. It is not responsible to the government in any way but reports directly to parliament. It is analogous to a Crown corporation in that sense.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell us whether in general there is agreement from labour for this centre and what expressions of support he has received from management with regard to the centre?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member might be pleased to know that I cannot think of a bill that in the last year and one-half has had so much discussion. Various officials of my department, in particular, Mr. Howard Curry, head of the planning secretariat, and I have gone to 250 or 300 associations of all kinds in the management field, as well as to the unions and the provinces, to talk about the bill. I have gone to British Columbia twice and have endeavoured to answer questions about it. That type of activity has been going on for a year and a half. I believe that labour is quite enthusiastic and will participate as envisaged in the bill, and I also believe that management will participate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Centre established.
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment of which I have given notice to the hon. member for Vancouver South and the New Democratic Party. It does not involve a substantial change from the real intent of clause 4, but it makes the equal role of management and labour more specific and provides some assurance that they will have a significant input on the board. The suggestion emanated from the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan:
That Bill C-35, to establish the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 30 to 40 on page 2 and substituting the following:
'health and safety:
(d)	eleven other governors, to be appointed after consultation with such organizations representative of works as the Governor in Council deems appropriate;
(e)	eleven other governors, to be appointed after consultation with such organizations representative of employers as the Governor in Council deems appropriate; and
(f)	not more than four other governors, to be appointed after consultation with such professional, scientific or other organizations or interests as the Governor in Council deems appropriate.'

April 17, 1978
Occupational Health and Safety


Gérald Laniel: I would ask the hon. member for Welland to wait for a minute; I want to consider the amendment for a moment. Might I ask the minister the implication of the amendment. My interpretation is that he is suggesting a specific selection or division of two groups of 11 governors selected by different associations. He also seems to add four governors. I am asking whether this represents a spending of public funds. That is my preoccupation. If it does, it might be difficult to move at this time an amendment that would increase the spending.


John Carr Munro: It does not necessarily imply that, Mr. Chairman. As you will see from the bill, it will be up to the executive to determine whether these governors are voluntary, these other organizations putting them up. Whether the other organizations pay their expenses to attend meetings or whether the corporation, being autonomous, may decide to do so, there is no commitment in the bill to pay the governors at this stage. That is not clearly provided for. Therefore, I do not think that causes a problem.
I might also indicate that even if it were the case, further on down the road there is provision for private support from organizations which would more than cover any governors' expenses. Therefore, the implication that this necessarily involves public outlays is not justified.


Gérald Laniel: I accept the comment of the minister. I am sure the minister will understand the preoccupation of the Chair at having such an amendment at the last moment without knowing all the implications of the bill. I accept the word of the minister to the effect there is nothing in the bill to provide for a specific allocation of money for the contributions or work of these members. Therefore, I am ready to accept the amendment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing specific about payment. I just want to make it clear that the minister is saying with respect to that group of people we are talking about that there will be no payment. Otherwise, if at a later time payment was arranged through the public purse, this matter would contravene the powers that concern you, Mr. Chairman, and caused you to raise the first item.
I just raise this question because I presumed the minister is saying there will be no burden upon the public purse as a result of this amendment. He is not saying that the bill does not provide for it and therefore it is quite proper that the government can come along and do it later. What he is undertaking to the House of Commons, and I am sure you understand it, sir, is that there is no provision at all for payment as a result of this amendment. I think we have to make that clear. Although the minister says this, we have to be satisfied it does not go beyond the matters that have been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West and others with regard to the royal recommendation. That does concern me.
I really rise because in accepting the minister's word I want to reserve the position that this does not establish some kind of new precedent merely because the intention may not be so clear in the bill, although it is apparently clear in the minister's mind. I just want to make sure we understand one another, because it does have some ramification for other matters.


John Carr Munro: To make clear why I do not think it is offended, the ruling with respect to the commitment of the official public expenditures at this stage of the proceedings was that it does not by itself imply that it would be the case with this amendment. Nor does the bill call for that. The corporation being autonomous, reporting annually to parliament, it has that innate power to do so. All its funds of necessity do not necessarily come from this government. They come from the private sector. It might be very easy to establish that, if at any time it did pay governors, it could allocate the private resources they would have. In that sense, I do not see how it can be considered a charge against the public purse. Is that a satisfactory explanation?


