1979-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since the white paper on the referendum was tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, the Canadian people have been shocked and dismayed at the incapacity of the federal government to respond to that threat to the survival of Canada. Considering the step taken by the Ontario premier and his statement supported by the Liberal leader in that province, and since the Ontario premier, given the inaction of the federal government leader, has been compelled to speak on behalf of Canada and condemn the sovereignty-association option in specific, clear and convincing terms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That reasonable time be allotted to the House to hold a debate on the white paper so that hon. members may direct the government towards a referendum policy which the government is idly searching for or has not the courage to adopt.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION-REQUEST LEVEL OF FEDERAL FUNDS BE MAINTAINED-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Canadian Mental Health Association is one of our very valuable national volunteer agencies dealing with Canada's number one health problem, and since the president of this organization has noted that the restraint program carried out by the federal government means the loss of preventive treatment for the emotionally ill in their own area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this government stop playing Scrooge with the mentally ill of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion for debate at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
As the present government intends to cancel or considerably reduce family allowances, and low and medium-income earners will be most severely affected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbeault):
That the government forgo immediately the implementation of such plans which would be unfair and discriminatory.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

November 6, 1979
5.0.	43


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the speech yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in Toronto, where he described his remarks as his first major policy speech, and in view of the fact that his party, when it was in opposition, vehemently opposed policy statements being made outside the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Prime Minister instruct his cabinet ministers to make their policy statements in the House of Commons in order to fulfil his campaign pledge of making Parliament more relevant.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that present interest rates are increasing at an alarming rate, and that as a result many small businesses, including realtors, are suffering a drastic reduction in the level of business, and that as a result businessmen of the city of Thompson, including prominent Conservatives, presently are organizing a petition against this Liberal policy now embraced by the Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: -1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House states its opposition to the government policy of allowing interest rates to increase, and that the government should immediately reverse this drastic and dangerous policy which is creating extreme financial hardship to all Canadians, including pensioners, farmers, consumers, the unemployed and operators of small businesses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of this House to move a motion on an urgent and important matter.
In view of the fact that the new policy at airport car rental counters has met with the disapproval of Canadian rental companies, and since this policy gives foreign companies easier access to the rental market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House call upon the Minister of Transport to make the changes and amendments recommended by the Canadian rental companies so as not to favour foreign companies at the expense of our own national companies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the contemptible attitude of the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran toward the civil liberties and rights of not only his countrymen, but those of legitimate aliens domiciled within Iran's borders, and his support of actions of blackmail and terrorism against these defenceless people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Government of Canada extend its protest to the government of Iran against the latest act of criminal aggression: the siege of the U.S. embassy and the kidnapping of its staff and their families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
November 6, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) and seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the report of the Economic Council of Canada released last week states that higher-priced energy could reduce the unemployment rate because secondary workers-by which the council means primarily women-would leave the labour force, and in view of the fact that in the Speech from the Throne the government promised a full employment strategy for women, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this government move quickly to introduce programs that will effectively counteract the discriminatory effects on employment for women that the Economic Council of Canada has predicted will result from higher energy prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion for debate at this time?
Oral Questions
decisions such as those having to do now with the oil price increase. We are all aware of the serious consequences this decision will have on the low and medium wage-earners who will be the first to be affected by this increase and who will lack the necessary income to meet it.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard):
That the Prime Minister appoint forthwith these three ministers to the inner cabinet in order that they may defend the interests of low income citizens and fight against excessive oil price hikes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will be aware that the National Energy Board, on Friday, released an up to date assessment of oil supplies in Canada, especially looking toward the winter months.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 1 seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
There are in Canada over two million senior citizens, 700,000 unemployed and seven million people whose income is under $10,000 a year. Unfortunately, these poor people are represented only by back-row or second-class ministers-the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Employment and Immigration- who are not part of the inner cabinet which takes the main
In view of the disquieting statement contained in the report, to the effect that there is no certainty that Canadians will be free from oil supply problems this winter-including home heating oil-will the minister, in light of this most up to date reassessment of our situation, tell us what fresh steps he is contemplating to ensure that Canadians, particularly those in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, will have the certainty of oil supplies this winter? That is the issue at stake. Canadians are entitled to know with certainty that oil supplies will be provided for this winter.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the emphasis which the hon. member has placed on the press release of the National Energy Board. The report indicated that we would see ourselves through this winter, notwithstanding the rather unfortunate position that the previous administration left us in with respect to the supply situation in Canada.
The hon. member knows full well, as a member of that administration, that when this government came into office we

November 6, 1979
Oral Questions
were faced with depleted inventories and that we have taken some very great initiatives.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will, in fact, name them: there are quite a number. I assure hon. members of this House that we have taken initiatives with respect to the supply situation, and I can list them seriatim if the hon. member has the time. 1 propose to deal with these initiatives in the debate this afternoon, since the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he wishes to discuss this matter during the course of the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in the hon. member's apologia about his inadequacies at the moment. The National Energy Board report states quite clearly that it would be rash to predict with any certainty that Canadians will be free of oil supply problems this winter. I would draw to the minister's attention the press release containing these very words.
In light of the resignation of the government of Iran today, the political disturbances which exist in that country at this very moment, and Canada's dependency for a considerable portion of its annual supply on Iranian sources, can the minister tell the House whether the government has made any approach at the political level to authorities in Iran to ensure the continued supply of this vital oil for Canada which amounts, as I understand it, to about 100,000 barrels a day?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the statements made by the hon. member cannot assist in terms of the outlook for next winter, in the sense that he is attempting to dramatize that which ought not to be dramatized. We in this government are taking steps with respect to policies which the opposition does not want to support but which will allow us to reach self-sufficiency and increase our supply in Canada.
As far as dealing with the government of Iran is concerned, obviously, the information has just been received. We will, of course, be in touch respecting this matter of continuing supply. We are taking steps to increase and maximize the amount of available domestic production, and we intend to continue to monitor the situation very closely. We are confident that we will be able to make it through this winter, and we will do the very best we can in terms of domestic production, domestic availability and international supply to assure that this particular objective is reached.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister speaks about confidence in facing the situation this winter. The National Energy Board report states that it would be rash to predict with any certainty that Canadians will be free from oil supply problems this winter.
Will the minister depart from that complacent attitude to understand the gravity of what the National Energy Board report states, and move with some speed to establish the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board? What is the minister's justification, in light of the report of the NEB and the instability in the Middle East, for not having appointed the

members of this board? If he has not done so to date, will he do it today so that somebody can get on the job, even though the minister does not seem to be on it at the moment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that he clearly does not understand the question. He did not understand it when he was in government, and that is one of the reasons we are facing any serious prospect with respect to this winter.
The fact of the matter is that the department is setting up a support basis upon which any emergency allocation would be available. This is in place and is proceeding. As the hon. member knows, it only comes into effect when there is a crisis and the matter is reported to the House for debate under the legislation which was passed in the last Parliament. We do not have a crisis situation now. The Energy Board release indicates that the situation is manageable, but points out that there are circumstances that will cause the situation over the winter to be fragile.
I have encouraged the National Energy Board to make these reports available to the Canadian people. I think we should have this openness in terms of assessing the situation in Canada today, so that people can realize this is a commodity which should be treated with care and that there should not be the attitude that was taken previously with respect to energy supply-the stand-pat, do-nothing attitude of the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEETING OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS ON OIL SUPPLIES THIS WINTER
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may very well say that there are no problems, but the National Energy Board has stated that it would be rash to predict with certainty that Canadians will be free of oil supply problems this winter.
In view of the fact that the provincial energy ministers thought there could be an emergency this winter, when they met last week or the week before in Calgary to discuss this problem, and undertook to provide a report to the minister, can the minister tell the House if he has received this report? If he has, what is in it, and what will he do about it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member's question is a week late: it has already been asked in the House by one of his colleagues.
I did receive a report from the provincial ministers. On a previous occasion, when responding to his colleague who sits not very far from him, I pointed out that we have been in close consultation with the provincial ministers. There was a suggestion that the technical advisory committee with respect to allocation be considered for reinstatement. I pointed out on previous occasions that there is some legal impediment with
November 6, 1979

respect to the creation of that advisory committee, due to possible combines implications.
We are, in fact, in close consultation on the question of allocation with the provinces and we keep them informed. We are providing them with full details of the supply situation on a monthly basis, and I have taken steps with respect to that matter to have open statements made to the Canadian public about our supply situation. The National Energy Board is now issuing a press statement on a periodic basis. These are the things that are being done by this government which the previous government refused to do.


Herb Breau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister does not answer questions, we must continue to ask them. Can the minister tell the House if he has done anything to make sure that in the event of interruption of oil imports to Quebec and Atlantic Canada this winter, that western Canadian oil can be transported to eastern Canada? That is a simple question. Forget the rhetoric and just answer the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if he can reconcile two different sets of figures which have recently been released to this House. The first set is the one released today, showing that profits have gone up 51.9 per cent in the third quarter, and in some industries they have gone up as much as nine times in the third quarter.
Would the minister like to reconcile that particular figure with the figure released two weeks ago showing that the standard of living of the average Canadian was falling behind the rate of inflation? Would he like to compare the social justice of those two figures for the House?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the hon. member to the report of the Economic Council of Canada-an independent body, of course, with no axe to grind. In their latest report, they show that the real inflation adjusted rates of return which they have computed on business profits dropped significantly during the 1970s as a result of inflation, that the tax system increased the real decline of business profits despite various measures introduced to counteract that, and that the decline in real profits in that period adversely affected business investment, and that it is only in 1979 that the real rate of return is being restored to previous levels.
Oral Questions
Therefore, I point out to hon. gentleman that these increases which he mentioned in percentage terms are not accurate. You have to compare them to what they are being increased from. It is this year, for the first time in five or six years, that business profits are becoming adequate; so that the aspersions he is casting on the business sector are quite unjustified, as usual.


An hon. Member:: Put some life into it.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the spontaneity of that answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: I would like to read to the minister a statement that he made last week, not in this House but in the Empire Club. He said:
But neither have I found Canadians so unrealistic, so naive as to expect and believe that we can achieve our economic goals without real sacrifice.
Relating the two figures that I have just given the minister, and of which he is fully aware, I ask him a very simple question: In this fight against inflation which the minister has embarked upon-helped, as he is, by the "Horsemen of the Apocalypse"-can he tell us who is making the real sacrifice in our society? Is it the food companies whose profits have increased 900 per cent in the third quarter, or is it the workers whose wages have fallen behind the increase in the rate of inflation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon gentleman's questions are predictable and that is why I have here a response ready from the Economic Council of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: His jeers and sneers against the business community, the risk-takers and entrepreneurs of this country are very predictable. The kinds of figures that he uses and the kinds of comparisons that he makes are equally predictable and inaccurate.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in light of the increasing evidence that the inflation from which we are suffering is caused by administered prices both in the energy field and elsewhere, I ask the minister if it is still the policy of this government to follow the policy set out by the Prime Minister in his statement to Executive Magazine in May, 1979, that competition policy is being placed on the back burner.
In addition, 1 ask the minister why he still has the ideological attachment to his opposition to the notion of a fair prices commission which would give Canadians the sense that in the pricing mechanism there is at least an element of justice as we face hard times in the 1980s.

November 6, 1979
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are not for a wages and incomes control policy; therefore, we are not for a partial wages or incomes or prices control policy. As far as statements by the leader of our party are concerned, I certainly pay a great deal of attention to them and I hope that the hon. gentleman does also. 1 might also add that housing starts rose last month.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member did not ask about housing starts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Algoma.


PLAN FOR EMERGENCY ALLOCATION OF SUPPLIES-REACTION OF PROVINCES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the National Energy Board report last week, I ask the minister if, in fact, a plan has yet been formulated for the emergency allocation of petroleum supplies, and what is the reaction of the provinces to that plan?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions in the House and earlier in my replies to the hon. member's colleagues, planning is going ahead at the official level. We have been in consultation and we are having the greatest amount of input into the process with the provinces. As I say, we have the support structure in place with respect to any pricing situation which might occur. 1 want to reiterate that it is not the opinion of the government at this time that we are in that particular position.
I want to assure the hon. member that we are looking at making it through this winter in terms of the fact that we have built up the inventory quite substantially over the course of the summer months, but while we have not attained in some instances the level of inventory that would be desirable from a perfect point of view, we are not in a bad position with respect to facing next winter. We are taking a number of initiatives to avoid the necessity of having to look at a pricing situation. 1 assure the hon. member that if that situation does occur, we will be able to move very quickly with respect to the implementation of the provisions as may be necessary.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, could he confirm reports that the plan will not be available until the early winter months of 1980; that in fact the provinces are quite upset that they have not been consulted and have not had an opportunity to have input into such plan?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker. In my estimation, it is not correct.


REASON EMERGENCY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD NOT ESTABLISHED
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister explain why Bill C-42, which was passed by this House on March 21 and accepted by the opposition at that time-now the government-has not been followed? Specifically, why has the emergency allocation supplies board as prescribed in that bill not been established?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that we are taking steps to bring into effect a substantial part of that legislation which may be required in the event of an emergency. As hon. members will recall, there are elements with regard to the allocations bill with which we did not agree when in opposition. I am considering bringing in some amendments to that legislation. I intend to do that as soon as the necessity arises and space is available in terms of the legislative timetable.
I assure the hon. member that in terms of our energy supply situation, we want to take initiatives that will increase the supply, that will turn the direction of the leadership which the government gives this country toward increasing supply in Canada and toward increasing alternative sources of supply. We are working in that direction in our policy, as opposed to the previous administration which the hon. member supported, which looked at everything in a crisis way.


Paul Edmund McRae: The minister has not explained why we do not have a board. If there is an emergency supply situation-and it is very possible there will be one in eastern Canada-if the other oil companies will not do something about it, is the minister prepared to instruct PetroCan to actually make deliveries during that emergency?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member that we have been taking steps. Earlier this year, during the month of September, 1 asked the National Energy Board to look at the system of allocation of western crude to eastern Canada. As a result of my request, the National Energy Board approached Interprovincial Pipe Line with respect to its method of allocation.
I can tell the hon. member that on the basis of the initiative that I took, there has now become available for independents in Quebec a very substantial additional supply of crude for that part of the country and for the benefit of eastern Canada.
I had to take those initiatives as a result of the dreadful situation I was left with when we came into power-remnants of the previous government.
November 6, 1979


CRUDE OIL-GUARANTEES GOVERNMENT WILL OBTAIN FROM REFINERIES RESPECTING CANADIAN SUPPLY TO INDEPENDENTS
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources has just indicated that as a result of representations made to the National Energy Board, it is now possible for eastern independent distributors to obtain Canadian crude. This is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but according to my information, the independents who have obtained western Canada crude through the Interprovincial Pipe Line have not yet been able to find a refiner willing to refine this crude oil in Montreal. What action has the minister taken? What guarantees has he obtained, what firm commitment has he obtained from the refiners? First, did he get the assurance that they will refine the crude oil obtained by the independents and second, that they will also supply heating oil to Quebec independents?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, from his brief experience as a parliamentary secretary, that the department is in constant touch with regard to the whole question of supply. He will know that an initiative was taken by my predecessor, the energy minister in the previous government, with regard to an inquiry into the supply for independents. That particular report languished with the previous government; they apparently had to wait until after the election to release it.
I moved immediately to release the report. I distributed it to the parties involved, indicating to them in no uncertain terms that we were going to look very carefully at the whole question of allocation to the independents, and that there would be no attempt to increase the market portion by any of the refiners and terminal operators. I simply want to point out I followed that up with a telex during the month of August, in which 1 very clearly pointed out the rules of the game as far as terminal operators and refiners are concerned.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE REFINERIES WILL SUPPLY INDEPENDENTS
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary. I just reminded the hon. minister of some facts: first, that if the independents get crude oil from the west, it is thanks to the minister's initiative, and I commend him for it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary, would he put it now?


Pierre Bussières: What will the minister do now to ensure that refiners will, indeed, refine the crude oil, because crude oil cannot be used in furnaces, that is the problem? Also, what
Oral Questions
assurance can he give us that refiners will supply independents with heating oil?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have tried to point out to the hon. member, and to hon. members generally, initiatives 1 have taken with regard to making crude available to the independents in the province of Quebec. If the hon. member has any specific instance that he wants to bring to my attention-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member can talk in general terms and rhetoric; he can make an allegation. I simply say that if he wants to have a particular situation looked into, if he brings it to my attention he can rest assured that I will give it the most serious attention and do what I can to alleviate any isolated incident.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the strong and justifiable request by veterans across Canada to have their own full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs, and because it is essential that the Canadian Armed Forces have a full-time minister, when is the Prime Minister going to split the present dual departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs and give a full-time minister to each department?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government, the veterans and the armed forces of this country are very fortunate to have a Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of National Defence as competent as the hon. Allan McKinnon who is able to carry out these dual responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning the ability of the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs; we are questioning the inability of the Prime Minister to appoint ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister's decision to give only one minister to these two departments indicate that this is the first move to phase out the Department of Veterans Affairs; and, if not, why does the Prime Minister obviously continue treating these two very important departments, these two people-oriented departments, as minor priorities on his list?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I noted through the last Parliament the hon. member's great concern about the inability of
990

November 6, 1979
Oral Questions
the former prime minister to appoint at least one minister whom the hon. member had in mind. He has my sympathy on that.
The hon. member asked a particular question about the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I can assure him, without any equivocation or qualification, that we intend to retain an independent and strong Department of Veterans Affairs as an independent unit in the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister confirm to the House that owing to inflation there will be, in real terms, a decrease in Canada's foreign aid expenditures this coming year? If so, can she indicate to the House why she continues to speak at international forums about the necessity of providing increased aid to those in need, while at the same time cutting back the real value of that aid?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the actual figures for our aid program will become known to the House and to the country when the estimates are tabled next year. I cannot give the hon. member that information at this time. I can say, however, that there will be no fewer dollars paid out in aid to developing countries in the next year than there has been this year.
As well, I would like to emphasize that we have made recent payments to foreign countries such as Bangladesh through a new program of food aid totalling some $40 million, and there have been new pledges to the Caribbean of some $10 million. Then just recently there was a pledge of some $15 million to Kampuchea to help meet humanitarian needs in that part of the world.


Pauline Jewett: 1 realize there will be no fewer dollars. The point is that with inflation running at 9 per cent, and aid increasing at-probably-only 2 per cent, the real value of our aid is declining.
Can the minister give us an equal assurance that the increase in aid to Kampuchea, of which we all approve, will not mean a decrease in the other foreign aid which is provided, including that provided through non-governmental organizations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can assure the hon. member that the attention and the importance we shall be attaching to the work of the non-governmental organizations will increase, not decrease, in the years ahead.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. Can the hon. gentlemen indicate, generally, what his responsibilities are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -and, specifically, whether they include investigation of improper use of social insurance numbers? If so, I want to ask him what measures he is taking to prevent the unnecessary use of these numbers by government and by business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: am tempted to respond to the first part of my hon. friend's question by saying the information is classified. The fact is, the Prime Minister has asked me to take responsibility within the government for matters relating to bilingualism within the public service, as well as privacy and compliance with part IV of the Human Rights Act. I will be tabling legislation dealing with the Crown corporations' omnibus bill, and responding on behalf of the government with regard to both regulatory reform and the Lambert commission experts.
As to the second part of the question, 1 do, indeed, have responsibility for developing a policy on behalf of the government with respect to social insurance numbers. I expect that within a matter of a few days I shall be able to announce to the House the fact that the government will be following a policy very different from that of the previous government: we will be rolling back the use of social insurance numbers in the federal government to a very minimum-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and setting an example for the private sector-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Ten o'clock.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER DECISIONS ON IMPORTANT PROJECTS IN QUEBEC WILL BE ANNOUNCED SHORTLY
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In light of the meeting held yesterday in Montreal during which several federal and provincial ministers had discussions about projects to be undertaken in the province of Quebec and in light of the comments we heard last night from provincial ministers as well
November 6, 1979

as from Senator de Cotret, could the minister tell us whether he intends to announce immediately or very soon the decisions that his government will make as to the sums of money which will be invested in projects that have already been announced in Quebec and 1 am, of course, referring more particularly to the proposed fiscal data study centre in Jonquiere?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer the hon. member's question. That meeting was excellent. I would not venture to say that the Quebec ministers told us what their priorities were, but they told us about their projects in general. We listened to them as equals-


Some hon. Members:: As equals!


Roch La Salle: Yes, we listened to them as equals. The discussion was quite fruitful for both sides. That is something new for you, but not for us. The discussion left a good impression. Now, to give a very clear answer, the projects in question have not yet been announced, but they will be very soon, as the hon. member said.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister is very satisfied with the results of the meeting, but according to some statements he made, his counterpart Mr. Landry, was a lot less satisfied with those results. He has nothing whatsoever against being consulted or against participating in a dialogue, but what he is mostly interested in is knowing the government's decision. Is the minister going to wait several months again before announcing his decision? Could the Minister of Public Works, who is smiling, go ahead soon, if he is authorized to do so, of course, and erect those buildings, because they will be needed?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member as well as Mr. Landry. It will not take several months.
Oral Questions
Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful and co-operative meeting with the government of Newfoundland. 1 indicated it was our policy that primacy, or first call on the Hamilton Bank or northern cod stocks should be for the Newfoundland inshore fishermen, recognizing, of course, the importance of that cod stock to the maintenance of the northeast coast inshore fishery.


Mr. Rompkey:: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. We know the Prime Minister had a meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland on the question of the jurisdiction of offshore oil and gas and we are aware of the outcome of those discussions.
Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he has taken part in similar discussions with respect to jurisdiction over fish stocks, and can he tell us whether his position with regard to fish stocks would be the same as his position with respect to jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland to discuss the question raised by the hon. member, although the Minister of Fisheries has been meeting with Newfoundland officials, as he has just said, to discuss ways in which federal and provincial governments can co-operate to strengthen and develop the fisheries serving Newfoundland and Canada.


