1977-02-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Privy Council, speaking on behalf of the government, indicated that a motion under Standing Order 43, which I had moved on Monday regarding the tragic Uganda situation, was not acceptable because of the fear that it might precipitate a debate. I am now prepared to assure the government House leader that the Official Opposition is prepared to pass this motion today without debate. We take this position in view of the continuing and growing dimension of the tragedy in Uganda. I would therefore, with the leave of the House, move the following motion under the terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House condemn the government of Uganda for denying due process of law to its citizens and calls upon President Amin to permit an impartial inquiry by the Commonwealth or the United Nations into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the Archbishop of Uganda and two Ugandan cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion which I believe, given recent news reports, will receive support from both sides of the House and which can be accepted without debate. In view of the announced intention of both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways to increase fares and drastically reduce commuter train services in the Montreal area, leaving
20,000 commuters without service, and in view of similar circumstances in other urban areas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to reconsider its decision not to implement its 1974 election promise to provide $290 million for urban transit systems in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion on an important matter of urgent and pressing riecessity.
Following the visit to the penitentiaries and considering that there is a lot of violence and that the subcommittee has no judicial power and can only make recommendations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the House give its unanimous consent to urge the Solicitor General to establish a judicial inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Dutil or any
other prominent person, considering that such an inquiry could eliminate both physical and mental violence in penitentiaries, and particularly in the C.D.C. in Quebec and in the institutions of Millhaven, Ontario, and New Westminster, British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.

February 23, 1977
Drilling Regulations



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In light of the withdrawal of federal funds for Go-service to Milton, Oakville and Burlington, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House instruct the government to fulfil its 1974 election promise and supply $290 million in federal funds to assist urban transit as promised.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of the same Standing Order. Given that the Department of the Environment has gone on the record as having grave doubts about the adequacy of Dome Petroleum oil spill clean-up plans, and that the well blow-out at K-91 in the Beaufort Sea may be still blowing out and that if oil had been involved we would have a major ecological disaster in the area, and that the blow-out and the failure to contain it could have been avoided through stricter control on the drilling, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House refer the question of the adequacy of the drilling provisions and their enforcement, and the risks to the environment in light of an inadequate oil clean-up technology, to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development before any decision is made on the renewal of any drilling authority in the Beaufort Sea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
It would seem that 55 foreign fishing vessels recently violated the 200-mile fishing limit and thus did not respect the agreement which has just been concluded on January 1, 1977. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), I move:
That a House committee be called at once to consider action to be taken against the owners of fishing vessels who are alleged to have contravened this agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the government's announced intention to discontinue its assistance for commuter services, does the minister still intend to go ahead with his commuter rail service between Mirabel airport and the city of Montreal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to see the hon. member for Crowfoot back in the House. 1 want him to know that I have missed him, even though I will have to say that the two parts of his question present some difficulty for me in view of the fact that one part is, so far as I know, wrong and the other is somewhat speculative. The fact of the matter is that as far as commuter services are concerned we do have a standing program, which was announced a year ago, for assistance in connection with commuter operations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In 1974.


Otto Emil Lang: No, the actual commitment of $100 million over a period of four or five years was announced a year ago. We
February 23, 1977



have had some discussions with the provinces in that connection and regarding other programs in the broad field of urban transportation, with a view to determining whether we could find the most effective ways of assuring that those moneys were available for the items most needed. These discussions are leading to some further action and decision by the government which is still to be taken.
As for the other part of the question there is, of course, no specific plan for a rail link to Mirabel, and this is the part of the question which falls into the category that I described.


AIR TRANSPORT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am bent on trying to assist the government to save money, and I did notice in the papers a report that Mirabel last year lost in operating costs $50 million. Has the government any desire to grant Quebecair the privilege of flying European passengers for European airlines from Toronto to Mirabel for which Quebec has asked permission and for which the European airlines are prepared to pay Quebecair?


Otto Emil Lang: At all times we are looking at the question of which air services will best provide convenience to passengers as well as the way in which maximum advantage can be drawn from the facility at Mirabel, with convenience to passengers very much in mind. I should say to the hon. member that there was an exchange in the House which was a little more precise than his reference to the $50 million loss. When the figure of $47 million is attributed to the Mirabel loss, which includes $43 million loss in the interest on the debt, he will appreciate that this is carrying a full picture which was not common in the past and which is probably better said than not said, but it is a bookkeeping entry rather than an operating loss.


TRANSPORT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: I might say that one could study the answers for some time in order to determine just what was said.
I should like to ask the minister, in light of the announced intention of Via Canada passenger service, whether the government has given them any money for the purchase of rail cars and a rail system to put Via Canada into effect in the Quebec-Windsor corridor?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Appropriations will be made as required. We have called for and are now receiving and reviewing the tenders for from three to ten new train sets for that particular service. As soon as the tenders are evaluated, these will be ordered and produced. Of course, payments will be requested from parliament as the time frame and the order require.


PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF COMMUTER SERVICE IN MONTREAL AREA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Given the announcement of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to the effect that they will immediately commence a phase-out of their commuter train operations within the area of metropolitan Montreal, thereby depriving approximately 100,000 people in the greater Montreal area of any means of commuting, may 1 ask the minister what programs or plans he has, given the fact that federalism is on trial in the province of Quebec at present, to discharge the commitments made by this government in 1974 to the people of Montreal?


Otto Emil Lang: As I said earlier in my answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot, we have in place a commuter program for which up to $100 million is available to assist in the purchase of equipment and the like in connection with commuter services. It is a specific form of assistance for these types of commuter services. Of course, while federalism is very important, it is also true that certain things are the responsibilities of the provinces within that federalism. It has been our view that commuter services, and indeed urban transit services, are primarily the responsibility of the cities and provinces in which they are found, and while we have made various forms of assistance available to them, the responsibility rests primarily with the province and the city. That has been recognized in the case of Montreal by the creation of a committee under the previous government to study the total situation, and we hope it will produce results which will allow CN and CP services to continue.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 have a supplementary question for the minister who seems to have a very short memory because in 1974 the government made this business of commuter transit a federal responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -by a solemn undertaking made by the minister's colleague, the then minister of urban affairs, and by the Prime Minister.
My question to the Minister of Transport is: given the fact that there is now considerable unrest within the Liberal caucus from members from metropolitan Montreal and metropolitan Toronto, including the hon. member for York East who has gone to the press on this, what programs is the minister prepared to discuss with CN and CP whereby the government of Canada, which still has responsibility for railways in this

February 23, 1977
Oral Questions
country, will underwrite some of the losses incurred on these commuter runs, especially in metropolitan Montreal and metropolitan Toronto?


Otto Emil Lang: I think it is quite clear that quite apart from whatever financial assistance may be offered over the time in relation to what is essentially a provincial program, it remains a provincial and municipal program, which is what I said when I said it is their prime responsibility. I also indicated that in connection with the commuter programs we announced a year ago we would make $100 million available over five years for the assistance of developed programs in the commuter field, so in that regard we did move to make some money available along the lines which had been indicated at the time of the 1974 election. What we have also faced, however, is a severe restriction upon financial resources within the total federal field, and therefore we have had to reflect carefully upon what other things we can do.


URBAN AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who has assumed an even greater responsibility as far as the government is concerned in the province of Quebec. Given the fact that the government has now officially reneged on its commitment to the cities with regard to urban transportation, and given the serious situation developing in Montreal and the announced intentions of CN and CP to withdraw commuter services in that city, will the minister meet with representatives of the urban Montreal community, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National to try to ensure that there will be no cutback of commuter services in metropolitan Montreal, and will the minister make an annoucement in the House in that regard?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to all those questions is yes.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it concerns the continuing problems in the Beaufort Sea. I would like to quote from Page 72 of the technical assessment of the drilling program. I am

quoting the minister's own technical report as follows: "The most important question that arises is why Canmar blindly drilled into an overpressured zone, taking into account all the sophisticated pressure detection equipment in use". Given the fact that this study is now being conducted by the same people who made the mistakes in the first place, can the minister advise why he did not make sure there was an independent review, separate and apart from the officials who made the decision on site to go ahead with that very risky drilling project?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the review is not being carried out by the same persons who agreed to the drilling in the first place. I believe the hon. member is referring to certain preliminary reports or reviews which were prepared by different people and which are being submitted to the communities in the Mackenzie Delta for their reaction. Once we get that reaction we will then prepare a final report which will deal with the conditions and the obligations of Dome Petroleum with respect to any new drilling season, but the review process is presently under way. It is not being done by the same people.


PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TO DRILL FOR OIL AND GAS IN BEAUFORT SEA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I hope the minister will check his answer out with the director of the northern natural resources and environment branch, Mr. Joyce. As reported in Hansard at page 3047 of February 15 the minister indicated that a five-year drilling permit is a very speculative matter. Given the fact that the minister's own officials have publicly advocated a five-year drilling permit, and given that his own officials have gone public, would the minister undertake that there will be an independent review of this, and would he refer this matter to the standing committee so that there can be some objectivity in terms of the kind of drilling permit which is granted?


William Warren Allmand: The government will make the decision, and not the officials. Furthermore, our decision will be based on input from the communities and from outside persons and officials.


PROPOSAL TO MAINTAIN DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Considering that in the near future our country will be confronted with a shortage of oil and natural gas and that
February 23, 1977

several Canadian provinces have expressed the wish to return to daylight saving time, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to meet the provinces to restore daylight saving time throughout the year thus saving energy and making maximum use of daylight?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a number of studies have been made in respect of daylight saving time and the question of whether Canada would benefit by extending the season from I think six months to eight months. Those studies have been done for Canada and compared with the results in the United States. The information I have received is that it would not be in the over-all interests of Canadians to extend the period of daylight saving time even though there would be some savings in energy because there would be other costs associated with the change, including questions of personal safety.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
I thank the minister for his explanations, but 1 wonder how he has reached the conclusion that energy would not be saved, considering that during the war we were on daylight saving time for four years. It was done for war needs to expedite work and save energy.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my answer to the hon. member that in fact there would be a saving with a longer period of daylight saving time. I expect we will be going on daylight saving time very shortly and we would in this coming year spend the same length of time, which is roughly six months, in a daylight saving system as we did in prior years. The question I raised was whether there would be a net benefit in a longer period of daylight saving time. I indicated there would be, based on the studies I have seen, some saving by lengthening the period of daylight saving time but there would be other costs associated with doing that. One of those is the question of personal safety.


TRANSPORT
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Noting the government's decision to withdraw federal funding from urban transportation as promised during the 1974 election campaign and being aware of the serious effect this decision will have on the GO system to Milton, Oakville and Burlington, will the minister reconsider this decision and see if funds can be diverted from other projects so that this program can go ahead, inasmuch as there has been a tremendous amount of planning done in this area.
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should again clarify to the hon. member that the difficulty is that Fiscal and financial restraints mean that we cannot do fully what was contemplated at the time the announcement was made in 1974. We have, however, done certain things as I indicated earlier, in relation to the commuter field; we are also looking at ways of re-adjusting other programs and the question of the total amount of money available for the broad field of urban transportation. Final decisions in that field have not yet been made.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Would the minister consider these two propositions: Would he meet with the municipal authorities in Montreal, the Toronto-Hamilton corridor and Winnipeg? Will he also give a reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and allow it to examine the whole matter and report back to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed met with some representatives of the groups to which the hon. member referred. I can give consideration to the other representations of the hon. member.


CANDU REACTOR-PROPOSED LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH RUMANIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister confirm that the government is in the process of negotiating a licensing arrangement with Rumania to supply that country with the design of the CANDU reactor and the engineering help to build it? And, if so, can the minister say how this conforms with the sentiments expressed yesterday by the Prime Minister that nuclear proliferation and nuclear safeguards are the kinds of issues that will determine the stability of tomorrow's world? Will the minister please explain how a nuclear licensing arrangement with Rumania is contributing to that stability?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been in negotiation with Rumanian authorities with regard to the purchase of equipment and the licensing associated with a CANDU reactor. I think the hon. lady should know that no deal will be made, no licence arrangement will be signed, even though there will be substantial benefits to Canada, probably in the order of $300 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You mean we will lose that much on the deal.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the strange thing about the opposition is that one moment they are complaining we are not interested in unemployment. The next moment, when there is

February 23, 1977
Oral Questions
an export opportunity, they are hollering because they do not want us to take advantage of that opportunity. If they would deal with the issue seriously and permit me to give them a serious answer, I would like to do that. The point 1 made is very important. Canadians realize there would be thousands of jobs associated with the sale to Rumania. It is also very important that Canadians and the media understand the government will not authorize any licencing agreement to Rumania unless the full safeguards that Canada would insist upon would be put in place by Rumania. It is also important that the hon. lady realize that Rumania is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: While there may be commercial considerations, there are also very strong moral considerations in this question. Can the minister say if in these discussions that are now taking place, it is the policy of the government to sqpply Warsaw Pact countries with nuclear facilities, bearing in mind that these countries are normally dominated by the U.S.S.R. which refuse to allow IAEA inspections, even though they may have ratified the NPT? Can he tell the House if Canada has discussed this sale with our NATO allies and what their reaction is to this whole new direction in our nuclear policy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points which I think the hon. lady does not fully understand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have been briefed and you haven't.


Alastair William Gillespie: If you want to debate the issue, why don't you wait because we are going to deal with energy policy this afternoon? Perhaps that would be the time to make your debating point. If you want an answer to the question, I will give you one. I do not think you understand that Rumania is presently installing a nuclear facility. If your fear is that Canada will be providing to Rumania a facility which would enable Rumania or other Communist nations to build the bomb, quite clearly you are working on the wrong assumption. The second point is that we will not authorize such a sale unless there are IAEA inspections with respect to such an installation.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBILITY OF DREDGING ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AT L'lLE D'ORLfiANS
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Pursuant to numerous representations made to the Minister of Transport by the Chamber of Commerce and the industry of metropolitan Quebec City as well as several other agencies of the Quebec City area, namely the Quebec Urban Community, south shore industrial commissions and hon. members
[Mr. Gillespie.)
from greater Quebec City, concerning dredging of the St. Lawrence northern crossing, I would like to know whether the minister has made a decision with regard to a works program to overhaul and maintain in good repair the channel of the northern crossing at a minimum depth of 41 feet of water. No doubt the minister is aware that this is a priority for the economic development of metropolitan Quebec City. In the affirmative, would he let the House know immediately what his intentions are?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had many representations on this question. Indeed, I have spoken with the Quebec members of the House of Commons about it. I will be meeting a delegation from Quebec City and I propose to discuss with them the question of how the cost of additional dredging ought properly to be borne. I indicated earlier that when one particular beneficiary of work like this is clearly identified, it is only reasonable to expect some contribution from that person or corporation. On the other hand, other benefits that may be assessed in terms of development or in terms of shared or diffused benefit may have to be borne by the government or the governments. The province of Quebec recently indicated its interest in seeing this project go ahead. I will be interested also in speaking with the government of the province of Quebec in relation to their possible role in sharing in the proposed work.


DELAY IN CLEANING UP RADIATION IN HOMES IN ELLIOT LAKE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the revelation that Treasury Board has held up funds for Atomic Energy Control Board to start remedial work on radiation contaminated homes in Elliot Lake, and in view of the minister's commitment as stated in Hansard on December 14, 1976 and I quote "we will not delay introducing the clean-up measures while we argue about whose responsibility it is", will the minister now state that he will live up to his commitment and not play fast and loose with the health of residents living in contaminated homes?