Walter David Baker: Yes.


Mr. Railton:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were going to get back to me. I understand that this is an organization which would be doing research on health and safety. We have had no explanation as to what it would be researching. Those are very general terms. Maybe there should be a statement from the minister as to whether he has discussed this with the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Welland is asking a question about the responsibility of these people. Is the minister anxious to reply to that question?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, it is quite a different thing from many council's jobs the hon. member is referring to. The Medical Research Council, as the hon. member knows, funds medical colleges and various researches that are done from time to time in that area. The National Research Council is into the scientific community and the universities. This is primarily related to health and safety in the workplace, bringing that fund of knowledge together, disseminating it to the health and safety committees at the plant level that are to be established as a result of the passage of Bill C-8 last week, servicing the health and safety committees with up to date information of this kind. These committees are set up under provincial statutes. That type of activity is not undertaken in any of the other agencies the hon. member is talking about.


Gérald Laniel: While hon. members were having a very constructive discussion, I referred to clause 14 which states that the chairman and other governors shall serve without remuneration. It also adds that they may be paid such allowance for each day spent in connection with the work of the

April 17, 1978

centre and such allowance for their performance of their duties. The question which arises in my mind concerns the money implications, the burden of such an amendment upon the Crown.
I have no difficulty about paragraphs (d) and (e). No question arises with regard to the provision that these people will serve on the board without remuneration. But where will the money come from to pay their expenditures? This is not clear and I hesitate to accept the part of the amendment to be found in paragraph (f). If there is a disposition to make progress rapidly, and if there is unanimous consent to allow this amendment, taking into account the fact that the service will be performed without remuneration, I might stretch the rule and accept the amendment.


John Carr Munro: I think there is such a disposition.


Gérald Laniel: Is there a disposition to agree unanimously to accept the amendment with those reservations I have mentioned? If there is, I will put it to the committee.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to hinder the minister, Mr. Chairman, but if we are to authorize the expenditure of public monies even for a generous purpose we ought to do it properly. I do not think it would make the bill invalid if we were to observe the proprieties.
I share the reservations expressed by the Chair. I have no difficulty in accepting the principle of the establishment of the board of directors and everything else, but I believe it is important we should observe the proper procedures and I say this solely because we are spending the taxpayer's money. The bill is open for amendment later. The board will be able to function and its worth-while objectives can be carried out.


John Carr Munro: Fine.


Gérald Laniel: Not having studied the bill, I do not know whether I am in a good position to make any suggestion, but perhaps the minister might feel there is a possibility of adjusting the numbers of governors in such a way as to achieve the purposes intended while at the same time keeping the total number of governors the same. However, after hearing the objection raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton I would be disposed to accepting only the first part of the amendment, leaving out paragraph (f).


John Carr Munro: If it would overcome the difficulty I would be agreeable, by unanimous consent, to dropping paragraph (f). The main objective of the hon. member for Nickel Belt was to secure equal representation, and we have been able to do that.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment with the exclusion of paragraph (f)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Occupational Health and Safety
Amendment (Mr. Munro, Hamilton-East) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 10-Executive board.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, since we have dropped paragraph (d) in clause 4 it may not be necessary to proceed with clause 10. The amendment, which ensures equal participation by labour and management, would, I think, automatically ensure that a similar result is obtained on the executive board. If labour and management have an equal number of votes on the council, surely they can themselves ensure they will have the same equal representation on the executive committee without our making an amendment. I am looking toward the New Democratic Party. If it is agreeable, we could pass clause 10 as it is now worded, bearing in mind that the balance the hon. member for Nickel Belt wanted has already been achieved by the amendment to clause 4.


William Arnold Peters: But they are two different things. I do not see how the amendment to clause 4 relates to this situation. Indeed, I cannot understand why there was any objection to the amendment to clause 4 in its entirety. The recommendation imposes no limit as to money or numbers or anything else. I think the Chair was picayune in deciding that the amendment was not drafted in accordance with the recommendation. I do not understand why there should be any objection to amending clause 10 so as to specify the number of members on the executive committee from both management and labour.


