1980-11-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I move an urgent and pressing motion under Standing Order 43 with regard to a deal entered into between the Government of Canada and the Soviet Union to provide a low interest loan of $180 million so as to facilitate the production and expedition of Siberian coal to world markets. Having regard to the real difficulties experienced by coal producers and provincial governments in western Canada in putting in place the necessary infrastructure to enable coal from northeast British Columbia to compete with the coal from Siberia in world markets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the government, through the Minister of Transport, immediately reopen negotiations with British Columbia offering no less than the same terms of financing negotiated with the Soviet Union to put in place the rail and port facilities which would facilitate the shipment of northeast coal to world markets.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas U.S. coals used in acid rain areas in Ontario contain 5 per cent or more sulphur content, and whereas Lethbridge coal and East Coulee coal contain only .05 per cent or less sulphur content, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to promote the use of low-sulphur Canadian coals in Ontario, which will reduce the acid rain problem and provide employment for Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the application of the unemployment insurance program in the Windsor area. Considering that unemployment is currently running at 13.7 per cent of the work force, as recorded by Statistics Canada, yet the Department of Manpower and Immigration continues to use an unemployment figure of 11.3 per cent which results in a greater hardship on workers applying for unemployment insurance benefits, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture, all of whom represent the hard working people of Windsor, to take time from their other grandiose activities and remember their responsibilities to the people of the Windsor area, and to meet with their colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to straighten out the administration of the unemployment insurance benefits in the Windsor area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move as follows. Whereas the economic slump occasioned by the ill-conceived Liberal budget of October 28 has driven the Canadian dollar below 84 cents U.S., accompanied yesterday by tailspin losses on stock markets across Canada in the wake of the prospects

November 25, 1980
of yet even higher interest rates, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That credible measures be taken to stabilize Canadian interest rates at a level consistent with sustained economic growth, rather than blindly following the Liberal policy of high and accelerating interest rates necessitated by the government's utter failure to combat inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY AND INVESTMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Since October 28, 1980, the Canadian dollar has continued to slide, slide and slide, despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spent 12 days in his Middle East tour courting wealth and oil and whatever else in the Arab world. Yesterday the dollar closed at below 84 cents, the lowest level for a considerable time. The projections concerning inflation were based on the dollar being 86 cents during 1980, 87.5 cents during 1981 and 88 cents during 1982. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government introduce new measures forthwith to improve productivity and the investment, climate in Canada so as to restore confidence in our currency.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH RESOURCES FUND
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing necessity affecting the promotion and funding of educational institutions of national importance and significance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House request the government to allocate additional revenues to the health resources fund so that federal contributions toward the funding of a school of optometry in Alberta and a college of veterinary medicine in the Atlantic region will be made in the near future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This morning the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy-not exactly an NDP think tank-released a study called the "Energy Squeeze", which foresees an energy shortfall within the next 20 years. In Bruce Wilson's opening statement, he slams the national energy policy and says, first, that the program does not refute the myth that energy self-sufficiency can be achieved simply by raising prices; second, that as a consequence of such arbitrary price increases the level of foreign ownership in the Canadian economy will grow substantially-not go down; and third, that the program is highly inflationary, offering substantial price increases for domestic oil and gas production, thereby creating huge and unnecessary financial windfalls relative to today's known reserves, such windfalls to be paid by and for the Canadian consumer.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this government immediately implement the New Democratic Party energy policy by taking under public ownership Imperial Oil, Shell and Texaco; and secondly, that the federal government begin an industrial strategy or an industrial restructuring in this country that this report indicates is badly needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENTS-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Wheat Board is currently offering number one red spring wheat for sale at prices in excess of $7 and durum for $9 per bushel, and the initial payment to farmers is only $4.25 and $5 respectively. So far in the current crop year the Wheat Board has sold almost three-quarters of a million tonnes more than it has accepted in deliveries from farmers. The resulting reduction in inventory means that the Canadian Wheat Board is unfairly holding considerable moneys that belong to farmers. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
November 25, 1980

That the government immediately instruct the Canadian Wheat Board to increase the initial payments for spring wheat by $1.50 per bushel and for durum wheat by $2 per bushel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great urgency to the New Democratic Party. In view of the fact that the provincial treasurer for the British Columbia NDP has complained that 19 of 28 federal NDP constituencies have not paid their bills for the last two elections to the party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the NDP member for Mission-Port Moody strike a committee to approach their Liberal bedmates with the view of obtaining some watered down corporate funds, or make a direct appeal to Tommy Douglas and the board of the multinational Husky Oil Company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: The Liberal Party of Canada is offering a "maple leaf pin" as, and I quote, "Our gift to you", to those who make a contribution of more than $30 to the Liberal bagmen, when in fact maple leaf pins are available to every Canadian free of charge through the Canadian unity office or the Secretary of State. I move, seconded by the member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the government instruct its party headquarters to remove the reference to the maple leaf lapel pin forthwith from their funding campaign and thus prevent any stigma from being attached to patriotic Canadians who display this ancient emblem of Canada on their lapels and do not wish to be considered as donors to Liberal party coffers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday this House unanimously urged the minister to consult with the Italian government in order to consider ways in which we might provide special and immediate help to the victims of the devastating earthquake in the Naples-Saler-no area of southern Italy. Can the minister tell us whether he has consulted with the Italian government and whether in fact there is some plan to bring forward an aid program greater than the one described yesterday to the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is unavoidably absent for the time being, but he should be in the House in a few moments. I am sure that if the hon. member waits until he comes before putting his question, he will obtain an answer.


Mr. Nielsen:: Who is the acting minister?


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now arrived. Perhaps I could now ask my question directly of him; he is a little better than the parliamentary secretary on these matters, I am sure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not much.


John William Bosley: Perhaps I could repeat the question for the minister, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, as the minister well knows, this House passed unanimously a motion requesting the government to consider special and pressing assistance for the victims of the Naples-Salerno earthquake. Can the minister tell this House whether he has had a conversation with representatives of the Italian government? If so, is he prepared to tell us what aid he is planning over and above the commitment he made yesterday to the hon. member for Saint-Denis?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I spoke twice this morning with the Italian ambassador. In between times he communicated with

November 25, 1980
Oral Questions
his government in Rome. I have also communicated with the Italian-Canadian committee, which is about to raise funds to assist the earthquake victims in Italy. I believe the sum of $100,000, which I announced yesterday, has already been transmitted by the Canadian Red Cross to the Italian Red Cross. I gave the Italian-Canadian committee the assurance that we would also be making a further contribution to that committee when the full extent of the need was known.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the minister will know full well that the motion yesterday outlined a number of other matters that might be regarded by him as appropriate. I appreciate that the question period is a difficult time to explain all these things in detail. However, could we have a commitment from the minister that he will make a statement on motions outlining the total plan of relief which is proposed, preferably today but, if not, tomorrow, specifically with regard to the other matters raised in the motion?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 will certainly give a commitment to the House that in one form or another I will make the plan public. However, I suspect that tomorrow will be too soon. Unfortunately, the Italians are still discovering new dimensions to this great catastrophe and the dreadful death toll is still mounting. It will be some days before the full extent of the tragedy is known and the kind of assistance that we might give can appropriately be decided.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I wish to refer specifically to one matter raised in the motion. I think we all know that as the tragedy unfolds the numbers coming in climb higher and higher each day. I appreciate the minister's dilemma on that. However, last year as the government we gave consideration to and introduced a program of airlifts to the earthquake victims in the Azores. A community in Canada was trying to help them and regarded the airlift program as particularly useful in making sure that the necessary aid got there. Yesterday the minister said that he would prefer not to use such a program. Can we have from him a statement today that he will reconsider his commitment yesterday to help only with cash? As well, can he give some undertaking that the airlift program which was used last year will also be used in this program?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it may be that there will be the need for an airlift program if certain medical supplies or eventually building supplies have to be sent to Italy from Canada.
I might reiterate the point 1 made yesterday-and I might say that the Italian government feels this very strongly as well-that it will not be very useful, especially in the early days, if people in Canada start collecting goods to send to Italy. What they need is money. That is the view of the Italian government as well as of this government.


CONSULTATIONS WITH ITALIAN-CANADIAN GROUPS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister will know of large gatherings of Italian-Canadians in Toronto and Hamilton last night and the very real emotion expressed in those cities which will be reflected in Italian-Canadian communities across the country. The minister said he had been in touch with the Italian-Canadian committee. Is the government planning to be in touch with other organizations such as the Italian congress? Did the government have a representative at either of the meetings in Hamilton or Toronto last night? In any event, since the motion stipulates that the government consult with the many Canadians who are able and willing to render assistance, how will the minister consult with the many concerned people in this country in the days ahead?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is always a difficult question to know how to consult a body of citizens in our country which has a number of different representative organizations. The broadest organization that we are aware of at the moment is the one that Dr. Leone has been speaking for in Toronto and Senator Rizzuto is connected with. Initially, at least, our contacts have been with that group. I will be consulting my colleague, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, with whom I have the closest of relations, as to what other groups would be appropriate to consult with.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The minister will know there have been concerns in some cases in the past where money has not reached the people in the proper way. What assurances can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give those Canadians who wish to respond in an urgent and generous manner that their donations will get to where they are intended and where we all would wish.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we will certainly do our best to see that that will happen. I am told that although suspicions were raised with respect to the previous catastrophe in Italy, the considered judgment now is that all the money was well dispensed. Certainly we will do our best to keep a close eye on that.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING RESTRUCTURING OF ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: My
question is for the Prime Minister. Welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: In light of the Prime Minister's sudden interest in addressing North-South issues and in light of his remarks in Paris yesterday that he would like to see a change
November 25, 1980

in emphasis from traditional development assistance to a restructuring of international economic and other institutions, will he tell the House whether his government is now planning to give detailed attention to tariffs, industrial conversion, International Monetary Fund rules and other national and international economic restructuring measures?


