April 9, 1974

SC

David Réal Caouette

Social Credit

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

Can he say why the budget of Opportunities for Youth Program was reduced by 57 per cent in the northwestern part of Quebec and why the department joined the cities of Rouyn-Noranda to that of Hull where the problems to be studied and solved are entirely different?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
LIB

Robert Knight Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have on several occasions, both in the House and before the committee, explained the precise basis for the allocation formula. It involves the 33 labour market areas in Canada, the 1971 census of youth population, and an assessment of the jobs available to such people without the skills or experience required. As for the figures regarding the precise district to which the hon. member refers, I will certainly look into them, but that is the basis for the allocation.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Orders of the day.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think some clarification must be made of the minister's answer to me with regard to the airport firefighters' strike in terms of what his department can do under these very difficult circumstances. It appears to me that the Minister of Labour is abdicating his responsibility in this regard by indicating that it is up to the Minister of Transport and his officials and Treasury Board-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

-to negotiate a settlement with the firemen. I point out to the minister quite emphatically that he has a role to play under section 195-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar rises on a point of order.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
NDP

Alfred Pullen Gleave

New Democratic Party

Mr. Gleave:

Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier this afternoon whether a statement on motions would be made respecting the action of the government in banning, in whole or in part, cattle imported from the United States. I was informed by Your Honour that I might receive an answer during the question period, but it has not been forthcoming. I plead with Your Honour that the minister should make a statement to the House on this important matter in

Petroleum Administration Act

view of the fact that on March 15, as reported on page 556 of Hansard, he told the House:

However, I do not think anyone can guarantee that there are or are not such cattle coming in.

That statement was made by the minister. He has not clarified the position or told the House the circumstances and conditions under which United States cattle will be banned from entering Canada.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Again I think I would have to classify the hon. member's point of order in the same category as the one raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West. It is more debate than a point of order. Orders of the day.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MANPOWER
Sub-subtopic:   OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECREASE IN GRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-INCLUSION OF ROUYN AND NORANDA WITH HULL
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT


The House resumed, from Monday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-18, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain oil import costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil in interprovincial and export trade be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


PC

Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):

Mr. Speaker, last night when I was speaking in the debate on Bill C-18 I was making reference to what the province of Alberta intended to do with the amount of money it would receive from the new royalty rates that had been set up. Perhaps I might clarify what royalty rates the province of Alberta has attempted to place in legislation. According to a ministerial announcement in the legislative assembly of Alberta on March 28, 1974, for all "old" oil the government proposed an average supplementary royalty rate of 65 per cent on the amount of the price increment over the existing price of crude oil in Alberta; and that for all "new" oil the government proposed an average supplementary royalty rate of 35 per cent on the amount of the price increment over the existing price of crude oil in Alberta, corresponding to the average supplementary rate of 65 per cent on "old" oil. The Leduc field, discovered in 1947, happens to lie entirely within the riding of Wetaskiwin.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order. May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to follow the debate and to hear the hon. member for Wetaskiwin who has the floor. It is even difficult to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who seeks the floor on a point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Speakman Barnett

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Speaker, the point of order I wished to raise was that I was under the impression the hon. member was trying to make a speech, but it was very difficult to determine which member it was who was

April 9, 1974

Petroleum Administration Act

making the speech. I think Your Honour has clarified the matter already.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

The point is well taken. I have to call for the co-operation of hon. members to give an opportunity to the hon. member who has the floor, and who has been recognized by the Chair, to be heard by all members of the House who want to follow his speech and take part in the debate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
PC

Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Schellenberger:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to make my speech as interesting as possible so hon. members may listen to my words of wisdom. The Leduc field, discovered in 1947, lies entirely within my riding, and the people in that area are becoming concerned that in

10 or 12 years' time this oil supply will be entirely depleted. Many of these people depend entirely for their livelihood on production of this oil. They are raising families and would like their youngsters to stay in the area. Therefore, it is essential for the government of Alberta to provide alternative sources of employment, to provide industries for the area when this oil runs out. I think the province intends to use some of this revenue to establish industry that will keep these young people in the area.