John Carr Munro: I just wanted to see whether the NDP really felt it was still necessary to make this amendment. I tried to save time but I see that my remarks have caused us to take more time than ever. I move:
That Bill C-35, to establish the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 14 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"the Council by the governors so that, at any time,
(a)	the number of members of the executive board who were appointed to the Council under paragraph 4(d) is equal to the number of members of the executive board who were appointed to the Council under paragraph 4(e); and
(b)	the aggregate of
(i)	the number of members of the executive board who were appointed to the Council under paragraph 4(d), and
(ii)	the number of members of the executive board who were appointed to the Council under paragraph 4(e)
is not less than fifty per cent of the total number of members of the executive board."


Gérald Laniel: After consideration, I Find the amendment acceptable. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.

April 17, 1978
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
On clause 17-By-laws.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I have a very short motion just to correct a drafting error. I move:
That Bill C-35, to establish the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, be amended in clause 17 by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 8 and substituting the following:
"board;"


Gérald Laniel: For the purpose of doing things right, the amendment should be moved by someone other than the minister, so shall we assume that all amendments have been moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the bill being in the name of the Minister of Labour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that after consultation there is unanimous consent to dispose very quickly of all stages of Bill C-46, and that instead of being referred to a standing committee of the House it be considered in committee of the whole and passed very quickly on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we not see the clock, that we proceed to the consideration of Bill C-46 through all stages and that the motion be changed so that the bill can be referred to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-46, relating to the discounting of overpayments of tax under the Income Tax Act and related
[The Chairman.]
payments, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since all parties have agreed to pass this bill quickly this evening, I will not give the usual speech to introduce the bill. I will merely say that the purpose of the bill is to correct the flagrant abuses carried on by certain tax refund discounters, some of whom have taken over 50 per cent of taxpayers' refunds in return for quick cash payments. This distasteful practice has been directed particularly against the poor, the uninformed and the unemployed. The bill required that the discounter pay the taxpayer at least 85 per cent of his refund and that the 15 per cent that would go to the discounter should include all charges and interest.
The bill also obliges the discounter to give the taxpayer a full statement of his tax refund and the amount charged. It also provides for a fine of up to $25,000 for any discounter who breaks this law. We decided to allow discounting with this limit rather than banning it all together because we feel there is a legitimate place for certain discounting under the limits described and, furthermore, that to ban it all together would only lead to a black market operation.
The purpose of this bill was strongly supported by all provinces at a recent federal-provincial conference, and I understand that it has the support of all parties in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking we made today-and we are anxious to get on with all stages of this bill-we are prepared to proceed. We agree with the minister. We agree with the provinces. We agree with the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Consumers Association of Canada and all those who have expressed concern about the way these social vultures prey on the poor, the unemployed and those who can least look after themselves in the circumstances in which they find themselves. This practice has no place in contemporary Canadian society, and I believe it is a measure of the concern of this House that we should be dealing with this bill in all its stages at this hour.
I commend this bill to the House. The minister has stated that there is a place for legitimate tax discounting within the regulations prescribed by the bill. What the bill will do, of course, is eliminate the loan sharking and the usury which has been perpetrated against people who have been taken advantage of, especially at this time of year when income tax refunds are pending.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question. I assume that some sort of registry of these discounters will be kept because, as my colleague points out, the guy who gives discounts at 50 per cent will not be the same guy who gives discounts at 15 per cent. It will be the person who is in regular business rather than the one who is loan sharking. Obviously some sort of record will have to be kept, and will a licence be given to them? The people who get taken are the guys at the very bottom whose educational
April 17, 1978