INQUIRY WHEN PRIME MINISTER INTENDS TO ANSWER LETTER FROM MR. ROY (BEAUCE) ON OIL SUPPLIES TO INDEPENDENTS
[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The hon. gentleman met yesterday with the Premier of Newfoundland and among other subjects discussed was the allocation of cod quotas on the Hamilton Bank.
Can the minister confirm that the position of the Premier of Newfoundland was that cod quotas be reserved exclusively for the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador? Can the hon. gentleman tell us his response to that submission, and whether any agreement was reached between the premier and himself at the conclusion of their meeting? Can he report to the House the results of that meeting yesterday?


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Late yesterday I sent him a letter concerning two very important matters. One has to do with the supply of gas and heating oil to the eastern provinces, the other with the supply and the securing of supply quotas to independent distributors. I have waited until the end of the question period. Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received my letter, whether he has read it and, third, whether he intends to take action on it today.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the hon. member's letter. I even read it. I intend to speak later today during the debate which is to be opened by the Leader of the Opposition and which relates to the questions raised by the hon. member.

November 6, 1979
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the apparent absence of the Minister of Finance whose flippant answers to serious questions are rather useless.
In view of the fact that the largest plywood manufacturer in Canada, Weldwood Limited, has just announced the lay-off of 700 people, stating that the major reason for the lay-offs is the government's high interest policy which is having a disastrous effect on the Canadian housing market, can the Prime Minister advise the House what action he intends to take to get these people back to their jobs?


Charles Joseph Clark: I shall certainly be prepared to have officials of my government meet with representatives of the company and of the workers to see if there is some action we can take which will get them back working productively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is a rather unfortunate answer to a serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The manager of the plant said this morning the government's high interest rate policy was like a drug which cured the disease but killed the patient. What message can 1 take from the Prime Minister to the 700 workers and their families who are now without income as a direct result of this government's high interest rate policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can take back to the 700 workers, in whose name he presumes to speak, the fact that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada are concerned about their situation. We are prepared to do what we can to try to help remedy their situation. 1 would suggest to the hon. member, and to the workers, through him, that they might find it more productive to get in touch with me directly.


Some hon. Members:: Arrogance.


An hon. Member:: No respect for Parliament.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Jean-Lue Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade.

In view of the announcement, still to be debated in the House, of the creation of a committee to look over the whole question of nuclear energy, including the export of nuclear reactors, I am concerned about the possible effects of that announcement and of the creation of that committee on the Canadian marketing efforts to sell nuclear reactors so important to our balance of trade.
Can the House be assured that the promotional efforts of the Canadian government are continuing now, and have instructions to that effect been given to various departments involved in it, such as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Department of External Affairs, particularly through the Secretary of State for External Affairs and trade commissioners, or are we going to witness another hiatus of the type we had on the Jerusalem issue?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the export of nuclear equipment is very important to this country. 1 believe that in the Candu system we have a very important export product. Last week, I met with Mr. Donnelly, president of AECL, as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is the second meeting we have had in the last couple of weeks to discuss this very point. I would expect that this series of meetings will be continuing in order to develop broader trade packages which co-ordinate with our nuclear export activities and to follow through in the direction in which the member is suggesting we should go.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the minister has the support of all his colleagues in the cabinet for that effort. I should like to hear it very strongly and publicly.
In view of the importance of the sale of a Candu reactor to Japan, in particular-something which is very important for the future of the program-is the minister ready to go to Japan, possibly taking some of his colleagues, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to promote the sale of a nuclear reactor to Japan as soon as the government of that country is formed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Japan was one of the countries we discussed. 1 have also been in touch with our embassy. Embassy officials are keeping us in close touch with the way discussions are going in Japan. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that there are some differences of opinion in Japan as to which way to go. We are following this very closely, and if it is appropriate for me to visit Japan in furtherance of our export activities, I will do so.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO MEXICO
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. In answer to my colleague's question of October 24 with regard to trade with Mexico, the minister said two months ago that a committee had been set up. That was on October 24. What was the study carried out, when is the
November 6, 1979

report going to be tabled, and can we expect from this government some interest in AECL?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when I made reference to that study, I believe I also said that the study would take about six months to complete. The study is continuing, and we expect that following its completion we will have something to announce.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have fresh in their minds the bungling of the Conservative government of this industry back in the 1950s, when Canadians were becoming increasingly worried about the fate of our Candu program. I want to know if we can get an answer before six months elapse.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, to repeat my answer, we will not have an answer before that six months period is up. These contracts on Candu reactors are very complex. They have to be co-ordinated with the countries involved. The study is going on with people in Canada as well as with Mexican officials to see how we will be able to co-operate in the export of that product.


U.S. POLICY ON ATTENDANCE AT CONVENTIONS-REQUEST GOVERNMENT INTERVENE
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: 1 have a question, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the U.S. legislation on convention expenses, the Canadian hotel trade has lost almost $100 million in revenue. What progress is being made in the negotiations with the U.S. government in this regard, and what kind of representations does the Canadian government intend to make to the American government so that they will change their legislation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this question of convention business coming to Canada from the United States, which has been affected by the legislation concerned, is of very real interest to us.
We have had discussions at the official level with the United States, and these are ongoing. I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had discussions on this matter with the Secretary of State of the United States. They are aware of our concern and they are also aware of the concern we have for the linkage they have made between convention centres and border broadcasting. We are following this question very closely, and I hope there will be a satisfactory conclusion in the not too distant future.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to discuss this specific matter with President Carter during his forthcoming visit to Ottawa and what priority does he, personally, give to this issue?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, indeed I intend to raise this matter with President Carter as it is one of our priorities.


CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-REQUEST QUESTION BE RENEGOTIATED
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of recent figures indicating that there is a $2.9 billion trade deficit in the auto trade, in view of the fact that the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association has recommended to the government their need in particular for further investment and the need for a special fund for research and development and retooling and, further, that the government should seriously consider discussing the whole question of the auto pact and whether it should be opened up for renegotiation with the President of the United States-that being also a specific recommendation of the government- would the minister please tell us what he intends to do about these recommendations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the brief to which the hon. member referred was presented to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, about two weeks ago. We had a good discussion with the representatives at the time. Since then I have discussed it with other members of the association. It is currently under review. This is an important issue, particularly in the area of trade.


John Carr Munro: What about the present?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member might address that question to the Prime Minister.


AUTO PACT-REQUEST PRIME MINISTER DISCUSS QUESTION WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
John Carr Munro: Mr Speaker, I address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister who, 1 believe, heard my first question to the Minister of State for International Trade. Part of that question was whether this whole matter, serious as it is, will be discussed with the President of the United States this Friday by the Prime Minister.
1 would also ask, in conjunction with that, whether the Prime Minister would indicate to the House whether he will discuss with the President of the U.S. the whole question of aid to Chrysler. As he knows, Mr. Miller, in the United States, has indicated they are giving loan guarantees of, I believe, $1.5 billion to Chrysler in that country. Mr. Miller indicated that perhaps similar action should be contemplated by other jurisdictions, particularly in view of the fact that the Chrysler Corporation, 1 believe, lost some $40 million this year and some $80 million last year. Would the Prime Minister indicate

November 6, 1979
Oral Questions
whether he is prepared to discuss that matter also with the President on Friday?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am going to raise with the President discussions relating to the auto pact, and I have no intention, today, to raise questions relating to Chrysler.
* *
*


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister is aware of the difficulties maritime fishermen have had in selling squid. Also, he is aware a representation was made earlier this summer for over-the-side sales and that the request was refused on the basis that processors had guaranteed that those squid could be purchased and processed in Canada.
Can the minister give some guarantee to maritime fishermen that he will reconsider the decision of his department to refuse over-the-side sales for maritime fishermen in regard to the dumping and the waste of that fishery resource?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a situation recently in Nova Scotia in the area of St. George's Bay, where there was a request to sell over-the-side to Japanese freezer-trawlers. At the time the request came in, Canadian processors were buying and continued to buy from Canadian fishermen.


Herb Breau: At 12 cents a pound.


James Aloysius McGrath: Also, the hon. member should bear in mind that there is a very difficult market situation at the present time as a result of an oversupply situation, resulting from an oversupply in Canada and an oversupply in the other squid fisheries of the world off the coasts of Japan and New Zealand. As a consequence, Canadian freezers are bulging at this time with squid which cannot be sold. Consequently, it is not our policy to license any more foreign over-the-side sales as long as that situation prevails.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the same concern exists in Newfoundland and that Newfoundland fishermen will want some guarantees, some policy statement from the minister as to what might happen to their squid and mackerel fisheries next season?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that concern. I can assure the hon. member and the House that government policy in this regard will be announced in due course.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: On a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. According to a press report last week, Alexander G. Schauss, director of the Institute for Biological Research at City College, Tacoma, Washington, stated that studies of juvenile delinquents have shown an apparent relationship between heavy milk drinking and antisocial behaviour.
Such statements should not go unchallenged; therefore, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would consult with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to refute publicly such irresponsible statements which, if left unchallenged, could do irreparable damage to dairy farmers and the dairy industry.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the hon. member, 1 regret that I have not had an opportunity to read the article to which the hon. member referred. I can think of a number of factors which might encourage juvenile delinquency, but certainly drinking milk is not one of them. It seems to me that it is just about as ridiculous as the statement made and reported that eating too much beef makes one ferocious.


PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects not only my rights as a member of Parliament but those of all members of this House. In response to a serious question asked by myself of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) the clear implication of the answer given by the right hon. Prime Minister was that the persons whom I represented in asking that question, some 700 families, perhaps would have received better service had they gone directly to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I ask the right hon. Prime Minister to refute categorically any suggestion that I might not be serving properly my constituents: they had every right to come to me as their member of Parliament; that it will not be necessary to bypass individual members of Parliament; that we are not nobodies, as the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) has called us. I ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the insinuation that it is necessary sometimes to bypass individual members of Parliament and go directly to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on that question of privilege, let me first assure the hon. member

November 6, 1979

that i intended no such insinuation; and, second, I congratulate him for his great speed on his feet.


MR ROSE-PROPOSED U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT-ANSWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 17(2) concerning what 1 regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have notice of the question of privilege of the hon. member. Eie indicated in the terms of it that his question of privilege relates to an incorrect statement made in the House a few days ago which, within its terms, puts him in some difficulty. The hon. member will know that questions of privilege have to be raised at the first available opportunity. It is difficult to open the practice of members raising questions of privilege several days after they have occurred, unless of course the hon. member has some special reason for doing so.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the matter just came to my attention, and the minister to which I wish to address my question of privilege was absent from the House. So I beg Your Honour's indulgence that I might be permitted to proceed on this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise because of an inadvertent, misleading statement made in the House a few days ago. Before I begin, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) for a letter which was delivered to my desk a few moments ago indicating that the government has at least gone part way toward the request I made last Wednesday.
My question related to a nuclear power plant close to the Canadian border at Sedro Woolley, Washington. Even before the accident at Three Mile Island, the people in my part of the country were extremely worried about this prospect.
I should like to address myself now to the question. My question last Wednesday, as reported at page 802 of Hansard, reads as follows;
-In view of the fact that a huge nuclear power plant is proposed for Sedro Woolley, in Washington's Skagit Valley, and since the site chosen is only 35 miles from population centres in British Columbia totalling almost one million people and should an accident ever take place massive environmental and evacuation problems would likely be encountered, what is the government's attitude toward the building of this nuclear power plant so close to our border? Is it one of official approval, disapproval, or indifference?
The reply I received from the Secretary of State for External Affairs reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this is a concern that has been expressed to me by many members on this side of the House as well as members in the opposition parties. While it is impossible for Canada to determine where the United States, or interests in the United States, will locate their nuclear power plants, nevertheless we have raised this subject with officials of the U.S. State Department.
I regard this as a reassuring reply. I and other members were left with the distinct impression that the phrase "we have raised this subject with officials of the U.S. State Department" meant that Canada had opposed the site at Sedro. That is precisely what the minister's answer implied, although perhaps unintentionally. One could hardly be blamed for assuming,
Privilege-Mr. Rose
because members on both sides of the House had expressed concern, that the minister was concerned too, that Canada had done more than merely raise the subject with the United States but in fact had declared its opposition to the location.
However, I have received a diplomatic letter, an aide memoire, which indicates precisely the opposite. Referring to page 3 of the aide memoire dated August 29 this year, it reads as follows:
Therefore, although the Government of Canada is not opposed in principle to the construction of a nuclear power station near the border, it wishes to be kept informed of project developments, particularly with respect to questions of public safety and environmental risk.
Regardless of what was said to me and other members of the House, the official policy of Canada is not to disapprove of new plants near our border. On the contrary, it is one of approval, or at the very least one of non-opposition.
In conclusion, when the minister rises to respond I hope she will report that Canada has now reversed its policy and will advise President Carter when he visits on Friday of this new change of heart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member explained the basis for his question of privilege. Now he is making a representation to the minister which goes a little beyond the bounds.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that in his opening comments, in response to Your Honour's admonition that one should raise a question of privilege as soon after statements have been made in the House as possible, he left the inference that the subject had not been raised because I was not in the House. This subject first came up on Wednesday, October 31.1 was in the House for question period on both Thursday and Friday of last week. The only day I was absent was yesterday when I was in New York speaking at the General Assembly. I would like to have that on the record so that he does not infer that I was not present here during question period.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that in no way did I mislead the House or try to mislead the House. The words I used when addressing his question in the House of Commons are, indeed, quite clear. He had asked about the Sedro Woolley proposed nuclear plant in Washington state. I had said in reply that nevertheless we had raised this subject with officials of the United States State Department. I went no further than that. 1 had said we had raised this subject.
However, he will know, having looked at the aide memoire to which he made reference-that is the aide memoire of August 29, and my letter to him of today following his letter to me of November 1-that we had told the United States government that we wanted to be fully informed about all aspects of this proposal which is very much in a preliminary state at the present time. We indicated that we want to be

November 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rose
fully informed on all aspects of this proposal that relate to safety, particularly safety in regard to transboundary implications. The aide memoire states-and I think, sir, perhaps the hon. member should have read right through to the end of the aide-memoire:
-it is aimed at eliciting information which will enable the Canadian government to determine whether the Skagit Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2. would present a significant risk of injurious transboundary impacts. If so, the Canadian government may request consultations for the purpose of addressing unilaterally any problems that we may perceive.
In other words, if there are significant environmental and safety impacts on any part of Canada, we would want to discuss that matter directly with the United States government, and that is what was conveyed in the aide memoire of August 29.
Furthermore, as I stated in my letter to the hon. member today, he will recognize that the hearings in connection with this plant-and that is the hearings for the licensing of such a plant, not the hearings for zoning within Washington State which are taking place later this week and which involve a local matter-have been postponed indefinitely by the nuclear regulatory commission in the United States. Therefore, it is not a matter which is imminent and before the government at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will realize, of course, that we have an area of perhaps disagreement between the two parties. Therefore, this does not fall within the ambit of a question of privilege.
I think I must take this occasion to say to the House that up to this point in this session I think 1 have been lenient in allowing members the opportunity to rise on questions of privilege, even though they essentially have been raising areas of disagreement with a minister. The difficulty in my continuing to do so is clearly that whenever this takes place, the member having put one side of the question it is only appropriate, of course, that the minister have an opportunity to respond.
1 do not single out this particular case today as there have been a number of them, but the end result is that the member who raises such a disagreement with a minister is in effect extending the question period and getting an additional go-around which every member would like to enjoy.
If I am to be generous in this regard, and then allow equal time for a minister to respond in each case, what I will in fact be doing out of this generosity is inviting members to do more than they can accomplish in question period by attempting to extend the question period through some procedural point after the question period is over. That would be patently unfair and would also take up a great deal of debating time as, for example, today when there is a motion which, of course, the House is anxious to debate.
I do not distinguish this case from any others that have taken place. 1 do not take a more severe view of this case than of any other case. I simply say to the House that I will have to take a little harder line in respect of these questions, and if members rise to their feet and indicate at the outset a matter

not of significance immediately but rather one of disagreement, I will probably have to stop them before they develop the point for too long and, therefore, before it would be only fair to invite a minister to respond.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to a question appearing at page 935 of Hansard put by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). He has involved me in a gratuitous and unjustified manner in his question, and slurred my integrity as a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Perhaps he did it unwittingly, as he does so many things. I do not accept the premise of the question posed by the hon. member for York Centre. 1 would like him to be very careful of the way he distorts his questions. I want him to be aware that on page 33, and you will know this, sir, of the annual report tabled by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), where it states, "the principle of family reunification" etc., etc., and I will not read it right now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Sir, you were on a trip to the U.S.S.R.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the desire of the hon. minister to make an intervention. However, he is seeking the floor on a point of order essentially to take issue with something that look place yesterday, and I think it would be an unwarranted extension of our rules to permit that to take place at this time.


MR. HARQUAIL-REQUEST MAJOR STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS BE MADE IN HOUSE
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise by way of a point of order on what may very well be a question of the collective privilege of all members of this House. It has to do with the position of the government in making statements outside this House.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and members of the government have said repeatedly that they would show respect for this Parliament, yet we saw yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) at the beginning of his speech in Toronto saying in fact he was making a major announcement.
I feel that is totally unacceptable to members of this House. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, I would enjoin him to show more respect for members of Parliament. If he has major statements to make on air transportation policy or any other aspect of his department he should show respect to the
November 6, 1979

members who represent Canadians in this House and make such major statements in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order or question of privilege, and I am not sure which, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member. The speech I delivered in Toronto was, indeed, a policy speech. It was about 30 minutes long and I know, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you and other members are aware, that statements on motions are to be made in this House in a short, succinct fashion. I did not think, in view of the length of this speech, that it would be appropriate to deliver it in the House as a statement on motions.
If hon. members would want me to read the speech into the record I would certainly be prepared to do that right now. I would be very delighted to do that, Mr. Speaker. But I did not think it would be proper for me to take the time of the House when all members will be receiving a copy of the speech and will certainly have an opportunity to question me in the House and in the committee. The estimates are before the standing committee and I would be very glad to respond to any questions. Perhaps during the intervening period of time hon. members will be able to examine and review the statements I have made and, after reflecting on the speech, their questions will be a little more incisive and deliberate, rather than the kind of hodge-podge we get from members across the way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will know, of course, that it is the prerogative of ministers to make such statements inside or outside the House, and their choice in either direction does not constitute a point of order or a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[ English |

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act respecting the relocation of government agencies.
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations through the usual channels with respect to this matter, and I hope that this motion will receive unanimous consent. It concerns the visit of President Carter to Ottawa on November 9 and 10. I move:
That the House adjourn at one o'clock p.m. on Friday, November 9, 1979; that the address of the President of the United States, Mr. Jimmy Carter, to be delivered in the House chamber on Friday, November 9, 1979, before members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and that the President's speech, attendant and related remarks be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 156, 195, 196 and 216.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government considering the establishment of duty-free shops at Canadian land frontier points and, if so, what are the considered benefits and is an early decision likely?


Walter David Baker: As announced in the House on October 26, 1979, approval has been given to the principle of establishing duty-free shops at land frontier locations and criteria for applicants should be announced shortly. Potential benefits would be increased employment opportunities, greater sales of Canadian manufactured products, and the generation of new tax revenues for all levels of government.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of the Environment's payroll on March 31, 1979?
998

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: (a) On March 31, 1979, there were 6348 permanent employees on payroll; (b) On March 31, 1979, there were 569 term employees on payroll.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' payroll on March 31, 1979?


James Aloysius McGrath: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not exist on March 31, 1979, but came into existence on April 2, 1979.
On April 2, 1979,
(a)	approximately 4706*
(b)	approximately 1079*
* These numbers are close approximations only as the final split of Fisheries and Environment employees between the new Department of Environment and the new Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not yet been made.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of National Revenue's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Walter David Baker: (a) Taxation: 13,542; Customs and Excise: 9,233; (b) Taxation: 6,333; Customs and Excise: 595.
[English |


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House has no confidence in the government because it will cause severe economic hardship for the Canadian people this winter: first, through its neglect of the grave possibility of shortages in heating fuel; second, through its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and (Mr. Herbert.]
supply; third, through its inability to conclude agreements preventing immoderate price increases in the future; and, fourth, through its acceptance of record high interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Members will note that pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), and not later than 9.45 o'clock p.m. today, every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on this motion shall be put forthwith.
[ Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: the government of Venezuela which assured us of its willingness from now on to deal directly with Canada, that is to say with Petro-Canada.
I urge the government to return to this policy and to assure us that it will follow the way the former government has shown. We did the same thing when the Mexican minister visited Canada and successfully secured an agreement which was signed as early as last May and which was to come into effect in September, that is two months ago, an agreement under which Mexico would provide Canada with some $2 billion worth of oil in exchange for Canadian products.
Again, Mr. Speaker, 1 merely urge the government to avail itself of this signed agreement and invite the President of Mexico to visit Canada as soon as possible so that this winter Canadians may benefit from this agreement, something we ourselves had looked forward to.
So, Mr. Speaker, on those two points I would simply remind the government that our proposals would be easy to implement, and they would bring even now some measure of comfort and security to the Canadian people. The government could admit that it erred when it proposed the dismantling of Petro-Canada and neglected to follow through on the agreements with Venezuela and Mexico, it could say that it is quite willing to implement them now without delay.
There is another problem, Mr. Speaker, which the House has already looked into, namely that of the security of supplies. My government, once again as a result of the Iranian crisis, made the House of Commons understand the necessity of passing an emergency supplies energy bill. That bill was passed in July of 1978. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) has urged this government to act and set up the board provided for in that act to ensure equitable supplies to Canadians, should we have energy problems this winter. Even today, the House leader of the opposition (Mr. MacEachen) got the government to admit that it had not set up that board, when in fact the National Energy Board warned us last Fridqy that, this winter, heating oil supplies for Canadians will onfly be secure if there is no crisis or disruption of services. Now we have just learned that Iran is in a state of crisis and that we can foresee, or at least chances are, that we will have a hard time guaranteeing supplies this winter. Here again, I take it upon myself to urge the government to go back to the Liberal policies and set up that board as soon as possible to ensure equitable energy supplies to Canadians.