If I may return to the bill, I should like to make some comments on Part IV. As provided in the bill, the import subsidy is indiscriminate. It seems that the subsidy is paid to the importing oil companies no matter what this refined

011 is used for. I think it would be far better for the bill to provide some mechanism whereby we could apply a discriminate subsidy so that people who use petroleum products for luxury items, such as cars, boats and similar vehicles, would not be subsidized. Only oil used for essential purposes should be subsidized. Surely, it is not beyond the capabilities of the minister or his department to devise a mechanism whereby a more discriminate subsidy, rather than the wide open one now proposed, is applied.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is a notable exception made in the bill. I refer to the fact that individual oil importers are not required rationally to compete in the purchase of offshore oil. According to my understanding of the bill, it is left up to them to buy offshore oil at whatever price without first trying to make the best possible purchase. These companies know they are going to be subsidized at the expense of the taxpayers so that the cost of the oil is brought down to $6.50 a barrel. I suggest that when the bill goes to committee this part of the bill should be carefully scrutinized and perhaps amended with a view to being fair to both parties, and so the oil companies will rationally compete for oil in the market.

Parts II and III of the bill give me the most concern since the government is being given a wide range of powers. In fact, an attempt to document them verbatim from the bill required almost nine full pages of foolscap. Why do they need these powers and are they really necessary? It seems to me we are looking at the same type of powers we were asked to approve in the oil allocations bill. I hope this party will not allow the government to again force this big brother attitude on the Canadian public.

Among the powers required by the government in Clauses 2 and 3 is the freedom to establish the export price of oil at any level at any time. Basically, then, what we would have would be a flexible tax subject to government whim and variable from month to month. The government has also asked for freedom to grant exemptions from the tax to anyone should it so desire. If these powers are granted, surely it is not too much to ask that they be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee, with its findings presented to the House.

Furthermore, the federal government would be in a position under Clause 36 of this legislation to fix the price of oil within provincial boundaries if it so desired. We feel this is a provincial responsibility, and that provincial governments should be brought into the picture in order that they would be at least consulted and asked to grant approval of the fixing of such a price, should it be necessary. Powers of the sort to which I have alluded are just not necessary, but could quite easily lead to a precedent whereby other industries or resources could be brought under similar legislation, such as our coal resources or perhaps even hydro electric power for that matter.

This bill also gives the government the power to unilaterally establish the price of oil in any province should that province wish to withdraw from the agreement. Let me refer in Hansard to a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) just after the Federal-Provincial Conference. He stated on March 28:

-the pricing and other arrangements I will now outline will last for a period of 15 months, beginning on April 1 and therefore going to the end of June next year.

I went to the Alberta Hansard since and this is the only way we can tell whether this bill is in line with the conference decisions, and I found that the Premier of Alberta stated immediately following that conference:

I made one interim undertaking-but only one. I agreed that in the interest of stability of the Canadian economy, we would ask the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to hold the average price of $6.50 per barrel to that level for a period of one year. The request was made by the Federal Government and it is our understanding that they-for their part-agreed that any proposed Federal legislation involving the interprovincial trade and movement of petroleum would be enacted in such a manner as to complement and not conflict with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission Act.

Looking at the bill, I fail to find any clause that states there is to be a 15-month termination date. Instead, I find a clause which states that the government has the power to unilaterally set the price of oil if at such time a province wants to get out of this agreement. In other words, the government has the power to say that it is sorry, but if things change within the next year or so that is too bad; they will have to keep the price at the same level. That is the power this government wants, and I think we should thoroughly look into it to see whether these agreements were in fact made. The provinces should tell this parliament whether this bill is in line with the discussions that took place at the conference.

Other clauses, in particular Clause 60, give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) the power to appoint people to look at the records of any company or province importing or exporting oil. It seems to me that under this clause the government is asking for

April 9, 1974

the authority not only to go to the companies but to the provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular, or their marketing boards, and ask for the records kept and the reasons they set certain prices, or anything of that sort.

As I stated earlier, we do not know whether this power is in line with discussions that have taken place or is just another one of those foxy items placed in the bill which the opposition should scrutinize thoroughly before approving. On reading between the lines, perhaps this part of the legislation is intended to be all-encompassing so as to include domination of these particular marketing boards. We should recommend the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the proper usage of this legislation should it be passed.