Alastair William Gillespie: Of course, Mr. Speaker. Let me also make clear to the hon. member that the problem he has identified is not a man-made one. It is a problem related to the natural outcropping. I think he will agree with me that the government of Ontario also shares a responsibility to help in this clean-up.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Does the minister agree that the AECB also has some responsibility in not surveying the land at the time the homes were built in a naturally contaminated area? In view of the fact that the health of people is at stake, this is no time for shuffling it off to the Ontario government on a jurisdictional
February 23, 1977

question. This government should admit the facts, get the remedial work done and then iron out the cost-sharing arrangement.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, work has been going ahead and I expect it to continue.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact the Supreme Court of Canada has now ruled that the Alberta government had the right to purchase shares in Pacific Western-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew I would finally lead this group to my left if I sat here long enough. Will the minister now rescind that arrogant order in council which set out that the head office of that company could not be moved from Vancouver to Calgary?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, because the order was not arrogant, it does not need rescinding. The order simply said that the move should not take place until the Supreme Court decision was handed down.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Prior to the appointment of a work committee from the Canadian Public Health Association by the Minister of Health to examine the arsenic problem in Yellowknife, did the Minister of the Environment discuss the arsenic problem with the Minister of Health?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the appointment of outside medical personnel, the answer is yes.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENT STUDY GROUP
Robert Hylton Brisco: In view of the minister's answer, 1 would now ask why he did not implement the clauses that are clearly in place in the Environmental Contaminants Act which allow for and indeed urge the cooperation of the
Oral Questions
work of the two ministers together to establish an independent committee for such an examination. The provisions are there. Why was it not done?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we have cooperated. If I understand the hon. member's question, it is referring to the Clean Air Act.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The Environmental Contaminants Act.


Roméo LeBlanc: Maybe I did not understand the hon. member's question.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thought I made it clear that there are provisions within the Environmental Contaminants Act for the two ministries to work together, for the minister to appoint an independent committee, and that this work was not done in spite of the consultation that exists between the two ministers. Why?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we have a special committee in place under the Canadian Medical Public Health Association.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD DATE OF CABINET DECISION ON APPEAL FROM BOARD DECISION CONCERNING FLOUR MILL EMPLOYEES
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
In view of the milling trade strike now in progress in Montreal, the serious bread shortage as well as the increase in price of that product which affects especially low-income families, and the fact that for over a week now the federal cabinet has had before it the appeal of the union against the decision of the AIB to reduce the hourly rate which had been arrived at freely by the union and the companies concerned, can the minister tell the House when the cabinet will assume its responsibilities and reach a decision?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: My parliamentary secretary is meeting the representatives of the CSN on that matter this afternoon. I met with them last Wednesday night in Montreal. We are going over the reasons upon which they are basing their representations to cabinet for reconsideration. I shall not be able to report for a day or two as to whether we perceive any solid basis for them. We are endeavouring to be helpful in the situation to see whether there are other avenues through which the matter can be resolved.

February 23, 1977
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, through you, to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of increased activity in connection with the construction of an oil refinery in Eastport, Maine, and in view of the hazard this presents to the fishing industry not only in the Bay of Fundy but in an extensive part of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to it, would the minister restate his position, and the position of the government, as set out by his predecessor, Mr. Davis, that under no circumstances will large oil tankers be allowed to pass through Canadian waters to supply any such refinery?


Roméo LeBlanc: The position stated by my colleagues, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, my predecessor as Minister of the Environment, and of myself is that Canada is opposed to tanker traffic in that area.


Fred Alward McCain: That is not as clearly stated as was previously stated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Has the minister's position been supported by the proper charts showing rock barriers both above and below the water surface of the bay and of the conflicting currents which exist in Head Harbour Passage and adjacent waters and has the government received any response from the United States authorities to the position it has taken?


Roméo LeBlanc: I know of no more formal objection to a project than a government-to-govern-ment note which is what happened in this case. I know of no communication from the United States government on the subject during the past months.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There is an increasing body of evidence about dangers connected with the use of aluminum wiring in homes and commercial buildings. In light of this evidence and resulting public concern will the minister take immediate action to bring aluminum wiring and devices for connecting it under the Hazardous Products Act to set standards for safe use, or take other appropriate steps to protect consumers from the dangers in question?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the department have consulted very closely with Mr. Jerabec who has been doing some personal research on this project. At this point there is no firm evidence that aluminum wiring with the connectors is hazardous as alleged. In the opinion of officials of the department, aluminum wiring is in itself certainly not hazardous. It is possible, though not proven, that installation of it as electrical wiring in homes might prove to be hazardous but in our view this would not be a matter to be dealt with under the Hazardous Products Act but would rather be a matter for authorities in the provinces and elsewhere who authorize such installations by electrical companies in homes.


DISPUTE BETWEEN NEWFOUNDLAND AND QUEBEC OVER ATTEMPTED RECALL OF ELECTRICITY-POSSIBILITY OF MINISTER'S INTERVENTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the importance of developing the lower Gull Island site in Labrador to provide the Atlantic region with hydro, has the minister indicated that he might intercede in the controversy between Newfoundland and Quebec? Would the minister tell us whether he has taken any action to consult with both provinces in an effort to bring about a solution? I refer to the recall of 800 megawatts.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think we should distinguish between the question of the Gull Island site and the recall of the 800 megawatts. They are separate questions. The latter issue is one which the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland expect to settle in the courts. As to the great potential of the Gull Island site, 1 have discussed that subject with the minister of energy in the new Quebec government and with the premier of the hon. member's province.


GULL ISLAND PROJECT-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHARING INCREASED COST
Jack Marshall: The
minister indicated last year that there were $243 million on the line for Newfoundland to pick up to develop the Gull Island site. Has any discussion taken place with the Newfoundland government on the subject of increasing costs of such development? Would the minister consider increasing the amount mentioned because of the larger expenditure now involved?


Alastair William Gillespie: I talked to the premier of Newfoundland quite recently, within the last few weeks. I put it to him that we would very much like to sit down and discuss with him his most recent engineering and cost estimates for both the trans-
February 23, 1977

mission system and the generation system for Gull Island. He responded very positively and I believe officials of the two governments are at this moment discussing an updated series of figures.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This question was asked of the Prime Minister. It relates to the serious situation which faces the footwear industry in Canada. If no action is taken by the government it is my understanding we can expect significant lay-offs. What steps is the government prepared to take in order to provide some protection for this industry which is certainly calling for leadership at this point from the federal authority.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: 1 can
tell the hon. member that this subject was discussed yesterday between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with his cabinet colleagues at which time attention was drawn to the problems mentioned by the hon. member. The matter is under consideration at the present time. Further meetings will be held between the government and representatives of the unions involved, and if and when any specific measures are to be taken I can assure the hon. member they will be made known to the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad to see that for a change the government is on the ball. Would the minister advise us whether the government has ruled out the type of steps which were taken in order to protect the textile industry? Are we moving in that direction in order to protect the shoe industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has drawn attention to the effective action which was taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to the textile industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Comparable problems are being
experienced by other industries in the country. The hon. member will realize, of course, that though similar measures may be needed to deal with the problems he has in mind, that is not necessarily the situation. But measures are under consideration.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Acting Prime Minister will be meeting with representatives concerned with this problem. Can he give me any idea when he believes that these meetings will have concluded in order that an announcement can be made in
Oral Questions
this House as to what steps the government will be taking? Has he a deadline in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The meetings referred to are meetings to take place between the trade unions and the Minister of Labour within a matter of days.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On February 11 the Prime Minister, in reply to a question of mine concerning subsidies for west coast ferries, took notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister had said on December 22 that "there is an element still to be decided" concerning the west coast ferry subsidies. Can the Minister of Transport tell us if that element, whatever it is, has been decided and is the government now prepared to bring some equity into the method of subsidizing ferries on our coasts?


Hon.   Otto. E. Lang@Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, we are having further discussions with the province of British Columbia at this time on the whole question of our respective responsibilities and the role which can be played. We are doing so in a very co-operative spirit and I hope there will be some further developments in this regard within the next several weeks.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister's estimates show a little over $125 million for subsidization, directly or indirectly, of various ferry services on the east coast and nothing at all for west coast ferries. Are we to understand from that that the current inequities are to continue through to the next fiscal year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has been made very clear, it is our objective to apply in an equitable fashion the policy in relation to water transport assistance and other programs in all parts of this country. It is toward that end that we have been working, both on the east and west coasts, as well as in other waterways. On the east coast, of course, there are two very exceptional services which have to be treated quite differently from any others because of their nature in terms of the constitutional arrangements which were made and which have to be taken fully into account.
3338

February 23, 1977
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


PROPOSED RESEARCH CENTRE AT WINNIPEG-DELAY IN COMPLETING LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and is in regard to the defence research centre which is to be located in Winnipeg. Since the minister has had in his possession for approximately two months the land purchase agreement from the city of Winnipeg, I would ask the minister when the documents will be signed and returned to Winnipeg, along with payment for the land where the research base is to be located.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that negotiations are in abeyance until further decisions are made.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question. Last Friday the minister announced that it was going to take six months to a year to establish whether or not the base will be located in Winnipeg. Is he saying that he is asking the city of Winnipeg to hold this parcel of land until he makes up his mind what he is going to do with the base, and is he prepared to pay the taxes on that piece of property in the meantime until he makes a decision?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not expect the city of Winnipeg to hold on all that time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. As the minister is aware, the catch of Nova Scotia's inshore lobster fishermen is down by some 50 per cent when compared with last year's. Since it is now reported that lobster larvae are scarce in the inshore waters of Nova Scotia and it is also obvious that the offshore lobster fishery has to be regulated much more than it has been up to the present time, would the minister consider the establishment of a Canadian program similar to one that was established some time ago in the state of Maine where female seed lobsters are returned to the sea after being caught and marked and the fisherman compensated for his loss, in order to assist in rehabilitating the declining lobster stocks along the coast of Nova Scotia?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, reports that I have had from the scientists in my department do not indicate that the offshore impact on the inshore fishery is the determining factor at the present time for the poor catch of the inshore lobster fishermen. There are other factors, including unusually cold water temperatures for the season, and also very severe winter

conditions. However, Ihe suggestion made by the hon. member, because of his experience, is one which 1 will look at very seriously; I think it may have some very positive implications.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and I believe the Minister of Labour will be interested in it as well. On Friday, January 28, I asked the Minister of Transport a question relating to the report of Dr. Noel Hall on railway pensions which virtually throws the question of improving railway pensions back to the companies and to the government. The minister's reply was that the government would take a hard look at this report. Can the minister say whether the government is yet in a position to tell the House what it proposes to do about railway pensions in light of the Hall report?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not yet in that position. We are continuing to look at what is a very complicated matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the other part of my question on January 28 was whether the minister would take up with the CPR the particular recommendations made by Dr. Hall regarding CPR pensions, may I ask him whether he has been in touch with the CPR on this matter and, if so, what did the CPR say?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been in touch with them. I would want first to look at the implications of the whole matter before I try to take a position on it with an outside body.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister tell the House when the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the last crop year will be tabled?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the date but I will ask the Canadian Wheat Board to inform the hon. member.
February 23, 1977


GENETIC ENGINEERING RESEARCH-REASON FOR LACK OF GUIDELINES-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of its inherent danger to the public interest, and in view of the fact that the United States has had guidelines regarding the control of genetic engineering research since last July and the British have had these guidelines since last August, would the minister explain why similar guidelines do not exist in this country until this day?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Laionde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, several committees have made detailed studies and, at the present time, a committee- [English]
The committee has submitted its report. The Medical Research Council is accepting the recommended guidelines concerning the handling of recombinant DNA molecules and viruses. The press release will be released some time today, or tomorrow at the latest.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in addition to public institutions doing research of this kind private institutions are also doing it, and more research into genetic engineering could be expected to be undertaken by private institutions if it should become profitable, I would therefore like to know whether it is the intention of the minister to put forward legislative action of some sort to ensure that all aspects of this type of research are subject to the guidelines which might be proposed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed examining this particular situation in order to determine whether legislation is actually required or whether it can be done under regulations existing at the present time.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Some time ago I asked the Postmaster General about the sale of certain Canadian philatelic material at discount prices in New York and he stated that he intended to give the House some information as well as some explanation which may be suggested by this question. I would ask him whether he is now ready to answer that question. In addition, since the 30 per cent discount given to foreign dealers in Canadian stamps results in windfall profits on stamp issues which sell out rapidly, would the government reconsider this policy of discounting stamps to foreign dealers?
Oral Questions
Hon. J. -J. Blais (Postmaster General): Mr. Speaker, after this matter was brought to my attention I did conduct an investigation and sales have been conducted in a way I could not approve. The practice has now been discontinued.


G500) COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS-PROPOSAL THAT MEMBERS OF OPPOSITION ATTEND AS OBSERVERS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the Minister of Communications in light of the minister's answer yesterday about the conference in the west next month. Knowing the gracious minister is always open to constructive suggestions and in order to underline seriously the ecumenical nature of this conference, and since it is not a federal-provincial conference as the minister said yesterday, would she give serious consideration to having spokesmen from the opposition parties in the House attend that communications conference as observers because, as the minister said yesterday, the goal of the conference is to discuss various problems and to try to come up with some coherent policy? There has been a precedent for this at some of the earlier federal-provincial conferences.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, since the government House leader has again denied the unanimous consent necessary to pass the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East, which would have the entire House join the worldwide demand for an investigation into the murder of the Anglican archbishop and two other officials in Uganda, even though this side of the House gave a formal assurance that there would be no debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member realizes that the singling out of any member who has withheld his consent in respect of any proceeding in the House which requires unanimous consent is perhaps itself a cause for a point of order. If there is a serious point of order in what the hon. member has to say, 1 would be glad to hear it.
80010-5/4

February 23, 1977
Oral Questions


Douglas Roche: Yesterday, as recorded at page 3285 of Hansard, the government House leader took responsibility for denying unanimous consent to this motion. 1 only want to point out that since our side gave today a formal assurance that there would be no debate on this motion, which was the principal reason for not supporting motions under Standing Order 43, I think it is only proper to protest against his picayune interpretation of the rule-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that a motion put forward pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent in order that it be presented for debate. Once presented, it is debatable. Only last Friday the House learned that with great impact. Once the motion is presented, it is debatable and no member is able to guarantee that any motion, once put before the House, will not be debated by any other member because it is always the right of any individual member to rise to speak and that right cannot be denied either by the Chair or by any arrangement made in advance. Presenting Reports by Committees.
On the order: Motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that we are on motions, would the government House leader be prepared to present to the House a motion dealing with the situation in Uganda? Let it come as a government motion and let us deal with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: MacEachen said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Only the ingenuity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could transform motions into a return to the question period.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I rose earlier when the Chair called for the presentation of committee reports but inadvertently I was not recognized; would the Chair allow me to present a committee report?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) wishes to table a committee report. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Then 1 have the honour to table the first report-


Mr. Speaker:: Evidently there is not unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McCleave:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the difficulty in which the hon. member finds himself, because the same thing has happened to me in the past. When Your Honour asked for presentation of reports, I saw the hon. member rise in his seat. I think, therefore, he should be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If, in fact-as is obviously the case-the fault was not with the hon. member for Drummond but with the Chair for failing to observe him when he rose at the proper time, perhaps the House will extend the courtesy to both of us by consenting to reverting to the tabling of reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Pinard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,281, 1,282, 1,321, 1,525, 1,530, 1,536, 1,689 and 1,702.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on February 11, 1976 to Calor Mechanical Ltd. to install a services distribution system for the Communications Research Centre at Shirley's Bay?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Final contract cost, $1,573,261 (estimated); Completion date, February 28, 1977 (estimated).