The second important policy that our government had to establish in the matter of petroleum was that of pricing, Mr. Speaker. As early as December, 1973, within a few months of the start of the OPEC prices, we had established a firm policy which essentially said that we would have one price for all Canadians, and we have kept that price below the world price. That was the policy put into effect by our government.
Severe Economic Hardship
It is a policy which has ensured immense advantage, not only to the industrial sector of our economy by ensuring that jobs would be created by industries which were getting energy in Canada at prices below world prices, but also, even at the level of the householder, for instance, just last winter ensured that the homeowner in Alberta would be paying some $280 less than he would if he had been paying world prices for petroleum. In Newfoundland it was closer to $240 per year, and I believe in the central provinces where heating problems were more grave than in Alberta, and Newfoundland, it meant a saving of some $200 because of this one-price policy for all Canadians and a pricing below world prices.
1 plead with this government, which has managed to change its mind on so many issues, to come back to Liberal policies in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I plead with it once more to govern by "U" turn and to come back to what was a good, sound policy for Canadians, a policy which ensured security of supply and prices below world prices.
What does the government see as its policy? Apparently it is scrapping the existing price agreement and is telling us that it is going to move toward international prices. What will this mean, Mr. Speaker? If international prices were to come very soon, they would mean about $400 per year more for home heating oil and $250 per year more for the average automobile driver. They would mean loss of jobs to industry. They would mean, Mr. Speaker, that the economy, which has already been subjected to the shock of record high interest rates, would be subjected to the double shock of heating oil and petroleum prices which cannot be accepted and assimilated by the economy at this time.
I just want to disagree with the government when it seems to accept the thesis that we have to go to world prices in order to ensure supply and conservation. First of all, I want to remind the House that our policy was set out quite clearly in the "Energy Strategy for Canada" published in the early months of 1976. I should like to read from page 127 on which the following passage appears:
We must continue the process that began in April of 1974, of phasing the price of domestic oil towards international levels. Canada does not necessarily have to go to international prices. Because we have domestic resources to develop, we have a degree of independence from the oil-exporting cartel that many countries do not enjoy and that is to our advantage.
Our policy was to have prices at a level where resources could be found, where they could be developed and delivered. That does not mean any price which could be established by a cartel acting on international markets in a way which would be deemed illegal if it so acted in Canada. There is no reason why we would have to follow world prices, no matter what level they went to.

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
We agreed when we reached various understandings with the government of Alberta, the government of Saskatchewan and with other provinces that prices could not remain at the levels that had prevailed before 1972. We agreed that there had to be some increase if exploration and development were to continue in Canada. But we never did agree, we do not agree now and the country does not agree, with a policy that says that no matter what this cartel decides Canadians who have energy resources of their own will have to go to those cartel prices. We do not agree to that on oil and we did not agree on other natural resources.
I just remind this House of a policy announced in April 1969 by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), who was then minister of industry trade and commerce, that copper prices would be sold in Canada at prices below the London copper exchange prices, because those London prices were established in a way which was not guided by the free law of supply and demand but by action on that market which was not fair, free and unfettered. We did that on copper, we did that on oil, and what is more, Mr. Speaker, we did it with the agreement of the Premier of Alberta. We did it at a time when many provinces wanted to see no increase at all.
We stated then and we state now that our policy is not to increase prices indefinitely. We hear from Syncrude that the price of extracting a barrel of oil from the tar sands is now estimated at between $15 and $20. Our experts think that it is closer to $14 or $15 a barrel. Never mind, even taking Syncrude's figures, surely there is no need to go to $25, $35 or $50 a barrel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that should be the decision of some international cartel, of which we are not a member, surely what Canadians want is a firm statement by this government that it will ensure a price which permits further exploration and development but no more. There is no need to have prices which will permit the multinationals to increase their profits even more which they then use either to buy other sectors of the Canadian economy or to increase foreign ownership even of our energy industries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Under our government, in the last two years foreign ownership of the domestic oil industry has been reduced from 90 per cent to 75 per cent. If the non-governing by the present government continues, this trend will not be continued, it will be reversed. What justification do we have from this government to set aside or to create uncertainty regarding the agreement that we have put in place and which lasts until July 1 next-an agreement incidentally which was then denounced by most of the Tory premiers in the provinces, including Premier Davis of Ontario who now wishes he had supported it. What reason could the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) have to set aside these agreements and let the confron-

tation develop which we see now, particularly between Ontario and Alberta?
In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister promised us a new era of federalism, one where there would be harmony, one where all the provinces would get together with the federal government and solve their difficulties and one which would be in contrast to our government, which allegedly caused confrontation everywhere. Let me just say that within two weeks of the Speech from the Throne the Premier of Alberta, speaking to 900 Progressive Conservatives at a fund-raising dinner in Alberta, said that they were in confrontation, that price increases and negotiations in 1973, 1974 and 1975-when we were putting together those negotiations-will be like a kindergarten compared to talks in 1979 and 1980. The Premier of Alberta said that Alberta was being asked to keep both oil prices down and give up part of its heritage savings trust fund. He said that was the position being presented.
We do not know from the Prime Minister or from the minister of energy what position is being presented. In the name of open government they have not yet told us, Mr. Speaker. But we do know that the Premier of Alberta is complaining about having to give up part of his heritage savings trust fund, something that even in the darkest days was not an accusation levelled against our party when we formed the government.
Sure we did not elect many members in that part of Canada, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not many?


An hon. Member:: And less next time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hardly less, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the same. Because 1 read in the report of October 25 that the premier was grimfaced throughout and said that he expected the 21 federal MPs from Alberta to support his argument for raising the price of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the Prime Minister smiling, as one of those 21 MPs from Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And perhaps we have there an explanation of the policy that this government seems to be bringing us toward, a policy that is absolutely unacceptable to this country and on which we express violent disagreement. This new era of federalism, what is it now replaced with? Provincial ultimatum, declaration of economic sovereignty, war by press release, uncertainty reigning over all Canada.
From 1973 to next July we were able to establish agreements every year with the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 6, 1979


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that our enjoinder to the government to return to these Liberal policies to re-establish that pricing policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see NDP members are anxious to get into the fray.


Mr. Lefebvre:: The seagulls again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will want to tell us about their disagreement with the Premier of Saskatchewan. I am sure we will hear about that when they get up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just want to conclude on this very important subject.

Canada is now up against tremendous problems. We may be on the brink of a recession the like of which Canadians have not seen in several decades. We know what threat that represents not only to industry, and the resulting loss of jobs, but especially what danger there is that oil prices be fixed by an international cartel on the backs of the people, which would make heating their houses more costly and would also make the cost of driving their cars go up.
We know indeed that it is not easy to run a country these days. We know that there is inflation in the world, that there is unemployment, but we say to the government, Mr. Speaker, that it is precisely in such circumstances that governments have a crucial and fundamental role to play. We cannot afford to have a government which remains in the background and watches the provinces fighting together. We cannot afford to have a government which thinks that top performance for a government is to let things go. What have we witnessed over the last six months? We have seen a government which is trying to apply a maxim whose author and main proponent is Jim Gillies, always the same, the senior adviser to the Prime Minister, who said:
"The best government is no government". That indeed is what we have, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the supply of essential petroleum supplies, we have a government which dismantles Petro-Canada and lets the multinationals decide on supply to Canada. On emergency situations, we have a government which does not even bother to set up the energy supply allocation board. On prices, we have a government which stands aside and says that we will let OPEC and the province of Alberta decide. On interest rates, it
Severe Economic Hardship
says we will let the United States decide and we will follow their policy, no matter how high it goes.
We have a government which has abdicated the role of government. We have a government which again yesterday was giving us as the greatest examples of being able to bring harmony to federal-provincial relations and to put a new face on federalism, a government that had managed to rid itself of Loto Canada and a government which had managed to rid itself of its jurisdiction over the offshore resources. This is a government which decides that no government is the best government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Again yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), in reply to questions on the Quebec referendum, refused to say whether his ministers and supporters would campaign for the "No" option. 1 understand that the Prime Minister corrected himself by saying that the Progressive Conservatives would participate in the umbrella committee, I believe-


An hon. Member:: The lightning rod committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or the lightning rod committee, the umbrella committee under Mr. Ryan. I do not know if 1 am interpreting the Prime Minister's statements correctly, but 1 think that in essence was the correction he made. Yet last Friday, the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) and myself tried four times to get the Prime Minister to say that his ministers from Quebec would campaign for the "No" option. He repeatedly refused to answer this question, and we still do not know what position his ministers are going to take.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to conclude by saying that if the Prime Minister honestly believes that he is going to win Quebeckers by offering them Loto Canada and telling them that his government is prepared to change the status quo, without specifying how he is going to do that, then this government and its Prime Minister do not know Quebeckers very well because they want a government that stands on its own two feet. Quebeckers are going through what is certainly the biggest crisis in their history, a crisis which affects the entire country and challenges its very existence, and which most probably leaves them undecided.
There are some who want sovereignty or independence or separation. There are many more, we believe, who want Canada to survive but they do not want it to be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But they will respect neither a Canada nor a government without leadership; they will not respect Canada if it does not play a role in which Canadians of all origins and especially Quebeckers can recognize themselves. That is why 1 say to this Prime Minister: the first role, the first duty of a

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
government is to govern and, in the energy field, we urge them to do so.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard why the phrase which was used by my colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), was so accurate. The Liberal party is clearly a party not in opposition but in exile. It lost its raison d'etre when it was in government and it has not found its purpose for itself now that it is in opposition.
I rise to support the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Our friends in exile laugh. 1 will see if they are laughing in a minute. We support the motion. We support the words but not necessarily the motives behind them. I can tell the House that.
In campaigning for the May 22 election, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) campaigned on the economy. Before May 22 he said he was concerned about the devastating effects that interest rates were having on the people of Canada. He said they were causing an increase in the cost of living, producing more unemployment and contributing to a lower rate of economic growth.
The Prime Minister was right before May 22; high interest rates do all of those things. My party says that what they did before May 22 they have continued to do since. We have not been able to understand the scintillating logic behind the present government's position. Before the election the Prime Minister was saying that if you have a high interest rate policy, it will produce those bad things. He turned out to be right, but what is his conclusion? His answer was to reproduce the policy which caused all the bad things.
We know that high interest rates are bad for Canadians. We further know that they are unnecessary. I spent the last two days in western Canada. For the benefit of the Prime Minister and his government I want to give some concrete examples from western Canada of the results of his high interest rate policy. First in terms of the cost of living-and this should interest the Prime Minister, coming as he does from Alberta- the cost of living has its effect on every aspect of the economy, whether we are talking about bicycles, food, cars, or any commodity. High interest rates are devastating because they are all passed on to the consumer.
I was watching the news in Saskatchewan two days ago and there was an item coming from Calgary. It said that as a result of the increase in interest rates, not before May 22, not even in the first two months of the summer, but simply as a result of the increases in interest rates which have occurred in the last two months, the monthly carrying charge of a typical home in Calgary had gone up by $146 a month, which means that the average person in that city can no longer buy a home. The average Canadian living in Calgary who is reasonably prosper-

ous can no longer buy a home as a direct result of this government's high interest rate policy. Another statistic which came out during the same program was that housing sales had dropped 22 per cent this year in the city of Calgary because of the escalation of prices, principally due to rising interest rates.
On the same visit to the west I spoke to farmers in Saskatchewan, I spoke to them in Prince Albert, I had a meeting in a small community by the name of Weldon and the farmers there are typical. A typical loan for a farmer, even if he is prosperous, can be up to $15,000 a year when the farmer has to borrow to purchase fertilizer and chemicals to run his operation on a continuing basis. Interest rate increases on $15,000 a year of the kind that have been taking place are devastating for the farmers of western Canada and elsewhere.
I had one moving experience with a man I would guess to be in his mid-sixties who has a farm in Saskatchewan. This man told me that up until last week his son had intended to buy a farm; he had planned to follow the family tradition of farming but with the last interest rate increase that young man concluded he could not afford to carry on the family tradition of farming. He could not afford to buy a farm. That is the fault of the Conservative government and no one else. There are literally in every part of this country examples of this kind that could be passed on, concrete, living examples of the effects of a high interest rate policy in terms of cost. But also they count very seriously and directly in terms of the impact on jobs, in terms of opportunities for Canadian men and women who want to work.
Today in the question period one of our members from British Columbia drew attention in the House to a decision of the largest manufacturer of plywood in that province, Weld-wood of Canada Limited, to lay off a minimum of 600 employees. Why? Because of the decline in the housing market. If I had time I could quote a number of statements coming from both management and union in that company in the last 24 hours saying there is one reason and one reason only that housing is running down in British Columbia and across this land. Again it is because of the high interest rate policy of this government. The point I am making is that it is jobs that are affected in this case, not just the cost of living.
I particularly want to draw attention to small businessmen. Large companies in the main generate their own capital but small firms throughout the land do have to go to the banks or the credit unions or the caisses populaires. The problem facing small business is that in today's circumstances not only are they unable to obtain at reasonable rates the capital needed for expansion, but in some cases they are obliged to shut down completely and lay off Canadian workers. The point I am making, and it has been made by many members in my party not only since the election but before, is that a high interest rate policy, whether it comes from the Liberals or from the Tories, is equally bad for the country in its effect upon job creation and the cost of living.
1 want in particular to pay tribute to the argument that was put by my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic
November 6, 1979

Affairs-and it was not in any way answered-that not only are high interest rates damaging to the people of Canada, but they are unnecessary. 1 do not have the time to repeat the argument but I ask the Prime Minister, if he does not accept the argument coming from the New Democratic Party, to read the columns by Mr. Don. McGillivray, an independent economist, a fair-minded man who had reached the same conclusion. Will he read a report which was published, I understand, in the last 24 hours by two Toronto economists, Roger Donna and Doug Peters, who have done a critique of the Bank of Canada's policies over the past five years and, related to that, a critique, therefore, of the Liberal party and the Conservative party who have been responsible for the Bank of Canada policy. They drew the conclusion that not only are the effects of high interest rates harmful to our people in the short run; they are economically unnecessary and are very bad indeed for the long-range growth of this country. I say on behalf of my colleagues, the Prime Minister was right when he criticized high interest rates before May 22. The same arguments hold today and it is about time he lived up to his promise to bring them down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 want to turn now to oil pricing. The position of my party has been again consistent on this issue. We have said that at this time it is wrong, given the state of the Canadian economy, to move upward to world prices. We think that is a serious mistake both because of its effects on the inflationary side of the ledger and on the job creation side. It is very negative at this time to move in that direction. We have pointed out that other countries which are oil producers-Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia-manage to produce oil and gas for their own people at prices lower than they charge to the world community because they sensibly understand that with lower prices you help your domestic industry, you help your consumers. We believe our resources should be used for that kind of benefit here.
In this context we urged the government as recently as last week to establish what we have called a commission on oil prices and profits, not one which would arbitrarily roll back every proposed increase but one which would operate with some intellectual and economic sophistication, which would look at price increases and, where they are unjustified, as in the case of multinational corporations which have taken, as even President Carter in the United States recognizes, rip-off profits, would have the authority to order rollbacks.
Yes, we have said that and we believe it. We have also said such a commission should come before the government and make serious recommendations for price increases, if and when necessary, to produce investment, to get new sources of energy at terms we think reasonable and compatible with the Canadian national interest and not compatible simply with the interests of the multinational corporations. We stand by this argument today.
1 say to the Prime Minister in this context that if ever there was a time for the relevance of Petro-Canada, it surely is when
Severe Economic Hardship
we are talking about oil prices. 1 say this in terms of the need for more competition at the retail outlets in Atlantic Canada where Irving and Imperial Oil own 60 per cent of the retail outlets, but more particularly I say it, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the negotiations taking place for the development of our tar sands, the oil sands project which is now being discussed, as well as others. Shell wants up to 20 per cent guaranteed profit for that development.
My party says that we have PetroCan which has acquired expertise in the Syncrude project and which has the technical know-how. PetroCan can get the equipment and it should be doing the job for the people of Canada without earning a profit in that project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: So we are saying that all the oil price increases which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Prime Minister like to use to justify funds for resource development in the north are simply unjustified, because we have a Crown corporation that can do that job for the people of Canada at cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Next I come to the very important matter of heating oil shortages. This is a real problem which cannot be ignored, and it is not something that is in the future. The National Energy Board said on the weekend that it would be rash to predict with certainty that Canadians will be free of oil supply problems this winter. That is a warning and it is not new now. We have been arguing a workable solution to this for a couple of years. On the one hand we have said that the National Energy Board should never be signing carte blanche authorizations for the export of home heating gas or oil months in advance. In every kind of export contract that is negotiated there should be a qualifying clause which says that if a shortage should emerge in Canada, oil and gas will have to stay to meet Canadian needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The second point I make in that regard is that here again we have a clear argument for Petro-Canada. Just a couple of weeks ago we had an amendment to the Liberal motion which said that Petro-Canada should become the exclusive importer of offshore oil, and one of the reasons we made that argument-again, I repeat, not just currently but for some time-is that we saw what happened last winter in the province of Quebec when the Exxon Corporation and its subsidiary here in Canada, Imperial Oil, was detouring supplies headed for this country. We have seen the multinationals cut off the independent dealers when it suited their purposes, and we have said that Petro-Canada should become the exclusive importer of oil so we will not be held up to blackmail by the multinational corporations. On this particular point I underscore the reality that when we had that motion before us,

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
not only did the government vote against it and the Social Credit party vote against it, but the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) and his party voted against it; and now they are expressing concern here.
For all these reasons, we will certainly support the motion that is before us today. The government has not come through at all in terms of its pledges to deal with the Canadian economy. Today I have emphasized in particular the question of interest rates. Second, the government has produced no energy policy at all except that dictated by Peter Lougheed on the one hand, and the multinationals on the other.
Having said that about the government, I now want to turn briefly to the Liberal party. We have seen a presentation today coming from what has become the most cynical political party in Canadian history without doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: They are utterly shameless about the way they have reversed themselves overnight, not only on matters in general but, as 1 shall indicate, on virtually every aspect of the motion they presented to the House today, and they do it shamelessly. The reality of the Liberal party at this point in its history is that it is functioning without either intellectual substance or a moral core. Its sole concern has become the pursuit of power. That is the raison d'etre of the Liberal party as it exists today.


Mr. Axworthy:: It takes one to know one.


John Edward Broadbent: The present Leader of the Opposition-and I use the words with some care because that is the title-has said that the Liberals in Canada have become a party of the radical centre.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: A Liberal says "right on". I would suggest that a more accurate description is that they have become the party of the cynical centre or, more precisely, the party of the dead centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In every aspect of this motion we can see cynicism at work in the Liberal party. It was the Liberals who began, in the summer of 1978, the current economic philosophy that has been implemented by their friends who now constitute the Government of Canada. It was the Liberals who introduced UIC changes which brought in the cutbacks in the summer of 1978. It was the Liberals who first promised to privatize a number of Crown corporations and who produced, not one, not two, not three but seven increases in interest rates between January 1 of 1978 and the time when the new government was elected. Seven increases in interest rates! Now they have the nerve to get up hypocritically and attack the government for carrying on their good Liberal tradition. I ask you, Mr. Speaker.

Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken with care about the problem of heating oil shortages. When shortages appeared last winter, the Liberals, who were then in government, responded in their typically direct, forthright and forceful way: they had an investigation. That was it. Then on the weekend-this weekend-when the NEB drew the attention of the people of Canada to the fact that we may have some shortages, they said the shortages were not due just to the present government permitting exports to take place of this important commodity but it was the previous Liberal government which last winter went on permitting NEB to negotiate export contracts for home heating oil that are now putting our people in jeopardy this winter. The Liberals were doing it themselves.


An hon. Member:: Morals of an alley cat.


John Edward Broadbent: As to the question of oil pricing-Mr. Speaker, I see my time is just about up. I wonder if I could extend my comments for a few moments, if the House would courteously grant me that time to wind up my remarks quickly.
On the question of oil pricing about which the Liberals are so concerned today, I should like to quote the former minister of energy, mines and resources who, not five or six years ago but on November 30, said:
Our policy has been and still is, to move crude oil prices at the well head toward world levels.
The motion calls our attention to changes which took place in terms of interprovincial agreements; that is of the then Liberal government and the provinces. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the present official opposition which, when they were in government last winter, changed the existing agreement. There was supposed to be a unilateral price increase of $1 a barrel last January 1, but the Liberals in government thought an election was coming for some reason so what they did unilaterally was to postpone- unilaterally, I stress for the Leader of the Opposition-the increase on January 1.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: They initiated the change. The Leader of the Opposition can correct this later if he wants, but we all know that a change was to come into effect of $ 1 a barrel and it was postponed until July, July, of course, coming after the election. Now that they are in opposition they have changed their tune completely.
I should like to quote the Liberal energy critic who said the following in the House:
Let us not slavishly follow a price set up by the international cartel which is called the OPEC countries.
That statement was made by one of the classic hypocrites to my right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 6, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: In conclusion, the people of our country want a sensible economic policy, particularly as it pertains to interest rates, and a sensible energy policy, particularly as it relates to the questions of supply and price of oil and gas. They should look neither to the Liberals nor to the Tories because they are interchangeable. We support the wording of this motion, but we categorically reject all the cynical motives which lie behind it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the attack of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party on the Liberal party. I will not try to create the suspense the leader of the NDP did, and I will announce at the outset that I intend to oppose this motion.
Regarding the speech of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) who introduced the motion before us today, I suppose the part which struck me most, and that I found frankly saddest about his remarks, was that frequently he urged this government to come back to the policies of his government, to return to the policies of his government, to look backwards. Fundamentally that is the reason why there was a change in government on May 22: Canadians had had enough of a government looking back. They wanted a government that was looking forward, that was prepared to come to grips with the challenges and the problems of the Canadian people. That is why we were elected. That is true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to deal directly with the questions laid out in the motion, even though they were not all addressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I would like, first, to deal with the question of oil supplies to Eastern Canada, namely Quebec and the Maritime provinces.
I believe the best way to describe the situation at this time is to say that it is tight but under control. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as well as the chairman of the National Energy Board have been constantly monitoring the situation for weeks and months.
We did not wait until we had a crisis this winter to act, and concrete steps have been taken to deal with any major problem that could occur in coming months. That is why the volume of our exports of crude oil abroad have been reduced considerably, in fact nearly eliminated so as to fully meet the demand by Canadian refiners. With the approval of the government, the National Energy Board is allowed to swap Canadian western crude for additional supplies of foreign oil to eastern Canada. The National Energy Board recently approved swaps totalling 2.5 million barrels that will practically all go to Quebec refineries.
In addition, the National Energy Board asked Interprovincial Pipe Line to amend its regulations so as not to penalize corporations that have not done business with it in the past.
Severe Economic Hardship
That will have a direct effect on a group of heating oil distributors in Quebec who are thus given access to 450,000 barrels of crude oil from western Canada. Other steps that would take too long to enumerate here today have also been taken to ensure as much as possible the security of oil supplies to Quebec and the maritime provinces.
However, I would like to add that if we were to face major interruptions in coming months we will not hesitate to use the powers we have under the Energy Supply Emergency Act. 1 do not believe this will be necessary but if the situation ever called for it, my government will not hesitate to act so the citizens of Quebec and the maritimes will not have to face an oil shortage this winter.