It is interesting to note that we had long discussions about the energy allocation board which was to be responsible for administering the oil allocation bill. Apparently it did not have too much to do and we now find, according to this bill, it is given some work by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

In his speech yesterday the minister stated three reasons for this bill, and I think they are important. The first reason was that the price of Canadian crude oil should move upward to encourage exploration and development in Canada and thereby ensure further availability of our resources. The second was that approximately one-half of Canadian crude oil production which is exported should be sold at a fair and reasonable opportunity price in the United States markets. The third was that the proceeds from the sale of oil in the U.S. at a price higher than the domestic Canadian price should be employed in order to reduce the exposition of consumers in eastern Canada. I suggest those are practical reasons. Although some of us may disagree with some of the principles, at least those are the practical reasons the minister had in bringing this bill forward.

The question I have been trying to place before this House is: Does the minister require all the powers in Clauses 2, 3 and 5 of this bill? There are nine pages of powers documented here. For this reason it is necessary that the bill be sent to a standing committee of the House for further study and amendment in order that it will really embody the principles discussed at the Federal-Provincial Conference.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
NDP

Reginald Cyril Symes

New Democratic Party

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in respect of this energy bill, Bill C-18, designed to impose an export charge on oil products. In addition, the bill will put into law the agreements of the first ministers regarding energy prices which was settled on March 27 of this year. It also gives the federal government the power to set the price of oil if the first ministers do not reach a voluntary agreement in connection with oil prices by June 30, 1975. In addition, it proposes to compensate oil companies in respect of the price paid for oil imported into eastern Canada.

Bill C-18 is the latest plank in the ongoing saga of this government's attempt to offer a national energy policy. The structure so far has appeared very fragile, resting on weak foundations. One wonders who the real architect of

Petroleum Administration Act

this so-called ongoing national oil policy is; the minister of energy or the oil companies themselves.

A number of bills were introduced in the last session, and this is the latest in this session, in an effort to formulate the kind of oil policy that would benefit Canadians. It seems to me if we are to have an oil policy that makes any economic sense there are three key components which must be contained in it. First, we must ensure that Canada has control of the oil industry in this country. Second, we must move in the direction of self-sufficiency in oil for Canada. Third, we must have the ability to set and control prices of oil in this country. Let us look at those three elements as they exist today and what the New Democratic Party would like to see develop in these areas. First, regarding the control of the petroleum industry in Canada, it is shocking to recall that 91 per cent of the oil industry in this country is foreign-owned and that 99 per cent of all petroleum refining capacity is also foreign-owned.

We all know this foreign ownership means that decisions are being made by multinational companies whose primary interest is to maximize their own profits, not necessarily for the benefit of the Canadian economy. This means that decisions in respect of energy development, exploration, export of energy and price to a large degree are made outside this country and outside the parameters of the government of Canada. It also means that profits in terms of billions of dollars flow out of the country into the coffers of the multinational companies, most of which are located in the United States. It also means that to date exports have been designed primarily to serve United States markets. This has meant we have used up our inexpensive reserves of oil and natural gas which will mean that when Canada needs these commodities we will have to pay more because we will have to get oil, for example, from the expensive oil sands or from the far north. While we have been exporting our cheap energy to the United States and the American industry has been benefitting, the Canadian economy is now faced with high energy costs.

On the issue of control, the New Democratic Party called for export controls in this 29th Parliament as early as January 1973. Finally, much later the government decided to cut back some of our oil exports to the United States but nowhere sufficient to really bring about selfsufficiency or control of this vital commodity. If we are to have an oil policy which makes sense, it seems to me that we must move in the direction now of controlling the multinational oil companies through a national petroleum company. I do not mean a national petroleum company as hinted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). A Liberal national petroleum company would be created, it seems to me, just to compete with the private sector. I should like to have a national petroleum company that would have the power to be the only purchaser of domestic and imported oil. By being the only purchaser this national petroleum company would therefore be able to set the price of oil and determine policy in the interest of Canada so far as oil supply and development are concerned. The policy which presently exists is

April 9, 1974

Petroleum Administration Act

primarily designed in the interest of the multinational oil companies.

The second element in a national energy policy must be self-sufficiency. Why is that? Well, without self-sufficiency in oil we are at the mercy of the international oil market which, it now has become very evident, was manipulated by the multinational oil companies in order to raise oil prices. These world prices for oil now bear no relationship to the cost of production. Indeed, some of the Saudi Arabian oil which sells at $10 or $14 a barrel costs the oil companies four cents a barrel to get out of the ground and into the tankers in the Middle East. We can see what has happened insofar as the manipulation of price in the world market is concerned. Indeed, a spokesman for Imperial Oil in Canada said that his company will charge what the market will bear and that not necessarily does the price of oil have to be related to the cost of production. It is also very important that we have self-sufficiency in order to insulate ourselves from the manipulative world market.

