March 13, 1979

LIB

Roger Carl Young (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 320, 570 and 1,154.

I wonder if I might point out that one of those answers is in response to a question noted by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) yesterday and that another is in response to a specific matter noted by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) a short while ago.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
IND

Mr. Jones

Independent

1. Who prepared the federal study regarding the causeway between Moncton, New Brunswick and Riverview, New Brunswick? When?

4098

March 13, 1979

Order Paper Questions

2. Did such a study consider the possibility of silting?

3. How much assistance was provided for the construction of the said causeway?

4. Have federal authorities caused a study to be made as a result of the silting problem caused by the construction of the said causeway?

5. What liability does the federal government assume as a result of the silting problem in the Petitcodiac River in Moncton, New Brunswick (formerly a navigable river)?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CAUSEWAY BETWEEN MONCTON AND RIVERVIEW, N.B.
Permalink
LIB

Donald Paul Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion)

Liberal

Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):

The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:

1. Canada Department of Agriculture and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Administration, Amherst, N.S.- "Petitcodiac River Causeway Survey Report" dated March 30, 1961.

2. Yes. Hydraulics laboratory experiments and measured periodic observations of causeway structures constructed under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act indicated that silting would take place.

3. By agreement dated March 23, 1965 between Canada (Minister of Forestry) and the province of New Brunswick (Minister of Public Works) Canada agreed to contribute $800,000 in the form of a grant towards the construction of the causeway. The total estimated cost of the causeway was $3,000,000. Canada also provided the design, engineering and construction supervision. The construction contract was signed between Modern Construction Limited of Moncton, N.B. and the province of New Brunswick (Department of Public Works).

4. In 1969 cross-sections of the river were taken and observations on the silt build-up were also made by taking aerial photographs. The sewer outfalls were also checked periodically-

5. By agreement dated March 31, 1966 between Canada and the province of New Brunswick, the province assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all works undertaken under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, effective April 1, 1970.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CAUSEWAY BETWEEN MONCTON AND RIVERVIEW, N.B.
Permalink
PC

Mr. Cossitt

Progressive Conservative

1. Since becoming a member of the Cabinet, how many speeches did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have printed at public expense and distributed to various persons (a) to how many persons was each distributed (b) what was the approximate cost of each distribution (c) what is the total estimated cost to date of all distributions that have taken place?

2. In how many cases were the speeches written by a person other than an employee of the Minister's Office and, in each case what was the (a) cost involved (b) date and the place the speech was delivered (c) total figure paid for all speeches written?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-SPEECHES BY MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Hon. Janies Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

1. 27

(1) January 20, 1978-Opening Session of the N.W.T. Council

(a) 583

(b) $1,081.91

(2) February 14, 1978-House of Commons Second Reading of Northern Pipeline Act

(a) 583

(b) $740.24

(3) May 4, 1978-Economic Prospects N.W.T. Conference, Hay River

(a) 583

(b) $407.53

(4) October 12, 1977-Cat Lake, Ont.

(a) 1,250

(b) records unavailable

(5) February 2, 1978-Moose Factory

(a) 925

(b) records unavailable

(6) March 2, 1978, Vancouver, B.C.

(a) 90

(b) records unavailable

(7) August 31, 1978-Fredericton, N.B.

(a) 2,800

(b) $442.04

(8) November 15, 1978-Regina, Sask.

(a) 2,200

(b) $459.07

(9) October 31, 1978-Sachs Harbour, N.W.T.

Cope signing

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $155.

(10) October 27, 1978-Ottawa, Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlements

(a) 600 approximately

(b) $90.

(11) January 31,1978-Quebec City,

Naskapi of Schefferville signing of final agreement

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $125.

(12) January 30, 1978-Ottawa,

B.C. Cut-Offs

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $155.

(13) December 14, 1977-Inuit Tapirisat of Canada-presentation of claim

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $125.

March 13, 1979

(14) November 22, 1977-Ottawa,

Naskapi-Montagnais Inuit Association

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $155.

(15) October 31, 1977-Ottawa James Bay Agreement

(a) 2,700 approximately

(b) $685.

(16) September 28, 1977-Metis Association of N.W.T.

(a) 2,700

(b) $155.

(17) February 6, 1978-Pukaskwa Agreement, Marathon, Ontario.