I think there was probably no stranger part of the motion than the condemnation of the government for "its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply". All members of the House and the Canadian public should be very clear as to exactly what that means. It suggests that this government and this Parliament should be content to rest with the status quo, that we should ignore the need to face the facts of the Canadian future, that we should be content to rest in the past and to put up with policies which have failed in the past. That is the recipe, the prescription, of the former government opposite, that backward-looking group which earned its way out of office and now is forgoing any possibility of getting back into office because it refuses to look to the future and continues to be preoccupied with the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me spell out for the House and the country exactly what the oil policies of the old government have achieved and would achieve for our country if we were prepared simply to put up with the status quo. The policies of the old government have reversed dramatically Canada's traditional strength in international oil trade. In 1974 we had an oil trade surplus of $1 billion. Last year we had an oil trade deficit of $1 billion. If existing policies are left in place, we could have an oil trade deficit of $6 billion by the mid-1980s. That is the prescription of the Liberal party. That is not the future this government will accept for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Because of those policies and because of what they have done to our dependency on imported oil, the cost of oil has become a major contributor to the federal deficit. This year alone it is costing the Government of Canada $1.8 billion to offset our dependence on imported oil. Linder the policies we inherited, that cost would double to $3.6 billion by 1985. The policies of which those opposite are so proud produced last year a shortfall of 345,000 barrels a day between Canadian oil production and Canadian oil needs. If we followed the advice of the former government simply to look to the past and ignore the needs of the future, those policies would widen that shortfall to 640,000 barrels a day within five years.

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
The old policy has resulted in a widening gap between Canadian oil consumption and the discovery of new Canadian reserves. Since 1974, when OPEC alerted any government which had its eyes open to the need for strong national action, we have been consuming in this nation an average of 648 million barrels of oil each year and adding barely 100 million barrels to our known reserves.
Those same policies of the old government have done little to restrain energy demand in Canada or to encourage Canadians to eliminate waste and inefficiency in their consumption of energy. We remain the largest per capita consumers of energy in the western world. During the first nine months of this year, our consumption of gasoline was up more than 4 per cent. Not only does that represent virtually no progress in energy conservation, it threatens the commitments Canada made to its world allies through the International Energy Agency and at the Tokyo Summit.
Those are the principal results of the policies of members of the old government who want to turn back the clock and say that we should leave them untouched. They are a prescription for energy failure in a country which has a rare opportunity for energy success. They may be acceptable to the Liberals and the New Democrats, but I say to the House of Commons that they are not acceptable to this government and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Because they are not acceptable is precisely the reason we have been conducting extensive negotiations with the provinces, to try to come forward with a new energy package that will not only deal with price but will deal with other instruments and other aspects of a policy and a package which can make this nation self-sufficient in energy by 1990, which can make energy a building block for the future of Canada rather than an obstacle to our growth, as has been the case with the policies followed and still pursued by the old government.
1 want to deal with the accusation of an inability to conclude an agreement on energy pricing. My government is working towards agreement with the provinces in ways that were perhaps contemplated by the last government but were rarely pursued by them. We are making progress and we are confident of reaching agreement on an energy package soon. Obviously, with our discussions continuing, it is not appropriate for me to get into the content of an energy package today. But it is probably worth while, and even instructive to members opposite, to examine the process that we have followed.
We are not, and we do not pretend to be, miracle workers in getting agreement in a complex federation. It takes time to reach agreement in an atmosphere of reasonableness and in an atmosphere of co-operation. On the rare occasions when the last government talked to the provinces that must have been evident to them. I remember a day in 1976-


An hon. Member:: Have you talked to Saskatchewan?


Charles Joseph Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party asks if I have talked to Saskatchewan. Yes, I have, and I wonder if he has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I remember a day in 1976 when the then minister of energy, mines and resources reported that more than six months of talks and meetings had preceded decisions on new oil and natural gas prices. His statement to this House in May of that year made reference to meetings as long before that as December, 1975. Far more often, unfortunately, the government of that day, the old government, could not be bothered with that kind of consultation, although it occasionally paid lip service to it.
The prime minister of the day talked from time to time about not wanting to act unilaterally, about bringing the provinces into discussion, but what happened? What happened, as demonstrated clearly by the events of 1977, was that he would set a price agreement and then his government unilaterally broke that agreement, and consequently poisoned relations on energy questions between the federal and provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, we do not operate that way. We are working with the provinces towards building a stronger Canada. We are planning and we are building together, and the current discussions on energy are part of that process. We are not raising in this chamber the spectre of unilateral action. We are not running around suggesting that we have an emergency power or a declaratory power with which we can threaten the provinces. That is what we are advised to do by the old government opposite, and that is exactly why, because they followed that approach, the old government opposite was so unsuccessful and failed so dramatically in getting agreement among the provinces of this country and the national government on how we can make use of our unique and virtually limitless, in all of its aspects, energy potential.
Let me be quite clear that we are prepared to accept our responsibility as a federal government to move by ourselves if we have to, but we do not use that as a club or as a threat or as a weapon. I believe that we must try, and must try 110 per cent, to get agreement by agreement before resorting to other alternatives of menace or of threat.
We have not yet reached that limit. Indeed, we are making positive advances towards agreement. Indeed, I can report to the House that we have now reached a point in the discussions with the provinces where I think it would be useful to bring together the first ministers of Canada to discuss energy matters; a broad package of energy matters. I will be convening a meeting on Monday next, November 12, here in Ottawa of the first ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 6, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, our principal objective in working towards a new energy package with the provinces is first and foremost to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada by 1990, so that by then no Canadian will have to depend on insecure or unreliable foreign sources to heat his home or to drive his car.
In moving toward that fundamental goal we also want to reinforce the commitment of this nation to a new era of co-operation with the provinces, to demonstrate our belief that, given clear and stable direction, the private sector can meet Canada's energy needs, and to use the opportunity that selfsufficiency provides significantly to increase Canadian participation in the development of our nation's energy resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, no one in this House is satisfied with the degree to which our energy development in Canada is dominated by firms controlled outside Canada. But it is important as we lament and oppose that situation that we understand how it happened. That situation arose because of past government policies, going some distance back, that made it more attractive for foreigners than for Canadians to develop our resources. It was reinforced by existing fiscal policies which, without any offsetting initiatives, tended simply to reinforce the status quo. Sir, we in this government are determined to change the status quo in terms of Canadian participation in Canadian energy development.
The additional investment resources that will be available through changes in pricing policy will provide us with an opportunity to do that, and we intend to seize that opportunity to help more Canadians control more of the Canadian energy industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Among the elements of a new energy policy under discussion with the provinces we are proposing the creation of a national instrument to provide a significant source of capital investment in major new energy projects across Canada. That concept appears to have general approval among the governments involved and we are hopeful that such an institution would have broadly-based support from those governments.
The creation of an institution like that will provide a specific source of funding, separate from other claims on the fiscal resources of government, to support projects ranging from coal development in Nova Scotia through a gas pipeline in Quebec and the development of additional hydro resources in Manitoba and Newfoundland.
By placing a strong public financial commitment at the front end of those projects, their development will be more certain, their development will be quicker, and they will come on stream to serve the interests of Canadians much more quickly than they would without that instrument.
In supporting those policies, in supporting those projects and in investing those new financial resources, it will be a basic principle of this government to encourage the maximum possi-
Severe Economic Hardship
ble Canadian participation. We all know, those of us who are prepared to look at the facts of what is happening in the energy industry, how the use of special incentives by the government of Alberta in regard to increased exploration and development of natural gas led to a considerable increase in the role of Canadian-controlled companies in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party scoffs.
I ask him to check the record because the record is there. It was a method that was brought in and it has resulted in Canadian control to an increasing degree of an industry that has too long been controlled by foreigners.
I sympathize with the leader of the New Democratic Party.
It is often difficult when reality collides with ideology, but this government is determined to govern on the basis of the real situation and the real potential of this country. We differ from the New Democrats in that we are not caught up in ideology. We differ from the Liberals in that we are not preoccupied with the past. We are determined to build a Canadian future in this country.
I had referred to the experience in Alberta, and I say to the House that I am convinced that an ability to back up the entrepreneurial skills and technical expertise of Canadians with major financial support can be equally productive in strengthening Canadian participation in other important energy developments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The last item in the Leader of the Opposition's motion concerns interest rates. No one in this House, and 1 am sure no Canadian, likes high interest rates. We all want them lowered and this government is determined that they be lowered, not by instant magic, because there is no magic, but by taking the tough decisions now that are essential if we are going to restore the Canadian economy to the kind of strength that will allow more moderate rates of interest in the future. That, sir, is our medium-term goal and we are dedicated to it.
However, the issue in this motion is the short term- whether the government had any immediate alternative but to accept the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada and, indeed, what the consequences following an alternative course might have been. The hard reality is that the economic circumstances we inherited from the old government left us with no short-term alternative. In fact, on becoming the government it became apparent to us that the mess was even worse than we suspected and that our immediate options were even more limited than we thought they were. We knew that we were inheriting a budgetary deficit of $11 billion, the largest in Canadian history. We knew that we were stuck with a balance of payments deficit of some $7 billion, the worst per capita deficit in international dealings of any western nation.
But let me tell the House a few of the facts we found out only after we became the Government of Canada. First,



November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
because of the previous government's commitment to secrecy, we did not know that the trend in government finances was exactly opposite to what Canadians had been told by the old government. We found that long-range forecasts, which we made public for the first time, showed the federal deficit increasing to $14 billion by 1983 and the public debt actually growing dramatically again with the next five years.
Secondly, we had been told by the former minister of finance, as recently as his last budget, that the Canadian economy was entering into a period of, to use his words, "sustained expansion". What we found in fact was an economy here and in the United States sliding toward a recession, not moving toward sustained expansion.
The third thing we found was that the accounts of Canada, as presented by the old government, simply did not represent the true financial position of the country. In the Accounts of Canada Adjustments Act, the previous government proposed to write off some $3.5 billion in dubious assets, an action which might not affect cash requirements but which certainly had an impact on the country's net debt and debt servicing costs. Similarly, we found Crown corporation borrowings of as much as $1.5 billion which were not entered in the accounts, even though they were a contingent liability of the government. We found a number of capital projects with costs virtually out of control, from the Prince Rupert grain dryer, where costs had multiplied five times, to the Mirabel Airport losing $1 million a week and requiring expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars before it could even achieve solvency.
t Translation]
Mr. Speaker, faced with this legacy, no responsible government had any other alternative but to accept rising interest rates. Our government made a difficult but responsible choice. Let me also tell you the other solution we could have adopted. The Liberals as well as the New Democrats have hinted to the Canadian public, without ever making their position clear, that there was an obvious way out, which as Canadians should know, which had the full support of the opposition, namely, to reject the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Such a decision would have had dire consequences. The governor might have felt he had to resign, as the government's decision would amount to a lack of confidence. Given the present economic situation, such a resignation might have provoked a wind of panic on the Canadian stock exchange and dealt a hard blow to Canadian currency. Even without the Governor's resignation, our dollar would have been affected by our $7 billion trade deficit, followed by a drastic depreciation of our dollar and serious inflationary consequences for our country.
Such was, Mr. Speaker, the short-term choice the government had to make. 1 hope the representatives of the two parties opposite will have the courage to rise before this debate is over and tell this House and the Canadian people that it was the option they supported.
[Mr. Clark.)

We are faced here with a ritual motion of non-confidence from a government that is so preoccupied with its past that it will-


John Carr Munro: Government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -by a group who consider themselves a government and who are so preoccupied with the mistakes that they made in the policies to which they were committed in the old days that they refuse to face the future of Canada. We on this side of the House are not afraid of the future of Canada. We will not accept the advice of those opposite, that we either succumb to ideology suggested by the New Democratic Party, or we lock ourselves in the past and shut our eyes to the future that can be gained in this country.
We have in the energy resources of this nation a tremendous potential upon which to build as a nation. It is a potential which was there under the old government, but which it refused and failed to take advantage of. We do not intend to perpetuate that failure or to continue in the path of shutting our eyes to the great energy potential which exists in this country. We are a nation which need not depend on foreign sources. We are a nation which need not subject the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada to an increasing dependence upon unstable foreign sources. We are a nation unique among the nations of the world which has the possibility to build upon our own energy strength. That is what this government intends to do.
If those opposite want to risk a general election on a question of the past versus the future, then we will go with confidence into that election, speaking to the future and certain that the people of Canada, given a choice or forced to make a choice between a government that wants to govern and a party opposite that wants to politic, will share with us the confidence that my ministers and I have in the future of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 see three members seeking the floor and, of course, it is my responsibility to choose. Since the first day of this session, I have attempted to reconcile in my own mind events that have taken place and which, I am sure, have not escaped the attention of the members of this House. They relate to the position of the members of the Social Credit party in the House.
We ought to be clear at the outset that it is not a transgression of propriety to mention the name of the political party or the members who are involved; it is the Social Credit Party of Canada. Its members are members of this House of Commons and their leader is the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy). Those are the realities.
What the House dealt with on opening day, as is its longstanding practice, was a motion which related to membership on a striking committee. I indicated at that time that the result
November 6, 1979

of that vote carried much more significance than simply that, that each participant in the debate indicated that it related to the opinion of the House on the rights of the members of the Social Credit party vis-a-vis that particular committee.
There was no doubt in anyone's mind that this House was addressing itself to that rather larger question of the entitlement of the Social Credit party at that time, even though, naturally, the members of that party have raised, by way of a point of order, the question whether or not it was a proper thing to do or whether a proper significance could be drawn from that vote.
1 want to go back to that and stress again to the House that that vote, even indicating, as it did, that the House was reacting or expressing itself on the position in which a member or members of a party holding five seats finds itself in the House of Commons, I think we ought to be clear that that is the status: we have a political party with a leader and with five members in the House of Commons. The vote under no circumstances, may I say, can be taken to pass out of existence a political party, nor can it be taken to render as independent members the group which has been recognized as a party and which has, in fact, been seated together as a political party. The Social Credit Party of Canada exists as a political party and the five members exist as members of that party under their leader.
Faced with the decision by the House on the one hand, which was, in my opinion, an expression of what the entitlement of that group then becomes, the House decided at that time that that group, as a political party in the House, was not entitled to membership automatically on the striking committee. The House is entitled to make those expressions because the House has to decide whether a party of five members is entitled to the same things as a party of 26 members or a party of 112 members. Those are decisions that the House has to make. The House, in my opinion, made a declaration to that effect on that day, and I have said so several times. I have no intention of retreating from that position.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the responsibility of the Chair and the responsibility of the House of Commons is to protect whatever rights minorities do enjoy and, therefore, it seems to me that I must conclude what it is that the members of the Social Credit party are entitled to. For example, as I have said, participation in the question period is their right, the same as any other group of five members. It is not difficult to calculate mathematically what five members are entitled to as a proportion of the 26 members and a proportion in terms of the 112 members that sit opposite them. Therefore, 1 come to the conclusion that the members of that party are entitled to a certain participation.
The House will recognize in what I have tried to do, I think both representing the spirit of the protection of minorities in the House and also, 1 think, the generosity of the House, that what those members are entitled to can be given to them with a generosity and a recognition that respects the fact that they
Severe Economic Hardship
are members of a political party, so long as it does not give them an advantage that they would not otherwise enjoy as five members and, secondly, so long as it does not deprive other members of their right to participate in some way.
Let me extend that thinking so that there can be no doubt about it. For example, if this were a Wednesday and we were concluding debate at six o'clock, it would seem to me that to recognize a member of the Social Credit party at this time would be to give them a right which they would not otherwise enjoy because the debate would stop at six. It would give them a participation in the debate which is disproportionate to the presence of five members in the House.
On the other hand, this debate is not going to stop at six o'clock; it is going to stop at 9.45 p.m. I therefore take this view, as I have done in question period, that members of the Social Credit party are not entitled to put a questioner up every day. They are entitled to two out of three or perhaps three out of five in a week. It seems to me, however, that the sensible and proper thing for the Chair to want to do, giving them only what they are entitled to, is to try to give the opportunity to them in such a way as to recognize the existence of a political party. It is not something that the House can simply wipe out of existence.
Similarly, today when I see on the list that in rotation the hon. member for Beauce is going to address the House in this debate, it is therefore to no cost of other hon. members in terms of participation for the House to take the generous attitude that he ought to be treated as a party leader, which he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, guarding always the position that I must examine and that no privileges can be given to that party which might unfairly cost the participation of other hon. members, always when I can 1 ought to try to give them their fair participation and fair share in that way. Again I say that in the question period not every day shall it follow right after the participation of a New Democratic Party member, but some days it will. Other days, as it did today, it will come later in the question period. Where possible I think the House ought to extend at least the generosity to give members of that party what they are justly entitled to, but to give it to them wherever possible in such a way as to recognize their position as, in fact, a political party in Canada.
For that reason I therefore now give the floor- [Translation]
-to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy).


Fabien Roy: Thank you very much-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can be spoken to and consulted about this at another time. It is always at the absolute

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
discretion of the Chair which member shall be recognized. The hon. member for Beauce.


Mr. Pinard:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is not fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The hon. member for Beauce has the floor.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) be now recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that he must have the floor to put that kind of motion. The hon. member for Beauce has the floor.


Mr. Ouellet:: He did have the floor. You recognized him.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have just realized a number of things.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: There are still honest people!


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, we have before us this afternoon a non-confidence motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau). The motion reads as follows, and I quote:
That this House has no confidence in the government because it will cause severe economic hardship for the Canadian people this winter: first, through its neglect of the grave possibility of shortages in heating fuel; second, through its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply; third, through its inability to conclude agreements preventing immoderate price increases in the future; and, fourth, through its acceptance of record high interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out that making up one's mind on such a motion is a very difficult and delicate task. Canadians who are now listening to us must also be in this same predicament for if such a motion were to be accepted, this non-confidence motion against the new government would be tantamount to a confidence motion for the previous government.
Since coming to this House, 1 have heard hon. members from the opposition question the government. They ask the same questions the new government members were asking when they were the opposition. And I have heard government members, the new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for instance, give the same answers as the previous government did when

they were in power. 1 see the Prime Minister shaking his head. If he would read his statements and compare them with those made by the former prime minister, he would have to agree on this.
I paid close attention today to the speech delivered by the mover of the motion, and to the answer given by the Prime Minister, after listening of course to the remarks made by my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Broad bent).
The former prime minister said the new prime minister was an irresponsible leader, that he was incapable of finding solutions to our economic and energy problems. On the other hand, the new prime minister suggested that the former prime minister, when in government, was totally incapable of solving the economic problems and bringing true solutions to any of the areas of concern to Canadians. In other words, they accused each other and Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to use these terms, because they are hardly parliamentary, they accused each other of being incompetent, so to speak. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether both were not right to some extent. The Canadian people chose to elect a new government on May 22, and why? Because things were not working any more, and the previous government's deficits had become unacceptable. I heard the former Prime Minister suggest earlier before the House that the high cost of energy will amount to about $300 per capita, and this seems inevitable.
But he did not mention that in the last three years, budgetary deficits have put a yearly $500 debt on the back of every Canadian. The former prime minister did not mention that. And yet, it is a fact, because every year Parliament has to vote huge amounts in order to pay the interest on such a fantastic debt that long-term borrowings are now needed to make up the yearly budgetary deficits.
Mr. Speaker, how can we believe that the former prime minister, the sponsor of this motion, is sincere when he or his group does not seem any more able today than they were six months ago to settle our problems? That is why I would like to come back to the motion which is in four parts. First, it mentions the grave possibility of shortages in heating fuel. I feel this first part of the motion is extremely important. The second part deals with agreements to prevent price increases. I must say that to prevent an agreement on price increases in this inflationary period shows a very partisan attitude, because the present system, that no one on either side of the House seems willing to change, should be really improved so as to bring about the same results on both sides. So I really wonder if the second part of the motion can be called anything but partisan.
As concerns the third part according to which the government does not support intergovernmental agreements and
November 6, 1979

which refers to future negotiations, I think that only a prophet could predict the future. That is why I find somewhat ridiculous the third part of the motion. The fourth refers to interest rates, and 1 contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely irrational.
I had the opportunity, like my colleagues from various political parties, to question the governor of the Bank of Canada when he appeared before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I asked him personally if he always had to follow the lead of the Federal Reserve Board in increasing interest rates and if he had to pursue the policy of the previous government because, as loyal knaves, they faithfully repeated, as if they had been tape-recorded, the decisions of the Federal Reserve Board. They have followed exactly the same policies. Neither government has proposed any short, medium or long-term solutions. So, when the former government speaks about Quebec when it has absolutely nothing to propose, I say it is wasting the time of the House.
As reported in Hansard, the governor of the Bank of Canada said that he had practically no room to manoeuvre and no authority, when he implied that the huge budgetary deficits of the government, the huge deficits of the balance of payments do not leave him any room to manoeuvre, and in order to save the dollar or maintain its value, he has to follow the instructions of the Federal Reserve Board.
When such an important man, a man who holds the high office of governor of the Bank of Canada, is reduced to saying such things, there is something wrong. If he could, he would say that had we had governments able to govern, able to make decisions in the interest of all Canadians, he would not find himself in such a ridiculous situation.
Obviously, a motion of non-confidence like the one before us today is exactly the kind of motion designed to make people believe that after four months of reflection and frustration in the opposition, some already have answers to our problems. This is an attempt to fool the people of Canada and to mislead them by throwing a red herring across the path so as to divert everybody's attention from 15 years of negligence and administrative irresponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider that the sum total of these deficits represents almost 6 per cent of the gross national product and consequently erodes-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is afraid of losing his job!


