1980-05-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House, noting that already in this session fine statements have been made about the rights of women, but that these statements have not been followed by the taking of positive steps to establish and protect those rights, calls on the government to take affirmative action to establish equality for women in all phases of our economy, particularly in employment opportunities, access to adequate training and upgrading, equal pay for work of equal value, and equality between men and women in all pension plans.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the former minister of fisheries had initiated a major policy review, leading to a white paper on fisheries development for the 1980s, and since that review would have included a reference to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on the subject of fisheries licensing policies, including proposals contained in the Sinclair and Levelton reports, and whereas the standing committee should travel across Canada to hear first hand the views of fishermen, processors and others concerned with the fishery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House direct the government to make a reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to conduct a thorough review of federal fisheries licensing policy, which would include travelling to the regions of Canada to hear first-hand the views of fishermen.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In face of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the international turmoil in the Middle East and elsewhere, it is imperative that members of the NATO alliance stand together in defence of our common interests and support common defence policy. Notwithstanding this fact, the NDP refuses to commit its members to support NATO and NORAD policies. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House require its members who accept offices in the NATO Parliamentary Association, Canadian Branch, to accept and embrace publicly the commitment to all NATO and NORAD policies and, in particular, to mutual and shared defence arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The socialist gang stuck together.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I too rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

May 8, 1980
5.0.	43
In view of the commitment made during the last election campaign by the Liberal party that it would appoint a deputy minister of fisheries and oceans for the west coast, whose office would be in Vancouver, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House direct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to appoint immediately a west coast deputy minister, in fulfilment of his commitment to the people of British Columbia, whose problems and concerns have too long been ignored by this government.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CABINET DOCUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisons of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Mr. Justice Collier of the Federal Court, trial division, has condemned the present Prime Minister's practice of refusing to disclose the relevant cabinet documents pertaining to the decision to refuse a pension to former Supreme Court Justice Landreville, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House call upon the government to forthwith turn over to Mr. Justice Collier all relevant documents, and repeal section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation yesterday released figures indicating that multiple dwelling starts were down by 19 per cent from April, 1979, and since Canada is currently running more than 50,000 housing starts behind the number required to adequately house Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the minister immediately convene a federal-provincial conference on housing, including representatives from the housing industry, to plan a coordinated attack on the housing problems of the 1980s.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Interest charges to business, particularly to small business, have caused and are causing extreme problems, despite the recent reduction of the prime rate. A number of businesses have had to seriously curtail their activities and cut back on employment because they are not able to finance receivables and inventories at current bank rates.
The minister has accepted the proposal made in the Crosbie budget to provide for small business development bonds. The minister presented some details of this proposal in his masquerade budget of April 21. Nearly three weeks have passed and no legislation has been introduced. No arrangements for debate of legislation have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the business people of this country cannot help but wonder whether this is just another flip-flop and a broken promise.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is the time to put motions. If the hon. member has a motion, I will entertain it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt):
That this House do forthwith direct the minister to introduce immediately the required amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow for small business development bonds, and that the government forthwith bring this matter to debate for immediate passage into law.


Madam Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
^*
May 8, 1980

Oral Questions


INITIAL PRICE OF WHEAT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the initial price of top grade wheat has been established at $3.75 per bushel, which is 50 cents a bushel less than grain producers are now receiving and is far below the cost of production, since the lowering of North American export prices can be directly related to the U.S. embargo, and since the Prime Minister has assured us that this government will protect the grain producers from the effects of that embargo, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That this government establish the initial price of top grade wheat at $4.25 per bushel, the present level being paid to grain producers.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing concern to many Canadian farmers.
In view of the fact that the government plan of reducing utility income tax rebate will create a situation where citizens of our country are not treated with equality, descriminating between farmers in each province so that, for example, the farmers in Alberta will be subjected to an extra cost for utilities from $100 to $200 per annum, as opposed to their counterparts in the province of Saskatchewan who will suffer no extra charge, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister of Agriculture condemn this illegal act and immediately exercise his authority as Minister of Agriculture and as guardian of the farmers' rights by demanding that the Minister of Finance immediately abide by the law, providing the rebates and withdrawing the proposal which would discriminate against parts of the Canadian farming community.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Inasmuch as municipalities are severely strapped for finances, and that they are primarily responsible for land-use zoning, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House instruct the government to return by way of grants all the proceeds collected through the federal land speculation tax to the municipalities within which it was collected, so that the housing industry may be stimulated.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is coming into the House.
The minister will know that he had scheduled a statement on motions for three o'clock today in relation to the policy of the Government of Canada on Chrysler. I understand that that statement has now been postponed or delayed. Will the minister explain to the House what factors caused him to delay the statement he had scheduled for three o'clock today?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I regret any inconvenience caused to hon. members opposite or the media through the premature announcement that I would be making a statement. We have no new date at this time for a statement. Some factors have come up which cabinet felt needed further consideration, and that is about all 1 can say at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, clearly what we have here is a situation where the cabinet has reversed a decision taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated that there were some factors which caused cabinet to

May 8, 1980
Oral Questions
take that decision. Without identifying specific factors, will the minister tell us what kind of factors caused his colleagues to prevent him from making the statement he had intended for three o'clock today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think it was the practice when my hon. friend was prime minister of the country to go into cabinet discussions and what was taking place in them. I do not intend to change that precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Neither, Madam Speaker, was it our practice to leave a minister hanging out on a limb like the Government of Canada has done to this minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Collenette:: Look at Crosbie; Crosbie is still hanging.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will wait until they are quiet, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 guess, Madam Speaker, that when a government comes apart-as this one does-it has to do so with the accompaniment of a great deal of background noise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has had his position reversed by his colleagues.


Miss MacDonald:: Twice.


Charles Joseph Clark: At least twice. Will he tell this House what kind of factors caused the Government of Canada to delay or postpone the statement that was scheduled to be made at three o'clock? Were they factors relating to the negotiation? Were they factors extraneous to the Chrysler question? What kind of factors caused this delay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, obviously they were important factors. I will repeat that it has not been the precedent to go into matters in cabinet discussions. My hon. friend has talked about being left out on a limb. No limb anybody on this side is on compares to the limb the Canadian people left him on after February 18.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHRYSLER CANADA-PLANS TO HELP LAID-OFF WORKERS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Commerce. I ask him about the limb that the people in the city of Windsor are on: the workers of Chrysler Canada, the suppliers and others who are affected by this decision? What about the limb that they are on?


Mr. Chretien:: What about Davis?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am asking the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Call Davis.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What plans does the minister have from here forward which will help the people most affected by this decision, or lack of decision, to plan their future? Does he have any timing in mind as to when a decision will be made?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have no timing to announce right now, but I want to confirm our concerns with respect to the well-being of the workers at Chrysler and their suppliers and the communities in which they live. I am surprised at the hon. member's concern, since he and his government dithered from August to February without doing anything about these workers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CHRYSLER CANADA-POSITION OF ONTARIO GOVERNMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the minister has referred to dithering. I point out that his government, when it was in office before, dithered for 15 years about the auto pact, and that is why we have the crisis that now exists.
Would he confirm for the House that his equivalent in the Ontario government was also scheduled to make an announcement in the Ontario legislature this afternoon and for all we know, unlike the minister here, he has gone ahead with it? In addition, would he confirm that that announcement was to reveal that the Ontario government was not going to support the package put together by the minister and Chrysler?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot confirm what my hon. friend has said. As far as I know, the minister of industry for Ontario has not yet made an announcement. I suggest my hon. friend should check with him, Mr. Grossman, or his opposite numbers in the Ontario House.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, will the minister tell the House, to put it positively, whether he has obtained an agreement with the government of Ontario to take part in this package that he has prepared? As a second part of the question, will he also confirm that the package does not include any specific job guarantees, nor does it include a commitment to build a six-cylinder engine plant in Windsor?
May 8, 1980


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think the premises of my hon. friend are wrong, particularly when he makes some suggestion about job guarantees. They continue to be a very important part of our considerations.
With regard to the respective roles of the Ontario and federal governments, we on this side have to take our responsibilities as the federal government. We are obviously in very close consultation with Ontario, but they have to speak for themselves. That is part of our federal system, Madam Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, given the fact that this minister has now cancelled three press conferences at which he was to announce in a definitive way an agreement on the crisis situation-and, for all we know, may go on cancelling such announcements forever in the future-will he now at least assure the Elouse that the government will bring in some assistance program for the thousands of auto workers who are out of work, not only at Windsor but in dozens of automotive communities across the country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has already taken administrative action under his existing authority to trigger extended unemployment insurance benefits. He is working actively on other solutions to the matter, and we have time to do that because of these extended benefits. This whole matter remains one of very great concern to us.
In so far as the press conferences are concerned, the first two in question, I must say, were scheduled by staff without my formal consent. In respect of the third one, I will say I gave consent to that and I have already expressed my regret to hon. members of the House for any misunderstandings that may have been created. We are continuing to work on this, and I am still optimistic there can be a good solution for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In light of the Fisheries Council of Canada's recent criticisms of the over-the-side sales agreement with Joint Trawlers Ltd., as well as the complete dissatisfaction of the provincial fisheries ministers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island with the federal government's lack of meaningful consultation with them-and that is even more important-can the minister tell this House why he has elected to depart from the clearly-defined policy of his predecessor regarding over-the-side sales?
Would the minister also indicate why the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, an organization which represents the vast majority of fishermen in the maritimes, was rejected as bargaining agent for the direct sales?
Oral Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I would leave it to the former minister, who is perfectly able to explain his own position, to see if he accepts the entire content of the hon. member's question.
Certainly, my predecessor had not prohibited over-the-side sales, but he did introduce conditions. One of the conditions was varied by me, as I felt that the situation of a guarantee being totally rejected would leave the fishermen in a position with very little bargaining power. A judgment call had to be made. Fish caught by Canadian fishermen will be made available in very small quantity, about 1 per cent of the total landing and 0.7 per cent of the total value, which means that the processors have control of some 99 per cent of the Canadian fish landings.
As far as the eastern fishermen's group was concerned, the application which they presented jointly with the processors contained the sort of loopholes which no government could accept. For example, at the end of each day a decision would be made on whether or not freezing capacity was required. I know of no freezer from overseas that can get to this side of the ocean on a day's notice.
With regard to the rest of the hon. member's question, provincial ministers have taken positions of this issue which are at some variance with the apparently united front which seems to have developed this week. Certainly, when I asked one of the privincial ministers in an important fishing province recently if he was against all over-the-side sales, he said that he still supported some such sales under good conditions.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, I notice that the old, new-old government is still as evasive as ever. Can the minister tell the House if this government intends to ride roughshod over the provinces, as they have done in the past and, also, if the large number of Maritime Fishermen's Union members residing in his area was a determining factor in deciding that the Eastern Fishermen's Federation would not act as the bargaining agent in the over-the-side sales arrangement?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, in areas where provinces have jurisdiction, obviously we will continue to consult and to work with them. There are times when the interests of the fishermen and the apparent interests of provincial governments do not coincide. I can give the example of provinces which refuse their fishermen the right to organize in unions or associations of their choice.
As for the hon. member's last point, the Maritime Fishermen's Union is exactly that, an organization which has locals in all three maritime provinces including some, I suspect, in the hon. member's riding, if he would bother to meet with them.
830

May 8, 1980
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER CATCH ROYALTY OR LANDING TAX WILL BE IMPOSED
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. My question is prompted by throne speech references to partial cost recovery and "reinvestment of enhanced earnings in the fishing sector".
Will the minister tell this House whether or not it is true that he is preparing legislation which will impose a substantial catch royalty or landing tax against west coast fishermen-a tax which is rumoured to be in the order of 10 per cent of the landed value of the catch?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, 1 would expect that the hon. member's previous incarnation would have allowed him to read the literature on this issue, which goes back some three or four years.
When the salmon enhancement program was put forward, it was quite clearly indicated at that time that the expenditure which was over and above the normal management cost to the fishery could be subject to a cost recovery mechanism. The matter has been discussed with the industry and with the provinces. I suspect that my predecessor has had discussions on this very issue. If the matter requires legislation, it will come back to this House.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the situation in current world markets has led to a depressed state for the price of salmon and herring. How can the minister possibly contemplate at this time a stiff tax which, I understand, would exceed the amount required to pay the cost of the salmon enhancement program, but would indeed include a surcharge to pay for the costs of management on the west coast? Also, would the minister confirm that this tax is only contemplated for the west coast of Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, obviously the previous government intended to have a stiff tax, because the hon. member seems to be referring to their arithmetic. I have not come to a figure of what it might be: I use words like "might be" because the final decision on whether or not to bring in legislation has not been taken. The matter is under discussion, and in due course if there is the necessity for legislation, obviously it will be brought to Parliament.
[DOT] (M30)
As for the matter of east coast or west coast, I have made it clear, and I think the Speech from the Throne is pretty precise in this area, that if it is above the normal cost of management, that is, to multiply the amount of fish available-in this case it might apply to salmon-and if it applies to other species where we do enhancement, of course, there would be the same type of cost recovery if we decide to proceed.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: "Merci, madame le President." My question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport.
In view of the fact that a number of Canadian Olympic officials will be going to the Moscow Games, according to news reports, can the minister tell the House whether they will be participating in any official capacity at the Games, whether taxpayers' funds are involved directly or indirectly; and, if so, how the government can justify this slap in the face to our athletes on a moral basis, when they have been denied the privilege of going to Moscow and Canadian officials are apparently going to be allowed to go?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I am not aware of any decision on the part of Canadian officials to participate in any officiating capacity at the Olympics in Moscow.
It is true that the governing bodies of some of the world athletic organizations in individual sports hold their four-year meetings at the time of the staging of the Olympics. There might be disadvantage if Canadian officials are not at those meetings. If any Canadian officials go to Moscow to attend such meetings, however, I would want to strongly urge them, as I urged the athletes, that they not only not participate in the Olympics but that they not attend the Olympics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. It would appear to me that if a boycott is to be effective, it must be a complete boycott. Considering the reasonable approach the minister is taking with Canadian Football League officials regarding discrimination against quarterbacks, will he undertake to meet now with the Canadian Olympic Association and discourage any trips to Moscow? Such trips can only dilute the effectiveness of our boycott.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I think in answering the original question I neglected to point out to the hon. member that we are certainly not providing any financial assistance. Indeed, our position is to discourage Canadian athletes, officials or just spectators from attending the Olympics in Moscow, in view of the circumstances in Afghanistan.
1 have already had discussions with the Canadian Olympic Association, but I certainly would be pleased to pass on the representations the hon. member has made-that in his view no one should even attend the meetings if the meetings are being held in Moscow.
May 8, 1980


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the very important East Coast Fishery Agreement which this House has ratified and which Canada hopes to see ratified, without amendment, by the United States Senate. Yesterday, Secretary of State Muskie, when asked about his approach to the agreement, stated that it was his intention to try to resolve the differences, presumably between the administration and the United States Senate.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House whether he is aware of any compromises or changes to the treaty that Secretary of State Muskie might be considering in order to accommodate certain proposals by the United States senators, proposals which would have a very damaging effect on Canada's industry?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, when then secretary of state Vance was here several weeks ago we made very strong representations to him on this subject, and requested that the treaty be put through without amandment by the Senate.
He gave us his undertaking at that time to attempt to do just that, with all the forces at his disposal. That is still our position and I trust it is still the U.S. position. I hope to discuss it next week in Brussels with the new Secretary of State.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because of the urgency of this matter, Madam Speaker, and considering that Secretary of State Muskie, when he was in the Senate, supported the ratification of the treaty without amendment, and now seems to have changed his position-according to his statement of yesterday-1 wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would immediately get in touch with his counterpart in the United States to bring to his attention the very strong position of the Canadian people and, presumably-one would hope- the Canadian government, to have the treaty ratified as quickly as possible without amendment and not even wait until next week to do that.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, with this assurance of support from the other side of the House, 1 think that gives me an opportunity to communicate again with the United States and tell them that this is our position and request that the treaty be immediately passed.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Monday last the minister indicated, in response to some questions about aid to Sysco, that the government was awaiting some concrete
Oral Questions
plans to modernize the plant before proceeding with the grant that had been announced. It has now come to light that Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia submitted such a proposal in January and followed it with additional information on the subject on April 3 of this year.
I should like to ask the minister, now that he has that information, and given that he has had it since January and has had an opportunity to look at it and the additional information, when we can expect some word from the minister and the government with regard to the aid that is so necessary in order that those 500 workers who are now laid off can get back to work.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. member that it was not possible for me to have the information in January, because we were not on this side of the House then.
The hon. member asks when we may expect a definite decision on the commitment that has been made to Sysco. I would tell him that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and other members of the government are prepared to sit down with the government of Nova Scotia at any time to consider concrete plans that will have some prospect of ensuring a viable future for the Sydney Steel plant.
As I said earlier in the House, we are not prepared to make funds available unless it is in the context of a plan that will provide some certainty for employment and production at that plant, with some assurance that there is a market and a sales program and a production program that makes sense. Up to the present time, at least to my knowledge, the Government of Canada has not seen any proposal that has come forward, a plan that contains these essential ingredients.


Ian Deans: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Since the Minister of Finance was the minister who made the statement on April 3, 1979, that the money was to be made available for the development and redevelopment of the plant in Nova Scotia, can he tell us what plans he had before him at that time which led him to believe it was appropriate to make a statement regarding advancing the number of millions of dollars he was prepared to advance then? What has happened between April, 1979, and May, 1980, that has caused him to back off this commitment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to explain to the hon. member why the circumstances have changed. The proposal to which he refers concerned a large sale to a British Columbia plant, and the Sysco management pressed the Government of Canada to make a commitment with respect to that $50 million because it insisted that unless we made the money available at that time, that particular project would fail.
We responded to the request of the government of Nova Scotia, but subsequently Sysco management abandoned the plan. That is why the funds in that context could not be made available.
832___________________________________
Oral Questions FISHERIES


LACK OF CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON OVER-THE-SIDE SALES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last fall, to bring order into what was a chaotic situation dealing with the over-the-side sales question, after consultation with the provinces, the processors and the fishermen we worked out a set of guidelines which was acceptable to all.
Now the minister has violated two of the principal guidelines, namely, one dealing with no guarantees, or direct allocations, and the other one dealing with consultation with the provincial governments, processors and fishermen.
In view of the fact that this could-and in fact will-set back the cause of a unified collective bargaining voice for maritime fishermen considerably by driving a rift between the EFF and MFU, may I ask the minister why he did not consult with the provinces and the EFF before going ahead with this deal with the MFU and Joint Trawlers?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that this government came into power March 3. The time was fairly advanced and the gaspereau were heading into the rivers, or were close. Time was very short and there were proposals presented to us at the very last minute. A meeting was held with representatives of the processors, the fishermen-including the two fishermen's organizations which the hon. member mentioned-and provincial observers, and it was not successful because there was just no will to negotiate and arrive at any kind of a solution.
I certainly did not intend to drive a rift between the fishermen's organizations. On the contrary, when 1 saw there was one organization left out-in this case the Maritime Fishermen's Union-I said that the department would have to act as an umbrella and allow all bona fide and licensed fishermen belonging to either the Eastern Federation or the Maritime Fishermen's Union to sell their fish if the sale over-the-side was authorized.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, the three ministers of fisheries for the three maritime provinces have taken grave issue with what the minister has done. The minister knows full well the impact that this could have on working out a harmonious arrangement between the maritime governments, the processors and the unions.
Before the minister concludes this deal-before the minister allows this deal with the MFU and Joint Trawlers to be signed-will he sit down with the government of the three maritime provinces to at least try to salvage something out of what will unfortunately create a very chaotic situation?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the position taken by at least one province indicates to me that if we await an agree-
May 8, 1980
ment before deciding on anything, that constitutes a veto for that province which has consistently taken the side of the large companies and has consistently forgotten the interests of its own fishermen, especially inshore fishermen, in areas such as Cape Breton and the riding of the hon. member, the former minister of DREE.
If the hon. member is asking me to give that sort of veto before a decision can be made, as the fishing season approaches, obviously the answer is no.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It seems that today is fish day, even though it is only Thursday.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated in Montreal on May 6 that the federal government has made available more than $41 million for the establishment of new service centres and fish processing facilities in Newfoundland, has the minister assured himself of the legality of the action being taken by the fisheries minister of Newfoundland, who has threatened to close branches of Nova Scotia companies if they do not withdraw from fishing northern cod? If so, what steps is the government taking to resolve this situation?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the quota in question will have been taken by this Saturday, and that fishery will be closed. Meanwhile, the claims made by the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland are not sustained. In fact, in 1979 Newfoundland vessels took some 22,000 tonnes; in 1980 they took 27,000 tonnes; in 1979 maritime vessels took 7,000 tonnes, and this year 4,000 tonnes.
I fail to see what claim the minister responsible for fisheries in Newfoundland would have to make the sort of statement that he makes. The other point is that until the constitution is changed the management of the fishery will remain in federal hands.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, in light of the minister's answers, I would like to ask him, is the government planning any reduction in the quotas authorized for some 356 foreign factory and freezer trawlers that have been licensed within our 200-mile limit, a fleet which operates for the most part in Newfoundland waters catching northern cod for countries such as Japan, the U.S.S.R., Portugal, Spain, Denmark, France, the Faro Islands, West Germany, Cuba, East Germany and Bulgaria?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the quotas allocated to Canadian and foreign fishing enterprises are set in the annual fishing plan which is the subject of exhaustive discussion and consultation with all segments of the industry-fishermen's organizations, processors' associations, provincial governments. At one point a judgment is made-as I am sure it was when my hon. friend from St. John's East was minister of fisheries-


ACCESS TO NORTHERN COD-LEGALITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND ACTION
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1980
[Stage Direction]
that it is in Canada's interests to allocate some of the resources in the 200-mile zone in exchange, among other things, for Canadian fishing where we have a substantive interest outside the 200-mile zone. That is the part of the management plan that has been in effect and, I think, has been working surprisingly well.

Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have before me some of the hundreds of studies that have been done on employment strategies for women over the past two or three years, including a memorandum to the cabinet-


An hon. Member:: Did you read that?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pauline Jewett: -that was prepared by the minister's own department, a memorandum dated-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a petition on her desk?


Pauline Jewett: No, 1 have a question. Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It's a long question.


Pauline Jewett: 1 would like to ask the minister responsible for the status of women-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should know that she cannot bring these kinds of objects into the House. Will she please have them removed from her desk and ask her question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


Pauline Jewett: 1 would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for the status of women. In view of the fact that these hundreds of studies have been done on the status of women-plans of action, not just abstract ideas, that have been carried out in writing but not yet implemented-I ask the minister, why does he now decide to sign a contract with Lorna Marsden, a vice-president of the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -to undertake yet another study on employment strategies for women?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had taken some
Oral Questions
time to read those studies that she had in the box on her desk, she would have noticed that many of the studies and evaluations were offered by the same person that she mentioned. The reason why we have obtained the services of Mrs. Marsden, who is also the dean of social studies at the University of Toronto, as well as a former president of the action committee for women in this country, is that we intend to bring those studies into action.
We want the people who have been working on these efforts for such a long time to be involved right at the bottom drawer when we implement these things.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I do know that none of these hundreds of studies was actually prepared by the vice-president of the Liberal party to whom 1 have just referred; indeed, none of the programs which the previous Liberal government prepared toward equality for women was her responsability.
May I ask the minister, then why does he not-if he continues to be indifferent to the cabinet memorandum drafted last December-at least now not have another study, but implement the 35 specific strategies in this document, "Towards Equality for Women", prepared a year or so ago by the previous Liberal government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would say the hon. member has some trouble in reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: If she had been paying attention to some of the statements and commitments which have been made, she would have recognized that in the Speech from the Throne issued by the government we clearly indicated our intention to take action to deal with those recommendations. Many of the recommendations are already in process of implementation, and as soon as the enforcement and implementation is there she will be the first to know.


CORPORATION RESPONSIBLE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the urgency of the development and demonstration of Canada's renewable energy technology, and the government's commitment in the last election campaign to establish an alternate energy corporation, can the minister tell us when this corporation will be established, what its initial capitalization is to be, and what will be its top priorities in its first year of operation?

May 8, 1980
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have already had some talks with members of Petro-Canada in that connection. The corporation responsible for renewable energy will first be set up as a branch of Petro-Canada, which has indicated to me that it was considering a capitalization of some $20 million for that new corporation. As for its priorities, I would hesitate to give details as long as the members of the new board of directors and its chief executive have not been appointed. I merely wish to indicate that the main purpose of the corporation will be to promote all kinds of new energy, especially renewable energy.


SMALL CRAFT AND HARBOURS-DISTRIBUTION OF DREE GRANTS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: A supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries. The estimates tabled in this House total $58.4 billion, which included $50 million in a special employment fund for eastern Canada, programs aimed at stimulating employment and economic development there, of which the previous government had allocated $14 million to small craft and harbours and $25 million to fisheries.
Why does the Minister of Fisheries not get on the ball and secure that money which is already in the estimates, the $58.4 billion tabled in this House, and get it for his department and carry out the promises made, the commitments made, for small craft and harbours?


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether or not the government intends to honour the commitment of the former government to increase the small craft harbour allocation by $14 million so that the much-needed program to improve fishing harbours in Atlantic Canada can commence immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: The budget which was established for the small craft harbours program in the estimates which were prepared by the previous government and tabled in the House indicate a level of $26.5 million for small craft harbours. I will endeavour to obtain from my colleague the moneys which were referred to in the election campaign by the hon. member, but which to my knowledge were not provided.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary to the minister for the employment of Liberals and immigration.


Roméo LeBlanc: suspect that what the Secretary of State has been saying with reference to certain cultural program announcements is quite applicable to this question. When we inherited the economic envelope we found that the commitments were great but that the reserves were small, if existent.
Obviously, we intend to try to restore the integrity of this program which, by the way, was frozen by the previous president of the treasury board: the building season last year was quite negatively affected. This year, the budget was at the $26 million level, which would have made it the lowest level for a number of years.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, it is easy to muddle up the statistics to the benefit of the individual speaking at a given moment and, perhaps, even to mix the envelopes. But since the minister has answered as he has, let me ask this question: Does he consider that the figure of $26 million, which appears now to be allocated, is adequate for the job which has to be done in his constituency and in other Atlantic constituencies?