(a) 3,060

(b) $428.40

(18) February 23, 1978-Peterborough Land Purchase

(a) 25

(b) $31.25

(19) June 30, 1978-Montreal Opening of Bicycle Path

(a) 250

(b) $35.

(20) July 29, 1978-Opening of Gros Morne Visitors Centre

(a) 20

(b) $2.80

(21) July 30, 1978-Opening of Signal Hill Exhibit

(a) 20

(b) $2.80

(22) August 5, 1978-Opening of Fort St. Joseph Visitors' Centre

(a) 25

(b) $31.25

(23) September 22, 1978-Wild Rivers Seminar, Jasper

(a) 200

(b) $22.

(24) October 9, 1978-Conference on National Parks, Banff

(a) 3,260

(b) $1,514.

(25) October 18, 1977-Queen's Visit

(a) 2,180

(b) $68.60

(26) November 15, 1977-Industry Association, N.W.T.

Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn

(a) 305

(b) $31.10

(27) December 2, 1977-N.W.T. Chamber of Mines

(a) 845

(b) $41.90

(c) $6,984.89.

The above covers the cost of printing and local by-hand

advance distribution.

Records were unavailable for three of the above speeches.

2. None.

All speeches were prepared internally, by departmental

employees.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-SPEECHES BY MINISTER
Permalink
IND

Mr. Jones

Independent

1. What are the restrictions, if any, on foreign countries giving assistance to Canadian firms?

2. Does the above rule apply to all foreign countries and if not, please state why?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FIRMS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink
LIB

Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):

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

1 and 2. There are no restrictions on foreign countries providing assistance to Canadian firms. Should such assistance result in obtaining control of a Canadian firm, the transaction would become subject to the terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FIRMS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FIRMS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FIRMS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink

POINT OF ORDER

MR. HNATYSHYN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 207 AND

PC

Ramon John Hnatyshyn (Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition; Progressive Conservative Party Deputy House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order because the statement that was made by the parliamentary secretary encourages me to ask him specifically about two very important questions which remain unanswered since the beginning of the session, notwithstanding the fact that on previous occasions I have brought this matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Today, I want to bring it very strongly to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) in the hope that, just as he has responded to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who made representations to him with regard to certain questions yesterday, he will

March 13, 1979

Energy Supplies

see that the answers to these questions of mine are provided. I refer specifically to questions Nos. 207 and 208 in my name dated October 16.

We all know that an election cannot be far away and these two questions have a certain importance as far as I am concerned with respect to the use of aircraft in the course of election campaigns. I will refresh the memory of the parliamentary secretary with respect to my questions. The first reads as follows:

Has the Liberal party of Canada 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, in what amount for each trip?

The second question reads:

Did the Prime Minister or members of the Cabinet, during the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, make use of government aircraft and, if so, what was the total cost and what was the destination on each occasion?

Parliament has passed an elections act. I suggest the failure on the part of the government to answer these questions raises serious doubts in the minds of the public as to whether the government is acting in conformity with the spirit of that legislation or whether they are smuggling in expenses incurred on election campaigns and spending taxpayers' money for their own purposes. The information I am seeking is available on a daily basis in the Department of Transport. My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) has pointed this out. The longer this information is refused, the more suspicious people will get. If ministers have any courage at all they will answer these questions tomorrow in the same way as the parliamentary secretary has answered the hon. member for Moncton. I challenge the hon. gentleman to do his job and to show us how questions can be answered in this House.

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   MR. HNATYSHYN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 207 AND
Permalink
IND

Leonard C. Jones

Independent

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a speech. I just want to thank the parliamentary secretary for letting me have the answers to those questions. I wish he would let me have the answers to the other 33 tomorrow or the next day.

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   MR. HNATYSHYN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 207 AND
Permalink
LIB

Roger Carl Young (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):

I am sure the hon. member understands I am doing this on a part-time basis to assist my colleague who is rather ill today and could not be here. I should like to enjoy the success of providing answers to questions which hon. members are looking for. Some of those answers will, I am sure, surprise them.

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   MR. HNATYSHYN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 207 AND
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURES TO CONSERVE STOCKS


The House resumed from Monday, March 12, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Gillespie).


LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Yesterday, a point of order was raised with regard to the procedural regulatory of motion No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-42. That point of order was supported by several arguments. It was contended that the motion was out of order because it introduced into the bill a new concept by giving the board created by Bill C-42 a role in monitoring the international petroleum supply situation. The argument was that this was a new role for the board, that it caused the board to do things entirely separate from its original capacity under Bill C-42, and, therefore, that it was out of order on that ground.

It was also argued that if the first amendment was in order because the function of monitoring petroleum supplies is incidental to the function of the board in regulating an emergency situation for petroleum, the additional concept of responsibility to be given by the minister in that regard to Petro-Canada was a new concept and ought not to be part of an amendment to a bill at this stage.

I considered most of those arguments yesterday. There was an argument that because these amendments had not been put forward in previous stages of the bill, they could not be put forward at the report stage, and I set that aside yesterday.

I also found yesterday that the function of monitoring international petroleum supplies seemed, at least to me, to be sufficiently incidental to the role of the board in these circumstances and that on procedural grounds 1 could not consider that the amendment related to the function.

Whether those arguments form a part of the substance of the debate once it begins is not for me to decide. I have to decide whether the amendment is out of order, and if the amendment were out of order on that basis, I think the function would have to be so unrelated as to be clearly a new concept introduced into the bill at this stage. It is a separate role from that which is set up in Bill C-42, but I cannot find that it is an unrelated function. Therefore, I cannot find that the amendment is out of order on that ground.

This leaves me with the matter of the procedural capacity of an amendment to introduce into this bill a role for Petro-Canada, and I said I would give serious consideration to that argument, which was put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I have done so.

What gave me concern on the face of it-and the hon. member for Calgary Centre as well and others who participated in the discussion-was, of course, the precedents which relate to procedural difficulties where an amendment to this bill would in effect reach behind this bill and attempt to amend another statute. I have, first of all, some guidance from

March 13, 1979

the precedents as to what extent I should concern myself with that problem, because there is a considerable body of argument which states that the Chair ought not to concern itself with what may in effect require an amendment of another statute or may incidentally amend another statute or may even in fact be in conflict with the provisions of another statute. That is not the decision of the Chair because that requires a legal interpretation.

Here I want to refer the House to a precedent in Hansard of May 6 of 1969 by my predecessor at that time who said the following:

I think there is a substantial difference between a proposed amendment that obviously seeks directly to amend the original legislation and one that, by way of consequence, might require amendments which, as is in this case, are not of a substantive nature.

In other words, that is an expression of the proposition that the Chair obviously must be on guard to the situation where the reference to the other statute of Petro-Canada would be clearly in terms of an attempt to amend that statute by adding a clause or things of that nature, or in fact by amending the statute itself in explicit language to attempt to do so.

That is one thing. It is rather a second question for the Chair to take one step further and to listen to the argument that, if this clause is put before the House and passed, it will have the incidental effect of amending another statute or requiring an amendment to another statute to be effective. That may be so, but that is essentially a legal question which is really not an area the Chair should get into in matters of this sort. For that proposition again I refer to a 1969 precedent by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux reported at page 7969 of Hansard.

My feeling, however, is that the Chair should not be placed in a position where the Speaker has to rule on legal points. The tradition and background of the position of the Chair is that the Speaker should rule only on procedural matters.

It therefore ought not to be for the Chair now to look at the Petro-Canada statute and decide whether the statute gives to Petro-Canada the power that the minister seeks to give it in this statute by way of this amendment. However, I am at least somewhat affected by the language in section 3 of that statute which is entitled "Purpose of the Act" and reads in part as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to establish within the energy industries in Canada a Crown owned company with authority to explore for hydro-carbon deposits-

And here is the significant language:

-to negotiate for and acquire petroleum and petroleum products from abroad to assure a continuity of supply for the needs of Canada-

Therefore, I think on balance I have to conclude that, with the role which is assigned to me to look at this matter on procedural grounds, I would have to be examining a situation where there was in clear language an attempt to add a clause to that statute or, by its very own language, to amend that statute, whereas here there is simply a use of the corporation created by that statute. I think it is not for the Chair to go beyond the procedural responsibility I have and try to make a legal interpretation as to whether that can or should be done, or whether it is going to be in conflict with other legislative provisions. I have to decide whether it so introduces a new

Energy Supplies

concept into this statute that it goes beyond the regulations, precedents and practices that we have governing amendments to legislation.