Fabien Roy: Some hon. members are annoyed. It always hurts to be told the facts. However, since my arrival in this House, I have always had the courtesy to listen without ever interrupting, and I ask to be treated with the same courtesy.
Severe Economic Hardship
When one considers that the total of these two deficits represents close to 6 per cent of the GNP and consequently erodes nearly 25 per cent of the present and future savings of Canadians, it is time to start asking ourselves some serious questions. To blame this government when you are the ones mainly responsible is somewhat ridiculous, but still not surprising coming from those who brought about the present situation.
The infringement of civil liberties-we shall have some other chance of bringing this up. The encroachment upon provincial rights-we shall have the chance of discussing this much further during the forthcoming few weeks or months, also the basic violation of the right to economic progress of the Canadian people throughout the country. The third point is absolute nonsense: blaming the government for failing to bring about agreements preventing price increases is pure fantasy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the situation inherited from the previous government amounts to a complete surrender to foreign capitals. We have become a sort of subsidiary for foreign financial interests and the Canadian monetary policy no longer originates in Canada. We have no such policy. It is based solely on the decisions of others, and both the present and the previous governments have admitted to what extent the situation has deteriorated and the new government seems to realize the facts.
Mr. Speaker, this abdication before foreign capitals is reflected by the constant increases in our exports of raw materials. We export our raw materials and import finished products. We have only to look at our trade balance to realize this. This complete abdication is reflected by the naive will to believe that pious wishes can replace political leadership. When 1 say "pious wishes" I am referring to both the new government and the former government because they are no longer responsible for the management of the nation's business.
This surrender is reflected in the fact that the financial situation which the present government is facing is such that they must borrow to pay the interest on the debt, to improve our balance of payments and to attract international capital, which makes us even more dependent on foreign finance and in the long term only increases the deficit of the balance of payments.
Because of the legacy of the previous government whose basic misunderstanding of business structures becomes more obvious every day, the Leader of the Opposition is stating in his motion:
__its inability to conclude agreements preventing immoderate price increases in
the future;
In the first place, agreements on price increases, as far as I know, are prohibited; I venture to say that the Leader of the Opposition has made a mistake. Second, future prices-there again is the height of ridicule. Through what, where, when and

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
how was the future revealed to the Leader of the Opposition? After all, these people should be more serious.
Mr. Speaker, 1 could dwell at length on our economic situation, on the way the country has been managed during the 15 or 16 years of Liberal rule, on the way this wavering government seems unable to make decisions and depends on foreign powers and decisions made outside Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to come back to an important matter, a fundamental one, energy. That is why when we learned about the motion to be introduced by the Liberal party, we wanted to make a positive effort. Instead of criticizing the government, we wanted to ask them to assume their responsibilities. I therefore took upon myself to write a letter to the Prime Minister in which I stressed two points, letting him know that it was extremely important that his government should announce immediately to the Canadian people the measures he had taken or intended to take and the guarantees he could give to prevent any risk of shortages, and avoid the panic that could result in unreasonable price increases.
Second, we said to the government, through the Prime Minister, that it was also extremely important that every step be taken to protect quotas and make sure they were available to independent distributors. Just today the Prime Minister sent us a very lengthy letter of four pages in which he provides particulars following our request which we considered to be constructive. We asked for some explanations and since verba volant, scripta manent, the Prime Minister is bound by the comments he made in his letter. The Prime Minister answered that the short-term situation-unfortunately 1 will not have enough time, because the Standing Orders will not allow me to read the entire letter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member on a point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I think the House would be very interested to let the hon. member read out this very important answer and even to table it. I am sure he would have unanimous consent from the House.


An hon. Member:: Hon. members on the government side seem to be very interested.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. To answer the point of order raised by the hon. member, I would like to remind him that the rule requiring a minister to table a document does not apply to an ordinary member even if the letter was sent to him by a minister or by the Prime Minister.


Fabien Roy: I shall do whatever they want because these people need to learn. I shall do whatever they wish and send them a copy of my letter because by reading you do indeed learn something in the long run.


An hon. Member:: No, read it, it is important.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not have to take orders from them but I will read only the most important parts of it. I quote:
The short-term situation as we found it last June was also far from satisfactory. Inventories had been seriously depleted and there was considerable uncertainty about the adequacy of gasoline supply for the summer and heating oil for the winter.
The government acted promptly to improve the situation and to secure equitable treatment for the independent sector of the business. Thus:
1.	With the co-operation of the government of Alberta and its agencies, production of crude oil in western Canada has been brought to maximum levels in recent months.
2.	Exports of our valuable light crude oil were reduced from 55,000 barrels a day in September to 14,000 barrels a day in October and virtually eliminated in November in order to make this oil available to Canadian refiners.
3.	With the government's approval, the National Energy Board has continued to allow the exchange of western Canadian oil for additional supplies of overseas oil to eastern Canada. The Energy Board recently approved exchanges totalling some 2.5 million barrels, virtually all of which are for the account of refiners in the province of Quebec.
4.	The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has authorized the payment of special import compensation in the amount of $745,000 to enable a Quebec refiner to import a badly-needed cargo of crude oil despite an unexpected increase in its price.
5.	On July 13 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources released a report of an inquiry into problems which distributors, particularly in Quebec had faced last winter. The recommendations of the inquiry are being vigorously pursued.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Fabien Roy: Be patient, please. Don't be so nervous.
6.	On August 15 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources telexed the refiners regarding the question of supply for the independent sector of the business. He referred to exchanges being used as a means to assure supply to the independents.
Mr. Speaker, surely I cannot read the whole letter, but I can say that our information on the first point, namely the assurance of adequate supplies to Quebec and the maritime provinces, gives us cause for a certain amount of satisfaction, because more has been said today than ever before.


An hon. Member:: In 15 years!


Fabien Roy: My colleagues tell me that they have heard more than they ever had, over the last 15 years. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they-


An hon. Member:: You believed that, ha, ha!


An hon. Member:: Go and tell Mr. Rene Levesque.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, they will not let me speak.
1 did not think my speech was that interesting. Since the Prime Minister mentions it in his letter, he tells me very seriously that concrete measures followed the recommendations of this
November 6, 1979

study group, I would like first, and 1 am telling very seriously the Prime Minister and asking him to take note of this-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest hon. members should let the hon. member for Beauce complete his remarks without interrupting. His time has expired, but I will allow him another four minutes in order for him to complete his remarks. The hon. member for Beauce.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want my hon. colleague from Beauce to have the floor, and I would also like to know by virtue of which special privilege he can have four additional minutes since the Chair mentioned earlier no previous agreement was made to allow him to go on. The Chair did say it was exceptional. Is it for that purpose, again because it is exceptional-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no privilege involved here, it is just a matter of fairness because of the interruptions the hon. member has had to bear during his speech.


Fabien Roy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your great wisdom.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister to give us more information regarding independent distributors. The words procedure and recommendations have been mentioned. We are not aware of these recommendations. We would like to get more detailed and precise information. When the Prime Minister talks about procedure, we would like to know which ones have been followed to ensure that all necessary measures have been taken so that people will not suffer any hardships arising from this situation. The Prime Minister also informed us that a telex had been sent to the refineries. I would ask him to provide us with a copy of this message, to table it so that we know where we stand. We would also like to know whether the refineries and other companies have to submit regular reports to the National Energy Board in order to enable the latter to monitor the situation closely and regularly and also to prevent the development of a crisis situation, such as the one we now risk facing. Everyone knows of course that energy is at present an extremely important issue.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister to give us this information before six o'clock if possible because we want to do a serious job. We are not in this House to play games. We want to go beyond words because even if we are bound by the rules to take a colleague's words, we still want to check the mechanisms, we want to be sure, at some point, of everything the government has done in that area. We want to be informed, and I would ask the Prime Minister to address his letter correctly, and I think he knows what I mean.
Severe Economic Hardship


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Levis on a point of order.


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Speaker, you said a moment ago that since he is not a minister, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) is not entitled to table a document that I consider highly important, namely a letter addressed only to him and his party, relating to commitments made to a party which was afforded partial recognition this afternoon and to the hon. member for Beauce. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask that the Prime Minister release the correspondence exchanged with the Social Credit Party of Canada.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is quite serious in his remarks, he knows quite well that when an hon. member writes either to the right hon. Prime Minister or a cabinet minister, he is under no obligation to disclose that correspondence to the House itself. 1 think the hon. member for Beauce has been quite generous in giving the main features of that letter, and more confidence ought to be forthcoming.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis on a question of privilege. Is this on the same question he put earlier?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege. In answer to the hon. member for Bellechasse, 1 would like to indicate to him that I am quite familiar with the rules on the question of correspondence between members of this House. But what is involved here is not a more exchange of correspondence, it is a policy statement from the Prime Minister to a member of this House. Was it a commitment in order to secure his vote this evening?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate hon. members may rise on points of order, but 1 must attempt to meet a schedule which will bring us to a decision before the day is over, without depriving other members who would like to contribute. And in order to meet the point raised by the hon. member from Levis, I must point out to him citation 327 from Beauchesne, fifth edition, which reads:
(2)	It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
(3)	A public document referred to not be tabled.

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
A careful reading of that citation will remind the hon. member that the document must be quoted by a minister of the Crown. The hon. member who receives a letter from a minister of the Crown has no such responsibility. So actually, an hon. member referred to a document he had received from the right hon. Prime Minister, and on the basis of citation 327 from Beauchesne, it is his absolute right not to wish to-and indeed he may not even table the document. I recognize the right hon. Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 feel of course that your decision is right.

I must say this is the first time I have ever seen an opposition party filibustering its own motion. But that is their privilege.

If the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) agrees, I am quite happy to table this part of the letter.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce.


Fabien Roy: About the point that was raised, I have no objection whatsoever to the tabling of the letter by the Prime Minister so that all members can read it because it is a matter of public interest, we do not have any secrets, we do not have anything to hide.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As the right hon. Prime Minister does not have the floor, the only way I could allow him to table the document at the request of hon. members is to have it done through unanimous consent. Does the House give its unanimous consent to permit the right hon. Prime Minister to table the letter addressed to the hon. member for Beauce and which he quoted in his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For letter above referred to, see appendix.}


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the English version of the letter from the hon. member for Beauce but I have here two copies of my answer in both official languages and I suppose we will manage to obtain a translation of the letter from the hon. member for Beauce.


Thomas Lefebvre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The right hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) on a point of order.


Thomas Lefebvre: Thank you for the promotion, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know if you could give me some explanation on a very important point. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) asked for leave to table the correspondence he exchanged with

the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy). Will those two letters be an appendix to Hansard for today to avoid the problem we had about three days ago?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that here again we need unanimous consent to have the letter appended to Hansard.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we are very anxious to avoid a number of things, one of them being to avoid a filibuster of this debate by a party which brought a motion of censure. Of course we shall give consent, and if the hon. member would like his picture appended to Hansard we would give consent to that as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it on the same point of order? I must deal with them one by one.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) on the same point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say that we agreed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) tabling letters, notices and correspondence between the hon. member for Beauce and the right hon. Prime Minister not for the purpose-he said that he was seeing for the first time a filibuster by the party proposing the motion. I think it is much more serious than that. We want to see if indeed a party paid the price to get the support of another party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the Chair can allow such an allegation from the hon. member. 1 believe that this really constitutes a reflection on the integrity of an hon. member, and if the hon. member for Longueuil did so with jocularity and without any malice, he could perhaps clarify his comments. However, as I interpret his comments, I cannot allow him to let this go.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, to clarify what I said, I believe that the Canadian population is entitled to know whether there were any such rumours. I am not saying that there were. The Canadian population is entitled to know if these rumours are founded, if there was a price to pay. Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the right hon. Prime Minister had paid a price, but I stated that there were rumours to this effect. I want to know whether the rumours that the party in power paid a price to have the co-operation of a party are true or not. I am not saying that this is so, I simply want to know if it is. There is a difference.
November 6, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Longueuil say such things in the House. He does not state anything, but he is starting rumours himself.
I have seen no such reports anywhere. He is very wily. He would be able to kill a cat without drowning it. This is certain. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask the Chair that the hon. member for Longueuil withdraw his comments because they are unparliamentary. 1 do not accept that such a rumour be started in the Canadian Parliament and that it be implied that others have started it. 1 therefore ask the Chair to request the hon. member to simply withdraw his comments, especially the first that he made.


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As 1 understood the intervention of the hon. member for Longueuil, he simply asked a question. Now the member who has just spoken and the members of his party act like offended virgins. We were not the ones who held a press conference yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to say that we would ask the right hon. Prime Minister to make certain concessions if he wanted our support during the vote this evening concerning energy supplies-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As concerns the point raised by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard), I cannot enter the debate and discuss what was said outside the House or in the newspapers.
The point on which 1 cannot accept the remarks by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) is quite simply his insinuation that a member, whether the Prime Minister or not, sought by way of a letter to buy or obtain the favour of another hon. member, which might reflect on the integrity of the two hon. members concerned.
In brief, I think at certain times the House may allow some light improprieties but the way the hon. member for Drummond made his remarks is more acceptable, 1 think, than the direct insinuation that was made by the hon. member for Longueuil who, 1 think, can easily moderate his innuendo.


Yvon Pinard: If I may complete the remarks I was making, I am convinced that what the hon. member for Longueuil meant when he put his question, which was interpreted by some as imputing motives, is quite simply that the effect of that letter was to seek an understanding between two political parties to come to an agreement on a vote. I do not believe the hon. member for Longueuil meant that a party had bought out another member or anything of the kind. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil must be interpreted in their context. What the hon. member for Longueuil made reference to is precisely those specific facts I explained, that yesterday a press conference was held
Severe Economic Hardship
outside the House, and you must take those facts into account to understand the remarks by the hon. member for Longueuil.
I do not believe there is a need to withdraw anything at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I fail to see how the hon. member for Drummond is helping the Chair to deal with the problem. I do not see why he feels responsible for the comments made by the hon. member for Longueuil. It would be far easier if the latter would repeat almost word for word what the hon. member for Drummond just said and what I have just heard.
The hon. member for Longueuil.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 also rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. member for Drummond and, moreover, I am trying to protect our dearest possession, democracy, and the office of Prime Minister of Canada. I think that a Prime Minister should be unassailable and this is extremely important. That was just my point. I would like those foolish rumours to stop. I think that the office of Prime Minister is tarnished when such rumours are going around. And it is passing strange that no member from his party would want to stand up for him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that the last remarks by the hon. member are quite acceptable to the Chair, and to all other hon. members.


Fabien Roy: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think I have been dragged enough into this to have the right to voice my views.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As for the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil, I have accepted his explanations. As far as the supplementary reasons he gave us as a justification for what he might have said or for what I understood him to suggest, I accept them entirely. Now 1 recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have the right to rise at the first opportunity. That is why I ask you to allow me to speak now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) on a question of privilege.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certain things have been said which still leave room for all kinds of doubt. It is not the first time I sit in a parliament, and this kind of situation is altogether unacceptable from people who have respect for their colleagues. I ask that the hon. members for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) and for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) not only withdraw what they said but also apologize.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Never!

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship


Fabien Roy: So, Mr, Speaker, I must come to the conclusion that they lack courage, that they do not have enough courage to spell out their accusations when they have something to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: While I can understand the reaction of the hon. member for Beauce, I must say that the Chair has already made its decision on this point of order and has already accepted the explanations of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) to the satisfaction, I believe, of the majority of members. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought this moment would never come. I should say to hon. members opposite that while some of my colleagues have some concern, I have another prurient interest in this first instalment of the love letters between Fabien and Joe. The reason why we would like to have them tabled and appended to Hansard, 1 suspect, is that they will become a great best seller, particularly when we see the second instalment as we have heard the disclaimer of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) of unrequited satisfaction, and we hope to see the second letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) by about 9.30 p.m., so that we know exactly what the love letters in the second instalment really have to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there is a technicality regarding the point of order which has been raised which I forgot to pursue. I am referring to unanimous consent to permit the House to have the two letters of the correspondence attached to Hansard. I am not sure that I heard whether there was consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am happy that this has been agreed to, and may I point out that it does not necessarily mean that my picture has to be in Hansard.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank God for that.


Lloyd Axworthy: If you want my picture, Mr. Speaker, you are welcome to it. I do not care.
I want to say a few words on this motion of non-confidence. First, 1 should like to start by speaking about the purpose of the non-confidence motion. We have heard certain allusions to the motives for this non-confidence motion today. The Prime Minister simply said it was a ritual. If that was a ritual, then he has gone to an awful lot of effort to make a deal on that ritual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is far more than a ritual. I would also say that the kind of vitriolic and poisonous

words which we heard from the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), again challenging the reasons for our motion, only shows a man who is so frustrated by his own unrequited desire for power that he really should be challenged as to whose ethics are worse, and whether he is prepared to support a motion from members whose motives he does not accept. If the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who is a theologian of great standing, according to his own description, were here, he would find that the ethic as to whether the NDP can so willingly support a motion put forward by a party which they find so reprehensible is questionable. Perhaps it is because they are so used to looking at their own image.
The real point at issue is the purpose of a non-confidence motion. This is a serious motion-no one is treating it lightly or treating it with the kind of frivolity that hon. members opposite seem to have shown. We take the position that there is one basic fact that perhaps hon. members opposite tend to forget, that is, that they are a minority government. They neither command a majority of members in this House nor do they command a majority of votes in the country. As a minority government, they have the direct obligation and responsibility to listen to the majority. They have not been listening to the majority since this Parliament opened.
Today, we heard the Prime Minister express to the member of Parliament for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I think, that he does not even want to listen to members of Parliament any more-he can rule by divine democracy, he can do it directly himself. But the point about minority government is that it must rest upon the confidence of the House, and the confidence of the House is held by the majority of members who are not sitting on that side. They are not Progressive Conservatives. We on this side represent far more of the population of Canada than members of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: With all the brave protestation about speaking for the people of Canada and listening to Parliament, it is about time the government started to listen. If the government were listening, it would hear the people saying that they are tired of interest rates over 15 per cent or 16 per cent and their businesses going broke. They are tired of not being able to buy houses, even though the promises are there. They are tired of having a national government being pushed around by provincial premiers. They are tired of living in the jeopardy of accelerating energy prices with no commitment to any form of support or cushion for those prices. A lot of people are tired of the government acting in a fashion which indicates that it is not prepared to listen to the majority of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: The point of bringing in this non-confidence motion is very much like the old story which is told in western Canada. A farmer was seen hitting a donkey over the head with a two-by-four; he was asked why and he said, "To get its attention". We have brought in this motion to get the attention
November 6, 1979

of the government, so that it will start listening to what Canadians have to say. That is the purpose of the motion, not the cynical motives contributed by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party nor the rituals described by the Prime Minister. We are talking about a very serious initiative. It is one instrument available to an opposition party to provide a message to the government, a message which is particularly significant for a government in a minority position. It is about time the government began remembering that fact every day; we will keep reminding it.
The reasons are clear. Since Parliament has opened we have had direct denial and contradictions of the commitments, promises, and proposals put forward by members of the Progressive Conservative Party in the election campaign. They have not been prepared to live up, by their actions, to the words they expressed at that time. It is about time their actions began to lie closer to the truth, to what they believe.
We talk about interest rates. We recognize that this is not an easy problem. We do not have a simplistic, socialistic solution like the sparrows in the corner who twitter away. There is no magic answer to the problem. There is an economic time bomb on the international monetary scene. We recognize that the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) must be careful and cautious about the rates charged. Also we realize full well that they must protect the dollar. But they have an obligation to protect Canadians as well, and to ensure that the small businessman who spoke to me in my riding on Saturday has protection. That gentleman had a line of credit of $250,000. He said, "I can last two months and then I go under because I have no protection; 1 have no satisfaction and no way of getting any assistance. The government should be listening to that kind of person.
We have been trying to say, during question period and meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that if there is a requirement to raise interest rates, there is an equal requirement to help those people who are hurt by those interest rate increases. There is an equal requirement to ask a question which I do not think has been asked: do the rates have to go as high as they have? An hon. member from Thunder Bay, gave the Minister of Finance clear documentation showing that the spread between the nominal rate and the real rate has been growing larger over the last three months, not smaller, and therefore can justify a somewhat lower interest rate. But the Minister of Finance is so busy being a down-east version of Johnny Carson that he cannot concentrate long enough to decide what economic and fiscal policies he is prepared to introduce.
We listened with great interest to the declarations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie). In a provocative and sentimental statement the minister said, "I am concerned about the people in need." I believe that minister is concerned about the people in need, but the Minister of Finance is not because he is prepared to put $575 million into the budget this year to pay for a mortgage credit plan which has no economic use and is not going to the people in need. Is that good economics? Also I listened to the minister of housing
Severe Economic Hardship
who I think is a sincere, honest, forthright minister. On Thursday in committee he said, "Yes, there are real problems in the housing market". He indicated that people are defaulting on their mortgages, housing starts are going down, and the housing market will be in chaos.


