1979-02-20

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
FOURTH SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 28 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9, at 5 cents per copy or $3.00 per session
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 20, 1979


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion under Standing Order 43.
Whereas a so-called bilingual survey is being conducted in certain Canada Manpower centres across Canada, and whereas such a survey is at present being conducted at the Canada Manpower centre in Moncton whereby certain persons entering the office of the Canada Manpower centre are asked certain questions and, furthermore, among other things, telephone calls to the Manpower centre are being listened to by a so-called silent listener without notice being given to the caller,
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration cause these surveys to be halted and, in particular, the silent listener procedure on the telephone system which is a patent trespass on the privacy of individuals calling in.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the then minister of science and technology last June announced the government's intention to stimulate the low level of Canadian research and development with an enlightened government procurement policy, and whereas despite opposition questioning no regulations are yet in place
to achieve this important purpose, I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek):
That the Minister of Supply and Services be directed to treat this as a matter of urgency and make a statement on motions explaining the delay on this important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with the damaging fact that the number of man-days lost as a result of strikes and walk-outs in the first 11 months of 1978 increased by 141.3 per cent over the previous year, from 2.9 million in 1977 to over 7 million in 1978, mostly as a result of the fragmentation of union power.
Bearing in mind that as far back as February 14, 1975, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), then president of the treasury board, promised that a bill on sector bargaining would be brought before the House, only for us to find the Minister of Labour exactly three years later-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Otto John Jelinek: I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the government introduce forthwith legislation requiring union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the government on a joint basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 20, 1979


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, under the same Standing Order, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) be directed to reconsider the cutting off of Outreach project No. 21-00160, Services d'aide aux Neo-Quebecois et Immigrants, in light of the fact that these services have provided placement for some 500 persons in the Montreal area, have advised recent immigrants, have been consulted by the Department of Immigration itself as well as by the Quebec department of agriculture, and have served and are equipped to deal with immigrants in 11 different languages enabling immigrants from 48 different countries to become established in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It would appear the hon. member has now gone beyond the content of the motion and is beginning to argue the case. It seems to me the motion should have been confined to the reconsideration of the project.


Francis Andrew Brewin: 1 will just finish my sentence then, which will bring the matter to an end.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PC FUND-RAISING DINNER IN MONTREAL-PROPOSAL THAT PRICE PAID FOR TICKETS BE REFUNDED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard):
That the price paid for tickets to the Progressive Conservative fund-raising dinner held in Montreal last Sunday be refunded to the few sponsors who bought most of the tickets and to the other guests who had their appetite curbed by the inconsistent remarks made by the Tory mini-leader.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order.
In view of the fact that British Columbia continues to have a railway, the BCR, which is incomplete inasmuch as it lacks a northern connection, and in view of the fact that a rail link from Washington state to Alaska through British Columbia would represent a tremendous economic advance for all of British Columbia and provide alternate safe energy transport from the United States, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to meet with his U.S. counterpart, transport secretary Brock Adam, to examine the feasibility of co-operative rail construction to complete the B.C. Railway for an Alaska-B.C.-Washington state rail system.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARTS AND SCIENCES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would like to move the following motion. In view of widespread concern among the cultural community that Loto Canada funds for the arts will be disbursed by cabinet under the provisions of Bill C-41 and not by an arm's length agency such as the Canada Council, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That in order to avoid political patronage in funding artistic endeavours, this House instruct the minister to redraft the bill to ensure that the Canada Council will be responsible for disbursing these funds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 20, 1979


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that in a speech he made last February 18 the Leader of the Opposition strongly insisted that the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec be maintained in the constitution without, however, extending the same protection to the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec; given the fact that during the same meeting Newfoundland Premier Frank Moores pressed the Leader of the Opposition to act as follows, and I quote:

"take a very very strong stand on minority language rights whether it is in the provinces or in Quebec", I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That this House urges the Leader of the Official Opposition to make his position clear. Does he want language rights-


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of pressing necessity.
Since the Canadian Council of Rural Development was established in 1965 to improve the poor economic situation in many rural areas of this country; since that council made up of national and regional organizations directly concerned with development disparities in rural areas is a vital link between the people involved and the government; and since the government will put an end to the activities of that body as a result of the recent budget cuts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House direct the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to review that decision in order that the important work the council has started be continued.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions OFFICIAL LANGUAGES



TABLING OF EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF COMMISSIONER

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding with the question period, I have the honour of tabling in the House the eighth annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication informing me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely: the Hon. Ron Basford, PC, member for the electoral district of Vancouver Centre, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. When making his statement following the tabling of the main estimates yesterday, the minister stated, among other things:
-the money the federal government pays out in debt charges can be considered as a form of transfer payment, since it is money being paid directly to Canadians.
Is it, therefore, the government's position that this $8.38 billion in expenditures and, indeed, debt charges in general, are really inconsequential; that they are merely transferred from one pocket to the other and may, in fact, be beneficial since they provide income to bondholders? Is that the position of the government?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. I believe I suggested that in a sense it is a form of transfer payment since 94 per cent or 95 per cent of it goes to Canadian bondholders.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated in his remarks yesterday, speaking about Canada's net debt, that "it is less worrisome when viewed in the context of Canadian history" during the last quarter century. He went on to state, also, that we have a long way to go before "the size of this nation's debt" becomes "an albatross to economic development and growth".

February 20, 1979
Oral Questions
Given that the debt is 22.2 per cent of the gross national product and has increased substantially in the last four years, and given the minister's comments about it not being an albatross, perhaps he could enlighten the House as to what the national debt would have to be before it becomes an albatross. How big is an albatross, and when does the national debt become a deterrent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that his question is hypothetical in nature.


Harvie Andre: The minister cast a judgment, Mr. Speaker, as to the effect of our national debt and I thought it was reasonable to ask him when we need to worry.
The minister tries to paint a rosy picture of our national debt by making some comparisons between our current debt and the national debt 25 years ago during the post-war period, pointing out that since 1952 the debt has decreased. Something which the minister did not point out, but which he should have, is that since 1975 the debt has been increasing and is now four times what it was in 1975.
When does the minister feel that this trend will reverse itself so that we will have a continuation of events as they were during the post-war period, when the national debt's proportion of the GNP was on the decline?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member yesterday, the net national debt at the end of this year we expect will be slightly in excess of 22 per cent of our gross national product, roughly the place where it stood ten years ago. As the hon. member has indicated, it dipped below this figure in the intervening ten years and in the last three or four years has moved up again. However, that figure is substantially less. In 1962, it stood at 33 per cent, in 1952 it stood at 52 per cent, and in 1947 it stood at 110 per cent. So as a percentage of our gross national product, it is certainly not a figure that should be staggering to Canadians.


TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a supplementary question on the basis of his press release of February 19. I would say that there is some more political skullduggery and cover-up involved with this matter, because on his sheet he indicated that the net debt for 1979-80 would be $64,672 million but for some strange reason the minister did not indicate what the total debt would be. It is very easy to figure this out. In my view, it comes to about $110 billion or $111 billion for the 1979-80 fiscal year.
Will the minister confirm this figure and, if not, does he have another figure? Also, why did he leave this figure out, covering-up as far as the total debt is concerned?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: I made the point very clearly yesterday that it is the net national debt. It is the outstanding bonds, treasury bills and interest payments less the equities that we have in the Crown corporations, loans, investments, and so on. The hon. member has the net debt figure and I clearly described it as such.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is not a lot of nonsense. 1 have a document here which indicates net public debt of $64 billion. What I want to know is, why did the minister not advise the Canadian people what the total gross debt would be? Those spaces are blank on this document. If the minister has the net public debt figure, surely he should have the figures which would indicate what the gross public debt would be for 1979-80. Why the cover-up?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no effort at cover-up at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why is it not in here?


J. Judd Buchanan: I do not have the same sheets which the hon. member is waving around. My sheets show the net debt and the GNP.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It came with your press release. It is right here.


J. Judd Buchanan: That is fine. Mine show the net national debt. I clearly referred in my remarks to the net national debt. I am delighted to give the hon. member the approximate figure: from memory, it is somewhere between $100 billion and $110 billion gross.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one last supplementary to the President of the, what is it, Board of Economic Development Ministers. That is a big title. I just want to get back to the albatross. I would like to ask the boss of the President of the Treasury Board whether he agrees with his colleague when he says that we have a long way to go before the size of this nation's debt becomes an albatross to economic development. It is a simple question. Has the minister a very simple answer for that very easy question?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the President of the Treasury Board.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns cuts confirmed in yesterday's estimates of programs relating specifically to women's employment, includ-
February 20, 1979

ing the $23 million cut for Manpower training programs vital to many women throughout this country.
My specific area of concern is the uncertain future of some 22 Outreach projects, some of which have already been cut. The others are now under review, one of them to be reviewed later this week. Since the minister stated that all Outreach projects would be fairly and carefully assessed before their future was determined, would he not agree that any fair evaluation of these projects must include direct input from those working on the projects and some survey of those served by them?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that each of the Outreach projects will be checked out. Some of them have, in fact, been continued; some at a lower rate of participation from the financial standpoint. Others were cancelled because they did not meet the criteria. Some were initiated in 1975 and they have had as much as $200,000 of taxpayers' money to get them operational.
We have to do an evaluation on an annual basis, as requested by the Auditor General. We think we are being responsible in this regrad. They have not all been cancelled. We have also indicated in our programs that we want to see that women coming into the workforce have an opportunity to play their rightful role. We have set quotas in some areas that are not traditionally occupied by women. 1 am happy to say that in employment programs, Canada Works and training programs, women form an even larger percentage of participation than they have in the actual workforce.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all of that was interesting, and some of it was even true. I should like the minister now to answer the question. Since two of these projects which have served women very well throughout the country-the one in London has had a 30 per cent placement rate, which is better than the average for Manpower centres across the country- and considering that the review of the Ottawa project and the Toronto project did not include input from the projects themselves and did not include any survey of the clients they were servicing, will the minister assure the House that all future assessments will include input by the project people and the surveys of their clients?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member. There has been a solid and honest review of each and every one of these projects to determine whether they meet the criteria. Some of them have not met the placement criteria so far as finding jobs for women is concerned or finding jobs for people who meet the particular criteria. In some of them there is an overlapping between what the program does, what the Canada employment centre is set up to do and what it does very well at the expense of the taxpayer.
We do not think a duplication of that effort best serves the needs of women. For that reason, the funding for some projects has been reduced because they are not meeting the criteria they were established to meet.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one despairs of getting a direct answer to a direct question. 1 asked the minister if he would consider input from the project people themselves, or if they would survey their clients. He has evaded the question twice and I suspect I am not going to get an answer.
I should like to put my last question to the minister. Since the overwhelming evidence from people outside the political parties entirely has been that these projects have been remarkably successful and remarkably beneficial to women, would the minister consider giving to each of the 22 Outreach projects affecting women a three-month extension so that there will be a fair review process into which they can have direct input before they are cancelled?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is already drawing on the experience we followed. Where we found particular projects were having some difficulty, we extended the time and the funding for a period of three months to enable them to adjust to the situation and possibly find other sources of funding for the portion we were withdrawing. In some instances that was necessary. Some of the projects were finished. They were not meeting the criteria and were able to wind down at a time when they anticipated they would be closed.
Last November, we commented that this kind of investigation was in progress and gave the organization adequate time. The hon. member suggests they have all been discontinued, but in fact they have not. A lot of projects are still in place and are still being funded, but they must meet the criteria and not duplicate efforts that we are performing, and performing very well, through our employment centres.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the recent budgetary cuts inflicted upon the Canadian Council of Rural Development, which is made up of several rural organizations and whose members are responsible for determining what problems and difficulties they have to face, especially with regard to determining the priorities of rural development in underprivileged areas, can the minister tell the House whether he has provided for replacing this service so that the population in those areas are not totally deprived of the priceless advice of that body?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, when expenditures have to be cut it is indeed always difficult to determine what programs will be cancelled or cut back without hampering too seriously the objectives sought. In fact, in August when we had to resign
3402

February 20, 1979
Oral Questions
ourselves to reducing expenditures and doing away with or reducing some programs, it was difficult for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to offer several programs since in fact we have only two major ones. We decided to do away with the advisory council to the minister on development policies because over the last three years it has made a tremendous number of suggestions to us so that we probably have more work cut out for us for the next two or three years than we can possibly do in order to implement their proposals. Besides, after a good many discussions with the members of the council, I agreed that their services having really been of considerable help, it would therefore be a good idea to set up, in the very near future, a system of consultations to be put in place over coming months or in the next few years.


NATIONAL UNITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns an article in the current issue of Reader's Digest written by Ron Lebel, where the minister is quoted as saying:
Four-fifths of the Parti Quebecois program can be implemented within the federal system and the remaining fifth can be negotiated.
In order to be precise, I ask the minister specifically if the first article in the Parti Quebecois program, that is, to "obtain political sovereignty for Quebec by democratic means and to propose to Canada a mutually advantageous economic association," is part of the four-fifths that the minister states can be implemented, or is it part of the one-fifth that he feels can be negotiated?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, I am sure, is anxious to answer the question. Elowever, it seems to me that the question is not directed to him in his capacity as Minister of Justice but, rather, in some political responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question may be for him in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons, or in his geographic capacity, but questions in the House of Commons would have to relate to his responsibility as Minister of Justice.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question was asked in the context of constitutional change.


Mr. Clark:: For which he is responsible.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the particular article. However, I can say to the hon. lady that the Minister of Justice, this government and this party have always had a consistent constitutional policy in this

regard and we have not attempted to make any flip-flop like the hon lady's party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: The answer to the question is very clear, simple and categorical, that this party, this government and myself will not negotiate sovereignty association-period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the article was in the context of the minister stating that federalism is much more flexible than the Quebec government claims, with regard to the four-fifths and one-fifth statement that he made, could he say whether or not the proposal in the Parti Quebecois platform, in its program to start proceedings immediately to accede to independence by proposing a law asking Ottawa to return to Quebec all the powers except those delegated to common organisms, is among the things the minister considers to be four-fifths implemented in the system of federalism, or is it in the one-fifth that he is prepared to negotiate?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this government has stated again its position quite clearly. We have only two conditions in the renewal of the Canadian federation: one, that it be made within the federal system; two, that there be a charter of rights guaranteeing individual rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This government has no illusion, contrary to some members on the other side, that sovereignty association is some kind of renewed federalism, as the well-known hon. member from the other side has stated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I gather these fellows are clamouring to get into my fund-raising dinners. It is too bad nobody will go to theirs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are well acquainted with the Minister of Justice's and the government's claim that they are always misquoted when they get into trouble. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did that when he was quoted as saying that housing was a luxury according to the Liberal party.
Let me come back to the Minister of Justice. He is now saying that he did not say what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 20, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister tell us what he did say and what he meant when he told a journalist, Mr. Lebel, on behalf of the Liberal party as the constitutional spokesman:
Four-fifths of the Parti Quebecois program can be implemented within the federal system and the remaining fifth can be negotiated.
That is very clear. If that is not what the minister meant when he said those words, what did he mean when he said those words?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: I will read the article and find out, and I suggest that the hon. member should read the whole of the article.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You have not read it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are stuck this time, Marc.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We know the way you operate.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Leader of the Opposition trying to extricate himself from the problem he has created for himself with his flip-flopping.


An hon. Member:: Exactly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: There is one thing clear in this party, and that is that sovereignty association is not negotiable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: But I can assure the hon. member that on this side there has been no flip-flopping at all.


AIRPORTS
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No one believes you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I have stated quite clearly that as far as this government is concerned, any negotiation with any provincial government has to be in the context of the federal system. We are not negotiating anything approximating sovereignty association and we have no illusions about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it concerns air traffic safety.
I wonder if the minister is aware that the lives of Air Canada passengers were endangered at Victoria international airport recently when on the night of December 15-16 last a scheduled Air Canada flight landed late at that airport without the protection of the fire engine crash crew because the fire hall had not been notified of a delayed flight, as was the course of action that had been agreed upon many weeks before, and that a similar incident occurred earlier in the month, on December 2?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, now the minister has said definitively that there has been no flip-flopping on his side. That means that he is standing by the following statement, and I quote again from Mr. Marc Lalonde, constitutional spokesman for the Liberal government:
Four-fifths of the Parti Quebecois program can be implemented within the federal system and the remaining fifth can be negotiated.
He admits he said that. Will he tell us: if it does not mean what it says, what, in the minister's judgment, does it mean?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not even listened to what I have said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I have said that I have not read the article. But even if I had said what he said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: Since the minister was not aware of that, he is now aware of it. Is the minister aware that there is a possibility that aircraft could still land there without the protection of the fire engine and crash service? What are his officials doing to ensure that safety is assured there as it is elsewhere?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, any matter such as this brought to the attention of my officials is reacted to by them with the necessary steps taken. I imagine this is the reason for the hon. member's question, that there was some dissatisfaction on the part of the people involved in firefighting at that particular airport because of the amount of overtime being worked. Hence, they are coming to the hon. member with a question which I would imagine was handled in a regular way. I will look into that matter, however, and make sure I am right in saying that there is no problem for the hon. member to be concerned about.

February 20, 1979
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FRENCH-SPEAKING STUDENTS AT AIR CONTROLLERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE, CORNWALL
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Stormont-Dundas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On Thursday, February 8, the Minister of Transport, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Joliette, indicated that French-speaking students attending the Transport Canada training institute in Cornwall had suffered discrimination. This response, unfortunately, reflected on the integrity and competence of the staff of the institute.
In view of the report made public today by the minister's very competent parliamentary secretary, which indicated no evidence of discrimination, would the minister clarify the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to do so. I did not say that there has been discrimination, but in referring to the fact that certain problems had been corrected I did, unfortunately, use the word "discrimination" in terms of the things which did not at this time exist. I certainly apologize for the implication that it carried or that was put into it by the news media as a positive statement of there having been discrimination, which there was not.
I join the hon. member in recognizing the work of the hon. member for Charlevoix who looked into this matter and confirmed there has been no discrimination. He made certain recommendations upon which I have acted. I hope this will bring about a better atmosphere for the students involved, as well as for the institution as a whole.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on the fact that the Winnipeg Housing Authority, which operates, I believe, under direction of the provincial government, has sent written notice to tenants in public housing who are in arrears in their rent that the authority has learned from the income tax department about the child tax credit that is to be received this spring, that it is a windfall and therefore they are being summoned into the office of the Winnipeg Housing Authority, told to bring certain documents and to be prepared to make an assignment of that money to the authority.
In view of the fact that we understood that this money was to go to the mothers of Canada and was not to be assignable, is there not something the minister can do to stop this nefarious practice?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I read the letter sent by the Winnipeg Housing Authority signed by a Mr. Malley, whom I would demote immediately if I had the power to do so-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: -blackmailing the tenants, threatening to throw them into the street if they did not assign their child tax credit to pay rents or arrears. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is looking into the legality of this action. At first glance, it seems absolutely illegal to ask for power of attorney from mothers without reimbursing them at least 85 per cent of the cheques because these people think of themselves as tax discounters. We are looking into that and I will report to the House as soon as we have the answer.
One thing is sure: if a department store or a large business was doing that, the Conservative opposition would call those people jackals. I will be very curious to see if the Conservative members from Manitoba are going to state loud and clear their opposition to that policy which, of course, is against the people. I want to say to mothers that they have the right to refuse the appointment which is forced upon them and to refuse to bring their income tax returns and receipts to the Winnipeg Housing Authority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in some other provinces other bodies are also doing things that seem to deny to mothers the full benefit of the child tax credit, is the minister taking steps to make sure that mothers right across Canada get the full benefit of this child tax credit?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have personally supervised the program and the publicity. We have television clips scheduled to be shown all over Canada right now, asking mothers to apply for that program. It is not an automatic program such as the family allowance. Mothers have to file an application. I think all community groups in the country are now aware of the program and have received small funds for their expenditures in having neighbours helping to fill out the forms in order to get the money.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the Minister of Transport has foisted upon the residents of Castlegar and the users of that airport a third party contract arrangement which is singularly unpopular, is he now prepared to make a forward step in the provision of immediately needed navigational aids and firefighting equipment?
February 20, 1979


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member refer to the contract as one that displeases anyone. I thought there was general favour for the fact that we entered into insurance contracts for the smaller airports across this country when it was beyond their means to enter into satisfactory contracts of insurance one by one by themselves.
Obviously, the issue of equipment is one we have constantly under review. As we have funds available, equipment is bought and appropriate equipment is moved according to the traffic patterns of air travel in this country.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In light of the fact the existing radio navigational aid is so old that spare parts are obtained from the Smithsonian Institute and in light of the fact that Castlegar is acknowledged by pilots to be one of the most hazardous airports in Canada in terms of the final and immediate approaches, will the minister now consider implementation of a program to put VOR into Castlegar?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, every airport without an ILS or VOR wants one. There is simply not enough money to meet all these requests and to do these nice things all over the country at once. We look carefully at the priorities in terms of the numbers of flights and such things as the conditions, including any special geographical characteristics. It is on that basis that decisions are made about where the necessary equipment will be placed.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question affects three ministers, Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Revenue, and Finance, and anyone can answer.


Mr. MacKay:: I doubt it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to the AntiDumping Tribunal's binding imposition of a special duty on steel shapes, I-beams, and so forth, will the minister concerned explain to the steel constructors and contractors in western Canada why they cannot get steel?
Canadian suppliers who are supposed to be protected are not even interested in supplying steel or selling their steel abroad because of the devalued dollar. What are western Canadian constructors going to do? Can we not get some relief when we need the steel?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, western contractors can buy steel. The problem is that they cannot buy steel in Canada at dump
Oral Questions
prices which are injurious to our industry. That is the difficulty. Perhaps the hon. member wants to ask the government to disallow the ruling of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, but I am sure there might be a time or two when such rulings might be injurious to Alberta or western Canada with regard to other products.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will accept an increase of 40 per cent in the price of steel, and if he will agree that steel from Canadian suppliers is not obtainable, the question of dumping is absolutely academic. If the government was able to make an exception for British Columbia for part of the time, why is it not able now to recognize that the ruling has no relevance to the market at the present time?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, what the government did at that time was to allow contractors to put in their bids. They bid on construction projects. The government served notice that the findings of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal were in fact injurious to Canadian industry. If my memory serves me correctly, we gave the industry 90 days' notice, and steel can still be bought from Japan, South Korea, the United States or from Canadian mills. However, steel cannot be bought at what is considered dumping prices.


FISHERIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, what the government actually did was discourage foreign suppliers from selling to Canada, and now we cannot buy the stuff any more.
My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. What is the status of negotiations relative to halibut fishing off the Alaska coast?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I will be briefed by those who attended the negotiations this afternoon at 3.30. Until then, I should not venture public comment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker the fishermen in that area are very concerned that their privileges will be exchanged for rights granted in eastern waters.


An hon. Member:: Bull!


Benno Friesen: They have registered their protest with the minister with respect to this matter. Reports are that they will be excluded from American waters and that they will have to go to Canadian waters which are already overfished. Are these reports correct? There are 140 licensed trawlers in Canadian waters fishing for groundfish. Added to that are 40 to 60 vessels which are presently fishing for halibut. What contin-

February 20, 1979
Oral Questions
gency plan does the minister have to help those fishermen who will be dislocated?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deny flatly that there was any trade-off between one coast and the other. Second, we have indicated to fishermen all along that if there was to be a dislocation, and if we could not successfully negotiate the prolonged presence of Canadians off the coast of Alaska, then we would consider a program of relocation. The hon. member should certainly be familiar with that. If he is not, he should be.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of statements by John McMillian of the Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company that the Alaska Highway pipeline will be delayed up to a year due to regulatory delays in the United States, does the government plan to make a formal protest regarding these delays to the United States administration, considering that we have a treaty with them, and will the government be asking the United States to legislate deadlines for their regulatory procedures such as was used for the Alyeska pipeline, so that there will be no further delays in the planned completion date for this important project to Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions a week ago Saturday with Secretary of State Vance on this particular question. I think I can say without qualification that the problem does not lie with the United States Administration. Mr. Vance made it very clear that the administration is very anxious to proceed as rapidly as possible with the pipeline.
I did not put specific inquiries to him as to what actions might be possible for the administration to take, but he did assure me that it was moving as rapidly as it could with the various interests in the United States to eliminate any roadblocks which might presently exist.
I want to emphasize once again that there is no difficulty with the United States Administration. It remains as committed to this project as it was when the Prime Minister and the President announced it some time ago.


SHIPPING
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. I believe the minister is aware of the maritime pollution claims fund which was established by, I believe, his seatmate several years

ago. I believe the target at that time was to establish a fund of about $25 million made up from levies on oil moved by sea.
I wonder if the minister can confirm that there is approximately twice the amount of the target amount in that fund, nearly $50 million and, if so, does he propose to use the interest or any of the funds available for some other useful purpose since, fortunately, claims made against the fund have been practically negligible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we reviewed the growth of the fund and, as it crossed approximately the $40 million figure, we did terminate the charges which were accumulating toward the fund. As the hon. member says, interest is now accumulating and only a small portion has been used for the actual pollution claims purpose. We are examining the question of possible uses of the interest from this fund for other purposes in connection with the broad objective of controlling pollution and clearing the atmosphere.
However, I am advised that a change in the legislation would be required to accomplish this, and I intend to bring that legislation forward in due course.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is the minister considering using some of the surplus funds for research into oil emulsification and things of that nature? Would he consider that kind of use for the surplus funds?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, either for equipment and, therefore, facilities to deal with pollution problems as they arise or for research and development of that kind of equipment.


REASON FOR SLOW SHIPMENT FROM WEST COAST-PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. What earthly reason is there for the fact that we are now behind 400,000 tons of shipments of grain on the west coast, and what is the minister doing about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by being behind by that amount. It has been a very difficult shipping season on the west coast, for a number of reasons. Terminals have been unloading at a much lower rate than satisfactory. That is due to a combination of factors. Some new terminals are coming on stream. There have been labour difficulties regarding refusal to work overtime.
On February 13, Canadian National suffered a serious problem with a line. On, I believe, February 15, the CP had a problem with regard to a bridge. Both these problems were experienced in the Fraser Canyon. These problems have caused a disappearance of cars available for unloading. How-
February 20, 1979

ever, both problems have been solved and we will be trying again to move grain as rapidly as possible.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the source of the number I quoted was a press article regarding a statement by a man by the name of Otto Lang.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made reference to the Bible. I would like now to get an answer from the New Testament. Why are we purchasing, with farmers' money, new hopper cars when after the first 21 weeks of the crop year there are on CN and CP lines a daily average of 1,235 cars waiting to be unloaded, and when the rate of unloading at the port of Vancouver is 442 cars? Why are we buying new cars with farmers' money when we cannot unload even a third of the number of cars waiting?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening remarks in answer to the first question, I feel that the hon. member is misquoting. The figure the hon. member mentioned has nothing to do with Vancouver. If I spoke about 400,000 tons, that was a reference to how far we are behind in our exports this year compared with last year, which is quite a different matter. It has nothing to do with the question the hon. member is asking. The next time he reads about statements by Otto Lang, let him get an official interpretation.


An hon. Member:: We need one.


Otto Emil Lang: The point the hon. member misses is that the hopper cars being ordered are being ordered for the latter part of 1979 and 1980, and the fact that the terminals have been having difficulties this year, and therefore there have been cars available with loads, does not diminish the clear requirement for the additional cars. We are paying good money for repairs and for additional cars which the Canadian Wheat Board has decided should be purchased.
Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic that as the years go by we will have to move much more grain, and by 1985 we are looking at the movement of 30 million tonnes of grain to export, 50 per cent higher than current records.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and it has to do with energy conservation in the home. It relates to the government's decision to reimpose the federal sales tax on storm windows and doors in the November budget.
In a letter to my office, the minister stated that the tax exemption had been removed for storm windows and doors, including double and triple-glass windows, because glass is less efficient in energy conservation than solid wall construction.


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


Jack Hare: I should like to ask the minister to explain this rationale. Does he wish to suggest that homes in cold climates should have no windows or, rather, is he worried that people will take advantage of this tax exemption to build glass houses?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better look at that letter again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ARTS AND SCIENCES
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Under the provisions of Bill C-41, cabinet, and not an independent agency such as the Canada Council, will be responsible for disbursing Loto Canada funds for the arts.
In view of the concern expressed by the cultural community about keeping these grants free from political influence, will the minister commit the government to amend the bill to allow independent agencies such as the Canada Council to disburse these funds?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker, under the legislation the disbursement of Loto Canada funds is not the responsibility of cabinet but is in the hands of the Secretary of State. I think it would be extremely undesirable to place it in the hands of an agency such as Canada Council, for then there might be a danger that these funds would become absorbed in the ordinary operating expenditures of these agencies, and it is my purpose to ensure that these funds are kept apart to ensure that the operating funds are supplemented but that these funds are kept for their special purpose.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible answer, given the kind of cutbacks this government has imposed upon the cultural community. I should like to ask the minister the following question. Given the lack of adequate funding for the arts over the past few years, and the announced cutback of several million dollars in grants for arts and culture for 1979-80, can the minister assure the House that the new revenues gained from Loto Canada will be treated for what they are, additional revenues for the arts community, and that he will maintain ongoing funding under the regular formula to which we are accustomed? To argue otherwise is to argue how ineffective the minister is in cabinet in speaking up for grants for the arts.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to get into the details of the expenditure allocations, it would take a long time to do so, but I would be able to show him that his statement is not an accurate one. I do not think I can usefully add much more to my previous answer to the hon. member.

February 20, 1979
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General. I put the same question last year on the last wiretapping report of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Last year-that is, in 1978-there were 3,427 authorized wiretaps; that is, wiretaps authorized by judges. Of those, only 897 persons were arrested and there were four convictions. We hear a lot these days about the charter of rights and the constitution. Proportionately the same figures applied last year. Will the minister now reconsider the Liberal government's position and amend the Code because of what I would call abuse of the process of law?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: If the hon. gentleman would look at the report, he would see that the number of people arrested in terms of the 1975 authorizations increased as the years went by. In terms of the 1975 authorizations, 407 people were named in the authorizations, and the hon. member will see that in 1978, with reference to 1975, 1,557 people were subjected to arrest. In terms of criminal proceedings, the hon. member will see that there were 968 convictions, in total, with reference to 1975.
As I am sure the hon. member understands very well, the reason for that is that as we obtain authorizations we conduct the investigations and subsequently arrests are made, following which it takes some time before the cases proceed through the individual tribunals. We had to wait right up until 1978 to get the total figures for 1975.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, so that we can get away from the minister's verbosity with reference to the matter, let me point out that we had the same answer last year. Last year, there were only 13 convictions and a similar number of arrests, as the minister pointed out. Under this act, people are being arrested and their civil rights usurped. As I said, there were four convictions out of 3,427 wiretaps, and the figures were similar for last year.
The minister keeps talking about the catch-up. I wonder when we are going to catch up. We are putting people in jail, but as a result of this evidence we are getting no convictions; that is my point.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased if the hon. gentleman would review the report again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have read it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He would see that in 1975 we had 562 authorizations, and as of today there are 968 convictions. In 1976, we had 613 authorizations, and as of today we have achieved 790 convictions. In 1977, we had 615 authorizations, and as of today we have 495 convictions. Of course, as we look at the 1977 and 1976 figures, there are still cases before the courts and there have been no convictions on those cases. But when

we look at the total number of authorizations we see that the total number of convictions exceeds the authorizations.
I would also like to point out to the hon. gentleman that in terms of wiretap installations, there has been a decrease in the number from 1977 to 1978. In 1977, there were 1,429 installations, and in 1978 there were 1,386.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have given you notice of my question of privilege and now I should like to explain why I am presenting it 20 days late. I have obtained evidence this past weekend and yesterday giving grounds for my question of privilege.
On February 8, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) questioned the minister on the tabling of a document on air safety regulations. He asked:
Can we expect this report to be made public-?
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) stated:
Our tradition in a very open department is to ... place reports of this sort in our library, where they are indexed and available to the public, even if we do not feel they are necessarily of the sort that deserve to be printed. I say "a very open department", noting the "the raspberries" from the other side, because they may not know that we have thousands and thousands of documents available in the library.
I am interested in a particular air crash which took place last March in Saskatoon, so I contacted the minister's department and his officials provided me with a one page report on this accident which took place in Saskatoon in March of 1978.
I made further inquiries on my own and I found out that there are 20 pages missing from this report. That means the minister does not operate an open department and members of parliament cannot contact his department and his library. What he said is not true.
I have obtained a transcript of the coroner's inquest into this accident. The inquest was started in June of 1978. It had to be postponed for three months. Then it continued in September of 1978. The minister would not provide the proper documentation with regard to this crash. This insistent coroner was finally able to get from the minister an additional 20 pages so he could continue with his inquest into these tragic deaths. I would like to quote briefly from the transcript of the coroner's inquest as follows:
Gentlemen of the jury, you will remember that at our last meeting we adjourned the inquest because we lacked certain evidence which was in the form of a report which has been forwarded by the investigator who investigated this accident on behalf of the Department of Transport, and during the subsequent weeks we have been busy with negotiations with the department in an attempt to obtain this report. We only recently received it and now we are going to continue with this inquest.
Throughout the second section of this inquiry into the accident, the coroner makes some of the most damaging statements against the Minister of Transport and his depart-
February 20, 1979

merit for not providing information with regard to air crashes. Finally the minister's office came up with the additional 20 pages. This is further evidence as to why we should proceed with Bill C-40 at this time when we have statements such as this one.
I discussed this accident with the widow of one of the victims last Sunday and she informed me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member, being on a procedural point, should stick to the merits of the question of privilege.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Even the widow could not receive the full report. So I would like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, either to withdraw his remarks that this documentation is available through making inquiries to his department-because in fact it is not available; this one page document he gave me is not complete as there are 20 other pages to be attached to it to have the full report-or explain why he cannot provide us with the full documentation when we phone his department with regard to accidents. As I have said, this is further evidence why Bill C-40 should be proceeded with immediately.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this question of privilege in support of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), arising out of the same answer that the minister gave on February 8, as reported at pages 3013 and 3014 of Hansard.
The minister in his answer indicated that his department was a very open one and that reports of the kind to which we referred during the question period, reports emanating from the Ministry of Transport having to do with air safety, were placed in the library and were available to the public. My question arose from the fact that back in December of 1977 I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would make available to the House the northern Ontario aviation safety report undertaken by Messrs. Carswell and Slaughter. At that time the minister said he would look into the matter and determine whether it could be made public. The other day the minister gave us to understand by his answer that the department was an open one, that this information was there, that it had been indexed and placed in the library and that it was available to all members who desired to obtain it.
After that exchange had taken place I contacted the library and asked for the full report. I was told the full report was not available in the library either on paper or on film. A copy of an abridged version together with a press release the minister had issued was the only material available to me. Thus, when the minister suggests that his department is open and that reports of this nature are made public, when he suggests that all members have to do is contact the library and obtain copies of the reports they desire, his statements are not in accordance with the facts. If he is not misleading the House he is treading
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
close to doing so, and I suggest the matter be either clarified by the minister or taken under Your Honour's advisement.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who have spoken, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), have carried on their usual tactic of trying to introduce all kinds of extraneous matters by way of debate under the guise of a question of privilege, thereby taking up valuable time which would otherwise be available to the House. Of course, they are never likely to let legislation move along easily in this House so they raise these questions time and time again. I presume they had to give Your Honour notice of a question of privilege. I am a little surprised that in this case they did not have the courtesy to give me notice too, so that I could be sure of being here. I was almost out of the chamber before they raised the matter, again an example of the way in which they like to proceed.
The fact is that if you look at my response you will see I was not saying that that particular report would be made available. I was not dealing with that issue; it is one which still has to be reflected upon by me. There are certain things of a confidential nature which come before the ministry of transport and which cannot be made public. I refer particularly in this context to transcriptions of recordings of conversations between pilots and controllers.
There is a bill presently before the House on first reading which has in it a potential for public access to material of this sort, private conversations between controllers and pilots, and I have already indicated-I say this again because I know there will be some concern on the part of pilots and controllers- that 1 intend to be very open during the committee stage to hear their view as to what additional control ought to be placed upon those matters; their right to privacy demands that there be some protection against too wide open access to material of this kind. There are other matters of a confidential nature which come before government; nearly everyone recognizes that they must remain confidential. That is done. Our objective within that department has been to keep this material within as narrow limits as possible.
1 discovered that one of the reasons a number of things were not made public was because they were not of such a nature that anyone wanted to expend the money on printing and publishing them, or, indeed, translating them so that they would be available to all Canadians. In respect to those cases I devised a system a few years ago which now obviously embarrasses hon. members opposite who are presently supposed to have a responsibility in transport; they do not realize they have access to this material. We devised a system of making available documents in our library under which people who wanted copies could obtain them at a charge. Literally every document which did not have some specific, traditional and well accepted reason for being kept confidential is indexed and made available in that library. I do not know the precise number-30,000 or 40,000 documents 1 think it is-but 1 will check that figure so that the hon. member does not raise a further question of privilege based on whether I said 30,000

February 20, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
when I really should have said 28,000 or 38,000; he quibbles about matters of this sort.
The fact is that we are open as a department and matters of very great breadth are available to hon. members. The discomfort of hon. members opposite arises because, while they purport to be transport critics, they obviously did not know, over the years, that this material was there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. By defending his answer, referring to it again and indicating that he stands by it, the minister, of course, takes this out of the area of procedure and leads it into an area of disagreement where it remains at this time. 1 have to set this matter aside as a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise this matter yesterday because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) had left the House. In any event I wanted to check the record. What the hon. gentleman said yesterday did not constitute grounds for raising a question of privilege because it was not unparliamentary. Nevertheless, it was a serious charge. I regret the minister is not in his place this afternoon.
In reply to my question, which can be found reported at page 3345 of Hansard, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said this:
I never said food prices would go up by 14 per cent in a few months; I said the increase would be from 12 per cent to 14 per cent, year over year, in the next few months and 9 per cent to 10 per cent for the total year at the end of the year. That is a very gross misrepresentation, which is not unusual for the hon. member.
As I say, I consider that to be a serious charge. "Gross misrepresentation" may not give rise to a question of privilege but it does imply disorder, as I think Your Honour will agree. I checked out my source for making the statement I did in my question to the minister and I found it in the speech the minister made to the Consumers' Association of Manitoba last week. This is on page 12 of the speech:
I consider, however, that much of the improvement will not come until the latter part of the year and for the next few months we can, unfortunately, expect to see increases in food prices of between 12 and 14 per cent.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I did not misrepresent what the minister had said. It was not a misrepresentation or a gross misrepresentation. I am sorry the minister is not here because I know he is a fair person and would want to correct the record if he was present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the matter should now be left for the minister to direct his attention to the intervention by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. 
McGrath). I am sure he will do that and will indicate whether he wishes to dispute it further.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak briefly in respect of the taking of my question of privilege under advisement-


An hon. Member:: No, it is finished.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has defended his answer in the House today which takes this matter out of the realm of privilege and places it in the position of a matter of disagreement. Once a minister stands in his place and says he stands by his answer, although the hon. member obviously disagrees, he has defended his answer and is saying to the House it should look at the record, and what was said ought to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to an innocent conclusion, which places the matter, as I have said, as a matter of interpretation or disagreement between the parties, and in my opinion, takes the matter out of the category of a question of privilege.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Could I put a further question? I reserve the right to proceed with this matter as a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may reserve the right to do a number of other things. He certainly has no right to proceed with that matter any further. I have adjudicated on it and I cannot change my adjudication. If the hon. member thinks that as a result of some intervention in this debate he has some additional matter to pursue, that may very well be the case. I do not know that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Motions:
February 16, 1979-Mr. Baldwin (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments):
That the Fifth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Friday, February 16, 1979, be concurred in.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I discuss this briefly as a point of order in the hope that it might save some time of the House. I am not actually moving the motion at this time. It is a motion in my name as co-chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to concur in a unanimous report. It was agreed to by members from all sides of the House. I believe it
February 20, 1979

was actually moved by a member of another party from the other place and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). It purports to seek authority for the committee to conduct a comprehensive study of the means by which parliament can better oversee the government regulatory process, and one or two related things.
I would like nothing better than to debate that in light of the vast improvements which have been made in jurisdictions in Australia and the United States, but I know the time of the House is limited before this session ends.
I would be prepared to put the motion now if there was an indication that the House would accept it. I understand it either has been moved or will be moved and passed in the other place. If someone in authority on the other side could give me the assurance that if I put the motion it will be passed without debate, I would be prepared to waive the right to debate it. I am asking for concurrence as the delegate of the committee. It is not a motion on behalf of this party. Because of the limited time between now and the expiration of this session and the amount of work this committee will have to do to try to bring in a reasonable report which may be left as a legacy to the next parliament and the next government, we would like to get the matter under way as soon as possible. I would be prepared to waive any right to debate the matter if I can get the undertaking that if I move the motion now it will be accepted.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member deserves consideration. I would have to take a closer look at that report before taking position. I take note of his suggestion. I understand that he is prepared to stand his motion today and before the end of the week we should be in position to say whether his suggestion is acceptable or not.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if I hear from the government before tomorrow that it is prepared to give that undertaking that is fine; otherwise I am giving notice now that I will present my motion tomorrow and we will have a debate.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, question No. 672 will be answered today.


ST. BONIFACE-DECREASES IN ANNUAL PAYMENTS
Mr. Hare: What is the total amount of decreases in annual payments paid into the Constituency of St. Boniface brought about by the government's restraint
Order Paper Questions
programme and which departments and what amounts are involved in each case?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every program of each department which cost in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 626 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall question 626 be deemed to be made an order for return?


Mr. Paproski:: Agreed.


EXPORTS-RAW RESOURCES-SEMI PROCESSED AND MANUFACTURED GOODS
Mr. Rynard: For each year 1970-77, what was the total amount of exports for (a) raw resources (b) semi-processed goods (c) manufactured goods to (i) the United States (ii) the United Kingdom (iii) West Germany (iv) France (v) the Peoples Republic of China (vi) the U.S.S.R. (vii) Sweden (viii) Japan?
Return tabled.


STARRED QUESTION
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 610?
[ Text]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PROGRAM-FOREIGN VISITORS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs set up an exercise known as "Programme for Foreign Visitors"?
2.	Are funds available for foreigners touring Canada as "opinion formers"?
3.	How many of such "opinion formers" have toured Canada under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs, and what was the total cost in each of the past four years?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:

February 20, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
1.	Yes. The Department of External Affairs has as part of its external information activities a program to encourage visits to Canada by selected foreign journalists, broadcasters and other "opinion formers" and to assist others in these categories visiting Canada on their own initiative. The program is designed to encourage a greater knowledge of Canada abroad and better understanding of Canadian attitudes and policies affecting our relations with other countries.
2.	Yes. Where desirable, the Department of External Affairs meets the cost of travel to and from and within Canada of foreign journalists and other "opinion formers" selected on the recommendation of Canadian missions abroad. The financial assistance available to each visitor is limited by Treasury Board regulations. The funds are drawn from those available for information and cultural relations under the "Canadian interests abroad program" provided for in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
3.	The number of sponsored "opinion formers" who have visited Canada under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs and the costs involved in each of the past four fiscal years are:
	Number of Sponsored Visitors	Total Cost *
1974-75	278	*215,218.081975-76	284	$256,090.261976-77	203	*268,488.941977-78	234	*246,587.83


Yvon Pinard: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When a member places a question on the order paper with the expectation of receiving an answer from the government, he also expects the answer to be in accordance with the facts. It creates difficulty for an hon. member who has raised specific questions about government activity in his riding to receive an answer to such a question on the order paper that is totally contradicted by the minister who supplied the answer in the first place.
On December 4, 1978, I placed question No. 679 on the order paper asking the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) the following:
Is the government planning expansion of the RCMP Highway Detachment Building located at Steinbach, Highway No. 12 and, if so (a) what is the capital spending (b) on what date will construction (i) begin (ii) be completed?
I received an answer to that question on January 30, 1979, which appears in Hansard at page 2700. The answer the Solicitor General gave was very succinct. It consisted of the one word "No". I think everyone in this House would interpret

that answer as meaning only one thing, namely, that the construction about which I inquired was not taking place.
I asked the question in view of the fact I had spoken with a number of officials in the RCMP detachment office as well as at headquarters in Winnipeg who indicated to me that in fact this construction was to take place. After having received that negative answer on January 30, 1979, an answer signed, as nearly as I can make out the signature, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young), I received a letter signed by the Solicitor General dated February 13, 1979. This letter from the Solicitor General totally contradicted the answer I had received as recorded in Hansard. The letter dated February 13, 1979, and addressed to myself reads:
Reference is made to your letter dated 1978-12-21 and to the interim reply dated 1979-01-09 from my Ministry Assistant, concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Detachment at Steinbach, Manitoba.
I am informed by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that interior renovations as well as a new parking lot at the rear of the building, with access from the Town's back lane, are indeed programmed for the fiscal year 1980/81. The estimated cost for the project is not expected to exceed the $180,000 figure as you mentioned.
As you are aware, however, projects such as these are evaluated on a force-wide basis yearly and should others be deemed of a higher priority in the competition for scarce resources, a delay in present plans could occur.
The letter is signed by the Solicitor General from whose department I received this negative answer.
After I received the negative answer and prior to receiving the letter from the Solicitor General, the local press contacted me as to the RCMP's plans for the RCMP detachment building located on highway No. 12. I supplied them with the question which I had placed on the order paper and also the answer. An article appeared in the local press which indicated that the Solicitor General's department had now decided that the plans were not to go forward. I accepted these answers as factual and in good faith. How else should I have interpreted the answers? Subsequently, one week later, from the same minister, from the same department, on the same question about the same detachment building, the minister gives me a reply which in fact had been confirmed by the RCMP in Winnipeg.
At the moment I can only place myself in your hands, Mr. Speaker. As an individual member, I do not know what other recourse I have. When an answer is given, then totally denied, and in fact an opposite answer given by the Solicitor General, what response can I possibly make to my constituents? This matter came to my attention last night, and I am placing myself in your hands, Mr. Speaker. If there is in fact a prima facie case, I will look at it and advise as to whether I will proceed with it.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I fully sympathize with the hon. member on the point that he is making. I have looked at the question which he has on the order paper and, indeed, it is a very normal and very short question that he poses. I do not have with me the written inquiry which he directed to my attention and to which he has
February 20, 1979

received a reply. Therefore, I am not in a position to advise the hon. member whether there is an inconsistency in the reply which he received to his question on the order paper.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I told you there was.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is the hon. member's interpretation. I would like to look at the two documents and provide the hon. member with a reply. Of course, I would insist that there has not been any intention to provide wrongful information. If there is a difference in the two documents it might be because of the time when the two replies were made. However, Mr. Speaker,
I would want to have some time to review the matter and then to deal with it fully. In view of the fact that it has been raised in the House, I will be replying and making the corrections which will be compellable before this House.


