1980-11-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Despite the dire and awesome warnings that 1 and my colleagues gave in this House on Tuesday last predicting that, unless the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) pulled up his socks and dumped his ill-advised, ill-considered and ill-conceived budget, interest rates would skyrocket, nothing has been done. In fact, the worst has happened. Yesterday the Canadian prime rate shot up by % of 1 per cent to its highest level since mid-May. In view of the vicious circle caused by the inept Liberal budgetary policy of high interest rates, economic slowdown and falling value of the Canadian dollar, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That the Minister of Finance be put on a diet of bread and water until he brings down the Canadian prime rate to at least 12 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


NORTHERN PIPELINES
[Stage Direction]
support of the project for fear of a repeat of the disastrous socio-economic side effects that were associated with the Alyeska project. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government use whatever means appropriate to the situation, firstly to assure the people of the Yukon and their government that their legitimate concerns with regard to the construction of the Alaska highway gas pipeline will be respected, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the pipeline agreement; and, secondly, to dispel any doubt the pipeline community may now have resulting from the statement of the Yukon government.
Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETROLEUM MONITORING AGENCY OWNERSHIP FORMULA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Petroleum Monitoring Agency yesterday released a Canadian owernship formula which, in mathematical form, is COR = rc F (R/B x S) a formu|a which, according to
the Ottawa Citizen, "appears likely to force the oil and gas industry to spend as much time in the next few months exploring its corporate and shareholder roots as it will be exploring for oil and gas fields", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):


ALYESKA PIPELINE-CONCERNS OF YUKONERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having regard to statements made recently by the leader of the Yukon government in connection with worker mobility rights which are to be included in the constitutional reform package. Such rights would seriously undermine the socioeconomic terms and conditions to which proponents of the Alaska highway gas pipeline have agreed, giving the Yukon some control over manpower planning and in-migration of transient workers. Mr. Pearson has threatened to withdraw his government's
That the minister of energy make a statement on motions as to why he abandoned his commitment in New York to a formula which would be "as simple as possible", and whether he was advised in developing this formula by his colleague the Minister of State for Economic Development since it appears to reflect that minister's one time adherence to the A + B theorem of Major Douglas.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 28, 1980


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the devastation of the Naples-Salerno earthquake has left thousands of Italians homeless and in dire need, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House direct the government to establish immediately an Italian refugee program so that homeless persons who do not have relatives in Canada and those whose relatives cannot afford to sponsor them may be able to come to Canada, and that the federal government cover the costs of transportation and care for one year as they did for the boat people.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas research and development has been allowed by the Liberal government to slip drastically over the past 12 years, and whereas the Liberal party showed its complete disregard for research and development in Canada by sending no members to the miscellaneous estimates committee yesterday, other than the chairman, to examine officials from the National Research Council, although the Progressive Conservative Party had six members in attendance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House urge the government to send members to committee meetings when the health of Canadian industry is being discussed.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The federal
budget of October 28 established a development fund for western Canada. Whereas the Yellowhead highway cannot keep up with population growth and the industrial development in the region it serves, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport immediately sit down with the ministers of transport of the four western provinces and negotiate a cost-sharing program designed to upgrade the Yellowhead highway to standards commensurate with the present and future requirements of that highway.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARTS AND CRAFTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standifig Order 43. I wish to recognize this government's recent initiative to sponsor the Canadian arts and crafts fair in Manhattan, New York City. All members of this House encourage Canadian artisans from all parts of Canada to display their excellent crafts throughout the world and before international buyers. However, despite the fact that this fair was well organized, well promoted and a real credit to the Canadian arts community, one glaring omission was made: not one artisan from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia was represented.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Needless to say, my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and I were extremely disappointed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House demands that when fairs titled "Canadian" are sponsored by this government, all parts of the country are represented and that efforts be made to demonstrate that Canada is more than simply Ontario and Quebec.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provision of Standing Order 43. In view of
November 28, 1980

warnings yesterday by officials of the government that, as a result of critically low world food stocks, a crop failure next year would hit food prices like OPEC hit oil prices in 1973, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a joint statement on motions at the earliest opportunity as to the impact such a scenario would have on the Canadian consumer and on our aid commitments overseas, specifying any contingency plans they may have developed to deal with such a crisis.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce a motion which I hope will have the support of all members of the House since it deals with travel arrangements for our ambassadors and heads of posts who represent our country abroad.
Since our ambassadors and heads of posts must travel on economy fare from Canada to their posts abroad, often involving long, exhausting flights, while members of Parliament have first-class travel privileges in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, to take the measures necessary to ensure that our Canadian ambassadors and heads of posts have the same travel privileges outside Canada as those awarded members of Parliament within Canada, as our diplomats and members of this House both represent, in our different ways, our country.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, 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. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance or, in his absence,
Oral Questions
the acting minister, who 1 think is the President of the Treasury Board. The Bank of Canada prime rate went up yesterday to 13.95 per cent. Canadian banks have raised their prime rates to 14.5 per cent. For small business this means a rate of 15.5 per cent or 16 per cent. I point out to the minister that Statistics Canada has reported that the capacity utilization rate in manufacturing fell in the July-September period to 78.5 per cent of capacity only, the lowest level in 18 years. These higher interest rates will stop a recovery in its tracks.
In view of these facts, will the government implement programs to help reduce the cost to potential home buyers, mortgage holders and home owners of these higher interest rates and help tenants with a shelter allowance program? Will the government also introduce an energy tax credit program or a similar program to help lower income Canadians meet these higher costs?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that this .89 per cent increase in the prime rate is not the highest ever recorded in Canada. He must remember very well that on October 25, 1979, the prime rate shot up by 1.75 per cent, that is from 12.25 to 14 per cent, in Canada. And the hon. member remembers who was then prime minister, also who was minister of finance. The hon. member referred to some difficulties in the industrial sector for a given quarter. All statistics are more or less significant in time. If the hon. member looks at the latest statistics, he will note, for example, that in the manufacturing sector profits have increased, that production is picking up. He should also know that during that period there were some rather important investments in that field and that such investment may have caused to some extent a slowdown in manufacturing output. However, as a whole the situation is not so bad and a recovery can be anticipated.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if this minister is going to attempt to answer questions, I wish he would try to answer them. The capacity utilization in the manufacturing industry is at its lowest level in 18 years. We are now in a recession. We are not in a similar position to last year and interest rates are going up. They are at the same high point now as they were when we were in office last fall. I would remind the minister that at that time the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said the following on behalf of his party on November 6:
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.
That was the attitude of his party last year. We are now asking the government to carry out their bold words of last year and to take action to help the millions of Canadians who are suffering as a result of this high interest rate policy at a time of recession. There was no recession last fall but we are in

November 28, 1980
5144__________________________________
Oral Questions
recession now; the minister has forecast a 1 per cent decrease in the gross national product this year. So if the minister is going to answer, let him tell us if he will take action to help these millions of Canadians.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is deliberately ignoring the action taken by this government to fight this recession. He has come out strongly against the budgetary deficit of this government. The primary purpose of the deficit supported by the government was to counter the expected recession. There is statistical evidence that we are progressively coming out of this recession and that the economy is on the way to recovery. The hon. member should recognize that the decision to accept a much larger budgetary deficit than we would have wished has helped the country to get out of this difficulty and contributed to an economic recovery whose effects are already being felt.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. The minister says we are moving out of the recession. Well, we are not going to move far because the high interest rates will stop that movement. With respect to the deficit, we had $3.6 billion less in deficit last fall and we introduced the energy tax credit and a mortgage interest and property tax credit to help Canadians. This government is introducing nothing but more costs to Canadians.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. It is a plea to the Prime Minister to take some interest. On October 30 of last year his finance critic proposed-
-a 14 per cent prime rate because ... it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, increases in the cost of living, it will bring the housing industry to a halt, it will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians, it will hurt small business and it will hurt farmers, and will add to the cost of food.
If that is what interest rates did last year, it is exactly what they are doing this year. Will the Prime Minister take some action now to help Canadians meet these increased costs, or was his finance critic last year just talking through his hat, giving us a lot of nonsense which he is not prepared to act on now that he is in government?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is once again raising the question of interest rates. Canada is often criticized for not following closely the interest rates in effect in the United States. I should like to point out to the hon. member the present gap between Canadian and American interest rates.
This gap has widened in the last few weeks, which may have very important side effects. This technique of adjusting each week the interest rates to the pressures exerted both on our currency and on the economy as a whole allows us to monitor more closely an interest rate better geared to the problems of
the Canadian economy. I firmly believe that the efforts made to fight inflation and bring about an economic recovery will enable us in the medium term to set more acceptable interest rates and will promote a healthy economy for the greater benefit of all Canadians.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. In view of the new rise in prime rates, most small businessmen will be hard pressed to continue operation; in fact, many of them will not survive. I think a look at the bankruptcy rate will confirm that. Will the minister consider extending the small business development bond cut-off date from March 31 to at least December 31, 1981, to help the small business community bridge this gap and thus ease the difficulty they will be in with rising interest rates?


Mr. Nielsen:: He will squirm out of that one too.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is the government's squirmer.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not recall the hon. member speaking so dramatically when his colleague for St. John's West raised the interest rates from 12.25 to 14 per cent on October 25, 1979. I would like to remind the hon. member that the fight against inflation and the fight to restore a sound economy is one which, as this government has always stated, must be fought by all sectors of the economy, namely, of course, farmers and small businesses, as well as all individuals and businessmen. Moreover, I would like to point out that as concerns the particular measure mentioned by the hon. member, the minister responsible for small businesses has been having regular discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who had already agreed to extend small business development bonds. I do not believe that decisions should be made in terms of one particular event, but rather that we should follow the normal course of the economic situation. In view of the signs of recovery that we now have, I am sure there will be no need to grant an extension for the bonds.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance-or should I say the minister in charge of government squirming. I should like to quote from page 1017 of Hansard for November 6, 1979 wherein the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the present Minister of Employment and Immigration, said:
-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.


Erik Nielsen: The chickens are coming home.
November 28, 1980


William James Kempling: I ask the minister to assist the small business community in view of the large number of people it employs. He knows, I know and everyone knows that the largest percentage of employment in the country is in the small business sector, which will be very severely hurt by these interest rate increases if they continue at this level. Will the minister consider reducing the income tax rate for small business to offset the interest rate charged by the banks?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, small businesses can already avail themselves of several programs which are administered by my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses. The hon. member mentioned one, the Small Business Development Bond program which allows extremely generous rates of interest on certain loans. Many provisions of the Income Tax Act are also of special benefit to small businesses. The fact, for instance, that the Minister of Finance agreed to keep indexation also means that small businesses can keep more money in their pockets come income tax return time.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On previous occasions I have raised with the Prime Minister the need for him to meet with Indian, Metis and Inuit leaders to discuss the current constitutional resolution now before Parliament. In my hand I have a copy of a letter dated November 17, 1980. It is a joint letter from the three leaders of the national organizations asking to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss this resolution. In spite of the government's haste to rush the resolution through Parliament, this letter has not been answered, nor have the requests of the native leaders to meet with the Prime Minister been granted.
Has the Prime Minister received the letter? Is he willing to meet in the near future, with the leaders of the Indian, Metis and Inuit peoples to work out acceptable amendments to the constitutional resolution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the proposed constitution is being discussed by a joint committee of this House and the other place. I am informed that ten days ago members of that committee agreed to meet with the Indian representatives. As far as our members on that committee are concerned, they are prepared to meet with the representatives as early as Monday morning, afternoon or evening. I understand there are negotiations going on as to whether that date will be kept; I do not know if it will be, as it is in the hands of the committee.
Oral Questions
Our members are prepared to meet them Monday morning, as 1 have indicated.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the leaders of these organizations would very much like to meet with the Prime Minister to find out what kind of amendments would be acceptable to him and his government before they appear before the committee. The Prime Minister has stated that, if language rights are not entrenched now they never will be because of the difficulty of getting the provinces to agree to them. He has told native leaders it will be easier for them to get their rights after the constitution is entrenched and patriated than before. Why does the Prime Minister have a double standard with respect to this matter? Does he think native rights are not as important as language rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows, as *I have said before in the House a few times, that I did meet with the Indian chiefs and elders. In that meeting a few months ago I spoke to them at great length about our position on the constitution and our desire to meet with them and to discuss with them any constitutional matters in which they are directly involved. Since I made that speech meetings have taken place with both officials and the minister responsible for Indian affairs. The matter is now before a committee of this House. Surely that is the place for the Indians, like other groups in this country, to present their views and to seek amendments. I am relying upon the members of that committee to see if these amendments can be accepted with some consensus among all parties and, hopefully, many of the provinces as well. I must await the report of the committee in order to see their views on that.
I think the hon. member is misstating the case in so far as the comparison between language rights and native rights is concerned. Language rights have been agreed to by the ten provinces in meetings they had in St. Andrews in 1977 and in Montreal in 1978. A clear policy on minority language rights and the field of education was announced, and it is that policy which we are putting into the constitution.
Such is not the case with native rights. There are some very general requests to entrench aboriginal rights, but as I said in this House just a few days ago, aboriginal rights are undefined. Nor is it defined as to whom these rights would apply- to how many groups of Indians or aboriginal peoples, to what extent the rights would apply to the Metis, and what is an Indian, a half Indian or a three-quarter Indian.
The House of Commons, Parliament and the joint committee will have to look into these questions, and when the native requests are very clearly put and the content is known, then it will be up to the House to take the responsibility to determine whether or not there should be an entrenchment at that time.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he met earlier in the year with native leaders, but the result of that meeting is that there were absolutely no guarantees of their rights given whatsoever. The Prime Minister

November 28, 1980
Oral Questions
always comes back to the difficulties involved in entrenching aboriginal rights. We recognize that there are difficulties, but surely, because of those difficulties, it is important for the Prime Minister himself to meet with those leaders. Since the Calder case, even the Prime Minister must recognize that there are such rights. Why will the Prime Minister not sit down with the leaders of aboriginal peoples and find some acceptable way of recognizing these rights and of negotiating them in the future so that they will be protected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes much of my sitting down with the native leaders. I would have him know that I have sat down many times over the past years with the native leaders and that we have discussed this question again and again. 1 have no objection to a further meeting with them. I have indicated in this House that I would be prepared to do so again at some appropriate time in the coming months.
But surely the hon. member recognizes that it is not enough to say that he is for aboriginal rights. I am sure that if I asked him what consequences the insertion of those two words in the constitution would have, he would be absolutely incapable of answering exactly to whom they would apply in Canada and exactly what they entail. That is the situation.


ARRIVAL IN OTTAWA OF &quot;CONSTITUTION TRAIN&quot;-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH INDIAN LEADERS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a short supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Would he be a little more specific with regard to the "constitutional train", which is arriving in Ottawa this afternoon, its passengers having travelled 3,000 miles to meet with the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared over the weekend or next week to sit down and meet with the leaders of the Indian nations who have come to Ottawa to discuss the future, not only of themselves, but of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the native people have not come here to meet with any particular people. I believe they would like to meet with as many members of Parliament as possible, and certainly I hope they will. But the committee which is studying this question was created by this House and by the Senate, so I think it is important that they meet with the committee. If after that meeting it appears that my great skills can help in some way to solve the problem, then I would be happy to meet with the native people. But I do not believe in creating expectations that a meeting which is not more better defined than it is in the questions that I have heard would be productive.
I wish the Indians would put their case, that it would be known and could be examined by the representatives of all parties on that committee, so that a report could be produced. Then the hon. members opposite would have to do more than just ask questions; they would have to make up their minds on the matter.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OF SRI LANKA
Madam Speaker:: At this point I would like the House to recognize the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Gamani Dissanayake, the Minister of Land and Development of Sri Lanka.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the minister of state for propaganda and multiculturalism, I would like to put my question to the Acting Minister of Justice. It arises out of a series of documents I have here which are marked "secret" and which were prepared by the Canadian Unity Information Office earlier this year in support of their request for an additional $28.9 million, including a massive $14.25 million publicity campaign in support of the government's constitutional plans.
In view of the number of unexplained figures presently in Supplementary Estimates (B), many of which coincide with figures in this document prepared by the CUIO, would the Acting Minister of Justice or any other minister explain or table in this House the detailed breakdown of these figures, including a description of how much of that money has already been spent by the CUIO and how the government intends to use the remainder of the funds?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious to the hon. member that I have no knowledge at all of these documents. I will look into them and bring them to the attention of the minister so that he can answer the question. I would appreciate receiving copies of the documents from the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE DISCONTINUED
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I will certainly make the documents available to anybody who requests them. My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. It is with regard to advertising. In view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians, like myself, came to Canada to escape governments which spent vast amounts of money to manipulate the opinions of their citizens, and because the Prime Minister's own government at the present time is asking to increase the budget of the Canadian Unity Information Office by 170 per cent, regardless of the excuses his ministers have continued to make to justify constitutional and other government advertising, would the Prime Minister assure the House and Canadians that he will put a stop to the government's growing practice of spending millions of dollars of the
November 28, 1980

taxpayers' money on propaganda campaigns? I wish the government would quit telling the people what to think with the people's own money.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have seen publications by practically every province, including the province in which the hon. member has chosen to live, financed at the taxpayers' expense, which indicate policies, the advantages and the glory of living in any particular province. I have seen ads on television about how beautiful it is to be in Ontario and so on. I do not believe there is anything wrong with governments indicating to Canadians that they have good cause to be proud of the country in which they live.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister, who has said that his government is committed to the concept of freedom of information. In view of the fact that the documents released today by the hon. member for Halton include an allocation of $1.4 million for research on the constitution, including $900,000 for public opinion surveys of the public's reaction to the constitution, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to instruct the Minister of Justice, for whom these polls were prepared at the taxpayers' expense, to stop suppressing those polls and to make them available to Parliament and Canadians so that, at a time when this Parliament is being called upon to assess the constitutional direction which this country should be taking in the future, they will have access to the results of those $900,000 worth of public opinion surveys paid for by the taxpayers of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry but I missed the hon. member's question. 1 am not quite sure to what document he is referring, but he did mention, I believe, some $1.4 million being spent on research on the constitution. I believe that is the amount which the government allotted to the various Indian groups in Canada so that they may conduct research on the constitution. I see nothing wrong with the Government of Canada also spending an equivalent amount of money.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the House will recognize that the Prime Minister avoided answering my question, which was very simple. Would the Prime Minister, in the spirit of information, order the release of three public opinion surveys and the following trace surveys on the constitution which were completed at a cost of $900,000 of the taxpayers' money? Those documents are currently being suppressed by the government. How can the Prime Minister conceivably justify to the Canadian people the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to manipulate public opinion to try to draw
Oral Questions
support for the government's propaganda for its constitutional initiatives, when at the very same time he refuses to release information relating to public opinion surveys of public response to his constitutional initiatives, paid for by taxpayers' money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I remember hearing the Minister of Justice indicating in this House that he had released that particular day results of some 120 or 130 surveys. He did say that a small number, perhaps three, had not been released. I do not know which three but I will be happy to see if those three cannot be released very soon.


Mr. Hees:: Three important ones.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Three important ones? I imagine they were all important, Madam Speaker. I wish the hon. member for Northumberland would spend a little more time reading the 133 which have been released, because he would get a lot of good information on which he could base questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We want the three with the real information.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the purchasing power of Canadians has been dramatically reduced in the past year, in fact to the extent that Canadians now have in comparative terms $244 less a year to spend than they had a year ago? As a result of this, there has been a reduction in the industrial capacity figures to the point where they are at the lowest they have been in 18 years. Bankruptcies are up 20 per cent. People cannot find their way to meet mortgage payments or renew mortgages. Will there be a time when we in this House are going to be able to deal with the problems confronting tens of thousands of Canadians all across this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think I indicated in the House a few days ago that it is obvious, with the vast transfer of spending power resources which Canadians are now embarked upon in order to purchase petroleum abroad under OPEC prices, that the rate of growth of the Canadian economy, of the purchasing power, and so on, is not as great as it used to be. The House knows that we have before us now a budget and an energy policy which will increase the price of petroleum, but it is an increase considerably less than that requested by the producing provinces.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is untrue. It is completely untrue. It is unfounded. In fact, I could go further, but it would be unparliamentary.

November 28, 1980
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West does not have the floor just now.