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on October 16, 1975 to M.P. Lundy Construction Ltd. to build the north wing of
February 23, 1977

the headquarters building of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in the La Salle Academy?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost, $1,400,000 (estimated); Completion date, April 30, 1977 (estimated).
Order Paper Questions PUBLIC SERVANTS' SALARIES


Mr. Allard: In each department, how many public servants earn (a) $50,000 and over (b) $45,000 to $50,000 (c) $40,000 to $45,000 (d) $35,000 to $40,000 (e) $30,000 to $35,000 (0 $25,000 to $30,000 (g) $20,000 to $25,000 (h) $15,000 to $20 000'>
_____________________ Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):
Public Service Salaries By Salary Bands By Department*
As of November 1976 Salary Bands
$15,000	20,000	25,000	30,000	35,000	40,000	45,000	50,000	to	to	to	to	to	to	to	and	19,999	24,999	29,999	34,999	39,999	44,999	49,999	over	Dept. Agency	TotalAGR	2,760	698	462	240	82	8	1	4,251AIB	71	71	52	39	10	1	244ARC	155	53	23	5	236AUD	112	61	57	12	9	1	1	253CAE	1,880	458	204	43	6	3	2,594CCA	720	304	128	62	20	3	1	1,238CEO	4	1	4	2	1	12CLR	16	17	3	2	1	39COL	12	8	19	6	1	46COM	559	292	135	71	13	4	1,074CPC	20	5	1	6	39	2	73CTC	173	91	66	40	8	378DND	4,137	828	294	159	37	7	5,462DOE	3,046	1,365	741	395	74	7	2	5,630DPW	1,257	593	328	164	19	5	1	1	2,368DSS	1,262	707	611	202	21	4	1	2,808DVA	827	109	66	57	31	12	1,102EMR	947	499	316	184	37	2	3	1,988ENR	57	50	36	30	10	183EXT	395	230	167	67	62	102	1	1,024FIN	116	79	48	64	22	6	1	3	339FIR	10	13	18	18	4	63GGS	4	2	2	8IAB	22	2	1	1	26IAN	2,163	968	420	154	8	3	1	3,717IDA	167	182	80	53	7	3	1	493IJC	4	3	6	3	2	18INS	35	25	21	16	6	1	104ITC	307	310	441	321	73	41	3	1,496JUS	163	85	76	105	75	8	9	521LAB	175	80	42	23	9	3	332MID	4,534	577	345	129	27	9	1	5,622MOT	5,052	2,380	1,151	271	31	8	3	8,896MST	14	14	22	11	10	1	2	74NCC	78	45	19	18	160NHW	1,527	569	331	188	193	62	1	2,871NLI	97	36	5	1	139NMC	223	92	52	16	11	394NPB	181	21	20	4	5	231PCO	35	16	27	27	12	6	2	125PEN	1,555	247	93	50	22	10	1,977POD	5,387	393	184	57	8	3	1	6,033PSC	1,063	713	178	91	11	2	1	1	2,060RCM	85	19	2	1	107REE	257	189	154	164	21	4	1	790RTC	93	38	35	22	5	1	194SEC	606	399	100	41	7	3	1,156SOL	21	32	17	21	3	1	95STC	982	346	251	188	43	4	1,814TAR	6	1	7	1	15TAX	3,490	1,045	626	157	11	2	1	5,332TBD	63	105	138	149	37	7	4	503UAH	31	20	21	36	2	1	111U1C	2,106	199	102	51	9	3	1	2,47149,062	15,683	8,741	4,246	1,154	353	44	7	79,290
* Active indeterminate full-time employees subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1. Source: Master Output Support File, Personnel Application Centre, Department of Supply and Services.

February 23, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Departmental Code: AGR, Department of Agriculture; AIB, Anti-Inflation Board (includes AIA-Administrator, Anti-Inflation Act); ARC, Public Archives; AUD, Auditor General; CAE, National Revenue, Customs and Excise; CCA, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; CEO, Office of the Chief Electoral Office; CLR, Canada Labour Relations Board; COL, Commission of Official Languages; COM, Department of Communications; CPC, Canadian Pension Commission; CTC, Canadian Transport Commission; DND, Department of National Defence; DOE, Department of the Environment; DPW, Department of Public Works; DSS, Department of Supply and Services; DVA, Department of Veterans Affairs; EMR, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; ENR, National Energy Board; EXT, Department of External Affairs; FIN, Department of Finance; FIR, Foreign Investment Review Board; CGS, Governor General; IAB, Immigration Appeal Board; IAN, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; IDA, Canadian International Development Agency; IJC, International Joint Commission; INS, Department of Insurance; ITC, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; JUS, Department of Justice; LAB, Department of Labour; MID, Department of Manpower and Immigration; MOT, Ministry of Transport; MST, Ministry of State for Science and Technology; NCC, National Capital Commission; NHW, Department of National Health and Welfare; NLI, National Library; NMC, National Museums of Canada; NPB, National Parole Board; PCO, Office of the Privy Council; PEN, Canadian Penitentiary Service; POD, Department of Post Office; PSC, Public Service Commission; RCM, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; REE, Department of Regional Economic Expansion; RTC, Canadian Radio-Television Commission; SEC, Department of Secretary of State; SOL, Department of the Solicitor General; STC, Statistics Canada; TAR, Tariff Board, TAX, National Revenue, Taxation; TBD, Treasury Board; UAH, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs; UIC, Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Which communities were chosen during phase one of the community employment stragegy?
2.	How many persons, men and women, have been employed in these projects?
3.	What was the duration of each project?
4.	What was the cost of each project proposed by the Ministers of social welfare at the (a) federal (b) provincial level?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Kamloops, Nanaimo, Lac La Biche, the entire province of Saskatchewan, northwestern Ontario, Hamilton-Went-worth, Lac St. Jean, Drummondville, Kedgwick-St. Quentin, West Prince, East Kings, Guysborough, Halifax (north-end/ Spryfield-Kline Heights) Port au Port, Labrador Straits, Yel-lowknife-Rae Edzo.
2.	The number of people placed in the existing labour market or in training as a result of CES activity is in excess of 2,000.
3.	CES activity is ongoing in the above mentioned communities.
4.	No costing for individual projects was agreed upon by the provincial and federal ministers involved. However, CES at a
federal level has spent $6.4 million, which includes all operating costs in the regions and in Ottawa, as well as funding of the communities involved in the CES process.


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


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: 1. (a) 1975-76: 54 (Ont.); 1976-77: 71 (Ont.); There were no employees hired through private agencies from any of the other provinces, (b) 1975-76: 2; 1976-77:4.
2.	These employees are paid through Main Estimates under Professional and Special Services-Other Business Services.
3.	(a) 1975-76: $6.10; 1976-77: $6.50; (b) figures are not available, (c) 1975-76: $50,191.96; 1976-77: $70,621.03 (expenditures to January 31, 1977).


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


John Carr Munro: 1. (a)(vi) 6.
2. Main Estimates.
[Mr. Andras.J
February 23, 1977

3. (a) $5.25; (b) Unknown; (c) (i) Nil; (ii) $1,124.05.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	In regard to the CP-140 Aurora Programme, during the period 1975 to 1981, is Lockheed Aircraft Corp. directly, or through its suppliers, ordering industrial benefits totalling S213 million and, if so, to Januray 1, 1977, what is the value of the orders placed in Canada?
2.	Is Lockheed to place contracts in Canada for structural components and spare parts valued at $168 million and, if so, to Januray 1, 1977, what is the value of such contracts?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation has a contractual obligation to provide to Canada industrial benefits for Canadian manufactures either directly or through its suppliers in the amount of $213.2 million during the period February 1, 1975- December 31, 1981. Value of benefits to January 1, 1977 not yet known. However, value to end of 3rd quarter, 1976 was evaluated at $40.2 million against a year end obligation of $30.8 million.
2. Lockheed has a contractual obligation to place contracts in Canada for P3 structural components in the amount of $168.0 million. The value of the contracts placed with Canadian industry in this regard is approximately $8.0 million to January 1, 1977.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the government, through the Local Initiative Programmes, ever subsidized small private Quebec companies with branches in the United States and, if so, what are (a) their names (b) the amounts of the subsidies?
2.	Do the subsidized companies offer services available to the public and, if so, what are these services?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy and detailed nature of the answer to question No. 780, I would ask that it be made an order for return, and this return would be tabled immediately.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975, did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion hire consultants and, if so (a) how many (b) in each case, what was (i) their terms of reference (ii) the time and length of their work assignments (iii) the amount paid to each?
2.	Which, if any, of the consultants reports are confidential?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a question outstanding on the order paper since last December 21. It is a very important question dealing with the strength of the forces, on certain dates. Unless they quit keeping records in the armed forces, they should have this information in about five minutes, unless they are trying to hide something, and I do not suspect they would want to do that. 1 ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell them to hurry up. There is no reason for a two month's delay in answering a simple question.


Ralph Goodale: 1 would point out to the hon. member that in this session of parliament questions have been answered very expeditiously. The departments and agencies of government have been most co-operative and that has resulted in the highest rate of return for written questions that this or any previous parliament has seen for a long time. I can assure him that I will inquire into the specific question he has raised. If answering it is as simple as he suggested, 1 can assure the hon. member that an answer will be forthcoming very shortly.


Mrs. Appolloni:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the parliamentary secretary when we may expect an answer to my question No. 1,267 on the order paper, dated December 7. 1 might add that in view of the recommendations contained in the Badgley report regarding the dissemination of information on family planning and sex education, my question is particularly timely.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, of course, the previous explanation applies in this case as well and once again 1 will undertake to look specifically at the question to see if the answer can be expedited, as I undertook to do for the hon. member for Victoria.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 17, 19, 20,21,25,42, 46 and 50?

February 23, 1977
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, documents and agreements relating to the financing by the Export Development Corporation of a cane sugar complex in the Republic of the Ivory Coast to be built by Redpath Sugars Ltd.
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested involve papers which are confidential and not of a public or official character, and their production would publish information received by EDC in confidence from sources outside the government. I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all pertinent correspondence and reports between the government and the Province of Newfoundland surrounding the progress of a federal-provincial working group in the preparation of guidelines and criteria for the development of the concept and selection of a site to establish a heritage village to commemorate the Province's 25th Anniversary of Confederation.
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is as follows. We have decided that it would not be in the best interests of federal-provincial relations to table these documents in the House of Commons at this time. The documents are confidential and relate to a federal-provincial activity. Moreover, the recommendations of the working group referred to in the inquiry do not represent the official positions of the respective governments. The recommendations of the working group have yet to be considered or approved by the two levels of government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Whiteway:
Than an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings, correspondence, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements considered by the government in the acquisition of de Havilland Aircraft Corp.
Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the documents |

pertaining to the acquisition of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited by the government are based on considerable internal cost information and legal and professional opinion which was freely and privately made available to the negotiators. The data base also included confidential projections of cost and market data which if published could be harmful to the company's position vis-a-vis its commercial competition. For these reasons I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings, correspondence, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements considered by the government in the acquisition of Canadair Aircraft Corp.
Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the documents pertaining to the acquisition of Canadair Limited by the government are based on considerable internal cost information and legal and professional opinion which was freely and privately made available to the negotiators. The data base also included confidential projections of cost and market data which if published could be harmful to the company's position vis-a-vis its commercial competition. For these reasons I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is another cover-up. Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings of the interdepartmental task force on integration of government vessels and aircraft and copies of all materials considered by the committee on search and rescue operations and the patrolling of Lake Winnipeg.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are internal departmental documents of a confidential nature and cannot be produced. I therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
February 23, 1977

T Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Statistics Canada memorandum written by J. S. Wells, Director-General, National Income and Expenditure Accounts Division to G. Leclerc, Assistant Chief Statistician, concerning the inaccuracy of some of the Bureau's basic sources of data.
Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the document requested is an internal departmental memorandum and cannot be produced. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Towers:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the contents of the file or files in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation concerning Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration.
Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the investigation in this connection was with respect to a federal statute, the alleged offence was criminal in nature and came under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Production of the Files is being denied because, as I have stated, they relate to a matter in which the province of Saskatchewan was concerned and the concurrence of the provincial authorities to the release has not been forthcoming. I would like to mention, however, that the transcript of the preliminary hearing will be made available to the hon. member, upon request, by the office of the deputy attorney general, Regina, Saskatchewan. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I hereby ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Thomas Gordon Towers: No, Mr. Speaker; transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, directives, telegrams and other pertinent material between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commission appointed to carry out redistribution of boundaries in the province of Newfoundland.
Energy Policy
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there have been no correspondence, directives, telegrams or other pertinent material between the Chief Electoral Officer and the commission appointed to carry out redistribution of boundaries in the province of Newfoundland. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West) moved:: That this House regrets the failure of the government to develop and apply policies in the fields of the oil and gas non-renewable energy resources that are fair or just or adequate for the people or the provinces of Canada today or for the future.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret that I have to be critical of the government again today, having had to be critical of it last night; but one has to be truthful when speaking in this chamber and the subject matter of this motion will fit in with what I was saying last night. Hon. gentlemen opposite came into office on the basis of co-operative federalism, but they have now degenerated to strong-arm federalism or, as I said last night, to forced federalism or goon-squad federalism-anything but co-operative federalism. They came into office on the basis of participatory democracy, which has also vanished into limbo because the only democracy now is conference-hall autocracy.
The same thing is true in the energy field. What is the good of hon. gentlemen opposite publishing the study called "An Energy Strategy for Canada" when they ignore the recommendations of their own study or twist it in their administration so that it is unfair and unjust, as this motion says. The motion says that their policies are neither fair, just nor adequate for the people or the provinces of Canada.
1 want to touch on three subjects in the short time allotted to me which I believe is 30 minutes. First, I want to touch on the new conservation policy, announced by the minister at the beginning of February, for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island dealing allegedly with conservation of energy in those two provinces and confining it to those two provinces for spurious reasons. Second, I want to touch on the failure of the
3346