abilities and money are limited. They would need some kind of a slip saying the discounter was qualified to do it, or else one con will be conning another con.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to make a very short intervention, but there are a few things that have to be said. This is not a new subject that members of the Elouse are considering. It has been discussed in committee, not in the form of Bill C-46 but in another bill piloted by another minister. The minister does not say who will give the money to those taxpayers who are in need. The minister admits that the poor taxpayers, the unemployed taxpayers, are the ones who will be going to these businesses to get their loans, but the government has in its power to give those taxpayers their money.
When this bill passes, as I hear it will tonight, nobody will tell those poor people who need this money how to get hold of it. We know who seeks the services of the tax discounter. It is the person who is unemployed and who cannot get any kind of credit any place else. He cannot get it from the bank. The government has his money but will not give it to him, so he has to go somewhere else. What this bill will do is cut off that source of funds for those poor taxpayers who are most in need.
There should be some method for these poor taxpayers, who probably have only one asset, their tax refund, to get some kind of credit on their single asset. I say that we will cut off these people and thus encourage a black market to develop in some form if we pass this bill.
I do not quarrel with the control on rates from the point of view of inequitable interest, but there are certain factors that are unknown when a transaction is made, and allowances have to be built into the gross revenues in order to cover the unfortunate experiences. Taxpayers can make mistakes. When they come to the tax discounter to make the loan, they might not have received their T-4 slips and, because of the kind of taxpayers they are, they might not know exactly what their refund is. They might find they owe more tax than they knew. So when the tax discounter gets the refund, he may not even recover his advance.
Under the former minister, consideration was given to Bill C-16 in the other session. The minister indicated at that time that a legal rate of interest would probably be recommended by the government in the range of 70 per cent to 80 per cent per annum. I am not sure just how much the tax discounters are getting. I have heard of figures of 1000 per cent. Of course, that would be excessive. But the point is that we are cutting off these people.
Let us look at the government's part in this bill. Every month the government causes the employer to deduct the income tax which the government collects and then sits on it. I recommended in committee that if the government would free this money there would be no need for this kind of business to go on. The government could give back in advance the taxpayers' money that is owed to them. Government officials said that could not be done because by November when the taxpayer might need his loan they did not know how much was
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
attributable to the taxpayer, they only knew how much was attributable to the employer. I agree with the complaint. By February 28 the taxpayer will have his T-4 slip and the government will know how much has been contributed by the employer on the taxpayer's account. There is no reason why the government itself could not set up an office to expedite either loans or quick refunds to that kind of taxpayer.
I say this is just another example of the poor legislative timetable of the government and of the poor thinking that goes on over there. I will not prolong the debate any longer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that if the minister takes the floor at this time he will be closing the debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer quickly the questions raised by the two hon. members. The bill provides that a discounter must fill out a form for every refund, advising the taxpayer of his refund and the amount deducted as a discount, and that one form must go to the taxpayer and another be filed with the government. So there is a registry kept of these people.
So far as licensing is concerned, that would have to be done by the provinces. By the way, four provinces have laws on this question already, but their laws do not cover the complete field so they have asked us to act just the same.
With respect to the questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), let me say that in addition to putting forward this bill I also make strong recommendations to the former minister of national revenue, Mr. Gray, to speed up refunds to taxpayers. He agreed to try to do this so there will be less need for tax discounting.
Second, we did not ban tax discounting because we did not want to create a black market in discounting. We merely limited the discounting to 15 per cent. We do not think this will drive discounters out of business. It will restrict them to what is probably a reasonable profit rather than an unconscionable profit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a very simple question with regard to discounters. Who will be the discounters that the minister anticipates? Are they banks, trust companies, finance companies, co-ops, credit unions or caisses populaires? Surely they are the group who should be doing the discounting, not these operators who open shop a month or two before tax time.
I do not anticipate that the present operators will continue when they can only get 15 per cent. At the moment they are up to 50 per cent. It seems to me that the minister should tell

April 17, 1978
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
us who the discounters will be in the future and what publicity he intends so that people who do get tax refunds will be able to go to these people.