MR. HNATYSHYN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS NOS. 207 AND 208
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to raise a point of order at this point. Up to this date, I have not complained about the particular questions which were placed on the order paper during the first week of this particular session. I believe now that it is most appropriate for me to stand up and in a most serious way address my remarks to the parliamentary secretary and ask him if he will now pay attention to two particular questions and at the earliest possible date obtain the answers to them.
These questions are very important in terms of government expenditures and the use by members of the cabinet of publicly paid and publicly financed equipment belonging to the government. The questions are also important in terms of whether or not certain equipment belonging to the people of Canada and the government has been used for political activities. I refer specifically, for the parliamentary secretary's benefit, to questions Nos. 207 and 208 which stand in my name.
One question asks whether the Liberal Party of Canada has paid for the use of any government aircraft in the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, in connection with the by-elections held on October 16, 1978, and, if so, what is the amount for each trip. I know that this information is available from the Department of Transport and that it can very easily be ascertained.
The second question asks whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or members of the cabinet during the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, made use of government aircraft and, if so, what was the total cost and what was the destination on each occasion. Again, a simple request of factual information which is on the records of the Department of Transport and which is easily obtained.
I think that it is in the interest of the government to have this information brought forward immediately. If there had been a simple answer, that the aircraft had not been used during the course of the political campaign, I would expect that it would be very simple to write a nil reply. I have to draw the conclusion that equipment was used during the course of
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
this political campaign by government members, who have an advantage in terms of political activity in this country, having available to them JetStars and government aircraft of various descriptions to bring them to various constituencies in the course of an election campaign.
It is very important that the record be made clear and that the government not hide this matter until this parliament is dissolved, unless it wants to be accused of keeping this matter under confidential cover-up. If they are hiding information which the people of Canada are entitled to see they will know what kind of morality exists in this particular government. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the member believes that Canadians take him seriously when he says he wants to act in the interest of the government. I am also convinced that he is serious when he says that his questions are important. However, there are about 700 questions on the order paper and all members believe that their questions are important, Mr. Speaker. If you would allow me, I would say that on February 14, less than six days ago, the official statistics were as follows. Answers had been provided to 434 of 1,137 questions, which means an average of 37.2 per cent. Therefore, this is a satisfactory average compared with other averages at this time of a session during recent years. I am asking the hon. member to be patient. He has been well looked after by parliament in the past and we will continue to do so. He knows quite well that the government has never attempted to hide anything to members opposite, especially when the information is available.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am very interested in the parliamentary secretary's reply, because as a former minister of transport I know how these accounts are kept. These accounts are kept on a daily basis in the Department of Transport. If an aircraft is used by anybody, the hours and the expenditures for salaries, fuel and so on are kept on a daily basis and can be obtained very rapidly and very easily.
There is absolutely no excuse for holding up an answer of this kind longer than one week at the outside. I know what I am talking about because I was in this job for three and a half years, and we answered many questions of this kind. Those questions should have been answered a long time ago, and it will be a disgrace on this government if they are not answered immediately. There is absolutely no excuse for not giving out information which is available today.


MR. ORLIKOW-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: On the same question, Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) urge the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to

February 20, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Orlikow
have patience. I was interested because I have heard that same excuse so many times.
I should like to direct the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the order paper. On October 14, I set down a series of about 50 questions beginning with No. 85, asking for information about the names of the chief executive officers, the presidents and vice-presidents of a large number of Crown corporations and their salaries. Not only did I put those questions on the order paper on the first day of this session, but they were on for most of last session, and if my memory serves me correctly they may even have been on the order paper of the session before.
I know it has not been customary in the past to give information about salaries paid to senior officials of Crown corporations. If the government holds the view that it is not in the public interest to give out such information, then it seems to me they ought to say so and not leave questions on the order paper.
I was interested in an article which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail and which reported-and I think correctly- that the head of the Bank of Canada receives a salary of around $100,000 per year. I am not saying I think that is too high or too low, but I do not see why that kind of information should not be made available to the people of Canada. That is why I put the questions on the order paper. They are not difficult to answer, and it seems to me that I should have had the answers long ago. If the government does not want to answer the questions, surely they could say so in the regular way and then I could pursue the questions in committee or in some other way.
When the parliamentary secretary urges members to be patient, I think he should be honest when he gives that kind of advice. I do not think he is when he says that, in light of my experience and the failure of the government to answer questions which have been on the order paper this session and last session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is not suggesting that the parliamentary secretary is being dishonest. He made a rather clear charge that he thinks the hon. parliamentary secretary should be honest and he does not think he is being honest. I want to be very careful that he is not accusing him of dishonesty before we go on.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. What 1 probably should have said was that I was not certain of his sincerity.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: In his
remarks the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) told us how it was done in his time. Mr. Speaker, I will check to see whether things have changed after 16 years at the Department of Transport. I will also consider the representations made by the hon. member of the NDP and ask those who

are responsible for research in the various departments and agencies to try and expedite the procedures involved so that complete answers can be given in better time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-42, to provide the means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, with this bill, the government is once again trying to intrude into provincial affairs. Clause 15 states the following:
The board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into arrangements with provincial authorities for the regulation and pricing by such provincial authorities of the supplies of electric power-
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that electric power comes within provincial jurisdiction. I am certain that every provincial government in Canada can recognize the problem caused by conservation. For this reason and others that I will mention later on, we of the Social Credit Party of Canada must oppose passage of this bill, which once again shows us the lack of sincerity of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who introduced it.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the great oil resources of Canada and when we see the situation which has forced the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to introduce such a bill, we may first want to laugh, but in view of the circumstances, it is normal to feel some anger, which I believe is justified. We know that in 1974 the government introduced a bill somewhat similar to this one, and it must once again introduce a bill which is quite close to the one passed in 1974. This bill clearly shows just what the Canadian government can do to protect the rights of the Canadian citizens from a multinational company, and I would like to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately, I was unable in the past to put a question on the order paper asking how much in back taxes
February 20, 1979

this multinational company or Exxon subsidiary owes the federal government.
When the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) asked how many companies were owing tax money to the federal government and how much they were indeed owing, it can be assumed that this company was certainly among the 2,400 which owe a total of $298 million to the federal government. And this is one of the reasons why we cannot support this bill.
Unfortunately, oil that had originally been intended for Quebec and the maritime provinces is being diverted by that same multinational. We know that this company redistributes oil to its Canadian parent company through Imperial Oil and that this company diverts crude oil that should normally go to Quebec and the maritime provinces.
Bill C-42 is merely a response to a situation which could be escalating and is intended in the short run to redistribute equitably the black gold of our country. In the long run we will have to find alternatives to this crisis, energetic alternatives especially to counteract soaring oil prices. Since 1973, the costs of oil supplies have kept soaring. At the same time, the profits of multinational oil corporations have increased considerably. Not only do car drivers have to foot the bill for this but so has our whole economy. The spiralling rise of oil prices is partly responsible for the current economic recession. Western countries must pay more and more for this black gold, which does not contribute to their economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, Canada must consider itself lucky to possess such enormous oil reserves. Our situation is not as serious as that of European countries, but it could certainly be better than it is now. The means of distribution are very complex, especially in eastern Canada where Quebec for instance must import 40 per cent of its oil consumption while the maritime provinces have no access to western Canadian oil, which means that oil supplies to Quebec and especially the Atlantic provinces largely depend on the decisions of multinational corporations, and the recent events have demonstrated that the Canadian government could not do much in this area. Yet the Canadian government has an instrument, namely Petro-Canada or PetroCan, which could get directly from Venezuela the oil delivered to us by Esso. I think it is the government's duty to act as soon as possible through PetroCan.
Mr. Speaker, when introducing this bill the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources specified that it is designed to meet a situation which could become urgent. Even though he admits that Canada has to face a difficult period and has very serious problems, the federal energy minister said at a press conference that there is little likelihood of rationing this year. Mr. Speaker, when I explained earlier why we are against the bill, that is one of the reasons. Last weekend in my riding I heard many people express their disagreement with that legislation. They are very reluctant to a return of the 1939-45 wartime stamps rationing system. They were fed up with that situation then and do not want it in 1979, 1980 or 1985. As the
Energy Supplies
minister says, perhaps not this year but it means that in coming years we will undoubtedly have to go back to rationing which would force us to use coupons to get the basic things people need. We hear nowadays that a car is no longer a necessity; those same people have the right, particularly when we consider our wealth of petroleum products, to use the petroleum without being subject to rationing.
The minister is trying to tell us that there is little risk of rationing for this year. At least that is what he said. However, certain facts contradict what the minister said. Indeed some home heating oil distributors have already been rationed, even before the Iranian oil fields were closed. According to Mr. Raymond Martinbeau, Montreal area president of the Independent Oil Distributers Association, the large refineries in eastern Montreal and St. Romuald that belong to the large multinational oil corporations have rationed the supply of these small distributors by 40 per cent. The problem is not only an economic issue but it also seriously affects people buying oil from those small distributors. At a meeting with the association, Mr. Martinbeau depicted a situation which has been very serious for quite some time when he said, and I quote:
-the shortfall could be here within a week. A little later, users of refined oil for furnaces would then be hit.
Mr. Speaker, when people like Mr. Martinbeau tell us things like that, I agree with one of my colleagues who said yesterday that when this bill is considered in committee we should have the power to question all witnesses to understand the situation in which we find ourselves. I think it would be in the interest of the government to investigate the actions of multinationals which have been rationing the distribution of oil for a while. I am not convinced there is any direct link between that situation and the crisis in Iran.
Mr. Speaker, we should remember the tumult that there would soon be an oil crisis. There still are enormous oil reserves, both in Canada and abroad. I agree that inflation and the geophysical features of some fields sent exploration costs on a spiral. We should however ask ourselves whether the exploration cost increase since 1973 justifies the unreasonable increase in oil prices. Mr Speaker, the price paid for oil by the public and our industries is much too high in my view, and the enormous profits made by oil multinational corporations make us wonder. The government should not only ensure that there is fair distribution of oil, it should also exercise some control over oil companies that are caught up by the oil fever.
Mr. Speaker, I for one remember the time when we had here some years ago in this House an hon. member who had won the respect of almost every member here. That hon. member for Temiscamingue, as I recall for having read his speeches in Hansard and having heard him, warned this same government to take care not to give those multinational corpo-

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
rations everything they wished in the form of subsidies because some day they would come here and control the government.
And if that member ever had a chance to come back to this House, I am sure he would rise today and tell you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members how right he was to warn the government to beware of those companies which have always tried to dominate and rule our country. I think we may realize the seriousness of the remarks of the hon. member for Temis-camingue, Mr. Real Caouette, when we see this government forced to introduce Bill C-42.
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand we agree with the minister when he says that the government should continue to encourage people to use energy wisely by avoiding waste to the maximum extent. 1 agree. I have here a letter from a company which has a branch in my Villeneuve riding, a manufacturer of windows, doors and storm doors which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find a product that would save energy. We can appreciate the lack of seriousness of ministers and government members when a study was made by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the request of that company to establish the quality of their windows. For a 71 by 39%-inch window the heat loss is 0.18 per foot of opening. For a 60 by 36-inch window the heat loss is 0.16 per foot of opening. Given a 69 by 79-inch patio door, the heat loss reaches 0.19.
We all believed in the honesty of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and that of the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Allmand). The president of that company wrote a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the office of the minister sent us a copy. I quote the letter of the minister:
The office of Mr. Allmand sent us a copy of a letter you wrote to the minister on January 10, 1979 and a copy of your letter to Mr. Remi Guerin, an engineer with the Quebec Housing Corporation, also on January 10.
The minister read your letter and asked me to send a copy of it to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to inform them of the products you sell on the market-
And again, as I said earlier, this company used, not government subsidies but its savings, to invest almost $400,000 to demonstrate that it was ready to co-operate with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to reduce the demand for energy. Again I quote from the same letter:
-to inform them of the products you sell on the market, and which might promote our energy conservation policy in the housing, field.
Sincerely yours,
Marcel C. Vienneau,
Executive Assistant.
Following this, Mr. Speaker, the company sent me a letter which stated, I quote:
Concerning your recent letter regarding windows, we wish to inform you of a letter received from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

This letter clearly states that the idea is to heat outside air rather than conserve energy inside, so why such waste by adding insulation in the walls and the ceilings.
Furthermore, we enclose an article published in "Quebec Construction" mentioning the creation of Crown corporation to develop new energy sources. The budget at its disposal might exceed $10 million.
We are wondering whether instead of spending taxpayers' money to develop new energy it would not be better to carry out research to find away of ventilating or purifying stale air a house whose windows are of a superior quality and therefore reduce the loss of energy.
By analysing these two facts whose end results are contradictory in nature, we can only conclude that we (private enterprise) have spent money uselessly to come up with a window of superior quality because our air infiltration tests show a .18 maximum factor and a framing with a durability of five times and more over a wood window.
Mr. Speaker, these are not the people who carried out the tests, as I said earlier, the tests were made by so-called experts of the department of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We believe that it is time we stop contradicting ourselves and find short-term solutions to conserve energy in our buildings and therefore save money for the consumers.
Mr. Speaker, these people are investing thousands of dollars; we only need to refer to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was saying some time ago in his budget speech when he announced that the 5 per cent tax on doors and doubledoors would be re-instated. I think that doors and double-doors do not provide insulation and I also think that not only the minister but also the people of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who approved this decision because they just realized it.
But on the other side we have a minister in "economic format" who gives subsidies to companies which make triple pane windows while the minister responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation said the following in a letter addressed to the head of Feneres arctiques Inc., following the correspondence they exchanged with the minister, and I quote:
We acknowledge receipt of a copy of the letter you sent to Mr. Remi Guerin of the QHC concerning the quality of windows installed in QHC and CMHC projects.
Although the window made by J. B. Charron i .tee has very reduced air leaks per foot, our government, through the National Research Council (NRC), thought it is not the best way to save energy.
They recognize the fact that the window can save a considerable amount of energy, Mr. Speaker, but because, according to the National Research Council of Canada, that window does not let enough air in and, as I said ealier, cannot warm up the air outside, it is not regarded as a good window.
Again I quote:
In a recent document entitled "Measures to save energy in new NRC buildings", the emphasis is placed on the reduction of the total window surface in relation with the total floor surface (the maximum permitted being 15 per cent) and on the installation of triple pane windows in areas where the number of degree-days is over 11,700.
February 20, 1979

They do not agree, Mr. Speaker, to say that windows are not insulation, but we are prepared to give subsidies to those companies which make such windows. I do not understand at all the attitude of the department which is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I further quote:
In that document, it is recognized that a maximum 0.50 p.c.m. rate of air infiltration per foot can be tolerated, because it is generally admitted that any house requires a minimum of xh air change every hour for the needs of ventilation (replacement of air) and relative humidity control (condensation). If all the windows were perfectly airtight it would no doubt be necessary to ensure this ventilation by mechanical means, probably less effective from a performance standpoint, as well as cost effectiveness.
I trust those few comments will be of use to you.
Yours truly,
Jacques Soucy, P.Eng.,
Support Centre,
Quebec Regional Office Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the bill before us, the minister says we must above all save energy; so why is it that the same minister or his colleagues are not in favour of trying out those windows, manufactured here in Canada, so that we might at least find out if they really can help conserve energy efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, of course we of the opposition are rather at a disadvantage, as I said before, to prevent passage of this bill; yet I should like to express a wish. Since 1974, when I was elected to this House, we have passed many bills; but after they are adopted and have been given assent by the Senate, civil servants come along with regulations. So, the wish I express on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada is that the minister, after this bill is passed and before applying regulations, should come back before a standing committee to give us a chance to look into the possibilities, to the best of our ability, of ensuring that this bill is welcomed by the people.
Mr. Speaker, in closing may I say that I trust the minister will understand my message, and that those companies will invest, not through government subsidies but by saving their well earned pennies, huge sums of money in an effort to save energy as the minister would have us do today.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) explained the provisions of the bill before us and described the international circumstances which made it necessary for the government to proceed with precautionary measures to assure energy security.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) claimed that the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Energy Supplies
Resources had failed to recognize the seriousness of the energy situation. As I listened to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I was struck by how unjustified that charge against the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was, because very early in the game the minister acknowledged in the House of Commons the serious situation which prevailed as a result of the cessation of production in Iran. In fact, the minister was acknowledging, as a result of inquiries by hon. members on the government side, that this situation posed a serious threat before the matter became a subject of lively questioning on the part of members of the official opposition.
If the hon. member will take a look at Hansard, he will understand that it was some two weeks after the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) raised the question that he himself began to realize that the matter indeed was one which required attention.
I want to tell the hon. member that I listened to him very carefully last night, and while he led us through a tortuous, so-called historical description of events in Mexico, Iran and whatever oil-producing country he could conjure up. there was very little in the way of content or policy pronouncements in his speech. There was no effort on his part to tell us what the policy of his party is except to denounce the major policy instrument which is available to the Government of Canada in these circumstances, namely, Petro-Canada. 1 would like to return to that subject later on in my comments.
I would like to respond more seriously to the concerns which have been raised by members from Atlantic Canada with respect to energy security in that part of the country. In providing the reassurance to the people of those four provinces that the government is conscious of their needs, I would like to lay to rest some of the incorrect assertions which have been made by hon. members opposite and particularly to draw [DOT] attention to some of the unjustified scare tactics which have been used; for example, the allegation that people will be freezing in the dark next winter because of the negligence of the Government of Canada.
I regard that allegation as no contribution in what is a serious situation. Nowhere in Canada were the implications of the 1973 energy crisis more clear than in Atlantic Canada. As the supply crisis developed into a price crisis, the Government of Canada took immediate action to protect the oil-importing provinces from massive increases in offshore oil prices. In his historical review the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham made no reference to that imaginative oil import compensation program which was set up to subsidize eastern consumers through tax revenues collected from western exports. Since January, 1974 a total of-I was going to say a total of approximately $1.9 billion, but almost $2 billion has been transferred in subsidies in favour of the consumers of Atlantic Canada. These compensation payments have allowed the necessary time for adaptation to higher costs. Equally important, they have helped to protect the Atlantic provinces from becoming unattractive from the point of view of industrial development.
Of course, the oil import compensation program provided relief from a crisis situation, and it still provides relief, but in

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
itself it could not hold out hope for a brighter energy future for Atlantic Canada. As I recall very clearly, the government moved at that time along two fronts to build our energy potential. One was in the field of conservation and the other the development of alternate energy sources, both new and traditional.
Conservation has taken several forms. Agreements were signed with the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island dealing with home insulation and industrial conservation. These programs became the model for the Canadian home insulation program. In all, over $100 million was committed between 1975 and 1978 to Atlantic conservation programs.
Energy development has also been a high priority for the Government of Canada. Yesterday, the day on which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham gave the minister the rounds of the kitchen, the minister tabled a memorandum of understanding with the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island concerning the establishment of the Maritime Energy Corporation. The new corporation will be charged with rationalizing and developing electric power transmission in the three provinces. The Maritime Energy Corporation will also serve as the sponsor of the development of Fundy tidal power and of nuclear power at Le Preau. For tidal power, $33 million has been committed to a preinvestment design project. Strange, therefore, that a memorandum of understanding should be tabled by a minister who has been accused of not being alert to the energy requirements of Canada.
Now I should like to turn my attention to Newfoundland. The Government of Canada has also engaged in important new co-operation with the government of Newfoundland by establishing the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. The development of this energy source will involve investment in the order of billions of dollars and will constitute a major new source of electric power.
From a Nova Scotia perspective, coal is also assuming a new importance in electricity generation. Exploration financed by the Government of Canada has indicated major new reserves that offer the prospect of an expanded thermal coal production by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and increased power generation.
Before I turn to the role of Petro-Canada in Atlantic Canada's energy picture, let me just add renewable energy resources to the list of the government's energy initiatives. As part of the national program of $380 million, the Atlantic provinces are sharing in funds for solar, wood, wind and recycled waste energy.
May I turn now to Petro-Canada. I invite the next hon. member to speak on the other side to justify the opposition of his party to Petro-Canada in light of the important activities that that corporation is undertaking in the interests of the energy situation in Atlantic Canada. It is just over three years since our national oil company was born. In those years,