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
government to adopt a fair and just policy with regard to offshore minerals, the minerals off the shores of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and Newfoundland.
Third, I want to touch on the failure of the government to do anything in the field of hydro development or in the field of financing or assisting hydro development, particularly with reference to the possible development in Labrador of hydro resources there; the government's picayune, penny-pinching policy with respect to those resources; and its failure to assist Newfoundland, for example, in developing the Gull Island project, one which would produce enough hydro energy to replace imports of 18 million barrels of oil a year.
With regard to the new policy announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) at the beginning of February, the federal government announced assistance to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The minister announced a policy which would assist householders primarily in the provinces of P.E.I. and Nova Scotia in January and February. In the case of P.E.I., the program amounted to $12 million, of which $6.94 million was for a new home insulation program to be administered by CMHC. There are some other programs with regard to energy conservation and studits, but the main program is to help householders insulate their homes to save energy costs. This is a program of grants to householders in P.E.I. Prince Edward Island was selected and isolated for this treatment, together with Nova Scotia, because of its extremely high reliance on costly imported oil for electrical power generation.
The reason given for discriminating against the other eight provinces of Canada and- restricting this program to Nova Scotia and P.E.I. was the costly imported oil for electrical power generation. In Nova Scotia and P.E.I., under this program people can get a grant of $350 if they want to insulate their homes themselves. They can get a grant of up to $500 if they have the work done by contractors. If you are a householder in Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, you will receive no assistance from the government except possibly a loan program from CMHC.
The reason given for this discrimination is that Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island rely heavily on oil for electrical generation. It is true that they do. As a matter of fact, according to the release issued by the minister, Prince Edward Island has a 100 per cent dependence on oil for electrical generation, and Nova Scotia 63 per cent. In making that point the minister's officials have gone on in a statement to give a misleading figure for Newfoundland, In appendix C to this release they say of Prince Edward Island-and the same in the release for Nova Scotia-that Newfoundland's dependence on oil for electrical generation is 1.2 per cent. That is to make Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which are being treated differently, look more plausible. What appendix C does not state is that they include in the Newfoundland figure all of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the huge hydro

project at Churchill Falls which delivers nearly all the 5,600 megawatts to Quebec. That is ail put into the Newfoundland figure to show that our dependency on oil is just 1.2 per cent.
That is a false and misleading figure. As a matter of fact, Newfoundland's dependency on oil for electrical generation in 1975 was 8 per cent on the island of Newfoundland where the bulk of the population lives-about half a million of them. In the present year it is going to be in the order of 21 per cent because the island of Newfoundland no longer has any hydro resources to develop and is left with the only alternative, oil-fired steam. So the releases put out by the federal government are not true or factual. They are designed to mislead. They are neither fair nor just. It is not 1.2 per cent in Newfoundland; in 1977 it will be 21 per cent on the island of Newfoundland.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, these two provinces are highly dependent on oil for generating electricity. But what has this to do with the new policy of helping the householder? The minister's own release shows, for Nova Scotia, that the percentage of households using oil heating, not electrical heating, is 90 per cent. That is shown in appendix E. In connection with both Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the release shows the dependency of Prince Edward Island householders for heating purposes is 100 per cent oil. In other words, in Nova Scotia 90 per cent of all households are heated using oil, oil furnaces or oil stoves, and in Prince Edward Island it is 100 per cent.
How does this policy of giving a householder a grant of $500 to insulate his home to save energy costs have anything to do with electricity? How does it save the use of oil for electricity in Nova Scotia? It has no connection with electricity. If 100 per cent of the homes in Prince Edward Island were electrically heated, and 90 per cent of the homes in Nova Scotia were electrically heated, and the electricity came from oil, one would be saving electricity and the oil used to generate it. That is not the case when it is going to go to households heated by furnaces that use oif directly.
If the object of this policy is to conserve oil and to conserve the imports of oil in addition to saving people money, then is a barrel of oil saved in Newfoundland or in Ontario not just as good to Canada as a barrel saved in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island? Do the people of Canada realize they are being discriminated against in this way? Just because of geographical location in two of the ten provinces of Canada the householders can get a substantial cash advance to insulate their homes. The minister's statements say that if they do this properly they will save 40 per cent of their energy requirements-40 per cent of the cost of heating their homes. You can get that in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, but you cannot get it in the other eight provinces.
This is pure discrimination, Mr. Speaker. The government is using the excuse that there is more oil-fired electricity in those two provinces, but that does not carry any weight. It is not the real reason. This is going to be a $12 million program in Prince Edward Island and $80 million in Nova Scotia, of which $17 million is to come from the government of Nova
February 23, 1977

Scotia. In Nova Scotia it is $33.41 million for the home insulation grant program and another $17 million for a home insulation loan program, and almost $7 million in Prince Edward Island.
What is the reason for this discrimination? It has nothing to do with the reason given in the statement. It has been stated publicly that Nova Scotia is the author of its own misfortunes with respect to high energy costs. The government of Nova Scotia turned down the opportunity to go into nuclear energy with New Brunswick. Because the government of Nova Scotia prevented increases in prices charged for electricity over the last three or four years-Premier Regan prevented them from going ahead when they should have commenced earlier-now there is going to be an abrupt jump. For political reasons they were kept down over three or four years when costs were climbing. The Nova Scotia Power Commission incurred heavy losses because of that political policy. That is the reason they are taking an abrupt jump in Nova Scotia now. It is because they had the benefit of an Imperial Oil contract to supply oil for electrical generation purposes at a very low figure. Now there has to be an abrupt jump. There have been abrupt jumps in Newfoundland and all the other provinces, Mr. Speaker.
The person who put forward these reasons for not giving Nova Scotia special help was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last year. He has been made to swallow his words by some forces beyond his control. What were those forces? They were political forces. The Liberal party of Nova Scotia got the government House leader down to Nova Scotia and pulverized him at a meeting about six months ago. They assured the minister that he had no chance of being elected and would have to go to the other place if he did not get a special program from the government of Canada. For six months Nova Scotia was rife with Alastair Gillespie jokes. It was not the Newfie joke in Nova Scotia; it was the Alastair Gillespie joke. The hon. gentleman has made a 100 per cent about-face in the face of this abuse.


Mr. Epp:: He is still facing in the wrong direction.


John Carnell Crosbie: After the abuse he took from the government of Nova Scotia, he brought in this new policy. There are two Liberal provinces left in Canada, Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, and the federal government is struggling mightily to see that they remain Liberal. Nova Scotia faces an election this year. This about-face reminds me of the following ditty.
When Regan delved and MacEachen spanned Who was then in command?
Certainly not the energy man.
I am sure the minister fought against this policy in the confines of the government, but he has been forced to toe the line by the government House leader and Premier Regan. This is a sad thing because the people of the other eight provinces are being discriminated against by the government. It is using tax moneys collected all across Canada to support a policy that discriminates against the other eight provinces, for no logical
Energy Policy
reason-nothing but a political reason. That is why this resolution decries the unfairness and injustice of these policies.
I have not the time to go into more detail about how silly it is to argue that only these two provinces deserve this policy because of their high content of oil-fired energy, 100 per cent in Prince Edward Island and 60 per cent in Nova Scotia. 1 support this kind of program in an attempt to induce energy conservation. It would be a step in the right direction were it applied all across Canada. But I say that what is good for Nova Scotia and what is good for Prince Edward Island is good for the rest of us Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You sound like General Motors.


John Carnell Crosbie: The province of Newfoundland has been attempting to get equal treatment with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since March, 1976, including letters from the premier of the province outlining reasons why we should receive at least the same treatment. I will briefly give some of these reasons; they would apply to other provinces as well. The people of Newfoundland are depending increasingly on imported oil to meet their energy needs-21 per cent this year. If hon. members opposite do not adopt a proper policy in developing hydro energy or to assist provinces with low capability to develop hydro resources, it will be ever-increasing: it will be 40 per cent in 1980.
We need assistance for that reason. We need assistance because the per capita personal income in Newfoundland is lower than in Nova Scotia, and about the same as in Prince Edward Island. If you look at need, you cannot just take one item such as the high electricity cost and isolate that. You have to look at all of the factors. The cost of living in Newfoundland is the highest in the country. You have to look at other factors like that to get that need. When you look at those factors you see that the need of Newfoundlanders is even greater than those in Nova Scotia and is equal to those in Prince Edward Island. It is also true for other parts of the country. Our climate has higher average temperatures than Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia. We have higher wind velocities than P.E.I. or Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not trying to illustrate that fact today. The cost of heating oil in Newfoundland is substantially higher than in Nova Scotia. It costs 3'A cents more for a gallon of heating oil in St. John's than it does in Halifax. The same is true of stove oil. The cost of heating oil is greater in Newfoundland than in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Seventy per cent of our households are heated by stove oil furnaces. Therefore, the need is greater there. Our electricity prices are the third highest in Canada despite the fact that we have a lot of hydro. It is high-cost hydro because it was only developed in the last 15 years at a high capital cost. It is delivered to scattered outposts. In addition, we have a rural
80010 -6Vi

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
electricity program where half of the 10,000 people are receiving diesel power. They have to get diesel and not hydro.
I could go on with a number of other reasons which show that Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island should not be singled out from the other provinces with respect to all these needs. By 1980, 40 per cent of the people of Newfoundland will be depending on oil-fired steam power. We cannot use coal and we cannot use nuclear: we have only one alternative to our hydro power in Newfoundland, and that is oil. We will hear the minister attempt, if he can, to justify this discrimination when he speaks. I say to the people of the other eight provinces that it is time they woke up and put some pressure on this government to start treating them fairly and start offering them the same energy conservation grants that householders in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have been offered, as well as those in the Northwest Territories. This is not an energy conservation policy. This is a policy of political poltroonery, political preference. It is the rankest kind of discrimination.
I do not know the population figures, but at least 90 per cent of the people of Canada should be getting this. They should all be able to reduce the energy consumption in their homes across the country. 1 will be interested in hearing how the minister is going to continue to support this as a policy for those two provinces without extending it to the rest of us across this country who are so badly in need. As a matter of fact, unless he does change that policy I will try, as I said last night, to get his salary reduced to two cents when the estimates come before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: His energy strategy reads well until one looks to see how it is being carried out. It then becomes intermingled with the rankest kind of political consideration.
I now come to the second reason for moving this motion that the government's policies are unfair and unjust to the rest of the people of Canada. There are a dozen reasons and these will be discussed by other speakers. I shall only touch on two or three. I refer to the government's offshore minerals policy. The Liberal government in Ottawa argues that it owns and must control offshore mineral rights off the west and east coasts of Canada, our reserves of oil and gas. The Northwest Territories are not enough for them, the territories they already own; they want to own the resources that lie off both coasts.


An hon. Member:: All three coasts.


John Carnell Crosbie: However many coasts. They already have the Northwest Territories. In 1967 they got an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada that in fact the federal government owns the continental shelf and controls and owns all the minerals that might lie off British Columbia. They got this through a narrow legalistic interpretation of the constitution. Because of that they are now attempting to claim that they own and must control the minerals that lie off the east coast as well. Why? What is the difference between minerals that lie under the land in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and minerals

that are under the water off Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or British Columbia? Why, because they are under the water, should they belong to the government of Canada? If some court, through narrow legalistic reasoning, finds that the federal government has technical ownership, why should that government insist upon it? It would only insist upon if it was a centralizing government, a government that does not believe in federalism, a government that does not care whether the provinces stand or fall.
Does this government want the provinces to remain weak financially and subservient to the central power? The government has aggravated and irritated provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan because they want to use their own resources for their own benefit and get as much as they can out of it. It is the kind of government which claims it owns them and therefore is going to control them. That is the attitude of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
The federal government has entered into agreement with the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. At the beginning of February they made public an abbreviated version of the agreement reached with those three provinces. They have no agreement with Newfoundland or Quebec because we do not ever intend to agree with the Liberal policy in this direction. However, they have secured agreement with these three provinces which are not as strong as Newfoundland.
We were treated to a fantastic exhibition. Premier Regan almost laughed himself silly because he was so happy about this agreement. Why would he go along with such a piece of play-acting, because it is a pernicious agreement, an agreement that leaves all control with the government of Canada. It does not help those provinces fundamentally at all. The agreement gives away the control over oil and gas and the regulation of what the royalty system is going to be: all that is left with the government of Canada. The provinces are told they can have 75 per cent of the royalties or fees that might come from the areas where these minerals are discovered. Why was Premier Regan so happy? Why was he laughing and chuckling so much ? He has an election coming up this year and has to try and make it sound like it really amounts to something. What will it be 75 per cent of? It will be 75 per cent of what the federal government decides it is going to be. Those three provinces will have no control over the administration, no control over the pace of development, no control over whether they go with companies that put their facilities on shore or not, or whether they have to employ Nova Scotians, New Bruns-wickers or Prince Edward Islanders. That will all be left to the minister and his government.
Would any one laugh and say this is a tremendous monument to confederation, if he did not have an ulterior purpose? There is only one reason-the election. Premier Regan should be cfying all the way to the legislative assembly because of what he had to accept from the federal Liberals.
In addition, it has not yet been revealed-and it may be changed as I am revealing it-that the federal government is insisting that these three provinces cannot impose any provin-
February 23, 1977

cial corporation or any provincial taxes on the income of permit holders in this offshore region. They are allowed to get 75 per cent of the royalties and fees, whatever they may be and whenever they come in, but they are not allowed to impose any other provincial tax on the income of the permit holders. That is some deal!
They have the maritime offshore resources board with three members from the three provinces and three from the federal government. If any decisions cannot be agreed to, or if there is a tie in any particular respect, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the final authority. It is a complete sell-out, an admission that the federal government has complete control. That is not acceptable in Newfoundland; it is not acceptable in Quebec. It is not acceptable to the Progressive Conservative party of Canada which has a policy entirely contrary to the one being administered by this government. This is a party that believes in a federal system. It believes in having strong regions and strong provinces as well as a strong federal government.
This party has made it clear that when it takes power the PC government is going to recognize the offshore provinces as having ownership and control of the minerals that lie off their shores on the continental shelf. It will give them some kind of a future. We all know that when the money comes in, if it ever comes in, eventually it will reduce the equalization payment and the need for it. But that is not the only reason. These provinces want to control the rate of the development. They want to see their own citizens share in it. They want to see that the oil companies build onshore in their province if they are using their resource offshore, and for a variety of other reasons. That is enough, I believe, to ensure our support in British Columbia and all four of the Atlantic provinces when the next election comes.
At the time publicity was given to this agreement between the maritime provinces and Canada, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indulged in a bit of bullying. He decided that he would bully the province of Newfoundland while this agreement was being announced and he made a statement that EastCan had been talking to him and told him they were not prepared to go ahead with an exploration program next summer unless a dispute between them and the Newfoundland government over oil and gas regulations proposed by the Newfoundland government was settled. Now the Newfoundland government has prepared its own regulations and regime for the offshore, just as the federal government did a year ago. We have not seen the federal government's regulations since. They were promised last year but the regulations and the legislation are still not here. Well, Newfoundland is doing the same. It is giving the oil companies its suggested oil and gas regulations for their comments. So the minister made the statement that EastCan was not going to explore or drill next year because of these regulations which Newfoundland proposed and because of the jurisdictional dispute. This was an attempt to bluff the province of Newfoundland into surrendering on the offshore minerals question.
Energy Policy
An hon. Member; Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, if the hon. member would look at the editorials down there he would see what they thought of that. We in Newfoundland are not going to be bluffed into giving up anything. We are waiting until the hon. gentleman from Bow River, Rocky Mountain, or whichever that great district is, gets in. Mr. Speaker, the minister said he intended to intervene with the government of Newfoundland and that he hoped "moral suasion" would convince the province to change its stand. Here is a man who is trying to steal our resources, proposing to use moral suasion on the government and people of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 should like to know whether EastCan authorized the minister to say anything about their discussions with him. I can tell him from the clippings 1 read that they were amazed and surprised that he had said anything like this. I am sure they do not like the federal regulations either, because oil and gas companies do not like any regulations which are going to be less generous to them than they were in the past. If the minister wants EastCan to go ahead next summer offshore and spend money, I suggest he settle their minds by agreeing that Newfoundland has jurisdiction, and that he does this by withdrawing the federal claim so that the company will be able to go ahead and deal only with Newfoundland.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, but in the United States where the courts upheld that the federal government owns the offshore, and in Australia and other jurisdictions, the federal authorities have made much better arrangements with their provinces and states than has been offered by the federal government of Canada. It is because this government wants a unitary state. The Liberal government wants all power and authority in Ottawa, and they want to dragoon Newfoundland and Quebec into surrendering also. Mr. Speaker, under our policy the six coastal provinces of Canada will have brought to them relief from this onerous and crushing federal master that wants to take everything and give nothing in return. The other alternative to a new government being elected is to go before the courts, and that is where Newfoundland will go. It will never surrender on the offshore question.
I do not have time to deal with these matters now to the extent they deserve, but I would like the minister to know that we are not going to be bullied in Newfoundland. This illustrates something I want to say in connection with my third point. The document entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada" refers at pages 5, 28 and 136 to the importance of oil and to the importance of hydroelectric power. We read on page 4 that hydroelectric power is currently the most important renewable energy resource in Canada. On page 28 mention is made of financial support for provincial or interregional nuclear generation and interregional electrical connection. We also find a note about the importance of developing hydro. On page 136 we read the following:

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
One of the government's policies is to encourage the substitution of electricity generated from domestic energy resources including nuclear, hydro and coal for electricity generated from imported oil.
That sounds like a fine principle, and it is a good principle. But it is malarkey. It is not being carried out. In Newfoundland they are not helping us to get our future requirements from hydro which is available in Labrador. No less than 1,800 megawatts are available from the Gull Island site alone, with another 500,000 or 600,000 downriver at Muskrat Falls. There are other sites available for development, but the government is doing nothing to assist. The document goes on to say that their policy also calls for the provision of help in the strengthening of interregional electric connection. Not enough has been done in this field. The government's policy is supposed to be to lend 50 per cent of the cost of interregional interconnection or half the cost of nuclear generation for the plant in a province-up to 50 per cent. They did make an offer to Newfoundland in connection with the Gull Island project when the estimate of the cost involved was much lower than it is today. At that time I believe the estimate $1.47 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is our lead speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Might I move the motion, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member did not get unanimous consent to continue. He has already spoken, and I have to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's dwindling supplies of oil and natural gas pose serious problems for the people of this country. It is therefore fit and proper that the government's policies for dealing with these problems should be discussed and, where necessary, criticized. Since I have only 20 minutes at my disposal I am prevented from dealing with the wide range of issues involved. I will therefore confine myself to dealing with two apsects of the energy situation.
The first matter I want to deal with is the government's failure to ensure that the increased prices being charged Canadian consumers are in fact used for the purpose of discovering and developing new supplies of oil and natural gas. In the past four years the price of gas has doubled and the price of crude oil has increased three-fold. The petroleum industry and the government have consistently maintained that
[Mr. Crosbie.)
these increases in price are necessary to ensure the cash flow needed to stimulate exploration and development. What has been the result? Exploration has not kept pace with the increased prices consumers have been required to pay. As a matter of fact, in 1975 there was a decline in exploration activity which represented the pressure on the government by the oil companies to raise prices. We are seeing a continuous decline in exploration.
At page 36 of the study "An Energy Strategy for Canada" we find that for every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil the industry will get 25 cents per barrel even if there is no increased exploration. If the companies carry out sufficient exploration work they will get 56 cents out of each $1 of the price increase. The federal government will get nothing; the balance will go to the producing provinces. On page 38 of the energy strategy study we find this illuminating statement:
Current estimates suggest that with existing fiscal systems and prices that gradually increase towards current international levels, the industry will retain, after taxes and royalties, in excess of $3 billion per year (in 1975 dollars) on the average, over the next five years.
If ever there was a windfall, this is it. The government has repeatedly assured the House that it would monitor these windfall revenues paid to the oil industry by the consumers of this country so as to ensure that these moneys were used for exploration and development. There is no evidence that this has been done. Indeed, all the evidence indicates the contrary. The government has consistently over the years refused to follow the course advocated by the New Democratic Party, namely, that all the additional revenue from the rise in oil prices, except that part which goes to the producing provinces, should be retained by the federal government in trust for reinvestment in exploration and development. This money could be paid to the industry as exploration programs are carried out, or the money could be utilized by Petro-Canada to carry on exploration offshore and for the development of our heavy oil and the oil sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The second matter that I wish to deal with in the short time at my disposal concerns the efforts being made to push the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline as a solution to Canada's need for natural gas supplies. It seems to me that this is an appropriate time for the House to express its opinion on this matter and at the conclusion of my remarks I propose to move an amendment which will give the House an opportunity to do so. It seems to me it is further made necessary by a statement which appears in this afternoon's papers from Washington where discussions are being held between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the United States. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister. I am sure all of us were proud of the eloquent and timely speech that he made to the Congress of the United States in which he represented the views, I believe, of the great majority of the people of Canada. The report from Washington reads as follows:
A Canadian official indicated here Tuesday that Prime Minister Trudeau is ready to do all he can to speed a decision on construction of the multimillion
February 23, 1977

dollar Mackenzie Valley pipeline to carry Alaskan gas to Americans ... the official said Trudeau explained to Carter that he would "like to be in a position not to embarrass him over the pipeline".
To me, Mr. Speaker, that has a very ominous ring and I think we ought to face up at this time to this question of the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Let us recognize, in the first place, that the primary purpose of this pipeline is to move Prudhoe Bay gas from Alaska to the United States. We should recognize that the benefits to Canada are minimal. The best estimates of our proven gas reserves in the Mackenzie Valley are somewhere between four trillion cubic feet and five trillion cubic feet. May 1 point out that already all but 1.4 trillion cubic feet of that gas has been contracted to gas companies in the United States. But even if we get all the gas in the Delta-and there is every reason to believe we will not-five trillion cubic feet is only the equivalent of what we export to the United States over a five-year period.
It is a travesty to suggest that we should build pipeline at a cost of $8 billion-though the cost is much more likely to be $10 billion or $12 billion-and at the same time suffer the economic and monetary dislocations of such high capital expenditures, as well as environmental damage and a disturbing impact on our native people, in order to get a quantity of gas which we could procure by a more intensive exploration program in the southern areas of Canada and by offshore drilling.
There is nothing which calls into question more the viability of this proposed pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley than the fact that Canadian Arctic Gas Pipe Line Company has stated publicly that it will require financial guarantees from the Canadian government. One might well ask why, if this is a viable project, and since it is primarily going to carry Alaskan gas to the United States, the Canadian government should be asked to give financial guarantees.
As a matter of fact, I think it is significant that, despite repeated public statements to the effect that they want financial guarantees, this company has never formally applied for those guarantees. Why? Because they are waiting for a favourable report from the National Energy Board. Once they have a conditional permit in their hot little hands they are counting on pressure from Washington to secure financial guarantees from the government of Canada. The government of Canada will then be in the very difficult position of having either to refuse these guarantees or having to set aside a recommendation of the National Energy Board. The government will further be in the awkward position that, if the Prime Minister of Canada has agreed with the President of the United States to speed up a decision on the matter, and if the United States President has already indicated to Congress his preference for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, they will have no alternative but to grant those guarantees and allow construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
The Canadian Arctic Gas Pipe Line Company Limited would then be able to say to the Canadian government, "You knew all along that we would need financial guarantees before we could proceed with this project, and you allowed the National Energy Board to grant us a permit to build the
Energy Policy
Mackenzie Valley pipeline; therefore, automatically, the granting of the permit involves financial guarantees". Financial guarantees for what? For moving 35 trillion cubic feet of gas from Prudhoe Bay to the United States? In the process Canada will get all the financial dislocation, all the environmental damage, all the dislocation of our native people, to secure, at most, five trillion cubic feet of gas; and the prospects are that most of that gas will go to the United States.
It will go to the United States first of all because, as 1 already said, most of it is contracted to American gas companies, but, secondly because that gas will come onstream ahead of the Prudhoe Bay gas and consequently it will come at a time when we will not be in great need of natural gas; and under the National Energy Board Act, which says that surplus gas can be exported to the United States, the American companies of course will apply for permission to export the gas from the Mackenzie Delta to the United States. It should be kept in mind that in this country we have, it is estimated, nearly 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Annually we consume 1.5 trillion cubic feet and we export to the United States 1 trillion cubic feet. That means that we have quite a few years of lead time to find new sources of gas to meet Canadian needs without the environmental damage and the creation of problems for our native people that are associated with this project.
We maintain that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is not needed at this time, that it has no economic benefit for Canadians. Naturally, we sympathize with our American neighbours about their desire to get Alaskan gas shipped from Prudhoe Bay to the United States, but I submit that there is a much less expensive and much less damaging alternative which should be considered. Proposals have been put forward by which we could ship gas from Prudhoe Bay down along the Alaska Highway which would provide the Americans with a land bridge that would take their gas directly to the United States. That should be considered if three conditions are met: first of all, that the Americans finance the pipeline; second, that the Americans be prepared to accept the one trillion cubic feet of export commitments which we have, and meet those commitments out of Prudhoe Bay gas. That would save Canada one trillion cubic feet of gas per year. In five years we would get all the gas which we would get from building the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The third condition I would impose would be that during the construction of that pipeline, if it is approved, every cubic foot of gas which we continue to export to the United States should be on a swap basis, so that when their line is in operation we would recover that gas from the line going to the United States and we would have at that time six trillion or seven trillion cubic feet of gas coming to us which we could take when we wanted it and as we wanted it.

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
It seems to me that if those three conditions were met we should give serious consideration to what is commonly called the Alcan route, although I think the direction would be different from what has been proposed. But the general idea is to take the pipeline down along the Alaska Highway where there would be less environmental damage, less dislocation of the native people, and where we would not be required to make the tremendous capital investment which we will need for oil sand development, perhaps for nuclear reactors and for other forms of energy which this country must have.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has said, as does this study, an "Energy Strategy for Canada", that we will need, between now and 1990, $ 180 billion in capital expenditures to meet our energy requirements. I contend that if this country ties up anywhere from $8 billion to $12 billion in a pipeline that will give us minimal benefits, we will not have the capital to develop the other resources which we must have in the 1980s and 1990s to keep the Canadian people from freezing in the dark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, I hope that the House will avail itself of this opportunity to express to the government how we feel about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and I suggest that we should do it now, not if we wait until the National Energy Board has made its report and the cabinet has made its report. The reports will not be referred to the House of Commons, as the ministers have said repeatedly. This is the time, now, before they have gone too far, before the Prime Minister has made too many commitments, before the government has laid all its plans on the basis of a pipeline which will bring only minimal benefits to Canada, for this House to say in clear and certain terms that we think this project is not in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House expresses its opinion that the proposed construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline is not in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate and I welcome the fact that the opposition parties have put before the House a motion with respect to the energy policy. Indeed, I think most Canadians would welcome the fact that the opposition parties have introduced this subject, because for so long opposition spokemen have been quiet about the direction which they think this country should take with respects to the energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker-


Alastair William Gillespie: I think 1 have the floor, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-Thc Islands).!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On many occasions we have pointed out the need for establishing Fundy power as a means of alleviating the energy shortage in Atlantic Canada, but the government has taken no action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has the floor.


Alastair William Gillespie: Apparently the truth hurts. If opposition members want to make constituency speeches, that is their right; but I think that the Canadian people are looking to the House to deal with the very important question of the over-all energy policy, not just a narrow parochial view-which may be an important view to those hon. members, perhaps-but a view which encompasses the whole of the country.
I listened to the mover of the motion. I must say that I was disappointed and I think many Canadians will be disappointed by his remarks. Quite clearly, it was a good constituency speech, but 1 am not at all sure that the Canadian people will find in that speech what they were looking for; that is, the view of the opposition regarding the direction this country should be taking on energy policy matters. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising. A moment ago I indicated that opposition spokesmen had shown themselves to be very shy when it comeS to offering views about energy policy questions. Indeed, the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works received a reference from this House a week or so ago dealing with an energy strategy for Canada. The surprising thing is that when that committee was ready to go, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was there but there was not one Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the minister please identify what meeting he is referring to? There have been two recently. Is he referring to both of them? If he is referring to yesterday's meeting, I was there, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) was there, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) was there , and there was also one other member. I have been at all the meetings.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member is quite right. The three members to whom he referred were there at the end of the meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to correct the hon. gentleman. I was at the first meeting of that committee last week. I was not in town yesterday morning and did not know about the meeting. However, the minister was not there last week.


Alastair William Gillespie: Apparently hon. members opposite have thin skins.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Apparently you can't tell the truth.
February 23, 1977


Alastair William Gillespie: If hon. members would look at the record they would see that the so-called energy expert of the Conservative party, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), was not present yesterday.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: And he said so.


Alastair William Gillespie: Nor will they find that any one of the three previous energy critics of the Tory party was present. 1 ask whether the Canadian people are to believe that the Tory party is really serious about the important energy issues of today.


Mr. Bawden:: Tell us how serious you are. Tell us about those northern regulations: that is the biggest road-block we have.


Alastair William Gillespie: 1 listened very carefully to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I thought he might want to put on the record his party's position with respect to energy prices, with respect to what they should be and whether oil prices should go up, and by how much. But at no time has his party really come to grips with what is one of the most important energy questions of the day. 1 suppose in the province of Ontario they would argue for lower prices and that would be popular. In Alberta they probably would be arguing for higher prices because that would be popular. But if as a national party they have a national view, they have kept it to themselves.
I think it is about time the Canadian people heard the views of the Tory party with respect to the present price of oil and what the price of oil should be next July 1, because we will be entering into negotiations very shortly. I think the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to make his position clear on that question, and if he disagrees with the position of the government that we should move toward world prices, let him say so because the Canadian people want to hear him. There are other matters upon which the people would like to hear the Conservatives.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Tell us about the regulations which are holding everything up.


Alastair William Gillespie: I can only assume from the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West who made, as I said, an eloquent constituency speech, that he accepts the goal Canada has set, the goal of self-reliance for Canadians and the target of reducing our dependence on foreign oil to one-third by 1985. 1 assume that because he has not criticized that target. Indeed, I think his words were that "An Energy Strategy for Canada" reads very well. I assume from that remark that he accepts that target and that goal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Wait until tomorrow morning.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member had any other views he should have had the courage to put them on the record this afternoon.


John Carnell Crosbie: I didn't have enough time.
Energy Policy


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You wouldn't listen to him. You cut him off.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member says he did not have enough time, but he had 30 minutes, which was ten minutes more than the time allotted to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The hon. member also had the floor last night for 20 minutes. He could have said something then, if he had wished to do so. This man has a loud voice. He is on his feet very often. I applaud his gymnastics when trying to be recognized. I hope that by the end of the session they will start to indicate-


Mr. Gilbert:: He used to be a Liberal.


Alastair William Gillespie: -where the Conservative party stands on the question of heavy oil. Where does the Conservative party stand on the Athabasca tar sands and their development? Where does the Conservative party stand with respect to a pipeline? Where does it stand with respect to conservation? What target would it propose to the Canadian people? Would the Conservative party accept the target we put before the Canadian people? How do the Tories feel about the target we have set for increased exploration and development in frontier areas?


Peter Colwell Bawden: Tell us about that; it is off by 50 per cent.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would like to know what targets they would put before the Canadian people and before this House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is your job now; you have your chance.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is quite clear from the noise opposite that hon. members opposite are a little worried that Hansard will put down the kinds of questions which are being put to them.


A. Daniel McKenzie: 1 will be making a constructive speech.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Your first one.