William Warren Allmand: Under the law any company or individual could go into the discounting business. Of course, it is likely that the fast operators will drop out of the business and the field will be left to banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, trust companies, and so on. It is also likely that some of the people who are in the discount business now will continue their operation, because 15 per cent on many refunds still provides a pretty good rate of interest and a pretty good income. There is nothing in the bill to restrict legitimate operators from going into this field. While I expect the more fly by night types to drop off, perhaps some discounters will be in the business with the other lending institutions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7-Punishment.
James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister briefly explain to the House what the mechanism is for enforcing the provisions of this bill in order to get into the marketplace and into the dealings of the shady, pseudo-storefront operators who prey on the victims of this kind of operation? How does the government intend to make this bill operative and to get into the marketplace with it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, as I explained very briefly at the beginning, this bill has strong support from the provincial governments. As a matter of fact, it was the item which they were most concerned about at the recent federal-provincial conference and on which they were unanimous that we must act. These were governments of many political stripes. Of course in the different provinces we will publicize the act through debt counselling services and through all means possible, to show that this is a legitimate rate of interest from now on for this type of tax discounting. It will be made known, if a person breaks any provision of the act, that they are liable to a fine, as set out in clause 7 of up to $25,000. In enforcing the law, we expect to have the full co-operation of the provinces. That has been promised. Also we will publicize the provisions of the bill so that the people are aware of them. We will do it through available means.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister give consideration to taking up with the Acting Minister of National Revenue the possibility of notice being printed on the tax returns concerning the provisions of this bill and the penalties involved? That might be one way of getting the message across.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, that sounds like a very good suggestion. I will take it up with the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule II agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their great co-operation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that over the last two months hon. members on this side of the House have raised questions about the situation with respect to equal opportunities for women in the public service. Much of this was precipitated by the release of a report on behalf of a concerned group of women in the public service almost two months ago. It would be useful to remind hon. members of the context in which these women in the public service released this report on an anonymous basis. In part, the report reads as follows:
The attached is from a group of concerned women who are witnessing every day signs of increasing discrimination against women workers. Press reports have indicated that there is growing opposition to women workers. Few have reported on the fallacy of the argument that women are a cause of the high unemployment rate. Worse, senior federal public service employees lacking the creativity and initiative to develop policies to help Canada, are content to jump on the bandwagon and proclaim that there is no unemployment problem in Canada, it is just a case of too many women competing for jobs.
Women in the federal public service are particularly vulnerable. As public service employees, their right to speak out and to be involved in political activities is practically non-existent. In most departments where female SX's are found they are isolated and afraid to jeopardize their careers in speaking out.
The report goes on to detail chapter and verse some of the more blatant examples of discrimination and the deteriorating
April 17, 1978

situation with respect to the employment of women in the public service.
Since that time there has been opportunity in the House, and to some degree outside the House, to deal with this issue. To date there has been no adequate explanation or justification for the type of press release which was issued by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) on March 2. In response to this report, he said that in fact substantial progress had been made by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in improving representations of women at all levels within the commission.
Subsequently on March 8, when I questioned the minister on this release, he indicated that in particular this press release was put forward to justify the situation with respect to the employment of women at the SX level. I cannot understand why the Minister of Employment and Immigration would want to take credit for the present situation concerning the employment of women, either at the SX level or at other levels, with respect to that particular commission. It is useful to remind ourselves that in terms of the over-all ratio of employees in the Department of Employment and Immigration at the present time, it is something like 54.7 women to 45.3 men. In other words, the breakdown would be 12,735 women and 10,531 men. On a total basis, that means that more than half of the employees which make up this particular department are women.
When one looks at the SX level, we find the figures from the latest report of the Public Service Commission. In table 19 at page 75, it is indicated that there are 89 employees at the SX level. Of that number, realizing that more than one half of the department is staffed by women, how many women are occupying positions at the SX level? I suggest there are three. I understand, and I have not had a chance to check this, that perhaps a few years ago there were only one or two, so there has been an increase over the past few years of perhaps one or two women at the SX level. Somehow or other the minister interprets this, by way of a press release, to indicate that substantial progress has taken place. The minister must be living in some kind of dream world to believe that represents in anybody's books substantial progress.
In the press release, which I do not have time to review in detail here, he makes other interesting statements or affirmations which I hope will be cleared up this evening, a couple of which I put on the record at the time I questioned the minister on March 8.
For instance, he said in terms of acting appointments that 44 of these acting appointments were female administrative support employees acting in officer positions. On March 8 I asked the minister just how many of those were subsequently confirmed, and he indicated, I think, in his answer that he would give me greater detail. I also asked him, in view of the fact that he put on the record the improvement that had taken place in the CR-5 group, what had been the experience with CR-6 and CR-7. When it came to the categories of adminis-
Adjournment Debate
trative and foreign service, the PM and AS levels, here we see a situation in respect of the PM classification in the department where, although progress has taken place over the last three to five years, the progress has been so slow it would take well over one quarter, if not a half a century to achieve some kind of acceptable level of equilibrium within that particular classification. In the case of administrative support we see a situation where there has actually been a decline in three separate categories.
I think it is high time that the minister of this particular department, as well as ministers of every other department in the public service who claim to have some plan of action, some program of equal opportunity or affirmative action, give a clear accounting to this House and the people of Canada of what has been happening to women in the public service.
If we look at the most recent report of the Public Service Commission, we see there are a number of areas in the report that really are quite disturbing. I just want to point to one which is perhaps as disturbing as any in this report, to be found at page 135, which indicates that in the scientific and professional group, in terms of the separation that has taken place by category and sex, that of the numbers that have been laid off some 81 per cent have been women. There has been, of course, a noticeable decline in the employment of women in that particular classification.
There is little to cheer about in the latest report of the Public Service Commission in terms of improvement or hope for improvement in the employment of women. I hope the parliamentary secretary tonight will shed a bit of light on what effective action has been taken by the Department of Employment and Immigration to give a little leadership to a government that really seems to have lost any sense of responsibility in respect of redressing the imbalance injustice that exists for women in the public service.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member opposite for raising this question, but I think that perhaps he is being a little harsh. I say this as someone who has been associated with the status of women for a long time. Progress is slow, sometimes irritatingly slow, but I think the government of Canada has given quite reasonable leadership in the field.
If I understood the hon. member correctly, some of his criticism was directed to the presence or absence of full time equal opportunity for women co-ordinators in the public service. 1 can understand his laying emphasis on this because, as one looks at the progress in different departments, there does seem to be a correlation of departments that had an EOW co-ordinator with more solid progress than those that have not. I am not sure that anyone could have anticipated this, but now that it is happening I think it is an important finding.
The figures are somewhat better for the EOW co-ordinators in place than it appears, if one only looks at the full time positions. The 1972 cabinet directive which established equal opportunity policies in departments of the government did not