Roméo LeBlanc: If the expenditure program which was prepared by the previous government, obviously under the benevolent eye of the former president of the treasury board, had been given adequate funds, I would be able to respond to the hon. member. But we will try to get more money into this program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should refer to the minister by his proper title.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One gets mixed up when one sees what is going on. In the minister's department this year, within the estimate of $58.4 billion which was tabled there were $50 million of additional moneys to stimulate employment in eastern Canada. Some of that money has apparently been diverted by the minister responsible for DREE for railway track removal in Winnipeg.
Will that hon. gentleman provide the $25 million for fisheries that is the amount there, and $14 million for small craft and harbours, and not take it for the defenestration of railway tracks in Winnipeg, and put it to its proper use?


Lloyd Axworthy: It is unfortunate that at the meeting held last Sunday in Winnipeg among the representatives of the three levels of government there was not a representative of the Conservative party there from the federal caucus. He would not, then, be repeating the kind of misinformation which was issued by his leader yesterday on the question of rail relocation.
1 suggest to him that, when it comes to employment, we shall be announcing an employment program which will provide full satisfaction for concerns in the maritime area. I say to
May 8, 1980

him it will be a lot better than the cancellation of programs which the previous government undertook.


INQUIRY WHETHER EXPORTS WILL BE REDUCED
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At a convention in Montreal, the Fisheries Council of Canada accused the minister of being the minister of the fishermen, rather than the fisheries. In addition, its new president, Bernard Blais stated that with the 1980s we are going into a flat period because of the recession in the United States, which will result in lower prices for fishermen's catches. Can the minister tell the House whether he has statistics or studies on hand proving there really will be a 10 per cent dip in the Canadian export market? If so, what steps does he intend to take to remedy the situation?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it does not hurt me at all to hear that people complain about my being the fishermen's minister more than the fisheries. I am less pessimistic than some producers about the capacity of the American market for continuing to absorb large volumes of fish imported from Canada. I see no sign yet of any softening in the market to an extent that might warrant our reducing immediately the prices paid the fishermen. On the other hand, I have asked the industry to reflect upon the fact that the price of Canadian fish is not going up, like inflation in the United States; in fact, there exists a stability which might be defined as a stagnation of sorts. As for marketing generally, I have indicated that we were going to look into the possibility of co-ordinating it to a larger extent, especially abroad, and that we are trying to reduce our dependence on the American market.


LIMIT ON SIZE OF CHINOOK SALMON CAUGHT BY SPORTS FISHERMEN OFF WEST COAST
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister who has just resumed his seat, whether he is a pecheur, a pecheur or une peche.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald W. Munro: Can he inform the House whether he intends to proceed with the plan formulated by his officials to institute an 18-inch limit on chinook salmon caught by sports fishermen off the west coast?
While he is answering that question, would the minister indicate whether he has some other plan in mind? Does he have any plans for instituting a licensing system for sports fishermen?
Rail Relocation


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about fishing and fishermen; I just hope he will not refer to anything fishy.
Madam Speaker, my predecessor was about to reach some very difficult decisions and I regret somewhat that the election that stopped him from taking that good initiative came too soon. That being said, I am studying, as my predecessor surely did, the proposals aimed at improving fisheries management, sport fishing particularly, to apply better conservation policies.
I am not now in a position to announce specific decisions in that regard. I shall inform the House in due course.


Donald W. Munro: I wonder, then, Madam Speaker, if the minister would assure the House that he has no plans for increasing the commercial licences for 1980 or 1981 on the west coast and, if not, would he say when the announcement of changes will be made, so that the uncertainties which are now plaguing west coast fishermen can be laid to rest?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the discussions which 1 had with the advisory council created by my predecessor-which turned out to be a very positive initiative-led me to believe that it would be very useful to have a further exchange in June. I intend to spend a fair amount of time on the west coast in the middle of June, to put forward some proposals and to hear the reactions before a decision is made. That will be part of the discussion.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, in answering or attempting to answer a question today, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) indicated that at a meeting held on Sunday with regard to Winnipeg rail relocation at the CPR yards no Conservative member was present at that meeting. I want to inform you, Madam Speaker, that in fact there were representatives there of the city of Winnipeg and of the provincial government. I at no time had an invitation from the sponsoring group to appear at that meeting, but I want to indicate that if the minister persists in that kind of half truth in this House-


Lloyd Axworthy: Were you there?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -the point has to be made-


An hon. Member:: Were you there or not?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As the Winnipeg Free Press editorialized the next day, we would like to know from the minister what programs

May 8, 1980
Business of the House
would be cut in Manitoba in terms of rail relocation. The editorial was headed simply "Shut Up".


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, it being Thursday, I wonder if I could ask my friend the President of the Privy Council and government House leader about his plans for tomorrow and into next week, bearing in mind that today is an allotted day for Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we shall try to get second reading of the small businesses loans legislation and if, as we hope, the bill passes that stage, we shall pursue on Friday consideration of the Employment Tax Credit Act. On Monday, the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne will resume; it will be the seventh day. The eighth day will come later in the session at a date not yet determined. But Monday for sure will be the seventh day of the throne speech debate. On Tuesday, we would like to complete second reading of the Bank Act and if we succeed before the end of the day, we could proceed with second reading of the Bretton Woods Agreements bill. Wednesday and Thursday, as my colleagues know, will be business supply days; the House will be in Committee of the Whole, and I expect that my hon. colleagues will let me know in due course the estimates of which departments they would like to examine.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it is our intention to give that advice to the minister. I thank him for the invitation.
I had raised a question with the minister with respect to the matter of parliamentary groups like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canadian branch, and others having the opportunity to report to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I wonder if he would be prepared to consider that reference-or maybe he has had time to do so-so that the work of those committees could be reported to Parliament appropriately. I undertake with the minister that there would be no debate on a reference of that nature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, there are times-for example, yesterday-when we interrupt whatever business we are doing because something comes along which is regarded as urgent. May I ask the government House leader to have discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, on the urgency of the promised legislation to do something about the widows of disabled veterans. Can he assure us that that legislation will be brought in soon?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague can rest assured that I shall bring his concern to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs as soon as he returns from Holland.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Has the minister had an opportunity yet to consult with his colleagues on the very worth-while suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission be referred to a special committee of this House for very comprehensive consideration?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, first I would like to advise the House that in a few days we will give notice of a motion to refer to a joint committee the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. This results from an agreement we reached this morning with the leaders of the opposition parties.
As regards the suggestion repeated today by the hon. member, no decision has been reached yet on this matter; however, my hon. friend should understand that committees of the House are now studying the estimates and that many other matters are likely to be referred to them soon. This does not, by any standard, depreciate the suggestion he is putting forward. It is being seriously considered and 1 hope to be able to give him an answer within a reasonable delay.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, you will recall that last Friday I raised a question of privilege, but it was deferred because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not in his seat. He was in the House today but he has now left, so I ask that that matter stand until tomorrow.
* *
*


RECOGNITION OF MEMBERS TO SPEAK
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise just briefly to ask for clarification from the Chair, if possible, and to obtain some idea of the basis on which members of the House who are commonly classified as backbenchers are recognized, particularly during the last part of the question period.
As one who has been fortunate enough to obtain recognition to move three or four motions under Standing Order 43 since the start of the session, but who has been unable to gain the
May 8, 1980

floor for questions, I wonder if Your Honour could outline upon just what basis backbenchers are selected for asking questions during the latter part of the question period.


Madam Speaker:: There is no written rule about the order in which members are recognized in the House. The member who has the floor is obviously the one the Speaker recognizes. When a discussion on a particular subject is taking place and a member of the opposition who has held responsibilities concerning a certain department rises to ask a question, obviously I will recognize him because I do not want to break the rhythm of the dialogue which takes place during question period. 1 think it is very healthy to have questions and answers from people who have a particular interest in a specific area. I think that is quite a healthy thing to encourage in the House.
As for backbenchers, they have rights in this House equal to those of any of the members who sit here. I try to recognize them, but obviously they are more numerous than the others, and their turn does not come up as often as perhaps they would like. However, I do my best.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on this point I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word. It does seem to me that one of the reasons many members are not getting the floor in the question period is that those who do get the floor, and ministers who answer are too loquacious. I suggest that if questions and replies were succinct there would be an opportunity for more questions to be put in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are most welcome, i feel that it will become increasingly important to cut off the preamble to questions. The questions should be sharp and, as everyone knows, the sharper ones are more effective. I suppose that members of the House are looking for effectiveness in their dialogue. This also applies to answers which, I think, should be brief and to the point. I find that I will be increasingly asking members to comply with that practice.
This is not an unwritten rule; it is a written rule that the purpose of questions should be to elicit information and that answers should give information. This would allow me then, if we save some time-I would be grateful for the co-operation of hon. members in this respect-and if members asked crisp and brief questions and answers were equally brief, to recognize more backbenchers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 324, 356 and 362.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of Teleglobe Canada and its subsidiaries as at March 31, 1979?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as
Teleglobe Canada is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: (a) 1,238 permanent employees; (b) 35 other employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Privy Council Office (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the PCO since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


David Michael Collenette: 1.	SX	24
Francophones	3
Females	0
2.	SX	22
Francophones	3
Females	1
3.	A new organizational structure came into effect on October 1, 1979. It did not change the number of SX's employed in the office.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979, (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Justice (b) how many were (i) francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?
838

May 8, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1.	(a) 1
(b) (i) None;
(b)(ii) None.
2.	I.
3.	Yes, there has been a change in the structure of the department, but that change had no effect on the number of SX's employed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to refer to two questions to which I have been referring for about three years approximately, perhaps longer. They have been repeated on successive order papers. I understand that the previous government was about to answer them in a much more timely fashion before it left office than the present government, which has taken two to three years to answer some questions. 1 refer specifically to question No. 15, which concerns a gentleman named Mr. Martin Goldfarb, Goldfarb Consultants Limited and the amount of public funds they have received for doing business for the present government and for the former Liberal government when it was in office.
I do not think it should take three years to figure out just what Martin Goldfarb has been getting in the way of payments for his services to the Liberal party as well as for his services to the government of this country. In other words, I think it is about time that these questions were answered. Three years is a long time. I have every right to complain vigorously about it because if it were three weeks, three months or four months, one could say that it takes a long time to compile statistical information, but it should not take three years. Three years means that something is being hidden.
My other question-the number of which 1 do not have readily available without having to flip through the order paper, but I am sure that the parliamentary secretary is well aware of it from its substance-is a question which has also been on successive order papers for a number of years. It involves the fingerprinting of civil servants by this government, both when it was in power previously and now. My question asks how many of them are there, why they were fingerprinted and so on. I am referring to public servants who are not in security positions, not connected with national security or national defence. I am referring to such people as secretaries and unemployment insurance officers who, I know, have in the past been frequently fingerprinted all across this country.
In my opinion, this is an invasion of privacy. Parliament has the right to know why this has been done. For three years I have been asking this question. I have raised at least five or six points of order, and for three years the government have been
sitting on their behinds, which seems to be what they usually do, and have not attempted to answer either of these questions.
Could the parliamentary secretary give us some indication right now-not tomorrow, not the next day, but right now- when these questions are going to be answered?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), and I should like to point out, as I did on Friday, that the present government has an admirable record in answering these questions when one compares it with the record of the former government in the Thirty-first Parliament. I would ask the hon. member to look at my answer given in reply to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton last Friday on the rapidity with which questions are answered in this House.
My role is merely to report to the House those questions which are answered by departments. It is not for me as Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council to comment any further on these questions. I suggest that if the hon. member is not satisfied with a particular answer, he can take it up in the usual way. He can ask questions in the House, he can ask further questions on the order paper, he can avail himself of the "late show". There are a number of things he could do in addition to resorting to private correspondence with ministers.
He brought up a couple of specific questions. One is question No. 15 with respect to Mr. Goldfarb. I will try to get the answer for him as quickly as possible, but it is my recollection that since the session started we have answered a number of questions from the hon. member. I think he is doing very well in comparison with other members in the House. Mind you, I should say that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville is one of the few members of the House who has practically filled up the order paper with questions, so he cannot expect answers to all his questions immediately.
With regard to the question concerning fingerprinting-I forget the number-he asserts that the answer was ready to be given by the former government. I ask him to consult with his leader and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, who was president of the privy council at that time, to ascertain why, if these questions have indeed gone through the departments, they were not tabled in the House. But I will try to expedite all the questions in the course of my normal duties.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate but I cannot fail to make two observations about the remarks of the parliamentary secretary.
As I understand the role of the parliamentary secretary, he does not stand up in the House and spout answers which are given to him by various ministries in response to different questions. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has asked that a question which has been on the order paper for three years in successive Parliaments be answered. I think there is a duty in those circumstances on the part of the parliamentary secretary to answer those questions if he can. If he cannot, I think it is inappropriate for him not to say that he will use his best efforts, as Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
May 8, 1980

Privy Council responsible for the operation of the Elouse, to obtain answers for the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and indeed for any other member of the House of Commons.
I will not argue the statistical record because I think it is a very foolish argument and we can deal with statistics any way we like. We are talking about the principle of the government answering questions put by members.
If there is some reason respecting the security of the country for the question not to be answered, then the hon. member is entitled to know. If the reason is that it is an embarrassing question for the government, then I think that is not sufficient reason to fail to answer the question. Certainly that question would not have been an embarrassing matter to the government of the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who is now Leader of the Opposition. But apparently it is embarrassing or something to the present government because it has not been answered by the parliamentary secretary or former parliamentary secretaries. The question is now for the third time on the order paper.
All I am saying to my friend is that he has the duty, not just to give us the statistics, but to say to members, when questions are persistently left unanswered, what they can do to obtain the answers or at least to inform the hon. member why the question cannot be answered. I think it is extremely important that we establish that at the beginning because I think it is important to the relationship which exists between the government and the opposition in terms of the operation of the House of Commons and House business.
1 put it to my friend very seriously that three years is a long time to wait for any answer. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville indicated the position on a prior occasion when we had the privilege of forming the Government of Canada. He said that the answers were ready, that they were to come on, but that they did not come on because of the fall of the government. If those answers were ready for our government, those answers are now ready for his government. I suggest he go to see the Clerk of the Privy Council immediately, obtain those answers, if they are ready as he says they are, and bring them forward to the House. I think it will simplify matters, and certainly it will be helpful in terms of the flow of information to which I believe members of Parliament are entitled.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members to my left have made their point. I will allow the parliamentary secretary to reply if he insists, but I thought the point was sufficiently made and that perhaps we could cut if off here and proceed to the other item.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I did make the point, and I will stand by what I said, that I undertake to answer these questions. But there is a sort of underground insinuation about who is culpable in terms of answering a particular question. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has made the assertion that that question was ready to be answered during the tenure of the former government. I do not know whether that is so. All I know is that in the two weeks, three weeks or five weeks
Energy Policy
we have been sitting here and answering questions, that question has not come from the Privy Council office to be answered here today.


Marc Lalonde: They did not do it in six months.


David Michael Collenette: They did not do it in six months. If indeed what the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville said is correct, they did not table it themselves. I just want to point out that inconsistency.
Also 1 should like to point out that delay in answering questions, or failure to answer any particular question on a given day, does not necessarily imply that that question will not be answered at some time in the future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy.
He said: Mr. Speaker will note that we as the official opposition have chosen to use this our first allotted day to bring to the attention of the House and to our fellow citizens the failure of this government to deal honestly and effectively with a variety of important and urgent problems in the field of national energy policy.
Some of the problems which will be discussed today are as follows: first, pricing and supply; second, consumer impact; third, conservation and alternative sources; fourth, economic and industrial impact. I think it will be obvious to the House in terms of both importance and urgency that any one of these several issues alone could form the subject matter of today's debate. In terms of the total energy situation, I should like to point out that this list obviously is not an exhaustive one.
Any opposition acting responsibly could be justified in devoting allotted days to a variety of other energy-related issues. For example, one thinks immediately of the fact that Canadians are entitled to know, and we are entitled to debate, the international aspects of energy, particularly those aspects which gave rise to what we know around the world in this era as the energy crisis. Similarly, it would take little to justify using an allotted day to debate the energy dimension of Canada-United States relations.
Of course, there are numerous other energy issues which demand and deserve our attention. However, we feel compelled to bring to the attention of the House the four matters I have enumerated because it is our view that to ignore any one of those would, as an official opposition, be irresponsible. That irresponsibility would not be less than the irresponsibility of


May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
the government in failing to deal effectively with all four of those issues. Perhaps the combining of all four of those issues enumerated in this debate will serve at least to emphasize their interrelationship and their interdependence, because among the multitude of sins committed by this government in the energy field-and by previous Liberal governments-has been the sin of ignoring or failing to comprehend this interdependence.
The only more serious charge that I could lay at the doorstep of this government and previous Liberal governments would be their guilt in forsaking any medium or long-term energy strategy for the sake of short-term political expedience. We have had years of announcements by a parade of ministers of finance and ministers of energy. I recall at least two ministers of finance in the last few years talking endlessly about the necessity of moving toward, to or beyond world prices in oil. We have had at least two ministers of energy announcing a conservation strategy which they thought was so good that they reannounced it several times in several sessions. Of course, it was never fully and certainly never effectively implemented, because it faced that one insurmountable hurdle-the hurdle of Liberal political expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker will hear one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), dealing with energy pricing and supply. We in this party find it unacceptable that this government's attention span to self-sufficiency lasts no longer than one month following the latest Middle East crisis. That is the entire attention span of this government. Following that one month it is completely ignored.
In our view, this government takes greater satisfaction in concluding deals with foreign suppliers of oil than seizing upon the challenges and the opportunity to become self-sufficient from our own resources. We do not believe that enormous payments of Canadian dollars from Canadian taxpayers to foreign producers need be the destiny of our country. It takes little imagination for anyone in this House of whatever political persuasion to realize what we could be doing with the $3 billion we are paying out today in subsidy payments alone. Think of it if you wish, sir, in economic or industrial or regional development terms. Others may choose to think of it in terms of the enhancement of social programs. Others may think of it in terms of the reduction of the national debt. But if Mr. Speaker wishes to think of it purely in energy terms, I point out that that $3 billion would provide $500 worth of new insulation in virtually every home in Canada. In turning its back on self-sufficiency, this government is committed to the continuation of this enormous and endless drain for an indefinite period.
In terms of pricing, sir, when the government talks about pricing it talks exclusively about price at the pump. Sometimes, rather rarely, it talks in terms of prices in regard to revenue sharing between producing and non-producing provinces. But never does this government talk about price in the most important context-in terms of bringing on required Canadian production.
Does this government ever ask itself, for example, at what price is tertiary development from conventional sources viable?
I suggest it never does. Does it ever ask itself at what price is Alsands viable, given the enormous capital investment, or at what price is gasohol, solar or tidal energy practical? I suggest never.
Pricing to this government is first a matter of algebra; it is the xyz formula, the nature of which has been and continues to be a secret. Second, when it talks about price it talks about taxes, whether they be refinery taxes, export taxes consumer taxes, next year's taxes or the taxes for the year after, all of which remain secret.
Perhaps it was put best by The Globe and Mail, coincidentally just this morning, in its editorial. It states:
It is useless to complain that the government is trying to find ways of replacing the excise tax which it said it would not levy. The government has done little but evade its election promises since the election. Why expect honour?
Another of my colleagues will be dealing with the impact upon Canadian consumers. Indeed, that is not a problem that is confined to the gas pumps, as this government would have us believe. Any Canadian consumer is entitled to ask, what is the future of low-income groups who must heat their homes? What about those on fixed incomes, what is their future, particularly senior citizens who, possibly to the surprise of this government, do not drive large gas-guzzling cars to the pumps?
What about the enormous disparity that already exists among Canadians-and one thinks immediately of those in Quebec and Atlantic Canada-as compared to those in other parts of the country? How much greater is this disparity to be allowed to grow? Is there to be any form of energy cost cushion? Will there be an energy tax credit? Is there to be a subsidization of the generation of electricity in Atlantic Canada? Apparently that is not to be, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, many of those Canadians least able to protect themselves will become even more vulnerable in the future should this government's policies continue to develop as they have over the past few months.
The third point we will be raising, sir, will be in respect of conservation and alternative sources. I confess that I am not convinced this government has made that one basic decision yet, and that decision is, do we implement conservation measures or do we ration gasoline? 1 do not believe that decision has been made. There is no indication that it has.
Hon. members will remember former energy minister Donald Macdonald announcing a conservation measure in February, 1975. It was reannounced by his successor, the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, in 1976. What has been implemented? I suggest virtually nothing. The conclusion one reaches is that this government, as previous Liberal governments, is content with a 3.5 per cent increase in energy consumption. That is the inescapable conclusion one must draw, even in the face of not just independent studies, but its own government studies which

May 8, 1980

say that 2 per cent is attainable. What is the government's response? All we have seen so far has been the throne speech. We have an awesome conservation program consisting entirely of two things; fuel efficient standards for cars, and higher home insulation standards. That is the total conservation package we have had from this government.
What then, sir, has the government said or done about alternative sources? Again one looks to the throne speech, and 1 quote:
An alternative energy corporation will be created with a mandate to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources to replace oil.
The sole response to the challenge, the opportunity of developing alternatives, is another Crown corporation. Today in a reply to a question from one of his colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said this corporation will become a subsidiary of PetroCan, that it will have a board of directors and, I think, $20 million capitalization. He was not asked where the head office was to be, but I presume it is Calgary, a marvellous city in which to live. 1 am envious of those defeated Liberal candidates who can catch on to this Crown corporation, and there are lots of them out in Alberta. The only reason, frankly, that I see for putting this subsidiary in Calgary, much as I like the city, is its proximity to defeated Liberal candidates.
Where does this failure to respond to this challenge leave a variety of projects? Where, for example, does this leave the potential in Ontario for gasohol and alternative liquid fuels as dealt with in the Ontario budget? Where does this leave the tidal power project on the Annapolis River? Where does it leave the biomass project in Prince Edward Island? What about the Donkin No. 2 coal project in Nova Scotia? And the list goes on and on. Those projects remain at the mercy of our 432nd Crown corporation. I confess I am not sure about the numbers, but it is four hundred and something, and I believe it is 432. It is close to the 500 mark.
These projects are at the mercy of this newest Crown corporation, to be a subsidiary of PetroCan, located in Calgary, with a yet unnamed board of directors. These important projects, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, were some of those to flow from our proposed national energy bank. Others, you will recall, included Canadian-owned oil upgraders, because we are exporting oil we do not have the capacity to deal with it at this time. That was another project. Then there was the oil sands project and the gas pipeline to Quebec City and through to the maritimes. Then we had proposals for urban transit, which we heard yesterday were now being discarded. We had urban transit upon which Liberal candidates have run for almost half a century, I believe. Are all of these projects-I say this more in sadness than in anger-and our ability to harness the alternatives with which we are so rich to have the same fate as urban transit? Is that the energy future for Canada and for Canadians?
Another of my colleagues will be dealing with the economic and industrial impact.
Earlier this week, in speaking to the Canadian Conference Board in Toronto-and I have read the speech carefully-the
Energy Policy
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealt with the effects of higher energy prices and said that they:
-are bound to increase the inflationary pressure ... and to depress over-all economic growth. They will work against an improvement in national employment and will weigh against both productivity and profits.
The picture is pretty gloomy. In terms of the gas pump psychology of the Liberal government, when a Canadian goes to a gas pump he will find the price of gas too high, no matter what it is, if he is unemployed. The price will always be too high for the unemployed. However, more importantly, I understand what the minister was saying and I share some of his concerns: but the real tragedy, the inexcusable tragedy, is the government's failure to appreciate the economic and industrial opportunities that are presented in the strategy of energy self-sufficiency, whether the opportunities be in growth, jobs, productivity, profits or taxes flowing to various levels of government. If one were an industrialist, one would think of such projects as Syncrude, the Foothills pipeline, and the Q and M pipeline.
If one thinks in terms of conservation, there is the potential of solar heating. Think of the manufacturing opportunities available in solar heating. That is why we were so anxious to seize upon this opportunity that is so uniquely Canadian through our energy strategy. That is why we introduced the energy self-sufficiency tax and the national energy bank.
Referring once again to the minister's speech to the Conference Board earlier this week, he said:
In developing the government's policy approaches to this situation we will be striving to create a positive approach and inject into the Canadian energy environment an element that I know has been absent for some time, namely, that of greater certainty.
What greater certainty than the certainty of price, not the xyz algebraic formula of blended pricing. In fairness, there is a certainty-the certainty of direct and indirect taxes, whether they be consumer taxes, refinery taxes, export taxes, income taxes, and who knows what other form they may take. It is certain that Canadian consumers, directly or indirectly, will pay more for their energy from this government than they would from the previous Conservative government.


Marc Lalonde: That has to be the joke of the year.


William Herbert Jarvis: It is certain, with regard to supply, that Canada will become more and more reliant on foreign sources of energy. With regard to the consumer impact, without the cushion provided by the energy tax credit and other measures, the consumer is certain to get socked; that is inevitable.


Mr. Waddell:: He is getting socked.