Alastair William Gillespie: The lead-off speaker, the mover of the motion, spoke about three things. He spoke about the conservation program for P.E.I. and Nova Scotia; he spoke about the policy with respect to offshore resources and he said something about hydro development in Newfoundland. I would like to deal with those points in my speech, but first I would like to turn to the comments made by the NDP spokesman, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Stanbury:: At least we know where he stands.


Alastair William Gillespie: He made it very clear where he stands on two issues. He put forward in very clear terms the socialist solution. The socialist solution is that for any increase in oil or natural gas 100 per cent of that increase ought to go to the government. 1 think he would agree that that is the interpretation any fair-minded person could put on it. If he does not agree, I would like him to clarify.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the minister would not want to misrepresent my views. I said that apart from what goes to the producing

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
provinces, the rest should be retained in trust by the federal government and paid to the companies as they carry on exploration programs, or it should go to Petro-Canada which would then carry on exploration programs.


Alastair William Gillespie: I appreciate the hon. member clarifying his position.


Mr. Benjamin:: You weren't listening in the first place.


Alastair William Gillespie: He made it quite clear that the funds from such increases should be channelled to governments to be used for exploration. I suppose that is not an altogether inconsistent position for his party to take, because some of the provincial governments have taken positions not unlike that with regard to the taxation of other resources in other parts of the country. I suppose that is particularly true in the case of the province of Saskatchewan when it comes to taxation. The hon. member knows very well the history of the taxation measures of the province of Saskatchewan. On a number of occasions that added up to more than 100 per cent of the revenues from the producing wells. I think the hon. member probably also knows that the result of that taxation philosophy was the choking of any additional investment, exploration or development activity in the province of Saskatchewan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not true.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member compares the activity in the province of Saskatchewan with the activity in Alberta, he can make a very clear comparison. In Alberta, incentives were provided. A significant part of price increases went to the producers. It provided a cash flow which generated substantial new reserves for the benefit of the people of Alberta.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, very much so for the people of Canada as well. I suggest to him that the shortsighted view of many socialists with respect to taxation policies will work to the disadvantage of Canada. You can have the most elaborate taxation systems that man can devise, but they are pretty worthless if there is not going to be any oil and no revenue to tax.
The other point he made very clear was his party's position on the pipeline. I suppose I should not be surprised that he should commit his party against a pipeline for the Mackenzie at this time, but 1 have to admit that 1 am. The hon. member has a very high regard for parliament, but I can only interpret his position as being in contempt of parliament and in contempt of parliamentary institutions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What say would parliament have?


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me when the parliament of Canada sets up the National Energy Board for the purpose of examining applications of this kind, and then one party says,

"Sure, the parliament of Canada set up the National Energy Board to deal with this question, but we know better. We will prejudge them, with all the work they have done over the last 2Vi years or more. We are not interested. We have already made up our minds regardless of the facts," that it is contemptuous of parliament.
1 believe, also, that the view that we should make a decision before receiving the report of Mr. Justice Berger is an insult to him. It seems to me, when he was given the demanding task of examining the environmental and social questions that are allied to a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, we at least owe him the benefit of receiving it without making up our minds first of all. I say I am disappointed that the hon. member should have jumped the gun on the pipeline issue at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Alastair William Gillespie: If you put it at the end of my remarks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly.


Alastair William Gillespie: Let me make it quite clear that the plan for insulation and conservation offered to the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia was to deal with two specific questions and needs. Hon. members will recall that the Premier of Nova Scotia appealed for assistance because electrical energy rates in his province had gone up very substantially and were likely to go up very much more in the near future. He said his province had nearly the highest electrical energy rate in the country. The highest, of course, is Prince Edward Island. When we looked at the situation it was quite clear there was a unique need in these two provinces. Prince Edward Island depended for 100 per cent of its electrical energy on oil; they had no hydro capacity. In the case of Nova Scotia, roughly two-thirds of all electrical energy was generated from oil.
The stated policy of this government which was put forward to parliament in the document "An Energy Strategy for Canada"-Policies for Self-Reliance" was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That was the goal. Clearly, there was a question of national interest on the problem that these two provinces had to deal with-their heavy dependence on foreign oil. When we looked at the situation it seemed to us that the most appropriate way of providing assistance to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was to do it in a way which would be fully consistent with the strategy of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If we had accepted the proposal of the Premier of Nova Scotia to provide subsidies, we would have been going counter to that particular objective for Canada because we would have been subsidizing the continuation of the greater use of oil indirectly. The proposal we put forward for insulation in a typical home will provide savings in one year greater that the additional cost of electrical power for one year. Not only is it an advantage on a one-year basis, but it is a permanent advantage to home owners in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The saving continues from year to year, whereas any other kind of assistance, such as a subsidy,
February 23, 1977

would be temporary. We also provided incentives and assistance with respect to conservation measures for industry, and also substitution arrangements in the province of Nova Scotia for the conversion of an oil-fired generating facility to a coal-fired one.
I think it is clear that this is a unique situation. It is not discriminatory in the sense that other provinces would qualify because the next nearest province, when it comes to the question of electrical energy generated from oil, has about half the .dependence of Nova Scotia. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had some figures and I should like to reply to them. Newfoundland, fortunately, is very little dependent upon foreign oil for the generation of electricity on the island and in Labrador. The figures I have been given for electrical generation for 1976-and these exclude the demand for exports to Quebec-are 7,800 gigawatt hours and for oil-generated electricity in all of Labrador and Newfoundland are 400 gigawatt hours. The oil-fired generation compared to the total generation used in the province of Newfoundland is, therefore, in the order of 5 per cent, very much lower than that for Nova Scotia which has close to 66 per cent.
I can understand that the hon. member for St. John's West would want to emphasize the hydro potential for Newfoundland. He knows I share his interest in seeing that development take place. Indeed, I met with him a little under a year ago when he was minister of energy in the province of Newfoundland to discuss precisely that question and to try to see what steps the federal government could take to bring about the realization of the Gull Island facility.
I answered a question in the House today from one of the hon. member's colleagues. I said I had been in touch with the Premier of Newfoundland to raise with him the question of the transmission assistance which we had offered. There is $343 million still on the table with respect to the transmission of power from Gull Island to Newfoundland. I offered to discuss with him, as well, other forms of arrangement which the federal government might enter into. This would be a new departure, possibly even involving equity on the part of the federal government, which would deal with the generation facilities at Gull Island. I asked the premier, if he was still interested in pursuing this matter, and if so, to designate a senior official so that we could get on with the job of identifying the costs and engineering needed to bring about this major facility.
As hon. members will understand, the announcement two weeks ago of the establishment of a maritime energy corporation is very much a part of what I see to be the over-all strategy for the Atlantic provinces. I would expect there might be as much as 1,000 megawatts of surplus power in the Gull Island facility. I realize that the maritime provinces are going to require power in the future. Some of that additional power might well come from Gull Island. The maritime energy corporation would be the logical institution to purchase that power, to decide how it would be used and to arrange, if necessary, during certain periods of the year or perhaps certain hours of the day the sale of any of that power which might be
Energy Policy
surplus to the maritime region. I do not mean to suggest that I see the Gull Island facility as the sole answer to the future needs of the maritime region. Clearly, other projects are going to be important. It may be that an additional nuclear facility in New Brunswick should be contemplated very soon. I hope we will receive sufficiently encouraging news with respect to the study being taken on the Fundy tides. The project has been long discussed and the potential of it has been long recognized, but until very fairly recently the economics of it have not been very encouraging. These are some of the points I would make to the hon. member with regard to the maritimes.
The last point I want to deal with is the one the hon. member raised with regard to the offshore resources of Canada and the ownership of them. I can understand why he would want to take a strong, perhaps even aggressive stance on this. To some extent he has been the architect of a situation which is developing in Newfoundland, one about which I have very serious concerns. I think that when Canadians in other parts of the country know the facts they will have concern as well. I refer, of course, to the whole question of exploration and drilling on the north shore of Labrador.
The hon. member for St. John's West was a former minister of energy of the province of Newfoundland. It is he who can accept the credit and, presumably, the responsibility for having designed the new set of regulations which have in confidence been presented to the exploration consortium. That consortium has reacted in a positive way, positive at least in the sense of saying that the regulations presented to them are unacceptable, they are too stringent. They are far more stringent than the new set of principles which has been tabled by the federal government with respect to oil and gas regulations. They have indicated that if the Newfoundland government is prepared to give undertakings that their regulations, in the event that they were to win a court case with respect to offshore resources, will be no more onerous than those which the federal government has already put on the table, they would be prepared to go ahead. I can understand why the hon. member would want to take an aggressive stance on this. He perhaps, more than any other man, is the architect of the confrontation which has developed between the consortium and the province of Newfoundland.
Let us be quite clear about what is involved here. I have said that I might want to use some moral suasion to put before the Newfoundland government a very good argument to alter their position in light of the facts. The hon. member is suggesting that the federal government is in some way trying to steal the resources which rightfully belong to Newfoundland. He does not realize that as a result of his action he is preventing the people of Newfoundland from benefiting from the potential development of those resources. Close to $100 million of exploration activity was slated for the east shore this year. About one half of that was in Labrador. Unless we can find some accommodation between this consortium and the Newfoundland government, between $50 million and $60 million in exploration activity will not take place this coming season.

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
That clearly rests on the shoulders of the hon. member as much as anybody else.
The major part of the remaining portion will be undertaken by Petro-Canada. The Conservative party have been very ambivalent, and that is putting it charitably, about Petro-Canada. Their leader has said that he would wind down or wind up-it is never quite clear-Petro-Canada. He has never said how he would have dealt with the problem of offshore exploration in the maritimes if it had not been for Petro-Canada. The activity of Petro-Canada is essential to the maritime region at the present time. It may well become increasingly important to the Labrador offshore as well.
It is probably hoping too much that we will hear from opposition spokesmen today what they would propose by way of changes in the strategy which the government of Canada has adopted. I hope they will show interest before the standing committee which deals with this important matter. I hope we will hear from members opposite what they think the pricing policy should be with respect to energy. I hope we will hear from them with respect to Canadian content. We have not heard anything from them with respect to Canadian content.
I hope we will hear from members opposite as to our obligations under the International Energy Agency and the sharing obligations which Canada has accepted under our obligations to that international agency. 1 hope they will have something to say about the targets for conservation. I hope they will address themselves to some of the major national issues. I know that we can again look forward to some glowing constituency speeches in the future, but I hope they will deal with national issues as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister graciously agreed to answer a question, which I would like to put to him now. He has suggested that I am being contemptuous of parliament by asking the House to express an opinion about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I would ask him if his reverence for parliament extends to his giving us a commitment that both the report of the National Energy Board and the report of Mr. Justice Berger will be submitted to parliament before the cabinet makes a decision with regard to the proposed pipeline.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that I very much hope the standing committee will deal with these questions. My predecessor is on record from away back with regard to that. I certainly confirm my own views on it. The committee should organize itself and its time to deal with these important questions. Whether the natural resources committee can or should deal by itself with the Berger report is something that committee and perhaps another committee might want to consider. Indeed, it is possible that the two committees might want to come together at some time. However, that is a decision for them. As to the question of a debate in the House of Commons with respect to this issue, that is something I would be very pleased to take up with the House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. In all fairness to hon. members who are waiting for their turn to speak, the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau).


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on this day allotted the opposition to take part in a debate on a topic of interest to all Canadians, namely the energy problem in Canada.
1 shall waste no time in dealing with the scandals that beset the recent sale of Canadian reactors to foreign countries. I would rather take advantage of this debate to point out the growing enslavement of humankind at the hands of international or multinational monopolies exercised over every form of energy.
However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell my hon. colleagues that I recently met a businessman from Ontario who was proud of his car, a 1973 Buick burning only one gallon of gas to run 62 miles. That man also had another Buick, a 1976, that runs only 14 miles per gallon of gas. The difference between the two lies in the fact-and this I saw myself-that the 1973 Buick was scientifically and mechanically improved by his son, an engineer, who also made similar adjustments on seven or eight other cars belonging to his friends. Because his son was an engineer, extremely competent and specialized in mechanics, it seems he had discovered the secret of considerable saving of gas. However, Mr. Speaker, that engineer died in an automobile accident; his car smashed into a tree under as yet undetermined circumstances. That learned engineer, Mr. Speaker, whose father is still living, had never accepted any of the offers made to him for his secret.
Mr. Speaker, we have been brainwashed into thinking there is a shortage of energy in Canada so that we could be better exploited through increasing prices; while prices go up regularly, the product is still at the disposal of consumers who are fleeced through ever higher prices. Mr. Speaker, how can the governments seriously want to reduce the consumption of energy when, for instance, on gas alone, both at the federal and provincial levels, they reap in taxes more that 60 per cent of the retail price?
How can the governments be interested in reducing gas consumption for the benefit of consumers when they are the very first beneficiaries of the various taxes on gas?
Just as governments exploit consumers through various taxes on energy, so do the Arab countries in turn bleed the energy consuming countries. The lack of foresight of governments towards energy, particularly since the last 30 years when there was no forecast as to eventual energy needs, makes it that much easier for the Arab countries to exploit the energy situation in the world. The energy shortage is not caused by a limited potential for energy resources, but by a lack of long term planning in the development of energy resources.
February 23, 1977