April 17, 1978
Adjournment Debate
establish an EOW directorate as such. What the directive stated was that department heads were to take steps to encourage more women to move into middle and upper echelon positions within the federal government, and the methods were left to the discretion of the departments. Departments with full time EOW co-ordinators now number 16-40 per cent-but there are other departments that have EOW co-ordinators who spend the greater amount of their time on EOW related duties while also having other duties, such as the Department of the Environment, for instance.
The employment and immigration department has a coordinator who spends 80 per cent of her time on those duties. There is a similar situation in the Department of Public Works and the Public Archives. There are two other departments which do not have a designated person, but more than half of the departmental co-ordinators have relatively senior staff who supplement the EOW activities.
The Public Service Commission has decided to assign five permanent staff positions to its regional operations, and these five will supplement the existing Public Service Commission resources, be more closely in touch with regional considerations and give each of the six regions in Canada a full-time co-ordinator. In terms of the most recent public service promotions of women into the senior levels, the progress continues to be slow, but the scientific and professional groups which the hon. member has singled out are the worst of the lot.
There is a change in the proportion of women in the administrative support category. This has dropped from 67.1 per cent in 1974 to 63 per cent in 1976, which does demonstrate a slow but steady reduction in the proportion of women in the more traditional female occupations. At the other end, while the total appointments to the public service have also been dropping steadily since 1974, women's share of these appointments has remained virtually constant. There is an interesting and positive shift, particularly in the foreign service category. Some women are now reaching intermediate and more senior levels, although women are still not fully participating at the higher levels.
I notice that Mr. Speaker is at the edge of his chair, so the other figures will have to rest.