Petro-Canada has grown from virtually nothing to to rank now among the major companies of the Canadian petroleum industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of the remarkable futures of this robust enterprise is the way in which it has spread its spending and activity from western Canada across to the Atlantic and north to the Arctic islands.
Atlantic Canada has benefited from the activities of this company and stands to gain more in the future. Why is the official opposition attempting to destroy this corporation which is opening new opportunities in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me illustrate, for the benefit of members of the House, Petro-Canada's activities to increase the domestic petroleum supply, to substitute domestic gas for imported oil, and to provide greater security for our remaining oil imports.
As hon. members know, the Scotia shelf has been the scene of petroleum exploration activity for well over a decade now. There have been disappointing dry holes, but there have also been promising oil and gas discoveries, particularly in the Sable Island area. Unfortunately, none of them yet have proven commercial.
When Petro-Canada was created, exploration activity was slackening off, largely as a result of disappointment at the inability to prove commercial viability of the existing finds. However, the injection of fresh exploration funds by Petro-Canada, in association with established explorationists, has contributed to maintaining a level of exploration activity off the Scotia shelf for the past two years. I think it is true to say that, without Petro-Canada's participation, there would have been very little activity in our Atlantic offshore area in 1977 and 1978. That is a clear benefit to the province of Nova Scotia, to the Atlantic provinces and to Canada itself as a result of the activities of Petro-Canada.
Further north, Petro-Canada has helped to bring in a significant natural gas discovery, the Hopedale find off Hamilton Inlet last summer. This, the fourth major discovery on the Labrador shelf, was the result of an imaginative collaboration by Petro-Canada and a private industry partner. While much work remains to be done before this discovery can be properly assessed, and even more time and effort will have to be spent before gas can be brought ashore, it is clear that Petro-Canada is making a significant contribution to the development of what many geologists consider one of our most promising frontier areas.
As we have said, the development of indigenous energy sources is one of the major elements in our national energy strategy. The second is the substitution, wherever possible, of indigenous energy for imported energies. In this regard Petro-Canada's contribution in the Atlantic area as one of the initiators of the Q and M pipeline project is intended to bring
February 20, 1979

western Canadian gas eastward to serve Quebec and to penetrate into the maritimes. As I said, Petro-Canada is one of the initiators of this potential project of real benefit to Canada. If realized, we hope it will substitute Canadian sources of energy for expensive, imported sources of energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This bold project, if successful, could displace substantial volumes of imported oil and could as well provide a base for the utilization of Arctic islands gas in the Atlantic area and Quebec. This project will come before the National Energy Board for public hearing and decision later this year. So I ask hon. members opposite: Do they not think that this particular initiative taken by Petro-Canada is not of considerable interest and potential benefit to the Atlantic area?
While on the subject of natural gas, and not wanting to confine myself to the activities of Petro-Canada in Atlantic Canada, I must mention Petro-Canada's Arctic pilot project, a $1.5 billion scheme to bring natural gas from the eastern Arctic islands by tanker in liquefield form. While the terminal for discharge of this gas will not necessarily be in Atlantic Canada, it could obviously bring important benefits to the region in terms of gas supply and the sourcing of equipment.
Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Petro-Canada is right now negotiating with Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, contractual arrangements to give effect to the intergovernmental understanding reached last month which provides for the supply to Canada of 100,000 barrels a day of secure Mexican oil in the 1980s. I was rather surprised last night to hear the hon. member for Nor-thumberland-Durham give the impression that it was somewhat shameful for Petro-Canada to be engaging in these international activities, that it was somewhat immoral, that is was a matter which should be left to the multinational corporations. We believe that this is a legitimate role for a national petroleum company which is operating in the public interest and in the interest of the people of Canada.
I am aware of the concern of residents of the Atlantic provinces, of consumers in Atlantic Canada and of provincial governments in Atlantic Canada about the region's heavy dependence on oil and about the fact that this oil is currently imported from potentially insecure foreign sources. I have just drawn attention to efforts being made by Petro-Canada to discover and develop the region's own petroleum resource potential, to substitute domestic gas for imported oil and to assure a higher degree of security for those imports which remain. Nevertheless, it is understandable that people in Atlantic Canada should look west and wonder whether and how they will be able to source at least a portion of their oil needs from discovered and developing resources in our own west.
I would appreciate some additional analysis from members of the official opposition as a follow-up to the rather plaintive
Energy Supplies
cry uttered by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) on February 16 in this House when he asked the minister:
I want to ask the minister how it is possible, in a country that has enough oil to meet the needs of all its citizens, that the government did not put in place long ago... distribution systems that would get out oil to the maritimes, which we ought to be able to do.
I took that formulation to heart, and I want to deal with it, I hope constructively. It brings me to the question of establishing a pipeline connection from western Canada to the Atlantic area. The government-as the minister pointed out very clearly yesterday-has made a start in this direction by providing financial guarantees for the extension of the Interprovincial Pipe Line system from Sarnia to Montreal, an extension which was completed in 1976 and which is today flowing more than 300,000 barrels of oil a day into the Montreal area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the Sarnia extension. This extension east from Sarnia is by itself significant for Atlantic Canada. By reducing eastern Canada's total dependence on imported oil from about 800,000 barrels a day in 1973 to some 500,000 barrels a day now, the supply security of the whole area has been improved.
Of course, hon. members will say that the pipeline still terminates at Montreal. The idea has been put forward of extending the pipeline to Quebec city and there providing facilities for tanker loading to supply Atlantic refineries. As well, the idea has been canvassed of reversing one of the lines of pipe in the Portland-Montreal pipeline system with a view to flowing western Canadian oil via Portland, Maine, to Atlantic refineries.
Both these schemes, which are touching upon the question raised by the hon. member for Don Valley-if they did not touch on that they could not have touched on anything real- may have some merit. I understand from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that a joint study of the partial reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline is to be embarked upon by the federal government, the affected provincial governments and the pipeline company.
Of course, any study of "Oil East" will require careful evaluation of the potential for the western Canadian petroleum resource base to support an additional eastward flow at least long enough to allow for depreciation of any new facilities which might be put in.
As well, the question of costs and cost differentials will require examination. The federal government is already spending a great deal of money on oil import compensation and on subsidizing the pipeline tariff differential between Toronto and Montreal. We will want to find out whether "Oil East" is likely to involve additional subsidies. As well, alternative means of better securing the Atlantic provinces' oil supply, including the use of strategic petroleum storage and the substitution away from oil to indigenous energy forms, will need to be looked into.
In response to the question raised by the hon. member for Don Valley, I really want to point out that these are important

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
questions that are currently receiving urgent attention from the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Before concluding on that point I think I am justified in saying that my exposition or recitation of all the activities in the field of energy under the leadership of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it seems to me, is a clear rebuttal to the very unjustified charges made against him by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I just want to say a word or two about the Tories and PetroCan. It mystifies me why they are opposing this national petroleum corporation. PetroCan is presently a major instrument for ensuring secure energy supplies for this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a major instrument for ensuring secure energy supplies for this country. I repeated the sentence in the hope that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham would repeat his retort, namely, "Nonsense". I believe that is the kind of attitude that will be very harmful to him and his party when they go into Atlantic Canada seeking votes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is clear evidence to all of us that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) wants to abolish PetroCan, allegedly because it is a threat to free enterprise. He is mistaken. It is not a matter of free enterprise, not a matter of public enterprise versus private enterprise; it is not socialism versus free enterprise. It is Canadian interests versus international interests; and it is Canadian enterprise versus multinational corporations.
Petro-Canada has a central role to play in exploration and supply. To abolish it would be to place our faith, as the Tories apparently do, in the multinational companies. It would also be to exclude Canada from major international activities in the oil field.
It was interesting to me that the eloquence of the words of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham had hardly escaped from his lips when I picked up today's Globe and Mail report on business and read that the government of Newfoundland has committed ideological deviationism because it has not gone along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his efforts to dismantle Petro-Canada. In fact, the Globe and Mail tells us that Petro-Canada, the federal energy corporation, has become a major partner in the Eastcan group of France and will take over as the operator of the consortium's offshore exploration program in 1980, according to Newfoundland energy minister Brian Peckford. The report goes on to say:

Petro-Canada will assume full control of offshore drilling in 1980, a turn of events the minister views as "a major decision in shaping the future development of our offshore resources."
When the government of Newfoundland decided to associate Petro-Canada with offshore exploration so vital to that province, they viewed it as a major decision in shaping the future development of our offshore resources. In our view, the decision to create Petro-Canada was a major decision in shaping the future development of the petroleum and energy interests of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word about the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I always try to pay a little attention to his comments. Last night they were somewhat amusing. Certainly they were amusing to me as one who laboured manfully during the period of minority government, to which period in our history the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby made reference last night. I quote him as follows:
When the minister waves the flag about Petro-Canada I recall some private conversations in that period when the Liberal government of the day was by no means enthusiastic about Petro-Canada, the two-price system or the pipeline.
In fairness, the hon. member referred to those three elements-Petro-Canada, the two-price system and the pipeline-as the cornerstones of the evolving energy policy for Canada; I gave him credit for recognizing that reality. But it is the next sentence I found difficult to accept. He went on to say:
In order to survive a crucial vote at Christmas, 1973, and to protect their hides they accepted all three items which were almost literally forced down their throats-
Then, with an innocent rhetorical flourish the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby turned to another subject by saying: "But that is history." Well, of course, it is not history. The hon. member was obviously hallucinating last night when he attempted to ascribe the evolution of these major energy policies to a repentance before a vote in 1973. All I say is that my memory of these things does not coincide with that of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is smiling. I hope he is smiling in approval of my history and not of the bad history given us by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I reject outright the suggestion that these policies were forced upon us because we were afraid to lose a vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will have a little talk about that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I reject that assertion and I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will agree with me upon reflection. We both realize these were major policies embarked upon at that time by the Government of Canada and that we are continuing to add to the energy potential and the energy security of this country by bringing before the House the measure in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who will be proven right with respect to the
February 20, 1979

events of five or six years ago in that minority parliament, but let me remind hon. members that from where I sat there was a serious question of exactly who was in bed with whom at that time. One way or another it does not matter, but there is no question that two parties were in bed together.
Just a word to the minister. I would love to see him when he appears some Saturday night trying to shove that crap down somebody's throat, because that is nonsense and he knows it. Nobody is arguing against what Petro-Canada has done. However, a reasonable position to take in this country is that private enterprise could do it, and do it just as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: The socialists over here would nationalize everything at once to acquire the wealth so that it could be redistributed. The socialists over there are just a bit chicken; they cannot quite get themselves out of the socialist bed into which they crawled eight or ten years ago and get back into the mainstream of society. They cannot be electorally honest with themselves.
There was a classic example this afternoon. Of course, the NDP shoved Petro-Canada down the throat of the government. They did not want it. In those days, years ago, there were good Liberals in this country who believed there was a role for the private sector in matters of such great national significance as this. Nobody questions what Petro-Canada is doing. It always amuses me when government takes credit for things other people do. Nobody is arguing against the need to get on with things. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not a Crown corporation can do it better. I do not happen to believe it can. The corporation might, at the time, have been convenient as a vehicle into which to pump the hundreds of millions of dollars needed into some of these projects. This was necessary and it continues to be necessary, but it is not a question, as government spokesmen would have us believe, of the official opposition arguing against the need to improve the security of our oil supplies, to develop new resources or to preserve and develop our existing resources.
The minister is right again-he is always right, or at least half right-when he says there is not really an oil crisis at this point. The crisis with which we are faced is a management crisis. I need not remind the minister, to take him all the way back to General Eisenhower, of General Eisenhower's role in the dilemma in which we find ourselves. When he cut off our quota system, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) embarked on an oil policy which was a very sensible one at the time. It met this country's needs and met them well. It made sense. The beneficial effects of developing and securing a western petroleum base have been clearly demonstrated, and for the minister to suggest otherwise is nonsense. The crisis is one of management, not of supply, though we may well find an oil supply crisis on our hands.
Nobody believes this government and nobody can believe them. They told us that there were no problems, not only with
Energy Supplies
regard to oil but with regard to a variety of issues, only to find in subsequent days and months that in fact there is a crisis. The recent oil problem is just an example, albeit a classical one.
The compensation program, which the government House leader had to come and straighten out, of course is needed; nobody is arguing or finding any fault with that proposition. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert knew and others in intervening years knew that we would have to do something to correct the absence of security of oil resources for eastern Canada. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to attract and develop an industrial base in Atlantic Canada. It is no wonder that people are confused and frustrated with the policies of the government, which on the one hand does something that seems positive, but on the other hand is cutting the very legs out from under the policy with which the right hand is concerned.
Something of which the minister has to be continuously reminded is that there are large industrial users of energy in Atlantic Canada. On the one hand we have DREE doing everything that it can to develop the Atlantic economy, but on the other hand we have high energy costs. For example, 3.9 million kilowatt hours per month costs a Nova Scotian industry $139,104. In Quebec City the cost is $66,000, and in Ontario generally it costs $76,000. In Manitoba the cost is $71,000, Saskatchewan $61,000, Alberta $75,000, B.C. $58,000, Newfoundland $99,000, New Brunswick $101,000, and in Nova Scotia it costs $140,000. How in the hell can we develop an industrial base if we do not have cheap, accessible, secure energy?
This government says that it is doing everything. Of course, it is doing a lot of things, but why were they not doing those things after eastern Canada had been hit over the head with a sledgehammer in 1973 and 1974? No area in Canada felt the brunt of that Israeli-Arab conflict to the extent that we did in Atlantic Canada. Within months basic prices had quadrupled. God only knows what they are today, but oil landing at Dartmouth is now costing approximately $17.50 per barrel.
Just so hon. members will be aware why we are concerned, and why we do not like to be told everything is well only to learn in fact that everything is not well, I will explain. Householders in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for this month-one of the coldest months in Canadian history-will pay over $60 for 1,000 kilowatt hours. In Halifax they will pay $48.20, in Fredericton they will pay $41.14 and in Montreal the cost will be $26.35. In other cities such as St. Catharines the cost is $28.95, in Brandon it is $31, in Saskatoon it is $28, in Calgary it is $25 and in Victoria the cost is $34.
I wonder what those figures mean to the minister? Of course, he is concerned. I know that he is concerned because he had to get the Cape Breton giant to speak to easterners because nobody else believes him. The crisis is in management. Why was the minister not putting in place the remedies for this situation six years ago? There is Petro-Canada but, good God, we have only heard of it in the last 72 hours. It has been

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
out spending the taxpayers' money, and probably some of it needed to be spent.


Harvie Andre: I can do that too.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) can do it too. So can the private sector and probably a lot more efficiently.


An hon. Member:: Give me a blank cheque and I will do anything.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, give anybody a blank cheque and they will probably do a good job. Our concern is the security of oil today.


An hon. Member:: You are way off.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not way off; you are wrong. Nothing which can be said to the people of eastern Canada will convince them that the minister is right. That is where the crisis is. I am not trying to exacerbate things. Why could the minister not get Gerry Regan, Dick Hatfield and Alex Campbell to agree to the formation of a maritime energy corporation three or four years ago? Why did the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) not tell us a story then? We needed it three or four years ago, not because there is a crisis now. When the President of the Privy Council was questioned in the House the other day in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), he simply sat there. I am hard-pressed to describe any Cape Bretoner as looking stunned, but to tell the honest to goodness truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that he knew what was going on. I think he thought there was something serious happening, but it was obvious that the President of Privy Council had not been advised or briefed. Is that or is that not serious? These are our concerns.
What assurances do we have that on April 1, at the end of this first quarter, there will be the same amount of oil at the Dartmouth refinery and other refineries which are involved as there was one year ago in April, 1978? We heard a lot of rhetoric from the minister last night and from the President of Privy Council this afternoon. Neither has unequivocally stated that there will be the same amount of oil at the Montreal and Dartmouth refineries and all the other refineries of Imperial Oil on April 1, 1979 as there was on April 1, 1978. That is what is concerning people. We hear about all the great things which Petro-Canada can do, will do and is doing, but nobody has told us that we will have that oil for sure.
The storage capacity is running down, and late spring and summer months is the time when they rebuild for the next year. Will the oil be there in April, May and June to fill those tanks?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Not if
Exxon keeps cutting down and diverting the oil from you.


J. Michael Forrestall: The one other question that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the question of price. Spot oil in western

European markets yesterday afternoon at four o'clock was bouncing between $21 and $24. Can we in Atlantic Canada anticipate that that is what we will have to pay for a barrel of oil? We are paying $17.50 today, but by how much will it go up by the first day of September, for example? Does the minister have any information in that regard? What will Mexico do if the Middle East drives its prices up? I say once again, in Charlottetown people are paying $60 for 1,000 kilowatt hours and in Halifax they are paying $48. Our industrial users are paying $140,000 for 3.9 million kilowatt hours. How can we develop an industrial base when our costs for energy are so far out of whack with the rest of the country? No matter how much the oil compensatory arrangements make up, the fact of the matter is that 1,000 kilowatts is costing $60 in P.E.I. What is the government going to do about it? How high will they allow the price to go?
I am a little surprised at the position the President of the Privy Council must have found himself in this afternoon of having to come into this chamber and speak to Atlantic Canada for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Obviously, he believes the minister will not be believed in that part of the country and feels it is incumbent upon himself to speak. I hope he will see fit to answer one or two questions, particularly with regard to the conflict with DREE, the conflict the government finds itself in with respect to this development of an industrial base, and what the anticipated price of crude landed at Dartmouth or Montreal refineries will be for September and the end of this year. I hope he can give an assurance, with some appearance of truth, with respect to the supply that will be available to us for the rest of the year. Those are the questions that concern us.
As the minister said, the bill before us is similar to one that was introduced before. We are prepared to move it quickly to committee so that it can be examined with the fairness it requires and the government can impose some form of monitoring or other control in case of a shortage in order to ensure equitable distribution. I look forward to dealing with the matter in committee. Perhaps someone from the government side will speak later-apart from this sham of Petro-Canada- and tell the people of eastern Canada how much oil there is, how much it is going to cost and whether we are going to get it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) seeking the floor?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Is the hon. member closing the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, I did not say that. I asked the hon. member if he was seeking the floor to participate in the debate so that there will not be any question as to who has the floor at eight o'clock when the House is reconvened.
February 20, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson)- Penitentiaries-Optimum number of persons to be housed in institutions; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-Statistics Canada-Voluntary responses to Stats-Can surveys.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
]English]
Is it agreed that order No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: that Bill C-210, to establish the Canadian Solar Energy Institute, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I allow the House to begin consideration of Bill C-210, I hope hon. members will allow me a few comments.
The Chair is again faced with the decision of allowing or not consideration of a private member's bill that has been published on the order paper and has passed first reading, along with a group of some 250 private members' public bills, at the beginning of this session on October 30. I find it difficult to take some of the time that could be made available for the discussion of such a bill for a procedural debate. Hon. members are aware that at the beginning of every session the Chair is in the position of having to authorize such first readings without having had a chance to pass judgment on the procedural acceptability of this group of bills, but at the same time it informs the House that it reserves the right, before consideration at second reading stage, to declare any such bill out of order due to irregularities or infringement of the rules or practices of the House.
Solar Energy
Because Bill C-210 was expected to come up for consideration at any time during the last few weeks, I have had an opportunity to examine it thoroughly in relation to our Standing Orders and practices, as I indicated I would at the conclusion of my comments on Bill C-204 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on November 9, 1978.
I might inform hon. members that I have in front of me pages of precedents that I could use to declare this bill procedurally unacceptable. On the other hand, I accept the fact that hon. members might have other views on the matter and might want to express a different opinion based on different precedents. I feel that hon. members would have difficulty convincing me that this bill does not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. On the other hand, before making such a decision, I would normally invite hon. members to express their opinion. This would bring about a long procedural debate which would use up most of the time available for consideration of private members' business today.
To save time, I plan to put some remarks on the record suggesting to the House such changes in our Standing Orders to provide for a set period of time that could be made available, probably between the hours of six and eight-the ideal hours when we can do everything we cannot do during the day-such time to be made available outside private members' hour, to permit such procedural debates without reducing in any way the time available for consideration of private members' business.
Coming back to Bill C-210, I must point out to the House that clause 3(2) of the bill provides for the appointment by the governor in council of five persons who, together with others who may become members, shall constitute the Canadian Solar Energy Institute. The Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay, therefore, because the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these members, the bill clearly involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue.
Might I also underline the fact that when a similar bill was presented by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) in 1977, it provided that members of the institute would serve without remuneration, but that condition does not appear in the bill now before us. This does not mean that I approve of such provision included in a bill for the sole purpose of bypassing the Standing Orders or the BNA Act which require a recommendation from the Crown for the appropriation of public revenue. But the fact that this condition is left out this time makes us question it.
I also have some questions as to the financial implication of clause 4 of Bill C-210 which is meant to set the objects of the institute, which are to facilitate the production of solar energy equipment, to sponsor, encourage and promote research, and to prepare, compile, publish and distribute information. I find it difficult to believe that these objectives could be achieved without some substantial expenditures, at least for an initial undetermined period, or until sufficient sources of revenue are developed. Of course, this could only be of indirect conse-

February 20, 1979
Solar Energy
quence to the public purse and it could be corrected through the voting of a subsidy or a grant through estimates.
It is my view that, in accordance with Standing Order 62(2), such a bill should be accompanied by a recommendation from the Crown on introduction, particularly if I base myself on recent years' practices in the Canadian House of Commons which have given rise to strict interpretation of this rule. Technically, this bill is not properly before the House, but since a similar bill did pass this House in an earlier session and even reached the other place, I am inclined to allow debate on it at this stage, reserving the right to oppose its progress at another stage, while at the same time protecting the position of the Chair in such matters in the future.
Therefore, I will put the question to the House at this time with all these considerations.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the Chair for permitting this bill to proceed. I would also like to assure Your Honour that, after carefully studying your remarks, full attention will be given to them and the necessary adjustment in consultation with all parties concerned hopefully will be made at the committee stage.
Members of this House may recall the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-309, respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy. It was passed by this House in April, 1977. In the Senate, Bill C-309 received approval at second reading as well as an extensive hearing before the committee on banking, trade and commerce before it died on the order paper in October, 1977, at the end of the session. I would like to thank the senators, particularly the members of the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce, for their advice on improving the technical aspects of this bill. I would also like to thank the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the Senate, Mr. Ray du Plessis, for his assistance in redrafting the bill and enabling me to bring forward an improved version to the House today. It is entitled "An act to establish the Canadian Solar Energy Institute".
Before moving on to discuss this bill, I would also like to congratulate the government, and in particular the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), for the practical programs he announced in Toronto in July 1978 to develop the potential of solar energy and produce energy from forest products and municipal waste. As part of this program of some $380 million to span the next five years the minister launched the program of assistance to solar energy manufacturers. He also launched a program relating to the purchase and use of solar heating which will provide contracts worth a total of $125 million to buy Canadian-made solar space and water heating equipment for new federal buildings; and a program having to do with low energy building design awards. In addition, federal funding worth $114 million was set aside to share costs with the provinces and the private sector for demonstration projects in renewable energy and conservation. These programs to develop solar energy have encouraged the interest and participation of a large number of Canadians.