John Carnell Crosbie: I wish I had.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this is a novel interjection because the hon. member for St. John's West said that the prices for petroleum that we are bringing down in our energy policy are not less than those requested by the producing provinces. This is complete news to me. I am sure it would be news to the Premier of Alberta that we are proposing prices with which he now agrees. The hon. member for St. John's West has made a complete untruth with that interjection which, as usual, had nothing to do with reality.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get the sand out of your head.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I will read Hansard to see if my question was answered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Recognizing that consumer purchasing power has decreased, that the manufacturing sector is on the decline, that unemployment is rising, that there are fewer people who can go into the stores and buy the products which we must manufacture, and that interest rates have contributed significantly to the problem which confronts us in Canada today, is it not realistic to think that perhaps we in the House of Commons and the government should reassume the political responsibility for the setting of interest rates, and that we should establish an interest rate in Canada which is made in Canada, as was promised by the Liberal party during the last election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the premise of the question is fallacious.


Ian Deans: It is not, and you are out of touch.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says it is not and that 1 am out of touch.


Ian Deans: Try living on it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard him say that the manufacturing sector is on the decline.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have here an indication that real output in manufacturing, as measured by real domestic product, increased sharply in December, 1980, a 2.2 per cent advance-


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not there yet. That is next month.


George Harris Hees: That is November.


Mr. Paproski:: It is November 28, and it is Friday.


An hon. Member:: This is Canada, Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have the figures here for the third quarter which ended September, 1980. If the hon. member or the howling members opposite have the figures for the fourth quarter, I would be very happy to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION-MINOR HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport. It is my understanding since the last exchange we had in this chamber that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, Murray Costello and company, has reconsidered its decision with regard to Father Athole Murray's Notre Dame College in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, in connection with its hockey program. Is this true or false, or does the minister have something to add to that?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. There has been no specific announcement by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association in relation to Father Athole Murray's Notre Dame College at Wilcox, Saskatchewan. However, an announcement was made in Halifax by Brian Wakeland, the national president of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association for minor hockey, that this year's Air Canada Cup for Canada's minor hockey championship would be played on the basis of last year's rules.
This answer was given in response to some complaints and problems which were affecting other areas besides Notre Dame and indicated that all teams eligible to participate last year, including Notre Dame, would be eligible to participate this year. This is very encouraging news. If the hon. member's question and my response elicits a clarification from the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, that would be very pleasing; but it is apparent on the basis of the official statement in Halifax that all teams which participated last year, including Notre Dame, will be eligible. If that is accurate, 1 want to thank the hon. member, members from all three parties who made representations on behalf of Notre Dame's cause and the thousands of Canadians who wrote to me on the subject.
November 28, 1980


LOTTERIES
Steve Eugene Paproski: My short supplementary, Madam Speaker, is directed to the same minister. Will the minister advise the House whether he is using the interest on the unclaimed loto funds for amateur hockey and football scholarships for those worthy students who require money? The money is sitting there; what is the minister doing with the $750,000 interest accumulated on the unclaimed Loto Canada funds?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I have some difficulty determining how that question is supplementary to the original question. However, I want to assure the hon. member that we are continuing to improve and to expand the grants in aid to students who have achieved excellence, not only in the Olympics, but now also in nonOlympic sports in the country. We have not specifically applied any particular source of funds, because the unclaimed lottery funds, from the days when we used to have that wonderful organization known as Loto Canada, are being held against the possible outcome of some lawsuits which were undertaken by people who felt the Conservative government's withdrawal from Loto Canada did them a legal injustice.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What did that have to do with my question?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the previous Liberal government took initiatives to establish the Canadian Agricultural Export Council under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, only to be disregarded by the previous government-I repeat, Madam Speaker, only to be disregarded by the previous government-will the minister update this House on the progress of CANA-GREX, its structure and method of financing?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, CANAGREX, the Canadian Agricultural Export Council, is under very serious discussion. Preliminary drafting of the legislation is proceeding. I hope we will have something in the not too distant future to report to the House.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment
Oral Questions
and Immigration. Recently a veterinarian in British Columbia signed as guarantor on a passport application form and it was returned as unacceptable by the department. The reason they gave was that they do not recognize veterinarians as a profession. I am a veterinarian and I find that very offensive. If you look at the document, Madam Speaker, you see that school teachers, postmasters, lawyers, dentists and others can sign these applications. Will the minister do something about this and recognize that these people are professionals? They are the James Herriots of Canada, for heaven's sake.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, passports come under my responsibility. The guarantor section of the passport application form is not meant to be a stamp of government approval of various professions in Canada; it is related only to serving the needs of the public. We believe we have provided for a sufficiently large number of classes of guarantors so that all of the public is adequately served.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I find that answer unacceptable. The answer that came from the department was that they do not recognize that profession as a profession. That is just unacceptable. I therefore ask the minister to have a look at that.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do not know what may have been said to the hon. member, but I can tell him it is not our duty to pass on various professions. It is our duty merely to ensure that the people have a wide selection of possibilities for passport guarantors.


RAILWAYS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to a news broadcast this morning by the CBC at Whitehorse, the president of the White Pass and Yukon Route Corporation, Mr. Tom King, has called a meeting of all railway employees and their wives for tomorrow morning in the Travel Lodge in Whitehorse to discuss closure of the White Pass railway. Has the minister been informed of such a meeting? I know that he is in the middle of negotiations which have been going on for some time now, negotiations commenced by the previous government. When is the minister going to exercise some leadership and initiative in coming to a solution to the very critical problem facing the railway so that it will continue its operation and provide the only link to tide water that the Yukon has?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing two issues. As I understand it, the meeting taking place there is relative to a labour dispute that, hopefully, is in the process of being settled. The question

November 28, 1980
Oral Questions
whether a commissioner will be appointed should more properly be directed to the Minister of Labour. 1 understand that is the essence of that particular meeting.
If the hon. member is referring to what we are going to do with respect to White Pass in terms of the very sizeable capital investment which will be required to keep the railway in fit shape, I had detailed discussions on that matter with Mr. Pearson and the Yukon government in the last couple of days. He is aware of the situation, namely, that we have had our offer on the table for some time and so has the Yukon government, and jointly have committed ourselves. We are waiting for some word from Alaska, which as the hon. member knows has a great interest in this matter and some vested interest as well. Many Americans are employees of that railway. The indication is that they would be prepared to make an investment also, but nothing definite has evolved. We hope that, because of a change in the political situation there in the last few weeks, they will now give their attention to the matter and indicate whether they are prepared to participate in this capital infusion along with ourselves and the Yukon government. As the hon. member well knows, we are looking for Cyprus-Anvil to have some input as well. I hope the whole thing will come together in the next month or six weeks.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary. My information, of which I do not vouch for the accuracy, is that the meeting called for tomorrow morning includes the wives of the railway employees. I wonder if the minister's information is the same, because it appears rather odd to me that the wives would be invited to a meeting to settle a labour dispute. We will all rest easier, of course, if the minister can assure us that the railway will not be closed and that he expects to find a solution very shortly to the real problems confronting the railway.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the railway is functioning; what is needed are improvements. Certainly that is our intent. It is essential to the Yukon that it continue to function and that it have this enrichment we are talking about. There may be concern expressed at this meeting with respect to the future of White Pass, but I think the labour dispute is of some considerable concern. I was happy to note, and I hope it is accurate, that Cyprus itself has indicated some willingness to afford employment opportunities to those who may be laid off. Naturally, I hope that will not be necessary.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications in his responsibilities for reporting to the House on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since Radio-Canada journalists have been without a contract for almost a year now, have been on strike since October 30, a strike incidentally
supported by politicians of the three major parties in that province, and since the CBC has declined even to meet with the union since the strike started, does the minister intend to use his good offices to get the parties together again to settle this issue which has been depriving Francophones of news and public affairs programs since the strike began?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question concerning the present strike by Radio-Canada reporters. The hon. member wishes to know when negotiations might resume. I am pleased to advise him that CBC management spokesmen have informed me this morning of their intention to meet today with union members to determine whether negotiations might resume with a view to achieving a new collective agreement.


Mark Willson Rose: May I ask the minister if he has any more information about the meeting and whether the CBC is ready to depart from its Bob Cratchit offer of 7 per cent and I'h per cent-


Mr. Knowles:: Scrooge.


Mark Willson Rose: Is it Scrooge? 1 am sorry. It is the journalists who are the Bob Cratchits! Seven per cent and IVi per cent over a two-year contract fails even to keep up with inflation. In addition, is the CBC prepared to discuss or negotiate improving working conditions and hours of work for those journalists, not only in the province of Quebec but for CBC journalists and other workers throughout Canada?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, of course, it is CBC management which must take part in the negotiations aimed at a new collective agreement. I am informed by management that the initial position was based on the conciliation committee report which the union rejected. Nevertheless, Radio-Canada is prepared to sit down with the union in order to come to an agreement as quickly as possible.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question deals with what I consider important reports which, in the opinion of many of us, have been gathering dust. I refer to the Lambert commission report and D'Avignon report. My question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is his department considering or contemplating legislation to control, force accountability and direct these Crown corporations to give us annual reports on how they manage public funds? If so, what stage has the consider-
November 28, 1980

ation of this legislation reached as of today and are there any obstacles at this time that he can foresee? Would the minister inform the public as to why we should not have legislation controlling these Crown corporations?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, let me advise the House first of all that these reports are certainly not gathering dust. In fact, very substantial progress has been and will be made in bringing forward a co-ordinated response to the Lambert and D'Avignon reports.
With respect to Crown corporations per se, I know this House has great interest in the subject and a bill was previously tabled. We have received many constructive criticisms of that bill. 1 know there is considerable interest on all sides of the House; I recently read a speech by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe on the subject. I would like to assure hon. members that I will be bringing forward proposals with respect to Crown corporation legislation to my colleagues in the very near future, and by that I mean within a matter of days.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 want to ask him about the "Dear friend" letter which he sent out recently together with a questionnaire entitled "Study No. T.0061". In his letter the minister implies that he is seeking the views of opinion leaders across Canada. A first step in this campaign is "to enhance the awareness of Canadians to the needs of the Third World".
How many of these questionnaires did the minister send out? Did they go to all parts of Canada, and how were the recipients selected? Perhaps the minister can tell us if it is a substitute for the government's costly advertising campaign which has been going on recently.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in order to lay the groundwork for a campaign of public information, some months ago 1 decided to have a large-scale oral survey of Canadian public opinion to enable the campaign to be better planned. That survey has been completed, and shortly I will be releasing the results to the public and, of course, to this House.
The questionnaire to which the hon. member refers is the same questionnaire which was also sent to a representative selection of public opinion leaders across Canada. It was a supplement to the more scientifically conducted questionnaire, and the results of that will also be available to the public in the long run.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, the minister obviously has more faith in the Post Office than some of us. The question-
Oral Questions
naire was mailed on November 6 requesting a return by November 12. Can the minister tell us how many he has received back and when he might be releasing the results to the House?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the primary survey is the scientifically conducted one, the results of which will be released within a week or two. The other one, the supplementary one to which the hon. member is referring, that of opinion leaders, will depend upon when we feel a sufficiently representative number has been returned.


INDIAN ACT
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Reading from a prepared text, in his speech to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 18 the minister stated, and I quote:
I agreed last summer to suspend sections of the Indian Act which discriminated against Indian women, when asked to do so by band councils.
Is the minister saying that he is prepared to allow sex discrimination and make third-class citizens of Indian women solely at the whim of a band council?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I think the implication of that question is rather insulting to chiefs of band councils across Canada, because the essence of the action I took was simply-and this is in line with our commitment and, I understand, the position of the opposition too-the promotion of a great deal more self-government by Indians across this country.
In essence, it is saying that if the chief and band council wish me-and they give me a BCR-to use my powers under section 4 of the Indian Act to set aside the alleged discrimination in section 12 with respect to an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian man, I will do so on receipt of that BCR. It is the government's way of saying to Indians that with respect to this particular problem they can make the decision. Once they make the decision, we will adhere to a decision they themselves make and give them an opportunity to settle this question without having non-Indians settle it for them.


Robert Lorne McCuish: Madam Speaker, the minister is saying that he has in fact condoned negative action by a band council. I wonder if he would relate the position to his home town of Hamilton. If the mayor and council of that city decided that the women in Hamilton no longer should have the right to own land or to vote, would he concur with the action and support that mayor and council? If not, by what rationale can he hold the rights and privileges of women in Hamilton above those in Grassy Plains?

November 28, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that the government should move in and tell the Indian people how they should cope with the situation themselves at the same time as we are talking in the context of self-government, I think that is contrary to the position not only the official opposition and many others have taken but also the position of the Canadian government. In any event, it has been stated by the Prime Minister and I in the past that, with respect to certain anti-discriminatory provisions of the patriation resolution, within three years this will have application to do away with the type of discrimination about which the hon. member is talking. However, surely it is not unreasonable in the meantime without interference from non-Indians to allow the Indian people themselves to cope with this particular problem.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of answers to questions given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on Monday last. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter. I regret that the Minister of Transport is not in the House at the present time.
My point of order has to do with answers which were given in connection with questions having to do with funds which were committed by our administration for the purpose of urban transportation improvements in the province of Ontario. This exchange can be found at page 4981 of Hansard.
In his customary flippant and superficial manner the minister attempted to discredit the genuine commitment and undertaking which were made by our government at that time. Moreover, in my view, either advertently or inadvertently, the minister imputed motives which I believe are unfair to me but, more particularly, I believe could cast a reflection upon the minister of transportation and communications of the province of Ontario. I simply wish to correct the misunderstanding for the benefit of the minister and, indeed, for the House.
As 1 am sure the minister is aware, the question of urban transportation and improvement of the urban transportation system in Toronto has been the subject of a tremendous amount of discussion, debate, and exchange of correspondence. I believe it goes back to 1976. There was an extensive exchange of correspondence, telephone calls and discussions. Indeed, this intensified during our tenure of office, particularly during the latter part of 1979 and the early part of 1980, and culminated in an exchange of documents which constituted agreement in principle.
The agreement was to provide for additional funding in the amount of $10 million for the fiscal year 1979-80 and the next two fiscal years, the sum of which would amount to $30 million in total. A letter was directed to me from Mr. Snow
outlining the request. I subsequently directed a telex to Mr. Snow which concurred and provided approval of the additional funding in the amount of $10 million in the current fiscal year and an additional $10 million for improvements to the Toronto Union Station and the Bathurst railway corridor.
This was also followed by a press release which was issued by the minister of transport and communications of the province of Ontario, and it was very clear, in the exchange of correspondence and in the documentation, that these were funds in addition to the existing program. The Minister of Transport should also note, if he is not aware of it, that each year-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am correcting the record, or the implication-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, members across the way suggest I am wasting the time of the House. It is my integrity and the integrity of the minister of transport and communications of the province of Ontario which are at stake. I believe they are worthy of preserving, and I simply want to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that the hon. member on the other side was reminding the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that he was entering into debate, which I think he was doing in exposing this point of order. I would further remind him that if he feels the minister has imputed motives to him, he can perhaps discuss that, but the fact that the minister might have imputed motives to someone else who is not in the House should not be brought out in the manner in which the hon. member is doing it now. I would ask the hon. member to restrict himself to the point of order he wants to raise concerning himself, and not other people who are not in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I want to make is that the minister has suggested that the undertaking was simply the shake of a hand, that there was no Treasury Board submission, and that it was, in effect, improper for me to have done what I did. I should indicate to the House and for the benefit of the minister that he should know that every year there were lapsed funds in the UTAP. Last year was no exception, and I am sure that this year is no exception. If he were to check that out, clearly he would find that to be a fact. He also suggested that there was no Treasury Board submission. The fact of the matter is that he should know that Treasury Board approval is not required for the utilization of lapsed funds in the case of the fiscal year 1979-80, provided that the proposal complies with the terms set out governing the program. So clearly the funding was in order, appropriate, quite proper and correct.

November 28, 1980

1 am satisfied that the funding for the next two years, which would have required Treasury Board approval, would and should have been honoured. So, Madam Speaker, the commitment was more than simply a handshake or a partisan gesture, as the minister said, on the eve of an election. It was a genuine, well-discussed and well-thought-out-proposal that was to be honoured and should be honoured, and 1 hope and trust that the Minister of Transport will change his mind and look at the file-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is very hard for me to see whether or not that point of order is well founded and I would have to check the record. Since the minister is not present in the House at this time, we will leave that point of order in abeyance and see whether the minister wishes to reply to it at another time.
1 have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the last day or so a copy of a telex has found its way to my office. The telex, addressed to the attention of all directors, was issued on July 25 of 1980. Its contents read as follows:
The NDP is forwarding you a questionnaire on plant breeders' rights. I suggest that you and your scientists do not reply.
It is signed by A. A. Guitard who, I understand, is the research director for western Canada. All of this is under the Department of Agriculture.
1 have realized for a long time that plant breeders' proposals are controversial and that there are strong feelings in all sectors of agriculture and within the agricultural community, including research people, in connection with that issue. 1 also understand the difficulties faced by plant breeders, a great many of them being civil servants who are unable to speak out. I realize that they have strong opinions, as they should, because the outcome will affect the kind of job they are doing. At the same time I am very cognizant of the fact that they are in that position, and for that reason no such questionnaire was ever considered, prepared, or issued. The closest thing to that type of questionnaire we have ever undertaken is a question which I put to my constituents on the back of my Householder which I will be sending out next Monday on what they think of plant breeders' rights. I ask them to respond either for or against them.
The matter which I raise as a question of privilege today is with regard to the wording of the telex which specifies that a questionnaire is being forwarded by the NDP. This is not a request by management alerting people to the fact that we might or might not be submitting a questionnaire, or mentioning that possibility. It states specifically that the NDP "is
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
forwarding" such a questionnaire. This leaves the implication that this is the case, which it is not. It puts all of us in a rather strange position.
Here we have a directive from a research scientist, which Mr. Guitard is, a man accustomed to dealing with hard facts. Either he has forgotten his lifelong training, which I doubt, or he has been fed some facts which turn out not to be facts, or has been fed information which he believes to be factual. Again this implies that either some untruthful information is being disseminated in the department about myself or my party, or that such information is being gathered and provided, which, in either case, does not make me feel any more happy about it.
Because this directive indicates anticipated actions which we have not taken, and states that a certain event will take place, it presents what history has proven to be an untruth or, to use a more parliamentary term, inaccurate information. I think we have a question of privilege before us and I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider all the facts and to give them your attention.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me, first of all, that the hon. member is referring to a telex which dates back to July 25, 1980. I understand from the hon. member's intervention that the telex was announcing something that was going to happen later, and therefore the hon. member probably waited to see whether that action would in fact take place. I would remind the hon. member that questions of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
However, that is not the substance of his question of privilege. I do not find a question of privilege in the point raised by the hon. member. He has probably a grievance. He is complaining about improper information being sent to someone. Also, the hon. member himself is not personally implicated, and the reference is rather to the NDP party, so the privileges of the hon. member have not been directly breached by this action, it seems to me. At any rate, the privileges of members do not extend outside of the House, so I really feel that the hon. member has only a grievance. We have heard it now, and I do not see a question of privilege in his point.


MR. WADDELL-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. ANDRE
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, last night when the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was speaking in the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act, as reported at page 5121 of Hansard he had the following to say:
The New Democratic Party energy critic, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), was bordering on McCarthyism in some of his remarks which were directed at the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was in the House last evening and 1 heard the exchange which took place in the debate to which

November 28, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
the hon. member refers. It involved not only the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) who is not here today, but also the reputation and the standing of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).
I respect the right of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) to rise on a question of privilege, even though he may be wrong on both counts with respect to both members. But I think it would be adding discourtesy upon discourtesy if the member were allowed to proceed in the absence of the members who were involved by name last night in those remarks. I think it might be appropriate if we allowed the matter to rest until they are here.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is free to rise at this time on what he considers to be a question of privilege but perhaps is a point of order. I am confused as to what the hon. member is really raising because he called it a point of privilege. I am confused as to whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order. At any rate, the hon. member has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Does the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) want to extend that courtesy and delay his point of order or question of privilege until a time when these members will be present in the House?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, at page 5125 of Hansard, I am reported as saying the following:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to give the Chair and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) notice that I wish to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege in this House after 1 have read in Hansard the reference in the hon. member's speech to McCarthy and other remarks with reference to me.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just let me finish my point. I do not think the member need rise. 1 am prepared to extend-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I will defer it because I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) say something that the Chair probably did not hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have said that I gave notice last night.