An hon. Member:: Dance around that one, Pierre.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 am afraid I do not have an answer to that one, Pierre. I have been discussing this subject for a few years now, notwithstanding what the hon. lady says. I refer to a speech 1 made at Mansion House when 1 became a freeman of the city of London some three or four years ago.
This is not a new idea and I am not the originator of it. I think it is a matter for all of us to understand that the debate between the North and South is more a question of power sharing than the solving of any particular problem, either by way of aid or changes in tariff structures such as the hon. lady refers to. Tariffs and quotas are something, of course, that have been discussed at the summits which 1 have attended. They have been the object of decisions by this government and other governments and are constantly under review with the intention of keeping in balance the need to adjust our economies and prevent too great rises of unemployment at a given time, at the same time respecting the Third World countries' desire to gain increasing markets in the developed world.
These are not matters I can discuss in an answer during question period but 1 would be happy to participate in any debate that the opposition parties would want to have on perhaps one of the opposition days.


Pauline Jewett: The Prime Minister says this is not a matter for the question period, yet it was a matter for a press conference in Paris where he explicitly stated that he would like to see a de-emphasis on development assistance and a greater emphasis on restructuring economic institutions. Therefore, I would like to know what the government is definitely planning to do, since that was a clear question at the press conference. In that connection, could 1 ask the Prime Minister whether or not he is aware the Secretary of State for External Affairs said publicly last week that he had told cabinet that "unless we increase official development aid we will be under increased pressure to move on other points" to redress the North-South situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that it was the subject of a press conference. It was a question which was asked of me and which I attempted to answer in good faith, as I am attempting to answer her questions. I did not plan then and do not plan today to review in detail the many measures that this government is preparing for. We hope to make a presentation at the summit in Ottawa next July. My aim at this stage is not to convince the hon. lady that we are doing well; it is to try to ensure that the seven participants of
Ora! Questions
that summit in July will be able to make some progress, particularly in this year of economic difficulties for all countries. I am attempting to study a range of measures with the participants so that we can reach agreement on some of them.
In so far as the quote of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned, I see nothing objectionable to that. We have stated through his mouth and through the voice of the Minister of Finance that we want to have increased developmental assistance. That does not mean that in other areas we cannot make progress, but it does mean that we must act on both fronts at the same time.


REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he did in fact tell a group last week, as I am informed he did, that he had recommended to cabinet explicitly that if they did not in fact increase development assistance, ODA, they would be obliged to move on many of these other fronts, economic and institutional restructuring, to address the North-South issue.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I made no public statements at all on that subject. What the hon. member is suggesting seems to resemble a comment in private which is taken out of context.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for Sheik Yamani's dancing partner, the "Astaire of Arabia", the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister was away dealing with world problems, the cost of living figures in Canada rose 10.9 per cent year over year. Interest rates have increased in the Bank of Canada and the prime rates of the banks increased to 13% per cent. The Canadian dollar is down to its lowest point since February, 1979. In Ontario they had to bring in a mini-budget to compensate for the lack of economic stimulus in the federal budget. Imperial Oil cancelled their $8 billion Cold Lake heavy oil project.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. When he came back from the Bonn summit, he introduced a new program of government expenditure reduction to deal with these similar economic problems. Now that he is back from the Saudi summit, what does he propose to do about these extremely severe economic and financial problems that we are suffering from in this country, and when will he make an announcement about these?

November 25, 1980
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, the government was aware of the figures provided by the hon. member with respect to the unemployment rate as well as other economic indicators when it prepared the budget. The Minister of Finance has laid down in his budget a scenario for the economic recovery of Canada. He has taken responsible tax measures that avoid the pitfall of trying to come out too hastily from a recession and, at the same time, avoid fleecing the most deprived in our society in an attempt to control inflation. The budget is laying down the scenario for an economic recovery and we will see its results in the very near future.


LIVING STANDARDS OF CANADIANS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister, if he can get his head out of the sand. While he has been away, 36 acting prime ministers have been answering. Now that the Prime Minister is back the Canadian people expect some answers from him. They would sooner have him waltzing with Premier Lougheed than doing the moozmaad with Sheik Yamani.
While the Prime Minister was away, the Minister of Finance said that Canadians will have to accept a lower standard of living to adjust to higher energy prices. As a matter of fact, personal disposable income has dropped severely this year in real terms. Does the Prime Minister support the view of the Minister of Finance that Canadians now have to accept a lower standard of living and adjust to these higher energy prices, or does he disagree? If he agrees with the Minister of Finance, what action is he going to take so that Canadians do not have to accept a lower standard of living? When is he going to worry about the standard of living of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. It takes a moment to adjust to his vulgarity after having been associated with-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the statement attributed to the Minister of Finance. It is certain that with the very rapid rise in prices of imported petroleum there has been a transfer of real wealth from the industrialized societies to the OPEC countries. This has resulted in Canada and every other oilimporting nation having a slower growth of real income. There are some years in which certain sectors of society have even seen a standstill and a slight recession, but by and large the hon. member knows that real wealth is still growing in Canada in average terms for Canadians, and it will continue, except that I think Canadians must accept that it cannot continue to
grow as rapidly as it did before the OPEC nations caused this very large and rapid increase in oil prices.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it may be vulgar to ask the Prime Minister questions about these annoying economic problems in Canada, but the Canadian people do not think it is vulgar. They want some answers.
I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that in the battle to overcome regional disparity there has just been a report from the Economic Council of Canada that in Newfoundland, after all these years of attempts by the Prime Minister and others to overcome regional disparity, unemployment insurance is one-twelfth of the total personal income of the people of Newfoundland compared with one-fortieth in Canada. We have 53.6 per cent of the Canadian average earned income. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether there will be new initiatives to overcome these disparate figures relating to regional disadvantages in this country and renewed efforts or some new program to try to overcome domestic problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position today to announce any new programs. The hon. member knows that the programs we put in place beginning in the late sixties with the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been successful in reversing the outflow of citizens from the Atlantic region to the rest of Canada. That trend has been arrested and reversed, and we are all grateful for that. That does not mean that there are still not wide disparities in the income of Canadians, depending on the part of Canada where they happen to live and based essentially on the wealth of the resources of the particular provinces.
The hon. member is witness to the efforts of this government to redistribute this wealth through our equalization payments, which are very substantial in the case of Newfoundland and, as the hon. member also knows, to ensure that the high cost of the cartel prices imposed by OPEC do not hit Newfoundland and other provinces with the same harshness as his own budget would have seen them hit.


REPORTED LOSS OF BUYING POWER OF CANADIANS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister as well. He has just replied to my colleague that the real wealth in the country is continuing to increase. The Prime Minister may not be aware that, while he was in Saudi Arabia being lavishly entertained, Wood Gundy brought out a report on the Canadian economy pointing out that the average worker has lost 4.9 per cent in real earnings in the last three years. In total that is a loss of about $10 per week in buying power. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the average worker in this country is now $10 per week in buying power behind where he was three years ago and, if he is so aware, would he indicate what he intends to do to live up to the promises he made in the last campaign to provide jobs, spur growth and fight inflation in this country?
November 25, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked me if I am aware of this particular document. I am not. Of course, in my answer I was careful to talk about the average growth in Canada. I pointed out that there were certain sectors of society which did grow faster than others but, as a counterpoint, the hon. member himself will recall that in the first two-thirds of the last decade the return to working Canadians was in excess of the return to other classes such as farmers and, I believe, corporate profits; so there was over the decade a changing of positions by the various groups.
I realize that in the last two or three years there has been a falling behind of the wages and salaries category, but 1 repeat that they had taken a substantial advance in the earlier part of the decade. It is the policy of this government to continue to fight inflation, as it was the policy of the hon. member's own government, by trying to keep all sectors of the economy within the bounds of reasonable demands upon the wealth of Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has acknowledged to the House that there has been a real falling behind as far as average real income for the workers of Canada is concerned over the last three years. Is the Prime Minister content now to see this falling behind continue, as apparently his Minister of Finance is content, for the next year or so, or may we expect some action to live up to the Prime Minister's promise that he would spur the economy and somehow relieve Canadians from this dreadful situation of having their total net income become less and less year by year under the emperor's rule?