Recent developments on the energy scene domestically and internationally make it all the more important for us to step up our efforts at turning to renewable sources of energy, and solar energy is one of them. This is the focus of Bill C-210, which addresses itself to the creation of a Canadian solar energy institute. The institute is needed. It would help to achieve the national solar energy objective for Canada as outlined this month in the report entitled "Energy Futures for Canadians" prepared for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which report proposed the following objective:
-supply at least five per cent of primary energy from renewables (other than hydro) by 2000, and 10 per cent by 2025-the equivalent of about 400,000 barrels of oil a day in the year 2000, and one million barrels a day by 2025.
The institute would help achieve this target, perhaps well in advance of the dates suggested in the report. How would this be achieved? The institute would direct and co-ordinate efforts related to the development of solar energy. At the federal level we have the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. As well we have the National Research Council leading in the research and development of solar technology, the demonstration of prototype solar systems, assistance to Canadian solar equipment manufacturers for industrial product development, and the development of tests and standards for solar equipment. In addition, the National Research Council provides general and technical information on solar energy.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a major role to play in the development of a strong Canadian solar energy equipment industry. As part of its efforts to provide information and assistance to solar manufacturers this year, the department is planning a trade mission to help establish industrial co-operation between Canadian firms and their counterparts in Germany and France. The Department of Public Works is administering the program of assistance to solar energy manufacturers, and the program covering the purchase and use of solar heating equipment.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is administering the low energy building design awards. It is also supposed to set mortgage policy with regard to the use of solar systems. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology looks at solar energy from the point of view of science policy and industrial development. Agriculture Canada is sponsoring a study to find out the suitability of solar heating to dry grain in the prairie provinces and heat livestock barns, machinery sheds and greenhouses. These separate efforts are commendable. They are also the main reason why an institute is needed.
The role of the Canadian solar energy institute would be to bring these efforts together. It would be accountable to one minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The institute would establish priorities and policies. It would provide the leadership and co-ordination needed to avoid duplication of effort. The various research, development and assistance programs now in existence would continue to go on in the departments, agencies and private organizations where they are best performed. If at a later date it was decided that solar development would better be handled by means of a Crown
February 20, 1979

corporation, the institute and its directors would form the nucleus of expertise.
The institute would consist of directors, half of whom would represent federal departments and agencies involved in solar systems and half would represent groups and associations with an interest in solar energy, such as the Canadian Solar Industries' Association, the Solar Energy Society of Canada, builders, engineers, architects, planners, interested unions, consumers, etc.
Some of the specific tasks the institute would perform are as follows:
(a)	to facilite the production by Canadian manufacturers of solar energy equipment and parts by examining, testing and studying proposed products and assisting in the development of prototypes suitable for manufacture.
This would be done in co-operation with the Canadian Solar Energy Association, the National Research Council, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(b)	to sponsor, encourage and promote continuing research in Canada in respect of the application and use of solar energy and to further the development in Canada of solar energy technology.
Here the institute would co-operate with the National Research Council, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, the Canadian Solar Industries' Association and other interested groups.
(c)	to prepare, compile, publish and distribute information relating to the application and use of solar energy.
This could be done in co-operation with the National Research Council, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and private organizations such as the Solar Energy Society of Canada, the Biomass Research Institute and the Brace Research Institute of Montreal.
It is important to remember that some of this work is already being undertaken in some of the solar programs as well as by private agencies. But the time has come to focus these efforts and set national goals for solar energy development and application in areas such as manufacturing and construction, accommodating both passive solar designs and active solar systems, research, and development of incentives for consumers.
The institute, given the means, could also assist the provinces in the development of important provincial policies such as legislation to define rights to light, changes in the assessment acts so as to provide an incentive, or remove the disincentive for the homeowner who wishes to incorporate passive solar design features or an active solar system in a new or existing. house. Most, if not all, of the provinces are now engaged in studying rights to light legislation. Many, including Alberta, are reviewing the question of tax assessment as it relates to solar equipped buildings and the Quebec government has even proposed the establishment of a solar Crown corporation, "La Societe nationale des Energies Nouvelles", in a white paper tabled on June 20, 1978.
Solar Energy
The institute, in addition, could consult with consumer groups and the Canadian Solar Industries' Association and review regularly the industrial standards now being established by the National Research Council and the Canadian Standards Association. Preliminary standards for solar collectors and a standard procedure for their evaluation are expected to be announced this spring.
In another area, the institute could explore the development of solar technology suitable for use in developing countries in consultation with the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what we have accomplished so far in Canada is a good start. Now we need the instrument to enable us to move another step ahead. A Canadian solar energy institute is the means whereby we can get the fullest utilization from an energy option that is clear and environmentally sound, develop a new Canadian industry which will create many new jobs for Canadians and, if possible, reach the potential predicted for the year 2000 before the turn of the century.
We have a lot to gain. By supplying at least 5 per cent of our primary energy from renewables, other than hydro, in the year 2000 and 10 per cent by the year 2025 as proposed in the report "Energy Futures for Canadians", our estimated savings would be about 400,000 barrels of oil a day in the year 2000, worth $2.5 billion by today's prices, and one million barrels a day by 2025, worth up to $5 billion a year.
Another estimate comes from the National Research Council, to the effect that we could save close to $1.2 to $1.4 billion a year in the cost of imported oil if renewable energy provides 4 per cent to 5 per cent of our primary energy needs by the year 2000. Whichever of these two estimates is closest to the truth, their magnitude alone suggests they must command attention.
Of course, these potential savings have to be weighed against the capital investments needed to achieve them, but reducing our dependence on imported oil, it seems to me, would make this investment all the more desirable for this and future generations of Canadians.
The need for a Canadian solar energy institute is even greater now than it was two years ago when hon. members discussed and approved Bill C-309. I understand that the government is favourably inclined to allow this bill to receive second reading approval today and be sent to committee for study. I invite the views of interested members and hope that remarks will be kept within the allotted hour so as to permit passage of this bill.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in your remarks at the opening of the debate. I had attempted to put forward a private member's bill establishing a similar association or institute to deal with getting government involved in setting up standards for solar energy equipment. I believe this is a very important area that has to be moved into with great speed. There is a requirement that government be involved with legislation in order that compa-
3426

February 20, 1979
Solar Energy
nies preparing solar equipment can get ready for tax incentives that we are prepared to offer them when we become the government.
My bill was ruled out of order because an expenditure of money would have been required. Even though I was as devious as I could be, it was still ruled out of order. I realize the problem you would have had in allowing the bill to go forward.
I commend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for being successful at something at which I failed. I see in one area of the bill that with this institute we could in fact set up a standards association and provide the kind of directives that are necessary in the solar field. Companies could then provide the standards to consumers who want to purchase solar equipment. The consumers would know they were getting something they could depend on, something that would give them service for 15 to 20 years.
At the outset I want to go through the three recommendations in the bill one by one and give some of my thoughts on them. Clause 4(a) of the bill reads:
-to facilitate the production by Canadian manufacturers of solar energy equipment and parts by examining, testing and studying proposed products and assisting in the development of prototypes suitable for manufacture;-
That is a good clause. I again emphasize that within that clause we can fit an area whereby standards can be established and legislation brought forward. These standards could be established once the Canadian Standards Association and the Ontario Research foundation come up with suggested standards. I hope that will be done this spring because it is very essential. It reminds me of a quote from Halacy:
The makers and installers of solar equipment are a weird and wonderful lot, ranging from giants like General Electric and Honeywell through geniuses with no capital to backlot entrepreneurs who will sell a homeowner two 3' by 6' panels to heat his home through a Maine winter.
He is trying to say it is very important that standards be established and that they be established quickly. It is essential that members of parliament and the government be involved in this matter because there are many questions to be answered. If we do not get involved in attempting to answer these questions, the bureaucracy may argue for some length of time and we will never get to actually having this put in place and convincing consumers that it is a good buy.
Who will be responsible for testing? I believe it is essential that the government be responsible for that and that it set up a facility capable of testing solar panels and solar equipment year-round, because I foresee that there will be great interest in manufacturing these items. I believe there are about 100 firms in Canada which are capable of manufacturing solar equipment, and they all want their equipment tested. I think now that would be impossible during the winter season, and therefore it is essential that there be a facility capable of testing this equipment all year round.
Once a particular unit has been approved and a stamp of approval applied to it, then if that unit is slightly changed or

improved, we will have to decide whether it must go through the testing procedure again so that it can be recommended again. We will have to see that standards are not too rigid and that they do not discourage companies from bringing their products forward, but we will also have to see that the standards are not too flexible so as to allow certain manufacturers to get approval for solar equipment which will not stand up.
I think the government should move quickly to set up regulations and to invite people who are now working in this field to make recommendations so that we can get on with testing products, so that stamps of approval will be on them when incentives are provided and so that more consumers will be aware of solar energy. The part of the bill dealing with this is for the most part good, and I think we can improve it in such a way that I could support it.
In clause 4(b) the hon. member for Davenport suggests that this institute sponsor, encourage, and promote continuing research in Canada in respect of the application and use of solar energy, and further the development in Canada of solar energy technology. That is very important, particularly when we consider the record of this government with regard to making announcements supposedly to help people involved with renewable energy and solar energy.
On July 4 the minister stated that he would make available $125 million between 1979 and 1984 under a program called PUSH. That program is designed to assist in the purchase and use of solar energy. This was an attempt by the government to help manufacturers by supplying extra dollars for purchasing equipment to put into federal buildings so that there would be a solar presence in those buildings. That is a good program which has much potential. Spreading $125 million over five years suggests that $25 million should be made available every year, but already there is a memo circulating in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources stating that the $25 million allotted this year should be reduced to $1.5 million. The announcement to which I referred earlier was made almost three quarters of a year ago, but the program is not really off to any start at all because rather than $25 million being put forward it looks as though only $1.5 million will be put forward.
If there are some problems, I think the public should be made aware that it is impossible to start with the program this year. However, every indication should be made that in the following four years this money will be allocated and that solar equipment manufacturers will be assisted. This program could also be of assistance with regard to testing and the establishment of standards, because a certain amount of risk would otherwise be taken by the consumer. This program could be of benefit to the consumer, however, because once these products are tested consumers would be willing to use this technology in their facilities.
Another program called the Program of Assistance to Solar Energy Manufacturers, PASEM for short, has been announced. It seems to be off to a good start. I looked in the supplementary estimates and found that $600,000 has already
February 20, 1979

been allocated for this program. Initially it was envisaged that about 25 grants of $10,000 each would be awarded to firms so that they could prepare solar equipment design proposals. After that the idea was that the government would make ten contributions of $200,000 to $300,000 each. Initially I had some reservations about this program, and I believe I still do.
The choices for grants have been very good. They have been applied across the whole field of renewable energy, and many grants have been made to small business firms which are the ones which I think have shown the most initiative in this area. I know large companies are getting involved because they see a lucrative market, particularly in the United States. I commend this involvement, but I would also like to see small business involvement. The government should help with research, and after research is undertaken small business should be encouraged to become involved in providing technology to the market. It appears that we will have to watch very closely to see whether small businesses will be bought off by small grants and whether large grants will be going to large international firms so that they can continue the research.
There are already some problems. I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet) some weeks ago as to when application forms were made available for these grants. We learned that a few weeks before the application deadline the Department of Public Works changed the format. I believe the application form was about 70 pages long. Large companies employ people to handle such forms, but small businesses comprising one, two, or perhaps ten individuals would take some time to go through a 70-page application form to make the necessary changes. It seems to me that there is a push away from small business and that help is being given to larger businesses.
Compared with the United States, Canada has a long way to go in the research field. For the fiscal year 1980 the Americans have set aside some $500 million for work in solar energy research and development. This money is intended to support a wide variety of technologies aimed at harnessing the sun's rays. In past years grants have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. While we are now getting a slow start in this area, I think we will have to recognize that most research will be done in the United States, and that will increase our need to import technology. We are going to be behind.
The United States has recognized the importance of solar technology now, and not five years down the road. This government's policy seems to be geared to events five or ten years down the road. So far all this government has done has been to provide research grants to a number of industries. That is commendable, but in no way does it allow industry to begin manufacturing quality solar collectors now. In many states of the United States tax credits are allowed for that purpose. In California swimming pools cannot be built unless they are heated by solar energy.
President Carter is prepared to put in a solar installation tax incentive as part of his energy program. This legislation might
Solar Energy
well have passed the House in the United States by now. They have recognized that although at present these installations are slightly more expensive because of the price of natural gas, these prices are going up. It is essential to use renewable energy forms in houses today in order to cut back on our reliance on natural gas and oil. The United States is doing that by use of tax credits. I believe this to be very important. It forms part of the Progressive Conservative platform on renewable energy, and if tax credits were provided in this country they would be of great benefit.
I should now like to go on to clause 4(c) on preparing, compiling, publishing and distributing information. It is a very important clause in this bill. There is a tremendous amount of information available on renewable energy. I can remember complaining in a committee of the House of Commons that this information was not available to members of the public and that even I, as a member of parliament, did not have it. I was slightly amused when the following day boxes of material arrived at my office. I appreciated that, because it helped me to become more knowledgeable on renewable energy forms and it also proved to me that much information was available to the public. However, the problem I saw was that while there was a good deal of information, there was not one pamphlet regarding each area in which simple questions would be answered that a person considering the use of renewable energy forms in his home would ask, some basic questions as to how this energy form is set up, how much it would cost, what are its chances of failure, and other questions of that nature.
I found that in the United States there are a number of simple, basic pamphlets available to consumers of renewable energy, particularly in the solar area. They are small, five page pamphlets which contain answers to basic questions, and refer the person interested to a number of other booklets giving more detailed information. I think that is very necessary, and 1 believe that if this bill is passed an institute could be set up for the purpose of providing information, concerning renewable sources of energy, in simple pamphlet form. I suppose the government has attempted to do that through community conservation centres, but unfortunately they failed, in my opinion. A number of serious problems cropped up in the setting up of these community conservation centres.
I should like to make a few comments about the serious errors that were made in that area. First, an inadequate range of materials was provided to people at these centres. Many of those centres were understaffed and the people undertrained. All they had was a two-week training period. They were hired without any knowledge and given only a two-week training period, following which they were supposed to be able to give detailed technical information on renewable energy and conservation.
In many cases, the employees of the centres were not suitable for the job. They went about chastising other agencies which had the necessary information available, and they appeared at the doors of people who did not know what it was all about. In many cases the people hired were not suitable. We found also that there were breakdowns in financial

February 20, 1979
Solar Energy
administration. The centres were set up for a set period of time, but they ran out of money before that. Just when the people in the centres became knowledgeable in the subject, the funding ran out.
We should use as an example here the Franklin Institute in the United States where people knowledgeable in the subject of renewable sources of energy and conservation were established in cities across the country and told that free Zenith numbers would be provided for inquiries. Capable individuals were hired to staff these offices. Here in Canada a program in each province to educate people about the existence of such offices could be set up. People could be told where they can phone to obtain the necessary information, and if they wished more detailed information they would be told where suitable manufacturers are located and the quality of equipment available.
I spoke about three areas in the bill. I have no objection to seeing the bill go to committee. There are many questions which I should like to ask and some amendments I would like to see made. I recognize that the hon. member for Davenport is fully aware of the importance of renewable energy and I am prepared to fight side by side with him to see that this legislation goes ahead as quickly as possible.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my time is nearly up and I see your eagerness to interrupt me. We have a number of policy proposals which were announced on International Sun Day last May. They still stand as a way to break ground and get renewable energy moving in this country so as to provide heat for homes and businesses and reduce our reliance on oil and gas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for once more bringing before parliament this piece of legislation, Bill C-210, an act to establish the solar energy institute. As he has already said, it is very similar to legislation which was approved by the House previously. I hope that this time the House will pass it, that the committee will pass it, and the other place will pass it, and that this legislation will go onto the statute books. I do not want to talk it to death and therefore I shall make my comments very brief.
I will give the reasons why something along the line of what is proposed by the hon. member should be put into effect. First of all, we need to recognize in Canada just how serious is the energy situation. The hon. member for Davenport referred several times to the fact that solar energy would save so many hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil in the year 2000 and so many hundreds of thousands of barrels more by the year 2025. The fact of the matter is that by the year 2025, in terms of conventional oil, we might not have very much oil. Our own supplies will probably be exhausted in the mid-1990s.
The international authorities estimate that by the year 2000, or earlier, Saudi Arabia will be the only country in the world with oil to export, so that the fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal are being rapidly depleted. Unfortunately, we have become so used
to these crises that we have become hardened to them, and fail to recognize how serious this situation is. That means that all of our technology, our science and our forward planning should be devoted to looking at renewable sources of energy. Whether it is geothermal power, tidal power, utilization of forest waste, biomass or solar energy, all of them have a part to play, and we ought to be using our research and scientific facilities to look at these various options.
I am one of the persons who has said repeatedly over the years, from my very limited experience, that no one is going to find a cure-all for the energy crisis, that there is no one thing that will solve the problem. It will have to be a mix of renewable and non-renewable resources. That is why I feel we should not rush into spending billions of dollars putting up scores of nuclear plants, because if we spend too much on high cost facilities we shall feel obliged to stay in that area in order to get back our capital investment. There should be a mix enabling us to move into whatever areas prove most advantageous. All sources of energy, fossil fuels, nuclear power, solar power, will have to be used until we can work out a mix which will best suit our circumstances. Solar energy therefore has an important part to play. Setting up an institute, if that is the best way of doing it, could serve a useful purpose.
I recognize the reservations you have, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety of the bill from a procedural point of view. I would point out, however, that while the governor general in council might appoint the directors it is not mandatory that they should be paid; the directors could be persons willing to give their time free of charge as a public service. I would be one. Money would be needed, of course, but there is no reason why, under clause 7, revenues and donations could not be secured from individuals, companies and organizations having a stake in promoting the development of solar energy.
Canada has an opportunity to be in the forefront of this development. I have had a chance to see what is being done in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel, and the United States which is probably ahead of all other countries in this field. I hope the time will come when the government or, failing the government, some institute with general support, will bring together all the talent and expertise of the scientific community in order to develop a practical, inexpensive unit for harnessing solar energy.
I know that experiments are going on in some of the provinces. I know that Saskatchewan is experimenting with a house which is completely serviced by solar energy, and that a number of private firms are also experimenting in this field. What I am suggesting is work on a model which can be put into mass production. I submit there is a billion dollar industry waiting to be picked up. The developing countries which lack hydro power and fossil fuels are crying out for cheap, readily available and easily installed solar energy equipment, and the country which moves into this field will be moving into an area of enormous potential.