William Herbert Jarvis: With regard to the certainty of conservation, not one measure has been announced except the fuel standards for automobiles and home insulation. That is the certainty of conservation!
The certainty of alternative sources is another matter. There is an alternative source to which this government is devoted-

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
to sign a contract with yet another foreign government. That is its whole alternative source program. Where is the certainty in our economy? The minister promised in Toronto fewer jobs, lower profits, lower productivity and, of course, consequently lower tax revenues.
The tragedy goes beyond all that 1 have just said, Mr. Speaker. Granted it is tragedy enough, but beyond that, the real cost to the Canadian consumer, both in economic and human terms, is the failure of the government to see the challenge and to grasp the opportunity that is uniquely and solely ours. That is the tragedy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: There is the challenge of price as a tool of supply, the magnificent opportunity to be self-sufficient, of taking hold of that ability we have to protect our consumers, the obvious opportunity to enact a real conservation program, the development of alternate sources which are begging for development and the economic and industrial potential to develop these opportunities. All of these challenges were taken up in the budget of last December. Failure by this government to seize upon those challenges and to develop those opportunities would, I submit, be irresponsible, wasteful and tragic.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague of the official opposition on his first intervention on this very important question of energy and for having taken the opportunity on the first opposition day to put this question on the agenda. Indeed, energy has been the most important question facing this country over the last few years, the last few months, and I suspect that it will remain so for the next few years.
The question of energy is related not only to energy self-sufficiency or energy itself, but is also very closely related to the entire economic environment of this country. It even goes beyond that. Energy is closely related to the question of the unity of our country. It has as an issue all the makings of a tremendous opportunity for growth and unity in this country. However, at the same time, it can divide this country, extremely and profoundly.
Energy can also be the cause of a serious deterioration of our economic opportunities and development. Our purpose and objective as the government is to use energy as a source of tremendous economic development and as an element in bringing this country together, rather than dividing it-and there is that danger.
Having complimented my colleague for raising this issue today, I am sure that he will allow me to make a few more comments which will not be quite as complimentary, not to the hon. member but to the government of which he was a part, fortunately for a rather short period. The Conservative party can be accused of having many defects, but one thing that it has-


Thomas Edward Siddon: -is common sense.


Marc Lalonde: -is nerve, nerve indeed for bringing forward on the first opposition day a motion "condemning the government for its failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy."


Mr. Andre:: Underline the word "honest".


Marc Lalonde: My hon. colleague opposite, who is hiding behind the curtains, is attempting to comment. As usual, his comments are not very relevant nor very intelligent but we will not leave him behind the curtains.
My party has been in office for just over two months. Last year the Conservative government was appointed early in June, and then the minister of energy disappeared for four or five months. He had been gone for so long that he was being referred to in the press as the invisible minister. I say this in all friendship to the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) because I have always thought, and still do, that he is a very decent human being.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's very generous.


Marc Lalonde: But the fact is that he disappeared for several months. When he reappeared it was impossible for the opposition of the day to get any significant information from him; everything was under study, under examination, under review and, sometimes, under discussion.
What did we have then? We had a period in which there were intense divisions between the provinces, particularly the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta. There was intense dissatisfaction by the provinces at the lack of consultation, lack of opportunities to have an input and lack of knowledge as to what was transpiring between them.
Then, that poor minister was pushed aside by the former minister of finance and his leader, who took over and tried to arrive at some deal between the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta, leaving completely in the dark the government of the other producing provinces, and even worse the governments of the consuming provinces. One would have thought that after six months that government would have come up with an honest and effective energy policy; that is the least one would have hoped for and expected from a government that seemed to be so long in generating anything.
We were facing an elephant pregnancy in the case of the last government's energy policy. We were given a statement in the budget of December 11, a statement that was so horrendous that the opposition unanimously had to reject it, vote it down, one that the people of Canada had no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting in the following general election.
This is the party that dares ask for an honest energy policy, yet they came forward with a budget in which they told Canadians, "Don't worry, we have got a deal; we have an 18-cent excise tax and over the next four years an arrangement by which you will have an increase of $4 per barrel this year over and above the 18 cents; and you will have an increase of
May 8, 1980

$4.50 for the next four years". En passant, they said, "The third year we will adjust to 75 per cent and the fourth year we will adjust to 85 per cent of the Chicago price", which is the equivalent of the world price.


Mr. Stevens:: Not necessarily.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member says "not necessarily." He knows that the Chicago price, in effect, is higher than the world price by a couple of dollars.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was always the lower of the two; tell the truth.


Marc Lalonde: Now he says it would have been the lower of the two. Then it would have to be 85 per cent of the world price or of the Chicago price, whichever was the lower; but in fact the Chicago price was higher so we are back to the same statement.
What has been discovered in all of this? We discovered that the party which now claims that theirs was an honest energy policy had been pulling the wool over Canadians' eyes. But fortunately Canadians are no fools and they saw through the trick. They decided what to do about it at the last election.
What was the meaning of the $4.50, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to get next year and the following two years? We already know that with the current increases it would have meant $5.80 next year, $4.70 in 1982, and from what we know now, in 1983 it would be $10.90 and in 1984 $7.60. That is on the basis of inflation plus 2 per cent. It is a very, very modest assumption about what will happen to oil prices.
We all know that the OPEC countries are meeting in Saudi Arabia to review the question of oil pricing. They are due to meet on June 9 and already we are hearing talk about further increases in the price of oil on the international market.
That is the kind of proposition that was being put by the last government, Mr. Speaker. They did not dare set it straight during the speech on the budget or after. As a matter of fact, their minister of finance tried to say something about this during the election. He said that he might have to increase the price even more, but then promptly we had his leader contradicting him the next day, saying that the increase would not go over $4 or $4.50. We know now who was right; it was their minister of finance and not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who was prime minister at the time.


Harvie Andre: That is what I mean about honest. You are being dishonest.


Marc Lalonde: Our friend in the opposition was hiding behind the curtains a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker. Now he is moving to the front bench. I am sorry his leader has not found him dignified enough to put him in charge of anything yet, especially in the field of energy but ask him to be patient.
That is the party that is now calling for honesty, that is calling for effectiveness in terms of energy policy. We know what that policy was; it was the baseball bat approach to energy. The consumers of this country rejected it and rejected
Energy Policy
it strongly in the last election. I find the opposition has a lot of nerve to dare raise this question today in the way they have; but nonetheless, I am happy it is on the agenda. My colleagues and I will have an opportunity to go into several of the elements of this policy today.
I know the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) was unavoidably absent from the House for a couple of weeks, but I am glad he has had time to read the speech I made in Toronto a couple of days ago. I would invite him to read the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Halifax during the election campaign when he was leader of the opposition, as well as my speech in this House during the throne speech debate and other speeches I have made in Quebec and Montreal in the last few weeks.
If he read those speeches he would find there the principles that this government came out with during the election campaign and since, the very clear outline and clear principles on which the government's energy policy is based. We have been quite forthcoming with the public about what we were proposing in the field of energy. Our commitment derived from a basic belief that energy policy must be based upon principles of security, equity and opportunity.
The previous policy was not based on those principles; it was very short on principles generally. What we had after very little consultation with the provinces other than Alberta- practically none, from what I could assess-was excessive increases in the price of oil, and an excise tax the people of Canada rejected. They did not come up with anything of substance in the area mentioned by the hon. member for Perth, that is, conservation and substitution.
We have said that what we need is a price not tied to the international price but one based upon the Canadian reality and the Canadian situation. We will have in this country a price that will be based on Canadian situations. The wellhead price for oil and gas will be determined through negotiations with the producing provinces in particular, at levels which reflect the right of the producing provinces to a fair return on their investment.
I want to make it quite clear that it is not a question of taking away the rights of any provinces, of preventing the producing provinces from getting richer. It is quite clear that Alberta is richer than any other province in this country, will become even richer in the next few years and fabulously rich in this decade. There is no doubt about that. Any deal arrived at will make the province of Alberta by far the wealthiest province in this country.
Nonetheless, the price must also be one that recognizes that the cost of developing new sources of supply is greater than that associated with supplies already in reserve.
When we talked about our "made-in-Canada" price, we said that there will be one price for oil coming from conventional sources and another higher price for oil coming from non-conventional sources, such as the tar sands or the frontier areas. Also, there will be an injection into that price of the cost of

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
imported oil which will continue to impart for a number of years.


Harvie Andre: What about new oil and tertiary oil?


Marc Lalonde: This price-we have stated quite clearly and repeatedly, and I repeat it again today-will be lower than the price which had been forecast by the previous Conservative government in the ill-fated budget of December 11, and that is a commitment of this government.


An hon. Member:: Tell us the price.


Marc Lalonde: We want a revenue system so structured that if prices rise, as they will, the national government will get the share it needs to carry out its national responsibility.
I see my friends in the opposition over there worrying. What they should realize is that if we in this country are going to be able to stick together, we will need to have a national government which will have not only the powers but the resources to ensure that regional disparities are not going to become excessive. One cannot have a country in which there is a province that would become a Kuwait and another province that would become a Jordan. One cannot have a country like that.
For instance, the province of Nova Scotia's total revenue from natural resources is, 1 believe, about $8 per capita at the present time. The province of Alberta's total revenue from natural resources alone is $1,900 per capita. How much more and for how much longer can we have a continuation of this kind of disparity if we do not have in the national government the resources necessary to redistribute them in a way that will try to help those provinces with fewer resources? Obviously one will have to call upon the wealthiest provinces to make a contribution to the national wealth of the country to arrive at a better distribution of income in Canada, a better distribution than just the location of natural resources would allow for.


Harvie Andre: How does relying on Saudi Arabia help?


Marc Lalonde: Again, my friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) cannot get that through his head. It is elementary. If you want to have a country, you will have to face those realities. I see that my friend from Calgary Centre is going through the roof, but some day he will come down to earth. As I have said, as far as we are concerned, we recognize this as a basic element of any energy policy in this country.
My hon. friend talked about pricing and supply, but he did not talk about revenue sharing. Ignoring this question is ignoring the reality of this country, and it is going to lead to very deep divisions in Canada if that question is not faced squarely by all provincial governments and by all parties in this House.
I noticed that the opposition completely left out not only the question of revenue sharing, which is fundamental in my view, in addition to the question of pricing, supply and conservation, but also the question of Canadian ownership. In my view this is not surprising coming from the opposition, but I find it regrettable.
In this country we have tremendous oil and gas resources. If we look to the future of this country, we can say that Canada will be sitting on top of the world. Unfortunately, a large portion of our resources in this field are still foreign owned. We want to do more to remedy this situation.
The previous Liberal government set up Petro-Canada as one instrument to achieve this purpose. The official opposition was trying to destroy Petro-Canada in the short six months it was in office. Petro-Canada has been a major instrument in ensuring that we are taking over a larger portion of and playing a bigger role in the petroleum industry. We want to maintain and expand Petro-Canada. One of the first steps we took after our election as the government was to remit the $80 million to Petro-Canada which the previous government had refused to give it to allow it to do its job.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: More debt.


Marc Lalonde: In addition, we have indicated that our objective is to arrive at 50 per cent-my friends on the other side keep interrupting and shouting all the time, Mr. Speaker. I know that this subject touches their nerves. They made such a mess of it in their short six months.


Harvie Andre: We cannot believe that you are that ignorant about what is going on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Where did you get the $80 million from?


Marc Lalonde: They are livid with rage about their goof.
We want to ensure during this decade that the petroleum industry will be at least 50 per cent Canadian owned. We are not going to wait until 1989 to work on this question or to ensure that we are going to make substantial progress in that direction.
As 1 have indicated, we have already taken some steps through Petro-Canada. We are working now on a new act concerning federal lands which will ensure that there will be a greater role for Canadian-controlled firms in all areas coming under federal control and jurisdiction. We have already indicated that we will take steps to favour Canadian firms in the area of oii and gas.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have only a few minutes left. Several of my colleagues will have the opportunity to touch on other aspects of this crucial issue.
I simply want to indicate once again that we have clear and unequivocal objectives as far as our energy policy is concerned. We have set out these objectives during the campaign and we have reiterated them in the Speech from the Throne. I myself have made a statement on this matter in the House. These objectives have been endorsed by the Canadian people, and it is our intention to achieve them during this government's term of office. In the two months that we have been in power, we have taken several measures which indeed indicate this government's determination to ensure that Canada has an energy
May 8, 1980

policy tailored to its needs, an energy policy which will guarantee that this sector is truly under Canadian control and in particular an energy-pricing policy to protect Canadian consumers against exorbitant prices such as those proposed by the former Progressive Conservative government and which the House, Parliament and the entire population unequivocally rejected.
We have already taken action to strengthen Petro-Canada. In the weeks ahead we will be announcing several other concrete measures to promote our conservation policy and our policy on alternate sources of energy. We want to negotiate a price formula for natural gas which will encourage all Canadians to use natural gas instead of oil and heating fuel.
Once again, I have already communicated several times with my colleagues in other provinces and representatives from the industry, and I hope that in the weeks to come, I shall be able to announce certain important measures which may result in an increase in the use of those resources of which we have large reserves and bring about a substantial decrease in the consumption of oil, which must obviously come down.
We also want this new energy policy to provide a new economic impetus to Canada, because we are convinced that the energy issue, far from being a crisis or a problem in itself, constitutes for Canada the greatest development opportunity of its history. This government has no doubt that because of our advantageous energy situation in Canada, whether we are talking about hydroelectric resources, natural gas resources, conventional and non-conventional oil reserves, our underwater resources which are now being developed or nuclear energy, this country owns more resources than any other country in the world. Yet, here we are, a population of 23 million people, literally sitting on this incredible wealth which causes envy among all the other countries. We are firmly determined as a government to enable all Canadians to benefit from this wealth, and not only those Canadians who happen to occupy such and such a territory at any given time.
We are also determined to have these resources increasingly developed by Canadians and for Canadians. Having said this, it is obvious that those Canadians who reside in a province with greater natural resources than the others will benefit more from their development. There is no doubt about this and our policy is in keeping with this reality, but at the same time, it aims at ensuring that there will not be in this country regions which become extremely wealthy at the expense of others which will then become proportionally extremely poor. This is the role of national government and this is the role of national Parliament: To see to it that there are enough resources distributed throughout the country for the governments of the various provinces and regions to be truly able to meet their responsibilities toward the population, and also to ensure that Canadian citizens who decide to live in Quebec, in Newfoundland, in Prince Edward Island or in Manitoba will not have to move the next day to improve their standard of
Energy Policy
living to some other province because this other province happens to have an exceptional resource.
We have no intention of supporting any policy whose result would be to transform some of our provinces into uninhabited national parks. Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues will have the opportunity to provide more details about certain aspects of our policy, but I wish to reassure the opposition that not only will we have an energy policy, but also that we now have one which is honest and effective, and that everyone will be able to see its results in the months to come.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the speeches by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) for the Conservatives and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for the government, I would like to make two preliminary remarks. I am told that many people now watch the proceedings of the House of Commons on television, and I think that as they see the cheap shots that go back and forth between the parties and as they see one group which was in government a few months ago blaming the other group, they must recognize that nothing very concrete happens except that the debate gets turned back and forth into what the other party did when in government. 1 think people must get disgusted at this kind of action and would like to see us get on to more positive suggestions.
The second comment I would like to make is that I understand that the minister of energy in Alberta, Mr. Leitch, today introduced a bill which would allow Alberta to curtail production in the oil fields "in the public interest". It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the public interest, or of the rest of Canada at least, for us to have a confrontation in this country between "two gun slingers meeting in the Alberta corral to shoot it out" in order to get an oil deal. It seems to me this is what is happening and it would be a real tragedy for this country.
We see the minister of energy in his opening shot a few weeks ago unilaterally-without really discussing it with Alberta-changing the deal on the oil price and lowering the price from the world standard of prices. I happen to agree with that decision. Indeed, it was suggested many years ago with a little bit of foresight by Tommy Douglas in this House that that pricing deal was wrong. I agree with what the minister said but I do not agree with the way he did it. I think it was an opening shot, so we now find Mr. Leitch and Mr. Lougheed taking their turn at bluffing. We already have one national unity issue in this country, possibly a serious one after May 20. Let us not have two.
I am a western member and 1 have a lot of sympathy for some of the views of the province of Alberta. But may I say that the price and the security of oil supplies for Canada is a matter of national concern, not just provincial concern. If there were ever a time for politicians in Canada, whether it be the minister of energy sitting over there or the premiers of

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
Alberta and other provinces, to take the high road in the name of national unity, this is the time.
1 would like to take the time to deal with some of the remarks made by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Perth. I should tell him that the New Democratic Party rejected the Conservative government's energy policy, as did the Canadian people. There were very good reasons for rejecting that policy. One of the main reasons we rejected it was because of the split-up of the wealth after that excise tax was to be applied. What was to happen to that money which was to have been taken out of the pockets of the Canadian consumers? Where was it to go? Well, $33 billion was to go to the industry, $40 billion to Alberta and only $17 billion to the federal government. And not all of that $17 billion was earmarked for energy programs; some of it was going to be put into the mortgage interest deductibility scheme, which was really a subsidy for upper middle-income people.
We approved of some of the measures in that budget, the energy tax credit and so on. We spoke favourably about some of them. But generally it was a lousy policy which redistributed wealth into the hands of the people who did not need it, namely the oil companies, and also into the hands of one single province. We rejected that and so did the Canadian people.
While the minister was talking about Petro-Canada, I heard some Conservative backbenchers call it a "peanut operation". We in the New Democratic Party do not believe that it should be or is a peanut operation. The Conservative party had four policies on Petro-Canada. All of them were intended to privatize Petro-Canada. The Canadian people did not approve of that and they made their views known in the election. Where 1 come from it was an important issue in the election campaign.
The Conservatives have proposed the following resolution:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy.
We agree with that resolution, but it is much like the pot calling the kettle black when the Conservatives propose it. Surely the Clark government's pricing agreement, its excise tax, its treatment of Petro-Canada and its gas export decisions were indicative of a disastrous energy policy and a disastrous energy future for Canada.
Let me turn to the remarks made by the minister about the Liberal government's energy policy, such as it is. The hon. member for Perth used the phrase "an honest and effective energy policy" in his motion. I refer specifically to the word "honest." 1 think that is an appropriate place to start when one has to discuss any Liberal policy because if it is anything, it is not honest. It is dishonest.
Speaking during the election campaign in Halifax and elsewhere, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that oil prices would be lower than the Conservative price. They would be $4 a barrel, then $4.50, and $4.50 up until 1984. Now he is attempting to slide out of that promise. He is attempting to weasel around it. I think the promise was really directed to the people of Ontario, and I wonder if they will tolerate this
standard of political morality. Will they let the government off the hook on this promise?
I would like to read from a transcript of a press conference the Prime Minister gave, and I think this is indicative. John Ferguson of the Canadian Press asked the following question:
Mr. Prime Minister, in a speech in Halifax in which you set out the energy policy of your party, you said that the Liberal government would keep the prices over the next four years below those outlined by the Conservatives in their defeated budget. Since that time there has been a variety of interpretation as to whether you were talking about specifically the $4.00, the $4.50/54.50 formula, or whether you were talking about keeping the increases below a less defined but possibly higher price related to world levels. Could you tell us now whether or not you are committed to keeping the price increases below $4.50 a barrel for the next three years or whether you are talking about something else?
The Prime Minister answered the following:
I was talking in the terms which you just quoted, and I did not ask myself the question you are asking now: Would that mean much lower in one year and slightly lower in other years or much lower in average over the whole period? I think you can read it the way you want-
Q. Then you are saying that there is no commitment to keep the increases below $4.50 a barrel in the following three years?
A. Well, in each of the three years?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I have just answered. You can take it in whatever way you want, so can Mr. Lougheed, Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lalonde.
The minister is sitting over there.
The important thing is that we get a better deal for Canadians in pricing over those four years . . . You shake your head. 1 will take supplementaries on this if you want.
The pressman said "no". There were no supplementaries.
1 used to know an Indian chief in Alberta who used to say that sometimes when white men talk they speak in gob-bledygook. Surely this is an example of gobbledygook, of trying to weasel around a campaign promise. The Prime Minister is very prone to speak philosophically in this House. Through the minister I ask him what the cost, in terms of political morality, of this promise is.
An ex-aide of the Prime Minister, a Mr. Michael J. Kirby, who is now president of the Institute for Research on Public Policy-


Mr. Rae:: He is back here now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is back here? He was president of the Institute for Research on Public Policy for a short time. The article I have here says he is a former Trudeau aide, but he is now back. He gave a speech in April at Carleton University. It was a lecture. In the lecture he said, and I quote: "Restoring faith in government must be our primary goal". I ask the Prime Minister now, how do you restore faith in government?
I cannot use the word in the House, but when I was a criminal lawyer I used to talk about the word "fraud", and it meant not dealing directly but dealing deceitfully and indirectly with the people. That is what the Prime Minister has done with the people of Ontario. Why do you not come clean, Mr. Minister, with the people of Ontario and the people in the rest of the country? If you are going to go to world levels or above the Conservative price, then do it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
May 8, 1980


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Marc Lalonde: You have to address the Chair.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry. I will put it through you, Mr. Speaker. If the government is going to go to world levels and if it is going to change that policy, then perhaps it should do it and tell the Canadian people honestly about it.
Another criticism I have with respect to Liberal policy is criticism of the statement given in the Speech from the Throne and given again by the minister, and that is that by 1990, 50 per cent of the oil industry will be Canadian controlled. It is as if we never had Liberal government before in Canada, as if hon. members opposite never had a chance to get control of Canadian industry and this is just a new idea, no doubt stolen from the New Democratic Party. However, it is too little by 1990, and it is too late. By that time all the cheap oil will be sold. By that time all the big profits will have been made by the oil companies. They will have diversified the profits they will have made and bought up other industries. The minister's department has a report to this effect which was tabled in the last Parliament.
This government is big on talk. The Americans used to say that Theodore Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. This government talks tough, but it carries no stick at all. It talks about being progressive, but let us not be fooled because its policies are conservative. In fact, this is the real Progressive Conservative party over there.


William Herbert Jarvis: Oh, heaven protect us!


Harvie Andre: Would you like to step outside and say that?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thought that would get a rise out of my friends to the right. They are coming alive. Just last week I raised in this House the matter of oil company profits. I raised the point that Texaco's profits increased 94 per cent in the first three months; Gulf, 72 per cent-


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the hon. member calls the Liberals Progressive Conservatives, I respectfully request that that be included in Beauchesne as unparliamentary language.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only verbose but he is also not very funny.
Let me continue. I was talking about oil company profits, a subject which I and my colleagues have raised in this House. There has been no reply. We have raised the matter of investigations into the oil companies with respect to their price fixing. There has been no reply. After seven long years we still have not seen any action. Why have we seen no action? Perhaps it is because of the financial returns of political parties. I only have figures for 1978; figures for 1979 have not been published. Gulf Oil of Canada gave $27,200 to the Liberal Party of Canada. It gave $41,000 to the Conservative party. Perhaps there is a difference in the two parties. Kaiser Resources gave $10,000 to the Liberal party. TransCanada PipeLines gave $16,690 to the Liberal party. Alberta Gas
Energy Policy
Trunk Line gave $15,800 to the Liberal party and $15,752 to the Conservative party. I could go on and on. Neither the Liberals as a government nor the Conservatives are going to intervene or interfere with their friends or with the interests of their friends who are giving them money to run their parties.


Mr. Malone:: Tell us about CLU.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to speak about another area of Liberal policy, gas policy. When the minister was in opposition he said, "We are not going to sell gas cheaply." He said, "We are not going to make a fast buck." He said he wanted ironclad guarantees that there will be a northern pipeline. Now what has happened? He has been in office, what, a couple of months? He is already backtracking. A sham hearing is already being conducted at the National Energy Board. We are going to have an export gas pipeline to the United States and we are going to lose that Canadian gas. Does it not make sense to keep that gas? We are cheating ourselves and future generations if we continue to export natural gas rather than use the gas we have for substitution and to supply eastern Canada or my area of the country, Vancouver Island. That makes sense as a policy.
I should like to quote the Western Canadian Lumber Worker, a publication from my area. The editorial puts it rather well. It reads:
-Tories have absolutely no policy differences. They both act precisely the same when in power, and merely go through the motions of criticizing each other's policies when in opposition.
I want to say briefly what the NDP would do in this matter. With regard to gas, we reject the Liberal and Conservative policies of increasing natural gas exports as being shortsighted. We would extend the reversible gas pipeline to Quebec and to the Atlantic provinces. We would encourage substitution-


Marc Lalonde: You are reading a Liberal speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Instead of exporting gas we would set up a national gas bank-I challenge the minister to do that-and use that gas later on for Canadians. On oil, we would not go for an artificial target of OPEC prices which the Conservatives and, to some extent, the Liberals are prepared to accept. That leads to large profits for multinationals, it is used to buy back more of our country, and it concentrates the wealth in one province.
We tried to be honest with the Canadian people during the election. We agree that there will be some rise in the price of oil to achieve certain social objectives, but we would not tie it to the OPEC price and we would put it in response to three fundamental priciples. The first one is that not one cent of that money would be taken out of Canadian taxpayers' profits and given back to the oil companies. Second, the lion's share of the money would go to the federal government to be distributed across Canada, and it would be distributed equitably throughout the country. The Premier of Saskatchewan has put forward some of these proposals and has taken a rather states-

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
manlike attitude. The third principle is that there be no oil price increase without tax cuts to put money back in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. Those are the principles on which we will formulate our oil-pricing policy in subsequent debates.
With respect to Petro-Canada, we would expand it from coast to coast. We would make sure that when Canadians put gas in their car, that money goes back to Canada. We would move Petro-Canada to take over one of the major oil companies in this country so that Petro-Canada would expand and we would really have some control in the Canadian industry.
Canadians must decide whether they want to go nowhere with the Conservatives, whether they want to flounder a little with the Liberals, or whether they want to come with us and really have a made-in-Canada energy policy, and they must act now.