Walter David Baker: Yes, that is correct.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is correct that the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) are not in their places today. The third person who is involved in this question of privilege-and it has been raised all week in the House of Commons; it is a very important point with respect to western separatism-is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Yellowhead, who has been asked on numerous occasions to reply in the debate-we have had a six-day debate-on my charges with respect to his position on western Canada.


Erik Nielsen: He is not here today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is not here today either. In the interests of getting this matter properly aired, I will reserve my right to raise the matter. I intend to bring it up on Monday. I will tell the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that right now, and I hope he will have the three members here in the House to reply.


Walter David Baker: Just so that it is clear, certainly I will advise the hon. members, but I make no guarantee to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway with respect to the attendance of members.


Mr. Ouellet:: Where is he?


Mr. Evans:: Where is the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)?


Walter David Baker: They are likely in their ridings. It may have escaped the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) that the hon. member for Capilano represents a seat in British Columbia and that the hon. member for Calgary Centre represents a seat in Alberta. It takes a little time for them to get to their constituencies. The Postmaster General and I are quite fortunate in that regard.


An hon. Member:: It takes longer to go by private rail car.


Walter David Baker: We can get to our constituents very easily. I want to make it clear that certainly I will inform the hon. members with respect to the matters raised. I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for his marvellous display of courtesy.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, when the question of privilege of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is being considered, when he sees fit to bring it up, it should be noticed and realized that only the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is mentioned in his notice of a question of privilege. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), and myself are not mentioned.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They will be.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I would not want the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to think that he could include all members when he has only reserved the right to raise a question of privilege concerning one member.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I take note of the remarks of the opposition House leader. I sympathize with these members from British Columbia and Alberta.


Erik Nielsen: You think they have problems!


André Ouellet: I realize that they have to go back to their ridings every weekend and sometimes leave on Thursday night. This brings me to wonder why the opposition has not yet accepted the very keen proposition of my government House leader to have only four sitting days each week.
November 28, 1980


Mr. Siddon:: Because the House should work.


André Ouellet: I hope this will be considered seriously and that we will get on with the long overdue amendment to our working schedule in Parliament.


Walter David Baker: 1 will leave that one alone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order, but now that I am on my feet, perhaps I should reject the suggestion that we should work any shorter a week than we are now working.


André Ouellet: Now we know who blocks reforms here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A three-day work week would be an even greater reform-is that what you want?


André Ouellet: There is no reason why we cannot work longer hours on three or four days.


Madam Speaker:: 1 thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was rising on a different question of privilege which I should like to hear, if possible.


POINTS OF ORDER
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should call it a point of order to save Your Honour having to rule on it. During motions under Standing Order 43 today, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) moved one in which she referred to the fact that members of Parliament have the right to do their air travelling in Canada first class.
I should like to make the point, although the member did not say that all our travel is first class, that there was an implication there which 1 think should be corrected. Many of us-perhaps most of us-do our air travelling in Canada economy class, and I think that should be on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. EVANS-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. BEATTY
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order of which I gave notice on November 26, 1980. I refer to page 5092 of Hansard and a question of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) during question period to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In the question the member indicated clearly that the testimony of Mr. Justice Clyne of Vancouver before the constitutional committee indicated that the proposed actions of the government with regard to the constitution were, in his opinion, unconstitutional. I should like to have that matter reviewed, because I listened to the testimony and that is not
Committee Report
what he said. In fact, he said they were constitutional in his opinion.


Walter David Baker: That is not a point of order. It is something which occurred during committee proceedings.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, the hon. member should know that he should not refer to proceedings of committees in the House. However, I have listened to his point of order and I will just leave it at that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s
Second report of the special committee on Employment Opportunities'for the '80s-Mr. Allmand.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
['1.\tWhat advertising agencies were engaged to perform services in connection with the constitutional advertising campaign launched by the government this summer and what amount was paid to each?\n2.\tWere tenders called for the contracts and were they advertised in the press and, if not, for what reason?\nPetroleum Administration Act Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister of State for Social Development): For\nCanadian Unity Information Office:\n1. Planicom Inc.\t$ 900,000\nLe Groupe de Communicateurs Unis\t700,000\ndu Canada\nMacLaren Advertising Ltd.\t1,300,000\nThe Jerry Goodis Agency Inc.\t1,300,000\nVickers & Benson Ltd.\t300,000\nWest-Can Communications Ltd.\t400,000\n2. Contracts were not awarded through tender. Submissions were asked from major advertising agencies and as is the normal commercial practice, selections were made on the basis of the best creative and media presentation.']
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am the vice-chairman of the committee and I would like to bring to the attention of the House that I have not yet seen the report which has just been tabled.
I understand from question period that the committee was dictated to by the government House leader. I would need some time to prepare a question of privilege adequately on the report. Therefore I would request Your Honour's indulgence to allow me time to review the record and look at the report.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to the same matter. Notice of the meeting to prepare the report referred to was given to all members on the committee, including the hon. member opposite. He was telephoned and he knew when the meeting was to take place. The reason he did not see the report is that he did not attend the meeting. He was told. I discussed the content of the report with him on several occasions. I did so a few minutes ago in the House. At that time he did not mention the point he has just raised to me.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition claims that I gave instructions with regard to the preparation of the report that was just tabled. I want it to be clear once and for all that that is absolutely false. What the hon. member has just said is absolutely untrue. It may be wishful thinking on his part, but I can assure him it is not the case. I gave no instructions whatsoever to that committee. The committee in question is a parliamentary task force which is to report on December 19. I understand this report is a preliminary report,

November 28, 1980
Committee Report
and I had nothing at all to do with its preparation. I trust the hon. member will have the courage to withdraw his accusation which 1 take as a serious personal insult if not a direct accusation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I am at a disadvantage because I did not attend the meeting. 1 have seen the reports of the meeting and I attended previous meetings. 1 think there is a great deal of testimony from members of the committee which would indicate that procedures in that committee and the substance of this report are, in effect, being dictated by the government House leader. I would like the opportunity to examine the record and come back to the House on my question of privilege to put the evidence before the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to emphasize that the hon. member does not seem to have the courage to withdraw the completely unwarranted and unfounded accusation he has just made and that he is trying to hide behind the examination of 1 do not know what notes or the cross-examination of I do not know what hon. member. I insist that he should withdraw this false accusation, without any basis in fact, which he has just repeated by saying that I contributed directly or indirectly to the preparation of the report which has just been tabled. I categorically deny this accusation. I am certain that my word is at least as good as his and I am asking him to believe me and to withdraw the unfair accusation that he has made.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could suggest a way out of this difficulty. I suggest to the hon. member who raised the question, for the purposes of deferring it, that he withdraw the current statement with respect to the alleged participation on the part of the government House leader until such time as he has read the report. Subsequently, he may present a question of privilege based on the alleged participation of the House leader and upon whatever evidence he may come up with at some later date. In the meantime, perhaps the hon. member would be disposed to withdraw any allegations at this time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, of course I accept the minister's word. This leads to another problem in that the committee report was drafted under a misunderstanding. The committee chairman may, in fact, wish to withdraw the report at a later date. I would like the question of privilege to be aired after I have had a chance to examine the public record.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not see what there is to check as concerns my participation in the preparation of this report. However, to clarify what both the hon. member and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) do not seem to understand, I would like to say that this committee wants an extension of its deadline and that it should make that request in the very near future.
Obviously, I was consulted about this matter. However, regardless of consultations about the extension of the deadline, which we would be willing to grant if there is no debate in the House, I must state that in no way did I take part in the preparation of any report, and if this can allay the fears of the hon. member, I am convinced that he will no longer want to accuse me of anything. However, I would like this to be clarified today. There is nothing else to verify.


Madam Speaker:: I was somewhat confused myself when the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said he would check the records. That type of allegation would not be included in the records since obviously, if something happened, it was conversation which took place among a number of people. 1 am happy that the hon. member has offered to withdraw these allegations and to take the hon. minister's word, as he has stated in the House. 1 think when a motion for concurrence is moved the hon. member could raise his objection at that point. For the time being the report has been presented and I will consider it as such.



Mark Willson Rose: for leave to introduce Bill C-621, to permit collective bargaining for employees of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement an all-party unanimous recommendation from a special committee studying the Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1967.
All members know that, technically, House of Commons employees are not members of the public service. This bill extends the right now enjoyed by the public service to people who work for Parliament.
1 think the rumours, events, and controversy of the last few weeks attest to the fact that we need much better procedures on all fronts in terms of dealing with human relations in the House of Commons, with such matters as pay scales, seniority, bargaining rights and the like. I believe this bill will go part way in solving some of these very difficult problems for staff members working here on the Hill, which 1 think in the main tries to be one of the best employers in Canada, if not the best.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 28, 1980

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 84, 791, 941, 1,428, 1,536, 1,563 and 1,567. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Where is the Featherbed file presently located and specifically, what is the exact municipal address along with the portion of the building at that address in which it is located?
2.	What are the names of all persons who have access to the file?
3.	What are the names of all persons who have had in any way whatsoever access to the file or any part of it in the past four years?
4.	Has the RCMP shown the file or any parts thereof to any Solicitors General of Canada and, if so, what is their name?
5.	What is the total number of names, individuals or any other entities mentioned in the file?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police):
1.	The Featherbed file is retained at RCMP Headquarters, 1200 Alta Vista Drive, Ottawa. The pinpointing of the repository of the file is not considered to be in the public interest.
2.	It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge the names of persons who have access to this file.
3.	See reply to part 2.
4.	I am acquainted generally with the Featherbed file and have been informed that previous Solicitors General may also have been familiar with its contents.
5.	The policy of the RCMP is to preserve the confidentiality of all information it holds on individuals and organizations.


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Did the Dieldrin levels in herring gulls and bloater chubs continue to increase in 1979?
2.	Was the source of the PCBs currently contaminating the St. Lawrence by way of the Grass River isolated and, if so, what was the source?
3.	Was action taken regarding the PCB contamination near Mississauga at the Gulf Oil of Canada outfall and, if so (a) what was it (b) was it cleaned up (c) were or are charges to be laid?
4.	Was action taken to remedy the pollution caused by the E.B. Eddy Company near Espanola, Ontario and, if so, what was such action?
5.	Is action being taken to ensure that the 49 per cent of industry, that is not meeting discharge standards, will comply with the standards and, if so, to what extent?
6.	Will the government ensure that in the future, real honest figures are used when compiling statistics on discharge requirements?
7.	Is Canada doing anything to limit the amount of phosphorous loading in the Great Lakes and, if so, to what extent?
Order Paper Questions
8.	Is anything being done with regard to the amounts of photomirex in the environment and, if so (a) to what extent (b) is a study on the effects of this substance on humans being carried out?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. No.
2.	The New York department of environmental conservation has collected and analysed samples of water and sediments in the Grass River in an attempt to isolate the source. However, the results are inconclusive, therefore NYDEC is preparing a comprehensive sampling program which will cover the greater Massena area and will include water, sediment and fish analyses. This program will commence next spring.
3.	(a) The matter being referred to likely relates to the
discharge of phenols from Gulf Oil of Canada Ltd. and not PCBs.
(b)	At the request of the Ontario Ministry of Environment the company is preparing a report on control alternatives for this problem. As an interim measure, the company is diverting its effluents to the municipal sewage treatment plant during periods of high phenol discharge.
(c)	Prosecutions will be considered only if the company demonstrates an unwillingness to effect a permanent solution to this problem.
4.	The E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. pulp and paper mill in Espanola produces bleached and unbleached kraft pulp and kraft paper. It is in compliance with the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) requirement of the federal pulp and paper liquid effluent guidelines. It does not meet the toxicity requirement. A provincial control order was issued in February, 1978, that requires the mill to reduce both air and water pollution. The company recently signed an agreement with the federal and provincial governments to modernize the Espanola mill. The federal and provincial governments will contribute $25 million and the company will spend $225 million. The control order has been redrafted to conform to the agreement. The mill will meet all federal and provincial environmental requirements by the end of 1983.
5.	In 1975-76 85 existing mills were in compliance with the federal objectives for biochemical oxygen demand and 52 mills for total suspended solids. All the "new" mills covered by effluent regulations were in compliance. At the end of 1978, the number of mills had increased to 93 mills in compliance for biochemical oxygen demand, and 65 mills for total suspended solids. Based on written compliance schedules negotiated with companies, 71 per cent and 58 per cent of total production should meet the federal government objectives by 1986 for biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids respectively. In addition, the DREE Forest Industry Modernization Program has resulted in the submission of projects for many mills in Quebec and Ontario. These projects will result in improved environmental controls. In virtually all cases, if the projects are completed in the five-year span of the program, those mills will be meeting the federal requirements

November 28, 1980
Order Paper Questions
for total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand. In fact, a great percentage will likely be in compliance before the end of the program period, that is, before 1984. Also several more proposals are expected, which should increase that percentage even more.
6.	The government ensures that when compiling statistics on discharge requirements, only the best available data are used. The reliability of the data is verified by random spot-check samples which are taken by trained field personnel and analysed in government laboratories.
7.	As a result of the findings of the lower Great Lakes study between 1963-68, it was determined that the accelerated eutrophication of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario was the result of increased nutrient inputs especially phosphate. In order to deal quickly and effectively with this identified problem, Canada acted independently to reduce the phosphorous (P) content of laundry detergents 8.5 per cent P dry weight in 1970 and 2.2 per cent P dry weight in 1972. This action resulted in a rapid reduction in the total phosphorous loading from municipal sewage treatment plants. In recognition of the deteriorating state of Great Lakes quality, the governments of Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. This agreement called for implementation of phosphorous removal facilities at all sewage treatment plants discharging more than 1 million gallons per day into the lower Great Lakes. Plants of this size were required to reduce phosphorous concentrations in their effluents 1.0 mg/1 or less. By 1978, 40 of the 68 Canadian plants discharging to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario had achieved the 1.0 mg/1 target. In terms of the total allowable phosphorous discharge from these principal sewage treatment plants, Canadian sources exceeded the agreed upon limit to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario by 468 kg/day. In the United States, plants discharging to these lakes exceeded the limit by 11,288 kg/day. In Lakes Superior and Huron where a policy of nondegradation has been recommended, phosphorous control programs are now under review. The terms of the 1972 agreement also recognized the importance of determining the magnitutde of the phosphorous loading coming from non-point sources, including runoff from agriculture and forested areas. An international reference group was established to investigate this problem and its final report was presented to the International Joint Commission in July, 1978. This report identified runoff from agricultural land as an important source of phosphorous. The two governments have just received the final recommendations from the LJC and are preparing a formal response in consultation with Ontario. In 1978 the governments of Canada and the United States reaffirmed their commitment to improve Great Lakes water quality by signing a second Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The agreement specified future phosphorous target loads for each of the Great Lakes. Before proceeding under this agreement to further reduce phosphorous loadings to the Great Lakes, a number of issues remain which require resolution. These include refinement of the target loadings and existing loading estimates and clarification of the importance of determining
that portion of total phosphorous entering the lakes which is available to promote undesirable algae and other growth. The governments of Canada and the United States are now proceeding to negotiate the phosphorous reductions which must be undertaken by each party to achieve the agreed upon target loadings. It is expected that these further reductions will be directed to municipal point sources and to important nonpoint sources of phosphorous. Until the negotiations on phosphorous loading allocations and compliance schedules are completed, it is difficult to estimate what commitment to further phosphorous reduction will be required in Canada.
8.	(a) The Department of the Environment has monitored the levels of photomirex in herring gull eggs from Lake Ontario and found that the long-term trend in levels is downwards. Photomirex has also been monitored in fish samples. Co-operative studies with the Department of National Health and Welfare on the effects of photomirex are currently being conducted on laboratory animals.
(b) In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: No. In order to assess the effects of photomire on humans, the toxic properties of photomirex are being studied in experimental animals.


Mr. MacKay: With reference to a first quarter 1979 directive to Statistics Canada and Revenue Canada (Customs) from the Board of Economic Development Ministers concerning the problems of accuracy and detail in import statistics, what action has been taken by these departments?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue and Statistics Canada as follows: Revenue Canada has accepted responsibility for implementation of the government approved policy for handling the problems of accuracy of detailed import statistics. Treasury Board has approved the additional resources required by Revenue Canada for the next fiscal year, and for the remainder of the current fiscal year those resources which are available at Statistics Canada are being tranferred to Revenue Canada.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Was a proposal made for the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment in the Bedford-Sackville area of Halifax county, Nova Scotia and, if so, what was the proposal?
2.	Is the RCMP authorized to purchase a property or purchase land and construct a building directly or must it go through a government agency?
3.	Is the RCMP authorized to negotiate for the rental of (a) existing premises (b) premises to be constructed by a private party?
4.	What is the estimated capital building cost or annual rental cost for providing facilities for the RCMP in Bedford-Sackville?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police):
November 28, 1980

1.	The proposal was made by the commanding officer, "H" division in October, 1979, to the attorney general of Nova Scotia to relocate the Bedford detachment to Sackville, Nova Scotia, as Bedford was being granted town status, with resulting town policing responsibilities, and a move closer to our prime area was approved by the attorney general in November, 1979, with the proviso the RCMP remain in Bedford and provide police services until May, 1981. The proposed move was approved by RCMP headquarters in December, 1979.
2.	The RCMP is authorized to purchase a property or purchase land and construct a building directly.
3.	The RCMP is authorized to negotiate for the rental of (a) existing premise and (b) premises to be constructed by a private party.
4.	The rental rate for the present detachment in Bedford is $1,750 per month, however, the annual rental cost for the new Sackville detachment is not known at this time. In the event of future construction, Public Works Canada will be asked to provide a cost estimate. In the interim, funds in the amount of $800,000 have been programmed tentatively for the purchase of a site in 1983-84 and construction of a new detachment building in 1985-86.


Mr. Mazankowski: Did the Minister of Transport arrange for the MV Arctic to pick up a shipment of grain at the Port of Churchill this fall and (a) if so, when is the voyage planned (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Yes. (a) During the first half of November, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Does Canada have treaties with any country permitting Canadian citizens to serve their prison sentences in Canada instead of the country where the conviction was pronounced and, if so (a) with which countries (b) in each case, do the provisions of the Canadian parole system apply, or do similar provisions in the country where the conviction was pronounced apply?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: In so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Yes. (a) The United States, Mexico and Peru; (b) The provisions of the Canadian parole system apply.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What advertising agencies were engaged to perform services in connection with the constitutional advertising campaign launched by the government this summer and what amount was paid to each?
2.	Were tenders called for the contracts and were they advertised in the press and, if not, for what reason?
Petroleum Administration Act Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister of State for Social Development): For
Canadian Unity Information Office:
1. Planicom Inc.	$ 900,000
Le Groupe de Communicateurs Unis	700,000
du Canada
MacLaren Advertising Ltd.	1,300,000
The Jerry Goodis Agency Inc.	1,300,000
Vickers & Benson Ltd.	300,000
West-Can Communications Ltd.	400,000
2. Contracts were not awarded through tender. Submissions were asked from major advertising agencies and as is the normal commercial practice, selections were made on the basis of the best creative and media presentation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 27, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 52(3) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2917, be revoked.
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at the time of adjournment I was speaking about the efforts which have been made by the national government to reach an agreement with the producing provinces, principally Alberta, on oil pricing. I recall for the House that we made proposals to the government of Alberta on March 18. We made proposals on May 13. We met again on June 18, 19 and July 24.
It was at the meeting on July 24 that we received Alberta's proposals for the first time. At that meeting we made two major proposals. We suggested a synthetic oil price which would be the lesser of $38 or the international price, plus an inflator, and we proposed a tertiary recovery price of some $30, plus an inflator. These proposals reflected what the industry had stated that it needed to proceed with the further development of the oil sands and of the enhanced recovery projects.
Alberta's response was that it could not consider the proposals for the development of the oil sands and of enhanced recovery in isolation. They did not say that our proposals were either unfair or unreasonable. In fact, with regard to tertiary recovery, we proposed a price greater than the price sought by the province of Saskatchewan. But it seemed to us that on that occasion Alberta was not seeking resolution. It was not to be persuaded to let the oil sands projects proceed.