It is very important as well to have self-sufficiency because of what lies in store for us within the next decade. From recent reports I have read from all sources, including the oil industry and independent analyses, it appears that by 1980 this country will be short of oil to the extent of 720,000 barrels a day. The situation now is that we produce in round figures two million barrels of oil a day, one million barrels of which is exported to the United States. In addition we import one million barrels a day into eastern Canada because there is no pipeline to the east. Projections show that the demand for oil in Canada by 1980 will increase by an extra one million barrels a day. We have no pipeline to the east. Although we have the proposed Sarnia-Montreal pipeline and the proposed production of the oil sands by 1980, the maximum production from the oil sands will be 380,000 barrels a day which will leave Canada short to the extent of 720,000 barrels a day by 1980 if we continue to export to the United States.

Because of an oil policy initiated in 1961 by the Conservative Party which did not provide for extension of the oil pipeline to eastern Canada we have this problem today. The minister announced the extension of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal with an initial capacity of 250,000 barrels a day and a future capacity of only 500,000 barrels a day. In light of this extension of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline I wonder whether we will ever have an allCanadian route designed to supply eastern Canada. From reading the literature of the oil companies it would seem that they are quite unhappy about a prospect of an allCanadian oil pipeline. They see it as a danger to their markets in eastern Canada in terms of manipulating prices which I will explain later. It seems to me that over the past few years, because of international development, the oil companies have boxed the minister into a corner. He needs to export oil now in order to collect the export tax which he will use to subsidize consumers in eastern Canada. But we all know he will run short of oil by 1980. The oil companies argue that they need to charge the world price for oil in Canada in order to obtain sufficient funds to explore for new oil and to develop the oil sands.

It is a myth that there is a need to have world prices on oil in Canada in order to have sufficient funds. I remind

members of the House that in 1973, before the freeze on crude oil was introduced in Canada, the oil companies received an increase of 33 per cent in the price of crude oil and the oil companies in Canada benefitted to the extent of some $700 million a year. This recent agreement which was reached on March 27 gave then another $528 million a year. In light of that windfall, in light of the profits they have been making so far, I think their argument that they need even higher prices to stimulate exploration in Canada does not hold any water, or oil, if you want to put it that way. It seems to me that the priority for a Canadian energy policy is to serve the Canadian market first. Unless we do this, we will have a real crisis by 1980. It seems to me imperative that we begin to phase out oil exports to the United States in order to meet the Canadian demands by 1980 because he will have to import 720,000 barrels a day and then we will be more and more in the hands of the international oil companies and subject to their manipulation of world prices.

The third element of a sensible national oil policy is one whereby the Canadian government can determine the prices of oil and oil products in this country. Many months ago the NDP called for a two price system for oil when oil prices began to rise. We advocated the use of the export tax to accomplish this, and the government finally agreed. One half of the revenue of that export tax was to return to the producing provinces. The price freeze on western oil was to come off on January 31 last, but again under pressure from the NDP, the government, which was quite afraid of an election at that time, said they would extend the freeze over the winter months until this spring.

Then, of course we had the fateful federal-provincial conference on energy on March 27. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: "This is a great day for Canadian federalism" and both he and the premiers of the provinces emerged from the conference with smiles, each claiming a victory. When I read about the results of that conference and listened to the statements of the federal and provincial authorities, I thought to myself that George Orwell's "1984" had finally arrived. We have been used to double talk around this House, but now the circle is complete-we have double think as well.

I remind members of the House that in 1972 crude oil in Canada was selling at $3 a barrel. By 1973, it was up to $4 a barrel. In 1974, this year, it is up to $6.50 a barrel. It has doubled in two years. Who is the chief beneficiary of this doubling of the price of oil in Canada? Is it the Canadian consumer who will be paying eight, to ten cents more per gallon for gasoline?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Would the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie permit a question from the hon. member for Calgary North?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION OF EXPORT CHARGE, COMPENSATION FOR OIL IMPORT COSTS, AND REGULATION OF PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE IN INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE
Permalink

April 9, 1974