An hon. Member:: And really be taken for a ride.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says "And really be taken for a ride." Let him consider that if we do not get control of our oil industry now for Canadians, if we do not do that in the next four or five years we will lose it entirely.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the hon. member explain to me what makes multinational oil companies uniquely different from the multinational automobile industry in southern Ontario, specifically Chrysler, which that party supports? Because the industry belongs primarily to two or three western provinces, why is it somehow a diminishing industry to be thumbed down while that party wants to support other multinationals? I should like to know the unique difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Waddell) has the option of answering the question if he so chooses, but I will have to take it out of his time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to complete my speech.
1 think it is a rather ignorant question, if 1 might say so. We want the automobile industry to work for Canadians, just as we want the oil industry to work for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me conclude my remarks by making one quick reference to alternate energy. We have heard nothing in this House from the government, in spite of the remarks today by the minister, on alternate energy or on conservation. We have already raised in this House the matter of urban transit and the matter of solar and alternate energy. We are going to raise the matter, and we have mentioned it, of local groups and neighbourhoods conserving energy. All that makes sense.
Let me conclude by quoting, on another level, the words of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, from his "Letter to the Soviet Leaders", and my friend, the hon. member from Calgary will like this. Solzhenitsyn said:
-what any village graybeard in the Ukraine or Russia had understood from time immemorial and could have explained to the progressive commentators ages ago, had the commentators ever found the time in that dizzy fever of theirs to consult him: that a dozen worms can't go on and on gnawing the same apple forever, that if the earth is a finite object, then its expanses and resources are finite also, and the endless, infinite progress dinned into our heads by the dreamers of the Enlightenment cannot be accomplished on it.
We have squandered our resources foolishly without so much as a backward glance, sapped our soil, mutilated our vast expanses with idiotic "inland seas" and contaminated belts of wasteland around our industrial centres-but for the moment, at least, far more still remains untainted by us, which we haven't had time to touch. So let us come to our senses in time, let us change our course!
We are being asked how much energy it takes to run the industrial machine, where does the energy come from and where is the machine going, and what happens to the people who live in the path of the machine. 1 think we stand on the leading edge of history, driven by forces which require greater and greater use of energy and greater and greater consumption of dwindling resources. Can we change direction? 1 think that upon the answer to that question depends the future of the world we know, of our environment and of our country.
As I have said today, and as speakers for my party will after me, I think these are some positive and Canadian solutions to this energy problem which faces us in this country today.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate passed Bill S-4, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jarvis:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy.
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a matter of procedure. Is it not the practice in the House that we alternate between opposition and government members in debate, and should not a member from our side be recognized at this time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; the debate started on this side.


An hon. Member:: Can't you count?

May 8, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The matter is one to which 1 gave some consideration when taking the chair today. It is an opposition motion which is being debated today. It was my view that the appropriate alternating sequence of members would be, first, the hon. member who spoke for the opposition, followed by the minister, followed by a speaker representing the NDP; and from here on in the order of speakers would follow the ordinary practice during government orders.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is an opposition day and the practice has been, when it has been our motion, to give the weight of any choice to this side. I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) last night the proportion of two here for every three speakers there. That seemed to be agreeable to him at the time.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We would not agree to this.


An hon. Member:: The minister is leaving the House.


Marc Lalonde: Some of my colleagues have noticed that I was leaving the House-at least it proves they are awake. I want to tell them that I must leave to meet with my provincial colleagues, the minister from Saskatchewan and the minister from Manitoba. I think it is very important that we have those consultations with the provinces which were so absent during the time when the party opposite formed the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: In the meantime, the parliamentary secretary will be in the House to speak for the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The Chair is of the impression, on the point of order raised with respect to the rotation of speakers, that the matter was agreeable to all members. We would alternate from one side to the other as is done under government orders, with the third or fourth opportunity being given to members of the NDP. If that impression is incorrect, perhaps I can receive some instructions from hon. members.
Before we do that, may I announce the proceedings on the adjournment motion for this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-
Energy Policy
Finance-Aid to Sydney Steel and Michelin Tire; The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Energy-Protection of lower-income groups from severe price increases; The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged illegalities committed by members of force.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jarvis:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy.
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to intervene. 1 was in the lobby and was not following the course of the debate. I understand that there has been some discussion about the speaking order. While I was not privy to the actual agreement,
I understand that the implication was that, since this is an allotted day, the opposition would have more speakers than the government and that the usual rules of alternation would be suspended. If that is suitable to all hon. members, the parliamentary secretary and the minister, I think we should proceed on that basis. I think perhaps we were talking about three Conservatives, two Liberals and one NDP-in that order. That is fine with the government side, if it is agreeable to hon. members.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then I will take that as agreed. I did not recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) because I thought he was rising in debate rather than on a point of order.


Harvie Andre: That is correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Whichever it may be, I
now recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks, I must comment on the remarks of the spokesman for the New Democratic Party in regard to multinationals. I compliment the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) in observing the point. I suspect that if he was looking for a rule, the multinationals that one does not criticize in the NDP are the ones that Dennis McDermott likes.


Bob Rae: That is a good point, Harvie.


Pauline Jewett: Was that a point?

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy


Harvie Andre: Also I suggest that if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) re-examines what the Premier of Saskatchewan has been saying about oil pricing and revenues, he would be less quick to insist that the New Democratic Party is united. The Premier of Saskatchewan is every bit as vigorous although much more skilful at hiding than the Premier of Alberta.
I should like to commence my remarks with a quotation from a newspaper article which appeared on May 1 in the Calgary Herald. It reads as follows:
Lack of credibility at the political level is costing this country dearly according to the president of the C.D. Howe Institute. Carl Beigie told a Calgary Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Wednesday that the world will survive the Iranian crisis and Canada will survive the Quebec referendum. But, he said, Canada won't survive for long under the current "deterioration of government credibility". The prime example of this breakdown, he said, is Ottawa's energy pricing policy.
That statement was not made by a Progressive Conservative partisan. It was not made by an oil company executive. It was not made by an Alberta politician or even a resident of Alberta or western Canada. That statement was made by a resident of Montreal, the president of the non-partisan, Montreal-based C.D. Howe Research Institute. He said that the biggest threat to Canada is not the Quebec referendum but this government, particularly this government's energy-pricing policy.


An hon. Member:: He is an American.


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who did not have the courtesy to hang around, proved what we had to say about honesty in that fatuous and false excuse he gave for leaving. He started his remarks by saying that we have nerve to raise this issue, that this party has nerve to raise this issue. I would suggest that he has colossal gall to sit there and suggest that what they have been doing and saying is anything else but totally destructive to the country, as evidenced by a research institute in his own backyard. In the view of the C.D. Howe Institute, this government's energy pricing policy is simply incredible, lacking any credibility whatsoever. Also, it is totally dishonest.
A friend of mine who happened to be in Germany shortly after the recent election, told me about an editorial which he read in a German newspaper. It described Canada's reaction to the 18-cent a gallon excise tax as resembling that of a central American banana republic. In other words, to Europeans the energy-pricing policies as articulated by the Liberal party are the subject of ridicule, equivalent to those that one would expect of a banana republic. Yet we have this government apparently feeling proud to be compared with a banana republic.
In the Speech from the Throne, in the mini-budget and repeatedly in the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that the one decision they have taken is that they will not increase the excise tax by 18 cents a gallon this year, as if somehow this negative decision required some great act of courage and would be so helpful to this nation. Somehow behaving like a central American
banana republic is a marvellous thing to this group, however embarrassing it is for the rest of the world to view us as a banana republic because of the positions taken by the Liberal government, the tired old Liberal government.
The most serious criticism that could be made is the fundamental dishonesty of what the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have been saying. They claimed repeatedly and erroneously that they are saving the consumers of Canada billions of dollars. What consumers are they talking about? What are they really saying? Are they really saving consumers anything?
Consistent with their dishonest approach, the government failed to recognize that the budget of December 11 provided an energy tax credit for those persons earning less than $20,000 a year. If one does not own a car because one is too poor, is a senior citizen or a student, obviously one would not pay that 18 cents a gallon excise tax, but one would still receive the energy tax credit. If one owned a car and earned less than $20,000 a year, the energy tax credit provided the equivalent of 24,000 tax free miles per year.
Thus, the position of the government on this 18-cent excise tax is to save the consumer who owns and drives a car and earns more than $20,000 a year. That is their position, but in the process they are penalizing those people who earn less than $20,000 a year and those who do not own cars. For example, they are penalizing senior citizens who use heating oil and have to keep the temperature up because of their age and, perhaps most of all, the student who does not own a car but will be saddled with the debt the government is incurring on his behalf.
Mr. Beigie of the C.D. Howe Institute stated in Calgary on april 30 the following:
We are leaving a very unattractive legacy to the children. We are borrowing from the future as a nation rather than investing in it.
Therefore, at best the government is shielding a select and generally well-off portion of Canadian consumers of petroleum products. That is at best, but even they might not be getting the protection the government claims. The government indicated that crude oil increases will be less than what we proposed in our budget. To rationalize that, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a couple of weeks ago sent out his officials with a totally fallacious, dishonest analysis of the energy-pricing agreement which the government had reached with the province of Alberta. Fortunately and not surprisingly, the press interpreted it for what it was-a sham, a shell game, a totally dishonest attempt to misrepresent what in fact had happened. They are trying to justify price increases considerably in excess of what had been decided by the previous Conservative government.
In his mini-budget, the Minister of Finance said that their blended pricing system, this magic made-in-Canada system, will result in $1 billion less expenditures through the import subsidy program.


Mr. Evans:: That is a misquote.
May 8, 1980


Harvie Andre: The hon. member can read it; it is in his statement.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is exactly what he said.


Harvie Andre: He said that there is $1 billion less. Does Mr. Speaker know what that translates into? It is at least a $2 a barrel increase. On Tuesday night in Toronto the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources thought that $2 per year for the industry was fine. If we just combine those two, we are already at a $4 per barrel increase this year. That is contrary to every promise made by that group over there, including the Prime Minister, during the election campaign.
That does not take into account the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on April 16 in the House when he stated that they intended to collect from any oil-pricing agreement as much revenue as the previous government would have received from the budget of December 11. That means there will have to be an additional price increase this year of between $1 and $4 depending on whether or not the excise tax is included.
To honour the statements made by this government so far, it will require an increase in crude oil this year of between $5 and $9 a barrel, or twice as much as was provided for in the December 11 budget. That is a total contradiction of what this government pledged during the campaign. Remember, none of these figures takes into account any extra revenue for industry or any extra revenue for the government of Alberta. This does not take into account the position of the government of Alberta or the government of Saskatchewan, that they expect as much revenue out of the future pricing agreement as was provided for in the last budget.
What does that mean? Quite simply it means that if the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources were telling the truth to the House and to the country, then what can be expected out of an oil-pricing agreement for Canada is that the consumers of gasoline will be faced with price hikes at least as high-perhaps a penny or two less-as those which would have been provided by the December 11 budget. But what is truly shocking is that users of heating oil will be faced with much higher increases than provided under the December 11 budget, and there is no provision for tax credits for those who do not have a car.
The hon. member over there must have a giant V-8 that he is worried about filling up. How about worrying a little bit about the senior citizen who does not have a car but uses heating oil to heat his home? How about worrying a little bit about him?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: In order to protect those earning more than $20,000 a year driving V-8 cars, like my friend over there, we will have a pricing scheme that is going to affect everybody,
Energy Policy
the senior citizens and the students without cars, along with those with low incomes and so on.
I reiterate, this will occur only if the minister of energy and the Minister of Finance were telling the truth in explaining to the House what they expect under the oil price agreement; and, of course, that is always a dangerous assumption to make.
How about this new blended price system? The minister of energy says it will give us a made-in-Canada price. I am sure we all saw that quote: You mix a little bit of x, y and z then you take an "ah-oh".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Maybe the minister understands it and that is the problem.


Harvie Andre: The first thing to note, Mr. Speaker, is that this made-in-Canada price will mean that from its implementation, as soon as we have this made-in-Canada price, the price in Canada will increase immediately when OPEC prices increase. That is what will happen when this made-in-Canada price comes in. This so-called made-in-Canada price means the Government of Canada is going to get out of the responsibility for oil prices in this country. It is a cop-out. Why did the government adopt this scheme? I suggest it was for just that reason. I know the source of that scheme. I know where it came from. It was sold to this government. The government says: "Look, this is great, we put in this blended price system and if OPEC prices go up we just pass it along to the consumer and we do not take the blame. We can blame the Arabs."
This made-in-Canada price means the Government of Canada no longer takes responsibility for oil price increases in Canada. I know who passed this idea on to that great committee that made the decision over the Christmas holidays. Where did they get it from? This blended price, this made-in-Canada price, is precisely what was in effect in the United States in 1971. This blended price is what the Americans put in place in 1971.
What was the experience in the United States with this blended pricing system? It was a complete and utter disaster. After six or seven years of experience with this blended pricing system, the United States, about a year and a half ago, abandoned it because it found that it created chaos, confusion and required a bureaucracy of over 4,000 civil servants to administer. Let me read what the U.S. comptroller-general said, and I quote:
The cost is higher consumption, lower domestic production and higher imports. The program is complex, subject to fraud and manipulation and often administered ineptly.
That is what he said about this blended price, made-in-Canada, and stolen from the United States program.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, this government, this tired, old, dishonest bunch, would have the Canadian public believe that it will produce a made-in-Canada crude oil price by introducing a blended pricing scheme which the United States employed for six or seven years and has recently discarded because it was a disaster as an energy pricing policy. It makes one want to

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
weep. Small wonder that the C.D. Elowe Institute in Montreal concludes that this government's energy-pricing policies are the greatest threat facing Canada today.
Aside from the dishonesty of this energy-pricing statement, the most damning criticism, and the real tragedy and the neglect and dishonesty of this minister, is that every single observer of the international energy situation has reached the conclusion that the real problem facing the world is not the price of oil, but will there be enough oil. Within two or three years the Soviet Union, the largest producer of crude oil in the world, will be a net importer of oil. This will mean that all of eastern Europe will be making demands on the same production the west is now making demands on, and there is not enough to satisfy our needs. No one but a raving maniac would suggest that international supplies of crude oil will remain readily available. In the face of that kind of world picture, it is clearly insanity for any nation to pursue policies that will increase our dependency on international supplies of oil. Yet that is precisely what the Government of Canada is doing.
By moving to this blended pricing scheme the government is adopting a scheme that leads to lower levels of domestic production and higher levels of imports. This is a scheme which exacerbates our already serious balance of payments problems, causing pressure on the dollar with resulting high interest rates and/or high inflation, which means that billions of Canadian dollars, instead of being ploughed back into the Canadian economy, will end up in the already overloaded coffers of middle eastern sheikhs. In the words of Marshall Crowe, a former adviser to the Liberal government and former chairman of the National Energy Board, we will end up with the worst of both worlds; high priced and scarce oil.
This government, instead of encouraging and promoting the development of new tar sands and heavy oil plants, has unilaterally acted to revoke a contract with Syncrude, producing at best only one year's delay at a cost of $2 billion to Canada, but perhaps causing the shelving of any other plans, certainly the delaying of any other plans for future Syncrude and heavy oil plants.
I am completely and continually amazed that this government has not worked out the simple fact that three tar sands of heavy oil plants would make this country self-sufficient. Furthermore, if we had them the money we would save would not be sent to the Middle East but would pay for those plants in three years. The NDP would rather send it to the Middle East because it might be some foreign owned company that would build them. They would sooner send it to the Middle East and let the sheikhs have it than build the plants in Alberta.
The real tragedy is the opportunity we are missing. Money spent here in Canada creates jobs here in Canada. We can continue the policy of this government relying on offshore supplies, relying on the Middle East, Mexico and Venezuela, or we can decide to become self-sufficient. That will cost a lot of money. It will mean tremendous changes in cash flows and distribution in this country, but that will have to be addressed. Again quoting Marshall Crowe:
The problem for Canada could be to decide what to do with its potential surplus rather than the problem of finding the foreign exchange to buy increasingly scarce oil from abroad.
In closing, I would like to make a plea to this government. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is behaving like the minister responsible for DREE. He says he wants to equalize things, forgetting entirely that he is the only minister in this government who has the responsibility for understanding that Canada has supplies of energy. What does it matter if we all share the shortages? What does it matter if we have some scheme in Canada for sharing the shortages when in fact we could and should have all the oil produced in this country to satisfy our needs, to be self-sufficient and to be unique in the world in that regard? My plea to the government is, stop this stupidity, stop fighting with the producing provinces, stop fighting with these bogeymen, the multinational oil companies, and get on with the job of making the country self-sufficient.
Then we can truly have a made-in-Canada oil price because we will not have to rely on the rest of the world. Then we can address the question and make sure that Canadians share equitably in the revenues generated by the tremendously healthy economy at that point of time. Let us do that, but for goodness sake let us get our priorities straight.
As every sensible and sane observer in the international community knows-I am not talking about partisan politicians or oil company executives but about the independent groups- our supply will not last. An MIT study of three years ago shows we face a crisis perhaps within the next two or three years, certainly no later than 1985. Yet the government is saying that the important question is 18 cents a gallon for car drivers earning more than $20,000 a year, that the important question is whether or not it can beat the producing provinces into submission or whether or not PetroCan will dig the holes or do something else. Those are not the important questions. The important question is: Will we have enough energy to heat our homes and drive our cars, no matter what the cost? That is the question and it is about time we had a minister of energy who will address himself to it.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the two previous speakers has led me to think that we are back prior to February 18, engaged once again in hearing the same cant which we heard from the Conservative party and to some degree from the New Democratic Party during the campaign. What is equally evident, however, is that the House is conscious that Canada is part of a world faced with serious disequilibrium between supply and demand for oil.
Security of oil supply has become a major international problem. The fear about the security of supply, as much as lack of supply, leads to higher oil prices. There was no oil shortage in 1979, yet the fear of one led companies and governments to stockpile, driving prices up. Indeed, the price of oil rose in 1979 in relative terms on the same scale that it did during the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74. Massive price
May 8, 1980

increases in such an essential commodity as oil have, of course, substantial adverse economic effects. They increase the rate of inflation, decreasing the rate of world economic growth.
Canada is naturally not immune from that world reality. As a major trading country our own economic well-being depends on the economic health of the rest of the world. But Canada fortunately is in a unique situation. We are a net exporter of energy. We are a country rich in many natural resources and rich in people who know how to use those resources. Provincial public utilities have an outstanding track record in hydroelectricity and thermal generation of electricity, including nuclear. In the Canadian nuclear power system, for example, we have one of the most efficient and safest systems in the world. In non-conventional oil extraction, Canada has recently become a world leader.
However, these opportunities also confront us with many challenges. We are intent on making sure that our natural resources are used for the benefit of all Canadians and of the Canadian economy. We must be certain that we have increased energy supplies at prices people can afford. That is why we as a government will not tie ourselves to international prices, as the minister has repeatedly pointed out.
We are committed to the principle that all Canadians must benefit from our energy opportunities. Producing provinces have a clear entitlement to their natural resources. We undertake that they will get a fair return. But we are also committed to the principle that the federal government must have sufficient revenue to allow it to carry out its basic responsibilities of economic stabilization across our whole country. We are confident that all Canadians share the basic objective that energy will be used toward an equitable distribution of income.
We are confident, too, that the negotiations on oil pricing with Alberta will do nothing to affect adversely the principles of equalization and central management of our national economy. The petroleum industry in Canada has benefited enormously from higher oil prices. There is a broad consensus that the industry cash flow would have been enough had domestic oil prices risen only $2 a year. There is a real danger that too great a cash flow could result in bidding up the cost of production, increasing company takeovers and diversifying oil companies into other areas of economic activity.
Our policies will accordingly address the real possibility of excess concentration, as well as the degree of foreign control in our petroleum industry. The former Liberal government ensured that foreign ownership was reduced in that industry from 91 per cent to 75 per cent. This government will ensure that that total is further reduced to 50 per cent.
We in Canada are blessed with a variety of energy resources within our borders in addition to oil and natural gas. There is the tar sands, coal, uranium, hydroelectric capacity and so on. Accordingly, it would be shortsighted to allow our debate today to be dominated by the question of oil pricing.
While the energy problem may have arisen largely due to external factors, we believe that the remedies are within our own grasp. Regardless of what price is established for oil and
Energy Policy
gas on a domestic or international stage, we face now the fact of increased cost and difficulty in exploiting our non-renewable resources and, concurrently, the development of new sources of renewable energy.
It is that subject to which I should like to turn now. In order to facilitate the transition to alternative energy forms, this government is acting now to ensure a secure future for Canadians. At the same time, we have a responsibility to minimize social dislocation and adverse environmental impact.
I should like to say something about what we must do to increase the efficiency with which we use energy in order to reduce the rate of growth of our energy consumption. I want also to set forth some alternative sources of energy which we as a government are sponsoring.
First, what have we done and what may be done to foster conservation? Although there is likely to be an increased number of private vehicles on the roads of Canada in the near future, we can hold gasoline consumption stable by implementing fleet average performance standards for vehicles sold in Canada and encourage greater public use of mass transit, which would progressively lead to more efficient use of fuel. Another obvious conservation measure is insulation, whereby energy consumption in residences can be improved by an average of 37 per cent. CHIP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program established by the government in 1977, has already committed over $1 billion to this goal over the next seven years. Much, however, remains to be done to improve upon the insulation standards governing the construction of new residential units.
Our current practices in heating are wasteful in the extreme. With an oil-fired furnace, for example, we can reduce consumption by some 20 per cent through relatively simple means. Similar savings can be found in commercial and industrial buildings. Through design innovation and by replacing primary energy with waste energy, industry is becoming more secure and more competitive.
The government has shown leadership with a wide variety of programs directed toward this end. I am happy to report that we are working with private industry in demonstrating the various possibilities of conserving energy. The voluntary task forces of businessmen have already made major progress in this area. To demonstrate better the depth of our commitment, the federal government has embarked upon major internal programs for conservation which have already saved some $50 million annually.
Through other programs, our government funds district heating feasibility studies which estimate that a large central furnace burning conventional fuels can achieve an efficiency quotient of about 85 per cent, against much smaller ranges available for standard furnaces. The central heating sources would be particularly suitable for demonstrating the substitution of municipal and wood waste. In this case we would happily avoid the cost and environmental impact of garbage landfills.

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
I have, through this brief selective survey, indicated our commitment to energy conservation. But second, and of equal importance, we shall take the opportunity to supply up to 10 per cent of our energy requirements from unconventional renewable energy. Most of this will come from the use of wood waste already accumulated in our forest industry. Wind and tidal energy are long-range potentials, but closer to realization are solar and biomass.
The federal government has a major role to play in developing solar, biomass, and nuclear energy. It undertakes longterm, high-risk developments which cannot be expected to be supported solely by the private sector. It also supplements work in this area by the provinces. As early as 1974, we established an interdepartmental task force, which evolved into an energy R and D panel, which apportions funds in relevant areas. Three-quarters of the total money sustaining the work in renewable energy, which was $21 million in the current fiscal year, comes through this panel. If we include expenditures of provincial governments and of private industries, the total swells to $35 million for renewable energy.
The National Research Council has taken a vigorous, effective lead in supporting, both within its own resources and in the private sector, new ventures in solar, tidal and wind energy. Much of this funding is contracted out to the private sector, with the National Research Council continuing to act as agent and scientific authority.
The heating of domestic water with solar energy is already cost-effective in Atlantic Canada. We have been active in promoting solar research and development through PASEM- a Program of Assistance to Solar Energy Manufacturers, and PUSH, the Purchase and Use of Solar Heating program. With the provinces, we have begun to demonstrate through these two programs the practicalities of solar energy.
With regard to biomass, Canada's vast forest and agricultural resources could, in theory, provide a huge amount of methanol annually. To equate this to current gasoline consumption, methanol could substitute for about 75 per cent of demand. Converting wood to gas is, however, still in its technological infancy, but we are working to establish its reliability and economy. Ethanol, from low grade wheat and other grains, is simple to produce but is currently economically unattractive. Our government has, therefore, created some $150 million in loan guarantees to assist in establishing electrical facilities using biomass as the energy source.
Finally, we have in Canada a nuclear industry with a product, the Candu reactor, of which we can all be proud. Here we have a high technology, indigenous Canadian industry which employs, directly and indirectly, some 85,000 Canadians. In a country which unfortunately lags behind its industrial competitors in much R and D, in a country where much of the industrial sector is passive branch plants, the Canadian nuclear industry is almost unique.
Nobel Laureat Albrecht Bethe said of the "technical wonder", the Candu reactor:
Not only is it very conservative in fuel usage, but it works with a regularity and reliability that are absolutely fantastic.
Compared with their major competitor coal, nuclear reactors are quiet, clean and reliable. They produce no smoke, no dust, no acid rain, no ash. Given the grave implications of the acid rain problem, we must use less harmful energy sources, and I include nuclear power as one.
Our energy strategy, then, is a multi-faceted one. We shall approach the time when there is a need to provide greater co-ordination of all these efforts which build bridges to a secure and prosperous future.
The problem, as I see it, in the area of renewable energy is twofold. First, how do we provide a public focus for these many activities currently under way? Second, how may we overcome the natural reluctance of lending institutions to finance new and risky technologies?
One approach, as the minister mentioned today, is the establishment of an alternative energy corporation, able to underwrite demonstration and commercial ventures of private companies by financial and technical assistance. It can undertake alternative energy projects, from the research stage through to commercial production. An alternative energy corporation will, in the public interest, share with private entrepreneurs the risks and benefits. It will, in addition, ensure that Canadians are protected from more mature foreign competitors. Initially, Petro-Canada, our own creation, will foster this fledgling corporation until it is old enough to go it alone.
I have covered a number of areas regarding conservation and renewable energy sources. Other speakers on this side of the House will deal with other questions, including the expansion of our national oil corporation, Petro-Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the exciting possibilities to which the minister drew attention-possibilities which can ensure all Canadians a stable and prosperous future.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion presented by my colleagues condemning the government's failure to formulate an honest and effective energy policy. Let me say immediately that I support the motion and I agree wholeheartedly with both its letter and its spirit: the government has been both dishonest and ineffective in energy policy.
I intend to address my remarks today primarily to consumers across Canada and wish to consider how the government's failure affects these Canadians. Today, for Canadian consumers the price of energy is a vital issue. Consumers responsible for home heating costs and the cost of electricity face a perilous and potentially disastrous future in terms of matching their personal incomes to their expenditures for essential goods and services.
Their plight is compounded if they are also commuters required to travel by automobile to their employment. Those who live in the colder regions of Canada, the air conditioned city centres or those in areas where electrical generation is oil fueled, face special problems. They all stand on the brink of
May 8, 1980