An hon. Member:: They are up this month.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member opposite does not know much about housing. By the first month in 1980 housing starts in the country will be down 30 per cent. That information comes from every industrial spokesman. The minister of housing said that he knew there was a problem, but he had no fiscal room; he had no money to spend. Why is the Minister of Finance laying $575 million on the table for a program which will not provide additional home ownership opportunities? In fact the HUD AC group indicated that 875,000 families have been eliminated from the housing market. Not only has the government failed to add new opportunities, it has taken opportunities away from close to 900,000 Canadian families. How can the government be treated seriously? How can Canadians accept the government at its face value? How can Canadians accept the government's word when it engages in contradictory policies which have no sense or substance?
One cannot justify the lack of action, protection and cushioning in a period of intense interest rates when one knows that the Minister of Finance is sitting on his bundle of money which he is prepared to spend foolishly.
I sat here in absolute amazement when the Prime Minister said, "I have got secret information". This is the man who believes in openness. He has secret information indicating that because of the awful job the Liberals have done, he can project the deficit going up to $14 billion.
It is no secret why the deficit is going up to $14 billion. It is the Conservative government which decided to spend $2.3 billion on its mortgage deductibility plan. It is the Conservative government which talked about spending $2.7 billion on the national deficit to buy back Petro-Canada. We know what is causing the deficit; it is their initiatives. It is time the government stopped trying to pawn it off on the previous government. We are asking the government to become concerned about the present and not the past, rather than engaging in frivolous leaps into the fuzzy future about which the Prime Minister likes to talk. He said that we will have oil by 1990, but the people are concerned about what they will pay for oil in 1980. They are concerned about the fact that if the $4 increase goes into effect, they will be paying an additional $300 a month for fuel oil. That is what they are concerned about.
When we asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the living example of altruism and obtuseness, what exactly he will do, he said, "I think I have something in the way of a taxation policy". That comes as big news. The minister is providing no assurances. He is providing no security for the people who must face the prospect of substantial heating bill and gas consumption increases because of that $4 increase. In my own province the $4

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
increase will pull close to $200 million out of the provincial economy. That is $200 million which we can ill afford.
What answer do we receive from the first minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? They say, "Don't worry, we will make a deal with Mr. Lougheed". 1 know what kind of deal will be made. Mr. Lougheed has said what the deal will be. The only deal Mr. Lougheed will accept is: when he gets all the money he will lend it back to Manitobans at a 12 per cent interest rate. That is the deal Mr. Lougheed wants. It is an interesting example of Tory economics. They take the windfall rents off those resources, transfer them to one province, and lend the money back to other provinces at exorbitant interest rates. How can that so-called energy package be justified? It is a package which has become unstrung and untied very quickly.
The question of pricing is really the key issue at the heart of our non-confidence motion. There is no credibility or acceptance on the part of Canadians concerning the government's energy package, because they know the facts. They know the facts when it comes to those interesting allocations that we will give oil companies.
During question period today, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister said that we must rely upon the multinationals to supply us with energy. I have an interesting column which indicates that multinationals are spending their profits, not on exploring for new energy, but for tomato greenhouses in southern Ontario. I have nothing against tomato greenhouses in southern Ontario, but why are they spending the excess profits from natural resources to build subdivisions in Alberta, tomato farms in Ontario, and fast food restaurants along the 401 ?
How can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gain any kind of acceptance on the part of the Canadian public when they know that the excess profits now being earned are not being turned back into exploration and development but are being diversified for takeovers, acquisitions, mergers, and new commercial ventures which have nothing to do with energy problems? They call that an energy package; they call that an energy policy? Of course the minister is now prepared to accept that because he has his deals in, he has his arrangements made, yet we know that kind of transfer of wealth, with all the tomato farms in southern Ontario, is only going to the treasuries in New York, Chicago, Geneva and wherever else.
When we are talking about the deficit problem in this country, what is a greater addition to the deficit than additional excess profits to multinational oil corporations which are immediately transferred out of Canada? How do we justify those kinds of profits when this minister gives us no assurance that he is prepared to step in to ensure that the profits will not be used for these extraneous, superfluous purposes, but will in fact be used to gain self-sufficiency? There is no assurance of that kind forthcoming, and again the actions speak much louder than the words.
We note the same kind of arrangement when we consider the pricing arrangement as far as energy is concerned, particularly in terms of development itself and public accountability. I listened again with frank amazement to the first minister today who said we can be sure that the government will set up an institution to take public moneys and reinvest it in energy development. That sounded to me like a pretty good description of Petro-Canada. Why are we going through the silly exercise of ripping Petro-Canada apart, selling off bits and pieces and adding to the public deficit $2.3 billion, in order to set up another institution which is going to do the same thing? Surely members opposite, even those from Alberta, must be able to figure out that this can cause serious duplication and wasted effort.
Let us take the first minister at his own words. Let us have a reversal of his Petro-Canada stand and let us have a windfall profit tax. Let us take the money from that tax and put it into PetroCan so it can invest in new oil developments, tar sands, offshore developments, and renewable resources. That is a great, sensational idea. But, let us do it with the instrument we have and let us not waste time, the taxpayers' money, the efforts of this government and the time of this House wrecking apart a vehicle and a mechanism which is already in place.
Again, how can the government ask people to take it seriously? That is why the two-by-four has to come over the head so we can bring them back to their senses and make them realize what they are really doing. If the first minister is honest and forthright in what he is saying, and I accept that he is, then we say go ahead and do this and we will support him. If the government puts the money into PetroCan, the money it gets from the windfall profit tax, there will be no argument from this side of the House.
We also think there has to be substantial concern about the recycling of those additional, excess profits. There should be a very clear statement about this rather than the fuzzy vagueness we have heard so far about the need for consumer credit. We should recycle this right across the country to ensure that the consumers do not have to bear the full brunt of those increased prices.
It is only a national government with a full range of instruments at its disposal that can undertake that kind of activity. Perhaps the fact that frightens us the most on this side of the House is the same fact that was noted in the report of the Economic Council of Canada, that increasingly the ability of the federal government to manage the economy and to make decisions work in the interest of a number of regions in Canada is being evaporated and eroded by the giveaways and the erosions of the federal structure. That particular process has proceeded faster and further in the last six months than in the last 16 years in this country.
This Prime Minister and this government have given away more power, more jurisdiction, more authority and more instruments, and are talking about doing so even more, than any other government in the history of this country. Yet they turn around and say they want to manage, they want to be tough and they want to be strong. One needs something in his

November 6, 1979

hands in order to do that. One needs some tools to do the job. We cannot get by on empty rhetoric and words. If the first minister of this country thinks he can get by with his acts of friendly persuasion, without having any leverage, anything to call to account and anything to take to the bargaining table, then he is in for a sorry surprise.
I was in the provincial legislature for six years.


An hon. Member:: It shows.


Lloyd Axworthy: Of course it shows. 1 think it is worth while that members opposite hear of some of my experiences. The fact of the matter is that provincial jurisdictions are not large enough and do not have the capacity to make decisions that serve the entire country. I have no bone to pick with Alberta as a province. I think the premier of that province is doing what his mandate tells him to do, which is to defend the interests of Alberta. However, when we are here to defend the interests of all Canadians we must recognize that we cannot allow one province to make economic decisions for the other nine. That is just not right, and the fact of the matter is that one province containing only 8 per cent of the population, and a small part of the land mass, does not have the scope or the ability, or in fact the mandate, to speak for the entire country. Yet we constantly throw back to that province the right to make those decisions.


An hon. Member:: How many Liberals are there there?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would suggest to the hon. member opposite that he should look to the next election because I think there will be a very interesting change taking place in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The member laughs now. I find that interesting, but he should talk to some of his colleagues in that area because they are finding that they are part of a national government which at least presumes to have to take decisions in the national interest, and that is going to start working against those regional parochialisms. People are going to recognize that that sort of favoured Tory straw man that was kicked around western Canada for the last 20 years, called the federal government, is now going to be their government and not ours, and that is going to make a very interesting political change in that province. I suggest to the hon. member that he should really start looking to his own constituency rather than laughing.
The point of the matter is that they cannot govern this country if they are giving it away. They simply cannot govern this country if they are giving its instruments away. Whether they call it the theology of privatization, or the orthodoxy of neo-conservatism, what is really running at cross currents is the philosophical position of a right wing Conservative party with the essential responsibility of governing. I would try to provide hon. members with this suggestion. It is about time they stopped fighting their philosophical battles and started worrying more about where this country is going to go.
Severe Economic Hardship
The Prime Minister talks about the future of Canada, but there will not be much future if there is not a national government to protect and enhance it. There will not be much future if all we have left is the right of the Prime Minister to be invited to meetings of a confederation of provincial barons when they decide to make decisions, and he comes and opens the door. There will not be much future left in this country after we have dismantled and taken apart the taxation and resources of a national reservoir and simply passed this on to the provinces. The government simply cannot make decisions when it does not have the wherewithal and the means to do so.
1 suggest there are interesting opportunities in this country. There are richnesses that we can develop and use. The point of this non-confidence motion is that we have seen nothing from this government to give us confidence that they understand that we need a strong national government in order to provide opportunities.
There is nothing in what this government has shown so far to indicate that they recognize that the future of this country depends upon a national government that speaks for all Canadians and not just for one or two regions. There is nothing that this government has shown to indicate that they understand the concerns of Canadians-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: After all the foolishness that has gone on, sir, let me call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at six o'clock p.m. the motion of the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) was under consideration.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I appear to be slightly out of breath it is because I was trying to conserve energy and I ran over here. I want to express my appreciation to the opposition for giving me a chance to get involved in this particular debate. On the basis of what transpired this afternoon, 1 thought that we might have points of order and points of privilege extending right up until the time of the vote. I was concerned that these points of discussion might intrude on my time. 1 know that there are hon. members who want to make a full contribution to the issues involved in this particular motion. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House are interested in participating, so I will try not to take any more time than is necessary.

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
Today in the course of the question period and in enquiries made by my colleagues in the Social Credit party, there were some questions raised with regard to the supply situation in eastern Canada. These are questions to which I have addressed myself during the five months I have occupied this portfolio. I would like to spend some time this evening reporting to this House with respect to the actual situation. 1 am concerned about the approach taken by the official opposition with regard to this particular topic, because it seems to be trying to sow fear and apprehension in the minds of Canadians.
1 want Canadians to know that I too am concerned about our supply situation. This is not a new concern for me because I was concerned during the time I was in opposition. Upon taking over this portfolio, I took steps with respect to this very serious problem. It does little good for the members who made up the previous government, and who bear a responsibility for the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, to raise phantom concerns in the minds of the Canadian people. I want to bring to the attention of this House some of the facts that I have gone into in my assessment of the current situation and the outlines of some of the objectives, as I see them, for our national energy policy, some of which were articulated so well by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) this afternoon.
Despite strenuous efforts to limit Canada's need for oil imports in recent months, it is projected that in the fourth quarter in 1979, one quarter of our national oil requirements will be imported. These projections suggest that the provinces from Ontario eastward will rely on foreign oil for over one third of their requirements. Canadian demand for oil products has continued to grow. In the January to September, 1979, period demand for oil products was 3.4 per cent higher than in the same period in 1978. Gasoline use was 4.3 per cent higher.
The petroleum products supply outlook reflects the rapid rate of consumption in the January to September period. Refineries in Canada produced 6 per cent more gasoline in that period than in the same period in 1978. Even so, gasoline stocks this September remained lower than in September, 1978. Production of heating oil in preparation for the coming winter is almost 11 per cent above January to September, 1978, production. Yet stocks this September remain below the September, 1978, level. The level of heating oil inventory is important to assure adequate supplies for unusually long cold periods. However, the current situation is not a crisis. It is tight but manageable.
Canada should have access to sufficient supplies from imported and domestic crude oil and petroleum products to satisfy demands as currently projected. On the basis of the steps which have been taken by myself and the government, and the steps we intend to take with respect to our objective of energy self-sufficiency and restraining demand and, in fact, with respect to increasing supply in Canada, we hope to lead Canada to a new possibility and a new potential for the 1980s.
Unlike the previous government and its seat of the pants approach to energy management, this government has taken concrete and specific actions to ensure that Canadians do indeed get through this winter with adequate supplies of

heating oil. Some of these actions were referred to in the House today. They include increased production of domestic crude, and a reduction in exports of oil exports of crude to the United States. The reduction will go down in November from 55,000 barrels a day to virtually nil or nominal exports. The purpose of this is to provide Canadian refineries with a maximum quantity of Canadian crude supplies.
They include a change in the allocation system of the Interprovincial Pipe Line to allow independents access to this Canadian crude supply. In November of this year independents will have access to upwards of 5,000 barrels of oil a day each to supply the people of Quebec and eastern Canada under the new approach which is being taken with respect to Interprovincial Pipe Line allocations from western Canada. I have referred on a number of occasions to a telex which I sent out on August 15 this year. In that message I made quite clear to refiners and terminal operators in this country that I expected fair and equitable treatment for the independents of our country, to ensure that there would be no attempt to grab a larger share of the market. I continue to monitor the situation.
A very important element in refining with respect to the initiative we are taking is that my department consults, and will continue to do so fully and frequently, with the provincial governments, the refiners, and the independents so as to maximize the flexibility of our supplies and transportation systems. It should not be necessary for me to take these actions. Unfortunately, however, they were required because of the ineptitude of the previous government and its inability to provide energy leadership and energy management.
I want to deal also with the question of the emergency allocation legislation, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that there is no crisis and no emergency in our country today. We know the terms of that legislation, Mr. Speaker. It requires that if there is such a situation, then there must be a declaration which will be referred to Parliament for consideration.
Should we be faced with a disruption in supply or an emergency situation in Canada, I can assure this House that the government is prepared to use the powers available to it, in order to conserve supplies and provide for their equitable distribution. In this regard I have indicated, in answer to questions in the House, that I intend as a matter of course and without any indication that there is a particular emergency in Canada at the time of introducing administrative amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act 1979, to announce appointments to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. Part of the responsibilities of this board will be to co-ordinate activities with respect to supply matters and to plan for a possible emergency. It is not intended, by making appointments to this board, to indicate that there is an emergency. I am taking this action only out of an abundance of caution, and will likely make the appointments at the time of the introduction of the amendments.
It should be underlined again that a support structure has been put in place, in case of an emergency. My department has
November 6, 1979

been consulting fully with the provinces and with the industry, as well as with those people who are involved in transportation.
A support basis is available to them so that they can move quickly and firmly in the event of an emergency.
I think we should examine the realities of Canadian oil prices and assess our position in the context of a national energy policy. Canadian oil prices are more than $10 per barrel below the cost of imports, and about $8.50 per barrel below the average cost of crude in Chicago. Canadian oil is now further below the international price than at any time since 1973.
These low prices for crude, combined with an exceptionally light level of taxation of petroleum products compared to other western countries, provide Canadian consumers with the lowest petroleum product prices of any major industrialized country. For example, at the end of September, 1979, the average price of gasoline sold in Canada was approximately $1.05 per gallon, significantly below the $1.37 which the average U.S. consumer paid for a comparable gallon of gasoline. Compared to other European countries, the low comparative price Canadians pay for gasoline is even more evident. For example, in the United Kingdom the average price of gasoline at the end of September of this year was $2.59 per gallon, in West Germany $3.17 per gallon, in France $3.62 per gallon, and in Italy $3.75 per gallon. Canadian prices do not compare with prices in other countries and, in fact, are much lower. Canadians now pay less for gasoline in real terms that they did in the 1950s.
Canadians intuitively realize the bargain that oil products are in this country and, as a result, have not reduced their demand because there has been no incentive to do so. The signals that the marketplace and the former government were providing to the Canadian consumer, were the wrong signals. Instead of saying, "Slow down, it is expensive and needs to be saved", the past government's policy implicitly said, "Go ahead, use more, it is really a bargain."
The pricing policy of the previous government was a $1 per barrel increase every six months in the wellhead price of crude. A continuation of this policy would see Canadian prices continue to fall further behind international levels. While it is difficult to forecast international prices accurately, it is expected that the present policy would lead to a price gap between domestic and international prices of about $13.00 per barrel in 1985.


Mr. Benjamin:: What is wrong with that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would ask the hon. member to go back to Regina and ask the premier of his province what is wrong with it. He would be told very clearly what is wrong.
On imported oil, this gap would have to be covered by federal government subsidies under the oil import compensation program. On the basis of the former government's policies, by 1985 the federal government would have to pay almost $4 billion in oil import compensation because of the difference between the international and the domestic prices. The needless payment of Canadian funds of this magnitude into foreign
Severe Economic Hardship
hands is something that the Canadian government cannot condone, and the Canadian economy certainly cannot bear this burden. Canadians in this situation would, in effect, be paying $4 billion in one year for foreign oil and, most important, would be forgoing the opportunity of developing domestic resources and moving Canada towards oil self-sufficiency.
The goal of this government, as has been stated many times in the House and outside it, is to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990. For a country with the energy potential such as Canada has, any lesser goal would not be acceptable to the Canadian people. It is the intention of this government to get us to energy self-sufficiency and, in the course of that, to increase Canadian ownership and participation in resource development.
During the last two months I have had intensive negotiations and consultations with the provinces regarding the development of a comprehensive energy package and its crucial pricing component. There are important elements with respect to our energy package that I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight.
First, the domestic price of Canadian crude oil must increase faster than it has in the past. Second, petroleum products sold in Canada must be priced more realistically than they are today. Third, Canada's abundant supplies of natural gas must be substituted for oil as much as possible. Fourth, the petroleum industry in Canada must be encouraged to develop Canadian petroleum resources as quickly as possible. Fifth, more Canadians must be encouraged to participate in the resource development of their country. Sixth, the federal government and the provinces must actively encourage an acceleration of energy projects in Canada. Seventh, new initiatives to promote and encourage conservation by Canadians must be developed. Eighth, offset measures must be introduced to counteract as much as possible the economic effects that higher prices will cause to those least able to absorb them.
That is the basis of the energy policy that this government is bringing forward; that is the basis of the policy to which we are committed in this House.
I think it would be appropriate to review, in the context of the motion placed before us today, a statement with respect to the policies of the former government, the party moving this particular resolution. Its terms are vague and they are rather equivocal. I suggest we should examine the position of the former government with respect to energy policy and oil pricing in Canada over the years.
Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) told hon. members that the current pricing agreement with Alberta was sufficient and that no new agreement was necessary. I think that was the essence of the representation he made and the position he put forward in the course of his remarks. I have already outlined some of the consequences of that policy: increased oil demand, more reliance on foreign oil, higher oil compensation payments, and no chance for oil self-sufficiency. The former government referred to this policy as "energy self-reliance". Whatever it is, it is certainly not oil self-suffic-
1022

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
iency. Times have really changed as far as the former government is concerned.
Let us examine the Liberal record, Mr. Speaker. On December 6, 1973, in a debate in this Elouse on petroleum policy, the then prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition, outlined his government's national oil policy objective as follows:
The object is Canadian self-sufficiency in oil and oil products before the end of this decade.
Times have really changed, Mr. Speaker, as far as the position of the Liberals is concerned. In March, 1974, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, making a statement on oil and gas policy, said:
The most fundamental principle which the federal government would like to advance is to sustain the capacity for continuing self-sufficiency.
We would propose that western well-head prices rise ... to equivalent international prices now prevailing in Montreal.
And again in April, 1975, at the federal-provincial first ministers' conference, the Leader of the Opposition said:
We cannot expect those who search for oil-whether they be Canadian or other-to look for it and develop it in Canada if our prices arc far below those in other countries .. . We cannot expect Alberta and Saskatchewan to go on year after year selling their oil to Canadians at a price which is far below what they could get by exporting it. So my colleagues in the government and I have come reluctantly to believe that the price of oil in Canada must go up-toward the world price.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but I have to inform him that his time has expired. He can continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by simply pointing out that in terms of Canada's energy policy we have a great potential in this country. Frankly, I take a rather different attitude from that taken by the opposition in the context of its motion. They have taken a negative, defeatist approach with respect to oil policy and have not presented any clear alternative, or any alternative at all. Instead, their attitude is one that merely criticizes situations that have not yet occurred and are not taking place at the present time.
In Canada we can achieve energy self-sufficiency. It is a possibility for us. It is not an arduous or an onerous obligation. It is a possibility that will result in a decade of progress, and a decade in which we in Canada can and should develop our energy resources. We should take advantage of this in a non-partisan way as much as possible. Members from all sides of the House should participate and give suggestions, not in a negative or in a partisan way for the purpose of political one-upmanship, but one in which we as Canadians can join in achieving together that which we wish to achieve, namely, energy self-sufficiency. This means a departure from reliance on offshore imports. I simply ask members in this House to consider the implications of a vote today which would indicate a negative attitude toward our objective of energy self-sufficiency.

[ Translation]


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that my speech will be very brief. I share the feelings just expressed by the minister, that we are here in a non-partisan way and that we have proposals to make to the government to help it improve the energy policy. I am very happy to have this opportunity to participate in the debate because it deals with a matter which is of the utmost importance to Canada.
The whole question of energy, its availability and its price all affect the life of every individual and every company in every sector of our society and economy. Therefore, the importance of this debate cannot be overestimated.
The other aspect of this debate that strikes me tonight is the profound difference that lies between my party, the Liberal party, and the Conservative government on the issue of energy as well as on other subjects. Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard remarks and comments by our friends on my left, on the far left, to the effect that both the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal party carry the same message. They like to say we are one and the same. But I reject this and indeed the difference between our two parties appears clearly in this debate tonight. It appears in the approach we have towards society, toward responsibility of the government.
As I said, the difference between our two parties is obvious and so is the concept we have of society and of our role. At the same time, one must admit that to a certain extent we do share the same philosophy. I can give you an example. The Progressive Conservative Party merely carries on with the economic policy without presenting a new budget, it is quite satisfied with ours.
Besides, just like the Progessive Conservatives we believe that the private sector is the main driving force within our society. We must give impetus to the economy of our private sector and stimulate the open market, but we are not so radical about it as some of our hon. friends opposite. And when we see that some people are unfairly treated, that there are no equal opportunities for everyone across the country, that some people cannot defend themselves, then we do not hesitate to intervene to protect them and ensure the safety of each and every Canadian. That is the fundamental difference between the two parties. And I hope our hon. friends to our left will realize this difference because, as I said earlier in my remarks, it is quite evident in the case of the energy crisis in Canada.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always been the party which fought to defend special interests in Canada, having neither the capability nor perhaps the will to offer us- and when I say us, I mean the Canadian people-programs likely to benefit all Canadians. As an example of this, Mr. Speaker, I shall mention the nearly complete absence of a social program on the platform of the Progressive Conservative Party when it held power before and even after the war, as well as when it was in the opposition. I cannot say the same
November 6, 1979

thing about our hon. friends to our left, but from the Progressive Conservative Party, nothing.
Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) would like to create the impression that his party has abandoned its traditional position in order to move more to the centre, but during this debate on energy tonight in the House. Mr. Speaker, we have come to realize that nothing has changed and that his party still represents special interests just as before.