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
Two parties, Mr. Speaker, are of course necessary to negotiate. An objective reading of the record will show that we approached the table in good faith, that we made substantial and reasonable offers, that we moved a long way in an attempt to get a fair deal for Canadians, and that wfe listened to provincial concerns. I should like to emphasize that the Petroleum Administration Act was introduced as a stop-gap measure.
I believe that both our government and the government of Alberta would prefer to see agreement. I believe also that we share the same goal of accelerating the development of our indigenous supplies. Accordingly, we do not understand why the provincial government continues to hold approval of the proposed new major oil sands project in abeyance. We believe that Alberta's decision in this regard is contrary to the stated goals of the Alberta government itself, and directly harmful to the many Albertans who pin their future economic hopes on those projects. These are matters which we would certainly like to discuss further with the Alberta government.
There has been a fundamental disagreement between the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta about revenue sharing. We had the distinct impression from the government of Alberta spokesmen that they felt that the national government should get any increased revenue only from the industry through corporate taxation. The Alberta energy minister has since said that this is not what he meant. This is an encouraging development and one which bodes well for our next meeting.
However, if the Alberta energy minister still feels that we have no claim to a greater portion of the government revenues and insists again that any reduction in the provincial share of revenues would be tantamount to federal expropriation of provincial resources, and he did not mean that we should derive increased revenues from industry, then he must mean that the federal government should derive additional revenues from Canadian consumers, including Albertans. This hardly seems fair. We could not continue in negotiations which were not producing results on any front, without making some national decisions.
The special provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act have not been proclaimed in isolation. They have been introduced in the context of a budget and a national energy program. Furthermore, these provisions have not been proclaimed without first making a strong effort to negotiate an agreement. They have not been proclaimed without the intention of continuing to seek an agreement with the producing provinces. We are ready to talk within the framework of our principles, entitlements, and needs.
We feel confident that we can fulfil our national obligations, and that includes our responsibilities in Alberta and in the west. No province will gain more than Alberta from federal spending on the new energy initiatives. Over the next four years spending on these initiatives in that province will approach S2.3 billion or approximately $1,030 per Albertan. The government of Alberta will receive a higher share of resource revenues than any other state or province in the
world. For the industry itself there are guaranteed incentives, grants and prices which will facilitate long-term planning.
The estimated "net-back" on a barrel of oil before taxes will increase from the present $6.25 to $24.58 by 1990. Within the decade, Albertans will benefit from the $120 billion spent in their province on energy-related projects. Tens of thousands of construction jobs and more than 100,000 full-time industrial, technical and management jobs will be created. The spin-off benefits for the public service, the service industries, commerce, education and housing cannot be imagined. The Alberta government sells its gas at the lowest price in the world outside the Middle East, since the province eliminated its retail sales tax last year. Alberta looks to a real growth rate of about 5 per cent or 6 per cent annually. Others would make the growth rate as high as 9 per cent or 10 per cent. As Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan has said, the major problem which his government will face in the next decade is how to deal with its new wealth.


Mark Willson Rose: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Roy MacLaren: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired. A question may only be entertained with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: In his remarks last night the parliamentary secretary made the point that no one in this House had discussed limiting the demand side in energy. Without predicting what kind of recommendations which the special task force on alternative energy and conservation will be making, there is a good deal of preoccupation about lowering the demand side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to put a question he is at liberty to do so, but it appears that he is entering into debate. Would he please put his question?


Mark Willson Rose: I will get to my question. I am merely trying to put it in some context. Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that when 87 per cent of the national energy policy is directed toward the supply side and only 13 per cent is directed to the limiting of the demand side, the thrust of the government program is really toward the supply side and not the demand side?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to those few who, during this debate, have called attention to the essential element in the total energy equation of reduction in demand. The hon. member opposite has been one of those exceptions who has given that factor in our energy policy the due weight it deserves. I said last night that the tendency in our debate has been to emphasize supply rather than the reduction in demand and substitution, which are essential elements in our national energy program.
November 28, 1980

516!
As for the expenditure of the government on methods to substitute other forms of energy for oil and to promote conservation across Canada, the expenditures are being increased substantially and they, of course, can also be found in the budgets of other government departments such as Public Works and Canada Mortgage and Housing. All such programs are intended to reduce the dependency of Canadians on oil and increase the use of alternate forms of energy.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), i would like to spend some of my time this morning and this afternoon discussing the effects that the Petroleum Administration Act and the increased prices suggested therein will have on the agricultural sector and on the food production capabilities of the country. I would like to place this subject in the context of world requirements, both for food and for energy, and to discuss briefly the kind of energy policy which should be shaped in order to take into account these special considerations, not only as food producers in some parts of our economy, but as individuals who must survive on this planet and who must pass on the ability to survive on this planet to future generations.
The motion we are dealing with specifically talks about natural gas pricing. However, we had a companion motion which has been discussed in the last few days which dealt with oil pricing. If it is within the order of the House, I would like to extend that to a broad discussion on energy policy, coming back occasionally to the natural gas aspects of it. Basically, there are three broad categories into which an energy policy should fit. An energy policy should fit into an industrial strategy for the country and for its regions. An energy policy should fit the current and future needs of the nation and its regions. An energy policy should also be cognizant of the needs of all users and provide the means of rationalizing consumer patterns for the various forms available to everyone.
The pricing regime proposed by the government misses the point on most of these counts. The accumulation on earth of hydrocarbons, that is gas, oil and coal, took something like 600 million years. These hydrocarbons accumulated because minute quantities of the sun's energy converted organic matter by means of photosynthesis. This stored chemical energy is being released by man in the form of heat, and also as a form of feedstock for many industrial processes.
We began man's development of these types of energy as a feedstock with the coal tar developments in Europe at the turn of the century. We have developed petrochemical industries in the world today to make use of crude oil as a feedstock. We have a fertilizer industry which is dependent, in part, on natural gas as a feedstock. The hydrocarbons which have accumulated over 600 million years are being used up, both as a form of energy and as a form of industrial raw material. Unfortunately, when one looks at the consumption of this 600 million years of accumulation, we find that man has dis-
Petroleum Administration Act
covered how to use it on a fairly large scale in less than 200 years. During the latter part of the 1700s we started using coal in great abundance. We tapped into oil and gas 50 to 100 years ago. We are told that with the kind of use patterns we have established for ourselves at present, mankind will manage to use up the accumulated energy, which took 600 million years to form, in 200 to 300 years, if use patterns continue in the same way.
How has man decided, having been able to tap this kind of energy, what method to use to parcel up these rare, precious resources? Past practice has been to allow the market economy to do it. We have not adopted a legal practice which says, "Here, these are our resources. They have accumulated for our use. We should manage them for future generations as well as our own." Instead, we said, "anybody who can sit on top of a pool of oil, a vein of coal or a pocket of natural gas, can take it and sell it for whatever profit one can get." Therefore, we have allowed the profit motive to decide how to use up that energy. Of course, when one allows the profit motive to operate, to make the decisions in the economy, one finds that the decisions made are not always the best ones for current society, nor are they for future societies.
What happens under that kind of an allocation system? We find that areas with lots of wealth in terms of money and resources use these resources in great abundance. Areas that do not have very much in the way of energy resources do not get to share in the benefits of them. What we have developed and allowed to continue is a shortsighted and potentially disruptive practice of letting the market dictate.
It is two minutes to one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it one o'clock before I move on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has given notice that he would like to raise a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was consulting with the other House leaders, but this period of two minutes caught me and I was unable to get to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
In view of the fact that the recorded vote, if it is requested, is to take place Monday rather than today, I would suggest that the putting of the question be deferred from 3.45 p.m. to four o'clock. In other words, I suggest that we put the question at four o'clock and have the vote on Monday as previously ordered. I suggest that now because we do not now know to which hon. member the extra time will be given.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my friend's interjection and suggestion is to allow members of the House to speak, and I think that is quite reasonable to have 15 minutes more in debate.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the conversations. That follows the arrangement we had the other evening on the first proclamation under debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[ Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When debate was interrupted at one o'clock, the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) had the floor.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, continuing on from where we were before the lunch hour, I had been talking about an energy program and allocation program that take into account various problems within countries and regions. I now want to deal with Canada and our consumption. As most people are aware, Canadians are the highest energy users on a per capita basis. This is in part due to our cold climate, but to a goodly extent it is due to some of the reasons I outlined before lunch, such as the method we use to allocate energy to those who can afford to use it. Because Canadians have been relatively wealthy as a nation, we use a great amount of energy. We have it to use, so we use it.
Each year we extract energy in approximately the following proportions: About 44 per cent is taken out of the ground in the form of petroleum, 19 per cent in the form of natural gas, 15 per cent in the form of coal, and the other 22 per cent is divided among hydroelectric power, nuclear energy, wood, and a great many other kinds of technology now becoming more popular.
The farm sector, on which I want to spend a bit of time this afternoon, uses only 3 per cent of the total energy consumed in Canada. Hon. members would not think that that would be something worth spending very much time discussing, but I do so because we are extracting 55 per cent of our energy resources from petroleum and natural gas, and it is from petroleum and natural gas sources that agriculture takes almost all of the fuel it requires under the technology we are using today.
Even though agriculture uses only 3 per cent of the total energy used in Canada, agriculture does use 7 per cent of the gasoline used in this country and 11 per cent of the diesel fuel. These two forms of fuel account for about two-thirds of the energy consumed in agriculture. Fertilizer consumes about another sixth of the energy used in agriculture, and a great deal of the energy input in fertilizer results because it is
extracted from natural gas. The nitrogen we extract to use for fertilizers is taken mainly from natural gas. The other one-sixth, approximately, used in agriculture is the energy which is used in manufacturing the machinery farmers use in their productive process.
We are users of large amounts of energy, but when we look at the kinds of agricultural products we export, I suppose we are more or less competitive in terms of the amount of energy put into the production process and the amount of energy extracted. On wheat farms in Canada, for every unit of energy put in we extract approximately three and one-half units in an average year. We have a reasonably good conversion which compares favourably with that of England. It compares favourably with that of Australia, and quite favourably with wheat farming on an input-output basis in the United States.
We are competitive in a monetary sense and perhaps in an energy use sense, but when we throw in all the factors which should be computed in an energy input formula, we neglect in this particular input-output ratio to take into account the energy we are extracting from the soil, so to speak. I realize that is putting it a little crudely, but we have to remember that this continent is a new agricultural area. Particularly on the plains of western Canada and the western United States there was a large buildup of nitrogen in the soil. The soils out there took about 10,000 years to accumulate. There was a brief momentary surplus of nitrogen trapped in the form of humus in those soils, and we have been exploiting that trapped nitrogen at an alarming rate.
In my province of Saskatchewan we have been farming the soils for approximately 80 years. In those brief 80 years we have released approximately half of the nitrogen which was trapped in those soils. We have exported that nitrogen source along with our wheat and our other grains as we have sold them off the farm. Because of our having broken up the land and killed the original vegetation, and having gone into a cropping program whereby we leave the land lying fallow approximately half the time, the nitrogen and humus which were trapped in the upper foot or foot and a half of soil have tended to be leached down by the rain too far into the soil to be picked up by the roots of plants, so we have lost another approximately 8 per cent or 10 per cent of the nitrogen that way. However, most of it went out as part of the grain which was produced on the land.
We do not have many options in picking up that outflow of resource. It is an outflow from soil which is normally considered by many people to be a renewable resource, and yet some of the components of that soil are in fact not easily renewable. They can be replaced only with the kind of technology we have today, the result of which is chemical fertilizers, a component of which is nitrogen which is extracted from natural gas.
When natural gas prices increase, that immediately means an increase in the cost of production at the farm level. It means that because of the very difficult cost-price squeeze which always faces farmers, they will probably continue to export, in part at least, the nitrogen that is in the soil. They
November 28, 1980

know there are probably another 80 years of nitrogen trapped in there. Some of it is coming out all the time. There will have to be some replacement every year, but farmers can carry on wearing the soil down because in the lifetime of this particular generation of farmers the nitrogen will not quite run out.
I suppose that is the same kind of moral dilemma and economic dilemma we, as Canadians, have when we look at the whole energy package. We say that this generation will have enough and that only the next generation will have to worry. 1 think that is indicative of bad judgment and bad planning, and shows up in the political judgments we in this country make. For instance, we are trying to increase exports of wheat, knowing that when we make that judgment we are going to be continuing to exploit the soil. The only way we can continue to do that is to have access to cheap natural gas to manufacture more nitrogen to replace the nitrogen we are pulling from the soil.
At the same time as we are trying to export wheat, which perhaps makes sense because we are processing natural products to some extent, we are processing gas into fertilizer and thereby employing some people. We are employing the product of that manufacturing process back into farming, recycling it again and exporting the wheat, so we are employing people at two or three stages. I could follow through with the argument in that respect, but I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing why we should be exporting natural gas without any processing going on, without providing any jobs, without increasing the technological aspects of our society but just shipping it off as a raw natural resource.
The pricing of a product has much to do with the kind of policy we have. In this country we have been setting a simple, straightforward price, and whoever can afford it will buy. I am pointing out today that that kind of system may leave our ability to produce enough food for this continent and this planet in jeopardy. I say this because the pricing regime we have been falling into, in the last several price proposals which have been put forward by this government and the previous one, is one which is based on the assumption that the price has to be competitive only with those of other countries.
We do have to be competitive with other countries. We realize that when we decide to export grain from our farms, but we also have to be careful of the way we allocate funds that we extract from a product. We are taking more and more just in the form of taxation, and the funds from that taxation are being used more and more to cover costs outside the energy field. They are not used to replace energy, they are not used to find alternatives to energy, they are not used to find technology which will avoid the use of energy. They are simply spent, almost like flaring up the gas well. They are being burned up with no thought for the after effects on the economy, no consideration of the future energy needs which people will have.
There are many alternate energy sources which farmers can use. Not all of them are applicable in the kind of market
Petroleum Administration Act
economy in which we are living. If we are using the philosophy of letting those pay who can, many of these technologies will not be integrated into the farming system in this country and in the whole of North America. We know, for instance, that we can produce a great amount of energy per acre by growing corn, and yet we also know that corn takes more energy input than any other kind of crop on a per acre basis and it is just barely competitive on an input-output basis. Yet, because of the economy of production under the current system, more and more agricultural production is going into corn.
The tendency is toward monoculture of crops such as corn or potatoes in some parts of our country, and in my part of the country crops like wheat. Even though we know that rotating the crops will maintain the nitrogen and humus level, most of our farmers are not following that practice by force of pure and simple economics. As long as there is partial replacement of the nitrogen through alternate forms, such as fertilizers, we will avoid ones which are produced naturally year after year. We know that legume rotation will maintain productivity at about the same level year after year. However, we also know that we will only extract grain crops about half of those years.
What we should be doing about it, Mr. Speaker, is re-evaluating our system of production. Many scientific organizations have been doing this. The Science Council of Canada has done a re-evaluation of production and energy use, and the Science Council of Saskatchewan has been doing this for the past two or three years. They have set out the parameters in which we are working. They know, for instance, that there is no point in expending any more energy, or dollars on energy which will go into machinery manufacture. I think that the economy is probably reacting to that finding of the Science Council of Saskatchewan, if you look at some of the problems that White and Massey-Ferguson are having.
By using energy input-output data you can predict what will happen in the economy down the road in as short a space as two or three years. We could be using the kind of agricultural practice which will capture more of the sun's energy and turn it into food output. We know that in this country we are capturing approximately 1 per cent of the potential energy of the sun with our agricultural methods. We know that in countries like Japan and Denmark they are capturing between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the potential energy of the sun and converting that into food which can be consumed by man and beast.
Plants and the agricultural industry are a very clear alternative method of converting energy. They are well-known energy converters. Plants have been converting energy for millions of years. Man simply has to learn to use the existing methods to better advantage so that we can reduce our reliance on the kind of energy that has been trapped in rock formations below ground in our country, and we have been developing a technology to use the energy produced by living plants. Some of our physicists and small investors have come out with systems of transferring the sun's rays directly to electricity by introducing water to keep the collector cool. There is a double use of the sun's energy. We not only recover heat but we also

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
produce electricity. These kinds of technologies will need more development. Development funds, however, are not being made available.
The kinds of people who have been experimenting with these technologies do not tend to be tied to a large energy production firm, such as Imperial Oil or Texaco, although those people are involved in the process. Most of the basic discoveries are being made, while not quite in backyards and small garages, almost at that level of technology and investment. These people need some assistance by way of special grants and special aid to help them bring those basic ideas, some of which have been tested out by reputable firms and reputable scientif ic organizations, to fruition. They have been shown to produce the kind of energy conversion that the investors claim, yet getting them to a marketable stage and developing the technology to a point where it can be generally available are a long way off and are still an expensive process. Yet, in spite of heavy taxes being demanded in the energy proposal before us and in previous ones, very little money is allocated in that direction.
We know that in some parts of the country ethanol production might make sense. I was recently in Prince Edward Island where I spoke to just one potato grower who sorted potatoes in the winter time in his processing plant. He has about a million pounds of surplus culled potatoes there and he has now begun to add a small piece onto his operation for something like $1 million which will turn these culled potatoes into ethanol. I do not know, and he does not know, whether it will be a paying proposition, but he is experimenting with the conversion of those culled potatoes, at least partially, into an energy form that he can use.
The pricing proposal before us is not paying adequate attention to some of these possibilities. We think that the energy policy should take into account the whole society and the fact that some aspects of production in this country require transportable fuels more than others.
1 mentioned agriculture. I should leave you with the thought that when you are making comparisons between those who use the most fuel and those who use less, you should know that a 1,000 acre wheat farm in Saskatchewan uses less fuel for its annual production than the average household with two cars in a city like Ottawa. The average consumption of both is about the same. So if you are really going to be worried about reducing our reliance on transportable fuels, you should be focusing on reducing the amount of transportable fuels such as natural gas and oil for residential heating, and switching to fuels that will better generate heat and energy, such as fuel coal from burning plants or hydroelectric plants.
1 have tried to deal mostly with agriculture today, but in conclusion I should like to indicate that the energy program should be cognizant of not only agriculture but of all people in the country who have jobs. We should ensure that our energy program continues to provide jobs and that we do not simply export raw energy in the form of gas or oil. Also we must
recognize that not only farmers but the workers in Atlantic Canada, Toronto or Vancouver, require a certain amount of stability in knowing that they have shelter and will be kept warm. I have seen no evidence to indicate that this particular energy program looks down the road to the day that, looking at the gross figures, cannot be too far away. We are not making preparations for it. We are not setting aside technology, thought, energy or money toward the future. We are making very little provision for the future generations of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. I paid particular attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), particularly those dealing with the field of agriculture. I am a farmer's daughter and I too can attest to the frugality of the farmer. I disagree with him to some extent, though, on the perspective of the national energy package which we presented. I contend that it is a program with a great deal of perspective, and it is a long-term one. I will go into that during the course of my remarks.
The hon. member brought up another matter about who uses natural gas, one of the questions with which I dealt on a recent trip to western Canada. The additional 30-cent tax which will be paid by the consumer, I think it is interesting to note, will be paid primarily by consumers in the east. It is important to stress in the House and to the people of the country that 44 per cent of the natural gas consumed in Canada is consumed by the province of Ontario. As we move from oil to gas, as the national energy program urges us to do, and indeed it gives us a great deal of expert advice and help in the way of grants, we will see the consumption of gas growing in the province of Ontario, and the consumers of that province will be bearing the brunt of this extra tax.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister said the Americans will.


Judith A. Erola: In export terms they will, but for the consumers of Canada, the consumers of eastern Canada will be paying the higher price or carrying the heaviest load.
What are we trying to accomplish with the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act as brought into play by the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen)? The Petroleum Administration Act was first passed into law in 1974 in response to the widening international energy supply crisis which was precipitated by the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Since that time all Canadians have become acutely aware of the importance of national energy security as they watched international energy prices rise at a rate of upwards of 1,000 per cent. The act was enacted by the federal Parliament so that in a time of national emergency the federal government would have means to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of what region of Canada they resided in, would enjoy energy security at a reasonable cost.
As hon. members know, the Government of Canada has been negotiating with the producing provinces for a new
November 28, 1980

pricing regime for some time. As hon. members must appreciate, in order to implement its objectives, the government, as set out in its budget presented on October 28, had to establish the parameters of that pricing regime. The budget and energy programs are intended to provide Canadians with both economic and energy security in the years ahead. It is obvious that this could not be done without first establishing a pricing schedule so that economic activity might continue in an atmosphere of relative stability. Members of the previous government well know the pitfalls of this exercise. Despite their contention of an agreement between themselves and the producing provinces, it is abundantly clear that such an agreement was never actually realized.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 can understand if ministers and other members on the other side of the House refuse to accept, at least publicly, the existence of the agreement to which the minister referred, but I think the minister should be very careful about her assertions with respect to that, because a statement was made on public television by the minister of energy for Alberta within the last week and a half indicating that such an agreement was in place. I understand the political motivation, but 1 think one must be very careful about asserting certain things which are not true, when it involves statements made by ministers of the provinces from whichever they come.