TRADE-DISCREPANCIES IN RETAIL PRICE OF GASOLINE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
[Stage Direction]
Mir. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight result from what I considered to be an unsatisfactory answer to a question that I asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) in this House on February 14 of this year. It does not, however, mark the beginning of my interest in this matter. A quick check of my records indicates that I have been asking questions of various ministers concerning gas and oil pricing policies since about the middle of 1973.
On February 14 1 asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if his department would look into the possibility of collusion between the major oil companies to squeeze out independent gasoline dealers and establish monopolies throughout the country in retail sales outlets. The minister replied that my representation would be noted. Surely, Mr. Speaker, something more than that is needed now that we have firm evidence that all is not well in the area of gasoline retail sales in most parts of the country. Surely a minister who has any real interest in his area of responsibility would make some kind of an investigation into charges that are as serious as those that I have made.
My concerns lie in three distinct areas, all of which are related and are designed to work a hardship on the Canadian motorist. Although the minister replied that gas marketing falls within provincial jurisdiction, it will be seen that there is an element of federal responsibility and federal jurisdiction involved in my charges.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is clear evidence, supported by sworn statements by oil company executives to the Isbister royal commission hearings, that some if not all major oil companies transfer refined products to their own outlets at prices lower than their net prices to independent dealers. It was shown that the purpose behind this practice is to allow their outlets to undersell the independents and force them out of business. Wherever independents are forced out of a neighbourhood, the price of gasoline is pushed back up by the surviving gas stations, owned of course by major oil companies.
This practice is called loss-leadering, which in the business community is considered a legitimate business tool but which, when used as a continuing practice to discourage competition, can only be considered an unfair trade practice. It is, in fact, a violation of anti-combines laws.
My second concern is that this practice has already forced many independent gasoline dealers out of business, and more will follow if nothing is done to correct the situation. This results in loss of jobs in an industry where thousands of people are employed directly and many more indirectly. Independent dealers have enormous sums of money invested in equipment and facilities, and employ thousands of people all across the country. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the competitiveness in the field of independent oil and gas retailing holds down the cost of gasoline to motorists and transportation firms, tourist operators and others. It has already been established, for instance, that part of the reason for the decline in tourism in Ontario, and I would suspect in other provinces, is the cost of operating a motor vehicle in our country. This is not only the fault of the oil companies but the federal government. I will get to that in a moment as my third area of concern.
The oil companies complain that they must engage in price-cutting from time to time to compensate for excess refining capacity. This, of course, is the major cause of the frequent price wars that work an even greater hardship on independent dealers, and ultimately on gasoline customers.

April 17, 1978
[Stage Direction]
The plain fact is that the oil companies are using upstream profits to offset downstream losses. This in turn puts the squeeze on the independent dealers. Something must be done to average out refining to avoid periods of excess refining capacity, and something must be done to prevent the major oil companies from waging aggressive war against independent gasoline retailers.
My third bone of contention is the ten cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline, imposed in July of 1974, and the uneven pricing policies that see motorists paying as much as 20 cents differential for a gallon of gasoline between filling stations 50 miles apart. When there is that much difference in the price of a gallon of the same gasoline, I cannot help thinking that there is a violation of anti-combines laws.
The additional ten cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline is unjust. It is inflationary, it works a hardship on all those people who use motor vehicles in their businesses, and on the tourist industry. I ask the minister if he will consider that I have a legitimate complaint and if he will now undertake an investigation that will lead to corrective action.
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, differences of up to 16 cents a gallon in the retail price of gasoline within the same area occur as a result of market forces and the profit margin that the local retailer and the oil company are prepared to accept to keep their share of the market.
Adjournment Debate
The competition in the retail gas business is quite brisk in any large urban area. It can cause prices at the pump to be lower than posted wholesale gas prices, that is the amount the wholesaler gets from the local service station operator. The difference in those prices is absorbed by the oil companies on behalf of their retail branches. Independent branches may not be able to enjoy that advantage. In addition, up to 10 per cent of the difference in the wholesale gas price between two cities can be due to transportation costs.
Refining operations must also be taken into consideration. During the winter the demand for gasoline decreases whereas the demand for home heating oil increases. However, the nature of the refining process is such that a certain amount of gasoline is derived from a barrel of crude oil whether there is a demand for gas or not. In other words, the refiner who produces enough home heating oil to meet the demand in winter must necessarily also derive gas therefrom in such quantity as to exceed demand. In the final analysis, this factor has a repressive effect on gas prices for both wholesale and retail outlets. If a major refinery ends up with an amount of gas in excess of what it can store it will get rid of it on the market through its network of retailers in those places where they are most likely to sell this product. The other retailers must then lower their prices and engage in gas price war. Obviously, if it is a very local and busy area of a city, prices there can get very low, whereas prices can be relatively high in other areas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.


END OF VOLUME IV