financial disaster. Was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) addressing Canadian energy consumers when he said: Welcome to the eighties?
Let us examine the great body of Canadians who are often referred to as "consumers". This group includes all 24 million Canadians in one sense, but there are some who buy more goods, supplies and services than others. In total number there are over 18 million in the adult Canadian group.
Let us take home owners, the group that would have been insulated against increasing costs for mortgage interest and municipal property taxes. Our mortgage interest and tax rebate program would have resulted in annual income tax savings of as much as $1,500 for these taxpayers. Now, those with mortgages face expense increases as high as $200 per month on loans in the $50,000 range without any help from the government.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says there is no problem. Home owners, he says, can afford a drastic increase in interest rates. He says over 340,000 home owners who will be forced to pay increased interest rates will use only 30 per cent of their income for their monthly payment. That is no problem: they can cut back on luxury items like meat and potatoes. He says those 7,000 to 10,000 Canadians who are not disqualified by this cruel means test will be helped. He has not said how or when, so we must await the presentation of this limited assistance plan. In the meantime, some may lose their homes through foreclosures and the plan may never come about.
Mr. Speaker, there are 4.4 million occupant-owned homes in Canada. Many of those home owners face, or will face, increases in mortgage payments and property taxes in addition to substantial increases in normal household expenses. Of the seven-million-plus Canadian dwellings, 62 per cent are owned by the occupant. But those home owners-those elite Canadians, as the Prime Minister calls them-those rich people who can afford to bear cost increases according to the Deputy Prime Minister, are not the only ones who will suffer. Every Canadian family living in rented premises, and there are three million of them, faces the same kind of cost escalation, although not always directly in the form of interest rate and tax increases.
But hon. members can be certain that every interest payment, tax or utility charge increase will be recovered from the tenants. All seven million Canadian householders face the same interest, tax and household expense squeeze one way or another without help from the government. Their situation is now compounded because they have to face the energy problem. Seven million households are now being hit by the international energy crisis, and the government has no protection for them. The government has no policy to help them. That is why my colleagues condemn the government. The government has no policy on energy.
But the situation is worse than I have already indicated. Those seven million Canadian householders must participate
Energy Policy
in society and must work. By Canadian standards, they are entitled to recreation. But for many, the only method of transport is the private motor car. There again, Canadians face gloom and doom. The price of gas will rise. We ask, by how much? Not by as much as the PC government would have increased the price, says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). How much is that? That depends, he is not sure, or so he says.
I am sure that, like death and taxes, gas price increases are inevitable. Gas prices will rise whether by way of an excise tax increase, a new wellhead price per barrel, a made-in-Canada price system, or any other formula. The most the government intends to do is to make the increase one or two pennies less than the gas price we announced last December. The government is only doing that so it will not be laughed at or scoffed out of office. The government does not intend to preserve the purity of the Liberal party promise not to increase the price of gasoline, only the technical words.
But what of the spirit of the promise? What of the Liberal party's vow to protect Canadians from the whims of the Ayotollah Khomeini? These people are lost in a sea of verbal rhetoric and mathematical mischief, deceit and dishonesty. Who are the victims? They are the ten million registered car owners in Canada, many of whom expected to pay much less for gas, not almost the same or even more, under a Liberal government.
We talk of consumer revolt. People are fed up with price increases. They naturally react favourably to promises to hold the line, to stabilize the price of gasoline, fuel oil and other forms of energy. The NDP spouted their usual rash promises of no price increases, lots of exploration and development without charge or sacrifice. But the NDP does not fool knowledgeable Canadians.
But Canadians were deceived by this government. There is no policy for price stability. There is no help. And, worst of all, there is no government respect for our seven million Canadian householders, our ten million car owners; that is to say, our Canadian consumers. If these people revolted, no army in creation could stop their advance. But fortunately for the government, Canadians are not like that. They are both peaceful and patient. They have been cruelly deceived. They face an uncertain increase in gas prices and fuel oil. They do not know the cost of energy, but they will wait until a policy or some kind of plan is formed.
What can Canadian consumers expect? Canadians must recognize the problems that face our nation in the energy field. We have a double-barrelled concern in Canada, namely supply and price. We can produce and purchase all kinds of energy at world prices, but that would adversely affect our whole economy. Yet if we continue to utilize our oil resources at current rates without provision for exploration and development of alternate energy resources, we will very soon run out of cheap Canadian energy. We will be left high and dry and dependent upon the whims of foreign nations and international oil dealers.

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
There is only one answer, and everyone in this House knows it. As a national policy we must establish energy self-sufficiency in Canada. We must formulate a plan to achieve self-sufficiency. Naturally such a policy and plan has a price tag. We presented just such a plan. Many consumers thought that the price was too high. I, for one, accept that verdict. But what can we do?
First, let us consider the problem in relation to gasoline used for transportation. I consider that the government should be concerned about the plight of the commuter, the person who must travel by private car to his or her employment. It is also reasonable to make provision for necessary incidental travel for those in urban areas not served by public transportation, and for those in rural areas. Many consumers in this category would be expected to travel 12,000 to 15,000 miles a year. With a price of $1.20 per gallon and allowing 20 miles per gallon, the yearly gas supply would approximate $720. A 10-cent per gallon increase adds another $60 or more to the annual cost of transportation. Under the government's proposal, we can expect an annual increase of at least $200 for commuting consumers.
Can this increase be absorbed by them? I have serious doubts that the commuting consumer whose family income is in the $20,000 range has the income to cover this cost increase. Some provision must be made for financial assistance. We provided exactly that kind of assistance with our energy tax rebate.
A family of five would have received a rebate of approximately $250. Has the Minister of Finance made such a provision for rebate or for equivalent assistance? No, there is no help on the way. The government is content with keeping the increase one or two pennies below the price that we proposed. This is not much of a deal for consumers.
Let us look at the plight of those home owners or renters who are responsible for home heating costs. In Canada we have become used to a standard that has developed over the years which has allowed us to heat our homes to certain temperatures with a certain consumption of oil or gas, or whatever is used to heat the home. This past standard has to be reviewed in the light of current problems. Energy conserved is money saved.
Does the government become realistic with the people and tell them what the situation is? Does the government encourage people in this way or does it lead them on into thinking that they can go on and on using energy without a policy of conservation? It is true that an insulation program was instituted, but that was only a drop in a bucket compared to running a home at a temperature of 75 or 80 degrees fahrenheit. The government has to deal with these problems.
Cost has become a real concern to home owners. The cost of heating a home with approximately 1,200 square feet, say a bungalow in eastern Canada, is in the vicinity of $850 a year. Home owners can expect this cost to increase by approximately 20 per cent, which is nearly $200. How is the home owner going to absorb that cost without any assistance if his income is less than $20,000? I do not believe he can, and I believe that
the government must provide a program to assist that home owner.
We must remember that home heating costs affect groups of citizens. It is not, as the Prime Minister indicated in the past, that home owners are rich people. We have senior citizens, couples on old age assistance, who are trying to maintain themselves in their own homes. We have young families bearing all the cost of educating and clothing their children. They face these dramatic increases in cost too.
It is not realistic to think that these people can survive without some assistance from government. The Prime Minister and his ministers have said many times that they do not expect to ride on the backs of the poor, that they are not going to charge the increases in the cost of energy to the poor people in Canada. But they have provided no provision for subsidy. They have provided no program and no plan. 1 think it is improper. I think a plan has to be prepared.
Where will the money come from for a program of assistance to home owners in the lower income provinces? In Canada we spend over $2 billion a year subsidizing the importation of foreign oil. Much of this foreign oil is refined into gasoline for use in motor vehicles across Canada. Some of these cars with large engines use excessive amounts of gasoline, yet we subsidize them along with gas used in cars of lesser power with more economical engines. This is a terrible waste of funds. Then, too, we have all heard about border sales as a result of which subsidized gasoline is carried away across the border, again at tremendous cost to the Canadian taxpayers. There are many ways in which the system could be tightened so as to reduce the amount of money spent on subsidizing foreign oil imports. This money could be channeled into assistance required by home owners.
Let us talk for a moment about alternate supplies of energy because this is the long-term solution to the problem of the Canadian home owner-consumer in terms of the price of energy. Our program provided for funds to be rechanneled into vital energy projects thus reducing dependence, particularly in eastern Canada, upon imported oil.
Since the Liberal government was returned to office, all the programs that were vital to eastern Canada, particularly to Nova Scotia, have been stalled. The Donkin coal mine project which would have produced millions of tons of energy to replace foreign oil is adrift. Nothing is being done. The government has done nothing to speed up the extension of the natural gas pipeline eastward. The matter is presently before the National Energy Board and some interest has been expressed in its extension, but there are many things the government could do to advance this vital and important project. While there is afoot a project involving the Annapolis River, much research remains to be done in the development of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. All these projects, including things like solar energy mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, are vitally important to the long-range effect on consumers because they are the method by which we can reduce
May 8, 1980

dependency on foreign oil and thus reduce the cost of energy to consumers, particularly in eastern Canada.
Let me speak for a moment on the special energy needs of eastern Canada. In many of the eastern provinces, particularly Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 70 per cent of the electrical generation is dependent on foreign oil. Consumers in Nova Scotia pay twice the national price for energy. The Crosbie budget provided a subsidy which would have permitted the provincially-owned utility in Nova Scotia to maintain the price of energy notwithstanding any increases in the price of oil. This government has refused to commit itself to providing a similar subsidy. Indeed, in Halifax the other day the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said such a subsidy was dependent upon the negotiation of a price for western Canadian oil. Nova Scotians are left to wonder what will happen when that price is negotiated. They will be left to wonder whether they will again face horrendous increases in the price of electrical energy at the consumer and household level.
1 believe the government should observe and recognize an average price for electrical energy across Canada. It is such an important and essential service in the home that the government ought to assist people in areas of Canada where the cost of electrical energy is greatly in excess of the price paid by those in other parts of the country. This is exactly what our subsidy would have provided to people in eastern Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It would have allowed the utilities in Nova Scotia to maintain the price of energy at 1980 levels notwithstanding increases in the price of oil.
To add insult to injury, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has refused to return to Nova Scotia the $80 million the Government of Canada has saved by virtue of Nova Scotia's coal displacement program. This sum might have been used to subsidize any increases in electrical energy prices resulting from oil price increases. Under that coal displacement program, coal was being used from the development of coal resources to fire thermal generation plants thereby displacing foreign crude oil. This resulted in a saving of about $80 million in the funds used to subsidize the importation of foreign crude oil. The decision taken by the government would not appear to be fair. This money should be returned to Nova Scotia to finance further projects which will result in the displacement of foreign crude oil by coal or other sources of alternate energy.
Let me mention briefly the plight of farmers and fishermen as consumers. Though fishermen and farms are not in the same category as the retail consumers, they nonetheless face great difficulty in passing on to the persons who buy their products the increases in their costs. Provision has to be made for them because, in the end, it is the consumer who will pay. The whole point of any sensible energy program-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
Energy Policy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member may continue if he has unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: I want to conclude by saying that any sensible energy policy must allow for subsidization to those who cannot bear the cost of increases in the price of energy. The government has clearly stated its intention not to ride on the back of Canadian consumers in energy policy. Now it must fulfil its promise and deliver energy at fair prices to consumers, or suffer the consequences.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said at the beginning of his remarks that the Progressive Conservatives had a lot of nerve introducing such a motion, and I would go further and say it took nerve, audacity and boldness in the case of a member from Ontario, a former member of the previous government who witnessed disputes between the premier of his province and the Premier of Alberta in 1973-74, when Alberta hiked its natural gas price considerably. If he has forgotten the rather aggressive words his provincial minister had for his Alberta colleague at that time, I shall be pleased to send him a copy for his information.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for us on this side of the House to debate this motion, because the energy policy of the Liberal government is easily and agreeably defendable, and I can now understand why we have not yet heard my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) speak in defence of his party's policy on energy matters. That too would require a lot of nerve.
The policy of the government is well known, Mr. Speaker, it is a policy designed to help all Canadians. I think the member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has a lot of nerve speaking against the energy policy of the present government because that policy brought Nova Scotia large sums of money in 1976 and 1977 to offset the higher cost of oil used to produce energy in that province. Unfortunately, the previous speaker did not touch upon this subject, Mr. Speaker. He did not say either that some of his present-day colleagues, those who were here in 1977, criticized the Liberal policy announced by the government. They blamed the government for favouring a province then headed by a Liberal government. It is somewhat unfortunate, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member decided not to say anything about it and recognize the merit of the Liberal government of the day for considering the very serious problems which faced the people of Nova Scotia.
That was another unequivocal example of a truly national policy. That is why I understand the enthusiasm with which my colleague from Alberta, from Calgary East I believe, rose to speak and criticize the Liberal government's energy policy.

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
Yet it would be rather difficult, even very difficult for a member from eastern Canada, from Ontario, from either Perth or elsewhere, to rise and criticize a policy which gave Canadians a Canadian price for oil as far back as 1974. And that Canadian price, Mr. Speaker, was not determined in secrecy, as the one they tried to set last December. It was done at a federal-provincial conference where all provincial ministers responsible for the supply of energy in their provinces contributed and even helped determine that price of energy for a set period.
So, Mr. Speaker, before the debate on this motion ends, I urge my colleague from Joliette to say what he thinks of the energy policy of this government which has saved the province of Quebec, his own province, no less than $6 billion since 1974. And here, Mr. Speaker, I find I should add a Quebec and provincial dimension to my speech because right now there are a lot of falsehoods being said in the province of Quebec by people holding government positions in that province, people who should have some respect for the truth.
I had started to say, Mr. Speaker, that the energy policy of this government has saved the province of Quebec no less than $6 billion since 1974. Some even talk about $6.5 billion. And if you add everything up, including benefits of $20 million a year the province of Quebec and the maritimes get from the transportation of this oil from Sarnia to Montreal by the new pipeline, that figure totals over $6 billion.
So the whole province of Quebec and all the Atlantic provinces benefited from that. And my colleague from Halifax West, who is listening attentively, did not mention what that Canadian policy saved the people of Halifax, for example, in his riding. The motion deplores the lack of an energy policy when all Canadians, particularly in eastern Canada, know full well that there is a Canadian policy, and that that policy has benefited eastern Canada since 1974.
Mr. Speaker, if the people of Halifax with a 1977 or 1978 Chevrolet fill up today it costs them slightly more than $20 whereas if they had to pay the international price the people in Halifax West would have to pay twice as much. If I take time to give those figures it is because the hon. member omitted to do so and that becomes my responsibility. And I hope the hon. member for Joliette, if he can find the courage and the zest to do so, will rise in the House to defend and commend the steps taken by the Liberal government in 1974-75 to provide Canadians with a truly efficient energy policy.
So that is what the Canadian energy policy is all about: first to determine a Canadian price for oil; then, above all, to provide a safe supply for all Canadians. The security of supply has resulted in a smooth supply, if we compare that to the difficulties encountered by our neighbours to the south who also produce oil. It is the security of supplies which is somewhat uncertain and which wavered at the end of 1978 and the beginning of 1979. European or Asian visitors to Canada would think that there is absolutely no oil shortage in Canada,
even if we consider oil prices and supplies, while everywhere else such a shortage exists and causes problems for the industry.
This Canadian policy has also contributed to ensuring the survival of our industries in the east, both in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, which means that they are in a much better position than their competitors in Europe, Asia or Japan, because they are guaranteed supplies at a much lower price than the world prices.
Mr. Speaker, there is also another policy of the Liberal party which states that the energy resources of each province must benefit all Canadians. Some provincial governments may not have recognized the need to share their wealth with the rest of Canadians, but this need is becoming more and more obvious. The provinces accept this fact and demand increasingly that it be considered. I can mention as an example the Newfoundland premier who has pleaded for assistance from the Canadian government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his fight with Quebec for the development of the energy resources in his province. And I would quote in this regard an article published a while ago in a Montreal newspaper which reported Newfoundland Premier Peckford as saying:

Under our constitution the Government of Canada has the right, and 1 submit the duty, to ensure that goods, including obviously hydro power, pass freely from one province across the territory of any other-
[ Translation]
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland's premier very eloquently demonstrated that the right hon. Prime Minister's policy of having Canada's resources benefit all Canadians is something, a responsibility, that all Canadians should and do accept. Some politicians may have difficulty in adapting to and accepting that policy, but all Canadians indeed demand that the nation's resources benefit all Canadians. And this is probably why the separatists in the province of Quebec, the Yes supporters, those who want to separate Quebec, submit that we should move to the international price as soon as possible. Of course, if they can win that point and prove to Canadians in Quebec that in a matter of a few months or a few years the international price must be reached, this would help them. They do not balk at using political terrorism, and indeed some ministers already are exercising it, ministers who should act more responsibly but who say that two or three years from now Alberta's reserves will be depleted. We know full well that Alberta's known reserves of conventional and tar sands oil are adequate for at least 300 years based on our yearly consumption.
According to my own estimate, we have more than that, and now that the world price exceeds, in effect, the production cost of oil from the tar sands, it is misleading the people of Quebec and making a comedy of their intelligence to scare them into believing that in a few years, well, whether they like it or not, whether they are separated or not, all Quebeckers will have to
May 8, 1980

pay the world price. And we all know that they go as far as to say that even if we were compelled to pay the international price, our increased electricity sales to our southern neighbours and to Ontario could easily compensate for those much stiffer oil costs. That statement should be viewed in light of the answer given to me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources two weeks ago when I asked him about the validity of the statement made by ministers Berube and Joron, I believe, who said that higher sales of electricity to our neighbours could easily compensate for the international price of imported energy. The difference would be as follows: If we had to pay the international price, it would now be over $6.8 billion while power sales to our southern neighbours, even if the price were double, would scarcely reach $1 billion, thus creating a deficit of $5.8 billion. To a large extent, such a demonstration by these two provincial ministers only serve to undermine the credibility of people who quote figures; I do not know where they get their figures to frighten the public and prove that, whether we are part of Canada or not, we shall have to pay the international price some day.
In his excellent speech this afternoon, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reiterated again in front of everybody, to make it clear in the minds of Canadians in general and Quebeckers in particular, that the government is intent on maintaining the Canadian price well below the U.S. price; that is to say, that Canadians from all provinces will pay considerably less for their energy, oil and gas supplies than Americans must pay. I suggest that this argument defeats the motion with which we are dealing today, Mr. Speaker, because the Canadian energy policy will make sure that Canadians pay prices way below those paid in the countries of our competitors.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition could easily have chosen an entirely different topic on which to criticize the government. In fact, the record of the Liberal government in that regard has been very good since 1974, and will continue to be so in coming months because negotiations have already started. The minister made a trip out west last week; he is pursuing consultations with the responsible ministers in the east in order to ensure that the Canadian policy and the pricing formula for the next few years is one to which the responsible minister for every province, both producing and consuming, has contributed.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the Liberal energy policy. One can probably understand the resistance of the Progressive Conservatives and their wanting to criticize the government on that aspect of its administration in which it has had the most success, because if there is any field in which it has proved its sense of responsibility not only to eastern Canada but to all Canadians, it certainly is in the pricing of oil in Canada. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the majority of Canadians gave their support to the Liberal party last January and February; Canadians are used to trusting this government, and
Energy Policy
the government of the present Prime Minister. The Liberal government, has accustomed the Canadian people to expecting just and fair policies for all Canadians. Once all my hon. colleagues understand the urgency of lessening regionalism, of stifling increasing growth in Canada, the urgency of nourishing a devotion to this country whose land is one of the most generous in the world, then things will improve. I do feel that Canadians supported us last February precisely because they knew the great pains the Liberal government had taken in developing a "made-in-Canada" oil energy policy.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate in order to put before you my support for the motion that has been put forward by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), not that we ally ourselves with the energy policy which his colleagues put forward when they were in government-I think they will understand that, in view of the position which we took with regard to their budget, and we have not changed our minds concerning that-but to respond to some of the things that have been said.
I think the energy problem poses a challenge to our economy and to our constitution. Just as we are preoccupied these weeks with the events in Quebec, I think we should also recognize the fact that there are other sources of tension in consideration which are perhaps no better exemplified than by the problem of energy. Indeed, the problem of energy also allows us to analyse our economic dependence on multinational companies and to reflect on the cost of continuing to subsidize those companies by means of pricing policies, royalty policies, and taxation policies which, if allowed to continue the way they have, would result in a transfer of tremendous funds from Canadian consumers to foreign dividend holders.
I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is uneasy whenever we in this party talk about the multinational companies, but I would ask him to reflect upon the fact that it is two economists from the University of Alberta-who are not members of my party or indeed of any party-who have published papers over the past two years in which they point out that the problem of what the economists call the recycling of rents and revenues from our oil-pricing policies, the recycling outside Canada, poses a tremendous problem for our economy, a challenge to our constitutional ingenuity, and a challenge to our capacity to plan for the future of our economy. Let it never be said that we, on this side of the House and in this party believe that this is an easy problem to resolve. It is an extremely difficult problem to resolve, and it is with some of those difficulties, challenges and some suggestions, not of easy, quick-fix solutions but of a series of policies that, we believe, will aid Canadian economic independence, Canadian energy self-sufficiency and enable Canadians to have a greater degree of control over their own affairs, I would like to deal after the dinner hour. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in my introductory remarks before the dinner hour I said that the energy question touched upon many different challenges facing the country in the 1980s such as the constitutional problems and the foreign ownership problems. Our view in December was that the proposals put forward by the Conservative government of the day did not lead to a resolution of those problems, but compounded them. So, we believe that we must, as Canadians, attempt to find a solution. I impress upon the House the fact that we in this party are under no illusions as to how difficult that search will be. We must find a solution that will strengthen our economic independence and not weaken it, that will strengthen Canada's long-range industrial and economic future rather than weaken it.
I am sure most Canadians are aware that Canada imports oil. Somewhere in the area of 20 per cent of its oil needs are met by foreign suppliers, for which we pay a world price at the moment in excess of $30, and we charge Canadians about half that amount. The majority of the oil produced in Canada in 1980 is what is known as conventional oil, but the fact remains that our conventional supplies are rapidly depleting and will have to be replaced by far more expensive non-conventional supplies of which the tar sands are perhaps the most well-known example.
In determining a policy on energy pricing, we must consider the fact that there is a distinction between old oil and new oil, and that nearly all of the existing conventional petroleum reserves-more than 96 per cent of them-were discovered prior to 1973. The fact remains that the majority of the oil we are using today is the same as the oil on which companies in 1972 or 1973 were making a 15 per cent rate of return. At that time the price per barrel was $2.77. Even allowing for the fact that operating costs may have risen more than $1 per barrel on conventional oil, which still provides the majority of the supplies we use in Canada, if we do not change our taxation and royalty systems in relation to any increases in price which take place from this day on, the fact remains that we will be draining off to the multinational companies some $2 per barrel, or $1.3 billion per year. We must ask ourselves whether that is the kind of policy we want to follow. We rejected the view in December, and we reject it today.
The problem remains that the Liberals are telling us they believe in something called the blended price. Apparently a combination of the price of conventional oil, the price of
imported oil and the price of non-conventional supplies are somehow put into a blender to produce a mixed price. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) laughing. I am sure, since he is a former professor of economics, he will be able to explain to this House, the way he was able to explain to his students, exactly what a blended price consists of. I would suggest to you that it is simply a way of attempting to justify to the Canadian people an increase whose size may not be justified by the requirements of the cost of production.
There are arguments which we on this side are prepared to accept for some increase in the price of oil as we enter the 1980s.


An hon. Member:: Define "some".


Bob Rae: The parliamentary secretary asks me to define "some". When we form the government we will define "some". He is a member of the government now and should define "some". That is his job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It is no different from the way you behaved when you were in opposition.
The question of what that price will be is something which is determined as part of a package, and you cannot separate out and say what that price will be in the absence of knowing what all the other concessions and arrangements are in respect of royalty, wellhead tax, tax on revenues, and it is unreasonable to name a price out of thin air. Mr. Lalonde has not done so, and I suspect-


An hon. Member:: Why are you criticizing us?