Erik Nielsen: He is going to wrestle inflation to the ground.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the emperor's rule has to do with this. It is the rule of economics which applies in this particular case. I remind the hon. member that the economic situation and current statistics are better than those predicted by his seatmate in his own budget. Therefore, our Minister of Finance is carrying out at least a part of his promise and performing better than the prediction of the hon. member's own seatmate.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A recent publication put out by Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company called "Energy for the Future" states that its proposal for an oil port on the Pacific coast has attracted the support of Environment Canada and Fisheries Canada. The publication of the company explains the department's lack of action to protect the west coast fishery from the threat which tanker traffic poses. In light of past claims by the minister that increased tanker traffic will adversely affect the
Oral Questions
fishery, can the minister explain to the House how it is possible for his department to support Trans Mountain at the expense of the west coast fishery?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, not having seen the article to which the hon. member referred, I can tell him that it has not attracted my support in relation to the quote he has given.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the quotation on page 9 indicates that Trans Mountain's proposal has attracted support from agencies such as Environment Canada, Fisheries Canada and the United States environmental protection agency.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Douglas Manly: Is the minister willing to demand a retraction of that statement? Will he prepare a comprehensive submission to the National Energy Board hearings in Victoria on the threat which tanker traffic poses to west coast fisheries?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the position of my department in relation to tanker traffic was very clearly made known when we in fact brought into being the Thompson inquiry which terminated when the Kitimat application was withdrawn. The hon. member knows very well that we were opposed to the Kitimat pipeline and that in fact it became a decision of the government in which the Hon. Len Marchand served as minister of the environment.
*	4	4:


ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM-CALL FOR DISCUSSIONS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council who is the government House leader. Last week under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I moved a motion which seemed to win at least majority support in the House, if not unanimous consent. It asked that some thought be given to changing the voting procedure in the House so that we might use some electronic device as is used in other chambers, particularly in the United Nations. Would the House leader consider discussing this matter with the Speaker of the House and with the leaders of the other parties to determine whether that procedure might be adopted, if not in all votes certainly in some of them?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 always look favourably upon any suggestion to modernize this institution. However, since this entails a fairly substantial expenditure, I think it would be wise to discuss the matter. As for me, I would suggest that, together

November 25, 1980
Oral Questions
with the Internal Economy Commission, you ask for a study in order to determine the cost of such a system, and if it appears reasonable, I think that such a procedure would indeed modernize this institution and improve its efficiency. However, I am sure that beforehand we would like to talk it over with our colleagues opposite.


REFERENCE OF PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is directed to the government House leader. Could he assure the House, with respect to any changes in the procedures of the House, that there will not be action only by the Commissioners of Internal Economy who represent the government, but that any matter will be put before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization which is representative of all parties in the House of Commons? After all, it is more than the government that has a stake in the operation of this House.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, while my colleague was shouting "supplementary", I was stating my intention of consulting my colleagues opposite. Perhaps he did not hear my last sentence. For the purpose of this consultation, we might use the forum provided by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That is indeed a positive suggestion which I will consider seriously.
* *
*


IMPORTATION OF OIL FROM SAUDI ARABIA-PRICE, QUALITY AND VOLUME
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. While the Prime Minister was in Saudi Arabia, he had some preliminary negotiations on the possibility of an oil contract for 100,000 barrels per day. Since the Mexican oil deal commenced we have been exposed to a number of problems, one of which is that we have no control over the quality of oil which is delivered. It is heavy oil, it is high in sulphur content, and it is very costly to refine. Also, as I understand it, we have no control over the price, volume or timing of deliveries; these are not tied down in the contract. Will these matters be tied down very tightly in any contract negotiated with the Saudis so that we are not exposed to the problems of pricing, quality and volumes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that there were no negotiations on that subject in Saudi Arabia while I was there.
It was a very simple matter of the minister responsible for petroleum in Saudi Arabia offering to sell to Canada some given quantity or variable quantity of oil on terms which would be negotiated if we were interested. I merely told him that it was a very kind offer, that I would report to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and particularly to the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, and that they would establish contact on the kinds of conditions about which the hon. member has asked. At that stage it was an informal offer by a minister. The government itself made no approach to us, nor have we made an approach.
Discussions are now going on within the department of energy to see if we can usefully make a contract on this offer of petroleum. If so, we will make a formal request and the negotiations would begin through the good offices of Petro-Canada.


IMPORTATION OF OIL FROM MEXICO-INQUIRY WHETHER CANADIAN OIL DISPLACED
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder whether he could comment on the general thrust of my question. Will these factors be tied down and, more specifically, would he assure the House that with the Mexican contract we are not purchasing oil for delivery in Montreal which is displacing the oil produced in western Canada and sold in the United States market? Is the western Canadian oil which has been produced being displaced by the Mexican oil? If so, is it being sold in the U.S. market, or is it being left in the ground?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am advised that western heavy oil has not been displaced by the importation of Mexican oil.


INQUIRY RESPECTING TOTAL IMPORTATION OF OIL FROM SAUDI ARABIA
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates also to the discussion with, or the offer of, the Saudis to supply 100,000 barrels per day of their crude oil. My question is prompted by confusing press reports. Was the offer of 100,000 barrels per day in addition to the existing purchases of roughly 200,000 barrels per day from that country?
Would the Prime Minister also take the opportunity to confirm, if the offer was for an additional supply, that it will increase our reliance upon that country from the present 50 per cent of all foreign purchases to roughly 60 per cent? In other words, we would be dependent upon the Saudis for roughly 60 per cent of our offshore purchases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must ask the indulgence of the House to place this matter in context. I did not go to Saudi Arabia with the intention of negotiating, or even with the authorization to negotiate, a heavy oil deal. I believe what happened is that the
November 25, 1980

Saudi government, wanting to make a gesture of friendship toward Canada, simply made the suggestion through its petroleum minister at one point toward the end of my visit. He said, "If you people are interested in state to state deals, we would be prepared to consider up to 100,000 barrels a day".
Mir. Jarvis: In addition?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 cannot say if it is in addition. I asked the minister whether this would necessarily displace imports coming from other sources, namely, the multinationals, or whether this would be in addition. He indicated a very relaxed attitude on this, and I had the impression that if we wanted to have the oil in addition, we could. But I am not absolutely certain that the minister of energy would want to proceed in this way. That is why I merely took note of the offer, thanked the minister and said that we would be in touch if, indeed, we wanted to embark upon a state to state deal with Saudi Arabia.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I understand it in that context and I understand the Prime Minister's expression of gratitude to Saudi Arabia, and I think he went on to say particularly because our country regards Saudi Arabia as a secure source of supply. Setting aside the chronic danger of that region of the Middle East, given its history of being politically unstable, and setting aside the fact that one act of terrorism or sabotage in the straits leading to the Persian Gulf could result in a severe interruption of oil supply, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister if, in fact, it is his and his government's view that Saudi Arabia is a secure source of supply? I hope I have not misquoted the Prime Minister, but I particularly ask him that in light of the fact that a change in the current regime, or even a realignment within the Royal Family, as he knows, could result in substantial changes in oil policy, and also given the fact that an eruption of tensions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which hopefully will not occur, could result in extremely serious supply interruption from Saudi Arabia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Doomsday scenario spelt out by the hon. member would apply whether they sell us 100,000 barrels of oil-


William Herbert Jarvis: It is not a Doomsday scenario for the maritimes and Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member let me answer his question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The scenario spelt out by the hon. member-


William Herbert Jarvis: It is not Doomsday-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would you let me answer, please?


William Herbert Jarvis: It is very unfair of you to say that; it was a fair question.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The scenario spelt out by the hon. member having to do with possible supply interruptions and disruptions, and so on, is irrespective of whether or not we buy an extra 100,000 barrels a day. We are, as the hon. member pointed out in his first question, highly dependent on Saudi oil now, and if that supply is going to be interrupted we will, indeed, be short of oil. Whether we are short that extra 100,000 barrels or not seems to me to be a very secondary question. If there is an interruption of supply from Saudi Arabia we will, indeed, be in a difficult situation in Canada. But I cannot see how the hon. member could argue that therefore we should not, if it is advantageous to Canada, seek to obtain more.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When are you going to go to Edmonton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is something that may or may not take place-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Secure our real supply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the NDP wanting to get into the act, Madam Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When are you going to go to Edmonton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize to hon. members but I must absent myself from the House for reasons which are known to their House leader. I apologize that I cannot take any supplementary questions at this time, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: One final supplementary, Madam Speaker.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. In 1974 this government spent $10 million on its multiculturalism program while the 1980-81 estimates call for $9.4 million. In view of the minister's complaint that there has never been sufficient political commitment to building a multicultural society, and considering the minister's promise to get the whole government working toward a multicultural society, how does the minister reconcile this low level of funding with his statements?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot confirm the figures for 1974. I do know that for the last fiscal year under the previous government the amount was somewhere in the range of $9.4 million and that the cabinet has approved a $1.7 million increase, despite serious restraints, recognizing the need to priorize more money to assist visible minorities in racial tension situations, to assist the settlement of boat people and to assist in several other critical areas. Indeed, an 18 per cent
5040

November 25, 1980
Oral Questions
increase during times of restraint suggests to me some considerable recognition by the national government.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. In 1971 the Prime Minister announced for Canada a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework and called for a vigorous policy of multiculturalism. Since 1981 will be the tenth anniversary of the inception of the government's multiculturalism program, will the government be announcing any special initiatives or programs in pursuit of this "vigorous" policy?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared at this time to answer the question. I do not think the question period is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am getting vigorous interjections from the NDP; I cannot really respond over them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just answer the question.