Mr. Cullen:: Was the agreement signed? Do you have it in writing?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Judith A. Erola: The agreement might have been reached tentatively, but was it signed? According to our information no formal agreement was reached.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Right on.


Judith A. Erola: The government is still very anxious to negotiate an agreement with the provinces, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in the House this week. These negotiations will begin again shortly at the official level, as the government of the province of Alberta indicated to us that they are not interested in meeting at the ministerial level. These measures instituted under the terms of the Petroleum Administration Act, whereby the national government established the domestic price of oil, are not meant to be self-perpetuating. They are a short-term interim solution and will be abandoned when an agreement is struck with the producing provinces. 1 am sure that an agreement will be struck.
The debate on these proclamations has been riddled with misrepresentations, unrealistic alternatives and distortions, and I was gravely disturbed at the tone of some members' comments.
After meeting the separatist challenge in the province of Quebec, if one listens to certain members opposite one would believe that we are now faced with a new threat to our national unity-western separatism. Just recently I returned from western Canada, and 1 can tell the House and Canadians that the
Petroleum Administration Act
westerners with whom I spoke-the people, the workers, the drivers, the swampers, the farmers and the small town businessmen-are Canadians. It is true that they are upset with the national government and that they feel a sense of alienation from the decision-making process here in Ottawa, but they are not separatists. They are Canadians; they love this country which they have worked so hard to build.
1 should like to remind members opposite that alienation is not a state of mind which is relegated only to the west. I am from northern Ontario and I can recall many times the feelings of frustration and alienation which could be expressed by my friends and myself.
Canada is a vast country, and I am not sure Canadians really appreciate the immensity of it. On this point I should like to inform hon. members that alienation does not only occur in relation to the federal government. It also occurs within such a small area as the province of Alberta, that is, an alienation between the developed and underdeveloped regions. Indeed, in this regard I think it is time that we dispelled the myth of Alberta's vast wealth, a myth which has been held largely by easterners. Certainly Albertans per capita are by far the richest Canadians, but only those who have a large share of the wealth.
What of those other Albertans-and 1 met a great many of them-who must pay very high housing costs, food costs, and costs which are generally associated with large scale development? During my recent visit to western Canada I had an opportunity to visit those on the periphery. They want what others have. They are Albertans, yet they have not personally shared in the wealth. In those small communities streets remain unpaved. They want theatres and swimming pools. 1 share their dreams and goals.
Mr. Speaker, I have brought back their concerns. When we are examining the priorities for the western initiatives 1 will strongly urge my colleagues to consider assistance to those small towns first. I would like to add that I was very well received in these areas of western Canada. The people were genuinely interested in hearing the details of our policies and our energy package. We are working for all Canadians with the energy strategy which has precipitated this debate.
It has been quite a debate. I would like to comment briefly on some of the things which have been said in this House. We heard the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) pontificate on clause after clause of the Petroleum Administration Act. He spoke ominously of the veiled threat he perceives lurking in the hands of the faceless bureaucrats. 1 can assure him that Canada has a civil service which rivals the best in the world. I would like to point out to him that not to set up the necessary mechanisms such as the Petroleum Administration Act, would be a grave abdication of responsibility on the part of the national government. If the tools are available, and if they are well tuned, then the time between the perception of possible crises and the needed response is short, indeed.

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
On Monday my good friend from Edmonton East demonstrated again to this House his dedication to Canada on the western separatist issue. I thank him for that. Of all the members opposite, his views probably best represent the views of western Canadians. I was sorry to hear him contend that the federal government purposely did not want to reach an agreement with the government of the province of Alberta so that it might impose its own energy price policy unilaterally. I was sorry to hear him contend that the pricing regime was to be in place for ten years, regardless of provincial objections. I am especially surprised because, when he put the question to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the response was very clear.
In reference to the government's decision to establish a long-term program the minister replied, and I quote from page 4967 of Hansard:
It was to ensure a certain degree of certainty and clarification as to the government's policy that it was decided to put forward this long-term plan. We have indicated that this is a ten-year program.
Hon. members opposite missed what the minister said next. I quote:
It would be naive or irresponsible to say that in a ten-year program not one iota can be changed, or that this is cast in stone, just like the Bible. So that is not our perception.
Is that not clear, Mr. Speaker? Further on in the same reply the minister went on to say this:
-we will reach an agreement eventually-
The willingness of this government to sit down with the provinces and negotiate an agreement which will be fair for all Canadians is part of the public record. To say otherwise is simply not to state the facts.
I would also like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Surely his perception of the world is not so blurred that he could possibly think that a revenue split of 45-45-10, with the 10 per cent share going to the companies, would be realistically acceptable. I have been involved in business for 27 years and I can tell the hon. member that his ideas, if put into practice in private business, would doubtlessly lead to bankruptcy. If put into practice by government it would lead to the bankruptcy of the nation. The people of this nation have had the wisdom not to pursue the policies of his party,-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They would own the companies.


Judith A. Erola: -and I am thankful for that. We want to take control of our own economic destiny, as the hon. member does, but we must base our actions on realistic perceptions. Our ultimate goal of energy self-sufficiency within the decade is attainable. Our Canadianization-and I stress the word Canadianization-initiatives and our proposals, as they relate to the Crown equity involvement on Canada lands, are important elements of this package which will ensure the realization of this goal of energy security.
I would like to deal now with the mining industry for a moment. Members of the mining industry have expressed tc
me their concerns as to whether the taxation and ownership policies outlined in the national energy program will be extended to the mining sector. I acknowledge that the hon. member for Edmonton East asked me on April 24 whether 1 could assure this House and the mining industry that the government is planning no regressive taxation, regulatory or legislative initiatives which will inhibit the orderly growth of the mining industry. I stated at that time that there would be no moves, at present, to increase the tax base. This situation still prevails, as is evident from the recent budget speech.
Let me reiterate what has already been clearly stated in the national energy program. This government believes that the oil and gas sector is a unique sector and that special measures, not required in other sectors, are needed to ensure more Canadian control.
Despite the knee jerk reaction of the multinationals following the release of our budget-energy package, and despite the initial market vibrations, which were largely expected, the gloom and doom predictions have not materialized. Indeed, 1 understand that the multinationals are actively seeking to take advantage of the Canadianization elements of our package. They recognize the benefits. Canadian companies investing on Canada lands will pay just seven cents per investment dollar under the new program initiatives. Such investment opportunities must be applauded. Surely if one examines the program fully, the fact that the national government, the government of all Canadians, will have a 25 per cent share of all activity on Canada lands will be clear. This will be seen as an opportunity and not as a revenue grab, as one Canadian oil company asserts in a letter to its shareholders. Such a suggestion that the holdings of individual Canadians are being reduced by 25 per cent due to these measures is clearly a distortion.
With respect to another aspect of our energy program, hon. members will be interested to know that since the government announced the Canada oil substitution program, as a cornerstone of our national energy policy, more than 5,000 Canadians have asked if they qualify. These are requests which have come into our offices. There have been between 600 and 700 calls every day. In fact the load was so heavy on one day that the special telephone system just broke down completely for two hours. I might add that the rate of calls being made shows no sign of decline.
The Canada oil substitution program is designed to reduce oil consumption to less than 10 per cent of total energy used in residential, commercial and industrial sectors by 1990. Again, I must reiterate that that seems to be lost on many of the members in the House. Indeed, it has been lost, I think, to most Canadians. It is a major national program of incentives. I would ask the member opposite who preceded me to pay particular attention to this. It is a program of initiatives to help householders, businesses and, yes, farmers, to convert their heating systems and the types of energy they use from oil to other forms of energy.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Gas!
November 28, 1980


Judith A. Erola: No, it is not just gas. Examine that program very carefully. The core of the program, which has a start-up target date of April 1, 1981, will consist of grants to consumers to help cover the costs of converting space heating and hot water systems from oil to other energy sources such as natural gas, electricity, and renewable resources such as wood, solar and wind. Consumers will be eligible for grants of up to 50 per cent of their conversion costs, up to a maximum of $800. In Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the program will provide grants to upgrade insulation and improve furnace efficiency rather than going toward conversions. There are also special programs in those areas in the northernmost part of this country.
As hon. members are aware, the Canada oil substitution program will be administered in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments or designated authorities such as provincial Crown corporations. Draft agreements are now being discussed with the provinces and the territories but it is obvious to all that in such a massive undertaking time will be required to develop the full details of the program. I would urge all hon. members and all Canadian consumers who decide to convert their heating systems, and who have done so after October 28, 1980, the date on which the program was announced, to keep all receipts so as to apply for grants once the federal-provincial agreements on eligibility have been established and program funds have been approved by Parliament. It is important that all these receipts be kept.
As agreements with the provinces and the territories are worked out, hon. members will be kept informed. Here, 1 would like to dwell for a moment on the word "informed". I urge hon. members in this House likewise to inform their constituents. When I was in western Canada recently, many people indicated that they wanted to know how the national energy program would impact on them and how they could benefit from what it contained. Hon. members are aware that copies of this program are available. I urge every hon. member in this House to make this program available.
Every householder must be made aware of the program if we are to reach the goal of energy security for our citizens. All Canadians have a right to examine this program for themselves and to make their own decisions as to its merits. Every member of this House owes every householder in his constituency at least that much. To deprive constituents of that option is wrong, and as responsible members of Parliament it is our duty to see that our constituents are made aware of the contents of this energy program so that we can work together to ensure its success and Canada's energy future.
In conclusion, 1 would simply ask for the consideration of the members of this House. I ask them to consider Canada's position as a nation. An hon. member opposite remarked that I was giving a lecture, and perhaps I am. It disturbs me when I visit other parts of this country and learn that people in these areas have not been made aware of a program which has been distributed to their member. I feel it is incumbent upon each
Petroleum Administration Act
member of this House to make sure that all this information is made available to their constituents.
I ask hon. members to consider Canada's position as a nation in an international system filled with crises. Also, I ask hon. members to place this debate and its implications in perspective. Canada is indeed a very fortunate nation and Canadians are among the most fortunate of all peoples on this globe. We have heard complaints that the national energy program is a financial grab at the expense of a provincial resource. Again, I ask, what have we done? In terms of revenue we have taken 2 per cent from the province and 12 per cent from the multinationals which are mostly foreign owned. And that was so that the national government could bring its share of revenues up to 24 per cent, a small change compared to other countries. That 24 per cent will help us become energy self-sufficient ten years down the road.
Members are aware, I am sure, of the budget recently announced by the present Conservative government in Great Britain, it included a 20 per cent tax on North Sea oil revenue, and this in addition to measures which increased health and social security payments and, I might add, the deindexing of pensions. Canadians are lucky indeed and, whether members opposite like it or not, this national government will continue to address the challenges which Canada must face and to act for all Canadians maximizing the benefits for the nation as a whole.
As in a good and healthy marriage, we will share the burdens and we will share the wealth. This government will not abdicate its national role, and I am confident that the initiatives included in the budget energy package will benefit all of Canada. Further, I am confident that we, as a national government, will reach an agreement with the producing provinces in the future which will be good for, fair to, and welcomed by, all Canadians.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of State (Mines) (Mrs. Erola) was speaking about her recent visit to Calgary, 1 was reminded of the phrase, "There are none so blind as those who will not see". The minister suggested that hon. members should tell their constituents of the marvellous opportunities in the gas conversion program. The minister may be interested to know that 95 per cent of the homes in Alberta are presently heated by natural gas, so I do not think there is very much I can tell my constituents in that regard.
There are so many figures in this national energy program, and to say that they are confusing would be an understatement. But the minister stated that it would take only seven cents on the dollar to explore on Canadian lands. I wonder if the minister asked herself what is available for that 7 per cent, considering that Petro-Canada will have 25 per cent carried interest in the project, after a 40 per cent net profits tax, a 10 per cent basic royalty, and an 8 per cent production revenue tax have been paid. On a $40 barrel of oil what is left is a minus quantity.
5168

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
If the minister thinks that everybody will be excited to get out and explore those Canadian lands, she has a surprise coming. While preparing my remarks for this afternoon I read over a number of speeches made by hon. members in this Petroleum Administration Act debate, and I wondered how many Canadians know what we are debating. It seems to me that Canadians must be truly bewildered to hear about fish, chickens, seals, muskrats, Sheik Yamani and Ronald Reagan. They must really wonder if we are at all seriously concerned about the energy issue in this country.
For those Canadians who have followed this debate, I wonder if their chief concerns might not be for their country, their jobs, and the future of their families. I wonder if they might be thinking, what is happening to my country, will I have a job and what is the future for my family? I wonder what the steelworker is thinking as the drilling rigs move south, and what the fishermen in Halifax thinks of paying an extra 14 cents per gallon for fuel to run his boat so that the government can buy up more oil companies. I wonder what the housebuilder in Calgary thinks as he watches the flood of oil field personnel and money leaving for the United States to Canadianize the American oil industry.
We have a national energy program. The reason we are debating oil and gas prices and the Petroleum Administration Act is because this government, in spite of what the minister just said, never negotiated in good faith with the producing provinces and never intended to do so. It never wanted to reach agreement; it wanted to impose its national energy program unilaterally. The national energy plan is not an energy plan at all. It is an assault on one province and one industry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with energy. This attack on one province and one industry is unprecedented in Canada's history.
This document is a disgrace to our system of government, to our way of life, and to this institution. This document is deceitful, ambiguous, full of half-truths, untruths and misfeasance. The national energy plan is not a plan to solve the energy problem Canada faces. It is founded on two concepts. The first concept is to strip control of the resources from the provinces, to emasculate an industry, and to turn that industry over to an Ottawa bureaucracy. The plan is founded on the ideology of a centrally planned economy, and the ideology that the state is paramount over individual freedom. It is a plan to implement a philosophy which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has sought passionately for so long. Here is what the Prime Minister had to say about his philosophy; "Since neither individuals themselves nor the economic system itself can remedy Canada's economic problems, we are forced, whether we like it or not, to turn to the state. In the scheme of production, private initiative and property, collective initiative and co-operative property, public initiative and nationalization are the only means in the securing of human and economic objectives. Private initiative left to itself cannot guarantee common prosperity. That must be assured through planning. It seems evident to me that the regime of free enterprise has
shown itself incapable of resolving problems posed in education, health, housing and employment."
I would like to ask my fellow Canadians the following: how was Canada built? How was our education system built? How were our health and housing systems built? Did the government build it or did individual Canadians build it?
Much has been said recently about western Canada separation. Coming from Calgary, I am acutely aware of the feelings of frustration, despair and hostility that exist. No one who goes to Calgary today can honestly come away without feeling that deep sense of frustration and hostility. I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents expressing their fears and angers. Let me read one such letter:
Just want you to know that I cannot accept the concept of separation. Canada- from coast to coast-means too much to me.
When the Springhill, N.S. miners were trapped in their mine, I felt it personally because they were our people-Canadians. While 1 can say that I feel sad about the great tragedy in Italy, it doesn't touch my heart in the same way. The French Canadians have always, to our way of thinking, complained about their inequitable treatment. We, as westerners, didn't and still don't understand them, but we responded to their anguish and their submerged desire to remain within Canada. We fought two world wars to defend Canada. I (thankfully) have only one cousin buried in the Bay of Fundy from that war. My father-in-law fought in both those wars. Our grandparents grew in this country, giving us our legacy to achieve, to build.
Certainly, we've been upset by our indifferent treatment by central Canada but we've grown and prospered. I can't throw it all away because of perilous Trudeau and his despicable henchmen. I feel a kinship with my fellow Canadians in the maritimes (even though I have never taken the time or effort to visit that part of our land).
I like my friends in Ontario despite their "blinker mentality''. I feel strongly that our view, our emotions and feelings, will be heard and recognized. I know that if I fight-and I will fight-it will be to keep our country one nation. I can't accept separation as the solution.
I've been so upset by the mood and feeling in Calgary, even tho' I understand it totally and believe in the grievances, that I keep bursting into tears-and I've thought about it and have come to the conclusion-I'm fighting for Canada.
Canadians, including those from the west, know that Canada is bigger than any prime minister. Canada will survive the national energy program and Canada will survive the Liberal party. Most Canadians from the west believe in their country, as I do.
My leader was accused the other day by two members of the New Democratic Party of fanning the flames of western separatism. I have attended three meetings in the last two weeks, in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary, at which my leader spoke. He has steadfastly defended Canada against the interests of those who would choose to reject confederation. Those members of the New Democratic Party know full well that my leader would stand firm against any separatism option for Canada. They know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stands for Canadian unity above all else. Their accusations are the worst kind of political diarrhea. They are to gain headlines.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are not the only ones who are saying it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The quiet voice in the corner there. He is not the only one who is saying it.
November 28, 1980


John William Thomson: Why do you not listen to what my leader has had to say?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why does he not come and take part in this debate?


John William Thomson: I want to spend a few moments dealing with one aspect of Canada's energy policy which should be our central focus and our main concern, namely, security of supply.
The cornerstone of the national energy program is a reduction of 20 per cent in crude oil demand over the next ten years. This is to be achieved by conservation and substitution. There is no way this reduction can be achieved unless we are prepared to reduce economic activity or unless we all start to ride bicycles. There is not a single credible source in this country who would agree with the projections in the national energy program that we will reduce our crude oil consumption over the next ten years by 425,000 barrels a day. There is not one credible source. Not the National Energy Board, not the National Research Council of Canada and certainly no knowledgeable person in the oil industry.
Forty three per cent of our energy consumption is from crude oil. The government plan calls for us to reduce this consumption to 26 per cent by 1990. Most authorities believe that crude oil consumption will increase from 1,823,000 barrels per day, which it is at the present time, to something over two million barrels per day by 1990.
Now we come to conservation. Can anyone tell me why gasoline consumption in Canada has increased 6 per cent in each of the last two years? We are the only country in the industrialized world which is subsidizing a scarce commodity, such as crude oil.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What about Venezuela and Mexico?