Bob Rae: I have not come to criticize you. You are very sensitive. It is not a question of criticism, it is a question of analysing the basis on which the Liberal party is going to be giving us these tremendous price increases, and analysing where these revenues are going to go and how they are going to be recycled.
The fact of the matter is that, even on the Liberals' own terms, if we follow the policy of the Liberal party of eventually gaining 50 per cent control of our oil and natural gas, which is the objective the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has set for the country, the dividends which will be leaving the country as a result of price increases and as a result of windfall profits to multinational companies, that have by far the greatest stake, not only in our non-conventional supplies but in our conventional supplies, will amount to tens of billions of dollars.
The fact of the matter is that the foreign ownership question, far from being irrelevant to this issue, as Premier Lough-eed has said, and far from being a red herring, is central to a resolution of this problem which will be acceptable to the Canadian people.
May 8, 1980

The fact of the matter is that it is not possible to go to the Canadian people and ask them to accept higher prices for oil and natural gas when they know what the cost of conventional supplies is, and when they know where the windfall profits are going. That is the critical problem. The problem is not so much a question of price; the problem is a question of revenue and where the revenue goes.
As I said earlier, whereas the Liberal party has been using this particular problem as an excuse, in a sense, for mobilizing certain sentiments in central Canada against those of the west, we take the view in our party that we have to find a way, in terms of our constitution, to provide for a solution to the energy crisis which will, at one and the same time, recognize the legitimate rights of producing provinces, and they have rights to some revenues from increases in prices, and indeed from existing prices, and provide for the generation of surplus within Canada which will provide for future energy needs.
We took the position in December that the excise tax was wrong in December, and we take the position that the excise tax is wrong today. The excise tax is not the way in which to go about punishing the consumer in order to generate revenues for the federal government. If anything has emerged in the past four weeks since this Elouse began sitting, it is that the government itself has no particularly clear idea of how it is going to replace the Tory excise tax. Indeed, there was an interesting ambiguity in the throne speech. That ambiguity was in saying not that there will be no excise tax, which was the promise the Prime Minister made to the Canadian people when he was campaigning for office, but that there will be no 18-cent excise tax, which is the new position of the Liberal party.
There is a very major difference between going to the Canadian people and saying there will be no excise tax, and coming back to the Canadian people and saying in the throne speech there will be no 18-cent excise tax. What are we waiting for from the Liberal government, a 17-cent solution, or a 16-cent solution?
We have been convinced for some time that we have to deal with the problem of windfall profits, profits that are substantial both in the United States and in Canada. The fact of the matter is that oil profits in the first quarter of this year have been higher than ever before in Canada's history, and that they are on average 100 per cent higher than they were for the first three months of 1979.
If the Canadian people are going to be paying more for their oil and for their natural gas, they want the assurance that those prices and those revenues are not simply being recycled and taken out of the country. The evidence today is that this is precisely what is happening as a result of pricing policies, as a result of free enterprise policies, and as a result of multinational oil company policies, policies which were followed by the Conservative government when it was in power, and policies which are being followed by the Liberal government today. That is why the question of public ownership is not some ideological ruse simply coming from those who seek public ownership for its own sake.
Energy Policy
Public ownership in this particular field is a necessity because it is the one key which will give to the Canadian people the knowledge and the confidence that when they are paying more for their gas at the pump, that money is being recycled into the Canadian economy and being used by Canadians for Canadians. It is simply not possible to divide up revenues in such a way that will satisfy the producing provinces, the multinational oil companies, the needs of the federal government and the needs of all the people of Canada, without raising that price to a level which is completely unjustifiable. That is why the Conservative government fell in 1979, and that is the conundrum facing the Liberal party in 1980.
We have to recognize that the solution to this problem is not an easy one. Certainly we on this side recognize that. We wish the minister well in his negotiations with the provincial governments. We are not at all impressed with the information he has given us, or with the conflicting news inflicted on this Parliament week by week as we are told the government is not considering a certain tax. Then ministers come back the next day and say, "we are not considering that tax this year", or they criticize the Conservative party for its $4 or $4.50 increase, and yet indicate that the over-all package which the Liberal party may be proposing over the next three years may result in prices which are even higher. It is not a particularly impressive record. Certainly it is not a record of honesty and integrity in energy policy, which is what this motion is all about.
If new patterns of public ownership could be established in the oil industry, Canadians would see that revenues from higher prices were being used for exploration and development, conservation, and for the growth of alternative supplies. There would be no need to challenge provincial ownership of this resource. Furthermore, tremendous disparities in provincial revenues as a result of ownership of resources could be at least partially resolved by direct interprovincial transfers or by the funding of a national energy bank which could be drawn on as a source of capital by non-producing provinces.
I suggest that energy self-sufficiency would then be a goal which would provide some sinew to the new confederation, a confederation which would recognize the legitimacy of provincial economies without making of them a fetish, a confederation which would recognize the notion of sharing, the importance of national co-operation, strategic planning, intervention and, indeed, selective public ownership. Dare I call it a cooperative commonwealth?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this opposition day debate on energy. With the exception of the referendum in Quebec, I cannot think of an issue that is as important to the future of Canada as that of energy. When one comes to understand what the effect of the government's inaction in the field of energy may bring, it does not take too much foresight to imagine how difficult life may soon be.
862

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
Television has already demonstrated what life with gasoline shortages will be like by showing us the American experience. Gas stations will close on Sundays, or at the end of the month when their supplies run low. People wishing to purchase gas will have to stand in line. Unrest will grow as farmers and truckers find that they no longer have the fuel that they need in order to earn their livelihood. Consumer goods based on hydrocarbons will inflate rapidly in value as supplies of oil for industry dwindle. Finally, the government will turn to rationing in order to ensure a fair division of remaining supplies.
Eventually, public opinion will force the government to examine alternative sources of energy and new methods of introducing conservation. That was the American experience. For Canada the scenario is just one step more severe. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have areas of warm climate. When our oil runs out, people will have to deal with the Canadian winter.
Let us assume that somehow the government comes to understand the problem and manages to provide an adequate supply of oil to heat our homes, drive our cars and fuel our industries. But no matter what expense we go to in order to search for new supplies of oil and gas, eventually we will run out. No need to worry; by then we will have switched to hydrogen-powered cars and our homes will be heated by electricity, solar power or biomass.
There are only a few small details to be ironed out. The new technologies that we will need to produce these forms of energy take time and considerable sums of money to create. Canada has proved to be unwilling to invest those sums. But this is just the beginning of the technology that we will need.
It is fine to discuss replacing the energy that we get from oil, but how do we begin to replace hydrocarbons in their other functions? For example, how do we replace oil as a lubricant or as a base in paint, or for its use in producing drugs? Or how do we replace the use of oil for producing plastics and other synthetics? We have an understanding of the means of producing new forms of energy so that the average Canadian will be able to drive his car and heat his home. However, the question remains, without oil will we be able to build that car or furnish that house?
If we were to look around and try to come to an understanding of how important oil is to the maintenance of our style of life, I think that we would come to realize just how undervalued our remaining supplies are. Granted, Canada does have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. The question is, will we be able to get it out of the ground when we need it? Unless the government is willing to invest in heavy oil, the tar sands, frontier exploration and new delivery systems, the answer is no. Running out of oil seems like a remote possibility until one remembers that Alberta's conventional reserves will run out in less than ten years.
Getting oil from the tar sands is a costly venture and this government, under the guise of a made-in-Canada price, has said that it is unwilling to pay that price. The Liberal party referred to the last campaign as the "18-cent election". I wonder what the people of Canada will say when they recognize the real cost of their decision. The government has committed itself to rationing in the event there is shortfall in supply. It takes great pride in telling Canadians that this is the only fair way in dealing with distribution. Through rationing, it is explained, people would receive energy on the basis of need, not according to their ability to pay, and on those terms it does seem quite attractive.
What the government overlooks is that rationing will lead to as many problems as it solves. A black market in gasoline is sure to develop which will lead to a situation where those who have money will still be able to afford to drive, while those who could not afford the cost prior to rationing will be even less likely to be able to survive in the marketplace.
Which groups will be hardest hit by such a situation? It will be the poor, commuters, those who use fuel in the course of earning their living, people in rural areas who generally do not have access to mass transit and, of course, the elderly who will have low priority when it comes to allocating the rations, and who do not have the economic power to deal in the market.
There has been much made, Mr. Speaker, of federal-provincial antagonisms over resource control. There have been serious actions and reactions between Ottawa and the provinces, differences that at times seem to threaten our nation. At the very least natural resources are a focal point of constitutional discussions. It is important that this matter is approached openly and, indeed, it has been given scrutiny by a number of examiners. But there is a major feature of this rationing possibility that should give major concern to those interested in regional energy supplies and resource control. This rationing system would ultimately be an arm of the federal government.
How would the needs of industry be considered as compared to commuters and other private consumers? How would one province's needs be considered as compared to another? How much power would reside within the rationing bureaucracy in a country that remains 20 per cent dependent on foreign supplies of petroleum because it has failed to provide the dollars necessary for resource development and, in fact, continues to increase our national deficit by not even recovering the $4 billion of subsidy payments to offset the cost of foreign inputs?
Who will say, Mr. Speaker, whether I will do without gas because my function is not as important as yours and that you will do without gas because your function is not as important as a farmer's? Will we or will we not have gas? Should Parliament be dissolved so the farmer may plant? For all the energy problems we have addressed in the last years, our actions have been mere tokens of the real actions that are needed.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Gary Michael Gurbin: That was from the no-development party. The government is reacting to situations that have developed from benign neglect. Even worse, the government seems prepared to make some decisions on the basis of political patronage rather than on merit.
May 8, 1980

What then is more equitable-rationing or adopting a user-pay system of bringing new resources on stream? Surely it should be those who use energy who should be responsible for paying the cost of finding and developing new resources. Otherwise we move either to rationing and a continued depletion of our resources or a situation where the government provides funds from its general revenues, in which case everyone pays.
I simply do not believe that a bureaucratic machine in Ottawa can show either the flexibility or the understanding of local conditions to react in a truly fair manner when determining how supplies of oil should be distributed.


An hon. Member:: How did they win the war?


Gary Michael Gurbin: We did not have the New Democratic Party when the war was on. On past experience, I know that the bureaucracy has seldom shown the sort of insight that areas such as mine require.
I would like to turn now to an examination of the policy priorities of the Liberal and Conservative parties. 1 think a moment would be well spent in contrasting the records of the two parties while in power. This government is incapable of separating its often misguided notions of social justice from its other policy discussions. Its set of values tends to cloud its judgment. For example, in the May, 1976, budget the government introduced measures which would have imposed a special graduated excise tax on heavy cars. I am sure that the reason for introducing the measure was that the government had romantic notions about putting an end to limousines, at least for cabinet ministers-or at least other than for cabinet ministers. What the government failed to consider was the fact that such an excise tax would actually discriminate against many efficient cars. Under the scheme, a Camaro giving 18 miles per gallon would only be taxed $70, while a Cutlass of that model year using one gallon every 24 miles would be subject to a $500 tax levy. Fortunately public and opposition reaction caused the government to withdraw.
Let us consider the history of the government's conservation policies and targets. Between 1975 and 1979 the government announced three different target rates for growth of energy demand, and made energy conservation announcements a total of ten different times. This might seem to indicate that the government was being quite progressive and was introducing stronger and stronger measures. What it really means is that the government kept making announcements to contradict or change its previous announcements. For example, the government announced its program to label household appliances four different times during that period. I am optimistic enough to believe that we may some day see the results of those announcements.
Last fall the House heard lengthy speeches from the Liberal benches about the length of time that it was taking for a Conservative government to reach an agreement with the provinces regarding oil pricing and federal taxation. It is
Energy Policy
worthy of note that those remarks came from the same people who were stalled for three years, between 1973 and 1976, in similar negotiations, and from the same people who are practising confrontation with the west today.
Our government had reached an agreement with the west. It was an agreement which would have provided funds for a federal energy development bank. It was an agreement that would have promoted conservation of our non-renewable resources. It was an agreement that would have provided an impetus to the development of the tar sands and heavy oils. It was an agreement that would have set the stage for the development of alternate forms of energy. In short, it was an agreement that would have provided energy self-sufficiency and a future for Canada, and it was an agreement that this government has rejected.
Under Liberal governments, Canada has had to import ever-increasing shares of its oil requirements. The Canadian public has seen little or no action on extending the natural gas pipeline to Quebec and the maritimes. Renewable forms of energy have been largely ignored. The Canada reactor has languished because of poor marketing, scandals, and inconsistent standards for nuclear safeguards. In sum, the government has a miserable record. Its last target for energy conservation was to limit the growth in demand for energy to 3.5 per cent per annum. This sort of conservation leads to a doubling of Canada's energy requirements every 21 years.
Even when the government sees fit to introduce worth-while programs such as PASEM and PUSH, mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, it does not follow through to their full realization. The government creates programs, creates an industry, and then loses interest and allows the project to wither and die.
Even having seen what Liberal governments have done in the past I do not despair of Canada's ever seeing a coherent energy strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) recently proved, the government knows where to go when it needs well reasoned and innovative policies. Because Canada benefits as a result of such a process 1 do not begrudge the government the use of our policies and, in fact, I would like to take this opportunity to remind them of some points that they may have overlooked in our platform.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as represented by its members in the House of Commons and its supporters across our country, has made no secret of its desire and willingness to see Canada become energy self-sufficient by 1990. In order to meet that target Canadians may have to face some short-term inconvenience, but what we receive in return is long-term security of supply. The pricing formula and budgetary means for such a program are well known and I will not dwell upon them. On the other hand, 1 would like to enumerate the areas of development that are essential to the completion of such a plan.
I was honoured to have been able to sit as a member of the prime minister's advisory committee on energy last summer. That committee was struck because our government inherited a legacy of inaction on energy matters. We needed to deter-

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
mine what could be done to turn the situation around. The committee met throughout the summer and examined energy matters from the perspective of the provinces, of the various companies involved in energy development in Canada, and on the basis of the needs of the average Canadian. Reconciling those varied positions is difficult but it can be done, and we had made a start at doing so. An energy agreement has been worked out with the west, oil companies had been consulted about the price increases that they needed in order to bring new resources on stream, and the end result would have been an assured supply for all Canadians.
These measures grew out of the policies that we had outlined prior to the May 22 election. One cannot compare an election platform of one party that has not been in government for a considerable period of time with the legislative record of one that has. What one can compare, on the other hand, is the fact that the present government, in its previous incarnations, failed to come to terms with Canada's energy needs, while in the six months of our government a comprehensive energy program was outlined and we had taken steps to implement that program.
How did the last Liberal government come to terms with the need for conservation? It spent considerable sums of the taxpayers' money telling taxpayers how to conserve. It spent further sums training people as experts in energy conservation in order to run their taxpayer education scheme, and then cancelled the whole program. It then went on to set conservation targets for itself. In fact the department that was responsible for the program could not meet the target and, in fact, 17 departments actually increased their energy consumption in the same period. All of this was at even further expense to the taxpayer. Even though the government failed to save energy, it proved that in Canada there was a long way to go in conservation of tax dollars.
The bulk of the government's push for conservation is to be found in the CHIP program. CHIP has a number of problems of its own but it, at least, does provide some assistance to home owners. Unfortunately it has also caused a number of fly-bynight insulation companies to come into being.
By and large, the government has felt that conservation can be mainly voluntary. It is my opinion that voluntary conservation is about as likely as the individual Canadian deciding to do his part in fighting inflation by refusing his next pay raise. The fact of the matter is that he will only start to conserve when the price of energy starts to become a concern. Obviously the poor should not be pressed further into poverty by the cost of energy, nor should those living on fixed incomes be asked to bear a heavy burden. It is for that reason that our government introduced the energy tax credit in the Crosbie budget. The tax credit would have been more than equal to the increased cost of energy to those on low incomes. At the same time we were prepared to increase funding for CHIP, and I am pleased to see that the government has followed our example.
While conservation provides an immediate and vital decrease in our energy requirements, it does not fill all of our needs. We must, therefore, look to expanding our supply of
energy. Remembering that hydrocarbons may be too valuable merely to burn, we must look to alternate forms of energy to fill the gap, and to replace this finite resource.
Canada has leading edge technology in the field of nuclear energy. The Candu is at one and the same time the most productive reactor over its life cycle and the safest reactor in use in the world. This is a technology which could and should be exported in order to offset our balance of trade deficit. Unfortunately the government, through AECL, has not been able to market the system properly, and in the case of its deal with Argentina actually managed to lose money by selling a reactor.
In dealing with renewable energy, the government has had an equally poor record. It did institute the PASEM and PUSH programs, but it dumped those funds into the market so quickly that the industry could not take proper advantage of them. Now, after having tried to develop the industry, the government, in the Speech from the Throne, announces its intention to create a renewable energy corporation which would compete with the small companies and possibly lead to their demise. The government recently announced the composition and funding of this corporation. This is a gleam of hope after years of limited action.
By comparison, the Crosbie budget provided for lower bond requirements for individuals wishing to distill alcohol for fuel, provided for accelerated write-offs for conservation equipment, and established discounts on natural gas in order to persuade Canadians to convert from oil to gas furnaces. In effect, six months of Conservative government showed more of a conviction to deal with energy problems than the previous decade of Liberal government. The government shows little indication that it intends to mend its ways. It will continue to pretend that there is no problem until the lights go out.
Mr. Speaker, the concept of an energy crisis has gradually entered our consciousness. Indeed, we do have a problem, but it does not come from a lack of reserves; rather, the crisis is with the cost and the will necessary to identify, develop and distribute our God-given resources. The crisis cannot be met with the traditional manipulations, reactions and confrontations at different government levels. We have an immediate need to respond to the condition by developing a national policy, based on the regional opportunities that present themselves.
We must extend the neglected natural gas pipelines to provide markets and linkages for gas reserves, east to west, north to south. We must seriously consider the neglected electrical interconnection and controls to allow the vast quantities of electrical reserves in James Bay and Churchill Falls to be accepted in New York or Ontario grids. We must finally come to grips with the whole question of resource export taxation on natural gas, oil, as well as electrical energy.
Especially in those provinces whose opportunities to develop fossil reserves are limited, we must hesitate no longer to take major steps to provide opportunities for replacement of con-
May 8, 1980

ventional fuels. The government should take into account the British Columbia opportunity for a major coal liquefaction plant. Similar opportunities offer themselves in the Atlantic provinces.
Transportation fuels account for about 45 per cent of petroleum consumption. The potential of conversions from conventional fuels to natural gas and its components, including M gas and gasahol, have yet to be recognized by this government by appropriate taxing and bonding measures. In the prairies, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island, opportunities for synthetic fuel production from biomass or waste may have been delayed by this government's inaction.
Conservation can be enhanced not only by pushing through research and development of appropriate fuels and engines for private transportation, but also by major research and development and dedication to an improved urban transit system.
Our previous government had initiated a concept of funding for energy projects. That funding would have derived from revenue from energy resources. Without specific and major financial resources, major projects in cogeneration, urban transit, and tidal power may fail to materialize. Major conventional energy systems such as heavy oil supply, hydro development, and additional coal mining opportunities, may be delayed.
Because of the lack of a cohesive energy plan we continue to miss the opportunities for development of potential exportable energy technologies, such as those coming from research and development in photovoltaics and genetic engineering.
Financial research and development capability and political will should provide us a secure energy future. We are destined with the government's present approach to an increasing dependency on petroleum imports and increasing political antagonisms-a fossil-foolish mentality-that need not have limited our energy future.


Mr. Russell MacLelian (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Mines):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion there is no other point in the Speech from the Throne that was more welcome or more important than the one that dealt with the setting up of the alternate energy corporation. This is something which we in the Liberal party feel is going to be extremely valuable in the years to come, and one which we feel the party and the government will put to good use. It is hoped by each and every one of us, certainly by parliamentarians in general, that the alternate energy corporation will not only seek to find ways of using possible new sources of energy, but also will not discount or ignore the existing sources of energy that are in our country in such abundance.
It is one of those sources of energy that I would like to deal with this evening, namely, coal. This afternoon the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) discussed the problem that Nova Scotia has regarding is dependency on offshore oil. This dependency no doubt exists. In fact it has existed for some time. When we were blessed with an inexpensive source of oil, this was not a problem. But when the cost of offshore oil
Energy Policy
rose, and rose very quickly, it caught the province of Nova Scotia very much by surprise.
As the hon. member for Halifax West stated, dependency on offshore oil amounted to approximately 70 per cent of electrical generating requirements. Since that time there has been movement to reduce this particular dependency. The province of Nova Scotia has brought on stream a hydroelectric system in Wreck Cove, Cape Breton Island, and also four thermal generating plants at Lingan close to New Waterford. It is hoped when thermal generating plants three and four are on stream that this will reduce Nova Scotia's dependency on offshore oil from 70 per cent to approximately 15 per cent.
The uses and possibilities for coal are limitless. The use of coal is very important when we look at the possibility of finding alternate sources of oil and transportation fuels. The idea of liquefaction of coal, liquefying coal, or gasifying coal started in pre-war Germany, and the hydrogenation of coal is something that goes back quite a few years. Unfortunately it is something that has been neglected over the past because of the abundance of cheap energy, but it is now being looked at very seriously. Unfortunately it will take a good many years before the technology that was started so many years ago is brought on stream and made viable in Canada. We are anticipating that it will probably be the mid-1990s before this very valuable source of oil is available to us.
There is another source that was started at approximately the same time, that is, the sasol process which was developed in pre-war Germany as well, but has been adopted in South Africa. It is a process that the South Africans initiated in 1953 with the building of Sasol One. It is a process for the liquefaction of coal using an adjustment of the carbon monoxide hydrogen components and, using a catalyst, in fact can form a very wide abundance of products ranging all the way from methane to a heavy petroleum wax. It is a very strong and excellent possibility for the future, not only for South Africa but for the world as a whole.
Just a few days ago Sasol Two was commissioned in South Africa and a trade delegation from Canada was there at this particular exercise. This new plant is capable of producing
45,000	barrels of oil a day from the coal derivative. South Africans are going to be commissioning a third sasol plant, and that will be commissioned in 1983.
In 1983, when Sasol One, Two and Three are working, they will in fact be producing 50 per cent of all of South Africa's transportation fuels. This is a significant portion of the country's transportation fuel needs, but of course it will utilize a great deal of coal. The fact is that these two plants, one producing 45,000 barrels of oil a day from coal, and the second producing 50,000 barrels a day from coal, will require as much as 27 million tonnes of coal a year. This is more coal than is produced in Canada at the present time. Yet it is a need in this country. It exemplifies to us what a valuable resource this is and how we are going to come to depend on this very valuable resource.
The South Africans are able to utilize this source of energy right now because of cheap labour costs. They are able to

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
produce coal for about $6 a ton, which is considerably cheaper than Canada can. The plant that will be coming on stream in 1983 they expect will cost between $3 billion and $4 billion. The Fluor Corporation which has constructed Sasol Two, and will be constructing the third one, is in fact negotiating with the American government at the present time to construct the plant in that country. The Americans are showing considerable interest in this technology. That corporation estimates that the plant, capable of producing 50,000 barrels of oil a day from coal, will in fact cost $3.5 billion. In terms of comparing this to a refinery producing oil from oil sources, it would be the equivalent of $48 a gallon-


Walter David Baker: You mean a barrel.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -a barrel. Although we have not reached the situation where coal is in a position to compete with oil in the gasoline markets, we are going to be fast approaching that point. It is something we are very definitely going to have to consider.
Mobil Oil, also in the United States, has developed a process called Mobile M where they are able to turn coal into methanol and upgrade the methanol into a high octane gasoline by a process known as methanol M, and the product derived therefrom is known as M gasoline. In 1979 New Zealand found that using a natural gas base to create methanol would in fact give them a high octane gasoline at $10 a barrel cheaper than the gasoline which could be produced from the sasol derivative. They are using this process now and are producing gas from this source.
In the United States, because of their interest not only in the sasol process but in the Mobile M process, they have designated $100 million for exploration experimentation, and research into this valuable source of fuel for the future. They are making grants of $4 million each to companies, research laboratories and institutions of sufficient size to be able to carry out this valuable work. Applications for these grants closed on April 25 and the results should be announced in the not too distant future.
With respect to our country, the Alberta Gas Trunk Line has in fact sent two tons of coal to the Saarberg Corporation in Germany which has been very active in the hydrogenation of coal. This coal was experimented on there and fuel was produced from it. The cost to the Alberta Gas Trunk Line was merely the cost of the shipment because the Saarberg Corporation was able to do the work at very little cost to this country. The Alberta Gas Trunk Line is now in the process of carrying out detailed feasibility and conceptual engineering studies of this interesting possibility.
The Brazilians are using methanol in their automobiles. In fact all major automobile manufacturers in Brazil are making cars which run on methanol. These methanol-powered engines are becoming very popular, and it is estimated that in Brazil at the present time they have approximately 100,000 such cars. Methanol gives off a much cleaner exhaust and is a more
energy efficient fuel than high octane gasoline. The methanol rating would be approximately 103, whereas high octane gasoline would probably have a rating of about 93. In Germany, Volkswagen has developed a car which runs exclusively on methanol. There are other cars, including Volkswagens, which run on a combination of methanol and gasoline. So the technology is there; it is growing and becoming increasingly popular.
With respect to eastern Canada some difficulty arises because the coal is a little more expensive to extract from the ground, yet there is another technology which I think is going to be extremely important to eastern Nova Scotia, a process which the British are developing. As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, the coal in eastern Canada is very high in volatiles; approximately 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the coal in Cape Breton consists of volatiles.
The British are developing a process whereby the volatiles in such coal are separated by using a solvent. The carbon portion of the coal could be used for thermal generating and the volatiles for transportation fuel. Canmet is very involved in this particular situation, working on what is more or less the next step, and is developing what they call a hydrocracker, a process for upgrading heavy oils which would be the derivative of the solvent-producing carbon on the one hand and the heavy oil on the other. The heavy oil volatiles could then be used to be upgraded into a light oil capable of feeding any refinery which exists in this country at the present time. Not only that, but to this heavy oil could be added additional hydrogen and coal, coal solids, and this mixture could be upgraded to an efficient fuel capable of being fed into any refinery in the country. This is not new technology, it is technology which has existed for the past 17 years, but it is very important technology as far as eastern Canada is concerned. Unfortunately it has been allowed to languish unused for far too long a period.
It is hoped that the alternate energy corporation will bring this technology forward to a greater degree for the benefit not only of eastern Canada but of the whole of Canada, and that coal will become a very serious alternative in a fuel-hungry world. It is important to this country that we explore all our energy possibilities. The government has declared its intention to go ahead with the natural gas pipeline to Nova Scotia. They have made that commitment in the Speech from the Throne. It is a very important commitment when one considers the possibilities of natural gas existing off Sable Island.
Added to this is another possibility, the possibility of oil off the coast of Newfoundland. These are very important potential sources brought to prominence to a large extent through the contribution of Petro-Canada, an institution to which this government has pledged its support-in fact the government has made available to the corporation an extra $80 million, recognizing that this is an important operation upon which the satisfaction of the future energy requirements of this country is going to depend. It is important that sources of energy and sources of wealth are derived from all areas of this country and that no area should find its natural resources or its possibilities for employment pushed into the background.
May 8, 1980