February 20, 1979

For these reasons I support the bill and hope it will receive the wholehearted approval of the House, the committee and the other place. I trust that the work of this institute, if it is set up with the co-operation of all sections of the Canadian people and of all levels of government, will make a useful contribution to what I believe can be part of the solution to the energy crisis which confronts not only Canada but every country in the world.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will say that I will be brief because there is not much time left and I would not want, like those in the government, to kill such an important bill by talking until six o'clock. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for having introduced Bill C-210, which aims at establishing an institute to study solar energy.
Mr. Speaker, I have often made recommendations and requests in this House to promote a much more extensive use of solar energy. As everyone knows, the sun is a marvellous celestial body which holds a lot of energy and sends us heat and light. I have often asked the House to pass legislation to implement Daylight Saving Time. Strangely enough, my colleagues opposite have always refused to study this question even though this procedure was used advantageously during the war, and more recently, the United States implemented Daylight Saving Time as an experiment and a study showed that this resulted in a 2.5 per cent savings on oil and electricity. Mr. Speaker, when we know that we now use an enormous amount of energy in all areas, we can see that 2.5 per cent can mean a lot of money, and if we had taken such an action, we would certainly have avoided the emergency bill now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I suggest that instead of confusing the population twice a year, in the spring and in the fall, when we have to set our watches back one hour, we should do like every other creature in the universe and take advantage of the sun, especially during the summer and also at this time of the year when the sun rises earlier. This would certainly save a lot of energy.
I conclude by saying that I hope the motion of the hon. member will be passed by this House and the Senate and that the government will finally decide to commission the necessary research in the field of solar energy.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for the determination and tenacity he has shown in the study of renewable sources of energy and for his imaginativeness in introducing this bill. I should also like to point out that we understood full well the reservations of the Chair on whether or not this bill is in order. Still, we are quite
Solar Energy
in favour of this bill being read the second time, while keeping in mind the reservations that have been expressed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just before calling it six o'clock I should like to draw attention to how courteous we on this side of the House are when it comes to private members' bills. I would hope hon. members on the other side will take note and allow some of our bills to go through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I think the point is well taken. We have seen a display of courtesy on the part of the whip on the other side, which 1 hope will continue even during the other debates in the House. Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As we are approaching six o'clock, by unanimous consent, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the Energy Supplies Emer-

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
gency Act, 1979. As most members who have been involved in the energy scene since 1973-74 know, this will be a new allocation bill to replace Bill C-236, which was in force from 1974 to 1976 and which set up the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. In the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works we have had many opportunities to call members of the Board to give testimony about the preparation of the energy allocation program. A great deal of work has been done but, due to the fact that the bill contained a sunset clause, it is no longer operative and so a new one had to be introduced. I do not think anyone would question the need for such a bill with the prospect of the loss of a substantial proportion of oil from Iran. I congratulate the minister for bringing in the bill.
In his speech last night the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) harangued the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) for not recognizing the seriousness of the energy situation in view of the political instability of Iran. During question period on February 15, he accused the minister of doing a flip-flop and so on. If we look at the chronology of events, however, and the questions put in the House during those days, we will see that several members on the government side put questions to the minister, who responded in some detail about the seriousness of the situation.
On February 5 the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale) asked the minister whether a rationing system was being considered as was reported to be the case in the United States, and whether Canada was prepared to cope with shortages of petroleum. The minister's reply appeared at page 2874 in Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious. It is by no means a panic situation at the present time, but it is serious. We may well be facing reductions in supply in the coming months. At the present time, the situation is still manageable.
The next day I put a question to the minister. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had just returned from his globegirdling trip, when he offered energy supplies to Japan and to Israel. I asked the minister if the National Energy Board had advised the Leader of the Opposition that supplies would be surplus in Canada. It was obvious that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was tripping around the world offering energy supplies to other countries, was not aware of any shortage in Canada. I think that goes for the knowledge of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham as well. He did not get around to asking many questions until February 8, some days after questions had been put by members on the government side.
In his speech last night the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham complained that nothing had been done in the years between 1974 and 1979. Of course that begs the question of what was done. If we start to talk about the things that were done through the particular government policy that seems to upset the official opposition, PetroCan, it becomes obvious that a great deal has been done. It has carried out exploration in the Arctic Islands, often in co-operation with private oil companies. It has used its leverage to get other companies in

the private sector involved in the High Arctic Islands where the chances of return on investment in the short run are not very great. PetroCan, in co-operation with AGTL, has proposed a pipeline company to bring natural gas to Quebec and the maritimes from the western provinces. When this line is constructed it will back out many millions of barrels of offshore petroleum.
Through the acquisition of Pacific Petroleums Ltd., our national company will be in a position to exploit and develop the oil and gas reserves of the country. As a result of activities in the High Arctic PetroCan has an application before the National Energy Board for gas liquefication and a tanker program that will bring gas from the PanArctic exploration activity in the High Arctic to east coast ports. A substantial part of the exploration off the east coast is also being carried out by PetroCan.
During the next election campaign, Mr. Speaker, I think a great many eastern members of the Conservative party will be very embarrassed by the official position of that party. Last night the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham asked what was being done about the great potential that exists off the east coast. He must have been amazed this morning to read an article on the front page of the Business Section of the Globe and Mail in which the minister of energy for Newfoundland, Brian Peckford, describes the important role of PetroCan. The article begins:
Petro-Canada, the federal energy corporation, has become a major partner in Eastcan Group of France and will take over as the operator of the consortium's offshore exploration program in 1980, according to Newfoundland Energy Minister Brian Peckford.
It is interesting that the Conservative minister of energy for Newfoundland is proudly proclaiming what PetroCan is going to do in the offshore areas of Labrador and Newfoundland. He went on to explain that $120 million will be spent over the next two years. This is one Conservative who does not ride with the federal branch of the party.
I think that most members of the Conservative caucus from eastern Canada are going to be embarrassed by the kind of opposition to Petro-Canada by their colleagues, especially those from Alberta. They know in eastern Canada, where so many activities are taking place relating to energy supply, whether we are talking about the Quebec and maritime pipeline or the gas liquefication program from the High Arctic Islands, or whether we are talking about exploration in the Arctic Islands or the east coast offshore drilling, that all these projects are taking place through the activities of Petro-Canada and with revenues generated from Pacific Petroleums so that demand on the federal taxpayer will be reduced to an absolute minimum.
If we look at the conservative policy on oil prices, it is a very interesting task to try to define exactly what that policy is. Perhaps it could be generally described as being whatever Bill Davis and Peter Lougheed want. For example, let us examine what happened at the first ministers' meeting in November and December where a price increase of $1 per barrel was
February 20,1979

sought. The federal government was able to delay that increase of $1 per barrel until next September. It had in mind the implications on the consumer price index of an earlier increase and what it would do to inflation in Canada. That is a very simple thing, if Bill and Peter are agreed. But what happens if they do not agree? Suppose the premier of Alberta says that he wants a higher price for oil, perhaps an extra dollar a barrel, and the premier of Ontario does not want to have that increase because he represents the consuming end of our country. What happens then? Then the Leader of the Opposition disappears, just like his bags did in Thailand. So it is difficult to define exactly what Tory policy is on price when several provincial premiers are involved.
Last night the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham asked what had been done between 1974 and 1979. After a lot of huffing and puffing during his speech, criticizing everything, he finally said that they would support the bill. That showed some wisdom on his part. It took him a long time to get around to it. But during the course of his remarks he asked what has been done between 1974 and 1979. I would like to touch on two or three things that have been done. In my opinion a great deal has been done during these critical years. For instance, I can think of the Syncrude project.
I have a clipping from a newspaper published last week which indicates that Syncrude has produced five million barrels of oil. This production is gradually building up to what it will be in the next year or so of 125,000 barrels of oil a day. Hon. members will recall that when that project was being considered by the House the NDP said the federal government should take over the Syncrude project, and that it should not get into bed with the multinationals. If you had sat in on the national resources and public works committee hearings, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard that something like $19 billion of the $25 billion net revenue from that Syncrude project will accrue to governments. I have forgotten the exact percentage of equity by the three governments involved, but it is something like 40 per cent or 50 per cent. In spite of that, 77 per cent of the net revenues for the Syncrude project go to the three levels of government involved. It backs out another 125,000 barrels of imported oil a day. But even more important than that and the $300 million worth of federal investment in it which is administered by Petro-Canada is the fact that this project came on stream and it is proving up the technology on a massive scale to meet the environmental standards of a modern plant of that size and to prove its efficiency.
The price tag of $2.2 billion, which seemed so much when the project was undertaken, is dwarfed today by the cost of such a plant which I understand will be closer to $4 billion in any new projects of this type.
If we look at Conservative policy on uranium and nuclear energy we see that two or three years ago the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was telling us that we should have a moratorium on uranium and nuclear exports. If we had followed that course of action we would have been in very tight straits today with uranium supplies, not only affecting custom-
Energy Supplies
ers in Canada but customers around the world. That policy would have meant that development of the mines at Elliot Lake would not have taken place as rapidly as they have. Instead the federal government moved rapidly to organize the most comprehensive safeguard system to be found any place in the world. This has ensured that our uranium, our technology, and our nuclear hardware are used for peaceful purposes.
If we look at communities today such as Elliot Lake, which is moving ahead by some 800 total new miners every year for the next six years, we see the kind of potential which that industry provides.
A few days ago I noticed a press report from Uranium Canada regarding the stockpile which was established in the 1965-1970 period. A large amount of this Canadian uranium has been loaned to Ontario Hydro to even out their demand for uranium supplies. And thus we see another policy of the federal government not only providing guarantees that Canadian uranium supplies will be available for at least 40 years in the future for every new reactor, but also that the stockpile of uranium will be available for utilities such as Ontario Hydro. This uranium can then be borrowed by the utility at a considerable saving to it, at the same time providing considerable profit to Uranium Canada Ltd. which administers this stockpile. I understand it is worth some $750 million today. I have now outlined some of the programs which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was unaware of last night when he was criticizing government policy.
Turning now to renewable energy, surely this must be an area of tremendous importance in the future. Last summer the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a program to develop our renewable energy resources and to ensure that we have the technology in our country to develop this industry as much as possible. This is hand in hand with the government's research and development on renewable energy resources. We see not only the government purchasing, but in areas of utilizing biomass and other technology with regard to solar heat for space heating, developing this program during the next five years with this $380 million program announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last July.
Look at the northern gas pipeline legislation which we passed very expeditiously a year ago. We worked many hours in that special committee. That committee has now been re-established to monitor the work of the agency. We see that Canada is meeting all of its commitments in this regard. We see some slippage in the United States program. Next week we will have Mr. McMillan of the Northwest Alaska Pipeline before the committee. We will be questioning him very closely as to the delays that are taking place. If in fact we are going to get delays of a year and a half such as he is suggesting in press reports, we should be calling on the United States to legislate their regulatory program so that this pipeline is not further delayed. When it comes on stream, economic benefits will accrue to Canada, as well as setting up the potential of

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
delivery of gas from the Beaufort Sea area in the next few years.
While the Leader of the Opposition was on his tour around the world making headlines at home, some of which he did not like very much, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was in Mexico working out a state-to-state agreement between Petro-Can and the Mexican oil company to purchase 100,000 barrels of oil a day. I understand that will start flowing later this year.
The minister indicated a great deal of progress has been made on this agreement. We have to look at that trip not only from the perspective of how good it was for Canada in view of the shortage of supplies we are going to have from Iran, but also in terms of trade. It was not a case of us buying their non-renewable resources but a case of us buying their nonrenewable resources and selling them manufactured goods in the form of a Candu reactor. This has got to be the kind of mature economic arrangement which Canada, as an industrialized nation, should be working toward.
We are selling manufactured goods for non-renewable resources. Obviously this is a good arrangement for us. At the same time we must look at this in the context of President Carter's visit there last week. He did not make a deal. It was not a very productive trip. Obviously the trip of our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources looks that much better because of the very good progress that was made.
This did not happen because of his one visit. We look back a few years to the joint ministerial meetings and visits to Mexico, and the visit by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), all working toward the day when this kind of an arrangement would be necessary for Canada. Obviously that agreement will be very beneficial to our country.
One of the reasons for setting up Petro-Canada was to be able to make these state-to-state trading arrangements. If we look down the pike 30 or 40 years, the equation for non-renewable resources like gas and oil will get tighter and tighter. As that occurs, the need and demand for a company like Petro-Can will be even greater.
Can anybody imagine a private utility meeting the energy needs of Ontario that are provided by Ontario Hydro? In the early days, setting up a dam and creating hydroelectric power was possible for many small companies to perform. However, as our non-renewable resources become more and more depleted, the need for a national energy petroleum corporation becomes that much greater.
Looking at some of the other important developments during the past four or five years, we see the Montreal oil pipeline of which the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham was not aware. I am told that during the last few weeks that pipeline has been putting through 340,000 barrels of oil a day, almost to its capacity. There are some blanks in the system in the United States portion of the line, so there has to be some rearrangement of supplies through the Chicago loop of that system. However, it is providing supplies to Montreal that we did not have in 1973 at the time of the oil embargo.

Instead of importing 800,000 barrels of oil a day as we would be doing without that pipeline, we are importing something like 500,000 barrels a day and drawing down our offshore oil to around 30 per cent. The Conservatives would say that this pipeline should only be done on a private enterprise basis. But because it is not a money-making venture it has had some considerable subsidy. At the same time, it reduces our dependency on offshore oil and becomes absolutely crucial during the period when we have shortages internationally.
We have a commitment to the International Energy Agency that was set up a few years ago to share our reserves with western user countries. We have to meet those commitments at a time of shortage of oil supplies, such as we are now facing with the cutting off of Iranian oil.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham suggested that agreement was never considered by the House of Commons. If he had been serving on the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works at that time, he would be aware of the very extended amount of study that went into that program. He would know how it worked in terms of the trigger mechanism. He would know of our responsibility with regard to reserves, the kind of commitment we have to other countries, and that they have to us if there are serious shortfalls.
The chairman of the board and chief executive officer of PetroCan, Mr. William Hopper, who has done an excellent job in Petro-Canada was the key representative of Canada at those meetings in Paris of the International Energy Agency. He did a good job for Canada, and even chaired some of the committees at those agency meetings.
We have a bill before us tonight that will put us in the position where the governor in council can declare an emergency, allocate oil, and impose rationing if necessary. The minister has indicated that this bill will probably not be necessary, but we will have it in place should the need arise. It will give us the powers necessary to meet emergencies and to fulfil our international responsibility. I hope we will pass this bill and move it into the committee where it can be given detailed study.
The government has taken a large number of important steps to meet the long-term energy needs of this country, to reduce demand, to increase the supply of gas, to identify our uranium supply and to upgrade the transportation system. 1 refer the house to the oil pipeline to Montreal and the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. Legislation is in place with regard to the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline, and things are moving ahead on that. This week there was the announcement of the agreement regarding the Maritime Energy Corporation. I remind the House of the new programs upon which Petro-Canada has embarked in the last year and a half.
I hope we will pass this bill quickly so that it can be studied in detail in the committee and so that it can take on the important responsibility which is waiting for it.
February 20, 1979


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as other speakers on this side of the House have indicated, we recognize the necessity for a bill of this kind at this time. It would be folly again to neglect or try to ignore the fact that our offshore supplies are insecure. It is amazing the number of times that lesson has been brought home to this government, but what has it done about security of supply for Canada? Since at least 1950 the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada-that is, small Canadian-owned companies, some not so small, and their association-has been making representations to this government and its predecessors indicating that Canada should become self-sufficient in oil and gas and that Canada should not rely on imported oil and gas. All these representations were to no avail, in spite of Middle East developments.
I suppose the best example of just how wrong this government can be is in the document entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada" published in July of 1973, in which the government stated:
To date, the security threat has not appeared serious enough to require arrangements to be made to supply the area east of the Ottawa Valley with western Canadian crude oil.
That gem of advice from the yahoos opposite who are supposed to be looking after our energy supplies was given three months before the OPEC embargo when there were shortages offshore. Having had the OPEC warning and the warning with regard to Iran's political upheaval, I hope we will not have to go through this exercise again and that this government will Finally pursue policies which will result in Canada's being self-sufficient, as we have indicated should have been done for a number of years.
When he does take this bill to the committee I expect that the minister will permit witnesses from the provinces, and amendments. Considering the frequency with which this government has been saying it wants to co-operate with the provinces, and considering that in 1974 and 1975 there were disputes between the federal government and the producing provinces, it is incredible to me that the minister would bring this bill forward without having consulted the producing provinces. There has been no consultation at all. One could be forgiven for thinking that the government might be deliberately trying to start another battle in anticipation of some shortterm political gain, without any concern for the long-term damage which might be done to the country.
During this debate a number of speakers opposite have raised the Petro-Canada question and, in the process, made many statements which are just plain untrue. I would like to deal with a few of those. The minister said that Petro-Canada has caused a considerable increase in exploration and development. The fact is that Petro-Canada has not drilled a single well for either gas or oil in Canada, and if the minister does not believe me, I suggest he check the Calgary newspapers of a couple of weeks ago. If he does, he will see the president of Petro-Canada quoted as admitting that Petro-Canada has yet to drill a single well.
What has Petro-Canada done? The minister said that Chairman Hua of mainland China wanted to deal with Petro-
Energy Supplies
Canada. What poppycock! Chairman Hua was quite prepared to deal with Coca-Cola, and if he is prepared to deal with Coca-Cola, I am sure he would be prepared to deal with PanCanadian, Home, Dome, Ranger, Anderson Exploration, or with a dozen other Canadian-owned oil companies which would be prepared to go to China next week to engage in exploration activities. The minister expects us to believe that Chairman Hua said, "Please bring us Petro-Canada; we don't care that it has not drilled anywhere in the world." Absurd!
Then the minister went on to say that without Petro-Canada we would not be negotiating with Norway. What I want to know is why we are negotiating with Norway. I thought our aim was to try to secure oil supplies for Canada. I did not know we were interested in Norway's security of supply. I thought we were interested in Canada's security of supply.


Mr. Gillespie:: You have the blinkers on.


Harvie Andre: Can somebody explain to me how drilling in the North Sea with Norway's state-owned oil company is going to bring about security of supply for Canada? I am afraid that one escapes me.
I would like to deal with the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) a little more seriously, because they were made seriously. I may disagree with the position taken by the New Democratic Party, but that party is much more honest in its position than the group opposite. Members of the New Democratic Party do not claim to be something and then do something else. The Leader of the New Democratic Party made a statement to the effect that we should welcome a state-owned oil company because every country in the world has one. Let us look at the situation. The four strongest economies in the world are those of the United States, Germany, Japan and Switzerland. Not one of those countries has a national oil company.


Alastair William Gillespie: Oh, really?


Harvie Andre: Let us look at the level just below that, at countries such as France, Belgium and the United Kingdom. None of those countries have significant oil companies.


An hon. Member:: What about BP?


Harvie Andre: BP has been mentioned. I will mention others. Fina of Belgium and Total and Aquitaine of France are not Crown corporations as we know them. They are corporations in which the state has a significant ownership position. I am sure hon. members would appreciate the difference. They are not agents of the state. They operate in the market place. The state happens to be a shareholder, and that is quite different. If the minister thinks there is no difference, then he must feel that CDC Oil and Gas is exactly the same as Petro-Canada. Does he believe that CDC Oil and Gas, of which the Government of Canada owns 50 per cent, is the same as Petro-Canada, or was he aware of this? Probably not.
3434

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
Is CDC Oil and Gas the same as Petro-Canada? Is it an agent of Her Majesty? No, it is not. I think the minister should do a little homework. When we talk about countries' having national or state-owned oil companies, we are talking about the Third World. I agree that most Third World countries have national oil companies, but if we are going to use international experience as a model, why do we not model ourselves after the winners? Why do we not model ourselves after Germany and Japan in terms of the way we handle our economy? Why do we model ourselves after Indonesia and Pertamina, its national oil company, which went out of business?
The second point raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party which deserves serious discussion is the suggestion that Petro-Canada should be the sole purchasing agent for crude oil purchased offshore for use in Canada. I do want to deal with that-I think it was a proposal of the Leader of the NDP, sincerely made, but it has serious dangers which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The first one is the argument about having all your eggs in one basket. It would be a serious mistake to have one, sole national oil buyer purchasing all of Canada's imported oil.
I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) shaking his head. I will remind him of the last time an agent of Her Majesty, this government, went purchasing oil for Canada. It was in 1974. The government purchased oil in Rotterdam at $45 a barrel, the highest price ever paid for oil, before or since. To boot, it was bad oil, it had such a high surphur content it had to be blended with better quality oil before you could burn it. You have to admit there exists at least a possibility that if we had a sole buyer buying for all of Canada, we could end up making that kind of a bad deal, not just for a boat load but for a whole year's supply, and we would end up paying for that. It makes a lot more sense to have five or ten purchasers purchasing off-shore oil for Canada, and they should be Canadian companies. Here I agree with the Leader of the NDP and probably with the government. I think Imperial Oil should be buying its off-shore oil directly and should not be going through a middle man, it should not being going through Exxon, because the corporate purposes of Exxon may not be synonymous with the best interests of Canada. On the other hand, if the purchasers are Canadian companies operating in Canada, we know they will be seeking to maximize their profits, we will understand their motivation, and we can design rules to accommodate them and get the best deal for the country.
The other criticism of having Petro-Canada as our sole oil purchasing agent for off-shore oil needs to be considered, and that is the damage that this could do to our flexibility in pursuing an independent foreign policy. I would ask the minister and the NDP rhetorically, through you, Mr. Speaker, how flexible we would be able to be in our Middle East foreign policy if Petro-Canada were the sole agent of Her Majesty dealing with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iran and the other states.


An hon. Member:: Very flexible.


Harvie Andre: Would we be able to bring in anti-Arab boycott legislation under those circumstances? What kind of pressure could be put on Canada? Would that not be a greater threat to our sovereignty than the current situation? I ask, without dwelling on it, could Petro-Canada have a Jewish president under those circumstances? The dangers of having Petro-Canada as the sole purchasing agent are simply too large for us to consider that possibility.
The minister alluded in his remarks to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. If he went back to look at the letters patent, the order in council creating the CCC by the Liberal government in 1946, he will see that that corporation was created explicitly, purposely, for government to government commercial deals, including areas like oil. This corporation has just moved into its nice, shiny glass house at 240 Sparks Street. If in fact it is necessary for Canada to have government to government deals, the CCC is there to sign the contract.
The President of the Privy Council, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), entered the debate, and again showed that he knows an awful lot more about the rules of the House than he knows about the oil business or any other business. For example, he spoke about all the great things Petro-Canada is doing on the east coast. He said that, for example, Petro-Canada is exploring off the coast of Nova Scotia. That is false, Mr. Speaker. Mobil Oil is exploring off the coast of Nova Scotia-Petro-Canada is giving Mobil Oil the cheques. We do not need a Crown corporation to do that. Even someone with the capabilities of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) could handle the task of just taking a cheque and handing it to a company.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that Petro-Canada is proposing the Q and M gas pipeline from the west to Halifax. Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. That line was proposed by Alberta Gas Trunk Line, not Petro-Canada. Alberta Gas Trunk Line did the work on it. I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be willing to go to Etobicoke and tell his constituents that if the Q and M pipeline is built, the government will probably have to increase their fuel bills by 5 per cent to 10 per cent to pay the pipeline tariff, because that is what will happen, and the minister knows it.
The statement was made that Petro-Canada is exploring in the Arctic islands. Wrong, Mr. Speaker. They are not exploring in the Arctic islands, PanArctic is exploring in the Arctic islands. PanArctic has been in existence for about a decade. The federal government owned a 45 per cent participation, and that again meant sending cheques. So now Petro-Canada picks up the cheque in Ottawa and delivers it to PanArctic. That is the extent of Petro-Canada's participation in drilling in the Arctic.
The minister also said that Petro-Canada is involved in bringing down natural gas from the Arctic islands. A magnificent project, he said; they are being real pioneers, he said. Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. It is the Alberta Gas Trunk Line and Dome Petroleum, two Canadian companies, that are doing

February 20, 1979

the work for that project. Petro-Canada is supplying cash. They are taking it out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and delivering it.
According to the Deputy Prime Minister, Petro-Canada was supposed to have found some gas off Labrador. I might say, parenthetically, that finding gas off Labrador is a boo-boo because everybody knows there is gas there. You go out there to look for oil-there is oil out there too. Finding gas off Labrador can be almost called a costly mistake. However, it was not Petro-Canada but Chevron Standard, a multinational of California, that dug that well. Petro-Canada supplied some of the cash but did not drill the well.
We have to put some of these things into perspective. To give you an example of the kind of distortion that goes on, let me say that last year Petro-Canada, when it issued its annual report, issued a press release which said that Petro-Canada had $88 million in net revenue. So the Canadian Press reporter dutifully reported that Petro-Canada had $88 million in net profit. That was a headline. I received the annual report and looked at it and found that $88 million was the gross proceeds, but when you took off things like wages, salaries and rent, trivial things like that, the income came down to $9 million. Then, when you paid taxes, it came down to $5 million. When you work that out as a return on the investment, it worked out to a return of 1.7 per cent. So the Government of Canada is borrowing money in Japan and elsewhere and paying 10 per cent for that money, which it is then investing in Petro-Canada in return for which it gets 1.7 per cent, and it is singing a hallelujah chorus about the great investment it is making. It is absurd, Mr. Speaker.
We have maintained a consistent position with regard to Petro-Canada, and indeed with regard to all Crown corporations, for a number of very good reasons. First, the government does not even know how many Crown corporations there are. There are over 400, but nobody ever there can tell you how many there are.
Second, the Auditor General indicated in his 1976 report that the financial management and control of Crown corporations are significantly below the minimum acceptable standards. We think that is a serious charge.
Third, we have observed, and I am sure the public has observed, the way ministers misuse Crown corporations. For example, when Atomic Energy of Canada Limited sold a reactor to Argentina, the predecessor of this minister, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, was out there on television saying what a magnificent Crown corporation this is, "We have done a super job, we have sold a reactor." Then when we found they had to pay under the counter kickbacks to a number of Swiss bank accounts, and that there was some hanky-panky involved, his successor could not be found. They said, "Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-nerver heard of it. Don't ask us." They take all the credit when they do something good, and they run and hide when they do something wrong. That is contrary to our view of what a government based on responsible ministers is supposed to do.
Energy Supplies
When we talk about political interference with Crown corporations we have to recall again the appointment of Bryce Mackasey to the chairmanship of Air Canada. What is to prevent this irresponsible government from reappointing Maurice Strong to the chairmanship of PetroCan or, worse still, Ron Basford, the latest departure from over there? What is to prevent the appointment of somebody else who knows nothing about the business? If you think that will not happen, then just look at what has happened. The man who loused up the Post Office is now going to have a go at the airline, at $95,000 a year.
This conflict between the political goals of a political government and the commercial goals of a commercial corporation is at the root of what is wrong with the way this government is using Crown corporations. There is a confusion of the goals. The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council has said, "Is it not marvellous that Petro-Canada is financing this operation for Nova Scotia?" It is, if they Find oil, but there has been a lot of exploration out there which has come up dry so far. No one has asked, for example, whether it would not be better to take that money now going into dry holes and use it for the development of new mines in Cape Breton, or for the improvement of the mines already there. That would bring on more coal and contribute to our energy self-sufficiency, and in the process would create jobs. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council has ever thought of these kinds of comparisons.
Any fool can dip into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that bottomless pit, take out money, give it to an oil company and say, "Build me a well." But it takes some wisdom to decide how best to spend the money to the maximum benefit of Canada. That is not something this government is doing.
Petro-Canada is the only oil company I know of, and there are 487 in my constituency, that has a Ph.D. in political science on staff. Imagine a political scientist in an oil company. Why is that? I suggest it is because its goals are political goals. Any other oil company, if it had that money, would hire a geologist, a geophysicist or a driller. Petro-Canada hires a political scientist. Is that what we want our money spent on?
Last fall when Petro-Canada took over Pacific Pete the minister said this would reduce the requirement on the public purse. "PetroCan will not need our money, it will get it from Pacific Pete." There was an indication in the blue book tabled yesterday that PetroCan is getting another $160 million out of your jeans and my jeans.
The minister also said that Petro-Canada was responsible for generating interest in heavy oils. When I was a graduate student 16 years ago people were exploring and doing research in respect of the production of heavy oils, long before PetroCan was ever dreamed up. The minister knows that the executive of Pacific Petroleum came to see him two years ago with a proposal to build a heavy oil upgrading plant in Hardisty, Alberta. Knowing that, how he can stand up in the House and say that PetroCan is the company that originated the interest in a heavy oil plant is beyond my comprehension.