What are these special interests that this government represents in this debate? Of course three immediately come to mind. First, obviously, are those who are interested in an accelerated rise to world prices, as opposed to the Liberal policy of organized slow rise toward prices on the international level. Obviously the oil companies are interested in that, the companies and persons associated with oil companies. Who can blame them?
Second, there is of course a certain provincial government that is particularly interested in a rapid increase in oil prices to world levels. Then there is the federal government itself. They are interested in finding ways to finance, for example, the mortgage tax credit scheme to which my friend from Winnipeg made reference earlier in his remarks.
Beyond that, what about Canadians at large? What about the small businessman? What about individuals? What about the poor? Those in the poor areas of my riding are concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: He laughs because he knows nothing about my riding, Saint-Henri-Westmount, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have much poverty in some areas.

What of those people? Is this policy of a rapid rise to world levels really in their interest? Is it really in the interest of all Canadians, or is it a classic Tory position of being interested in special interest groups? In this case there are the three that I cited, the companies and the governments of Canada at the provincial and federal levels.
What of other Canadians? Do they not have reason to be outraged at the fact that here is a Canadian natural resource they can buy as easily from an international cartel as they can at the same price from their own country? Are they not going to question the advantages of being Canadian? What are these resources for that we have in Canada, if they are not to stimulate and provide some kind of competitive advantage for Canadians?
What do they tell us? They say, "It is good for you," that it is "a long-term remedy," that "you may freeze, you may go bankrupt and you may not be able to travel, but the optimistic side is that in the long term it is good for you." I suppose this is not unlike the message that was delivered to the Christian heretics as they stood at the stake, the optimistic message was
Severe Economic Hardship
that in the long term it was good for them. That is the kind of situation we are facing in this energy issue.
Let me carry this one step further. Referring back to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon, he made reference to the cartel, and a cartel it is, the OPEC cartel. I am not criticizing the legality of that cartel. Under our Combines Investigation Act, as I recall it, we do accept a cartel at the international level for our exports. However, domestically our law dealing with cartels, or what is known as price fixing, is perhaps the most serious crime in the Combines Investigation Act.
This government is telling us that we are to follow this cartel which would be illegal under our domestic law. If any companies in Canada engaged in such an outrageous cartel, the officers responsible would be put in jail. However, we are told that we are to follow the artificial prices set by this cartel.
Frankly, I find this shocking, even coming from a Conservative government. If we go back to the nineteenth century, to the unfettered free enterprise system, monopolies and cartels were the order of the day. It may be that our Conservative friends are seeking their historical roots.
We are dealing with a cartel. As far as I am concerned, we have no business tying Canadian domestic prices to cartel prices in any way, shape or form.
We heard about conservation from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn). He said the Liberal government had encouraged Canadians to "go ahead," and I wrote down the words, "and use more, it's really a bargain." Those are the words he used. That is not my impression of what the Liberal government was telling the people of Canada. In fact conservation measures had been foremost in the minds of the Liberal government and in the message they conveyed to the Canadian people.
I suggest there is no evidence, but perhaps the government has some to offer, that increased prices will create conservation. When I was a student in Lrance in the late fifties, gas cost $1 a gallon. I do not know how many here have driven around Place de la Concorde or anywhere else in Paris or Europe. There is no evidence that people have conserved. There is evidence that they have sorted out their priorities and they probably compromise in some other area of their lives rather than sacrifice their automobiles which, of course, are fundamental to the infrastructure of society in this country. Therefore, to talk conservation in these terms is absolute rubbish.
We are told that the rising price of oil will make us look for more resources. We are told that if we follow the shock treatment and increase prices, people will be conscious of the fact we have to find other sources of energy, that that is the message we have to get across.

Let us be serious, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that Canadians today are well aware of the fact that there is an energy crisis. They do not need an electric stimulus like mice to react. I find that it is an entirely stupid argument. The Canadian

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
people are very aware of their own priorities and the national priorities. I would like, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government also to be aware of them.

What about exploration, new frontier exploration in particular? That is something I have not heard discussed in this debate. Of course I was absent from the House for part of the day. What are we doing about new frontier exploration? Rising prices are supposed to stimulate that. We have some very major fiscal policies in place to stimulate development in the new frontier. Canadian development expenses can be written off at 30 per cent on the declining balance. Canadian exploration expenses are deductible at 100 per cent.
We have in addition to that, depletion. We have depletion of $1 for every $3 earned, which is the normal depreciation. Beyond that we have super depletion which gives the additional $2. In fact there are circumstances where there is no money at risk in drilling for oil on the new frontier at the present time under our fiscal system. Now we are being asked to compound that by bringing the price to world levels. Surely there has to be a trade-off here somewhere. Canadian taxpayers are already paying an exceedingly heavy price for oil development in the new frontier. That seems to have been forgotten by those in the benches across the aisle. Perhaps it is the right program. Perhaps those fiscal programs have stimulated an enormous amount of drilling in those areas where obviously the risk is high.
However, there has to be a rationalization. If these gentlemen are prepared to let Canadian oil prices domestically rise to world prices, surely we have to reassess the fiscal implications of that on the other side of the balance sheet. To my knowledge that has not been done.
What bothers me about this whole debate is that I really did not hear gentlemen on the other side speaking for Canadians. Our leader has often said they do not believe someone should speak for Canadians, but surely in this House we have a responsibility to speak for Canadians.
Canadians do not understand why they should have to pay world prices for resources which are theirs, resources which companies are permitted to extract with enormous tax benefits. I do not regard it as any kind of rip-off to permit Canadians to have some kind of competitive advantages. They have enough disadvantages. They have distance. They have climate. They are caught up with all the other problems of this country, and here we have one advantage we can confer on them as we have done in certain cases with respect to hydro electricity. But no, we have to go to world prices in the name of conservation, in the name of looking for alternative sources of energy, all of which I agree with, particularly looking for alternate sources of energy, because, as we know, conservation is a short-term proposition at best. We have to find other sources of energy, and the situation I drew to your attention earlier, Mr. Speaker, means Canadians are conscious of that; they are prepared to make that investment, they know that problem, and they are going to move in that direction.

Let us for once, in this debate, talk about people. Speakers from this side of the House have, and I carry that over to my friends in the New Democratic Party. I do not think I am essentially considered a left-wing sympathizer, but I am realistic about what the opportunities are in this country and I think I am realistic about what we should be doing in terms of protecting Canadians against the disastrous effect of inflation in terms of our competitiveness, in terms of putting upward pressure on rate settlements and so on, if we follow the policy which this government is apparently following, namely, to force oil prices up to world levels as quickly as possible.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion standing in the name of the Liberal party which says that this House has no confidence in the government because of their bungling of various aspects of the national energy policy, namely, the possibility of a home heating oil shortage this winter, a high energy price policy, and a high interest rate policy.
I should like to ask members of the Liberal party, who was in power for the last 11 years while this situation with regard to energy and high interest rate policy was allowed to deteriorate? It did not happen over night and these problems did not just begin with the Conservative government. They only continued with the Conservative party once it obtained office. Who was it who allowed the multinational oil companies over the past decade to control 90 per cent of the oil industry in this country, hence preventing the present government from getting a handle on national energy policy and the direction we should be taking in the development of our oil industry and prices fixed for its products?
Indeed, even with the establishment of Petro-Canada, 80 per cent of the oil industry still remains in foreign hands. That is an indictment of the energy policy or so-called energy policy of the Liberal party while it was in power. Indeed, it was that party in the late sixties which allowed these same oil companies to export half our total production of oil to the United States, thus contributing to the very shortages we are facing today. It is also the Liberal government, as stated in its energy policy in 1976, which said their policy was to move toward world prices. So the only difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives are going to do it in one big jump while the Liberals were going to do it gradually. So it is very hypocritical of them to argue, now they are in opposition, that we should not move toward the world price demanded by the OPEC cartel. That is the very policy the Liberal minister of energy was defending while his party was in power.
If we turn to the other aspect of the motion before us tonight, criticizing the government for its failure to deal with the potential shortage of home heating oil, who was it who allowed the National Energy Board last year to increase exports of oil products to the United States thereby contributing to shortages we may face this winter in home heating oil? It was the Liberal government.
If we think back to interest rate policy, it was the Liberal government which began the increases in interest rates seven
November 6, 1979

times in 1979 before the last May election, and the Conservatives are only continuing the interest rate policy begun by the Liberals. Yet here in this motion we find the Liberal opposition criticizing the Conservative government for following the same policy. I can only conclude that the motion we have before us is a desperate act by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in an attempt to give the impression somehow that this defeated party is the real opposition in the House. I believe the people of Canada in the past month have seen through that kind of hypocrisy and that kind of duplicity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Why do you vote for it, then?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. I am sure it would be more pleasant for the House if they could hear the remarks of the hon. member for Sault St. Marie.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I know the truth hurts sometimes. You can tell by the squeals to my right. We have the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition, this Ozymandias of the Liberal party, a party now discovering that his feet are of clay, desperately trying to rally his troops behind him to think that he is the real opposition though we know that he is leading a party that is disillusioned, bankrupt of any principle, and bankrupt of any policy for this country. This was evident in the last general election.
If the Leader of the Opposition has discovered he has feet of clay I think it has become evident that the people of Canada have discovered that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has a head of clay when it comes to national energy policy.
I am reminded of the story of the three party leaders flying over one of those unstable South American countries. The plane crashed, but fortunately all three survived. In their attempt to escape from the jungle they were captured by a group of revolutionaries who saw them as interlopers and wanted to put them to death before a firing squad. Well, they took them out one at a time, and the first was the leader of the NDP. They lined him up against the wall and just as they were about to give the order to the firing squad to shoot, the NDP leader came up with an idea for a plan to escape and shouted "Earthquake! Earthquake!" The firing squad dropped their rifles and scattered for cover and the leader was able to escape.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Clark were watching through the prison windows and decided they had better try something, too, because, of course, they were next before the firing squad. The Leader of the Opposition was taken out and he quickly decided he must think of a plan of escape and, just as they were about to fire, he shouted "Volcano! Volcano!". Again the firing squad dropped their rifles and ran, and he was able to escape.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was sweating behind the bars because he knew he was next. He was called out, the firing squad was lined up ready to shoot, and he came up with a brilliant plan of escape. He shouted "Fire! fire!".
Severe Economic Hardship


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I wish we could light a fire beneath this government in terms of an energy policy. We were promised last August that a national energy policy would be coming forward. We have not seen it to date. Instead, we have seen drift and incompetence, and indeed a kind of pricing policy which, I predict, will become public on Monday when the first ministers' conference is drawn and we as Canadians, as I said in the House the other day, will get a horrendous Christmas present from the Prime Minister in terms of energy pricing.
This government is determined to move to world prices as soon as possible, and in reports that I have received, I find their plans are to move to the world price, or close to it, by 1983. The price facing Canadians in that year will be $29.75 a barrel for oil, an increase of some 120 per cent over the current price of $13.75 a barrel. That kind of dramatic escalation in oil prices in Canada will not achieve the goal that this government has argued it will, namely, self-sufficiency, but instead will cause the most severe recession and economic dislocation that this country has seen in modern times. That is why we argue that it is folly to pay a price escalation on an artificial cartel price, namely, OPEC's. Instead, we will argue, and have been arguing, that we should base it on the real cost of bringing on new supplies in Canada, and phase in a price increase in a way that the economy and the consumer can absorb it.
If we proceed with this government's plan to escalate to the world price, or to 90 per cent of it as soon as possible, that means that by 1983 Canadian consumers will be paying an extra $700 a year just to heat their homes and drive their cars. I think that this is a burden for people faced with already high inflation; it is unjustifiable, illogical, and should not be proceeded with by this government.
We also know that this government is bent on destroying one of the most successful options we have in the oil industry, namely, Petro-Canada. The government wants to dismantle it, to privatize it, to let go an effective tool that the federal government has in national energy planning and development. The government is arguing that the private sector can do it better than a Crown corporation, and the private sector, and others have argued as well as I have, for reasons to keep Petro-Canada.
Let me quote a good summary of why we should keep Petro-Canada. It reads:
Petro-Canada supplements the job being done by the private sector and takes appropriate risks where the private sector is reluctant. Petro-Canada provides Canadians with a better insight into the complexity of finding and developing new oil and gas reserves.
Petro-Canada can and should, along with the private petroleum industry, play a leadership role in achieving crude oil self-sufficiency for Canada by 1995.
... urges the federal government not to "reprivatize" Petro-Canada but to retain essential functions within a national petroleum company.


Mr. Woolliams:: Who wrote that?

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship


Reginald Cyril Symes: The hon. member opposite asks me who wrote that. The author is none other than the deputy premier of Ontario, and minister of energy, the honourable Robert Welch. The Conservative government of Ontario presented this to its federal Conservative counterpart here in Ottawa.
The Conservatives are all over the place on the issue of Petro-Canada, and I wonder how the Ontario members of Parliament in this Elouse are going to vote on that issue, and indeed on the pricing issue, when obviously their own colleagues in Queen's Park object strongly to the course of action that they are taking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: This reliance on the private sector which I have described really means reliance on the multinational oil companies which have a stranglehold on the oil industry in Canada. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives accept the kind of tax policies that have been put in place over the past decade, tax policies which benefit these companies, and both have accepted the high profits over the years that these companies have been making at the expense of Canadian consumers. Only recently, in the past few days, do I get some inkling from the Liberal party that there may be something wrong with these extraordinarily high profits. I wish I had heard that a couple of years ago when the profits were increasing at almost the same rate.
Indeed, it was the Liberal government that implemented a tax regime that is still being followed by the present Conservative government, which means that for every $1 the oil companies spend on exploration in Canada, we, the taxpayers, put up 65 cents in terms of tax concessions given to these multinational oil companies operating in Canada. What do we get in return? We certainly do not get any kind of ownership or control in the way they exploit this resource which belongs to the people of Canada. Contrast that with the role of Petro-Canada which we, as Canadians, own, and the ability we have, through Petro-Canada, to take some real action in the interests of Canadians without the kind of blackmail tactics which the multinationals have adopted in the past.
Indeed, we have seen the Liberal government, again supported by the Conservatives when they were in opposition, allowing these oil companies to accumulate up to the end of 1978 a total of $1.5 billion in deferred taxes, taxes which have not been paid to the federal treasury. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) wants to look for a source of funds to reduce the deficit, I will tell him it is right there before his very eyes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: It is the former Liberal government which allowed-a policy continued by the present Conservative government-the effective tax rate of the multinational companies, with their record profits, to decline from 35 per cent in 1974 to 21 per cent in 1978. Indeed, Shell Canada, which in 1978 made a profit of $151 million, paid not one cent of federal income tax. That was the kind of tax policies that these

two old line parties adopted in the past, and I find it utterly hypocritical for the Liberal party in its motion today to criticize the Conservatives for doing the very same thing they did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Indeed we have in the private sector, which this Prime Minister wants to develop, Imperial, Shell, Texaco and Gulf which were allowed to increase their profits by $880 million, an increase of 55 per cent. We will get only more of the same from the two old line parties in terms of their attitude toward the private sector.
The motion before us criticizes the government on the issue of home heating supplies for the winter. On October 15 I raised this very issue with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and I pointed out to him that in my province of Ontario home heating oil reserves are down 20 per cent over the same period last year, and we have, in the most recent report from the National Energy Board, a situation where all oil products have declined some 8.3 per cent as of October 1. What are the reasons for this decline?
We hear of refinery breakdowns, we hear that the pipelines are at maximum capacity, and that there is a scarcity of foreign supply at short notice. We do not hear very much about an investigation that has been taking place for the past six years, carried out by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, of collusion and price fixing in the oil industry in Canada. I should like to see that study come to light so that we may judge for ourselves whether or not there is, by way of collusion, a manipulation of supply that is contributing to a potential shortage over the winter, and yet we have no report forthcoming from this government.
We also find that the reason to which I alluded earlier for this potential shortage is that the National Energy Board has allowed exports of oil products to increase some 21 per cent between January and mid-summer of this year, and again that kind of increase took place under the regime of the former Liberal government which is now criticizing the new government for failing to have enough oil on hand.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says the situation is fragile, it is an indication that he has no contingency plans in place, or at least has not made them public to the House and the people of Canada. We can only conclude that he is giving us a bland assurance, rather than some concrete evidence that the mechanisms are now in place to move fuel oil quickly from one region of the country to another in order to face eventual shortages.
I fear for the consumers of eastern Canada, especially those in Quebec and the maritimes, this winter in the event of a possible disruption of supply. I learned tonight that the Iranian government has stopped loading American tankers with oil. I hope we do not face another Exxon situation, as we did last spring when the multinational oil companies began to reduce
November 6, 1979

Canadian allotments from their supply pools in order to meet shortages in other markets.
The government must implement a policy which makes some sense. We agree with the motion, that the government has not met the criteria which we advocated in terms of what an energy policy should be. In light of the state of the economy, there should be a current freeze on energy prices. When we move the price up, any increase beyond the present price should go into a national energy development fund so that we will be assured these moneys will be spent on energy development in Canada to meet Canadian interests.
We would have a commission to investigate oil company prices and profits to ensure that consumers were not ripped off.
We would preserve Petro-Canada, promote alternative energy, and a massive conservation program. We have not seen this forthcoming from the government, and for these reasons we will vote against it tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two I should like to reminisce a little bit about the history around here. I recall December, 1973, when the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) told us and Canadians about the importance he attached to constitutional reform. He said that it was much more important than doing anything about Alberta. He said, "Don't worry about Alberta oil in Quebec and Atlantic Canada; we have more important things to do".
The energy spokesman of the New Democratic Party should be reminded that it was his party which kept the present opposition members in government in 1972, 1973 and 1974. During that period all of the oil drilling rigs in this country left and went south, because the then government drove them out of the country by its policies and attitude. They were not seized then and they are not seized today of the urgency of the oil situation in the country. I remind hon. members of that. There were many more important matters in this country than getting oil to Quebec and eastern Canada, according to the leader of the then government. Certainly the urgency of the oil situation was not among the reasons cited by the then government.
Of course it is not clear what the direct impact or effect of increased prices will be on demand. We know from world experience and limited Canadian experience that in fact for every 10 per cent increase in the price of oil, demand will be constrained by some 3 per cent to 4 per cent over a period of three years to six years. Those who have followed our problems will recognize the shallowness and superficiality of that as an argument with respect to the need on the part of this country to move toward world prices.
We do not need the damnable nonsense about rapid and swift increases in world prices. The economy could not stand it. They know it and we know it. There is some responsibility
Severe Economic Hardship
on this side of the chamber for the first time in 16 years. Canadians should thank God that we are responsible.


An hon. Member:: Show it.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is interesting to note that we saw no frontbenchers up speaking. I saw some pretenders to the throne of the opposition. As a matter of fact my Vh year old son, Mike, wondered at suppertime what the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was talking about. He said, "Dad, I thought it was an energy debate. What was he doing; going after another job?"
In a post-embargo and a post-Iranian world, which is what we are in and have been since 1973-


An hon. Member:: It is a post-Tory world.