An hon. Member:: It's a wild goose chase.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The hon. member from Vancouver, the loud member, is their critic on energy. I do not mean this in any pious way, but I keep hearing from people that members of this House do not seem to act in a very respectful way toward each other in their exchanges. I am trying to answer a question, but how can I do that if I keep getting interjections? I think the question was: Do we have plans for the tenth anniversary? Yes, we do, and they will be announced in due course.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and also in the absence of the minister responsible for the status of women, I would like to direct my question to the government House leader. The House leader will know that Canadian women were revolted and insulted by the grossly chauvinistic remarks made by the co-chairman of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution several days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, in the wake of this horribly insensitive display on the part of Senator Hays during testimony given by the National Action Committee, demands have been made from across Canada that the co-chairman be replaced. Will the House leader act at once to see that the co-chairman is replaced?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we indicated very clearly last week that we intended to abide by the rules of this House. There is one which is quite clear, namely, that in no way may we interfere with the committee's proceedings or comment on them.
In his preamble, the hon. member refers to discussions or statements made during sittings of the joint committee on the constitution, and it would be unparliamentary for me at this stage to comment in any way. As I just said, it is not my intention to disregard the rules.
Now, as far as Senator Hays' qualifications are concerned, I think that they are well known and that he deserves the support of all members of this House and of the Canadian people.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the House leader. In light of his comments, will the House leader draw the transcript of the offensive remarks to the attention of the Prime Minister, since these-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question would be handled more appropriately in the committee. The hon. member should know that reference to proceedings in committee should not be made in the House. Therefore, I cannot allow that question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 should like to ask him whether he can give the House a progress report on the negotiations with the Quebec government on the Francophone countries summit to be held in Dakar. Can the minister tell us today whether or not he has found a satisfactory formula to include representations of the Quebec government in the federal delegation?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we have indicated to the Quebec government a formula for including Quebec government officials in the Canadian delegation. It is not exactly a matter of negotiation, but rather an offer which I feel is very generous.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. I am not convinced of his generosity. I should still like to ask him, seeing a compromise had already been found that seemed to be very acceptable in the case of the agency for cultural and technical co-operation in Francophone countries.
November 25, 1980

whether he would consider that same formula for the coming summit in Dakar, since it did seem at the time to be acceptable to both the federal government and the government of Quebec which province, according to the Pepin-Robarts report, is the home of the French Canadian nation.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, no comparison can be drawn between the two because the agency is strictly cultural and technical, while in this case we are dealing with the conference of external affairs ministers who will be planning a meeting of the prime ministers of independent states. The agenda of the conference will deal with the external or foreign affairs of the countries involved. So there is no reason for the Quebec minister to attend. I might also add that the Government of Canada is best qualified to represent the interests of the French Canadians.

[English]	*


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise the House as to the status of the discussions with de Havilland Aircraft regarding the site of the new manufacturing facility for the Dash-8 airplane, where Hamilton fits into the scheme and when the decision will be announced?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the company is considering a number of sites. I do not think that a decision will be too far-off, but it is certainly several weeks away.


AIRPORTS
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Since any new manufacturing facility for the Dash-8 will, of necessity, have to be at an airport, could the minister advise the House as to the status of the expansion project at Hamilton airport? Are the plans flexible enough to accommodate the new Dash-8 facility should the decision be to locate it in Hamilton?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my particular interest in the airport at Hamilton is well known, both by hon. members and others. I inquire almost every week as to the progress of the Hamilton airport, and 1 am told that it is going forward at a good pace. I will be glad
Order Paper Questions
to provide a report on its status to my hon. friend in the next hours.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second, third and fourth reports of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Gauthier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,224, 1,523, 1,605, 1,617, 1,626 and 1,627.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did CBC produce a movie in Hungary, as a joint effort, with the state-controlled Hungarian television and, if so, what amount of Canadian taxpayers' funds were invested by CBC?
2.	Is the government aware that a well-known Canadian journalist who saw the film has stated that the film "had been used by the Hungarian government as propaganda against the west" and, if so (a) for what reason did CBC participate (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest official that authorized CBC's participation and for what reason?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Department of the Secretary of State: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	Yes the government is aware of Barbara Amiel's comments on the Canadian-Hungarian co-production of the film "His Mother".
(a)	As a part of its program strategy the CBC participates in co-productions with other broadcast firms in Canada and abroad.
(b)	See second part of reply to No. 1 below.

November 25, 1980
Order Paper Questions Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Yes. CBC and Magyar televizio jointly produced "His Mother" in 1975.
The costs of program projects are among those areas of internal management and administration which the CBC has not, as a matter of custom, been required to provide. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
2.	To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is or was Miss Georgette Durand employed by the Department of National Defence and, if so, in what capacity and at what rank and salary?
2.	(a) Did Miss Durand take a trip to Brussels, Belgium and, if so, was the cost $2,362.01 for two weeks and, if not, what was the cost (b) what did Miss Durand do in Brussels and did she represent Canada in any capacity at NATO meetings and, if so, what qualifications does she possess for such a job?
3.	Was Miss Durand accompanied to Brussels by Lt. Col. F.M.J. Bourassa, Mr. Roger Brazeau of the Department of National Defence and Mr. Marcel Dufournaud and, if so (a) with which department and in what capacity is Mr. Dufoumaud employed (b) what did these gentlemen do in Brussels, for how long were they there and what was the total cost involved?
4.	Is Miss Durand familiar with military terminology and, if not, in what way was she able to perform any functions in Brussels?
5.	Is there a "blacklist" maintained by the Department of National Defence for any employees complaining about this matter or any other similar matter?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Miss Durand is employed by the Department of National Defence in the directorate of translation and terminology co-ordination as a CR4 $12,933-14,141.
2.	(a) Yes. $2,166.27.
(b) Miss Durand did not represent Canada at NATO; however, she provided specialized clerical assistance to the Canadian delegation. She had assisted two officers in the preparation of the material for the English, French and combined NATO annual terminology conferences and when both officers were unable to attend the conference it became essential for Miss Durand to accompany the delegation.
3.	Yes.
(a)	Mr. Dufournaud of the Secretary of State translation bureau is employed at DND in the military and technical terminology section.
(b)	They were the Canadian delegation at the NATO terminology conference. The duration of the trip including travel took 18 days. The total cost was $6,399.79.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: Is Parks Canada renovating the original Jones residence, after whom Jones Falls was named, in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) at what cost (b) who is doing the renovations (c) were public tenders called and (i) if so, what is a list of all those who tendered including the amount in each case (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. No; (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable;
(c)	Not applicable; (i) Not applicable; (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,368 which stated in part, that silverware belonging to the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry is on loan for the use of Admiral Falls at his Brussel's residence, what is a full description of the silverware and what is the current estimated market value?


Ursula Appolloni: The silverware is the private property of the regiment, was acquired with non-public funds, and its loan is a private arrangement between the regiment and Admiral Falls.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,205 which states in part, that a washer/dryer, refrigerator and electric range were purchased in the United States with taxpayers money for the residence of Admiral Robert Falls in Brussels, Belgium, what are all the reasons that the items were not purchased in Canada in accordance with the government's declared "Buy Canadian" policy?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The washing machine, clothes dryer and refrigerator were purchased in the United States for the residence of Admiral Falls in Brussels, Belgium, for the following reasons:
(i)	Since the electrical service characteristics in Brussels differ from that in Canada (i.e. 220 volt 50 hertz), Canadian produced appliances do not operate properly in Europe without extensive and costly electrical modifications.
(ii)	In view of the low demand for 220 volt 50 hertz appliances, Canadian manufacturers are not interested in producing small quantities of appliances for this type of electrical service. Therefore, External Affairs must buy such items from United States manufacturers. In so far as the electric range is concerned, the reply to question 1,205 indicating that this range was purchased in the United States is in error. In fact, the electric range supplied was purchased from Enterprise Foundry Limited in Sackville, New Brunswick, at a cost of $370 Canadian.
November 25, 1980


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,205 which states in part, that the government purchased from public funds a dishwasher in Germany at the value of $1600 for the home of Admiral Robert Falls in Brussels, Belgium, for what reason was the item not bought in Canada in accordance with the government's declared "Buy Canadian" policy?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The dishwasher provided to the residence of Admiral Robert Falls in Brussels, Belgium, was purchased in Germany at a cost of $1,600 Canadian due to the fact that no 220 volt 50 hertz dishwashers are produced in Canada or the United States. The dishwasher purchased was the most economical one available in consideration of the requirement of the function to be performed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 857 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	For each year 1975 to 1980, by province, what prosecutions were initiated under the (a) Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and its regulations (b) Fisheries Act of Canada and its regulations and, in each case, what was the essence of the charge?
2.	In each case after prosecution was initiated, was (a) a conviction entered and, if so, how many (i) fines were imposed of $0 to $1,000, $1,001 to $2,000, $2,001 to $5,000 and $8,000 to $25,000 (ii) vessels were forfeited and what was the value (iii) catches were forfeited and what was the value (iv) fishing gear were forfeited and what was the value (v) vessels had their licences suspended, for what period and what was the estimated value of lost catches during the period of licence suspension (b) an acquittal entered (c) the charge withdrawn?
3.	For the same years, by province, what was the total value of fines imposed?
4.	Were funds realized on payment of fines paid into the consolidated revenue fund by the government and, if not, to what purpose were such monies applied?
Return tabled.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 857 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Petroleum Administration Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,449 dated July 16 which stands on the order paper in my name. It asks the government about the hiring of Canadian Media Corporation to act as agency of record on behalf of the Government of Canada. Although my other questions in this area are more complex and would perhaps require more time to answer, the question about the Canadian Media Corporation is very straightforward and would require very little research. It deals with the untendered contract given to this company which was formed to receive the contract, and which had done no business before receiving this contract from the government.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I shall undertake to look into this particular question. I should also inform hon. members that over the past few weeks the number of answers coming forth has slowed down somewhat. I am concerned about this, and I am redoubling my efforts to get more answers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was saying that the basic issue regulating oil pricing and distributing revenues among the producer provinces, the federal government and the industry was whether there would be in the future a federal government with the means to protect the interests of all Canadians.
I also said that I had had an analysis made of the financial situation of the federal government in relation to that of the provincial governments. The large increase in the federal deficit during the last five years, in spite of serious efforts to limit expenditures, has reduced the freedom of action of the federal government to stimulate the economy and implement new programs. The situation of the provinces is so complex that the revenue structure varies for each of them and that some have a deficit while others have a surplus. Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that if we compare both situations, the deficit of the federal government and the percentage of the budget