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
If you want to know what is wrong with a national oil company let me refer you to this publication of the government of Canada called "An Energy Policy for Canada", Phase I, published in 1973. Beginning at page 189 and continuing for three pages there appear eight good reasons why a national oil company is not desirable. Obviously whoever wrote this was not successful in having it read by the ministry because the reasons are all there why a national oil company is not a good idea. Those in the ministry would not listen.
There is not time for me to go into all the details of our plan of action in respect of Crown corporations when we take over, but let me give you some idea of what will happen, by this little anecdote about the Alberta Gas Trunk Line. Alberta Gas Trunk Line is a company created in 1956 by the Alberta government for the purpose of gathering gas in the province for delivery at the borders to TransCanada Pipelines and other purchasers. It is a utility company, a monopoly.
Instead of creating a Crown corporation, which seemed natural and which the people opposite would have done, Ernest Manning, then premier, offered the shares of this company to the citizens of Alberta. In that way he created a privately owned corporation, the shares of which are widely held by Albertans. It is regulated by the Public Utilities Board. Instead of being struck with a Crown corporation, today we have the Alberta Gas Trunk Line, one of the most dynamic and active companies in the country doing a superb job in the energy industry. What a tragedy if Ernest Manning had the mentality of that lacklustre bunch over there and had left the Alberta Gas Trunk Line as a Crown corporation. Instead of a Crown corporation we have an active and widely held privately-owned Canadian company.
The people of Germany had the good sense in the post-war period to elect the conservative government of Adenauer, who in turn had the sense to appoint Ludwig Erhard as his financial minister. He proceeded to put together a number of state-owned companies, companies like Volkswagen, a name that is very well known now. In 1958-59 Mr. Erhard said that the state did not need to run these Crown corporations, but should sell the shares to the people of Germany, and that is what he did. He offered the shares to people in Germany earning salaries of under $3,800 at the time. This included the Volkswagen company and a company called Preussag mining and oil company of Germany. Instead of Volkswagen and Preussag being state-owned companies they are companies now owned privately by the people of Germany. The people purchased these shares offered to them by the finance minister.
Right across the North Sea in the United Kingdom the people had the misfortune or bad judgment to elect the socialist government of Clement Attlee which followed the opposite procedure of nationalizing companies. Whereas Erhard made them privately-owned, Mr. Attlee took them all over and nationalized them. Can anyone with any sense look at the record and note what has happened to companies like Volkswagen, one of the largest automobile companies in the world, as compared to the British motor companies which the U.K. government nationalized under a state-owned corpora-

tion, and still advocate state ownership as a solution? No, Mr. Speaker, we should follow the example of Ludwig Erhard with regard to the 400 Crown corporations the government has created. If there are lessons to be learned internationally we should learn from the winners, from Germany, Japan, Switzerland or the United States, none of which have state-owned oil companies. We ought not to be running around the world trying to learn lessons from Indonesia, Kuwait or Iran. Let us do what the winners have done, instead of following the path of the losers.
Let us do what Germany has done, not what the United Kingdom has done. Let us sell out these Crown corporations to Canadians, let us not go through the process of nationalizing more and more of the oil industry.
I should like to bring it to the notice of members over there that in the last five years a revolution has been going on in Calgary and in the oil industry generally. The percentage of companies owned by Canadians has been increasing at a significant rate. Today, the movers and shakers in the industry out there are largely in Canadian-owned companies. They were responsible for drilling 85 per cent of the exploration wells last year. There are myriad success stories out there involving Canadians who have become important actors in the oil and gas picture. This is the wrong time for the government to interfere with that process, using the heavy hand of Petro-Can, because finally, after years of neglect we have in place a tax scheme which allows Canadians a chance.
Wait five or ten years and the majority of the oil and gas industry will be owned by Canadians. Let ministers over there pay attention to policy not to details. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should get his act together and replace the regulations pertaining to northern land use which were withdrawn in 1970. Those regulations were withdrawn nearly nine years ago, yet so far nothing has been put in their place. Talk about incompetence. Ministers should concentrate on the responsibilities which fall within their bailiwicks and let individual Canadians who are operating in this business right now get on with it. They will find the oil and gas we need, and we shall have a secure and happy future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) finished his speech with a burst of eloquence. He felt the government, in developing an oil policy, should follow the winners, that they ought to avoid state-ownership. He believes they should follow the lead of the Seven Big Sisters who control the industry over a large part of the world, certainly in North America.
I want to ask him to give some thought to this: when you talk about winners, you should decide who they are. Take North America where the great oil monopolies have controlled the production, refining, and distribution of oil in Canada and in the United States. Today, the United States, which was
February 20, 1979

once self-sufficient in oil, imports about 16 million barrels a day, and Canada, which ten years ago was exporting 60 per cent of its oil and 65 per cent of its gas, is a net importer of oil. Britain, where the Labour government started by buying 40 per cent of British Petroleum-ownership has been stepped up to 60 per cent for which they get government control over the oil industry while at the same time benefiting from the company's expertise, its technology, its managerial skills and sales outlets-is today for the first time in its history a net exporter of oil.


Harvie Andre: And it was a Canadian oil company which first found oil in the North Sea.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So let us be
careful before embarking on these ideological discussions. On the eve of an election the Tory party is psychopathic on the subject of Petro-Canada. They are psychotic about the whole idea of public ownership. They have spent most of the time in the last few days pimping for the oil companies.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Harvie Andre: Imagine that coming from a minister. You should be ashamed!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I were doing the pimping I would be ashamed!
This bill, except for a few minor changes, is almost identical to the act to which assent was given in parliament on January 14, 1974, and which expired on June 30, 1976. The regrettable thing was that the legislation was allowed to expire. The other day the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) blamed the Conservative party for insisting on a sunset clause in that legislation. My feeling is that the Tories can make enough mistakes on their own without the Liberals attributing any of theirs to them. The Liberal government has got into a position now where, if anything goes wrong, it blames either Rene Levesque or the Tory party.
There was no need for that legislation to have expired on June 30, 1976. At that time the government had a clear majority and could have brought in an amendment removing the sunset clause, or it could have introduced an energy supplies emergency act any time between June 30, 1976, and now. It ought to have done so, first because the situation in the Middle East is so unsettled, as it has been for a long time, and second because we are a signatory to a treaty under the International Energy Agency.
I was the only member of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works who objected to Canada signing that treaty, and I object still because I believe the terms were most unfavourable to Canada. I agree with the principle, but the consuming countries certainly managed to do a hatchet job on the producing countries, of which Canada was one, when that treaty was signed. Nevertheless, having signed that treaty we entered into an obligation. If the decline in world production was seven per cent or more, a trigger mechanism went into operation and we had to be ready to put in an
Energy Supplies
allocation system within 60 days. But how can one put in an allocation system in the absence of necessary legislation on the statute books?
The other day the minister said this was important legislation, and I agree. But if it is important it should have been dealt with long before this, not when we are facing a crisis.


An hon. Member:: A spurious crisis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me say
a word about the present situation. It is easy to become rhetorical on either side. We could talk about a great crisis and the drastic consequences or, on the other hand, we could talk in soothing terms and try to convince the public that all is well. The fact of the matter is that the situation created by the turmoil in Iran is serious in so far as that country supplies about six million barrels a day of the world's oil, on which Canada is dependent for from anywhere between 100,000 barrels to 125,000 barrels per day. It is a serious matter, but it is not a disaster, and we can cope if we have the proper mechanism. We must look at the matter in its perspective.
As a matter of fact, in some ways what has happened with respect to Iran and with respect to the diversion by Exxon of the Venezuela oil is a blessing in disguise because it has done two things. It has demonstrated, first, to the Canadian people the vulnerability of Canada's position with respect to its oil supplies. We had a crisis in 1973 and 1974, and all of us who were in the House at that time will remember the feeling of panic we felt because of the situation in the Middle East and because of a threatened boycott by the OPEC nations. All kinds of remedies were put forward and the government at that time took some measures to deal with the situation.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), my leader, pointed out last night that the New Democratic Party played a part in promoting and pushing for the implementation of some of the measures which were taken at that time. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said that that version given by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by was not accurate. My leader said that history would bear him out. I am prepared to leave it to the historians, because anyone who takes the trouble to read the records of 1973 and 1974 will see that I myself, as the energy critic for the New Democratic Party, put before this House the measures which we were seeking. At the time we were asking for a phasing out of exports to the United States, a two-price system, the setting up of a publicly-owned petroleum company, and the construction of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal.
Hon. members who take the trouble to look up the record will find that that day, before a vote of confidence was taken, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rose in the House, not the then minister of energy, mines and resources, and agreed to all those items, including the construction of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. I would warn hon. members not to let any of the government members tell them that they wanted to do these things all along, because only a few week before that the

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Donald Macdonald, had made a speech pointing out how improper and how improvident it would be to build a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. When I suggested that the pipeline should be a reversible pipeline so we could ship oil either way, there were cries of derision from across the floor. So let there not be any fooling as to why some of these things were put in place.
I do not want to take any of the credit from the government for these items which they put in place, but they should not try to fool anybody that the things which they put in place at that time were not done under duress, because they were left with no alternative. What they did at that time was right, and it has improved the position of Canada today. We would be in a much worse position today if we had not phased out exports and if we had not built the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal.
There were some other things which the government said they were going to do at that time in order to make Canada self-sufficient in oil. They were going to store oil in the maritimes in caverns, empty mine shafts, and various geological formations where oil could be stored so that never again would we be in the critical position we were in in 1973 and 1974. What has happened? Complacency has crept in and the government has slid back into a state of apathy. We have not pursued with the proper amount of diligence the implementation of programs to make this country self-sufficient in oil. This is why we are in the serious situation we are in today.
One of the criticisms we have had of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that when the Iranian situation became serious and members began to ask questions, the minister gave us soothing syrup and said "Nothing to worry about, Mexico will give us 100,000 barrels a day."


Alastair William Gillespie: Read the record.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He said that Venezuela has assured us that 200,000 barrels a day will still be coming to us, and that we will be able, by means of swaps, to meet the situation.
Let us look at what happened when the minister was questioned further. It is true that the minister-and I give both him and Petro-Canada full credit for this-said that they had negotiated an agreement with Mexico. But there will not be oil from Mexico until the end of the year, and it will only be
15.000	or 20,000 barrels a day. The minister said in the House that it will not be until the end of 1980 and probably the beginning of 1981 before we will get 100,000 barrels a day. With reference to his discussions with Venezuela, all that country would promise is that we would continue to get the
200.000	barrels which we have been getting in the past. He indicated that while they would be glad to give us more oil, they did not have any available.
With reference to the swaps, the minister himself said in the House that the swaps would bring us only some 40,000 barrels a day in the next quarter. That, of course, will not meet all the problems which we will face if the Iranian oil is withheld from Canada because we will need much more than that. I have a great deal of sympathy for the minister, and nobody suggests

that it is a simple problem, but it would have been much better to have told us frankly what the situation was, rather than trying to tell Canadian people and the members of this House that all was well when, as a matter of fact, we were facing a very serious situation.
I would like to point out something which the House may not fully appreciate, that if we get by, and I think there is a good chance we will because the Iranian oil wells may get into production within a few weeks or months and we may be getting supplies again, it should not be forgotten that swaps, by which we deliver more oil into the Chicago market in exchange for American companies delivering to Quebec and to the Atlantic provinces, will mean we will have to step up our production of oil in western Canada by 50,000 or 100,000 barrels a day or more. That can only be done for a short time without seriously damaging the field. What is more, it is using up the reserves which we need to fall back on in the case of an emergency.
I do not think we fully appreciate yet the National Energy Board's report which shows that our own oil is declining at an alarming rate, that in the 1990s we will virtually be out of regular, conventional oil, and that we will have to fall back on oil from tar sands and heavy oil. We ought not to deceive ourselves as to just how serious the situation is. Nor should we on the other hand become panicky and cry blue ruin.
This House has to realize that legislation like this is necessary, but much more is necessary if we are to solve the problem of having a national energy policy in Canada. That is my first point, Mr. Speaker, that the Iranian oil crisis has demonstrated how vulnerable Canada is in the event of any curtailment of imported oil.
The second thing that has been demonstrated is that the multinational oil companies have become a law unto themselves. They serve not the interests of any country or the people of any country, but their own personal interests. That was illustrated very well when Exxon decided not to cut off Iranian oil but to cut off 25,000 barrels of oil which normally it was supposed to deliver to its subsidiary, Imperial Oil of Canada, on a formula devised by Exxon.
When Exxon was asked to explain they said, "We followed the formula set up by the International Energy Agency, the 7 per cent." They cut oil, not on the basis of the amount of oil imported, but on the basis of the amount of oil sold in a given market. It so happens that Imperial sells a lot of oil in Canada but it does not import very much because it produces most of its oil here. So we got a big cut because the reduction was based on the total amount of oil consumed in the market. I can understand that, although I cannot agree with the formula set up by the international energy agency.
Exxon is not an international energy agency. By what authority does it arrogate to itself the power to determine how oil will be distributed and how it will break contracts even with its own subsidiaries, that can have a detrimental effect on the consumers of this country?
February 20, 1979

Just the other day during question period in a dispute with a Conservative member, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that we do not want Exxon to solve our problems; that we are going to solve our own problems. I agree with that, but how does the minister propose we settle our own problems? He says we will settle the problem not by the Government of Canada dealing with Venezuela, but that we will settle the problem by telling Imperial Oil to deal with Venezuela. Does anybody think that Imperial Oil, owned and controlled by Exxon, is going to go to Venezuela and make a deal with them if its parent company says it cannot do so?
I am not going to launch a tirade against Exxon or Imperial Oil, Mr. Speaker. The great oil companies, like any other monopolies, have two basic goals. The first is to maximize their profits, and the second is to look after the interests of the country in which they were formed. That is understandable. If Exxon has to make a decision about where it will cut supplies, it is going to cut them in any country other than the United States. A Canadian company would certainly give preference to Canada and I would expect it to do so, rather than to another country.
What is happening, and this is being demonstrated by the crisis through which we have passed, is that when it comes to determining how much oil Canadian consumers will get, those decisions are not going to be made by the Government of Canada, not by a publicly-owned oil company in Canada, but by an international company like Exxon, or any of the other multinational companies, without regard to what the Canadian government say, or what is in the best interests of the Canadian people. That is why we in the New Democratic Party believe the time has come for the Government of Canada to deal directly with the oil producing countries, and particularly with those that have state-owned trading companies.
We must wake up to the facts of the last quarter of the twentieth century with respect to oil. The basic fact is that the great oil companies no longer own great oil fields. There was a time when these companies owned the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Canada and the United States. They even owned oil fields in Mexico until they were thrown out in 1936. They controlled and could move supplies of oil wherever they liked. What happened is that in almost all of these countries, except Canada and the United States, the people rebelled against them and took control of production of oil in their countries, so that today the great oil companies are little more than oil brokers and transporters, except in Canada and the United States.
Today, if you really want to negotiate about oil, you have to go to the state oil companies of the producing nations of the world. That makes sense because these oil producing countries have lost faith in the multinational oil companies. They have said repeatedly that they want to deal directly with the oil consuming countries.
The Shah of Iran, who was certainly not considered a raving radical, made a statement to the press five years ago when he was in the United States. He said in effect, "We prefer to deal on a government to government basis when selling oil because,
Energy Supplies
if we raise the price of oil by a dollar per barrel, the oil companies increase the price by $2 ber barrel. They put one dollar in their pocket, and that creates a lot of bad feeling." The Shah of Iran himself offered to negotiate. In this House at that time I pleaded with the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Macdonald, to enter into agreements with Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela and Mexico. We have been so timid that we have left the oil companies to run the show and now we are paying the price.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party have spent a lot of time in this debate attacking the idea of a publicly-owned oil company for Canada, with particular emphasis on Petro-Canada. When the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) spoke in the debate last night, he said, as reported at page 3386 of Hansard:
I do not believe that intervention of Petro-Can in the Mexican transaction, or in the Venezuelan transaction, would have been any help at all.
In the same speech he said, as reported at page 3387 of Hansard'.
We still believe that if Exxon should not be in the middle of these deals there is no reason Petro-Canada should be in the middle of these deals either.
At that point the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby interjected as follows:
Who should?
The hon. member replied, in part, as follows:
Certainly the companies themselves are able to contract and negotiate on their own.
If they are able to contract and negotiate on their own, why are we in the situation we are? Why are we importing oil? Why are we having difficulty getting oil? What members of the Progressive Conservative party need to do is to wake up to the fact that we are in a new era with respect to oil. The great power of the oil companies, their control of the production of oil is dwindling. This is happening all over the world. Today if one wants to deal in oil, one has to deal with governments and with the state-owned oil companies in the producing nations in order to get oil. That is why we think it important that Petro-Canada have a role in this matter. First, we think it ought to be a member of the allocation board which the minister proposes to set up under this legislation.
We think Petro-Canada should be the sole importer, so that we can have oil purchased on the basis of a company that will be able to act in the interests of the Canadian people and, which will see that oil which is contracted for is shipped to Canada, and not diverted to some other place, as was done in the case of Exxon, which took away some of the supplies which were contracted for by Imperial Oil.
We will support this legislation, of course. But I want to say that this is legislation that we think should have been on the statute books for some time. However, we ought not to leave this debate with the illusion that this will solve our problems. This is only giving a tool to the government which it can use to help solve a problem.

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
They are many things which must be done and I would like to enumerate them briefly. First, swaps. That is exchanging oil, selling it to the market in Chicago and in exchange taking offshore oil for Quebec and the maritime provinces. This is a temporary solution, but is dangerous if it is carried on too long. However, it can meet our needs in the hope that the Iranian situation will right itself over the next few months.
Second, it is time to reduce our exports. We are still exporting oil to the United States. I do not mean that we should cut off the United States. I think we should say to the Americans that we are in a very serious position, and we are prepared to exchange oil. We are shipping about 275,000 barrels of oil a day to the United States. We will continue that into the midwest if the United States will deliver 275,000 barrels a day of offshore oil to Canada. If that arrangement was put in place, with the oil coming through the pipeline Quebec would be completely self-sufficient. We could then put the rest of the offshore oil into the Atlantic provinces.
Third, as I have already mentioned, we should use Petro-Canada for an aggressive purchase program. I do not say this on any ideological grounds. I have never been one who believes in public ownership for the sake of public ownership. Public ownership or nationalization is simply an economic tool. Sometimes it is the right tool, and sometimes it is the wrong tool. In this case it is the right tool because it is the only way Canadians can have control of energy, and energy today is the oxygen by which the body politic lives.
Fourth, we ought to start an oil storage program. The minister said the other day the reason that this has not been done is because Canada is waiting on the United States. We have waited a whole year for the Americans to get to work on the Alaskan pipeline. We may wait for another year. I do not know how long it will take. But it will not be of much comfort to the Canadian people if they freeze in the dark, and then for us to tell them that the reason we did not store oil in the geological formations in the maritimes was because the Americans forget to answer the mail.