On the whole I have to find, after listening to arguments on both sides, that I am left in some uncertainty and doubt about whether that point has been established, and I think in these circumstances I ought to resolve the doubt in favour of keeping the matter before the House so that the House will debate it, discuss it and vote upon it. In other words, I ought only to take away from the House the right to discuss measures if I am absolutely convinced that they are out of order. In this case I am left in some doubt, and therefore I think I have to resolve that doubt by having the House deal with the matter.

Therefore, on procedural grounds I see no basis upon which I ought to interrupt the putting of the motion. I believe the motion has been formally put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURES TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):

Mr. Speaker, I would like just briefly to go over some of the background to this amendment and to put before the House some of the events which I think make this amendment important, extremely relevant and urgent at this time.

Hon. members will recall, as we got into the second reading debate, some of the events which led the government to bring this particular bill before the House. I refer, of course, to the revolution in Iran, the cessation of oil production in Iran, the reduction of world supplies by close to six million barrels a day and the absolute economic and energy paralysis of the world's second largest oil producer and exporter.

Those events in Iran created a ripple effect around the world. It was not very long before those events in Iran were felt on the east coast of Canada. Hon. members are familiar with the fact that there were cutbacks, that a number of Canadian refiners had been dependent upon Iranian supplies, that Iranian supplies amounted to close to 100,000 barrels a day, roughly 20 per cent of Canadian import needs, and that a large part of eastern Canada, sometimes described as one third of Canada-the Atlantic provinces and a substantial part of the Quebec market-was completely dependent upon foreign supplies. Cutbacks began to occur. Reallocations started to be made between the supply companies which were providing oil to eastern refineries.

Hon. members will also be familiar with the fact that the Exxon Corporation, in allocating to its subsidiary in Canada, Imperial Oil, went overboard. It was proposing a diversion of supplies equivalent to about 25 per cent of the imports of Imperial Oil into Canada. It should also be noted that Imperial Oil's almost exclusive source-not completely but almost exclusive source-has been Venezuela. Let it also be noted that Venezuela has been our most reliable and largest supplier of imported crude oil for the longest time, some 40 to 50 years, without any interruption of supply. Let it also be noted that in early January the Venezuelan government gave a commitment to me that it wished to continue to do business with Canada

March 13, 1979

Energy Supplies

and to supply Canada, its second most important customer, with 200,000 barrels a day. They also wished, so far as possible, to deal directly with importers in Canada rather than through third parties or the Exxon Corporation.

For those two reasons-the reason that Venezuela had given in the sense of assurances for a continuing supply to Canada, and the fact that Imperial Oil was virtually exclusively sourcing from Venezuela-we had reason to believe that Canada and that particular company would have been helped on this in the event of the kinds of reallocations that were taking place as the result of the events in Iran. The effect was not a cutback on any pro rata basis within the Exxon Corporation. What Exxon had proposed to Imperial was an entirely different formula. They had intervened with their own arrangements which clearly undercut the security of supply for Canada.

As a matter of policy, the Canadian government has been trying to increase the security of supply for Canada by sourcing in the western hemisphere. That was the reason for my trip to Venezuela and my trip to Mexico as well. The Mexicans equally were forthcoming. They too said they wanted to deal with Canada, and they too said they wanted to give preference to Canada, a western hemisphere neighbour. They too said they wanted to deal directly, and they gave us an undertaking to supply Canada with 100,000 barrels a day of crude starting in late 1980 or early 1981.

Those two undertakings-the Venezuelan undertaking and the Mexican undertaking-can shift our dependence away from the Middle East in a signficant way. They can increase the security of supply for Canada in a dramatic way from something like 40 per cent in the western hemisphere to 60 per cent in the western hemisphere; or, to put it another way, they can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern and eastern hemisphere sources from 60 per cent to 40 per cent, and do that within a relatively short space of time.

Since this bill was introduced, a number of other events have occurred which have added a sense of urgency to the situation at present. I am talking about the fact that while the Iranian government has stated it will be resuming oil production, it has not indicated it will get up to anything like full production. The Iranians have stated they may be able to get up to one half of their original production levels, and that is obviously something which we can greet with some enthusiasm and encouragement, but it still leaves a significant shortfall of some three million barrels a day. In other words, there will be smaller volumes from Iran for some time.