John William Thomson: 1 can see that the hon. gentleman has been to neither of those two places. 1 would hardly call either of them industrialized.
The Energy Resources Conservation Board in its latest estimate of Alberta's future crude oil productive capacity said that production will have dipped to 1 39,000 barrels a day by 1999. In fact, Alberta's oil production capability, which was almost two million barrels daily at the beginning of the 1970s, will slip to the one-million-barrel-a-day mark in 1982. The Energy Resources Conservation Board report states that current capacity is 1,183,000 barrels per day. The report forecasts productive capability will decline to 1,074,000 barrels per day next year and to 966,000 barrels per day in 1982. The forecast says conventional crude productive capacity will have declined to 688,000 barrels daily in 1985, about one-third of what Canada needs to meet its demands. By 1990, western oil fields will be capable of producing only 377,000 barrels per day. Some time around 1995, we will not be able to supply enough crude oil to one refinery in Edmonton which presently processes 145,000 barrels of oil a day.
Petroleum Administration Act
If we are to have energy security in Canada, we will need a new oil sands plant every two years for the next ten years for there to be any hope whatsoever of becoming self-sufficient in oil. Therefore, ten plants will be required. We should have had three more plants on-stream today. As it stands, the two plants presently planned cannot be on-stream for at least six or seven years.
With regard to offshore production from the Beaufort Sea and off the east coast, we will be fortunate if we see production from those fields before the end of the decade. There is no technology in place to make an underwater completion in over 250 feet of water, water which is known to be plagued with icebergs. More than one half our imports of 425,000 barrels per day presently come from Saudi Arabia and the government is talking about increasing this by another 100,000 barrels a day at a cost of somewhere around $40 a barrel.
It is madness to place the Canadian economy, Canadian jobs and our future in the hands of OPEC. There was a quotation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on the night he presented the budget which really caught my attention. He said the worst of the dramatic surge in international inflation directly associated with the OPEC price increases is behind us. Does anybody believe we have seen the last of OPEC price increases? It is inconceivable that any knowledgeable person would make such a statement and it is inconceivable that a government would be willing to place the future of our country in the hands of OPEC. Yet that is what this national energy program is doing. Make no mistake about it.
In conclusion, I wonder who the government will blame for future energy shortages. Who will they blame for increased unemployment, a faltering economy and continuing high inflation? Maybe they will be able to blame OPEC instead of Premier Lougheed and the multinationals. The wounds which have been inflicted on our country in this debate on energy and in the debate on the constitution will never be healed in my lifetime.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), for it allows me the opportunity to discuss an important point in today's political climate.
It goes without saying that Canada is a vast country. Many regions span more than three and one half million square miles. Each of these regions has distinct features which contribute to the make-up of Canada; differences in terrain, geography and natural resources have helped to shape the individuals who have lived in those regions. It has become common to exaggerate those differences and to ignore the common heritage we share as Canadians. We share some important characteristics that must be emphasized during this debate if we are not to lose sight of our purpose. Each and every Canadian must face long distances and the daunting climate which is our lot. We share institutions and a common history which have done more to make us Canadians than fish,

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
trees, grain, steel or oil will ever make us. We share a place in a difficult and uncertain world. We share a future which we owe to our children and to generations which will follow. We would be untrue to ourselves and to those who will follow if we were to fumble away the great opportunity we owe them.
A nation, then is more than an amalgam of soil, more than its natural resources, greater than a collection of rocks and trees. It is an abstract notion, it is the aspirations and dreams of the people who populate it. To reinforce and encourage those dreams, a country must be seen to have a future. In such a context, the responsibility of the national government is very important to Canada at this stage. The government must reconcile sometimes competing hopes with the realities which prevail. Canada's history has been one of sharing and helping the various regions, which, for one reason or another, do not have an equal share of the natural resources of this country. It is a difficult task, for our constitutional history dictates that natural resources are the property of the provinces in which they are found and no person on this side of the House would have any great argument with that principle. Nevertheless, all members on the government side share a common belief in the responsibility of the national government to see that no region of this country is left out of the wealth and opportunity which these resources bring. At one time or another, a different region has had its moment in the sun.
To make the idea of Canada work, however, it is important for us to recognize that equality of opportunity has not existed in equal measure throughout this land. On more than one occasion, I have stated that I entered politics and that I belong to the Liberal party because I honestly believe that sharing has been our history and will be our future.
In the past few years, many of the government's efforts in Canada have been directed toward bringing the economic promise of Canada to all of its people. No matter where a Canadian chooses to live, he or she must be guaranteed equal access to the wealth and opportunity which is his or her birthright. Without challenging provincial supremacy in the field of resource ownership and control, the bold and forwardlooking national energy program announced October 28 is an example of the way in which the government has attempted to bring Canada to Canadians. Important aspects of the national energy program will see that Canada has a greater stake in the future of its energy supplies and that Canadians will have a greater role in participating in that future. The program has rejected an export tax on natural gas. That is a concession which the federal government need not have made; its right to tax resources for export is very clearly spelled out in the present law.
To ensure that Canadians will participate in their own energy future, the national energy program sets out a policy which will seek to increase the level of Canadian ownership in the vital oil and gas sector of our economy. To ensure the security of our energy future, the NEP will encourage the movement away from oil to more plentiful sources of energy. Finally, the government will seek to redistribute its share of
the energy wealth to all Canadians in order that all may participate in our country's immeasurable good fortune.
I will seek to clarify some of these points in order that this debate may illustrate to Canadians just how fortunate we are. Sometimes it is said of Canada that Canadians do not understand one another, that we are not very good listeners. A. R. M. Lower, in an article published last September, made the point that because of our good fortune, we Canadians must resort to inventing problems in order to have something to fight about.
In many ways this fight over resources is an excellent case in point. The very real concern about Alberta's dwindling oil reserves has somehow broken down into an argument over regional grievances and has obscured the point that the national energy program suggests policies to account for this eventuality. Without fully understanding the facts on either side, people in the various regions of the country begin to eye each other suspiciously, so much so that some Canadians may genuinely feel uncomfortable in regions of the country other than those where they were born and raised.
Political differences have begun to take on human faces, and we have witnessed the sad sight of certain people from producing provinces accusing all easterners of being rapacious carpetbaggers and some people not living in the producing provinces regarding their Canadian cousins as greedy and not caring for the well-being of all Canadians. Proximity to natural resources has now become a measure of one's loyalty and degree of Canadianism.
On the sideline of this sorry spectacle are those who would wish to exploit this anxiety for their own savage political gain, and here I speak of the new western separatists. I will speak about their threat to our future at the conclusion of my remarks because I am genuinely concerned, as are all hon. members in this House, that differences over dollars might become the issue which divides this great country.
I rose today to speak, first of all, about some aspects of the energy policy which need to be reiterated in this House. I will begin with the national energy program's initiatives in the area of Canadianization. Speaking before a New York City audience recently, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) told his audience that it has become a matter of great concern to Canadians that so much of our energy resources is under control of foreign interests. He spoke of the incongruity of a major industrialized nation yielding so much of its heritage and its future to people outside its borders. He spoke about the very great need for Canadians to take some control over their future. As the minister pointed out, no country of Canada's stature could tolerate the degree of outside control which prevails in Canada's oil and gas industry. Indeed, no nation does so. The vast sums of profit and capital presently shipped offshore must remain in Canada if we are to develop our own oil and gas resources for Canadians.
The Canadianization element of the national energy program is essential in order to guarantee Canada's energy future.
November 28, 1980

It is only by encouraging small and large Canadian-owned and controlled firms and by our greater use of Petro-Canada as an agent of energy policy that this can be done. The Canadian people asked the government to increase the role of Petro-Canada in the last election. Greater Canadian involvement in Canada's energy field will enhance the chances of attaining energy self-sufficiency in the decade ahead.
Responsible private and public Canadian firms will ensure that Canada gets the energy it needs. The goal of Canadiani-zation will be attained in a number of ways. It is important to point out some of these because I feel this debate has served to underline the confusion in which members of the opposition find themselves. Members of the official opposition would characterize the Canadianization aspect of the national energy program as confiscatory, which it clearly is not.
Spokesmen for the government have stated quite clearly that the terms for acquisition of any oil company would be fair and equitable. Further, members of the Progressive Conservative Party have repeatedly stated that the national energy program would supplant private investment with massive public involvement and that the program is too interventionist. For his part, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated this government's preference for the bulk of the industry remaining in private hands. I strongly endorse this point of view, keeping in mind the importance of the Canadian oil and gas industry coming under Canadian control.
Members of the New Democratic Party see the Canadianization program as not going far enough. They would like to see the government nationalize at least three of the largest oil and gas companies in Canada. I ask them, why stop there? If we are going to come up with the billions necessary to do this, why not spend a few billion more and go after all the rest?
Opening this debate last Friday, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway stated, as recorded at page 4955 of Hansard, that it would be sufficient for the major multinationals to sell off enough shares to bring the level of Canadian ownership to 50 per cent while keeping control of the company in Houston or London or some place else while at the same time taking advantage of some of the more generous incentives offered by the national energy program. I point out, however, that the essential elements of the petroleum incentive program are available to companies which are not just owned but are also controlled by Canadians.
On the one hand, hon. members opposite accuse us of confiscatory policies of nationalization and, on the other hand, some other opposition members accuse us of being soft on multinationals. This may go to prove one thing,-that the aim of this government is right on. To achieve that aim the government has taken a balanced and fair approach to solving the vexing and, indeed, embarrassing problem of foreign ownership in the resource sector.
The government wants to encourage private investment in the oil and gas industry. This is the objective of a number of incentives for individuals and corporations to invest in our energy future. But there is a role for public participation, and on this point I would like to raise a question with our col-
Petroleum Administration Act
leagues in the New Democratic Party. Speaking to his own motion last Friday, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway stated that his party would move to acquire control of the three largest foreign oil and gas firms in Canada. He spoke of a concrete commitment to do this. I ask, then, where the government would find the estimated $20 billion to $25 billion necessary to compensate these companies fairly for their assets. Is there a concrete commitment to wave a magic wave to find this money? Asked, by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to clarify this point, the hon. member merely stated: "My policy would be to force Imperial Oil to give control to the federal government". This policy gives no room to private investors, as does our policy. It is the belief of this government that private industry, together with a reasonable degree of public involvement, can be a useful tool for the development of energy policy.
If hon. members want to see a concrete commitment, they need only look to the national energy policy to see that this government will ask Canadians to participate in the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry through a Canadian ownership account. This account will be self-financing to ensure that the money to acquire one or more of the multinationals will be found. Contrast this policy with that of the NDP, which seeks to apply a measure of force here together with a wave of a magic wand there in order to come up with a crippling sum of billions of dollars. This whole approach reminds me of an editorial cartoon drawn during the 1968 election campaign by Duncan MacPherson. In it the then leader of the New Democratic Party is pictured gazing into the sky at an object shaped curiously like a pie. The object is entitled "NDP policy". Now, 12 years later, if one looks into the sky, that pie in the sky is still there.
However, Canadianization does not mean merely the acquisition of one or more of the multinationals. It means encouraging investors to continue to seek new supplies of oil and gas for Canada's future energy needs. The petroleum incentives program will provide incentive payments to Canadian-owned and controlled companies. Over the next few years, companies with 50 per cent Canadian content and control will receive payments of 10 per cent of approved costs for exploration of oil and gas anywhere in Canada. For development of these resources an additional 10 per cent will be paid on approved costs. For companies with a 75 per cent Canadian interest this payment will be raised to 20 per cent.
Development of Canada lands will be facilitated through incentive payments to any company searching on these lands. This payment will be to 25 per cent of approved costs. Canadian companies will, of course, be favoured by additional payments. Further encouragement will come from the provision that companies working on Canada lands must have at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership. To ensure that Canada lands remain under Canadian control, the Crown will retain a 25 per cent interest in any development on these lands through the agency of Petro-Canada.
Canadian companies will be favoured in the granting of any new natural gas exporting licences. Any small natural gas

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
producers which may have problems selling their natural gas will be helped through the $400 million natural gas bank.
The Foreign Investment Review Agency and the petroleum monitoring agency will monitor the progress of Canadianiza-tion. Each will have the job to see that the private sector is co-operating in this endeavour.
In criticizing the policy of the government the Progressive Conservative Party has been no less unrealistic than the NDP. It trumpets loudly the effect on the consumer of the pricing policy set by this government while at the same time calling for yet higher energy prices.
Members of the official opposition are fond of circulating constituency reports with dire forecasts about the price of a litre of gasoline one, two or ten years down the line. Frightening graphs grace the pages of these householders, suggesting only half the picture to the consumer. Hon. members opposite do not point out that in contrast to the pricing regime set out in the December budget the budget of October 28 will be much more favourable to the consumer. In addition to pointing out to the consumer that a litre of gasoline will cost 30 cents in 1981, why do they not also point out that under the Crosbie proposals the cost would have been 34 cents a litre? Where does it state in the reports circulated by members of the Conservative party that had the House of Commons and the people of Canada not wisely defeated the Clark government, a litre of gasoline would have cost 58 cents in 1984 instead of the more moderate 43 cents proposed by the government? The answer to those questions is easy, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House are not ashamed to defend our proposals. As a government, we realize that the price of oil and gas must rise, but it must rise at a rate which will not rob the consumer. The Conservatives are content to illustrate only one-half of the picture, so indefensible was the price grab in their December budget.
The official opposition chooses to ignore the investment in jobs and technology which the energy program represents. They choose to ignore the benefits which accrue to all regions of the country through our policy.


Mr. Wilson:: That is the whole point of the debate. Aren't you listening?


David Bennington Weatherhead: The extension of the natural gas pipeline to the maritimes supported by this government in the national energy program will provide new markets for western natural gas in the east.


An hon. Member:: You are reading a speech you do not understand.


David Bennington Weatherhead: This is a plan which will benefit all regions of the country. The most immediate effect will be the jobs this plan will bring. Industrial activity will increase as a consequence of this extension. In the longer term, new markets will open both in the east and in the west.
Expenditures envisaged by the national energy plan will bring about $2.3 billion to Alberta over the next three or four years, in addition to the very substantial funds that the new pricing regime will bring. In New Brunswick, some $290 million will be spent under the program in support of research, industry incentives, conservation, and the like. Ontario will benefit from the plan to the tune of $925 million. These funds will provide jobs in the immediate term, in addition to the spin-offs which will result from such expenditures, and all provinces will benefit by direct spending. In the longer term, these expenditures will lay a base for industrial activity and start new industries to deal with the changing needs of Canada's energy future. It is interesting to note that the Mac-Eachen budget does not alter the sums paid to the producing provinces versus those suggested in the budget last December, and those prices were set without an agreement.
It has become a favourite pastime of the opposition to suggest that they had an agreement with the producing provinces before bringing in their budget. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources demonstrated last week, no such agreement was signed. The opposition has been repeatedly challenged to prove that such an agreement existed. I suppose that we on this side of the House, and indeed all Canadians, must watch while Tom Sindlinger, the newly independent, former Conservative member of the Alberta legislature, asks for just one shred of evidence to prove that such an agreement was ever reached. I suppose the philosophy of the official opposition is that if you repeat something often enough, people might just believe that it is true. The official opposition is attempting to prove that that myth is now legend.
Over the next four years, the producing provinces in western Canada will receive almost $40 billion for their oil and gas. It has been estimated that over ten years, or over the life of the national energy policy, the province of Alberta will receive $100 billion. That is a point for us to ponder, Mr. Speaker. I spoke earlier about regions having their moment in the sun. It is now the turn of the producing provinces, particularly Alberta. However, the people of Alberta are genuinely concerned that with the disappearance of conventional sources of oil prosperity will disappear. Nothing could be further from the truth. The national energy policy envisages a very different future for the province of Alberta. Encouragement of Alberta's coal reserves is an additional feature of the national energy policy. The pricing formula for heavy oil and oil recovered by tertiary recovery methods will encourage the development of plants and refineries in order to exploit these vast, and as yet largely untouched, resources. The pricing formula for natural gas, set at a rate less than that for oil, will encourage markets for Alberta's natural gas.


Mr. Lambert:: So what's new?


David Bennington Weatherhead: Alberta's share of oil and gas production revenues is greater than that received by any other state or province in the world. Compare the Alberta government's return of about 43 per cent of revenues from all of the oil and
November 28, 1980

gas production in Alberta under the national energy policy with that of the share of Texas or of Victoria state in Australia, each of them receiving less than 20 per cent of revenues.
The natural gas bank is of special concern to the province of Alberta. Many of the natural gas producers in that province are small Canadian firms supported by equally small investors. By providing a customer for their natural gas and by encouraging research for new markets, the natural gas bank will keep many producers in business who might otherwise give up for lack of markets.


An hon. Member:: That is a great departmental speech.


David Bennington Weatherhead: Some of us in the House can write our speeches without the help of departments. And that is the case with my speech this afternoon.
We are speaking here of dollars to governments. Who speaks for the consumers of Alberta? Ironically, it is we, the Liberal party, long painted as the bogeymen in this scenario. It is worth while for us on this side of the House to point out that higher oil and gas prices affect the people of Alberta quite as much as they affect people in all other regions of the country. Discounting the effect of provincial and local taxes, any increase in the price of oil and gas products would have an impact on the consumer in Alberta, in just the same way as they would affect a car driver in Toronto, Winnipeg or Halifax.
So it is important to point out that far from just benefiting consumers in the non-producing provinces, lower prices for gasoline and natural gas will benefit consumers in all provinces. Expenditures on conservation and the development of new sources of energy will be great in Alberta and in the other producing provinces. The Canadian home insulation program will require more money to be spent in addition to the $13.8 million spent since 1977 in Alberta.
British Columbia, another of the producing provinces, will receive its share of expenditures under the national energy policy. In addition to the estimated $3.6 billion in revenues from natural gas and oil production over the next four years, British Columbia will see $550 million spent on research, industrial incentives and conservation over the same period. Of particular interest to British Columbia will be the improvements to the forest industry renewable energy program. New industrial sectors will be allowed to take advantage of the program, and individual grants will be permitted to exceed $4 million, thus encouraging the development of new sources of renewable energy. Finding new markets for Alberta's natural gas will be one effect of the conversion grants, to a maximum of $800 per household. Another effect will be the resulting reduction in heating cost for the home owner. These conversion grants will also have the effect of stimulating the creation of jobs and industrial development in the search for better ways to use energy.
This weekend 1 listened with interest to a CBC radio program in which one of the principal owners of a furnace manufacturing company spoke of his firm's development of a more efficient gas furnace. While not a consequence of the
Petroleum Administration Act
national energy program, this gentleman also spoke of his company's effort to develop this even further. At present, the new furnace tests out at approximately 90 per cent to 95 per cent efficiency. The incentive to bring natural gas heating to more Canadians will undoubtedly spur more such entrepreneurship.
The national energy program seeks to make Canada's automobile industry more competitive by introducing more stringent mileage standards. At present, North American cars compare unfavourably with imports on the whole. Rather than allowing foreign manufacturers to fill this void, the government should give encouragement to Canadians to purchase domestically produced cars. Improving efficiency standards will ensure that this is done.
These are just a few highlights of the national energy program. In addition to Canadianization, fair prices, production incentives to discover new sources of oil and gas, incentives to convert from oil to more secure sources of energy, and encouragement to seek out renewable sources of energy, there are a number of other programs designed to ensure Canada's energy self-sufficiency. But all of this misses one thing, and the missing link is a price for oil and gas. What we are seeing, through the proclamation sections of the Petroleum Administration Act, is a government which recognizes that it must seize the political will if Canada is to attain energy self-sufficiency. Members opposite suggest that the pricing regime of the government will harm the future of oil and gas exploration. I say that this is not true, and to illustrate let me quote from the national energy program which indicates that the netback to the producer will increase between now and 1990 by a factor of four times; from the $6.29 a barrel received by the oil companies today, the netback before taxes will increase to $24.58 a barrel in 1990. That is hardly a massive grab of oil industry revenues. The immediate response of the oil and gas industry, much of it foreign owned, was predictable. However, if they were to stop and look, these companies would see that the incentives, plus the very generous share of revenues, make Canada a good place in which to make money in the oil and gas industry.
We have not seen a massive intervention of government. Rather, we have seen a move toward greater balance in the oil and gas sectors of the economy. In the past there were very few rules when it came to developing oil and gas in Canada. Now, before it is too late, there must be some rules which benefit consumers and Canadian people. While oil and gas revenues to the oil companies have gone up by ten times since 1970, production has not kept pace.
So, the impasse on pricing and revenue sharing must come to an end, without shutting the door to further negotiation. The government is only trying to bring home the urgency of Canada's energy future to Canadians. Admittedly, some would like to see their regions benefit even more greatly, but we must keep in mind that the government has a responsibility to see that Canada is not mired in eternal wrangling over ownership,