J. Michael Forrestall: I did not see the frontbenchers, the leftovers, or the remnants of the former government up on their feet contributing to this question. Where were they? They went to the second and third rows, some pretenders to the throne. It is too bad they did not talk about oil. Perhaps it was because they did not know anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: If hon. members opposite wonder why we must move toward world energy prices, they should remember that we can no longer live in the artificial world created by the Liberal government over the last 16 years. In the 18 months prior to the election, when the whole country hiccupped at the will of the former prime minister, because the election was on one day and off the next, not once did we see them confront a serious problem in the country. What did they do? They hid, they ran away, they avoided. They avoided coming to conclusions and making decisions respecting important matters such as the security of energy supply in this country.
They should go to Europe and talk to any trader. We are a trading nation. They should ask any trader what feedback he is getting from his colleagues in Europe and talk to any trader. We are a trading nation. They should ask any trader what feedback he is getting from his colleagues in Europe and from other trading nations or trading partners. They are saying to Canadian traders that if they do not move, they will stop buying from them because they are practising unfair competition in the marketplace.
As recently as two weeks ago, 15 member countries of NATO approved a motion here in Ottawa which directed Canada to get out from under the artificiality of the world in which we are living and to move toward world prices. They indicated that we would feel the consequences in our international trade if we did not. We cannot live in an artificial world any longer. I am saying nothing more than the Liberal government were seized of five years or six years ago. We are in the post-Iranian crisis. The price of oil in the world today is not a political price, it is a market one. The former government knew it and chose to do nothing about it. What will we do

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
about it? For the first time a government on this side of the chamber has moved; the Prime Minister has moved-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Were hon. members opposite present to listen to their leader when he was over here and not moving? If they had listened, they would appreciate what I am saying tonight. Thank God Canada has a Prime Minister and a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who are living up to the obligations of running this country in the way it should be run.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: The manner in which the Liberal party sees the intelligence of the people of this country is something to behold. Not one member opposite gives anyone in the country the benefit of having a bit of brains or intelligence. They do not have the time of day to consider the impact of not moving seriously.
Oil is a finite product. We may be the most fortunate of all western nations. We may have enough energy in the form of oil, coal, gas, hydro, solar power, and bio-mass energy to last us well into the next century, and probably well beyond that, but oil is finite. The former minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Gillespie, failed to recognize that in each of his major pronouncements with regard to oil supplies in this country. He failed to recognize that throughout the years that he served in that portfolio, and the consequence of that failure is that this country will face oil shortages in the 1980s. There is no question about that. Whose fault is that? Who has to take the ultimate blame and responsibility? I suggest there is no question but that it is the responsibility of that minister and his government.
What they failed to do in six years we cannot do in five months, but we will do it in eight or ten months. We will turn around the thinking in this country. We will turn it around so as to encourage true conservation through the substitution of other energy forms for oil, through effective home insulation programs and all of the other things that tend to provide protection and balance. We will turn this around so that this country, not by the turn of the century as the Leader of the Opposition and the former minister of energy, mines and resources would have it, is self-sufficient some time after the turn of the century-we will have self-sufficiency in this country by 1990 and we will accomplish that through conservation of our oil, through the development of additional conventional oil, through tertiary improvement and recovery of those oil resources, through the development of frontier oil both in the north and off the coast of eastern Canada, and we will do that by whatever means are necessary. We will not do it on the backs of those people who cannot afford it, as some hon. members over there would have us believe.
The Prime Minister of this country has said on a hundred occasions that he is aware of the situation and that his

government intends to move to protect those people who would be most directly affected by increases in the direction of world oil prices. No one in this chamber knows the situation better than I, and I am glad to note in the gallery the presence of the minister of finance and the minister of development for the province of Nova Scotia. They will tell you, if you want to ask them, that maritimers are already paying twice the national average for domestic electricity. The Prime Minister of this country has said this is not acceptable, that it should be lower. He has indicated that the minimum that is acceptable to this government is domestic electricity rates for the maritimes that do not increase any more than the national average.
Where is the great impact? The cost will not increase. Where was the minister when he was needed? Where was the former minister of regional economic expansion when we needed money for coal? Where were you when Devco wanted resources? Where were you, and what were you doing? What was your leader doing?
What happened in respect of Donkin, Lingan and Devco? What did the former government do about the use of coal to back out oil? Where were you at that time, and what did you do? Where are the new coal mines? Are they in place? Where are the additional plants for the generation of electricity, using coal? You did not do anything about these things because you did not care; you didn't give a damn. Our minister of energy cares and our Prime Minister cares.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: It has been said, and it is true, that there is no energy crisis in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: What there is in Canada today is a potential shortage of oil and a potential major crisis at any moment. We noted today that Iran has stopped loading oil, some of which presumably is destined for eastern Canada.
Let me talk for a minute or two about the critical situation that faces eastern Canada. For six or seven years, since 1973, the former government ignored the situation. That government was seized of the absolute knowledge that it must store strategic oil five years ago, in 1974. What did that government do? Where is the development at Port Hawkesbury? Where is the development of the mines at Belle Isle, Newfoundland? Where is the storage in Atlantic Canada as a result of pre-planning? It takes three to four years to put in place good, positive, strategic storage capacity. That government knew in 1974 and 1975 that this had to be done. That government had the opportunity to piggyback on U.S. strategic reserve planning, but that government procrastinated.
Who is suffering today? Where is the potential for suffering and for harm? I suggest it is in Atlantic Canada. It exists in the eastern part of the former minister's own province. What good are all his words this afternoon when there is no oil to put in storage in those parts of Atlantic Canada that require storage this fall before freeze-up, in order to have supplies
November 6, 1979

throughout the winter? What happens if the oil is not in place? Whose fault will that be? I suggest it will be the former government s fault because they did not move with storage. They did not move in respect of strategic storage.
Mr. Gillespie, the former minister of energy, told me in response to a question back at the time of the Iranian crisis; "Don't worry about it, son; we will look after it." He did not do much of a job. That minister and his government did not do much of a job. That is all I have to say. They did not put much storage in place. They did not move in respect of coal liquefaction. They did not move with regard to fluidized beds. They did not move with regard to Fundy tidal power. They did not move in respect of a demonstration project on the Annapolis River.
For years there has been $9.5 million in banks in Nova Scotia for the purpose of getting into low head electrical generation. Did that government use the money for that purpose? Where is that money now? It is sitting in the Bank of Nova Scotia in Nova Scotia, instead of being out invested in the production of electricity. Where do we get our electricity? We get it from oil powered generating plants. Where do we get that oil? Every drop of it comes from offshore.
For the first time in ten years there is a government in this country which is concerned about the situation and in fact is doing something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We are the slaves of expensive oil supplies, Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of inaction, indifference, irresponsibility, and downright and damnable immorality in respect of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Hon. members opposite did not do anything when they were warned. They did not co-operate with the United States when they had the opportunity. They did nothing about opening new coal seams in Cape Breton. They did nothing about Prince Edward Island. They piddled and puddled around with the Maritime Energy Corporation to the point where it is almost impossible to resolve that situation. That former government did nothing about the power grid, and it set up Petro-Canada because it was forced to by those colleagues now to their left. It was seven years of panic, seven years of concern for anything except the security of oil supply in this country. The former administration did nothing to encourage offshore development or development in the north, and PetroCan did less. The Canadian Commercial Corporation was more effective in securing state to state contracts.
I would remind hon. members opposite that the International Energy Agreement to which Canada was a signatory comes into effect when there is a 7 per cent reduction, and this includes every member country. To Canada 7 per cent west of the Ottawa valley means absolutely nothing. Seven per cent of our supply represents 25 per cent of our imports most of which
Severe Economic Hardship
supplies Quebec and Atlantic Canada. I wonder if the Liberals knew about that.
What did the former government do about asking the OECD, the other signatories to the IEA, to open up negotiations and make a special case for Atlantic Canada because it has to rely, as do Japan and the European countries, on imported oil? Why did the former administration not go to this group and say that 7 per cent results in 25 per cent of supply to five of our provinces? If there is a serious shortage and the IEA is brought into force, we will have a reduction of 25 per cent in our oil supply in Atlantic Canada. That will be the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition, and he will have to carry it on his head. His failure to act, coupled with his stand-pat, do-nothing attitude and the less than useful help of his socialist friends to the left, who as well have done nothing, contributed nothing to the well-being of Canada. His government had no intention of doing so. That party will follow to its grave the old principle of "look after the middle and the devil take the regions. The regions can look after themselves as long as we keep the centre strong, and to hell with Atlantic Canada, to hell with the north, to hell with Quebeckers." That is their economic policy.


Marcel Lessard: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with both energy supplies and interest rates. I think that my colleagues who have spoken have dealt most effectively with the Conservative efforts to raise our energy prices in Canada rapidly to world levels, something that will be most harmful to Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses. In fact the hon. member who just spoke forgot to point out that Premier Davis of Ontario has also spoken most effectively against the ideas put forward by the government in this debate. If the government wants to get advice from someone of its own party, I suggest that it stop listening to Premier Lougheed and start listening to Premier Davis.
This evening I want to speak particularly about interest rates, because they are not, in fact, something that is remote from the daily lives of Canadians. Interest rates are costs, and costs are a part of prices. They affect everything done by Canadians and their families. The present record level of interest rates, which is supported by Conservative policy, cuts back the ability of Canadians to buy goods and services of all kinds-cars, homes, food and clothing, everything people need. These high interest rates cut back the ability of factories and businesses generally to expand, to create more production and jobs. These high interest rates limit the ability of business, especially small business, simply to operate at basic non-inflationary levels. Therefore these high interest rates mean losses
1030

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
of production and jobs now and over the coming winter months.
The Conservative government has been saying that these high interest rates are needed to fight inflation, but they in themselves drive up costs and add to inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said when he was still leader of the opposition only last March 2, "record high interest rates virtually guarantee more inflation by bidding up the price of money itself'. How soon they forget! All this has been demonstrated by the jump in the cost of living last month of one full point, obviously incorporating increases in costs due to increases in interest rates. The government has allowed these increases to go into effect in the period since it has been in office.
However, even if high interest rates do fight inflation, why should we have the same interest rates which the Americans say are required to fight inflation in their country? Our inflation is some five points lower than inflation in the United States. The government also says that high interest rates are needed to finance the deficit in the balance of payments and to maintain the exchange value of our dollar and that, therefore, we must keep in step with the United States. This deficit is there mainly because we have been sending out more interest and principal to repay previous borrowings for this purpose. It is a never ending treadmill, and the Conservatives want to keep us on it forever.
The deficit is also there because of the high level of foreign control of our economy, which means that we are sending out tremendous amounts of interest, dividends, management fees and the like, to foreign parent companies.
A week or so ago the Americans said they had made a mistake in applying their monetary policy. They thought that their money supply had grown by $3 billion and that therefore they had to raise their interest rates again. Then they found that their money supply had not gone up by $3 billion and that they did not need to raise their interest rates. Surely this American error helps to show the folly of the government continuing to raise our interest rates almost in lock-step with the United States. Upon learning of this error, Henry Reuss, the respected chairman of the banking committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, said that "it was a monumental goof and a monetary Three Mile Island". Surely we cannot let the Conservative government create an economic Three Mile Island for Canadians and their families this winter.
This government should be tackling the basic structural problems of our economy through an industrial strategy to make it more productive and efficient, including dealing with problems within it like the high level of foreign control. These structural problems should not simply be masked with high interest rates. The Conservatives should not be making it harder for Canadian business and agriculture not only to expand, but simply to operate, because of these high interest rates. The government's high interest rate policy is having an adverse effect on the entire economy.
This impact is especially severe for small businesses which are primarily Canadian-controlled and which rely mainly on

borrowing from banks to operate. The Globe and Mail reported on October 15 that "more bankruptcies will be the end result of the Bank of Canada's recent epidemic interest rate increases". It quoted Paul Jerabec, vice-president of Dun-woody & Company, who said, "All sizes of business will be susceptible-small, medium and large".
Last December 13, 1978, the current President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), while speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, said "that for every one half point interest rates go up, it costs business $375 million". This means that the Conservative high interest rate policy has already cost Canadians over $2 billion. John Bullock, the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a leading spokesman for small business, has expressed fear that a downturn of consumer spending because of this high rate policy will leave small retailers with larger inventories of unsold goods, thereby increasing the number of business bankruptcies. Nothing has been done by this government about the hardships that will be created by these policies for Canadian small businesses and their employees.
The effects of the Conservatives' high interest rate policy are also damaging to farmers, especially beef producers. They also rely on bank financing in order to operate. High interest costs for them mean higher food costs. Peter Hannam, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is reported in an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on October 10 as saying that the mood of Ontario farmers "is turning to near outrage" at the high interest rates they must pay on loans for land, buildings and machinery. He is also reported as saying that the decision to fight inflation by raising interest rates "is ironic because in the food industry it is just feeding inflation."
These high interest rates are also bringing the housing and construction industry to a halt, with a potential loss of thousands of jobs in that sector alone.
I have in my hand the latest issue of Focus, the publication of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. It quotes its president, Keith Paddick, as saying in a telegram to the Prime Minister:
we must also express our concern with the increases in prime lending rates and their effect on the residential construction industry and on the cost of doing business in general.
That publication goes on to state that he pointed out that "the high interest rates were discouraging initiation of new construction programs with the resultant loss of employment." Because of these high interest rates, Mr. Speaker, many people will not be able to afford new housing or to refinance existing housing. Any benefit that people might have expected from the new Conservative mortgage interest and property tax credit plan will be cancelled by this Conservative high interest rate policy.
The Conservatives did not promote the first version of this plan as a way of helping people to bear some of the burden of future high interest rates; instead, they said that people would be better off than they were before the plan and before the
November 6, 1979

election-that they would spend less money than they had been spending on mortgage interest and property tax payments. This will not be the case now. Instead, people will be back where they were before the Conservatives began raising interest rates. Many will obviously be worse off. It will cost many Canadians more for mortgages, even after the tax credit plan is in effect.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives' high interest rate policy has already adversely affected the economy. These effects will be even more clear as we move into the winter months. This is confirmed by the economic analysis done by the Department of Finance. I persuaded-perhaps forced-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to table this document before the finance committee when he appeared there a few days ago. In the document, the effects of this Conservative policy are laid out clearly for all to see. It was prepared by the minister's own advisers within the Department of Finance.
The Conservatives now say that they cannot keep their economic promises and that they cannot do anything because the economy is in such bad shape. I say this is not accurate, or at least it was not accurate when they took office five months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Not only was the economy in better shape then, than it had been for a long time previously-of course there was still room for improvement-but both the cost of living was lower and the rate of unemployment was lower than they had been for some time. If the Conservatives thought the economy was in such bad shape, they certainly have not proven it by their actions since becoming the government. They have allowed the economic policies of the previous Liberal government to continue almost unchanged in the almost half a year since they took office. What an endorsement that is! What a contradiction of their election arguments and their present claims about what Liberal policies have done to the economy!
They could have called Parliament sooner and had a budget four months ago, but instead, all we have seen is the support and encouragement by the Conservatives of a policy of moving interest rates in Canada to record levels-above 14 per cent. Before the election the Conservatives pledged that if they formed the government they would bring interest rates down.
The New Democratic Party has been showing a great deal of worry about the Liberal party's position on interest rates. Perhaps it is because when the Liberals are, in fact, liberal in policy orientation and action, the NDP is condemned to remain forever what they are now-the party of the radical nowhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The public can see through the sanctimonious pose and the self-righteousness of the NDP, and realize they have no valid claim to any special concern for the problems of average Canadians and their families. These are the concerns
Severe Economic Hardship
of the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, and this is demonstrated by the position taken in this motion of non-confidence.
For some members on this side, Mr. Speaker, there may well have been an argument for allowing interest rates to rise a year ago when it still meant they were only one or two points above the level of inflation, but when the Conservatives allowed our interest rates to go above 14 per cent, five points higher than the rate of inflation, then I think it is a different matter. It means a frontier has been crossed into dangerous, uncharted territory for the Canadian economy. As a result, I believe it is right and necessary for Liberals to take a new approach and a new look at interest rate policy.
But most important, it was the Conservatives who said, before the election, that if they formed the government they would bring interest rates down. That is what the Prime Minister said when he was leader of the opposition. The Conservatives did not say they would do this only after allowing interest rates to rise more and more until they reached record levels. They did not say they would do it only after the economy was better, so how can they say now that they cannot act because, they claim, the economy is worse than they expected?
Last July the Minister of Finance admitted that the economy was better than ever the Liberals had said it was going to be. In any event, the Conservatives have not shown that they have found any significant new information that was not available to them before the election about the state of the economy.
They promised low interest rates and a lot of other things at a time when they were saying that the economy was a lot worse than, in fact, it has turned out to be. They are the government now, they have the power to act, and they are doing nothing except allowing interest rates to rise.
When they eventually bring down a budget, if there is anything useful in it, it will likely be too late to help the economy. It takes six months for measures designed to help create jobs and increase production to work their way through the economy and have a beneficial effect.
I will continue, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to speak out, and Liberals will be speaking out and calling for policies like the implementation of an industrial strategy, a program involving co-operation between business and labour, but requiring something that we have not had up till now, and that we will not get, and that is federal government leadership to make sure that our economy is more productive and efficient. This means a policy to deal with problems like our balance of payments situation and the high level of foreign control of our economy. It means a policy which makes it possible for Canadian industry to meet more of our needs in Canada and to sell more abroad in competitive world markets. I am talking about jobs, and progress for millions of Canadians and their families, Mr. Speaker. That is something that the Conservatives and the NDP are not capable of providing.
The case for this motion when it deals with interest rates was made even before it was tabled, by leading members of the

November 6, 1979
Severe Economic Hardship
Conservatives such as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). The case was made well before the Conservatives even took office and began the series of increases in interest rates which has brought them to their present record levels.
As I have already pointed out, on March 2, when the Prime Minister was speaking as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, he said that "high interest rates block growth and there is no proof that they stabilize the dollar." He also said that "they put in question major construction projects, by adding significantly to their capital costs and hit particularly hard at small businessmen who do not have the market power to pass along high money costs." At that time the Prime Minister also said that "interest rates must come down if we are to get the Canadian economy growing at its full potential." He promised that "it would be the policy of a Progressive Conservative government to gradually bring those interest rates down."
So, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives ask for alternatives to their present high interest rate policy, I want to tell them that one alternative, which has not been rebutted, would be to implement their own original policy as stated by the Prime Minister-"bring those interest rates down." The Liberals and I generally want action taken now to prevent the hardship this Conservative high interest rate policy is creating for millions of Canadians and their families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is why we Liberals, speaking on behalf of Canadians generally, are urging this government to do something constructive in the interests of Canada, the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. That is why I am urging this House to vote in support of this motion of non-confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question to the hon. member who just finished speaking is this: after 16 years in government and a few months in his own office as critic, could he give this House and the Canadian people tonight one specific policy that would help lower interest rates?


An hon. Member:: This is your job.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I would be delighted to do it, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my speech, we need an industrial strategy to deal with our balance of payments deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We need an abandonment of the Conservative intention to raise energy prices to record high levels-to world levels-something that will add to inflation and something that this economy cannot stand if at the same time we have Conservative high interest rates and Conservative high energy prices. It is not necessary. My hon. friend forgets that he and his colleagues campaigned around the country saying that they knew what to do, and now they are in office the hon. member gets up and asks whether we would mind telling them what to do. They do not know what to do. They have no ideas. He asks us what to do. My hon. friend has just shown the bankruptcy of his ideas. He has shown the bankruptcy of ideas of his party. No wonder we are asking for this motion to be passed. They do not deserve to govern.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle) has only one minute left.


Richard Janelle: I suspect my former colleagues of the opposition do not even want to allow me what little time I have left. Still, I should like to say that the Liberal party has not changed much over the years. It has always dealt in scare tactics, and continues to do so. It is trying to scare people to death with regard to pan-Canadian supplies, when we know very well that the present government has promised all Canadians, and especially those of eastern Canada, that it will see to it that they have adequate supplies this winter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House in accordance with section 9 of Standing Order 58. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
November 6, 1979

Severe Economic Hardship


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Alexander
Allard
Andre
(Calgary Centre)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Atkey
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Baldwin
It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
sattie	.
(Hamilton Mountain)	At 10.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put,
(Weiiington-Dufferin-Simcoe) pursuant to Standing Order.

November 6, 1979


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See p.1014)
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0A2
November 6, 1979
Mr. Fabien Roy, M.P. Room 358 Centre Block House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A0A6
Dear Mr. Roy:
This is in response to your letter to me of November 5, expressing concerns about oil supply for the coming winter, particularly in the eastern part of our country.
When the government came to power, we found that the situation regarding oil supply and pricing was out of control. Necessary long-term measures to assure an adequate and secure supply of oil for Canadian consumers had not been taken. The country is now paying for the previous government's lack of foresight and as a result faces a period of probably growing import dependence. As you know, we are now working vigorously to reverse this situation and to put in place policies which will achieve national oil self-sufficiency by 1990.
The short-term situation as we found it last June was also far from satisfactory. Inventories had been seriously depleted and there was considerable uncertainty about the adequacy of gasoline supply for the summer and heating oil for the winter.
The government acted promptly to improve the situation and to secure equitable treatment for the independent sector of the business. Thus:
1.	With the co-operation of the government of Alberta and its agencies, production of crude oil in western Canada has been brought to maximum levels in recent months.
2.	Exports of our valuable light crude oil were reduced from 55,000 barrels a day in September to 14,000 barrels a day in October and virtually eliminated in November in order to make this oil available to Canadian refiners.
3.	With the government's approval, the National Energy Board has continued to allow the exchange of western Canadian oil for additional supplies of overseas oil to eastern Canada. The Energy Board recently approved exchanges
totalling some 2.5 million barrels, virtually all of which are for the account of refiners in the province of Quebec.
4.	The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has authorized the payment of special import compensation in the amount of $745,000 to enable a Quebec refiner to import a badly-needed cargo of crude oil despite an unexpected increase in its price.
5.	On July 13 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources released a report of an inquiry into problems which distributors, particularly in Quebec had faced last winter. The recommendations of the inquiry are being vigorously pursued.
6.	On August 15 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources telexed the refiners regarding the question of supply for the independent sector of the business. He referred to exchanges being used as a means to assure supply to the independents. You can assume that this was a consideration in the National Energy Board's decision to make exchange oil available to certain refiners under item 3 above.
7.	Full use has been made of the capacity of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited, the carrier of crude oil from western Canada, to deliver oil to Quebec.
8.	In response to a National Energy Board request, Interprovincial made certain changes to its regulations in October with a view to avoiding discrimination against companies which have no history of shipment through the pipeline. As a result of these changes, a group of Quebec heating oil distributors will receive about 450,000 barrels of crude oil directly from western Canada in the month of November for processing into the oil products they need.
9.	Finally, my staff have kept continuously in touch with officials of provincial governments, the oil refiners and independent distributors regarding oil supply. These consultations have contributed to a better understanding all round. The number of resellers facing supply problems has sharply diminished.
Should we be faced with a disruption of oil supply sufficient to cause a national emergency, then I can assure you that the government is prepared to use the powers available to it under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979, to conserve supplies and to provide for their equitable distribution.
In this connection, you may have noted that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated his intention to seek some administrative changes to the Energy Supplies
November 6, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Emergency Act and at the same time announce appointment of an Energy Supplies Allocation Board. Part of this board's duties under the act is to ensure that Canada is fully prepared to meet any petroleum supply emergency with well-prepared and timely plans for action. Emergency planning has been proceeding in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for some time and the level of this activity has been stepped up this year, with co-operation from private industry and the provinces.
While emergency planning is an essential and ongoing activity, I believe that the efforts of the private oil industry together with the government measures I have outlined will result in sufficient oil supplies being available for the coming winter. This assumes of course that there will be no major disruptions
in oil imports or in the operations of our own oil industry. In this general connection, I would draw your attention to the National Energy Board's statement of November 2 regarding short-term oil supplies, a copy of which is attached.
In conclusion, I can assure you that the government attaches the highest priority to the development of policies and programs which will assure oil supplies for Canadian consumers now and in the longer term. We are determined to overcome the oil supply problems left with us and the Canadian people by the previous government.
Yours sincerely, Joe Clark
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, November 7, 1979