There are also going to be, as a result of the policy in Iran, higher prices. The new regime there has indicated they will charge everything the traffic will bear. They have indicated they will auction to the highest price. They have stated they will look for $5 and even $10 per barrel premiums, and their statement and this shortage are creating an uneasiness in some of the other suppliers, because they too are faced with political pressures at home and they too are having to answer to their constituents why they should sell for less if Iran can get more.

So we have seen a series of events in the Persian Gulf. Countries have been raising prices and announcing increases in prices. We have seen as well the action of the Libyan government which has not only raised prices but has stated it will cut production. These are recent events, not altogether unpredictable but events that have occurred since the introduction of this bill.

At the same time, we have witnessed the increasing isolation of Saudi Arabia. The events in Iran have created an entirely different situation in the Middle East. We have seen the kind of expeditions that have been launched in South Yemen and North Yemen that have been described as border disputes, but these two states are on the southern border of Saudi Arabia. One of the states is described as a Soviet satellite run by a Marxist government in an increasingly Marxist area of the world. I am referring, of course, to the borders of Afghanistan and to the element which has been developing within Iran itself. And there are all of the additional tensions that have been created there.

We have also seen, to our regret and disappointment, the inability of Mr. Carter, President of the United States, to bring a degree of stability and understanding between two of the main combatants, two of the main states of the Middle East, Israel and Egypt, to the bargaining table. The events in Iran have not helped because the government of Iran has stated it would no longer continue the policy of the shah to supply oil to Israel.

I think I have said enough to indicate that the events in the Middle East are less stable today than they were even a few weeks ago when this bill was first addressed at second reading. I should like to say that perhaps in two weeks' time the situation will be better, but 1 would be a foolish man if I were to predict that degree of improvement.

The other question that has arisen since this bill was introduced is how a shortfall might be allocated. The International Energy Agency of which Canada is a member by treaty has agreed to joint action which would reduce world demand by two million barrels a day, roughly 5 per cent of the consumption of the IEA countries. That 5 per cent figure is very close to the 7 per cent figure which is the figure which will trigger our treaty obligations and the need for this bill, the mandatory allocation of crude oil, the mandatory allocation of products and possibly the introduction of a rationing scheme.

I emphasized two things in these remarks, the fact that the IEA is closer than it has ever been since its inception to dealing with the very reason that it was created, and the fact that the process of allocating international crude and crude movements will be undertaken and influenced to a large extent by multinational corporations, by the internationals themselves.

In the debate yesterday on whether or not this motion was in order there was some discussion about this. The energy critic of the Conservative party put it on the record that the International Energy Agency was set up with a standing group on emergency questions and he indicated that the standing group will be composed of one or more representatives of the govern-

March 13, 1979

ment of each participating country. I am referring to article 54 of the institutional and general provisions of the International Energy Agency.

The amendment which has been introduced would name Petro-Canada to the standing group on emergency questions. It is the senior operative executive committee concerned with the implementation of the emergency oil-sharing arrangement. We believe that Petro-Canada's nomination as one of the Canadian government representatives is appropriate entirely, and more than that, it is essential in light of the manner in which the international allocation process will be undertaken.

It is quite clear from the institutional structure of the organization that international companies will play a major role, both in an advisory manner and in an implementing manner. Therefore, it is all the more important for Canada that Petro-Canada represent the interests of Canadians in the highest executive committee, the standing group on emergency questions, not just to advise Canada and other Canadian representatives who might be present, but to maintain a watchdog influence respecting the implementation process to ensure Canada is dealt with in a fair manner.

I would not want to suggest that other countries will not live up to their treaty obligations in the event we are faced collectively with our obligation under the international energy agency oil-sharing agreement of 7 per cent. But there is the possibility some countries will try to take advantage of the situation and will try to over-protect their own interests in a manner which could be harmful to Canada. Also it is quite possible that those countries might be served by their own international companies. It does not take any great imagination to see that an international oil corporation, which will be involved in this very difficult implementation process, could favour some countries to the disadvantage of others. Also it is well known that Canada does not have any international company which might be able to look out for Canada's interests. It is for that reason I believe the addition of Petro-Canada to the standing group on emergency questions is important.

I believe the events with Imperial and Exxon have demonstrated that we will have to depend increasingly upon ourselves to solve our own problems.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURES TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
NDP

Reginald Cyril Symes

New Democratic Party

Mr. Symes:

Tell us about this morning. What happened this morning?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURES TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink

March 13, 1979