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
revenue sharing and the pricing of our natural resources. Balancing the constitutional ownership of the resources by the provinces against the federal government's moral and constitutional obligations in interprovincial and international trade, has not been easy.
In conclusion, we in this House express the political differences which democracy and the parliamentary system bring with them. However, outside we must remember that it is not just a voter to whom we are speaking; it is a Canadian, a cousin. Certainly I acknowledge the right of the opposition to criticize the program of the government. I will disagree with them, but it is their right and duty. As we on this side of the House go out and about this land, we will attempt to explain what the energy program means to the individual in dollars and cents. We will defend this policy and attempt to convert people to our cause. But, there is a greater cause. 1 ask opposition members to go out and, in their way, criticize the program if they must, but at all turns to defend Canada and not to allow the nation to be torn apart for a few resource points, for a few extra dollars. It will be a sad legacy of the House if we allow the country to be sold down the river for a few pieces of silver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation and sadness that 1 rise to address the House on this motion which protests the proclamation of section 36 of the Petroleum Administration Act. It is with a degree of sadness because the very fact of the implementation of this motion reflects a lack of trust and a lack of realism toward the petroleum industry, the producing provinces and the people from the part of Canada which I represent.
The freedoms we in this country enjoy are very precious and also very fragile. To my way of thinking, those freedoms are entrenched in the fact that individuals can advance and work in a society, not unduly encumbered by a central intervention-alist government which would repeatedly impose tax upon tax, collecting massive amounts of money through Ottawa, taking them with one hand, and then in a very gratuitous manner, as the previous speaker and the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) indicated, giving us back but a pitiful portion of those funds. This interventionalist philosophy is reflected in a document entitled "The Practice and Theory of Federalism" which was written some years ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In introducing a section on strategy and tactics, the Prime Minister indicated that "revolution and revolutionary wars proceed from birth to development, from small to large, from lack of power to seizure of power". It was a quotation from Mao Tse-tung, and immediately thereafter the Prime Minister indicated that if the whole of the Canadian electorate could miraculously be converted to socialist ideals at one fell swoop, there would be no reason to discuss strategy in the present context; socialism would be achieved with or without federalism and socialist administrations would be installed at every level of government affairs, no matter the form of the constitution. That is the fright which faces me and which faces
my children, including one of my sons who is here today in the gallery, whose future and freedom within our society is very much at stake in the matter of this debate.
The need for the implementation of the Petroleum Administration Act is predicated on Liberal myths and scare tactics directed against western premiers, petroleum industries, and, by inference, all the people of western Canada. I want to make it very clear at this point that Canadians who live in the western parts of this country are neither selfish nor separatists. We do not take lightly to being accused of either, but Canadians in the west rightly feel alienated from a mammoth centralist government some 1,500 to 3,000 miles away which does not try to understand their way of life. The nub of the problem is that the Trudeau Liberals and their good socialist friends to my left are distorting the real meaning of the word "sharing". I believe-and I think most western Canadians believe-that sharing is an act of giving and receiving in a spirit of mutual goodwill. It is a voluntary thing. Sharing is not legalized theft and undue and disproportionate taxation. That is how the communists share. Western Canadians already share generously with all their fellow Canadians through direct equalization payments and a number of other forms of economic concession to central and eastern Canada, for example, as reflected in the preferential purchasing policies of the Department of Supply and Services, the use of DREE grants, protective tariffs, subsidised freight rates, and even certain biases in the UIC system and welfare program. I and western Canadians believe we are entitled to know the cost of that sharing.
At a committee meeting two weeks ago, the Prime Minister refused to tell Canadians the costs the people who are doing the sharing have to bear because of the heavy hand of the central Liberal government. Our concept of sharing is a far cry from the definition of the Prime Minister. The concept of sharing expressed by his insensitive colleagues, particularly those on the front benches who are not in their places today, amounts to a unilateral confiscation of provincial resource revenues without even making a fair and serious attempt to negotiate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give an illustration of the tragedy that I think faces our country and the reason I am saddened with respect to our future. After the vote on Wednesday night, when the government denied the opportunity to oppose the implementation of the Petroleum Administration Act under the previous motion, I rode an elevator in the West Block. In the elevator I was surrounded by a boisterous group of Liberal backbenchers. They may not have thought I understood what they were saying. They were very happy and jovial. They displayed a smug cockiness which alarmed me, Mr. Speaker. What they were so excited about was that they had stuck it to Peter Lougheed. They thought they had stuck it to to a few western Conservative members of Parliament. They were acting like alleycats that got the mouse. They were so proud of themselves, Mr. Speaker. I must tell the House today that that laughter was not directed just at a couple of premiers in western Canada, or a couple of Conservative members of
November 28, 1980

Parliament who may have happened to be in the elevator. They were not merely laughing at a few institutions which they like to distort and misrepresent from time to time. They were laughing at all western Canadians. Their behaviour offers a sad commentary on the Trudeau party-not the Liberal party. It is not the old time Liberal party of Mackenzie King or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it is a party of Trudeau socialists. Let us not kid around about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who wants Mackenzie King back?


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is not coming back. The hon. member likes Trudeau much better than Mackenzie King I am sure.
The Trudeau party fails to understand the regional realities and the aspirations of eight provinces where they are not well represented. They are making an appalling effort to try to understand them. It seems to me the gift of power is something entrusted to a government which should be used to advance the interests of all regions of Canada, not to hit one or two regions across the backside with a double-edged broad-axe as this party has done. They are misusing the power they gained in the last election, the power which was given to them for the purpose of benefiting those who gave it to them. They are snubbing the rest of the people, particularly those in the west.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is crying out for leadership, not divisive, devious and petulant leadership by a socialist Prime Minister, who is hellbent on changing our national fabric to suit his fanciful philosophy. Canadians do not appreciate the irresponsibility shown by this man who creates a furore at home in the constitutional and budgetary areas, who then goes cavorting off to Arabia to dance sheik to sheik in the desert. This is a man who has more time for international gladhanding than he has for solving the problems which he has created almost single handedly with the help of his energy minister. Canada does not need that kind of leadership.
Canada needs the kind of leadership which was given to it in the nine short months of the previous Clark administration. That was the government which restored national harmony. That was the government which put the nation at peace with Quebec, which distributed goodwill among the people and governments of Canada. That cannot be denied by any member in this House. The previous government was a government which restored financial responsibility. It was a government which began to set our national priorities straight. In spite of all the foofaraw on the other side an agreement on oil pricing was reached by the Clark government.


An hon. Member:: Table it then!


Thomas Edward Siddon: There was an energy policy which left some of the revenues in the pockets of individual, privately owned, free Canadian oil companies to advance in the national interests. There was a budget. Most Canadians I talk to nowadays regret having seen that budget defeated. There was freedom of information legislation along with a number of other progressive measures. All the statistical indicators show that Canada was going in a different direction. You may look at any of the
Petroleum Administration Act
figures to see that direction with respect to the level of employment in the public service, the level of unemployment, the rate of inflation, and any other statistics, that you care to look at. Finally, Mr. Speaker, that government restored a degree of honesty to the government benches which we do not see in the deceit, the misrepresentation and the charlatan trickery practised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the presentation of his energy program and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in the presentation of his budget.
Yes, the former prime minister provided the leadership which Canada desperately needs for the 1980s. Alas, the deceit and the political opportunism of the Trudeau flock snatched that new hope away and replaced it with a government which is, frankly, drunk with power. It has been replaced by a government which seems willing to stoop to any tactic with respect to constitutional matters, energy matters and the implementation of the Petroleum Administration Act. Its supporters seem willing to stoop to any tactic to play their political best, even to risk the destruction of my country and theirs.
This country has tremendous potential. It was well worth the building over 113 years. It is a country which was well worth fighting for in the three great wars. It is certainly well worth saving in the face of, and in spite of, the actions of a few petty-minded, idealistic politicians who have no understanding of the way the real world works. The secret of the success of our country is not more dependence on Ottawa, it is not independence of the various regions, which are now going in different directions. The secret of the success of our country and our future strength rests upon interdependence. That is how the wars were won in the past decades. That is how the energy crisis will be confronted and overcome in this decade. That interdependence will involve the funding and the provision of an economic climate for the building of some seven or eight oilsands plants, heavy oil projects, extraction and development, exploration for natural gas, all of which will involve billions of dollars of capital. That is capital which ought to be spent in Canada, not in Saudi Arabia. It is capital which should be recycled in our economy over the next 25 years to the extent that trillions of dollars-yes, indeed, trillions of dollars-will circulate through the Canadian economy. Those dollars will be spent in all regions of Canada. They will be very important to the industrial centre of our economy. If we are to become interdependent again and have more respect for one another we cannot go around setting premier against premier. We cannot have a petulant Prime Minister putting himself on a platform above all premiers and calling each of them names. We must learn to share by consent, not by decree. We must restore respect for the right of the individual to his freedom. We must restore freedom to businesses so that they will be able to enjoy corporate freedoms under the rule of law in this country. We must restore self-confidence to the regions, the businesses, the communities, which are the building blocks of our country. We must not shatter that confidence the way it has been shattered in recent months.
5176

November 28, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
I am concerned, above all, about my children, as I think all members here are. It is important that we develop employment opportunities and educational facilities so that our children can enjoy the kind of prosperity which we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in this short span of time. This means we must stop borrowing and squandering the equity of western Canadian resources so that our children will not have to foot the bill later when the country is faced with economic collapse.
Mr. Speaker, the invocation of the Petroleum Administration Act by this government is divisive. It is discriminatory against the producing provinces, low-income Canadians, and particularly young Canadians who hope to find a career in the future of this country. The invocation of this act reflects an ignorance of western Canadian aspirations and feelings.
I do not think my time is up for another fifteen minutes. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put immediately any question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. Consequently, the question if as follows:

The question therefore is on the motion (Mr. Waddell).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Friday, November 21, 1980, the division stands deferred until 9.45 o'clock p.m. Monday, December 1, 1980.
It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 12 and 14 allowed to stand by unanimous consent

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of bringing before the House for debate, modification and approval, all of the CRTC policy recommendations regarding northern and remote television and radio broadcasting.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has left the House, but I am sure a member from the government and a member of the Conservative party will be speaking, hopefully in support of this motion, this afternoon. The most serious problem at the present time in relation to the communications policy and CRTC policy is that it seems to be developed on an approach best described as "policy by press release".
The communications policy has simply been outstripped by technology and the desires of the Canadian public, particularly in the northern and remote areas of Canada. For example, in Skeena riding such areas as the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Hazeltons, Nass Valley, Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake and the Cassiar and Atlin areas have never had decent television reception. Through local entrepreneurial skills, volunteer labour and community effort, television programming ranging from canned rebroadcasting and local production to satellite dish reception, we have achieved the goal of televised entertainment and new service.
All that has been done with an absolute minimum of bureaucratic government intervention. Serious shock waves have been felt recently throughout the north every time the Minister of Communications puts out another press release, because of the sensitivity to the lack of the government's ability to deliver northern service. One can hardly accept the premise of "Canadian content" for northerners when Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal and in fact over 90 per cent of the Canadian population has essentially the freedom of choice in television viewing.
The government's brand of Canadianism using northerners as media guinea pigs simply will not sell. We all understand the cultural aspects of good quality Canadian programming. However, there must be debate and agreement to continue northern access to diversified, even if pirated southern broadcasts. The concern of northerners is that cable companies in the south will get the government's ear to sell U.S. and other international programming and allow signal scrambling on the satellite broadcasts.
For example, at the present time in the community of Cassiar in my riding there is a satellite earth receiver which brings in and distributes American broadcasting throughout the community. In fact, it is the first and only ongoing and

November 28, 1980

relatively newsworthy and entertaining television service that has ever been available in that community. None of the other broadcast systems were ever brought into that remote northern mining community. That type of broadcast is extremely important to families in terms of keeping up to date about what is going on in the world. The problem though is that those individuals in the community who watch a lot of television tend to know more about politics in California or on the eastern seaboard than they do about politics in Canada. For that reason I am very sensitive to this situation and the need to promote increased Canadian content on the air waves.
But when there is no policy in place or no satellite communication in place to provide television to communities such as Cassiar or the Queen Charlottes, it is only good sense that an interim plan be followed, one which makes clear to northern, remotely-located Canadians that this type of satellite, although it means the pirating of signals, will be allowed to continue. The government should get on with the transmission of letters between Canada and the government of the United States to ensure that the scrambling of those signals will not occur.
The CRTC can hear at any time from southern Canadian cable companies and so on ad infinitum. Elowever, unless Parliament debates this policy the interest of southern Canadians may end up being served by corporate cable systems and television stations to the exclusion of the viewing rights of northerners. I am concerned about this, and I trust that both Liberal and Conservative members will rise to participate in debate, support the motion and endorse a parliamentary debate on this serious issue.
Too often, policies are made in the majority interest to the serious detriment of a minority-in this case regionally and geographically and isolated minorities. We hear evidence from Liberal members and Conservative members that the constitution should protect various minority rights. My party certainly takes part in that debate and supports that view. In a country such as Canada, it is extremely important that the rights of minorities be entrenched and supported.
However, pay television, CRTC policy and the demands of the cable systems do not deal with our needs in the north. The minister espouses the extension of services to the north as a priority according to recent statements, but history speaks for itself. The October 28 budget makes it quite clear where the government stands in relation to the northern extension of service. In my view a burgeoning, bureaucratic miasma of red tape is not required in this situation.
If the government wishes to put good quality, Canadian television on the air waves in the north, that is good and I tip my hat. However, once again history speaks for itself. Northern communities have fought for what we have and the decisions and agreements which ought to have been made in our interests have simply not been made. The 19-month extension of ANIK B programming is good and so is Telesat.
For the record I will list some of the projects which are under way. Certainly, some of these projects are important, but as hon. members will see, there are none which relate
Broadcasting
directly to what I am speaking about today. The first program listed under the minister's program on the extension of existing pilot projects is an evaluation of a 90-megabits-per-second digital link, which hardly affects my riding. There is the Ontario government teleconferencing network project, the Knowledge Network of the West, an interactive video educational system for southern British Columbia educational institutions; the distance education project in Alberta, and an interactive video educational system for communities in Alberta, all of which would have little or no impact on the north.
Other projects are Northern Ontario Hybrid Direct Broadcast, Operational Trial sponsors a good project which brings TV Ontario directly into remote homes and communities via satellite, and the Program Delivery Pilot Project West, is an extension of CBC and BCTV programs into northern British Columbia which only impacts on one very small community in my riding.
There is the Memorial University of Newfoundland Pilot Project which is for health and education exchanges in the province. Then there is the Inukshuk Project sponsored by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada which is very well known to the Eastern Arctic. The Time Division Multiple Access or Slim TDMA project deals with digital technology applicable to business services and does not affect the north. The next program is called Long Baseline Interferometer which involves the use of a satellite to link radio telescopes for geophysical studies. It is an important scientific program, but in terms of communications policy, it does nothing for northern Canada. Then there is the Naalakvik II program for the Inuit of northern Quebec which puts emphasis on Inuit broadcasting education and community educations. It is obviously a good project, but it does little to bring broad-based educational, entertainment or news service to all of northern Canada.
I will list now some of the new projects upon which the government stands. I believe it will bring home to hon. members precisely why this motion should be supported. The first project is the delivery of teleprinter, audio and Telidon news-information signals which involves the delivery of satellite news directly to radio and television stations and cable companies. It does nothing for the north. The second project involves electronic news gathering. It is there to provide on-the-spot news coverage essentially for southern Canada. Then there is the transportable telephony earth stations project which is for terrestrial and offshore oil industry operations. The fourth project listed is called Inter-Omnibus and is sponsored by the University of Quebec to provide educational services to remote campuses of the university.
Then there are three experiments and demonstrations. The first is called Trans-Canada Amateur Radio Packet Network. It does not deal at all with the educational, entertainment or news areas of television. The second such project is called Technical Evaluation of Digital Modulation Schemes-it is sponsored by the University of Ottawa. The third project is called the Support of Australian Domestic Satellite Programs. So rather than offering something for northern Canadians, the

November 28, 1980
Broadcasting
government seems to think it is more important to get involved with the Australian domestic satellite program.
* 0610)
With respect to licensing, television is received only by earth terminals, namely TVRO. In a written statement, the minister indicated that rather than having to wait 18 months to get radio standards procedure 116, more commonly known as an RSP-116, northern Canadians who are interested in getting a licence for their earth receiver will have to wait only 90 days instead of 18 months. However, the minister is reviewing extension of licences to categories not now eligible. But, here is where the trick comes in. We have the problem with the CRTC and since this minister took office we have policy which has been handed down by press release. Whose interests will be upheld in a situation such as this where there are powerful southern cable systems and television companies in the southern part of the country and very powerful viewing audiences who know what they want to watch? No one goes into a home in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver saying that you must watch CBC tonight if there happens to be a good movie on another television station. That person may never turn on Canadian television. However, the policy of the government right now is essentially to use Canadians living in the north and remote parts of Canada as guinea pigs for Canadianiza-tion policies.
1 think this situation requires a parliamentary debate. The CRTC can hear evidence ad infinitum from many Canadians living in the southern part of Canada, but northern Canadians are only represented in a limited number of forums. The Parliament of Canada is certainly one place where we should debate and decide what we intend to do with respect to northern and remote television policy.
Under the review which is now going on, reported in The Canada Gazette for November 22 of this year, there is opportunity for formal notices to be given and I would urge all northern Canadians to make submissions before the end of February. I think that around the end of February would be a good time for a full parliamentary debate on the question of CRTC, northern and remote television policy.
There are 2.8 million Canadians who have access to two television channels or less. The overwhelming majority of people in my riding, until recently, had no television access whatever. Isn't it about time we let them have a voice?
Mr. Ron Bothwell owns a company selling satellite receiving stations near London, Ontario. As reported in The Globe and Mail for November 26, 1980, he had this to say about the Department of Communications-I quote from the report:
Mr. Bothwell said the federal communications department was acting to protect certain cable television interests, since 'federal officials admit that they'll tolerate illegal satellite dishes only in those areas where cable is not available.' He said, for example, that the communications department told him it was willing to turn a blind eye to the operation of satellite dishes in Penetanguishene, but would not allow dishes in Waterloo. That kind of arbitrary action is both absurd and unconstitutional!
There are several vital quotations in the final Therrien report. When considering whether U.S. signals should be carried, at page 17 of the report, we read:
In determining priorities for services to be carried on Canadian satellites, the carriage of U.S. stations or programming services should not be permitted, subject to a review of this policy should surplus capacity become available.
That recommendation from page 17 of the report applies directly to my riding. People have paid for these dishes, people have installed their own cables. A fantastic amount of community work has been done to bring this form of entertainment into communities. While that sort of recommendation is going forward, for the minister not to rise in this House and call for a parliamentary debate himself is the height of absurdity.
At page 19 of the Therrien report, we find the following:
Several of the operators of unauthorized satellite reception and delivery facilities who appeared before the committee said they would gladly switch to a Canadian satellite if an attractive service were made available.
I appreciate that because I know that almost all, if not all, the satellite operators in my riding and probably throughout the north would start to use a Canadian satellite if there were full broadcast programming.
However, I think we all know that the broadcasts coming from Telesat and ANIK V are not around-the-clock. There are not many movies or regular local or regionalized news broadcasting, though these are extremely important.
An interim measure asked for by the government is for the CBC to have CTV programming on the present channel which distributes broadcasting of the House of Commons proceedings. I am not sure how many of the residents in the northern part of my riding would want to watch the House of Commons debates-I am sure there are many-but I think probably there are other programs they would appreciate being broadcast on Canadian satellites.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are watching right now.


James Ross Fulton: At page 20 of the Therrien report, we find the following:
It is said that the CRTC and DOC have lost, or are rapidly losing, control of the Canadian broadcasting system, and firm action should be taken immediately to regain that control.
There is no question that the CRTC and DOC have lost complete control, not only of the technology, but of what is happening on a global scale in terms of what people are watching and how they are obtaining it. To simply move in now with some weird red tape and various licensing procedures and proposals to shut off, or to allow the American satellites to scramble their signals, is really a hodge-podge way of dealing with such a serious situation.
Recently the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report on federal-provincial aspects of communications policy. Generally, they have concluded the following:
Neither a continuation of a centralized nationwide control-as originally proposed by the federal government-nor a massive turnover of authority to the provincial governments-as proposed by Quebec-is really acceptable.
November 28, 1980

1 certainly concur with that view. I do not think that all communications policy can be unilaterally determined by the federal government, nor should it simply be disposed of unilaterally to the provinces because of the enormous amount of interjurisdictional communications, namely, transprovincial, transboundary and international.
Clearly, jurisdiction has to be mapped out. In my view that would be most comprehensively and competently done here in debate in this House of Commons. The report also stated that the CRTC should be brought under closer policy control by the cabinet, though the board also said the CRTC should continue to make rules "within the context of clearer political direction." That flows clearly from the motion I have before the House today; it is important there be some political direction for dealing with northern and remote satellite broadcasting. In fact, the question could be expanded to include satellite broadcasting in the whole of this country.
The Howe report also stated that regulatory and political proceedings related to communications policy should be opened up to allow consumers more input. Very clearly, that should include people in the north. The notice printed in the November 22, 1980, Canada Gazette gives some opportunity for northern Canadians to make their views known to the Department of Communications and to the minister, but 1 think we have to go much further than that. Members from northern and remote areas of Canada have a right to stand in this House and debate CRTC communications policy to ensure that the question of the dishes which are already in place, whether pirating signals or not is adequately discussed. I would urge all members of this House, certainly those who are to speak on this topic, to support the motion in order that we can get on with the debate, perhaps in February, and deal with the very important issues which affect northern Canadians and those who live in remote areas.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for providing us with an admittedly brief opportunity to discuss this very complex question of extension of services, direct broadcasting, pay TV and all the complicated technical issues which have been brought to the public's attention through the Therrien committee report.
I wish to remind the hon. member that the government, after recommendations made by the CRTC, has taken very important steps in trying to deal with this complex issue.
Recently we extended the test program to remote areas of Canada. I am sure this will be of interest to the hon. member who has just spoken. In October, 1975, the TVRO dishes were legalized. The hon. member has rather badly missed the point addressed by the Therrien committee. As a member of the New Democratic Party, I would expect him to be interested in the whole issue that has caused the problems with satellite communications, namely how do we protect the Canadian interests.
Broadcasting
It would be very simple to allow people all over Canada to buy dishes to put on the top of their houses, use the 14/12 gigahertz band and receive direct broadcasting from U.S. satellites for which, of course, they would not be paying. As the hon. member pointed out in a similar private member's hour last week, they would not be paying copyrights to the artists who originated the material being received on their television sets. That would be one point.
Second, and most important, the Canadian cultural interest would be lost. I did not hear the hon. member refer to that in his remarks. He did refer to the question of limited access to television in his constituency of Skeena, which is a remote area and which we all agree is underserved, as are many remote areas in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada.
The problem facing the government and the CRTC is how to face that issue while protecting the Canadian cultural interest in a world in which borders and frontiers in terms of communication are becoming increasing fuzzy and vague.
If the hon. member had read the Therrien report, he would agree that it is an extremely complex report. The technical problems alone make one wonder whether it would be in the interests of Canadians to have it brought to this House, where their study would take a large amount of time, when we have other questions such as energy, the constitution and the economy to discuss. The hon. member would be the first to protest if the government, having set up the CRTC to look into the issue-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Nonsense!