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, natural resources planning, like energy resources, has been left so far in the hands of multinationals with the sole purpose, which is not the public weal, of making profits at the risk of causing the death of people in years to come.
Mr. Speaker we have squandered our resources in raw materials through exploitation and exportation to enhance our balance of payments position without any consideration for our power supply and future needs.
Mr. Speaker, Algeria keeps its power resources in gas and oil for its citizens. Future needs in that area have priority over immediate gains for multinationals. Algerians are not afraid they might be short of power tomorrow morning. They are not concerned about the interests of international traffickers and owners of multinationals operating in that field. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, to realize that $125 million a day-I repeat, $125 million "a day"-are taken out of the pockets of western world residents to go into the coffers of Arab countries. This money is generated only through price increases of petroleum products decreed by the Oil Producing and Exportating Countries which they control; $125 million in benefits are gathered every day after the various increases which have occurred in the last five years. This Arab money goes into Swiss banks which in turn invest it for them throughout the world, even in Canada. The Arabs have already started to buy oil products with our own money through Swiss banks.
Mr. Speaker, the same racket is building up in the field of nuclear energy. International financiers who control world monopolies have started to do with nuclear energy what the Arabs do with oil. International finance magnates are against solar energy because they have yet to gain exclusive control over the sun. Therefore they favour nuclear energy which is easily controlled.
Mr. Speaker, the sun existed before multinational companies. It has never disappointed us. The sun was there before finance companies; God created the sun to serve man, to warm him. Tycoons have not yet bought the sun to control it, sell it or treat it as they see fit. Nuclear energy companies-and I could name many of them-are paying scientists to try to have us believe that solar energy is impractical, uneconomic, and so on.
The magazine Science Forum for August 1976, page 17, reports that, according to a release published on March 3, 1976 by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Canadian federal government spent $84.8 million for nuclear research during fiscal year 1975-76. The government spent $10.5 million for research on oil and gasoline, $8.6 million for energy conservation, $4.9 million for transport and transmission, and $2.8 million for coal energy.
The federal government has spent $1.6 million to assist research on solar and geothermic energy; so they spent 75 times more money on nuclear than on solar research. These figures speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. The government does not want any research on solar energy; they want to develop nuclear energy because the international financial
Energy Policy
trusts are for research on nuclear energy whereas scientists are in favour of solar energy.
Mr. Speaker, in the April 28, 1976 issue of La Presse we could read that Mr. Claude Leroy, 29, who has a degree in optics, has discovered a revolutionary process for the use of solar energy at low cost.
Mr. Leroy has developed a solar collector into which the solar rays penetrate in concentrated form thanks to a captor, and they cannot go out of this collector any more.
In the February 20, 1977 issue of the Ottawa paper Le Droit, another scientist says the following: According to Mr. Jean-Yves Cousteau, the sun could provide 80 per cent of the energy needed in the year 2000.
He feels that solar energy is the only solution . . . The main source of solar energy is found in the oceans. Two thirds of all the solar energy which reaches the earth fall into the oceans . . . Properly tapped, solar energy could easily represent four fifths of the world energy before the year 2000 . . . Moreover, nuclear energy is the greatest danger . . . for its is a non solution . . . According to the data published by the United Nations, the $850 million which will be spent on nuclear energy up to the year 2000 will meet the needs of only 20 per cent of the world demand.
Mr. Speaker, a very interesting report appeared on January 15, 1977, again in La Presse, in which Jean-Pierre Bonhomme, the author, states:
Solar heat will liberate the Quebec household.
And again in La Presse, on April 24:
Solar Energy Electricity will come from the cosmos.
The newspaper adds that engineer Peter E. Glaser of the Arthur D. Little Company of Cambridge, Massachussets, suggests the installation of an orbital power station that would use ...
. . . huge surfaces of solar collectors to transform sun light directly into electricity in the same way as solar mirrors are used to feed energy to most of present day spatial devices.
Mr. Speaker, in Le Devoir of April 22, 1976, Ottawa architect Michael Glover contends .. .
. . . that direct loans at low interest rates or tax reductions should be allowed to citizens who install home heating systems fed by solar energy.
Also, in the Canadian Consumer magazine of June I, 1976, page 33, Mr. Ron Argue had this to say:
Solar energy heating is the solution to traditional heating systems.
Again in Le Devoir of December 31, 1976, in an article signed by Mr. Gilles Provost:
Solar heating can compete with electricity.
For the first time, an American study states that solar energy heating can compete with electric heating.
Mr. Speaker, Ralph Nader who is well known in the United States stated the following:
If the sun belonged to Exxon, we would already be using solar energy.
Some inexhaustible, renewable, clean and free sources of energy have always been available to mankind, but science does not enable us to use them effectively. There are many scientists, handymen and even engineers who have devised techniques enabling us to take advantage of our natural wealth

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
without destroying it, to use the revenue without depleting the capital.
Mr. Speaker, if the economic structures are inconsistent with the use of soft techniques, the conservation of resources and the biological requirements of survival, we must then alter the economy, because we cannot change the laws of physics nor those of life.
On page 52 of the same magazine I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we can read this, and I quote:
The choice is therefore not only political, but also social and moral. It involves much more than capital. In fact, the whole western civilization is involved in that choice.
Here is what Professor Lebreton of the University of Lyons has to say on that subject:
One has to understand what the Carnot cycle is to realize that, far from being the miraculous source of energy which we were promised, the nuclear power station opens the era of the biggest thermo-dynamic waste ever invented by man.
As for burial sites of solid and liquid wastes of high and medium radioactivity, our children will not be able either to reconvert them to potato fields. Our generation is leading its children toward the point of no return.
Mr. Pierre Dansereau said, in "La terre des hommes et le paysage interieur", and I quote:
Wisdom has more weight than science if we are to change the course leading our species to suicide.
Mr. Mouammar Kadhafi from Lybia, a world renown scientist, said:
Great and rich powers spend fabulous sums of money to make atom bombs, to develop intercontinental missiles, to implement space programs and to develop propaganda and psychological warfare plans, while the people of our planet are facing illness, hunger and skyrocketing prices. Those countries are in effect guided by the devil, and their volume of the sacred law is Malthus and not the Bible.
The great Einstein had this to say:
The scientist is aware that the applications of his research has concentrated in the hands of a small minority, first the economic, then the political power that controls the mass of the people who seem to be ever more amorphous ... He degrades himself to the point of enormously developing on orders the facilities for total destruction of mankind.
Mr. Speaker, there is not the shadow of a doubt about the form of energy Canada should have chosen to meet our future needs, those of 2000 A.D.
All scientists who worked in that field are awed at the dangers of nuclear power for the Canadian people and the people of the world. On the other hand, there is no major obstacle barring the development of solar energy in the world.
One thing specially is to be regretted. The Canadian government is selling the false advantages of nuclear energy and its CANDU reactors. World uranium reserves on which CANDU are based are 85 per cent controlled by four world powers: the United States, Canada, South Africa and Australia. All those countries favour nuclear energy through the mining and exporting of products used to generate nuclear energy. Those countries have a colonial approach to the Third World.
These special goods which are bringing an excellent return to the industry are armaments. In a way the energy policy has the same function as the armament policy, namely to ensure a
[Mr. Rondeau.)
steady flow of capital, to make profits, to maintain and increase domination over others.
It is more and more evident that the big concerns controlled by the state and by the private sector will try to impose on dominated countries nuclear reactors which will bring them more profits, whatever the real needs of these countries may be. The sale by Canada of a $700 million reactor to South Korea illustrates very well. Mr. Speaker, that such a contract will be of no advantage whatsoever either to the Koreans or to the Canadians, but will profit the manufacturer of this enormous hot water kettle. The colonial approach of Canada, already seen in Brazil and the West Indies, is even more patent when Canada sells CANDU reactors to countries of the third world.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a paragraph from a book about nuclear energy by Fred H. Knelman, called Nuclear Energy. Here is what he said, on page 238:
[DOT]	(1650)

There are further value issues involved. Nuclear technology is an infraction of the principle that it is wrong to confront nature and life with impacts whose potential is beyond the bounds of acceptability. We should not incur risks or debts that we are totally unprepared to pay or have others pay. Finally, nuclear technology is big and centralized. It is thus an alienating technology. It invites and supports large power-concentrated political centres and a new priesthood of protectors and managers. And in decommissioning nuclear power stations, we are leaving a heritage of pyramids that cannot be entered, empty tombs of radioactive materials. The more we build, the more we shall have to foresake and the more unforgiving the legacy.
Radioactive wastes have the unique capacity to waste the future. Given the time-scales of perfect containment and the susceptibility of our basic hereditary material, the proliferation and profusion of Fission wastes threaten the continuity of life. Pollution has no bounds and time eventually recycles atoms. The global atom cannot be contained forever by human ingenuity or synthetic constructions. When one compares the toxicity of plutonium with the projected quantities and traffic, the idea of perpetual containment and security becomes the ultimate technological illusion.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[DOT]	(1700)


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate hon. members who have participated in the debate this afternoon for the excellence of their remarks and the constructive suggestions they have put forward. 1 should like to congratulate, also, colleagues on my left for the amendment which they put forward to our motion. I regret that I cannot support the amendment as proposed at this time, because we do not have the important benefit of the findings of the Berger commission and of the National Energy Board. To take a position now would be premature, in my opinion, and would preclude consideration of a most impor-tantr set of facts. Indeed, it could be interpreted as an affront to the Berger commission and to the National Energy Board.
Canada is fortunate in the variety and size of such undeveloped energy sources as the Alberta tar sands, the
February 23, 1977

western Canadian coal fields, the Ontario uranium deposits, the hydroelectric capacity of Quebec and Labrador, tidal power in the Bay of Fundy and the immense renewable energy source inherent in our forests. The challenge is to produce and utilize these sources so as to decrease our present dependence on dwindling oil and gas reserves, and to do it in ways that provide the greatest benefits in accordance with economic, social and environmental consideration.
Time is a basic problem. It takes time to build a hydro-electric dam. It takes time to develop a new coal deposit. It takes time to construct a nuclear reactor. It takes time to create tidal power development. And last but not least, it takes time to accumulate the capital for the type of large-scale enterprise which is necessary to ameliorate our heavy dependence on offshore oil-and this time is not measured in years but in decades. Thus, it is a venture for many years to come. We must learn to live with the fact that for the next 10 to 15 years Atlantic Canada will continue to import over 100 million barrels of oil per year to sustain an energy system greatly dependent on this commodity.
Dramatic increases in the cost of electric power in areas of Atlantic Canada have placed the region at a competitive disadvantage in the expansion of its industrial and manufacturing sector and inflicted a great measure of hardship on large segments of the population. While I intend to propose some suggestions to reduce these disadvantages, it must be recognized that this will be a battle not quickly or easily won. In the short term, until a fundamental improvement in the situation can be achieved there is a broad scope for cost-sharing programs and federal grants to promote energy efficiencies in new and existing operations. In the long term-beyond 1990-the prospects look far better as long as programs to exploit other energy sources are begun now. It is in the short term where our most intractable problems lie. Consequently, we must distinguish between short run policy initiatives, which will necessarily be of a palliative nature, and long run policy initiatives with which more fundamental changes in the energy system will be achieved. With this is mind, the objectives we are aiming at can be itemized.
I am going to mention a few of the objectives I would like to see us explore. First, diversify the energy base in Atlantic Canada, thereby reducing that region's overwhelming dependence on offshore oil. Second, pool wherever possible the various energy systems in Atlantic Canada to achieve economic and technical efficiencies of scale, and in conjunction with this strategy strengthen energy interconnections with adjacent provinces and states. Third, to introduce renewable energy forms to the greatest extent feasible, even if these forms have to be initially subsidized. Fourth, to reduce the rate of increase in future energy costs. Fifth, to achieve a much higher level of co-operation among the governments involved. Sixth, to reduce the energy demand so that pressures on supply are eased. Seventh, to set up an effective program of public education to ensure support and understanding of the initiatives being taken.
Energy Policy
In my opinion the government has not acted to diversify the energy base in Atlantic Canada and thus reduce the region's overwhelming dependence on offshore oil. While it has introduced an ad hoc program to insulate older homes in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which should enable the owners of these homes to use less electricity, it has in fact, done nothing to reduce the cost of electric energy or the region's dependence on offshore oil which is increasing in price. A real conservation program would do more than insulate older homes. A government really interested in conservation would have regional and branch offices in the Atlantic provinces and a program that would reduce energy waste in commercial and industrial undertakings. It would work with DREE to promote greater energy efficiency and work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive conservation program. Perhaps its first move would be to extend its present band-aid approach at least to all the Atlantic provinces.
Clearly, the power pool concept achieving economic and technical efficiencies of scale is a major step in the direction of lower power cost. While the maritime provinces have taken a giant step in this direction with the proposed maritim'e power corporation, the federal government, which dragged its feet for years on the Fundy tidal power study, has adopted a different pose. Instead of offering to take an equity position and financially support such a worthy concept, the government is sitting on its hands. The government seems to lack an over-all strategy in approaching the problems of Atlantic Canada. It has announced financing for studies of some renewable energy forms which are quite commendable. But what about other energy forms, and what about indigenous energy sources in Atlantic Canada? There is no over-all strategy. The government cannot, or will not, come to grips with the total problem and in concert with the Atlantic provinces develop a strategy designed to solve the problems. As 1 have indicated, there are no easy answers, but there should be a commitment and a dedication on the part of the federal government to finding the answers.
I have some initiatives that I feel the government should immediately undertake in order to deal more effectively with the electric energy problems in Atlantic Canada. First, I believe the government should co-operate with the governments of the Atlantic provinces in giving priority to the economic supply and distribution of electrical energy in the region. The areas of co-operation I contemplate would include the development of a full maritime power pool with strong interconnections with adjacent areas of Canada and the United States in order that all the benefits of power pool operations may be optimized. This, in my view, would be a major step in the direction of integrating other provinces and other power pools into an eventual national power grid. Second, the government of Canada should give financial support to the Atlantic provinces to enhance the construction of electrical and transmission facilities which would be part of an agreed master plan of electrical energy supply. The agreed master plan to which I refer should not be dictated by Ottawa but should be the result of leadership given by Ottawa and

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
co-operative action with the provinces. The provinces have demonstrated their ability to reach accord in matters of this kind. Ottawa has not demonstrated its commitment to the same extent.
Third, Canada should encourage the study and development of unused hydroelectric sites-especially the large, remote sites in northern areas of Canada-which could supply renewable energy into a Canadian electrical energy distribution system. The untapped hydro resources of 20 rivers in Labrador, the most dramatic being the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites, are the most attractive untapped hydroelectric sites in America.
Fourth, the government should accelerate studies of the feasibility of tidal power generation and encourage development of those sites which show a beneficial energy supply to Canadian energy requirements. Since 1969, lack of foresight and the complete absence of government policy have seen these studies move forward at a snail's pace. Even considering this continent's energy needs in the 1990s, and projecting the dwindling supplies and increasing prices of fossil fuels, Fundy looms as an attractive opportunity with tremendous socioeconomic benefits for all of eastern Canada.
Fifth, the government should investigate the use of low grade wood fibre as an important energy source in conjunction with an improved forest management program. Incentives should be considered to encourage wood-using industries to become self-sufficient for energy from wood fibre such as bark and debris from harvest. The government of Canada should make funds available to the eastern provinces to fund a study to determine the wood energy capability and uses of the wood resources in these provinces and a pilot project should be initiated to explore the utilization of waste wood in energy production.
Sixth, Canada should encourage research and development in all fields related to energy conservation from renewable and indigenous sources. We should challenge the free enterprise system with tax incentives and grants to move into this field and, without limiting the scope or generality of my suggestion,
I would be particularly interested in seeing the private sector of our economy tackle the problem of generating electrical energy and heat from the sun, paying particular attention to storage problems, the efficiency of solar cells and establishing Canadian pre-eminence in a major energy source for the future.
Seventh, we should greatly accelerate programs leading to energy conservation and provide incentives to encourage the correction of sources of energy waste. Eighth, we should encourage the use of deposits of low quality coal and peat in eastern Canada as fuel for the generation of electrical energy. Ninth, we should encourage research and development into the feasibility of using new energy sources such as solar, wind, waves and biomass.
Finally, the government so far has failed to meet the challenge of a long-term solution to the energy problems of

Atlantic Canada. The government has instituted a series of ad hoc measures, made grants for the construction of facilities, provided assistance for two provinces by way of an insulation program, and made some research grants. However, it has no master plan and it appears to lack direction, purpose and an understanding of both the potential and the problems in the Atlantic provinces. 1 have great respect for the minister and his senior officials, and I hope they will pay careful attention to the suggestions and recommendations 1 have made and that the energy department will demonstrate some energy in acting quickly on them. 1 can sum up my remarks in three words: Give leadership, please.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I found the minister charitable to the mover of this motion, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when he branded his speech as a good constituency speech. I thought his speech was like those we have listened to in the province of Quebec for the last ten or 15 years made by some politicians. I thought it was a speech which was highly separatist oriented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Dupras: I deplore the fact that he has not yet found time to shed his provincialism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupras: I realize that he has been here only a few months, but if he had listened long enough before he spoke he would have learned from some of his colleagues that he should shed provincialism and regionalism and discover Canada. The hon. member says that the government does not believe in federalism. Near the end, the hon. member's motion states:
-resources that are fair or just or adequate for the people or the provinces of Canada-
All we have to'do is read that part of the hon. member's motion to find proof of his provincialism. 1 ask, what is wrong with Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupras: Are the provinces of Canada not Canadian? Are we not representing Canadians? I thought these arguments were heard exclusively in my province and I am flabbergasted by the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West. 1 am doubly surprised because this man is a former minister of a provincial government. 1 cannot understand his reason for promoting regionalism like this. 1 have a few words for him with regard to the government's federalism.
With regard to our energy problems, the previous speaker, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), does not seem to know about the programs which were introduced by the government lately. Let me refresh his memory. In recent months the arguments presented by Nova Scotia for temporary subsidy assistance on their electrical rates has overshadowed the measures being taken to bring about a longer term
February 23, 1977

solution. Let me quickly list them: a specific offer of $343 million of financing for a transmission system from the Gull Island site on the Churchill River in Labrador; our general offer of 50 per cent financing of all regional electrical grids; our 50 per cent grant and 25 per cent loan support for the electrical cable connecting New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; and our 50 per cent financing of the 600 megawatt nuclear power unit at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. The hon. member for York-Sunbury should know that.