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
that the government must use to pay debt charges are much larger than those of the provinces.
For instance, in 1974, federal revenues were $29,600 million. In 1979, they were $42,554 million. The expenditures in 1974 amounted to $27,895 million. In 1979, they amounted to $51,320 million. In 1974, the federal government had a surplus of $1.1 billion, but in 1979, it had a deficit of $9.1 billion. On the other hand, debt charges in 1974 amounted to $2.9 billion, or 10.6 per cent of total expenditures, but in 1979, they made up 15.8 per cent of federal expenditures, or $8 billion.
Mr. Speaker, when we compare this situation with that of all the provincial governments combined-because this is what we have to do when we are talking about the relationship between the financial position of the provinces and that of the federal government-this is what we find. Let us look at the combined revenues of the provincial governments for 1974. They amounted to $25,315 million. In 1979, they totalled $49,522 million. In 1974, their expenditures amounted to $23,372 million, and in 1979, to $47,234 million.
In 1974, the provinces as a whole had a surplus of $652 million. In 1979, they still had a surplus of $553 million. The debt service charge for all the provinces in 1974 was $1,545 million, and in 1979, $3,399 million, or almost $3.4 billion. Their surplus, and not a deficit, as in the case of the federal government, amounted to 2.8 per cent of their expenditures in 1974 and remained at 1.2 per cent in 1979.
If we compare, Mr. Speaker, the financial position of the federal government, either surplus or deficit, with that of the provincial governments, we note the difference. In 1979, the federal deficit amounted to 17.9 per cent of federal spending, the debt service charge made up 15.8 per cent of federal spending, while for all the provinces, with a 1.2 per cent surplus over their expenditures, the debt service charge represented only 7.2 per cent of their spending. And this, Mr. Speaker, even when we consider that the provincial governments did not have to stimulate the Canadian economy as the federal government had to do, especially since 1974.
Another table that was drawn up for me shows that the federal government has provided a great number of incentives since 1974: minimum income tax reduction upped from $150 to $200 in November, 1974; and increased again in June, 1975, for a cost to the federal treasury of $610 million; deduction on retirement income, extension of the $1,000 deduction on interest revenue in the budget of November,
1974,	cost to the federal treasury: $135 million; federal sales tax on building materials brought down to 5 per cent in November, 1974, for a cost of $600 million; exemption from the federal sales tax of transportation materials, $150 million; investment tax credit provided in the federal budgets of June,
1975,	and March, 1977, another $430 million to stimulate the economy; child tax credit in March, 1977, $275 million;
increase in the employment expense deduction in March, 1977, $120 million; tax break for business stocks, $350 million; increase in the basic personal income tax deduction for 1978 in the October, 1977, budget, $700 million; federal compensation for cutbacks in provincial sales tax in April, 1978, $760 million.
We can see therefore, Mr. Speaker, that since 1974 it is the federal government which has had to increase its expenditures or to stabilize them in certain sectors in order to reduce taxes or increase expenditures on a selective basis as an incentive for job creation. The figures I have given are the result of these measures. The federal government finds itself in a position where the deficit is at the 17.9 per cent level and 15.8 per cent of our spending is used to service the federal debt.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, those who claim that the budget is not generous toward the producing provinces must be made to show how we are not being generous. I said last night that as a result of this budget Alberta would be getting over $31 billion within four years. Yet members opposite claim that is not enough. Obviously I would have preferred that an agreement be reached instead of having to proclaim provisions under the Petroleum Administration Act, which the government had no choice but to proclaim on November 12. I wish this could be settled amicably, I wish we could have a written agreement. But failing this, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a clear duty, the responsibility imparted by this Parliament in the legislation enacted six years ago, to ensure that we have in Canada a system of oil and natural gas prices established in the interest of all Canadians. As I said, energy is the most important factor in the future development of our economy. Indeed, it will shape our future society. We will have to adjust to these new realities. How can we as members of this Parliament that must represent all of Canada, say that we want that direction to be followed in the interest of all Canadians, if the federal treasury does not have a major share of the oil and gas revenues to guarantee this?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that all hon. members should decide once and for all whether we are going to have a government that will be able to deal with all those issues, or a federal government that will be at the mercy of some provinces. I explained earlier the financial situation of the provinces as a whole, but I could give the financial status of the oil producing provinces, because this shows in a better light still the fact that the Canadian government is not in a position to govern. Alberta's revenues were $2.7 billion in 1974, but they topped $6 billion in 1978. In 1974, that province had a surplus amounting to 34.2 per cent of its expenditures; in 1978, the percentage rose to 40 per cent. Debt service charges fell from 5.1 per cent in 1974 to 3.7 per cent only in 1978. Alberta's surplus in relation to the gross provincial expenditures went from 4.2 per cent in 1974 to 5.9 per cent in 1978. The same goes for Saskatchewan, increases across the board, as well as for British Columbia. Coming eastward, Manitoba is almost in
November 25, 1980

a deficit situation, so are Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland. Who is going to see that the interests of Canadians in all those other provinces are protected? I suggest the situation is much more serious than it has been indicated in the debates, and I am tremendously concerned that nobody looks at those figures. The important point is the percentage of the federal budget that goes to debt service charges.
Because it will keep increasing year after year, the federal government has a responsibility to stimulate the economy in a period of economic slowdown, the provincial governments cannot do it by themselves, only the federal government can. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the government had the duty to intervene. It is its responsibility. Producing provinces should indeed receive a fair share, as I stated last night. Alberta after all will get $31 billion over a four year period under the proposed formula, Saskatchewan will get $3.2 billion, British Columbia $3.6 billion. So all those hon. members should stop saying that the federal government is unfair and does not take into account the aspirations of the west and should tell me clearly how much more money they would like to be transferred because they are saying that $31 billion is not enough, $3.2 billion to Saskatchewan is not enough, $3.6 billion to B.C. is not enough. They should stop making long speeches and tell me clearly how much more money they would transfer to these provinces and tell me also what is going to happen to the financial situation of the federal government in the coming years if such a solution were retained.
Then they should answer not only to their fellow citizens but also here in the House of Commons and in the rest of Canada, and they should decide whether they want the rest of the people of Canada to have a say in the development of the economy of this country, or else only two, perhaps three provinces, and perhaps from four to five million Canadians out of a population of 23 million, will have a say in the development of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the kind of Canada where I learned to live, nor the kind of Canada where I am prepared to work. There will come a time when people will have to decide whether the government will look not only after the Canadian electorate but also after the other provinces 1 have mentioned, which are heading more and more toward deficit positions and where the percentage of expenditures to cover the service of the debt is growing while it is decreasing as far as oil producing provinces and the federal government are concerned. This is a matter we must face clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is time to do so.
I should like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by quoting some figures to show the difference in the consumer price of a gallon of gas from what was proposed in the Progressive Conservative budget of December, 1979. According to the budget brought forward by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on October 28, 1980, gas will cost
Petroleum Administration Act
$1.36 a gallon in 1981. Under the Progressive Conservative budget of December 1979, it would have cost $1.56 a gallon or 20 cents more, and those are the people who were attacking us last week and the week before saying we were being too rough with the consumers. Those same people would have increased the price of gas for all Canadian workers and all Canadian producers in 1981 by 20 cents more than we did in the October 28 budget. In 1982, the price will be $1.53 under the Liberal budget and it would have been $1.75 under the Progressive Conservative budget, or 22 cents more a gallon. And it keeps rising. But let us look at the difference for 1983; the price will be $1.71 a gallon under the Liberal budget, but it would have been $2.63 under the Progressive Conservative budget. I see that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) is paying close attention to those figures. I know he is concerned about the consumers in the province of New Brunswick. So when his party says that the budget of the Liberal finance minister, the October 28 budget, is not fair to the province of New Brunswick, what can he say to what his government would have done, because in 1984, the difference would be 68 cents more a gallon, or about 50 per cent of what we pay today, if the Progressive Conservatives had remained in power.
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone realizes that we did a great service to Canadians in December by voting against the government, against that budget to make sure the interests of all Canadian consumers would be well protected.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to make some remarks concerning the implementation of an energy policy for Canada. I can see that the ground has been heavily plowed and many of the issues have been covered. I would like to cover four brief aspects that I feel have been left out.
I would like to direct my comments concerning the energy policy to its effect on low and middle-income Canadians. I would also like to comment on the effects, as 1 see them, on a Canadian industrial strategy, and on aboriginal people in Canada. Finally, I will have a question at the end: does this energy policy establish a greater sense of community within Canada?
If I could just briefly address these four points, 1 will proceed first with the question of how the energy policy affects Canadian consumers. I say this without malice. I think the geography of our country militates against certain kinds of distribution occurring. 1 feel that this energy policy, because of the geography of our country, tends to favour central Canada over some of the regions. Basically, it favours urban Canada over rural Canada and some of the remote outposts. I will come to some of these matters in a few moments.
One of the most objectionable features of this energy policy is that it contains very strong privileges for foreign-owned oil companies in Canada. These privileges are given at the expense of low and middle-income Canadians. A few figures
i