Peter A. Stollery: The hon. member shouts "nonsense". He does not have the discipline to sit in his seat and keep quiet when another member is speaking. That is the least we can ask. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) conveniently forgets that we have these various commissions and independent bodies to look into these issues objectively to try and resolve them. This is done because we learned over the years that it is the functional way to operate.
I now wish to deal with the question of more adequately serving northern communities with radio and television. The hon. member ignored the very interesting section of the Therrien committee's report which addressed itself not only to those areas of Canada not served by television, but to areas of Canada without proper radio reception. Fortunately, this can be dealt with in a less complicated way than satellites and television. However, it is important.
I live in Ontario. Parts of my province do not have adequate radio service. There are small communities with 80, 90, or 100 people and mining camps throughout the enormous reaches of this country which do not receive adequate service. The CRTC is addressing itself to that question, trying to come up with a solution which will serve Canada better, giving people a larger choice of broadcasting, whether it be television or radio. On the other hand, it insists that the Canadian cultural interest, which I am sure the hon. member is as interested in as I am, is protected.

November 28, 1980
Broadcasting
Right now it is looking at an area which is under the most severe attack as a result of foreign domination. The hon. member's party has consistently made this a plank in its platform for many years. We have a Canadian cultural industry, which is dependent on communications, under severe attack by the internationalization of geostationary satellites which anyone can use by buying an appropriate receiver to stick up on his roof. It is not very big, only a metre and a half across, and it can receive signals directly from abroad, for which the person does not pay, even though someone was responsible for the material directed to that satellite.
I wish to direct my following remarks to a number of the recommendations related to the availability of satellite and earth station facilities to provide for the extension of services reflected in the report. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most members of the committee, it is in this satellite technology that the future of northern broadcasting lies. At this stage it would be appropriate to outline what positive steps have been and are being taken by this government, especially with respect to satellites, which also must include the associated earth stations. Last weekend, the communications minister announced changes in the federal government's policy and procedures with regard to licensing satellite television receive-only, commonly called TVRO, earth stations for the reception of television and radio programming from Canadian satellites. This new policy and procedure will be of benefit in several ways.
First, it allows for simplified application procedures which will make it possible for broadcasters to obtain TVRO licences within 90 days. Second, it makes Canadian satellite-delivered programming more readily available to Canadians throughout broadcast undertakings. Third, it permits provincial agencies and authorities to own and operate earth stations to receive Canadian-originated educational television and other signals from Canadian satellites. The previous policy, in effect since February, 1979, had restricted licences to broadcasters, common carriers and cable television operators. Fourth, licensed TVRO earth terminals are now permitted to receive radio program signals transmitted over the same satellite channel as the television signal. This change will facilitate the wider distribution of radio programs to remote communities at minimum cost and follows upon recommendation No. 21 of the CRTC committee's report.
The minister also announced that he is opening a more general review of the satellite earth station policy, including the study of the possibility of extending TVRO licensing to certain categories of applicants not now eligible. Recommendation No. 11 of the report states, and I quote:
A review should be undertaken, in consultation with all parties concerned, with a view to expanding the present policy governing the ownership and operation of earth stations for broadcasting purposes that would permit:
General and special-purpose broadcasting undertakings to own and operate uplink earth station; The ownership and operation of radio receive-only earth stations by licensed broadcasting undertakings; and
The ownership and operation of receive-only earth stations by educational and other non-commercial institutions for internal use; by community groups; and by private citizens for exclusive use by them and their households. I submit
that this recommendation is covered in large part by this recently announced policy and the general review to be undertaken shortly.
Early last week the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) announced the extension of the experimental program on the Anik B satellite. This program is one of ongoing operational research conducted by the Department of Communications.
The technical expertise and operational experience gained from this extended experimental program in the 14/12 gigahertz band will reflect the concern of the committee, as expressed in recommendation No. 8, that broadcast system planning should be flexible to accommodate advances in technology.
For the information of hon. members 1 would like to explain that I am a layman reading this very technical material. What are known as geostationary satellites are satellites effectively going around the world at the same speed as the earth turns and staying in the same spot. I believe this technology was invented in Canada. Step two of this, of course, is the kind of satellite which is used. The original satellites were of such a nature, without becoming too technical, that they would beam down at a receiver which had to be in a rural area because it tended to interfere with other communications because of the band it was using. I think it was a 6/4 gigahertz band, but I am not certain. The new technology which is just being developed, also in Canada, uses the 14/12 gigahertz band, which again in layman's language means that instead of having to be beamed down into a rural area and then brought by a cable into an urban area or wherever it is to be received, the signal can be beamed much closer. I am not sure if it can actually be put on a person's roof, but it can be brought quite close to it because it does not interfere with other signals. All this is very new and rapidly advancing.
1 think the hon. member made a point with regard to how difficult it is for the government and governmental organizations to keep up with the tremendous expansion in this technology. Flowever, that does not mean we should stop trying. We should keep trying. I am sure we have always done that in Canada with respect to this type of development, and 1 believe the government will develop policies which will be able to handle this kind of technology and protect the Canadian interest, which is our purpose.
Recommendation No. 9 refers to the planning of future Canadian satellites and urges full consultation with the broadcasting industry to ensure that the broadcasting needs of all Canadians are fully taken into account. These ongoing experimental projects are exploring ways by which the latest technological advances can be used for new and improved communications services in general.
However, more specifically, CBC, OECA and the private broadcast industry have been consulted and, indeed, are active participants in the Anik B experimental program. Educational television signals, OECA, are being beamed to locations in northern Ontario. In addition, CBC and BCTV signals are being beamed to northern British Columbia communities.
November 28, 1980

There is a continuing government involvement in satellites for broadcast purposes. There are studies presently under way to determine the suitability of the Anik C satellite to provide an interim direct broadcast satellite service prior to the launch of a dedicated direct broadcast satellite system which will probably take place in the late 1980s if a decision to proceed with such a system is taken.
There are Department of Communications studies on various DBS scenarios covering social, economic, regulatory, institutional and policy aspects. Later on this afternoon 1 believe one of our members will address the other problem this raises which, of course, is that of pay television, also addressed in the Therrien report. I am not sure whether the hon. member opposite is in favour or opposed, but these things are so intimately connected that we cannot discuss remote broadcasting without also talking about direct broadcasting; and direct broadcasting is, in effect, different from pay television, an issue which is very controversial and complex.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Did you say too complex to debate in this House?


Peter A. Stollery: There is that hon. gentleman again. He does not have any discipline. His colleague had his 20 minutes, and 1 did not say a word, but the hon. member can always be relied upon, if anything even slightly provokes him, to get into the act. He just cannot sit in his chair and keep his trap shut. It would be nice if he would do so for just another three minutes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You should talk!


Peter A. Stollery: The Department of Communications is continuing with preparations for the 1983 regional administrative radio conference at which orbital positions and operating frequencies for the broadcast satellites will be assigned. Much of this subject matter is certainly not in layman's language. We are dealing now with who gets what on the broadcast band, and that is not a subject which can be resolved within Canada. It involves international co-operation not only between the United States and Canada but also with all of the countries in the western hemisphere because anyone can put up a satellite and beam down at any of the countries in the western hemisphere if he is using a geostationary satellite.
The primary task of the 1983 regional administrative radio conference is to create an environment within which a large number of sovereign states can create domestic satellite broadcasting systems tailored to their own requirements and conditions.
The need for satellites for broadcast purposes has been recognized for some time. As early as 1974 a joint Department of Communications-CBC study was undertaken to ascertain the potential of DBS for CBC's extension of coverage needs, and much of the work covered in that report is still pertinent today. I also point out to the hon. member that I believe that in the past week the CBC has declared its intention to apply for a licence for CBC 2 which, I am sure, will be of interest to his constituency.
Broadcasting
Appropriate regulation and policies governing a Canadian direct broadcasting system will depend on the ultimate goals of establishing for the service the technical and economic characteristics and the environment in which it will function. All these aspects are presently under review within the Department of Communications.
In closing I would just like to touch briefly on the availability of satellite channel capacity because concern has been expressed of late that the availability of satellite transponders for television distribution will shortly be insufficient to meet the demand until the Anik D is launched.
I see that my time is nearly up. 1 would not want to leave the hon. member waiting with bated breath for the other part of my argument which 1 cannot make. I would like to thank him again for bringing this subject to our attention because, as he knows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief so as to allow more time for my colleagues on my left to complete the discussion on this subject. It is not very often that I agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), but this is one of those few occasions.
I am pleased to support, at least in principle, the idea he puts before us today. It is a subject matter on which there is really not much difference between the various parties represented here.
The main difference, if there is one, is that members on this side of the House would like to see this matter debated by the elected representatives of the people of Canada either in this chamber or in committees of this House, whereas hon. members on the government side would prefer to have the matter dealt with by the Department of Communications, by the technical experts alone. My preference would be to have this matter dealt with, initially at any rate, not in this House, as suggested in the motion, but rather in a parliamentary committee because it is, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Stollery) has outlined, a rather complicated technical matter. In fact, the technical nature of this matter and the advances in communications technology made in the last few years are the reason for the difficulties which we are facing today. What we see is technology outstripping legislation. In many respects it is good that the laws of Canada are not changing quickly and that it takes time, time needed for public discussion, for the laws of this country to undergo change. But in this case a way should be found of dealing with technological advances much faster than when, for instance, we make changes to the Criminal Code.
The motion refers to the special situation which exists in the northern remote areas. I submit that many of the objections raised by the parliamentary secretary apply much more to the south than to the north. In the remote northern areas of our country we do not have the choice of channels and radio

November 28, 1980
Broadcasting
stations which the people in the south have, and because of the small number of people living there, very complicated and expensive cable systems and other systems used in southern Canada are not justified. In remote areas in the north the problem which exists in construction and exploration camps in this day and age is that it is very difficult to get people to work there unless you can promise them some of the amenities which they are used to here in the south. There is a growing awareness in these remote communities, mainly because originally the government provided the CBC service to them, that alternatives to the CBC are now available. I am sometimes surprised by the mail I get from very small, remote communities asking me what I can do to help in providing programming additional to that provided by the CBC. These people have also approached government departments, such as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I understand that on several occasions that department has made money available for the establishment of satellite receiving stations which, in fact, may be operating illegally. However, I will not comment on that any further.
One of the reasons people want programming additional to that provided by the CBC is that the corporation puts forward a certain point of view, a certain philosophy, and people would like to hear the other side of the story. We have heard accusations in this House from the NDP that the CBC has been an instrument of the Liberal party, and vice versa. The other day someone suggested that perhaps it is controlled by the Rhinoceros party.


An hon. Member:: The Conservative party.


Dave Nickerson: Most people would agree that there is a CBC point of view and that if alternatives were available, other concepts of what is going on in the country could be made known to people.
Apart from that, what many people in smaller communities want is entertainment. Very often the CBC concentrates on lecturing people, telling them what to think rather than entertaining them. I have referred to this several times in this House in the question period and in motions under Standing Order 43. To a certain extent the government has been responsive, although progress has been very slow.
One of the difficulties faced by small isolated northern communities is that they know that satellite receiving stations are available and they would like to put them into operation, as very often they do. But there is always the threat of illegality hanging over them. What we are doing by failing to bring the laws of the country up to date as far as technology is concerned, is forcing people to act illegally. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) tells a very interesting story. A few weeks ago he was part of an erection team constructing a receiving station. An agent of the Solicitor General happened upon the scene. Although he did not threaten to stop the crew, because, presumably, he would benefit from having that station, he inquired whether or not they were acting in accordance with the law, to which the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River replied "I do not really know,
but I am certainly acting in accordance with the wishes of my constituents." The method of making this service available to communities in the north-aside from the camps to which I referred, where the services are operated by the company which owns the camp-is to form some communal organization usually through service clubs or sometimes by municipal organizations, the municipal council or some subsidiary organization set up by the municipality. If the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) were to move in and try to tear down those satellite receiving stations or prosecute the people who provided this service, they might find themselves in the position of taking the mayor of the local community to court and perhaps dragging the entire municipal council to court with him. There would be a great public outcry because these stations are what the local people want and they are set up in accordance with the wishes of the people. I would not like to see the Minister of Communications acting with a heavy hand, as he has threatened to do on occasions, and then having to draw back afterwards.
One criticism of the way in which the department is operating is that it is creating a double standard. The department has moved in rather heavily against stations and receivers owned by private companies. It is always easy to take on a private company; it is a lot harder to take on a public organization. They have chosen the easy way and left out municipalities and publicly-owned receiving stations, thereby creating a double standard which I think is morally wrong.
I have been presenting the positive aspects of the case in favour of the satellite stations, but I have to admit that certain things which the parliamentary secretary said are quite valid. There is a negative side to the argument. The parliamentary secretary mentioned such things as copyright, Canadian content and rebroadcasting difficulties. If you have two stations rebroadcasting on a similar frequency, one picture might impinge upon the other. That is a matter which must be resolved. Also 1 have had complaints about material being received over the airwaves which is not in keeping with generally accepted Canadian moral standards. There again, I have heard from people who very much like to see shows which are not in keeping with normally accepted Canadian moral standards. So, there is a pro and a con argument to that as well.
1 admit there are difficulties and that this matter should be looked at, not only from the strictly technical point of view within the Department of Communications, but as the hon. member suggested, in the House or in committees of the House where it can be debated and 1 look forward to that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to address the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) which relates to the report of the Therrien committee submitted to the CRTC on July 24, 1980. The report contains a number of
November 28, 1980

recommendations dealing with the extension of basic television service to northern and remote communities. In addition, it outlines specific recommendations for extending native programming. I wish to confine my remarks to these two aspects of the report.
Although I live in a far different environment than the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), it seems rather strange, living in the heartland of southwestern Ontario, within about 35 miles of three radio stations, that at six or 6.15 o'clock in the evening we can only receive one of them, though we can receive a multiplicity of United States stations which increase their power output after the dinner hour. I sympathize with him and his problems in the Western Arctic, as well as those of the hon. member for Skeena in this regard.
Although certain aspects of native programming impinge upon each other, it is important to make a distinction between the needs of native people and those of other Canadians in rural and remote parts of Canada. The native peoples of Canada have special programming needs, particularly in regard to the cultural impact of television. Native people themselves recognize the potential of the television medium for supporting their waning cultures in the face of strong influences exerted by the predominantly non-native society. It is for this reason I shall discuss native programming as an issue apart from the extension of basic television service.
I am quite familiar with satellite receiver stations. As a matter of fact, a particular company in my constituency is pushing hard to have these installed throughout southwestern Ontario at the present time, as an alternative to cable television, to bring in satellite television in the larger apartment complexes, hotels and various other institutions. 1 am not sure this was the use intended for those satellite stations when they were first launched. If we are to ensure Canadian content, I believe we should take a very hard look at what is happening in this regard. Certainly the minister should be commended for the stand he has taken.
In recent years there has been a growing public awareness of the technological possibilities for satellite-delivered television. The falling costs of television receiver-only earth stations has meant that northern and remote communities have been looking to satellites as a desirable mode for delivering a range of television viewing. However, the lack of an alternative Canadian service has led to the installation of a number of unlicensed television receiver-only earth stations in rural and remote parts of the country. These have been aimed at American communications satellites in violation of international agreements by which both Canada and the United States are bound.
Therefore, much of the emphasis of the Therrien report has been directed to determining how a variety of television service might be extended expeditiously to northern and remote parts of Canada. This emphasis was reinforced as the committee defined "northern" and "remote" as applying to all parts of Canada where essential needs have yet to be met. Therefore, such a definition includes many parts of Canada which could not be categorized in normal circumstances as either northern or remote.
Broadcasting
There is a sizeable segment of our population with little or no choice of available television programming. In fact, there are 2.8 million Canadians, or 11 per cent of the total population, who only have access to two or fewer television stations. Moreover, these people are to be found in all parts of the country and include 31 per cent of the residents of Atlantic Canada and 22 per cent of the people living in the prairie provinces, as well as over 50 per cent of northern Canadians. The service afforded these 2.8 million Canadians is in stark contrast to what the majority of urban Canadians enjoy-on the average the latter have access to between ten to 15 television stations.
In recognition of this fact, the Therrien committee indicated the following on the first page of its report:
Our first unanimous conclusion is that immediate action must be taken to meet the needs of the many Canadians who believe that, as regards broadcasting, they are being treated as second-class citizens.
The report goes on to make six recommendations bearing directly on the extension of television services. Its first recommendation is that the CRTC should immediately call for licence applications for the delivery, in remote and underserved areas, of a range of Canadian satellite television services which would be attractive to Canadian audiences. Its second recommendation is that the federal government, as a purely interim measure of an experimental nature, should arrange and pay for one composite public service of alternative entertainment programming to be delivered by satellite to remote and underserved areas as authorized by the CRTC. Its third recommendation is that immediate action should be taken to ensure that national radio services be made available in all parts of Canada as soon as possible.
Its fifth recommendation was that the extension of broadcasting services to northern and remote areas must not rely upon subsidies from pay TV. Its sixth recommendation was that it must be recognized residents in remote areas may have to contribute to the cost of receiving all but the national broadcasting services, and such contributions must be kept down to the lowest feasible amounts. Its seventh recommendation was that approval for the introduction of any new satelitte service must take into account the essential need to provide, maintain or expand facilities for community and regional services. Its eighth recommendation indicated that planning for the broadcasting system of the future must be flexible enough to accommodate technological, legislative and structural change.
Immediately upon the tabling of this report, the chairman of the CRTC gave the assurance that the commission would act quickly on the extension of television services to northern and remote parts of the country. And they did act quickly. On October 16, the CRTC issued a call for licence applications for the extension of services to remote and underserved communities, such services to include the provision of a variety of radio and television programming services from Canadian networks, Canadian stations and other Canadian sources which will be attractive to those living in rural and remote communities. Applications are being received until December 1. The com-

November 28, 1980
Broadcasting
mission scheduled public hearings to consider the applications for February, 1981, and the chairman of the commission promised that they will render a speedy decision.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) is optimistic that later in 1981 a multichannel satellite service will be available on the Anik system. For the interim, in compliance with the second recommendation of the Therrien committee, the minister encouraged the CBC, the CTV and TVA to implement an interim satellite television package. They have agreed to pursue the matter and are currently in consultation with the CRC to finalize the details.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that this is the third or fourth Friday afternoon in a row
when 1 have been sorely tempted to draw attention to the lack of a quorum during private members' hour. 1 have not done so, because I did not want to be responsible for cutting off discussions on important private members' motions. 1 hope this temptation will be removed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is very well taken.
[ Translation]
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 1, 1980