J. Robert Howie: I know that.


Maurice Dupras: Other measures were Petro-Canada's involvement in exploration on the Nova Scotian and Labrador shelves, and our inventory programs for coal and uranium in the maritime regions. Let me add that since the inception of the compensation program for the price of gasoline or oil, over the last 2Vi years that has meant $930 million to the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Blais:: That is nearly $1 billion.


Maurice Dupras: As the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) indicates, that is nearly $1 billion.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is nearly $500 for every man, woman and child.


Maurice Dupras: That works out to an average annual per capita saving in the range of $470 for every citizen of the Atlantic provinces. How about that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How about it?


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to make a few remarks on what nas just been said by my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) who said in his speech that one of his friends or someone he knew could drive a 1973 Buick for almost 50 miles on a gallon of gas.
When I was in England with the Canadian Air Force I also met in a pub one of those scientists who was keeping for himself a famous invention which would have allowed us to drive a car or a motorcycle for hours and hours on a single gallon of gas. I told him: Why don't you go to the War Office in London and offer them this precious invention so that it can be developed? Think of the advantages we would have over the Japanese, the Germans and all those we are fighting! Unfortunately I wonder why I was unable to convince him that he should have shared his knowledge with officials of the War Office in London so that we too could save that oil which is so valuable, and God knows if in their high technological science, the Germans and the Japanese had succeeded in developing an engine which could operate for hours on one gallon of gasoline. I believe we could all benefit from it. We would not wait for the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to show us this invention, which is long in being introduced.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the comments of the hon. member for St. John West (Mr. Crosbie) who said this program affected only some provinces. Is he opposed to the
Energy Policy
assistance which the Canadian government has given to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia? That is the question I would ask him. If he is opposed to it, he should tell us so. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has indicated on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, the very particular situation in which these two provinces find themselves, and for the benefit of . . .


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must point out to the hon. member who is speaking that 1 made it clear in my remarks that I am not against assistance for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I say it should apply to all the provinces.


Maurice Dupras: And in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he failed to tell us whether he was speaking about Alberta and Saskatchewan. If such a program is applied in all provinces, it eliminates any way all the benefits . . .


Steve Eugene Paproski: All provinces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are all Canadians.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You are splitting hairs; all provinces.


Maurice Dupras: I will get to this if you give me a chance.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We will give you a chance.


Maurice Dupras: Under the federalism of the present Canadian government, Mr. Speaker-and I pay tribute today to the people of Alberta-they tried to convince the latter that they should give up a part of the surtax charged to the Americans so that all the Canadian people may benefit from a Canadian price. That is Canadian federalism, and that is what they try to sell in my province. And when I see a member of parliament like the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) make the comments which I have just heard, I am puzzled! As a matter of fact, that is what Canadian federalism is aiming at, to enable all Canadians to take advantage of the resources of some parts of the country, and this is precisely what the people of Alberta have understood and I pay tribute to them for it. They agreed then and still agree today and since I am speaking of these benefits which my fellow citizens of the province of Quebec have taken advantage of, it enabled each and every citizen of the province of Quebec to get not less than $500 since the introduction of the price compensation program. In other words, between January 1, 1974 and June 1, 1976, this brought Quebec-and I hope I am talking loud enough for the whole population of the province to hear me-this brought $2,024 billion, and that is not all.
In 1976, even though deliveries to the United States went down because of a program aiming at keeping energy in Canada, this has been worth about $800 million to the population of Quebec. It is easy enough to add this up and to see what advantages the population has had because of this oil

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
price compensation program. This-and I say so once again for the benefit of my colleague from St. John West-this is the good federalism of the Trudeau government. It consists in making all regions of the country benefit from the wealth of other regions. Today, Alberta and Saskatchewan have the resources from which we can all benefit. Tomorrow, it might be New Brunswick, the riding of my colleague from York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie), or another riding, maybe that of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). Who knows?
Mr. Speaker, because of the conservation policy and the price policy within the export program and the compensation program, the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have received nearly $4 billion since 1974. I believe that this is evidence enough of the good federalism of the Trudeau government, and that there is no need to continue any further.
I would also like to speak a little of the action taken by the government to reduce the difficulties caused by the energy crisis for Canadians. First, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, through its capable minister, established an oil price policy aimed at reaching international prices as soon as possible. And this for several reasons. One, Mr. Speaker, is that Canadians must urgently become aware that oil is exhaustible and that the more quickly people will become aware of the importance of saving and keeping oil, the better and the longer we could count on the oil reserves required to heat our homes and drive our cars.
There is also a second effect which is to allow the oil companies to produce enough revenues to speed up and not only maintain exploration operations. Those who are familiar with oil companies' operations know very well that 1976 was a particularly busy year in this field in order to provide Canadians with oil at a cost they are not used to paying. If we compare the price that we Canadians pay with the price that Japanese or French or English people must pay, we see that in some country the price is almost twice the Canadian price. Once again, all Canadians benefit from this. This is another virtue of the Canadian federalism of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the sense that some regions profit from the wealth of others.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, 1976 was an exceptional year in exploration and it is good to see that corporations have confidence in the steps taken by the Canadian government. Corporations are also aware of their responsibilities to develop supply sources that will allow Canadians and the petrochemical industry and the Canadian industry in general to get oil supplies at a price much lower that the import price.
And exploration was extended, Mr. Speaker, up to the frontier areas of the country.
Some other measures have also been taken to ensure better oil recovery. In some oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, for instance, only 30 to 40 per cent of the known reserves in some wells are extracted. In Canada, the promotion campaign for heavy oil exportation resulted in an increase in the rate of recovery from the sands from Lloydminster and elsewhere which resulted in a very large increase in the
[Mr. Dupras.)
recovery of heavy oil and also, Mr. Speaker, a better market for heavy oil for the benefits of producers as in Canada we do not have any industry capable of using that oil, and under the campaign launched on January 1, 1977, I think that no fewer than 115,000 barrels a day are sold to the Americans.
This research is aimed at increasing the rate of recovery from traditional sources. Without new methods and expertise like the infusion of vapours and so on, this rate of recovery should reach 75 or 80 per cent in some cases. This is our goal. We are in close communication with countries in the samd situation-Venezuela, for one-which also experiences recovery problems for their oil resources.
In the replacement program for heating oil and gas, enormous amounts have been spent for research and development and this year $128 million have been spent for research. It represents a sizeable increase over past years to make Canadian experts more knowledgeable about energy production methods and not only from oil.
Seventy per cent of that amount, Mr. Speaker, is spent on nuclear research. I will come back to that later on if 1 have time.
I will deal with the steps taken by the Canadian government with regard to the creation of a Canadian petroleum company to negotiate and deal with other countries at the national level and also ensure that Canadian reserves are used in a rational way, that is that companies with additional territories will have to develop them, put them into use or give them back to the Crown so Canadian companies can develop them.
Mr. Speaker, you remember how difficult it was for some members of the opposition to accept the creation of Petro-Canada. Many countries already praise the Canadian government for its decision to create a Canadian petroleum company, so the government itself would see to the exploration and development of its natural resources that are non-renewable and that are in fact running low very fast.
Mr. Speaker, those are so many steps taken by the government to increase the viability, and in some cases, access to Canadian energy reserves.
The mover, Mr. Speaker,-
In his remarks he indicated many times that he could not find answers in the blue book entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada . I should like to remind the hon. member that this document was written in 1976. On page 3, the second paragraph, he will read the following:
We are living in a world where past behaviour, while it provides a useful guide to future prospects, does not in itself provide sufficient information on which to base future energy policies. Energy supply projects are now so big and so expensive that one requires a much more precise recognition of the interrelationships between energy policy planning and other social and economic goals than was necessary in the past. There are a number of key questions-
February 23, 1977

There are a number of good questions that are still unanswered. One is, what will happen to international prices in the future? We all know that if it had not been for this special export tax charged to our neighbours to the south we would not have been able to adopt a Canadian price for Canadian consumers.

There is a host of steps, Mr. Speaker-unfortunately I see that you are about to tell me my time is up and recognize another member. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the party opposite made a mistake in choosing the subject matter of its motion. It might have found another topic that could have meant a little more for the party.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of subjects I would like to cover in the brief time available to me. I certainly do not agree with the parliamentary secretary that we chose the wrong subject for today. We chose the right subject, with the confusion in Canada today over energy and its problems. 1 would like to touch on a few of them. Last week there was a news release by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources entitled "Role of Renewable Energy Strengthened". It states there was a $4.4 million increase for renewable energy and that a part of that was to go to biomass. I raised this subject in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works yesterday. Neither the minister nor his officials could tell me the exact amount going to biomass because that will now be handled by the Department of Agriculture. I have been in touch with the Biomass Energy Institute. They do not know of any amount of money they are going to be receiving. Their concern is the conflict that has arisen between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture.
It does not look as though we are making any headway on biomass research. There is more confusion there. The Biomass Institute at their annual meeting last fall in Winnipeg pointed out there is very little support forthcoming from the federal government, at a time when the United States government has set up a $200 million solar energy program with biomass as one of the four components. Research into biomass and assistance to the Biomass Institute is of prime importance. There is enough biomass material going to waste every year to supply 30 times the amount humans need in the form of energy to run their civilization. That is one example why some direct action should be taken to assist biomass, rather than confusion between a couple of government departments.
1 wish to refer to a speech which the parliamentary secretary made to the Energy Conservation Conference at the University of Saskatchewan on February 18. He said:
In Sweden and Denmark and many other countries, district heating-
I imagine what he means by "district heating" is central heating, with which 1 am familiar.
Energy Policy
-usually through the co-generation of heat and electricity, is providing up to 30 per cent or more of the space heat, already in urban areas. In West Germany 28 per cent of electricity is produced from by-product steam in industry.
In Winnipeg we used to have two central heating plants. It was a very serious mistake to destroy them. They could probably be used to great advantage today.
If we were to follow these examples, we would move a long way toward our zero energy growth goal.
Unfortunately, too little consideration is being given by utilities and local governments to the role of district heating and co-generation.
Half our energy demand is for low grade heat and we should be using our waste to satisfy this demand wherever it is economically feasible.
He said that municipalities should be looking into this type of energy and district heating. What research is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources doing into federal government complexes such as military bases? 1 will give an example. In Norfolk, Virginia, there is a large naval base which is heated by their garbage in a district heating plant. Has the minister, or have any of his officials, investigated to see if all of our military bases across Canada could be burning their garbage to provide heat? I suggest we first look at St. Jean, Quebec, where they are making many other changes. They have a heating plant that could possibly be converted. It would certainly be showing leadership if there were some research into federal government departments and military bases burning their garbage to provide heat.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the great co-operation between the oil industry and the government in producing and improving energy supplies in this country. I have received exactly the opposite information. I have been in discussion with the oil companies. All I can get from them is that excessive government regulation is devastating to the oil industry.
In recent years the degree of regulation of the Canadian petroleum industry has increased dramatically. One reason is that energy supply has come to be recognized as one of the most important determinants of our economic well being. Energy suddenly finds itself in the spotlight as the result of greatly increased prices. Canadians should be concerned that one of their major industries is subject to regulations that are often unstable, unclear and unco-ordinated to the point that the industry's performance is impaired. There is no line of communication between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the oil companies. They go on to say:
The proposed new regulations are such that, instead of being able to plan from a fixed set of rules, the industry is in the position of having to try to predict how the ministry will use its discretion. This could turn out to be like playing blackjack in Las Vegas with the house announcing the rules as the game proceeds. Planning for major expenditures (individual wells in the Arctic can cost $25 million or more) is made very difficult when the rules are as uncertain as those set out in the proposed regulations.
The parliamentary secretary also pointed out how wonderfully Petro-Can is working. It is detrimental to Canada, causing the oil companies no end of problems. A recent story about Petro-Can states that oil firms resent the continuing loss of talent to Petro-Can. I quote:
Top petroleum executives are growing increasingly resentful about the continuing loss of middle and upper management to Petro-Canada.

February 23, 1977
Energy Policy
The heads of several companies that lost experienced people to Petro-Can during its first year of operation have taken up the matter with the federal government.
I hope there will be some line of communication there. There is no co-operation or communication. 1 he government is over regulating, telling us there is nothing to worry about and that they have a great line of communication with the oil industry. I happen to know differently. I meet with these people from time to time. 1 am very concerned about this subject. There is not a day that you pick up a newspaper that does not contain a headline such as "Oil supplies at danger level in seven years". I quote from this article:
World daily oil production rose slightly more than two per cent since 1974, and now there's a warning that if demand continues to escalate at the present rate, supplies could soon be exhausted.
I should like to know how often the minister and his officials are meeting with the drilling companies to help correct this situation. Here is another headline: "Coming oil shortage a Doomsday scenario". The text reads:
We are headed into a potentially devastating shortage of oil. Not a phoney shortage concocted by the oil companies to jack up their prices, nor a paper shortage in which, although we produce too little oil ourselves, we make up the deficit by imports, but a true, stark shortage in which we neither produce enough oil ourselves nor can buy, anywhere, the extra oil we need. If not freezing in the dark, we could be shivering in the twilight.
Yet another headline reads: "Energy shortage is possible: OECD". The article reads in part:
The organization for economic co-operation and development has called for new government policies on conservation and energy development to head off possible shortages in the mid-1980s.
The minister says he has policies. According to this article they are asking for policies. I suggest the minister should communicate with the oil industry and help the industry with its problems, not bring in more regulations. That is the last thing we need in this country today. Here is one final headline: "Taxes choking oil companies says Shell head".
C. W. Daniel, president of Shell Canada Limited, says taxes and royalties are dramatically reducing the cash flow required to enable the oil industry to expand and meet rising energy demands.
We are getting one story from the parliamentary secretary about the government's ability to communicate with the oil industry. On the other hand, this is what we read in the papers. People I know in the industry tell me that government regulations are handicapping them more and more.


An hon. Member:: What is your policy?


A. Daniel McKenzie: J want to say something more about biomass. With the current energy crisis reflecting the increasing scarcity of non-renewable fossil fuels, the prospect of using renewable sources of energy is becoming more attractive. There are now several examples of the use of waste materials for energy. Many pulp and paper plants heat boilers with bark, branches and other wastes from forestry operations. The benefits are twofold. Materials which previously might have been pumped into streams, causing pollution, can be used to save money on energy costs. We have found out today that the

government has no policy, no direction and no communication whatsoever with the oil industry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58 (11) the proceedings on the motion have now expired.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6.19 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Thursday, February 24, 1977