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
might help. In 1979 the oil industry should have paid $5.1 billion in tax at the official rate of 36 per cent for corporate tax. It only paid $1.4 billion. Since 1974 the industry has paid tax at the effective rate of only 10 per cent. This is due to the generous tax concessions given to these oil companies in return for something we expected.
When the question was put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) as to why we were charging the consumers in Canada, placing the whole burden of this program on the backs of the consumers, he made a statement which is very interesting. When asked why consumers and not the companies, the minister stated, "We felt it was not appropriate to go higher than we have in the budget on the industry. We still want to leave that industry with large incentives to go ahead and make money." Frankly, that answer is not acceptable. They have basically placed the burden of this elaborate program on consumers within Canada, especially on those who can afford it the least. That is unacceptable. Time will tell as this takes its course that it will be unacceptable to the Canadian people.
As we explore this matter further as to the effect on consumers on budget night, October 28, it is interesting to note that a speech by the minister basically recognized in the budgetary projections that this energy policy would increase the consumer price index. It will further erode the income of Canadians. He stated, "Be aware of it and be prepared to live with it." Very shortly thereafter, it was proven that some of those projections were wrong. I suggest the one on the consumer price index was very wrong. Because of the combined effect of the energy policy and the taxation program put in place by the budget, especially on the cost of energy, those projections on the consumer price index were in error and will be much higher.
Before we examine what this consumer price index or erosion of real income will be, we have to look at the total formula being faced by Canadians. Some of this energy policy will result in an erosion of wealth in some areas of this country. Municipalities will have to increase taxes. That is happening already. Provincial governments will increase taxes and cut services. That is happening. It will not mean a direct tax imposition such as income tax where it is theoretically graduated and progressive, with those receiving the greatest benefits paying the most. We are not aiming at that kind of tax. The kind of budget and energy policy we have in place is the most direct regressive tax. Those are the taxes that are emphasized. I suggest that those are the taxes that will hit low and middle-income Canadians, making them foot the bill.
Basically that combined formula of very direct regressive taxation, dramatically high energy costs and the government's policy of interest rates, as has been stated many times in this House, is an eighteenth century monetarist policy. Interest rates on mortgages are around 15 per cent or 15'/2 per cent. We are looking at small business loans crawling back up to the all time high of 19 per cent. These are passed directly through to consumers, to low and middle-income Canadians. We therefore have that combined formula that we have to examine. The
energy policy, rather than in any way alleviating the dramatic rising costs to low and middle-income Canadians, is accelerating them. Frankly, my party believes that is unacceptable. So did the government strangely enough, but something has gone haywire.
In the Speech from the Throne the government committed itself to protect Canadians who are least able to pay. We saw that commitment in writing. It recognized that there must be a fight against inflation. It recognized that energy prices were going to go up and there would have to be some dramatic new developments in the energy sector. It stated that low and middle-income Canadians should not have to bear the burden squarely on their backs. But, lo and behold, there is nothing in the budget, there is nothing here. The government clearly failed the consumers of Canada. Its answer to this failure was a $35 increase in the old age security, and some indexing of pensions in Canada. I would submit that these are clearly inadequate and, in fact, will do nothing to mitigate the very serious situation in which these people find themselves.
What the government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is asking low and middle-income Canadians, the consumers, to pay the costs of buying out the oil companies. It is asking the consumers to pay the cost of building pipelines, to pay the cost of tertiary recovery programs and refinery upgrading. It is asking low and middle-income Canadians to pay a tremendous cost to build new oil sands recovery plants, to pay the costs of offshore and frontier exploration, and to provide the funds for the new technology.


An hon. Member:: They are going to give them the control.


Raymond John Skelly: This should not fall on low and middle-income Canadians. It should clearly be undertaken by private enterprise, where costs will be held in line, where in fact the returns will come directly back to Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Raymond John Skelly: It should be undertaken by public enterprise-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: -where costs are low-


Mr. Evans:: Freudian slip.


Raymond John Skelly: It is no Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, on this particular item, it should be paid for by a progressive tax system. I would have the other members in this House rail at that provision, that the progressive tax system in this country does not exist, where people who receive the most should pay the most in funding these very expensive programs. I suggest that the banks and oil companies might lead the way.
Foreign oil companies account for about 77 per cent of petroleum production in this country, and they receive about 82 per cent of all the revenue. These are not Canadian-owned oil companies or public sector companies. Some 82 per cent of
November 25, 1980

the revenue which accrued from our resource wound up in the hands of foreign-owned corporations. That is unacceptable. We are asking the consumers of Canada to pay for this, and at the same time we are giving a bonus like that to foreign-owned oil companies.
In 1979 the oil industry profits after taxes increased by 53.6 per cent, to $4.6 billion. That would go a long way toward funding and driving those important projects in the hands of Canadians. In the first nine months of this year the five major oil companies increased their profits by an average of 65 per cent over the same period in 1979, so it is not a problem. That sector is doing very well at the expense of Canadians, and particularly at the expense of low and middle-income Canadians who are being asked to foot the bill. Clearly, the oil companies should finance the Canadianization of the industry.
We want to see a minimum of three oil firms under public control, and I suggest that the ones to take over are Imperial, Texaco, and Shell. Let us start with the blackmailers and work from there. However, they should be funding that takeover. They are the ones who have been gleaning tremendous revenues from this country, and following their own objectives rather than those of Canadians. In the final analysis, as prices and costs rise, there must be an indexed tax credit. If we are going to see this energy program develop, there should be a tax credit to protect low and middle-income Canadians. This was promised. Protection was promised, and it should be delivered. That is the only fair way to ensure that it is delivered to the people who need it most.
The second thing about this new industrial strategy, this budget, this over-all look, is that it lacks one thing. It is out of phase. First, it is very timid. In the second place it will probably not work. However, finally we must have an industrial strategy with it. We in this country have no concept of where this government is taking us.
We should base an industrial strategy on three points. We could use resource income from resource development to ensure that all Canadians derive the benefits of the resource. The new technology must be developed in Canada by Canadians, and owned by them. Unless that item is under our control we are in very serious difficulty. The second thing in this industrial strategy is that Canada must train a work force of skilled people capable of developing and implementing this new technology in Canada. The final thing is that the development of the resource must be paced. I feel that this is one of the flaws in this energy policy.
We are going into a massive rush to develop our energy resources on all fronts, but if we fail to pace that, Canadian industry across the board will not obtain the full advantage. We need time to implement that program. By using our resources to develop the modern technology with which to build that industry we would wind up with Canadian industries which are relevant to the twenty-first century. We have a Canadian auto industry which is clearly out of date. Our shipbuilding industry is clearly out of date. I and others in my party feel that if we were to pace the development of this particular resource, we would be able to put in place an
Petroleum Administration Act
industrial strategy which would see Canadians with that technology, our work force trained to build and operate the kinds of industries we need and, finally, strong technologically advanced industries which are owned and controlled by Canadians.
Ensuring that we have heavy public involvement, publicly owned enterprise and joint ventures, in my estimation is the only way there will be a responsibility to Canada and a response to the needs of Canadians. This country has a small population spread over a tremendous area. In the past especially in the resource sector we have been prime picking for foreign corporations. I think that Canada's accountability and responsibility could be enhanced if we placed our industrial strategy firmly on the side of publicly-owned enterprises and on joint ventures. We need that presence. If we develop our own resources by these criteria, then this country and its people will never again be subject to the corporate blackmail we have seen in the past, and see today.
I would like to outline for the record the types of corporate blackmail we have seen in the last little while. The government proposes a 50 per cent ownership objective. That is not enough, and it is meaningless. With the techniques of circumventing Canadian control we will not achieve the goal of placing ownership and control in Canadian hands.
Dome Petroleum has made statements that it will pull up its stakes if it cannot get sufficient tax incentives. Dome has pulled in about $411 million in profits in the past three years. It is now aiming for higher profits by charging the highest possible prices. It proposes to sell Canadian gas to Japan, and I do see a statement by the government that it intends to protect Canadian resources for future generations. We are still playing with the export of Canadian energy resources. At any rate, increased ownership in non-energy companies is an example of where the profits which are being earned are being used to broaden the base of these corporations and not to fulfil the task which they were originally developed to serve.
There is a major $100 million exploration program in the United States. If we are giving those kinds of incentives to Dome Petroleum and other Canadian companies, why are they exploring in the United States with our money? Quite frankly, that is completely unacceptable, and it amounts to corporate blackmail. If we were to develop a solid energy policy, and an industrial strategy which is effective, those companies, funded by Canadian tax dollars, would be operating to meet Canadian goals and not away drilling in the United States and threatening, through blackmail, a corporate withdrawal from this country.
On Tuesday, November 18, Imperial announced that it had abandoned the Alberta tar sands because it could not get its way. The Liberals forked over $40 million in taxpayers' money in order to meet Imperial's profit priorities.


An hon. Member:: The $40 million mark.


Raymond John Skelly: Imperial's profits in 1978-this Exxon-owned corporation-were roughly $314 million. In 1979 they were
5048

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
$493 million. In 1980 they will probably pull in $750 million in profit, and now it is pulling out of the oil sands. That again is an example of corporate blackmail.
On Thursday, November 20, Shell Oil threatened to pull $205 million of investment out of its tar sands project unless it got another $40 million from the mark. We should tell them flatly just to get out, that Petro-Canada will build those tar sands plants, and that if they get out of there they will be getting out of other sectors.
The energy policy which was put forward by the government was supposed to be a change in direction, but in fact it was not. It was a very timid policy, and the actions since it was dropped into this House on October 28 show that the government will continue to provide rich incentives and yield to corporate blackmail. Frankly, this also is not acceptable. They should be told to get out.
On the whole question of an industrial strategy and of how this energy program could develop all of Canadian industry so that Canadians could maximize their benefits from resource development, let me refer to the example of shipbuilding. Pacing the way we develop a resource is important. If this resource is hurled ahead at too fast a pace, the ships required to service and develop the offshore oil and gas industry will have to come from offshore. Foreign countries will build those vessels. We hear talk on the east coast that the liquefied natural gas carriers will be built in Finland. We hear on the west coast that that technology will be developed and put in place in Japan. We hear about sharing and many other things but, nevertheless, those should be built in Canada.