Mr. Gillies:: Or did not get it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or did not
get it. I would urge the government to start work immediately on this business of storing oil, particularly in the summer months when consumption is low. That is an opportune time to fill up these caverns so we will have a reserve.
Fifth, we should loop the pipeline from Chicago to Sarnia. Today the President of the Privy Council was telling us-he was really telling his constituents-that the government was favourable toward the building of a pipeline to take natural gas from Montreal to the Atlantic provinces. If he is going to do that, then he better start pouring cold water on the enthusiasm that is being generated in the National Energy Board and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for exports of gas to the United States. You cannot sell gas to the United States and have gas for the maritimes as well.
As everyone knows, the pipeline goes from western Canada to Chicago and from there on to Sarnia and Montreal. This

pipeline could carry 200,000 barrels a day more, but the bottleneck is between Chicago and Sarnia. It would be a comparatively simple thing and fairly inexpensive to loop that pipeline. That would give 200,000 barrels more to eastern Canada, but that 200,000 barrels of course would have to come, in my opinion, either from exports to the United States or by some type of swap arrangement. I do not think we could step up permanently our production of western oil by 200,000 barrels a day without running down our reserves to a dangerous level.
Sixth, and this is something I have already mentioned, we should get on with the business of running a pipeline from Montreal to the maritimes.
Seventh, I think the government should provide incentives to persuade industry and power utilities in Ontario, Quebec, and in the Atlantic provinces to switch from oil to natural gas. One of the great mistakes made in the Atlantic provinces during the 1950s and 1960s because offshore oil-spot oil-was cheap, was to generate most of their electrical power with oil. Today, of course, electric power in the Atlantic provinces is at a price which is absolutely prohibitive. The sooner they change over from oil to gas or to coal is the only hope people there can have their energy requirements met.
Finally, I suggest we must start developing an over-all energy policy. We cannot deal just in oil and gas. We must include coal, hydro power, and we have to see what place there is for nuclear power. Above all, we have to start moving into solar power and into the renewable energy supplies. That means an integrated national energy policy. I do not believe we have yet formulated that in any great detail.
I want to close by saying that the world of tomorrow will belong to those nations which have two essential things, energy and food. Canada is in the fortunate position that it has the potential for both of these. It is true that we are running out of conventional oil. But we have heavy oil, we have the tar sands, and we still have fairly large quantities of natural gas, and very large quantities of coal. We have a lot of uranium, and we also have areas where food can be produced. With those two commodities, oil potential and food potential, Canada in the twenty-first century has a greater opportunity for increased well-being than any other country in the world.
I am strong in my faith in Canada. I think that if this parliament in the next few years can cope with the energy problem and produce an energy policy which will meet the needs of the Canadian people, our children and our grandchildren will reap the benefits, if we have the intelligence and the statesmanship to seize the opportunity and to follow the paths that will be of benefit to our people and indeed to all mankind.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we are debating this issue tonight demonstrates that for the last 14 years we have not had an energy policy in Canada. This government has demonstrated once again that it has no capacity for leadership, no criteria in its own mind to judge what it should be dealing with, and no idea of the priorities
February 20, 1979

which should be before it. This might be understandable, although not excusable, except for the fact that energy and energy needs have been at the forefront of debate in every country of the world during the past few years.
Because of the fact we do have energy resources in our nation, this government has been lulled into the feeling that we did not have to put in place a particular policy to meet the needs of Canadians. If there has been an energy policy of any sort by the government, it has to be described as some sort of vague sort of continentalism, a policy that was not based on the fundamental responsibility of any government, which is to protect the sovereignty of its own country, to protect the needs of its people, and to guard the rights of all its citizens.
In the development of energy, this government has been so caught up in the wrong issues; it has missed the fundamentals; it has been so concerned about extending government control into the private sector that it has failed to meet the basic energy needs of the Canadian people.
The reality of the Canadian situation is that we have no energy policy. We have not had an energy policy since the fifties. In those days we had a policy. It was a very simple policy. It was the right policy, and it was based on three very simple propositions.
One was to increase the supply of energy in Canada. This was done by the development of a selective price policy favorable to the western oil producers. Second, it stated that the slow growth areas of the nation should not have to pay as high a price for energy as more prosperous regions, and this was achieved by having Atlantic Canada use offshore oil for its needs. Finally, any excess production was to be exported so that we could help solve our balance of payments problems.
This was the policy developed in the Diefenbaker years, which people liked to deride. However, it was a policy that worked, and it was a policy that was important for all Canadians. There was neither conflict with provinces nor with industry, and there was protection for all Canadians regardless of where they lived.
Canadians could survive the neglect of not having an energy policy throughout the last decade as long as there was cheap energy throughout the world. However, that situation changed in 1973 with the development of the OPEC cartel. When the day of inexpensive energy was over, every Canadian had the right to expect that this government would develop a new viable energy policy, a policy that would increase the supply of energy in this country, particularly oil and natural gas, and a policy that would assure that every Canadian, because we are a country rich in energy, would have the energy he needed.
Instead we have today a situation where there is a portion of Canadians who have no access to energy that is produced in this country. We in this party do not believe that there are second-class citizens in any part of Canada. We do not believe in an energy policy that does not include all Canadians. We believe that a government that apparently has no concern about all of Atlantic Canada in its so-called energy strategy is
Energy Supplies
a government which does not deserve the confidence of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: That is the situation we find ourselves in today. This government talked constantly about the need for conservation, and yet we have moved from a country that was exporting oil to a country that is importing oil. We have a government that has ostensibly talked about increasing supply after the OPEC crisis, but look what it did.
First, we had the enormous conflict brought about by this government over the taxation of energy. At the very time that we needed a policy to increase supplies, the federal government went out of its way to reduce supplies. Second, we have a federal government that in nine years could not put in a place a set of regulations for the regulation of exploration of oil and gas in the northern parts of Canada. In the same period of time, the British discovered oil in the North Sea, drilled for it and brought it to market. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said, Great Britain is now in an export position.
We in this country have the greatest proven oil reserves in the world in the tar sands of Alberta. What did the government do? Nothing. For 13 years there was a private enterprise corporation working in the oil sands developing technology to obtain oil from the sands. What did the government of Canada do? Nothing.
When the crisis came upon us and Syncrude started, the federal government instead of supporting the pioneer work allowed world prices to Syncrude without allowing them to the Great Canadian Tar Sands company which had pioneered the work there. A country that was talking about doing something to increase our energy supplies did nothing.
The only thing, of consequence, the government could think of doing was to create PetroCan, the post office of the petroleum industry. It was to be the answer to all our supply problems. What has it done? It has not discovered any oil and in the current crisis it has nothing to offer Canadians.
It was intriguing to hear the minister say how exciting it is that PetroCan is dealing over in China, when the people in Atlantic Canada cannot get energy. That is the problem. That is why we need a government policy to deal with energy problems in Atlantic Canada.
The policy of the Liberal government has been put forth in their statement, a strategy for self-reliance. What a mistake in direction for this country. The energy policy for Canada must be a policy of self-sufficiency. With the resources we have in this country, it is irresponsible in the extreme for any government to suggest that Canada must be dependent on other nations to meet its energy needs. We do not have to be and with the proper policies which will be developed after the next election with a new government, we will not be.
The case can be made that the general policies followed by the federal government in the energy field, particularly with respect to oil, since the OPEC crisis, have probably reduced

February 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
the total supply of energy available for Canadians since 1974. The federal government's inability to solve the tax problem which drove the drills and oil rigs out of Alberta and the west reduced the total supply of energy that would be available to Canadians at the present time.
On the basis of supply policy its action was counterproductive. However, where the government stands even more indicted is that it did nothing to deal with the energy problems of Atlantic Canada, an area which depends on offshore oil.
Once the OPEC cartel was formed everyone knew that dependence on offshore oil was totally inadequate. And yet, we did not store oil when we could have. Nothing was done to develop a transportation system to carry oil and gas to Atlantic Canada. We have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion to help slow growth areas. However, at the same time the government did nothing to put in place an energy program to protect the long-term interests of the people of that region.
How incredible it is that someone living in Charlottetown has to pay $60 when someone in St. Catharines pays $28 for the same amount of electricity. How incredible it is that we would allow that kind of situation to develop. How incredible it is that the government would not know, after disruption in world markets, that its first priority had to be to get energy into Atlantic Canada.
The other day the minister commented that we are a net importer of oil. Of course we are at the present time. The government's conservation program has been a total failure, but the minister forgets that there are many substitutions for oil. We were talking about 80 per cent of the electricity in Atlantic Canada being fuelled by oil. Did the minister never hear of natural gas? Given the fact that we have a surplus of natural gas, how could the government be so neglectful that it did not find some way to get natural gas to Atlantic Canada? How could it be so neglectful when it knew, or ought to have known, that its foreign sources of supply of oil were not likely to be available in the future? Clearly this is a government which has neglected the fundamental responsibility of any government, to look after the interests of its citizens.
This government stands indicted for the way it has managed the economy, for racking up a deficit and for causing inflation. It stands indicted for creating alienation across the country. It stands indicted for being unable to handle the separatism problem in the province of Quebec. It stands really indicted for the way it has handled energy policy and for its inability to provide for all Canadians, regardless of where they live, with an equal opportunity to get the energy they should have in a country as rich in energy as is this nation. For some reason or other this government does not seem to understand the functions of leadership and government. Those functions are to provide a framework within which citizens can live. This government has been so wrapped up in expanding its own power goals and in developing things like Petro-Canada that it has missed the objective any energy policy should have.

In the few moments I have left I would like to point out that the government has been indicted in many areas, but the thing that will cause the electors to convict it in an election which must be called soon-because we cannot stand the mismanagement we have had much longer-will be the government's absolute failure in energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill, but I will call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I directed some questions to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) with respect to the announced changes in the Canadian Penitentiary Service construction program. Although the announcement referred to a national program, I wish to deal with it as it relates to my constituency of Fraser Valley East. The first question I addressed to the minister on February 12 as it is reported in Hansard at page 3107 was the following:
In view of his recent statement regarding penitentiary services, will the minister advise the House whether he has rejected the submission of the subcommittee on the penitentiary service that institutions housing a maximum of 200 persons would be the most efficient and desirable in future planning?
The minister's response was as follows:
-I made a statement in Kamloops, I believe in the second week of December- if the hon. gentleman is not aware of it, I will send him a copy-in which I indicated what the present policy was in terms of penitentiary construction.
In checking the statement alluded to I found that the minister rejected the submission of the subcommittee on penitentiaries which suggested that penal institutions should be limited in size to house a population of 220 to 250 inmates. The feeling of frustration and concern expressed by members of the committee recently over the government's attitude to their work and report is understandable in the light of the attitude taken by the minister in that instance.
My second question on February 12 was:
Mr. Speaker, will the minister report to the House on the results of his meeting with the mayors of central and upper Fraser Valley a week ago when the announced changes as they relate to penal institutions in that area were discussed?
February 20, 1979

The minister's response was totally irrelevant and only substantiated what was already known, that the upper Fraser Valley is a beautiful area in which to live. I should remind the minister of a statement which I made some time ago, that because of the proliferation of penal institutions in the Fraser Valley, residents might soon be forced out to permit the turning of the Fraser Valley into a penal colony.
Perhaps I should compliment the minister on his ability to evaluate the beauties of the area in such a short time, for he did not make himself available to questions at a meeting which was held with the mayors of the municipalities on that occasion. I would like to quote from Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News of January 31, part of an article headed "Community Input Heard on Prisons." It reads:
Their boss, Solicitor General Jean-Jacques Blais was conspiciously absent for all but a short luncheon meeting. "He might just as well have stayed in Ottawa!" remarked DeJong, annoyed that Blais had not made himself available.
DeJong is the mayor of Matsqui. The article goes on to read:
It would have been that much better if he had heard the complaints and suggestions directly rather than through staff, he noted.
This indicates that the minister, although he was in the community, did not make himself available to the mayors for questioning and for getting some answers to the problems that were concerning him.
The next question I had hoped to pose was: what consultation took place with the local authorities before the changes were decided upon and announced? I suggest that there was very little, if any, consultation that took place. I have here a letter from James M. Murphy, the regional director general of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the National Parole Service, to mayor Harry DeJong, under date of December 4, 1978. It starts:
An important announcement will be made shortly by the Solicitor General of Canada regarding the Canadian penitentiary service's construction program.
In order that you may be fully informed of the accommodation plans for the Pacific region, a detailed summary will be forwarded to you the moment such information is available.
The announcement was made on December 12. I am not sure when the mayor received this letter, but it would indicate that he did not have an opportunity to make inquiries or to endeavour to discover just what was involved in the proposed changes.
In this connection I have a letter from the Corporation of the District of Kent to the Solicitor General under date of January 23, of which I would like to read several paragraphs:
This letter is in reference to your December 12, 1978 announcement relating to a revised program for construction of new penitentiaries which program includes renovations and expansions of both institutions within our municipality, namely, Kent and Mountain institutions.
Shortly following your announcement, as mayor, I was contacted by a Vancouver based radio station at which time I declined comment having only heard of the news from the caller. I then contacted one of the local officials of the Canadian Penitentiary Services who promised to secure a copy of the news release for council's information.
At a meeting of the council a letter was approved to be forwarded to the Solicitor General as follows:
Adjournment Debate
That a letter be forwarded to the Solicitor General outlining council's dissatisfaction with the recent announcement regarding the construction program, pointing out the following:
1.	Prior commitment to council by Canadian Penitentiary Services to
discuss new developments before public announcements.
2.	Impact on the community and community opinion, and
3.	That not even the employees were aware of these plans, prior to the
Solicitor General's announcement;
The letter went on to read:
During discussion on the resolution, it was pointed out that council had been assured by officials of your department that they would be advised of any new development to be carried out at the local institutions prior to any public announcement being made.
The commitment was not kept and they were not advised, prior to this announcement, of just what was involved. So there was no consultation, no agreements, no negotiations, no discussion on additional problems that municipalities would face upon the location or enlargement of these institutions within their borders.
The problems they want to discuss are, first, reclassification to residential assessment rates in the Matsqui case will mean a loss of $45,000 to the municipality. Second, the need for the hospital to take care of inmates under security rather than in local hospitals where people are endangered by these individuals. Third-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues which the hon. member has raised; perhaps it will help if I give him some background on the announced changes. It is true that the revised construction program announced in early December represents a departure from previous thinking on the size of institutions. A number of important factors influenced the government's decision to build institutions with accommodation capacities ranging up to 350 to 450 inmates, according to the need of the region.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the government's program of economic restraint in August of last year, the Canadian Corrections Service re-examined the previous and very costly construction program. A number of factors, including the size of institutions were considered. It became clear there was no empirical evidence in support of the conclusion that smaller institutions are better able to fulfil correctional objectives than the marginally larger 450 inmate institutions. The results of several studies, both here and abroad, do not appear to indicate that size in itself is the crucial criterion.
Construction of the somewhat larger institutions affords the potential of offering a wider variety of equally high quality programs than does the construction of smaller facilities. We intend to do just this by continuing the policy of providing living units in order to allow close personal interaction between

February 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate
staff and inmates. Under the revised construction program it is only the number of such living units per institution that will be increased. The size of each living unit will remain unchanged.
Having assured themselves that there is no evidence that program quality is solely or even primarily dependent on over-all inmate capacity, the CCS examined the economic implications of building smaller institutions. Comparative data, holding level of service constant, indicated that the annual operating and maintenance costs in a medium security penitentiary containing 160 inmates are 40 per cent higher than in a penitentiary containing 420 inmates. Similar comparisons with maximum security institutions indicated that the smaller institutions cost approximately 65 per cent more per inmate than the larger institutions. On this basis it was decided that if new institutions are to be built at all they should be designed in such a way that the living unit concept can be introduced in order to maintain program quality, and that inmate capacity could be expanded, should the need arise, to a maximum of 450 inmates.
As a result of restricting the revised capital construction program to these objectives, a number of previously planned institutions were cancelled at a capital cost saving to the taxpayer of $225 million. Even this greatly restricted construction program will be subject to annual review in order to respond to unexpected increases or decreases in inmate population. Furthermore, in response to the specific concern that the building of more maximum security cells leads inevitably to their occupancy, it is our intention to avoid just this danger by taking steps to reduce the proportion of inmates held in maximum custody through such actions as the development of a new classification policy.
It is our hope that many initiatives such as community programming, crime prevention, diversion, alternatives to incarceration, and better classification and preparation for release within our institutions, will bear fruit and enable us to restrict the construction of new capacity even further.


STATISTICS CANADA-VOLUNTARY RESPONSES TO STATSCAN SURVEYS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the issue I bring forward tonight is based upon the most fundamental of democratic government principles. It revolves around the relationship of the individual and the state, touching individual liberty, freedom of information, citizens' rights, and the privilege of members of parliament.
Democratic governments evolved originally to protect and to serve individual citizens and their rights and privileges, as opposed to totalitarian regimes which suppress individual liberties.
A recent Gallup poll asked Canadians: "Do you think business, labour or governments constitute the greatest danger to Canada's future?" The new and changed response of Canadians was to identify government as the threat instead of

as a protection and service device. Unfortunately the Government of Canada has moved beyond protection and service toward totalitarian suppression of information and legislated compulsion that, rather than protecting, suppresses and persecutes individual liberty and freedom of choice. In this recent poll the public has recognized a reality that has long been recognized by even the most moderate civil libertarians. Individuals are shouting, the majority is no longer silent, but the government is deaf. This phrase is the motto adopted by one of my constituents who has been pursued by the federal government for the last two and a half years for refusing to answer some questions on the 1976 census form. When viewed in the light of her single plight to make this government face the reality that it cannot continue to practise statistical voyeurism at census or any other time, her adage capsulizes much of what I wish to underline here this evening.
Let me now refer specifically to the ominous section 29 of the Statistics Act. It states that any individual who, without lawful excuse, refuses or neglects to fill in, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, any form distributed under the Statistics Act, may be charged with a summary conviction offence and fined or jailed.
Let us look at some of the questions for which a refusal to answer may bring such a penalty. From the 1976 census form we take this question: "How many visitors or other persons who have a usual home elsewhere in Canada stayed overnight on May 31, June 1?", or "Do you enter your living quarters: by a private entrance from outside; through a common hall or passageway through someone else's living quarters?" Personally, I have no objection to answering these questions, but if I refuse should I be sent to jail or fined?
We in this House have heard many of the questions now being posed to Canadians by the Statistics Canada survey of family expenditures in 1978, in respect of which many people may be charged for refusing to answer, that is, of course, only if the minister responsible is not feeling as benevolent as he was yesterday during the question period when he described his authoritarian concept of selective persecution through selective prosecution.
In order to determine if she was being persecuted or prosecuted, or a little bit of both, and in order to determine whether there was the legal precedence and court transcripts that might have been available to build her defence, Mrs. Shereme-ta, who is not a lawyer and in fact does not have the resources to pay a lawyer, attempted to find the answers to some very simple and basic questions. She asked: How many Canadian citizens refused to complete their 1976 census forms fully? Of these, how many refused to give only some information and how many refused to give any answers at all? How many Canadians have been prosecuted under Section 29 of the Statistics Act, and how many have had proceedings started against them as a result of refusing to answer all questions on the 1976 census forms?
As an individual she was denied access to this information even though the information was not considered classified or
February 20, 1979

secret. She then assumed that if she could not have this information as an individual, then surely her member of parliament could, and she asked me to find the answers to those same questions. I asked for these answers and I, in turn, the member representing Mrs. Sheremeta and thousands of other individuals in Fraser Valley West, was denied access to this very basic and simple information. Information Canada in a letter to me said:
The information you requested was not considered classified or secret by Statistics Canada.
If it is not classified or secret, why can I or Mrs. Sheremeta not have the information? Apparently, the reason is because the Department of Justice decided not to furnish this information, which was conveyed by telephone to my office. The letter goes on to say:
Your office was informed that the prosecution considered the information irrelevant-
If the information was not secret, not classified, and irrelevant to the case, why is Mrs. Sheremeta denied access and why am I, as a member of parliament, denied access to this information? I cannot understand that, and there is no logical answer. In addition to that the letter goes on to say:
-I am informed that the presiding judge was of the same view.
In other words, the prosecution is collaborating with the presiding judge to determine whether or not evidence which we may need or may not need should be released to us. I think that this is a very unfair persecution, not prosecution. Obviously the Crown attorney in the case was either fabricating the truth in some way, or lying in some way, because he said that the material was irrelevant. If it was irrelevant he would have released it to me.
This is just a small example of how the checks and balances so delicately built into our democratic system-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for another two minutes to complete my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young).


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Cut off again.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, the Statistics Act does not currently
Adjournment Debate
permit Statistics Canada to undertake surveys on an explicit voluntary basis. Nonetheless, for a good number of years, the agency has successfully conducted many surveys, especially those of households, depending almost completely on the good will and voluntary co-operation of respondents. While the Statistics Act provides for the possibility of penalties for non-response, mention of such provisions is carefully avoided to ensure that no perception of threat or intimidation is present. The policy governing the behaviour of Statistics Canada enumerators in this regard is clearly set out in the booklet "Doorstep Diplomacy", which is a guide for interviewers, and reinforced in all training programs. Key passages in that booklet demonstrate the overriding desire of the agency to fulfil its mandate through co-operation, not compulsion.
Statistics Canada is aware, however, of the heightened public concern for privacy and confidentiality in recent years and is mindful of the need to preserve the best possible relations with respondents. The agency has thus undertaken a review of the many issues concerning the explicit use of the voluntary survey technique. After weighing the important considerations, Statistics Canada has determined that legal authority for the agency to conduct surveys on a voluntary basis, when it makes sense to do so, should be granted, and plans are under way to seek appropriate Statistics Act amendments.
Statistics Canada will be responsible for ensuring a careful and orderly implementation of any new voluntary survey authority, in a way that preserves the nation's vital socioeconomic data base. Overly rapid conversion to a system of voluntary surveys, before careful testing of the results, would be irresponsible and could seriously impair the quality of critical data series. In this regard it has long been clearly recognized by all who have examined this issue that no single approach to voluntary response is appropriate for all surveys.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has also made reference to a census case under Section 29 of the Statistics Act, concerning one of his constituents. The decision in that case has been appealed and thus the matter remains before the courts. It is worth noting, however, that in the judgment of the lower court the judge rules on a technicality in the evidence brought forward by the Crown to support the charge. The judge did not dismiss the case on the grounds of compulsory response, invasion of privacy or any of the other submissions made by the accused. The judge stated further that on these matters of legislation, parliament is supreme and the law must be carried out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, February 21, 1979