All members here will agree that although we represent various constituencies we are also representatives of the whole country, and in this very important matter we must look not only to decisions which have been taken, but also those yet to come. On May 20 there will be made one of the most important decisions in the history of this country. But sometimes, before decisions can be made, problems must be overcome. We owe it not only to our constituents but to a unified country that these problems, and the areas in which these problems are found, are studied, analysed and understood. It is only in this way we, as a country, will become more unified and more purposeful.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should advise the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that the parliamentary secretary has completed his speech but, with the agreement of the parliamentary secretary, I will permit the question.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I found the parliamentary secretary's speech very interesting and enjoyable, but the question which immediately pops into my mind results from an exchange which occurred here several days ago when the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) what part coal was to play in the national energy policy. The minister sloughed that question aside and would not really answer it. He gave the impression that coal was not really to fit into the picture.
Because the hon. parliamentary secretary is privy to what the cabinet is thinking on these matters, perhaps he can tell us whether what he said tonight was an expression just of his own personal views or whether indeed there is an imminent announcement to be made on coal policy for Canada by the cabinet.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject of great interest to this country, and the government is studying it very, very carefully. The reason the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) did not elaborate on that subject is because it is now under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), and she would be the one who would be glad to elaborate on it at any time the hon. member should ask.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 begin by saying that as a new member I am rather astounded at the situation in which we find ourselves today in Canada with regard to energy. It is inconceivable that we would be running out of a resource of which we have more in Canada than has ever been found in the world to date because past governments have not had the wisdom or the courage to develop these resources. The main reason I entered politics was to help bring some businesslike sanity into government and the
Energy Policy
ownership and better development of resources and responsible economic policies on which to build a great future for this country. Economic policy must involve energy these days, and energy policy must involve economics. They are interlocked and indivisible. One holds the key to the other.
We have known for a long time that we in Canada were energy rich and resource rich. We have known that by selling our resources we could live like kings without working very hard. Over three decades Liberal governments have capitalized on this fact to provide better social standards for Canadians, and that has been great up to a point, but such wealth must be carefully handled. It must be wisely utilized to provide not only social justice but also creative work for Canadians, and an investment in future stability, because resources do run out, many of them, and so some portion of their value must be set aside to build an ongoing industrial base for the benefit of future generations of Canadians who will follow us. However, successive governments have consistently spent more than they took in, and Canada has amassed a huge national debt, partly by buying foreign goods and services instead of letting Canadians produce them.
We have sold our raw materials, our iron ore, nickel, asbestos, tin, zinc, tungsten, oil and gas in great quantities and at low prices, and we have bought cars, televisions, cameras, machines and thousands of other manufactured goods at high prices. We have exported Canadian jobs and guaranteed the employment of foreigners. It is time we stopped doing this kind of stupid thing, stole a leaf from the Parti Quebecois book and became maitres chez nous\ masters of our own house, controllers and investors in our own destiny.
I would like to use my time to look at the benefits of energy development rather than dwell on just the costs, as the Liberal side of this House has myopically continued to do.
It is incumbent on any government of any country to plan for future needs, but for the government of a country as vast as Canada-and as subject to cold weather conditions as Canada is-not to have planned much, much better for energy development, is no less than dereliction of duty. However, that is the position we are in. No longer are we exporters of petroleum energy. We are net importers, and at a strangulation price. Today all the lands and people east of the Ottawa River are dependent on supplies of foreign oil. They are held ransom to fragile supply arrangements from unstable foreign lands, over long water distances and at high world prices. Why? Because governments since the early seventies have not had the foresight or the wisdom to develop western reserves, nor the common sense to build a pipeline past Montreal into Atlantic Canada. Instead, these same governments were content to tax Canadians for social and foreign aid programs we could not afford, while neglecting to finance and assist in the development and transmission of vital energy.
This year, 1980, we will spend $5 billion for foreign oil. That is enough to build a tar sands plant, and every single year until we get down to developing our own reserves adequately we will spend even more. Every year we wait, Atlantic Canada runs the risk of interruption of supply, with terrible conse-

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
quences to farmers and fishermen, to their factories, and to the heating of their homes. What action do we get to help the citizens of Atlantic Canada? Just the crossing of fingers in the hope that Hibernia will turn out to be the biggest goldarned oil find in the world. We all hope that that will prove to be the case, but that is hardly the stuff of which sound energy policy is made.
How does the government plan to develop Canada's energy? How will it raise the vast sums of money-the hundred plus billion dollars-needed to pay for development of the western oil reserves and the tar sands? Well, it does not know. It does not have a plan. The present government, after joining the NDP to defeat the only plan for energy development Canada has ever had, after only seven months of Conservative government, has come up with no plan, no action, and no pricing formula, unless we take the blended price, which will probably add up to more than our formula.
No one should be surprised that a political party which has its entire power base in eastern Canada finds it impossible to accept the economic realities of the need to pay a higher price for oil. In their blatant grasping for votes they have prujudiced Canada's economic future. No one in Canada wants to pay more for gasoline, and neither do the Americans, the Japanese nor the West Germans, but they do not have a choice, as we do. They have no oil of their own, so they pay world prices, but they have accepted it. They have reacted positively to it, and they have prospered in spite of it. We, who do not have enough oil of our own, pay the world price too for the 20 per cent of our oil which we must import and which is increasing as a percentage due to the increasing annual consumption and the diminishing supply. Unless we undertake a crash program of exploration and development of the tar sands, we will be paying the world price too in this century.
The Conservative energy program, with its 18 cents a gallon and $4 a barrel, was designed to do at least three important things. First, it would keep us from going deeper into debt each year with the Arabs and the Venezuelans. Second, it would have encouraged reductions in consumption of gasoline by encouraging the use of smaller cars, car pools, public transit and any other way one can economize. Third, it would pay for a massive program of energy development, with all its future benefits. How did these farsighted, long-range Liberal planners react to this first ever plan for Canadian energy self-sufficiency? They rejected it. They defeated it. They denied the people of Canada the fantastic benefits of and pride in the achieving not only of energy but also of economic self-sufficiency. They said Canadians could not afford it. They said Canadians could not afford to pay $1.40 a gallon when Americans pay $1.60 and some people over $3.
Does anyone here seriously believe that we are not paying higher prices for gasoline today? Just because the pump price is $1.10 or so, that does not mean we are paying $1.10 a gallon. There are three billion extra dollars which do not appear on the pumps but which must still be paid by all Canadians, whether they drive cars or not, through their taxes to pay the Arabs and the Venezuelans for our shortfall.
History will reveal the cost of Liberal duplicity. Each year we wait will cost Canada billions of wasted dollars.
Instead of saying that we cannot afford higher prices, we should recognize that we cannot afford not to have the benefits which higher prices will bring. Take, for example, my province of Ontario. Ontario produces half of all the manufactures of Canada. How then could Canada spend $100 billion out west without a fantastic boom occurring in Ontario or in Quebec where over half of all the things that go into the building of a high technology industry like the tar sands development originate? If we spend $100 billion in western Canada by 1990, about $25 billion will come back to Ontario and Quebec for the production of pipe, valves, turbines, generators, pumps, trucks, in an industry which desperately needs jobs, computers, building materials, not only for plants but for the thousands of new homes which will go into the new plant sites accompanying the plants, and so on. Who will build these homes and manufacture these goods? Ontario and Quebec companies, and Ontario and Quebec people. In fact companies and people from every province in Canada will benefit from this unprecedented job boom.
Just yesterday Foothills Pipe Lines announced that Stelco in Hamilton and Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation in Regina were given an order for pipe for the Alaska gas pipeline project worth $2 billion. This represents 5,500 man years or person years for Canadians. These companies, working with over 300 suppliers throughout Canada, will provide
28.000	man years of employment. Is anyone so blind that they cannot see the job opportunities, skills, training opportunities and investment opportunities for all Canadians? Even teachers, that hard-hit profession, will be pressed hard to teach the skills which will be in such great demand across Canada.
In the case of the Quebec and maritime pipeline, which would be an investment of over $4 billion, over $3 billion would accrue to Quebec and the maritimes and would create
64.000	man years of jobs over the next two decades. Add to these the jobs, the opportunities for the merchants and businesses along the route and you begin to get an idea of what developing our resources means in terms of jobs and wealth to Canadians. Today a tar sands plant will cost upward of $5 billion. For every plant built, Ontario will benefit to the tune of $ 1 billion.
Another major benefit which would have accrued to Ontario and to all Canadians through the Conservative energy policy, would have been the guaranteed 85 per cent of world price maximum for gasoline and oil, and even less for natural gas, in fact only 72 per cent of world oil price. Compare such benefits for Canadian manufacturing and job-creating opportunities with the speculative purchase of foreign energy supplies which offer no opportunities to Canada. Here we have, on the one hand, tenuous or questionable supply linked to rapidly escalating world price. The spot market oil prices today range in the $40 to $50 a barrel bracket. On the other hand, we could be
May 8, 1980

enjoying guaranteed supply at much lower prices by creating jobs for Canadians. So which is preferable?
Shall we pay fellow Canadians to develop our resources and produce our energy needs from our Canadian companies, or shall we pay foreigners for their oil, make them rich at our expense and enable them to invest our former dollars to buy out Canadian companies? With sound energy policies we could already have been maltres chez nous, masters of our own destiny, instead of potentially shivering in the cold and dependent on foreigners as Liberal government inaction has had us do.
In the debate over increased costs of petroleum energy, Ontario took a firm position against such an increase, largely on the grounds of loss of jobs in Ontario caused by inability to compete due to higher costs. That was the argument. They used the old "we can't afford it" argument. In terms of total energy needs, Ontario today can generate just over 22 per cent of its requirements. It has recognized that through conservation and conversion to indigenous forms of energy, largely electrical, it can supply a target objective of 35 per cent of its total energy requirements by 1995.
Can this be accomplished without cost to the taxpayer? Of course not. The price tag, by the Ontario government's estimate, will be $30 billion over the next 15 years. This huge sum of $30 billion should be recognized as a quarter as much as the entire Conservative government proposal for petroleum selfsufficiency, and yet will supply only a 12 per cent increase in Ontario energy needs. So how can it be justified? Why would a province commit $30 billion for 12 per cent more energy? For benefits, that is how. Ontario sees the benefits of lower cost power and reliability of supply of power. These tangible elements of energy supply will attract and encourage the establishment and development of increased industrial growth, particularly in the high technology industries with increased tax payout and job creation for the province. Ontario also foresees a comcomitant reduction in increasingly expensive petroleum consumption, thus reducing the external influence and the extra costs to its economic affairs.
Now let us look at what Canada's smallest province plans to do about its energy problem. P.E.I. is actively considering the biomass alternative. Its studies show that under today's conditions, for every dollar spent on energy importation, primarily petroleum, 90 cents leave the province. The satisfactory development of biomass would reverse this condition and keep 80 cents of every dollar within the province.
So both the most populous and least populous provinces have recognized the advantage of substantial investment for the long-term benefit of their citizens. Their policies are pay now, benefit later, the very spirit and attitude which built this country. What a contrast this is to the do-nothing, unimaginative, inactive federal Liberal government which seriously jeopardizes Canada's economic future and leaves it under the control of foreigners. Even today it is not too late for the government to realize the error of its ways, to change its direction, to recognize the need to raise oil prices in order to generate the funds needed to commence the huge task before
Energy Policy
us and, at the same time, revitalize the sagging Canadian economy. The world would welcome such a change and would be anxious to participate. Investment dollars would flow into Canada with the consequential rise in the value of the Canadian dollar, the creation of new companies, both within and around the energy field, and the rise in employment which would be immediate and dramatic.
What would be down the road? In a world short of energy, Canada would be unique, a blessed nation, a nation with not only sufficient energy but with a strong industrial base to use that energy, to make productive use of it for the well-being and social benefit of its citizens.
So to the government I say: Please take up the challenge, recognize the potential, take the steps necessary to achieve the vision of a nation which has the resources, has the knowledge, and has the resolve to realize its destiny.
[ Translation]


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a motion from the opposition which deplores the absence of an honest and efficient energy policy.
Some hon. members said this afternoon that it takes nerve and temerity to present such a motion at the beginning of this Thirty-second Parliament and I agree. I heard the hon. member who spoke before me say that we have no development policy in the field of energy. I would like to point out to him that our development policy in the field of energy applies to all provinces, not only to one or two, and I am talking more particularly about the western provinces.
Speaking of energy sources development, I would remind the House that during the short time it was in power the previous government, which is the official opposition today, agreed to allow massive exports of natural gas to the United States. That government agreed such exports without any guarantee of any kind as to the construction of a pipeline or as to the possible exchange of gas between the two countries, namely the state of Alaska and Canada. The opposition also made that decision during that short period of time to pave the way for massive exports of one of our most precious natural resources in Canada, a natural resource which among other things is non polluting and one of our most important assets. In doing that, the government of the time had no specific policy or program for Canada in this area, let alone for Canadians. So, Mr. Speaker, it can certainly not be called an efficient policy.
Before the Houses were convened, about a month after the transfer of powers, this government had already accepted and approved a decision by the National Energy Board to start the construction of a Quebec-maritimes gas pipeline, namely the St. Lazare-Boisbriand section, over a distance of some 30 miles. Mr. Speaker, that is what I believe we call efficiency.
870

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
But we are now faced with another dilemma. After the federal government agreed to have the construction of that section started, we are faced with another government that certainly has no development policy in the energy area. That government, the government of the province of Quebec, which wants to reduce its dependence on oil by 30 per cent by 1990, and its dependence on natural gas by 25 per cent by 1990, that government has not yet given its approval to the construction of that gas pipeline. We know that pipeline would have enabled 83 billion cubic feet of gas to be moved to a new market in Quebec and the maritimes, which is the equivalent of 40,000 barrels of oil a day.
While the government of Quebec refuses to approve that construction, Quebec energy and resources department experts stated before the National Energy Board that if it is to reach its 25 per cent goal by 1990 Quebec needs the construction of a gas pipeline all the way to Quebec City, a low price for ten years for the consumer and the distributor, and a guaranteed supply of gas from western Canada. You see the incoherence of such a government. While some officials of one of their respected departments, a most important department in view of the crisis we are facing in Canada, are asking the National Energy Board to take measures to step up the development and supply of energy in the province of Quebec, there are ministers who are unable to make decisions, which we feel, in view of the current situation, are probably outright political.
In spite of this, the Quebec minister of energy has indicated that Quebec can pay the world price for its natural gas. How do those who favour the thesis put forward by the Quebec government reconcile their irresponsible approach with the serious opportunities for gas development? Would a sovereign and independent Quebec have access to the natural gas from western Canada and enjoy the same favourable conditions as now?
If Quebec were no longer part of Canada, why should it receive preferential treatment over the United States for natural gas prices? The American markets are nearer to the gas fields than Quebec, and the natural gas sold in the United States brings $4.86 per thousand cubic feet to the Canadian producers compared with $1.51 for the gas sold to Quebec. If Quebeckers had to pay the international prices, the natural gas they now use would cost them $550 million. By comparison, they paid $225 million wholesale in 1979, and this represents only 7 per cent of the energy used in Quebec. If we consider a proportion of 25 per cent, which is the objective for 1990, the cost would rise to about $2 billion at the 1980 international prices for gas.
Mr. Speaker, we really must wonder what would happen in such a case to the energy self-sufficiency plans of the Quebec government. However, if we look at the present policy of the Canadian government, we see that we are trying to develop an energy program on a rational basis. As we have underlined and as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has underlined several times, Petro-Canada, this Canadian corporation which we want to maintain and in which we want to invest more money so that it may become one of the highest rated companies in Canada, continues its explorations in eastern Canada and the northern seas.
The discoveries that Petro-Canada has made already and will certainly continue to make in the future will benefit all Canadians, all Quebeckers, and certainly the entire population of eastern Quebec, especially in the lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe area. We all know to what extent these peripheral areas depend on energy discoveries at the present time, and we also know that Petro-Canada, because of its discoveries and the proximity of the gulf and the ocean, will be able to develop harbours on the north shore, the lower north shore and also in the Gaspe peninsula, and will eventually be able to think about building more plants.
It is extremely important, especially for the population of eastern Quebec, to share fairly in all these Canadian resources and in all this wealth. How can we, in Quebec, accept all that is being said at the present time in our province simply to convince part of the population, a part which I must say is getting smaller and smaller, as we shall certainly be able to see when the next poll is published, which should be tomorrow, I believe. We shall certainly see then that this percentage of the Quebec population is decreasing at a rate that the members of the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec government will certainly find alarming.
Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to the members of the Parti Quebecois who, as I was saying, claim that Hydro-Quebec will provide the money necessary to purchase oil and gas at world prices. This money will be obtained by selling electricity to the United States. The Quebec energy and resources minister said the following to a Radio-Canada reporter on March 10:
We are going to depend increasingly on the international market for our oil; on the other hand, we will have ever larger quantities of electricity which can be seen in the framework of energy exchanges. That is to say, we sell our electricity at a high price and use the profits on that electricity to purchase our oil, so that in fact the cost of energy in Quebec will continue to be very low.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the Quebec minister of energy spreads around the whole province almost daily. This afternoon, my colleague the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) quoted figures on oil. He mentioned that the estimates of the Quebec government do not correspond with what this party foresees. Well, just for a few moments, I should like to look at the forecast expansion of the Hydro-Quebec grid. In 1985, the surplus electricity available for export would reach a peak. At that time, Quebec would still be able to pay, with the help of its hydro exports, only 10 per cent of the total cost for oil imports. That, Mr. Speaker, does not take into account the world price it will have to pay for natural gas. As I said earlier, the Quebec government in 1990 wants to have at least 25 per cent of its energy requirements covered by natural gas.
May 8, 1980

In my view, Mr. Speaker, they are somewhat over-confident in their optimism on hydroelectric surpluses. It must be realized that these surpluses are short-term spin-offs. In other words, Mr. Speaker, when new power plants go on stream and provincial demand is lower than production, the surplus is sold in the United States. Current Hydro-Quebec projections are that after 1985 these surpluses will decline significantly. By 1995, provincial demand for hydro power should balance supply.
Even if the total production capacity currently built in the James Bay project were exported at twice today's price, gross revenue would be around $1.7 billion. This would leave no margin for conversion to electricity in Quebec, and leave a $2.6 billion deficit at the 1979 oil costs, and a $5.1 billion one at the current 1980 prices.
This shows that the Quebec government projections for future energy alternatives are totally out of line. They quote figures out of nowhere, they base their assumptions on an expected power yield that is totally unjustified. It is unfortunate in my view that the Quebec government ministers try to convince part of the people with unverified and unverifiable assumptions to document their point on the viability of independence, in a period of energy crisis where we know that the nation's greatest opportunities lie within other provinces. It is unfortunate that they come and tell the people that within 15 years the benefits from hydro power can balance the loss of oil supplies. It is most unfortunate that they use such an issue that is so vitally important to the survival of the people, that they make such points with partisan motives and nothing else.
I feel we should stick to the facts that now exist, and to the Canadian reality. As far as the federal government is concerned, what we want to do, what we want is precisely a development plan, by a corporation like Petro-Canada, which would allow us to divide the existing wealth and by which the province of Quebec, within a united country, could partake of the benefits and of the vast potential that we have. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Quebec, faced with all these facts and vast opportunities, will decide to continue being part of this great country in order to benefit from the policies our government has implemented, the policies it is implementing and also from everything the government intends to do in this regard so that the province of Quebec and the maritimes will have maximum benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as I have tried to show, all the Quebec government is trying to make us believe is that the demand for electricity will allow it to make up its deficit, especially its monetary deficit, so that Quebec can get its oil supply. But again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can believe those statements, and that is why our government, as the minister stated this afternoon, intends to take action in the field of energy so that all of Canada can satisfy all its energy needs.
Energy Policy
[DOT]	(2130)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I get a very strange sense of dej'a vu when listening to this debate. It takes me back to 1974, 1975 and 1976 when the warnings being sounded by members on this side were ignored just as they are being ignored today.
I would like to ask the House to examine with me the chaotic situation that exists today in respect of energy in this country. Let us not forget that this is the same old government which dithered and dreamed while the energy situation worsened in those years from 1974 to 1979. They did not face up to the growing problem then and they are not now. They knew the problem was there. It was just as plain as the nose on the face of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and I am disappointed to see that he is not in the House tonight. Indeed, there are no ministers in the House tonight when we are debating one of the most important issues that confront the country today. There is not a single minister in the treasury benches tonight to listen to the views and opinions being expressed by members of this House. This is the same old government that assured Canadians there was no energy problem in that last year of office prior to the May election, yet it increased the national deficit by $2 billion in that last year.
I see that there is now half a minister in the House. We do not know what he does to earn his salary, but the half of him is here.
The deficit in that last year of office was increased by $2 billion to pay for imported oil. This is that same old government which fought an election and won it on the issue of preventing an 18-cent a gallon increase and is now faced with the necessity of imposing a 16-cent a gallon increase almost immediately, with much more to come later, and that cannot be denied.
[DOT]	(2140)
Our policy would have enabled Canadians to know what they were paying. It would have encouraged conservation, contrary to the dishonest assertions which I have been hearing in this debate in contributions made by those opposite. It would have encouraged conservation in the same way that President Carter's policy is doing in the United States. He has introduced almost an identical policy to the one which would have been adopted had our budget been passed. It would have reduced the incredible budgetary deficit by some $4 billion to $5 billion.
The government does not care how high our deficit goes. The Liberal policy is to deliberately conceal from Canadians what they are paying for oil. There are no ifs, ands or buts about that deliberate concealment. Their budget encourages the profligate use of diminishing energy resources. Their policy attempts to lull Canadians with the false assurance that all is well, when in fact the deficit is again rising by a further $2 billion over last year, and my prediction is that it will rise even

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
higher with the blatant pork-barrelling that is going on by that same old bunch over there, day after day.
While Liberals have attempted to hide the consequences of their reckless policy of enforced bankruptcy, the results are evident in uncontrolled inflation, the drop in the value of the dollar, the spread of bankruptcies across this country, steadily increasing unemployment, and the steady diminution of public confidence. The policy which we prepared under the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was a tough policy, but it was an honest policy and it was effective. The government's budget is a wishy-washy, queasy, dishonest, sleazy policy. In a very short time Canadians, 1 believe, will see that we were right. They will not thank the present government for leading this great country once more on the road to bankruptcy. Canadians will see the Trudeau government for what it really is.
When the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) was speaking and quoting from The Globe and Mail, the minister took exception to the source. I would like to give a quote, just so that members opposite will see that these views are not mine alone. My quote comes from a newspaper which has very rarely been a friend of those of us on this side of the House, the Ottawa Citizen, of just last week.
The article is an editorial which is headed, "Yes, but wait until next year."


John Leslie Evans: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who, 1 believe, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, wishes to speak, I hope that he will rise and do so. There is also the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) who runs around the House like some kind of punch in a Punch and Judy show. He comes down to the front bench to heckle, then moves over to the right and then to the left, but I never see him participate in debates. Let the hon. member rise if he wishes to ask a question; we will answer him.
I will read from the editorial which 1 found in a Liberal newspaper:
There's been a lot of fiddle-faddling, diddle-dawdling and fuddle-duddling on the part of the federal Liberals over the question of an increase in the excise tax on motor fuel.
The daily question period in the House has been dominated by the issue, as the Liberals played cat-and-mouse games with the Tories and as the Tories scrambled to put questions to the government that couldn't be evaded.
It looked very much last week as if the House of Commons needs a rule requiring the government to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That, sir, as their history has proven, and as they have already proven in the short time that this House has been in session, is the last thing which we will hear from the ministry, the same old ministry that is now back in office. The editorial goes on:
But the dam finally broke on Thursday under the persistent pressure of unimpeachably clear questions by Tories Bill Jarvis and Harvie Andre. The
government finally made it known how it intends to get more revenue from energy without raising excise taxes.
First, there's the matter of the government's time frame. Marc Lalonde had said earlier in the week that the Liberals never promised that they'd never increase the federal excise tax. The promise was for 1980 alone, despite whatever impression the Liberals may have wanted to convey to win votes in February.
Further on the editorial says:
However, with the lid off on Liberal promises after January I, 1981, this plan and others will likely come into play. One already in place, announced in finance minister Allan MacEachen's mini-budget, is the change in the federal sales tax paid by fuel retailers from five cents a gallon to a nine per cent ad valorem tax. As oil prices rise, the government's income from this source will increase too.
That is the shady way in which this government operates and in which they attempt to hide the inevitability of an increase in fuel prices in this country, and attempt to slough off the blame on the government which they replaced. In fact, so cynical, so crass is their policy, and so brutal in its disregard of the future of this country, that it could only be followed by those who, in their hearts, do not believe in Canada and have no faith in its future. It is a policy that is based on "here today and gone tomorrow". That is their philosophy and it shows.


Mr. Chenier:: That is what happened to you last year.


Erik Nielsen: There goes the Punch of the Punch and Judy show over there again. Their policy shows no regard for the faith which they should have in this country.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: What faith did the Canadian people have in you?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, instead of yapping away with this clap trap over there, wants to participate in the debate, then let him rise and do so and not act like a Punch in a Punch and Judy show, popping all over the House and heckling away.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You said that before. You are the clown, not us.