Mr. Howie:: Right on!


Raymond John Skelly: We should have and would have had that capability if we had a government committed to this years ago, but it is not just that our supply ships and our liquefied natural gas carriers and the whole offshore marine program will be produced in other areas; if we look at those in this country who are licensed to crew our vessels, we find that the average age of those licensed personnel is 55 years. We need a tremendous influx of trained seamen, and they are not available because this country was not committed to an industrial strategy which took cognizance of that. If we rush the pace of development so quickly that foreign crews will sail foreign-built vessels to move our oil resource, Canadians not only in this generation but also in the next one will fail to receive the maximum benefit.
There is shipbuilding on the west coast, but it is interesting that all the steel comes from Japan. In many other areas the steel comes from Japan. If we are going to expand that industry and all the other component, related or allied industries, we will have to see that steel and other basic commodities come from North America. A Canadian steel plant could provide steel to Canadian shipyards and to the Canadian oil, gas and refining industries based on the west coast, and could provide all of northwest America with a secure supply of steel at reasonable costs. That is absolutely important.


Mr. Benjamin:: We have the steel in Regina.


Raymond John Skelly: There is an absolute absence of an industrial strategy in this country, and it is imperative that one be developed with an energy strategy in order to maximize benefits for Canadians. If that does not happen, we will maximize benefits for those same foreign countries whose economies we have fueled with our resources all during the existence of this country.
The clock is moving along. I mentioned a third item of concern. I want to talk for a moment about the development of energy resources and aboriginal people. The energy program outlined in that entertaining reading brought in on October 28 did take cognizance of native people and their needs. It recognized that many communities in remote areas in which Indian and Inuit people live need an economic boost but, frankly, it mentioned that the bulk of the incentives and the real drives for expansion would be on Canada lands, lands owned and controlled by the Government of Canada.
I think the author of that particular document may have been a little hasty. In fact, a great number of those lands described as Canada lands were in fact Indian and Inuit lands, and still are. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that this government has a commitment to the rule of law and that basically we do recognize certain claims by aboriginal people to lands and rights within this country. Frankly, I am certain this was an oversight in the document, but we all clearly recognize that when we take something which does not belong to us, that is simply theft.
The last remark which probably should be made is that claims must be acknowledged and dealt with effectively so that native people can share in the abundant resources which exist on the lands claimed by them.
On the positive side-and I might read a little more into the legislation than might be there-in the planning agreements whereby companies go into those lands there will be a requirement to provide training and employment for native people. I commend the authors for that particular aspect. We must create not only a share but also an opportunity to participate. That is a positive aspect.
Does the energy policy-and by its actions this government over the last few months-contribute to establishing a sense of community in the country? Frankly, I really have some serious questions about the energy policy. In my opinion it does not set goals with which Canadians can be identified and work for together, thereby strengthening the sense of community in this country. That does not exist in this energy policy.
Before I move further into that area I would like to go back in Canadian history a little and look at some of the precedents which have brought us to the point at which we are today. In 1979 there was an election, after which a very tired government was retired. The leader of that government crossed this country several times making some very provocative statements. He talked about nuclear energy. He said, "You are going to get it whether you want it or not", in answer to the concerns of many Canadians. He said that farmers were chronic bitchers. He said that if the unemployed wanted work, they should get off their butts. This is not an example of an
November 25, 1980

individual setting and defining goals Canadians can share and work together for, and build a sense of community? But that record goes back to the 1974 election in which, I assume, we all participated. At that time he said, "I promise my government will not impose wage and price controls". In one year he did, and in almost three years it tore the country apart with wage and labour disputes which were artificially created.


Mr. Regan:: What does this have to do with the legislation before us?


Raymond John Skelly: I will deal with that in just a moment. In 1970, with the stroke of a pen, he eliminated the civil rights of Canadians. I suggest to hon. members opposite, and to others, that this energy policy does not set the goals. It does not establish a sense of community in the country. Basically it opens a wound in some areas.
The hon. member who preceded me stated basically that it was a fair and universally accepted program. But, it is not. Basically it places the hand of the federal government in the pocket of Alberta. It says that certain funds are being removed, but it does not give back the things that are required in return. What will those funds be spent on? Will we get an industrial strategy which will improve the industrial benefits in the west? He says, "No, you will get a $4 billion pork-barrel."
I think there is a tendency to create an enemy in Alberta. I say that with some misgivings, but we must remember that Alberta did not create regional disparity, an inequitable tax system and a $ 15-billion federal deficit for which Albertans to a large degree will pay. This opens a wound in the country, not just for Albertans but for many people who said that the government has failed to live up to the expectations of Canadians. The point now is that the leader of the government has been responsible for it over a decade.
In conclusion, I think Canadians can come together on some of the goals which have been defined. We can re-establish a sense of community, but one of the primary catalysts which will allow this to occur is the resignation of the present leader of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity to participate in this debate and hope to bring us back to some sense of reality, especially considering the last few moments and the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). The hon. member made some of the most remarkable statements I have heard in a while.


An hon. Member:: Like asking for an industrial strategy; that is remarkable.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Before the member recedes too rapidly, I should like to point out quickly the inconsistency of his saying that the action of the government in relation to the energy package has opened a wound in Alberta, and in the same breath saying that
Petroleum Administration Act
we should nationalize all the oil companies out there. Can one imagine the sort of wound that might open?


An hon. Member:: Decapitation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is about what it would amount to. As I listened to the member's remarks on this subject, as well as the remarks of some other members opposite, and as I read the remarks of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in this debate, I began to feel quite comfortable about this energy package. The reason is that I believe we on this side of the House have every reason to feel confident that we are on the right track when we find the Tories and the NDP attacking us from opposite directions, one saying that we have gone too far and the other saying that we have not gone far enough.


An hon. Member:: It means you have gone nowhere.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It suggests to me that the moderates in the Conservative party and New Democratic Party are really admiring our package while they are trying, as political parties do in elected legislatures, to find some way to disagree with what the administration is doing. Indeed it would be a most unusual debate if members opposite were to come in here and say, "Yes, that is great. We like it all.'There is nothing wrong with it."
If this energy package had been presented to the hon. members of the NDP before its introduction, they would have said that it was great and marvellous. If we look at some of the statements they have made over the past year, then to be consistent they should have come here and said, "Yes, this is a tremendous move, for Petro-Canada to be looking to buy out one of the major multinationals". They should have come in here and praised the 25 per cent land provision as well as the other provisions. But, no, sometimes they are not as intellectually honest as one might wish. They find that they cannot come in here and frankly say, "Yes, that was a tremendous achievement and a great thing for Canada."


Mr. Fulton:: Name one member who has been intellectually dishonest.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Before turning to the main body of my comments, and aroused by the words of the hon. member for Comox-Powell-


James Ross Fulton: At least name his constituency.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am sorry, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River. In any event, he has a most persuasive and pleasant manner of talking, but he says the most unusual things. He condemned Dome and other private companies. He said that Petro-Canada should take over everything in the country. I want to express my continued basic belief in the mixed economy which is working well for Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is working well for Dome.

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act


Gerald Augustine Regan: If Petro-Canada had control over the whole oil industry, it would not be nearly as good a company as it is now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They would be like the Post Office.


Gerald Augustine Regan: When we seek to Canadianize the oil industry, I think it is extremely important to see to it that every encouragement is provided not only for great companies like Bob Blair's company, or Dome, but also for all smaller Canadian companies which exist out there and have built up our economy by their incisive approach to business. It is not only important to provide a lot of encouragement to those companies, but also important to provide encouragement and the wherewithal to Petro-Canada.
1 believe there are things which must be done in relation to the rapid expansion of the Canadianization of the oil industry. They must be done by the public sector through Petro-Canada or other federal Crown corporations. But also there is a very important and vital role for the companies that have helped very substantially over the past few years in increasing the amount of Canadian ownership in the country. Petro-Canada has not done it all. The efforts and good leadership of private Canadian oil and gas companies in the west have also made very noteworthy contributions in that regard.