Erik Nielsen: Nowhere have the weakness and evasiveness of the government been more evident than on the question of energy pricing. They know full well they cannot go on subsidizing oil imports at the expense of the taxpayer, piling up huge and dangerous deficits. The cost of financing this government's deficits is now a major component of our annual expenditures. Our government tried to face up to this situation. It was an element of the budget introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West. Yet this vacillating government continues to pretend that it is offering Canadians cheap, or relatively cheap gas, and in that very fact encourages waste.
If one were to talk about their so-called policies on conservation, there has been no attempt whatsoever at providing leadership in the field of energy conservation by the government. Quite to the contrary. One simple way in which oil conservation could be encouraged, would be a reduction in the price of natural gas which would give Canadians an incentive to convert from oil to natural gas. Another example of this government's erratic energy posture was the meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Premier Bennett of British
May 8, 1980

Columbia just a day or two ago, the details of which still remain shrouded in mystery.
It is, however, authoritatively reported that the Prime Minister offered to provide federal funding for the proposed B.C.-Japanese coal project only on the condition that B.C. would make some kind of tax concessions for the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. If there has been a more blatant betrayal of the pipeline project, I do not know where it is recorded. The supreme irony is that this comes from the Prime Minister- who has been accusing the Clark government of fumbling this very pipeline, an accusation which he knew to be false when he made it.
When the Prime Minister goes to work, he does not fumble, he simply knifes the project in the back and does it behind closed doors. I cannot say that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is very far behind him in the manner in which he has been manipulating, or attempting to manipulate, the decisions of the National Energy Board, which is supposed to be a free and independent agency of the government, making its own free and independent decisions.
The latest episode in the oil pricing charade is when the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources issues provocative statements such as the one he made to the Conference Board yesterday, to the effect that Alberta, and I am quoting him, "cannot use its resources to the detriment of the rest of Canada." He said that again today. While he was saying it, it took me back to the days when I lived in the maritime provinces. The people down there felt very deprived. They felt that eastern Canada was lying under the udder of the cow; the front end of the cow was feeding the prairie provinces, and guess what the maritimes got? That is what they are getting under this government as well.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make that kind of statement about Saskatchewan selling its potash at world prices, or does it mean that Quebec is marketing its hydro power-does he make the statement with respect to that matter-or Ontario its wood pulp or gold-does he mean it should sell its nickel at world prices as he insists that Alberta does with its resources, and Saskatchewan too?
It is a dangerous game that is being played by the Liberal party and the Liberal government, both in Alberta and British Columbia. I might say that this does nothing at all to encourage unity in this country. The government is playing fast and loose with provincial resources and provincial rights as though these things were within the jurisdiction of the federal bureaucracy. They are not, and the attitude that they are is one of the reasons why we have creeping separatism across this country today. They are deliberately fueling that emotion in this country. There is no question about it. As my friend says, they set about destroying it and they are achieving it in a very admirable fashion, as we see across our northern provincial boundary today. It is a very dangerous game they are playing. There is no question in my mind that if more attention had
Energy Policy
been paid to the rights and needs of the provinces in energy and other fields, we would not be having a referendum in Quebec today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Federal government spokesmen have been using the same tactic in Quebec as they used in the rest of Canada during the election. They have made energy a political football. They have been going into Quebec and promising cheap oil as an incentive to vote in a certain way in the referendum. Like thousands of others, I hope that Quebec citizens will see where their interests lie and reject the ghetto mentality of the Parti Quebecois and its supporters. But I deplore a tactic which promises what is not theirs to deliver, just as they did during the election campaign last May. The energy crisis in this country will not be resolved as long as this government treats it as political bait, provides no leadership in conservation, and refuses to take the necessary measures to control this situation. The situation in Quebec cannot be resolved on a promise to deliver cheap oil. That is not going to happen.
Energy is a symptom of this government's breakdown in the field of federal-provincial relations, as is their absolute disregard for the constitutional rights of the provinces in every field, including offshore rights about which they continue to make threatening statements. That is why Canada is fragmented and that is why we have a situation in Quebec which is a reflection of a similar uneasiness, felt but not voiced as loudly yet in other provinces.
Recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), that jolly jumper, that jovial gentleman who at one stroke rid himself of all contenders for the leadership of his party and returned to office as a part-time Prime Minister, told Canadians-a so-called part-time Prime Minister-that they could easily afford to pay exorbitant interest rates. To young married couples across this country, newly established in expensive homes and following extremely tight budgets, this arrogant bachelor over there says, "pay up or ship out." "You can afford it," he told them from the eminence of his minister's salary, "It is no problem. All my friends," he says, "are in a position to pay." That is an astonishing statement from one who, in earlier years, when the mantle of humility sat on his shoulders at one time, was a paragon of socialist virtues-a man moved to tears in this House by the simple contemplation of the number of Canadians living below the subsistence level.
As if that were not enough, sir, a few days ago he complained in the House-at least I thought he was complaining though he may well have been boasting-that a number of his cabinet colleagues were coming in with expensive programs which might have the effect of increasing the present astronomical deficit even further. There seems to be continuing contention between himself and the minister responsible for DREE.
It is a new and welcome departure to see the minister in the role of watchdog of the public purse. It is unfortunate that he did not adopt that role somewhat sooner, a few years ago, for

May 8, 1980
Energy Policy
example, when his colleagues took their first faltering steps toward the fiscal chasm on which they are now hovering.
Unless they change their ways, Mr. Speaker, and face up to the problems as did the hon. member for St. John's West in his budget of last December, the Apocalypse will be upon us. I do not expect that they will change because the same Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are back at the helm. I speak of the Minister of Finance, I speak of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and, of course, 1 cannot leave out the Prime Minister. The same old bunch, the same old bankrupt methods, and the same old pork-barrelling thrust.
So bad is the situation, so bankrupt the government of policy that the minister did not even dare to bring in a real honest-to-God budget. He favoured the House with a poor, misshapen, ill-conceived, tortured, whimpering excrescence that he tried to pass off as a budget-a performance that not even all his artfulness could accomplish. He brought it in by the back door, sir. He snuck it in in a way that would attract the least attention during the debate on the address when it would attract the least notice. He parked the baby on the doorstep and stole away into the night, leaving for Europe by the first plane, but not before he trampled the rights of Parliament by denying debate on money measures. We are used to that kind of conduct, though.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 hate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: More.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a first performance it is unexcelled in budgetary history. Presumably on the next go-around the minister will simply sit in his office and issue a directive which the House will be expected to follow. With the electronic progress we have made in this place it will probably come to us through the earphones rather than the House being graced by his presence.
They have started issuing legislative decrees, as was pointed out the other day by Eugene Forsey. This same attitude of benevolent disdain is shown by this government in coming to grips with the oil crisis, a difficult thing for a government to do at any time, and particularly difficult for a government already as slippery as the present government. As my friend, the hon. member for St. John's West says, they are as "slippery as a cod's tongue in a barrelful of cod livers."
Once again we see the same old Liberal policy, the same old shell game of appointing several people to be responsible in the same area so that no one knows where the real responsibility lies. I suggest it lies at the door of the Prime Minister. We
have a minister of energy but he is not responsible for pipelines. They are the responsibility of another gentleman who is in the other place and cannot be questioned in this House. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has a piece of the action when he is not sweating it out or too occupied with Chrysler as he is every day, all day. We wonder when that decision is going to be made.
Is it any wonder with all these crooks-excuse me, cooks, that the energy broth has become a bubbling stew of inapplicable policies and ineffective programs?
Where is the minister of energy now? What is he up to? He is a brooding figure in his seat, day after day-mum and out of touch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11) the proceedings on this motion have expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I just want to confirm some arrangements for tomorrow. To bring the House up to date, I have had discussions with the House leaders on the other side about private members' hour. Not too many of the private members' bills have been circulated and distributed yet. Those who have their bills printed are either unwilling or unable to proceed tomorrow. We were hoping to proceed with motions at one point and there were discussions about continuing with government business until five o'clock. I was wondering if we could have some general agreement reached as to whether or not that is the agreed course of action for tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we had explored that point. I think it might be best that this, being the first of private members' hours, that private members' business could be dealt with tomorrow rather than going to government business. Since the private bills are not ready, I understand it is the rule that we could move to motions. I know of at least one motion that is ready, and there are perhaps others that would be ready to proceed tomorrow so that private members' hour would not be wasted.
I believe it is important that private members of the House do have an opportunity to express themselves on their own matters, and we ought to preserve that right. That is the attitude that I have taken in discussing the matter.
I did explore the matter of going on with government business, but it was felt that we should preserve as much as we could of the private members' hour. This is one way that we
May 8, 1980

might be able to do it, so there would be a private member's motion ready to be heard tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion is that private members' hour tomorrow should deal with private members' motions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreed, then perhaps tomorrow before eleven o'clock we could let the House leaders know which motion will be called, after consultation in the normal way with those persons whose names stand on the order paper under motions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is quite acceptable, and I want to thank the parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago I asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) about the situation with regard to two very important projects to the economy of Nova Scotia, namely, Michelin Tire expansion, and aid to Sysco. I see my friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) is here in the chamber tonight and I see that he shares my concern although he has been strangely quiet about expressing the same kind of concern that he did when he sat on this side of the House, but I guess that is understandable.
The Minister of Finance sat mute in his seat and permitted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Harquail) to assure the House that there would be an announcement made very shortly. Enough time has elapsed, about three weeks, that I feel compelled to underscore, once again, the importance of this particular situation not only to the province of Nova Scotia but to the Canadian economy.
I want to take this opportunity also to express my confidence in and my admiration for the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), a man of sensitivity and a man who, I truly believe, has the interests of all parts of Canada foremost in his mind. As I say, I want to take this first
Adjournment Debate
opportunity to assure him of my good will and support in this regard.
Unfortunately, 1 cannot express the same admirable sentiments when it comes to the attitude and the past record of the Minister of Finance who has had, for a period of ten years, the opportunity as a member of the government of this country, and as a minister from Nova Scotia, to do something. Instead of that he and the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), the former premier of Nova Scotia for nearly a decade, were not part of the solution, they were part of the problem.
However, dealing first with Michelin, may I just put on the record that this is a very important project. To all intents and purposes it was a fait accompli early last winter. There really has been no valid reason for the delay in the confirmation of this very important project which not only will assure that Nova Scotia will be pre-eminent in the field of radial tire technology but, indeed, will ensure a vital stake for Canada in this particularly important industry. The fact that certain parts of Ontario are having difficulty with their segment of the rubber industry certainly should be no reason for anyone to try to deny the obvious merit of proceeding with the Michelin expansion in Nova Scotia. This company makes one of the finest, if not the finest, tires in the world, has fulfilled all of its commitments and should certainly, as a matter of right, be allowed to proceed with an RD1A grant which is not only perfectly in order but which should have been announced weeks ago.
If the government does not wish to proceed on that basis it could certainly proceed under the aegis of a subagreement under the general development agreement between the province and the Government of Canada. So I can only reiterate my hope that the government will get on with this job and stop the delay which is only costing employment and economic impetus to the province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, dealing with the Sysco situation, this again is vital to the Nova Scotia economy. On its success rests not only the economic well-being of Cape Breton Island but also the viability of a large industry in Trenton, Nova Scotia, employing some 2,000 people. The Minister of Finance, as a Cape Bretoner, ought to know that delay is the deadliest form of denial. He participated in this tactic for, as I say, almost a decade together with Tom Kent who was probably the most incompetent manager that any large corporation ever had, setting the cause of Sysco back for a decade instead of modernizing and building upon the foundation which existed in 1970 when the government of Nova Scotia had previously, for various reasons, to take over this corporation and which was then producing about a million tons of steel every year under the same chief executive officer who has now come back to try to resuscitate it after ten years of neglect. Instead of doing something at that time, the government continued to obfuscate and delay. Mr. Speaker, there is ample precedent for the Government of Canada doing something immediately to take this economic burden off the province of Nova Scotia. We

May 8, 1980
Adjournment Debate
have the St. Lawrence Seaway reorganization and consolidation of debt; we have the Air Canada situation where a similar burden was lifted, and Nova Scotia deserves at least the kind of economic consideration that wealthier parts of this country have enjoyed from this government.
I see my time has almost elapsed in this brief adjournment debate. May I simply say to the government opposite: Get on with the job. Our government was doing something about it. The government had ten years to do something about it, and since taking office again it looks as if we are back to the same old empty promises exemplified by the grandiose Gabarouse project that the Deputy Prime Minister ate off for years with no results for anyone.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, the present government shares the concern of the hon. member in respect of the future of the Sydney Steel Corporation in Cape Breton and the possibility of additional manufacturing and related activity in Nova Scotia by Michelin Tires (Canada) Limited.
The hon. member is well aware that this government wrote the first significant subsidiary agreement for assistance to the Sydney Steel Corporation in December of 1977, with total commitments close to $20 million. Further significant federal commitment to the Sydney Steel Corporation was made in April, 1979, but was not acted upon by either the province of Nova Scotia or the Government of Canada which assumed power after May 22, 1979. Since that time the circumstances which led to the federal commitment to Sysco have changed considerably. The company and the province decided not to enter into a long-term billets contract with Tree Island Steel Company of British Columbia, and the government of Nova Scotia primarily withdrew from further consideration of comprehensive joint studies which had been made to examine viable future options for the company. 1 am, however, optimistic that Canada and Nova Scotia will resume serious examination of viable future long-term solutions for Sysco.
I have to remind the hon. member, of course, that the Sydney Steel Corporation is a provincial Crown corporation and that decisions as to the future of the corporation are in large part dictated by the objectives of the government of Nova Scotia. 1 can say, however, that I do not believe that short-term remedies for Sysco which have been proposed from time to time constitute the right way to go about solving the problems of the company.
I understand that the province of Nova Scotia presented a proposal to the previous administration in January of this year. No action was taken at that time. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated to the House, he has discussed the Sysco situation with Premier Buchanan at a meeting on April 11 in Halifax and in other telephone conversations. He has also indicated to the House today that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) and other members of the government are prepared to sit down with the government of Nova Scotia at any time to consider
concrete plans which will have some prospect of ensuring a viable future for the provincially-owned steel plant at Sydney. He emphasized that any federal contribution will need to be placed in the context of a plan that is based on a viable production, sales and marketing program which can also provide an assurance of the longer term future of Sysco.


ENERGY-PROTECTION OF LOWER-INCOME GROUPS FROM SEVERE PRICE INCREASES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, we are now at a critical stage in the history of the maritime provinces. New Brunswick, for example, faces grave threats to its economic and social well-being and also significant opportunities to escape some of its chronic difficulties. In 1979-80 it achieved the dubious distinction of having half its provincial revenues derived from Ottawa-a landmark of dependency already passed by Prince Edward Island and soon to be reached by Nova Scotia. Moreover, rising energy costs threaten New Brunswick's single most important industry, the forestry sector, for its mills are substantially more energy-intensive than competitors elsewhere; this at a time when disease control and plant modernization are also urgent. Because social benefits reversed the net migration out of New Brunswick during the 1970s-a good thing in itself-the province has a high unemployment rate despite a respectable record of job creation.
In fact New Brunswick is just now experiencing what most other provinces began adjusting to some time ago-an increasing number of job seekers, especially women, with high educational qualifications and career aspirations to match.
There is one other major obstacle to maritime economic recovery which has been part of our condition for so long we have almost stopped treating it as a problem. If New Brunswick is to have significant manufacturing beyond the processing of its own most skilled and enterprising citizens, then it must identify and develop external markets, and it must have technologies suited to local circumstances. But large companies based outside the region have little reason to invest in such marketing or research and development, and most local companies can seldom afford it.
Those opportunities which must be seized relate mostly to energy. In terms of supply, there are several possibilities for reversing our growing and dangerous reliance on imported oil-dangerous for all of Canada because the country is already subsidizing New Brunswick alone to the tune of about $1 million a day. For Atlantic Canada as a whole, the figure is now well over $3 million.
Expanded hydroelectric capacity, including the harnassing of Fundy tidal power, is the most attractive source because such energy will never run out. We hear mutterings about the prohibitive cost of Fundy power but, as the cost of fossil fuels skyrockets and as we compare estimates for this kind of development with the projected investment in tar sands projects, we are entitled to wonder why the investigation of Fundy has been so slow.
May 8, 1980

We should also be thinking of a regional power grid and drawing on plentiful, distant sources, such as the still underdeveloped potential of the lower Churchill Falls in Labrador. New Brunswick's commitment to nuclear energy has been made in the form of Point Lepreau, which will begin to provide from 20 per cent to 30 per cent of provincial electric requirements next year. The ideal solution for pulp and paper mills is, of course, to convert wood residue to useful energy. Apart from the saving in imported oil, this would be a stimulus for new forest management techniques on both farmlands and private woodlots. Coal and thermal peat have technological obstacles to be overcome, but these resources also exist in abundance.
The question of natural gas is a distinctly two-sided one. There are enormous potential gains for New Brunswick. The Petro-Canada proposal to ship liquefied natural gas from the Arctic to an east coast port, where it would be gasified and piped to central Canadian markets, as well as the more immediate Q and M and TransCanada proposals to ship western gas eastward until Arctic resources are available-all these would command substantial activity. Q and M alone forecasts 5,500 man years over a three-year period.
The availability of natural gas opens up numerous industrial possibilities, including materials for the conversion of users to gas from other forms of energy, plastic pipe for the transmission of gas, and the production of New Brunswick's newly exploited potash resources.
The greatest opportunity of all, however, is for the expansion of Saint John's shipbuilding facilities in order to build liquid natural gas carriers. Experts are agreed that if a proposed two-phase, $50-million program to lengthen and widen the inner dry dock goes ahead, the port's permanent ice-free condition and other modern facilities will make it a strong competitor for vessel contracts.
The danger in natural gas development is long term and controllable, but only if we keep sight of it amidst the present enthusiasm. Gas is a non-renewable resource; the maritimes must learn from their mistake with oil and not become heavily dependent on another vanishing commodity. Natural gas consumption must be treated primarily as a transitional phase, with conservation and non-depleting forms of energy as the ultimate answers.
The previous government demonstrated, in the short time allowed it by the Liberals and their western surrogates, that it understood the problems and the need for immediate, comprehensive action.
Virtually every reputable economic authority in and outside the country, not to mention previous Liberal ministers of finance and energy, recognized that there could be no successful conservation campaign and no adequate development of alternate energy sources, until oil prices began rising toward realistic levels. The proposed energy bank was precisely the kind of mechanism through which research and conversion could be financed in the maritimes, and it would have provided
Adjournment Debate
the impetus, finally, to activate the Maritime Energy Corporation as the basis for a co-ordinated, long-term regional strategy. The budget also recognized the need to cushion the impact of oil price increases during the period of transition, hence both the shelter allowance and the subsidy for oil-generated electricity.
For an average maritime family of four driving 12,000 miles a year, getting 20 miles per gallon for gas and earning under $21,000 a year, the energy tax credit of $80 per adult and $30 per child would have amounted to $220-and fully compensated for the 18-cent excise increase and $4 a barrel price increase. Whatever the government's eventual position on oil pricing, I recommend that special consideration like this be given Canadians in the lower and middle income brackets, and that a goal of energy self-sufficiency stress development of our indigenous energy sources.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, when the minister responded to the questions from the hon. member for York Sunbury (Mr. Howie), he explained that he was in the process of negotiating with the producing provinces on oil prices and, until that process was completed, he would not know the extent to which the new price structure might impose a burden on the Atlantic provinces. It could be said with certainty, however, that the impact of a price increase would have been much greater under the planned budget of the previous government. In fact, the price increase this year will be less than half of what it would have been under the Tories.
The government is examining Atlantic provinces needs in the context of the over-all energy strategy now being developed. Specific programs can only be worked out, however, when revenues that will be available to the federal government are known, and this information must await a determination of oil price conditions. The very considerable assistance that has been provided to the Atlantic provinces in relation to oil costs should not be forgotten.
Over the years the federal government has provided assistance in a variety of ways to assist the maritime provinces in meeting their electricity requirements. The assistance dates from the early 1960s when funds were provided under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. More recently support has been provided through federal loans to aid New Brunswick in construction of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, and Nova Scotia through funds to advance construction on the second coal-fired thermal generating unit at the Lingan coal mine. Prince Edward Island has been assisted through the construction of the interconnecting cable providing lower cost electrical energy from its neighbouring provinces. Assistance to Newfoundland is being provided through the Lower Churchill Development Corporation leading to proposals for hydroelectric development in Labrador and related electrical transmissions systems.
The federal government is strongly committed to the Maritime Energy Corporation as a means of achieving a co-opera-

May 8, 1980
Adjournment Debate
tive effort in the planning and development of efficient electrical distribution throughout the maritime provinces. The federal government stands ready to provide financial support to this broader degree of regional co-operation and planning as soon as the maritime provinces reach a consensus on a procedure that would permit the necessary co-ordination. Any further studies of the Bay of Fundy tidal power must await the establishment of the Maritime Energy Corporation in accordance with a memorandum of understanding signed by the three maritime governments and the federal government in February, 1979.
1 should like to remind hon. members of the huge amount of assistance that has been provided to residents of the Atlantic provinces, in respect of oil price increases, by way of the oil import compensation program. During the past six years the people of the Atlantic provinces have benefited from this program to the extent of about $2.5 billion, or approximately $1,100 per person over a six-year period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the time allotted for the hon. parliamentary secretary has expired.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ALLEGED ILLEGALITIES COMMITTED BY MEMBERS OF FORCE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this evening to raise some very serious questions concerning the RCMP operation Checkmate, the McDonald commission, and the role of the Liberal government to date in these matters. I might add that unfortunately the Conservative party in this Parliament has been totally silent, both inside and outside the House, on these important points concerning the responsibilities of the government to uphold the rule of law in this country.
Operation Checkmate, which was disclosed on April 19 and 20, made reference to a number of illegal operations carried out under the guise of disruptive measures pursuant to the alleged mandate of the RCMP security service. The concern that I have on this question is that if we are to respect the principle that there cannot be one law for the RCMP and another law for the rest of Canadians-and surely this must be a cardinal principle under our system of law in this country- where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, either criminal wrongdoing or under another federal statute, it is incumbent upon the government to prosecute that wrongdoing.
Of course, we have seen where there are prosecutions in some cases that the courts will consider the circumstances in arriving at a sentence, such as in the case of Superintendent Cobb who was given an absolute discharge in connection with the APLQ break-in. Unfortunately, the attitude of this government, however, appears to be not one of upholding the concept of the rule of law, but rather saying that if certain actions to date on the part of the RCMP have been illegal, if the RCMP have been breaking the law, then we must change the law. That appears to be the concept of the Liberal government, and that is a concept which we on this side of the House reject.
I would point only to the example of mail opening. We have seen a succession of evidence of illegal mail opening, many instances of mail opening, and the response of the government. The hasty response of the new Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has been: well, perhaps what we should be doing, then, is changing the law to make this very serious invasion of our privacy legal. Once again, we reject that response to this question.
There are a number of remedies which the government can consider in dealing with violations of the law by the RCMP. Basically there are three such remedies. First, there is a question of prosecution either by provincial attorneys general or by the federal attorney general. Of course, the question of jurisdiction was one of the questions which arose in my exchange with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 21.
It is clearly beyond any doubt under criminal law in this country that the federal government has the responsibility and, indeed, the exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute under federal statutes such as the Post Office Act or the Income Tax Act. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has left open the question as to whether the federal government has jurisdiction to prosecute under the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, of course, in the Hauser decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Prosecution is one remedy that is available.
A second remedy is disciplinary proceedings against those members of the RCMP who have been found to have violated the law, and thirdly there is the question of civil action by those persons or groups who have been aggrieved by the illegal actions of the RCMP. This is a time-consuming and expensive method of proceeding on these wrongdoings, however.
The significant factor in all of these cases of wrongdoing today is that there has not been a single charge, not a single prosecution in respect of any of these wrongdoings. It is that fact which is causing very serious questions to arise in the minds of Canadians as to the desire of this government and its predecessor to uphold the rule of law in this country.
We have seen a series of offences under the Criminal Code; forgery, breaking and entering, theft and impersonation. 1 suggest it is encumbent upon this government not to hide behind the smokescreen of the McDonald commission, but to proceed to show Canadians that where the law is violated there is a responsibility on the part of the government to prosecute under that law, and that there is one law for all Canadians.
We in the New Democratic Party expressed serious concern at the time of the formation of the McDonald commission, in a number of areas, including the limited terms of reference of this commission and its failure to have any mandate to look at the question of political accountability of the security service. We were frankly concerned about the political background of a number of the commissioners and, indeed, of some of the senior staff, and that was a background of active involvement in the Liberal party.
We are concerned that the RCMP must not be allowed to be made scapegoats if the responsibility for their illegal actions
May 8, 1980

lies higher up in the political chain. The commission has been going for approximately three years, and at every instance when the illegal actions of the RCMP have been disclosed we have been told by members of the government that we will have to await the outcome of that commission.
We say that the time has come to act. The Prime Minister has indicated that he intends to await the outcome of the commission report. We say, based on the record of the commission so far, and based particularly on the record of the commission in its first report on the Official Secrets Act, that we have very little cause for optimism, indeed, that this report will not be satisfactory to deal with the concerns we have in this area.
In closing I would like to say that there are two major points on which we would like some clarification. The first is, are the disruptive measures which were used by the RCMP in operation Checkmate still authorized under the mandate of the security service today, and are they being carried out? Secondly, as I asked the Prime Minister, what happened to the files which were destroyed pertaining to operation Checkmate, and who authorized that destruction?
There are many other serious questions in this area of the RCMP and the law, and I am sure that in the days ahead they will be raised.


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


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, as both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) have stated, it is not the policy of the government to comment on the day to day proceedings of the commission of inquiry. This includes the details of operation Checkmate and the destruction of associated files, which matter is also under investigation by the commission.
It can be said, however, that it is the Solicitor General's policy, as it has been of his immediate predecessors, to direct the framework of the law. As for the future, the government is considering future arrangements to govern the activities of the
Adjournment Debate
RCMP, and in this regard the government hopes that the forthcoming report of the commission of inquiry will be useful.
The laying of charges is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, but a unique prerogative of the attorneys general, federal and provincial, depending on the nature of the case. However, Mr. Justice McDonald has clearly indicated that he would prefer any such action to await his report, and in view of the fact that he is committed to report during the summer it seems reasonable to give the commission this opportunity.
The government recognizes that the provincial attorneys general are fully responsible to determine what action they should take and when it should be taken. The Solicitor General has offered consultations to them, and two provincial attorneys general have taken up his offer, as a result of which further information under his control will be provided to them. In the event, however, that any of the attorneys general seek access to the in-camera transcripts of the proceedings of the commission, it should be borne in mind that the commissioners have taken position that the control of such material is theirs exclusively. Accordingly, in such circumstances it would be necessary for the Solicitor General to discuss any such requests with the commissioners.
The commission itself established rules that determine who is authorized to have access to the transcripts of its in-camera proceedings. The Government of Canada has access to such transcripts, but for it to circulate the information further would in the view of the commissioners, be contrary to the rules of the commission, If, however, any of the attorneys general involved decide to make formal representations to the Solicitor General to secure access to the in-camera transcripts, the Solicitor General is prepared to discuss the matter further with the commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, May 9, 1980