An hon. Member:: Name two.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I did. Energy represents the geatest challenge to the maintenance of the civilization we have known in our lifetime. We are faced with some very basic facts. The supplies of fossil-based fuels are limited. Throughout the world today there is no subject which involves more time and concern of governments than the question of energy supply, its present price, its future price, and its future supply. Not only are national governments involved in a most intricate manner in this subject throughout the world, but they must be because, if governments are to have the responsibility of managing an economy, then this is the very essence of that responsibility.
It is with that realization, and against that background, that it is necessary to implement the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act in this country. That step is a very timid one compared to how far governments have gone in relation to this aspect of the economy in other nations of the world.
We have a national responsibility. We have great provincial responsibilities in each of our provinces. We must husband our resources, explore and develop those which are undiscovered, evolve new types of renewable energy making it more feasible and competitive. Of course, we must conserve our resources. While we must prepare for the needs of tomorrow's consumers we must also, at all times, limit the burden to be carried by today's consumers. Therefore the imposition of prices of oil and gas at the national level, to have some consistency from one part of the country to the other, is the essence of national responsibility. I believe that is beyond argument.
In making arguments on this particular motion the opposition will speak about a variety of matters. These are matters which I may say something about. I doubt if any of them are prepared to say seriously that there is not a responsibility of the national government to deal with the question of supply of energy and, at some point, to become affected by the pricing of that energy. After all, it is the setting of price by national governments which has created the entire problem. It is the setting of price by the OPEC cartel that has contributed so substantially to the economic crisis, shall I say, or problems, or malaise, which have characterized the last years of the 1970s. Unfortunately, in doing so in a national government in Canada, responding to what other national governments are doing, there is obviously the question of interference perceived in what had traditionally been an area of price-setting that was not affected directly by the national government. That would be fine, of course, as long as it was not necessary. The unfortunate fact that so much of our oil and gas is concentrated in one area, in one province, tends to make a difficult adversarial conflict between the federal government and the province of Alberta.
I want to express here, as I expressed in Calgary last week to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, my affection and admiration for the province of Alberta, as a Canadian, and my particular admiration of the incisive approach of their hardworking people and the great contribution they make to Canada. As a maritimer with an inheritance of 100 years of grievances against central Canada, I can, to a considerable degree, sympathize with some of their points of v.iew. I think I have some insight into the reasons those points of view have arisen. Ottawa is the focus of what is referred to as western alienation. But the centralization of industry, of banks and decisions in central Canada is probably more the problem than the question of anything that government does.
If one were to scan my old speeches over the years-and I cannot think of a more tiresome process-you would find they are pretty well filled with illustrations of how centralized we built our economy in this country as compared to other countries. Again and again I have used the example of how American Express can have their corporate headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, and they find they can serve that country efficiently, whereas in this country, in the business sector, there is too much of a feeling that if you go as far as Oshawa you are in the frontier region.
1 think that in combatting this feeling of alienation in the west not only does government have the responsibility to overcome those feelings, whether they are based on fact or emotion, but in the private sector there needs to be a great deal done in relation to decentralization.
In relation to this debate and the Petroleum Administration Act and its proclamation, I want to say that if I were to summarize quickly what the objectives of a government are in this era in relation to energy, I would have to say that they are as follows: a pricing scheme which lessens the impact on Canadian consumers during the period when there must be escalation in the cost of our energy sources. I think that every
November 25, 1980

member in the chamber will agree that the price of energy will continue to go up, if only because of the fact that new sources of fossil-based fuels tend to be more expensive, in terms of recovery by virtue of their situ, and also because of their diminishing supply. But that does not allow us to forget for a moment that in meeting the other challenges and objectives, which I will talk about later, we cannot forget for a moment that our first obligation is to the Canadian consumer.
Our obligation is to see to it that people can support their families without having such abrupt increases in the cost of something which takes as much of their disposable income as energy, something which rises at a rate that they are simply unable to deal with.
In Canada it is more difficult to adjust to increasing costs of energy abruptly than it is in many other countries. First of all, we live in a northern clime. As a consequence, this means people must heat their homes. There is no way to avoid that. Secondly, we have built our society in such a way, wisely or unwisely, that it is extremely difficult to provide mass transport for very many of our people outside our large cities.
Cars must be used to go to work, to school, to church, and to the stores. In a lot of cases it is ribbon development, but in a lot of other cases it is the free choice that was allowed to be made by Canadian citizens to live in rural settings rather than have all the homes concentrated in an exact village, as has been more the custom in Europe. If you fly over England, France or Germany and you look down you will see a very different pattern than you will see in flying over most of Canada. You see their houses are all very close together and there are very long distances until you come to the next village, where the houses are again concentrated together. One thing about that society is that they do not have to use motorized vehicles as often as we do. In Canada when you look down from a plane you see houses scattered throughout Canada. That is done by choice. Perhaps in relation to transportation it provides an extra problem and penalty for our people today.
I want to make the point that the greatest and most important objective must be not to have an overnight change in price that will deal such a heavy blow to our consumers. Another objective is to achieve a greater share of revenue to meet federal costs. I think in that regard, if you look at what is done in other countries, you will find the share that Canada is taking of the petroleum dollar is smaller than any other country. I will give some figures on that a little later on. Basically, at 10 per cent it was ludicrous; at 24 per cent, which the new arrangement makes-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, 48 per cent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -it is substantially below the 37 per cent of the United States and the 48 per cent of Australia, or other countries. Hon. members opposite try to add in other costs to push the percentage upward. That is not accurate at all. It is like saying you should add in the tax that the province charges at the gas pump. That is not right at all. The fact that a government takes part of the energy dollar does not mean that it will not carry out other programs to which it is entitled. The
Petroleum Administration Act
hon. member for Etobicoke Centre did not at all address the question of whether he agrees in principle that the national government of this country, like any other country, has a right to take some portion of that dollar.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I agree.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He agrees on that. That is progress. Then it becomes a question of degree, and if it is a question of degree, the hon. member will recognize that as the price of energy rises and as energy becomes a larger percentage of the entire economy, the amount which the federal government must take obviously escalates because the increasing cost of energy affects to a very great degree every aspect of the federal operation of providing the basic services of the country. This is a legitimate objective, and I welcome the agreement of the hon. member.
Another objective is a larger share of Canadian ownership in energy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We agree on that, also.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is obvious that as energy becomes a more important and vital part of our economy it is absolutely essential that the very high degree of American ownership in the oil industry be decreased. I will probably lose the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre when I say that it is also important that there be larger government sector ownership in the oil industry in Canada and that, as a consequence, Petro-Canada should acquire greater holdings than it has at present, and follow the pattern of Mexico, Norway, and elsewhere.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Leave that to the NDP negotiators.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is fine because I will stay in the middle, which is a safe place to be. The objectives which I have just mentioned will, unfortunately, incur disagreement with the provinces and the problems of dislocation for industry. The first basic disagreement is whether the OPEC price is a fair world price. As I have said, I visited Alberta last week and people there argue again and again that the OPEC price should be the benchmark price for determining our price. There are few hon. members in this House, as learned as they are, who would, after paying full attention to all aspects of the history of the OPEC price and the actual situation in the world, argue that this is a realistic price. It is a cartel price which is put together by those countries which held a surplus of a commodity which was vital to a purchasing country. The cartel forced up the price by cornering the market and agreeing to a sale price rather than competing in sales. In 1978 and 1979 the price of oil doubled.
There is no doubt that, if this cartel thought it could get away with it, tomorrow it would move up the price to $100 per barrel. I wonder if hon. members opposite would still argue that automatically the Canadian price should relate to the OPEC price, even on a percentage basis, if the price per barrel were moved to $100. The essential, single most telling point

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
which must be remembered about that cartel price is that it is the price charged for oil that is surplus to the needs of the countries forming the cartel. Mexico does not charge Mexicans the OPEC price. In Mexico gasoline can be bought for around 40 cents per gallon. Venezuela does not charge Venezuelans the world price, nor does Saudi Arabia charge Saudi Arabians the world price.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What about Australia?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am talking about the OPEC countries which export oil. Those countries which produce their own oil and which have a surplus to export do not charge the OPEC price for oil and gas to their own people. Why should we in Canada charge that artificial cartel price, or anything like it, to our own people? Surely we can decide in principle that the Canadian price, whatever it should be-and there may be differences-should be based on Canadian conditions and not on some phony comparison to what OPEC happens to be charging this week or next week.
Within the Canadian price there must be incentives for new oil and for frontier oil, as currently being offered by this government. If there are to be incentives, why should we pay the same price for old oil which has been discovered and is simply being pumped out of the ground, when it was profitable at $2.50 per barrel? Why should we push the price of old oil up further to enrich the American companies which own most of those reserves? Every time the price is changed American ownership vastly increases.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is not so.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It certainly is so, and I would be very happy to have the hon. member participate in the debate and show me otherwise.
The second disagreement deals with the question of the necessity of increasing the federal take from 10 per cent. I find it shocking that members of the official opposition would side with the government of Alberta on its position. The federal government has taken less of the oil dollar than any government in any federal country, and obviously much less than any government of any unitary country in the world. Yet, as I have said, the percentage of the economy represented by the petroleum industry becomes a larger part of our economy, and the escalating national costs and the program of price equalization require that we have more money. To stay with the ratio of 45/45/10 would be ludicrous in that situation.
I mentioned earlier the figures taken by federal governments in other countries. Again, Australian producers take 37 per cent, the state takes approximately 17 per cent, and the national government takes 48 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where is the oil?


Gerald Augustine Regan: That applies no matter where the oil is located.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: It will work out to that, as I understand it.
In the United States the producer takes 48 per cent. The great states of Texas, with all the power and authority exercised by Texans in that country, takes only 17 per cent, and the national government takes 35 per cent. 1 suggest that the question of taxes is not of the essence of ownership. The fact that a province or a federal government owns a resource is not the essence of the question of the need or right of either level of government to tax that resource. I am told that in Australia the resource is owned by the state.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is offshore.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Most of the production is offshore, but that is not the point.
The other point I would like to make is with regard to the large amount taken by Alberta. Hon. members will remember that the government of Alberta took only 22 per cent until 1974. Of course, it receives much more when we include the federal programs. In 1974 the government of Alberta unilaterally changed the figure of .22 per cent and moved it to what works out to be 45 per cent through their involved formula. If the outcry of the industry, that there is an insufficient amount left to the corporations, is correct, it is the government of Alberta which is out of step by the amount which it is taking, not the federal government.
I notice that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, the hon. member for Edmonton East, for both of whom I have the greatest respect, and other hon. members, have said that there has been no bargaining in good faith. They said bargaining between the federal government and the provinces was not in good faith. They said the feds did not bargain in good faith. But this second guessing on the negotiation process about who bargained well is not new. All my life I have been accustomed to companies and unions saying that about each other when collective bargaining is under way. The usual expression is that if the other side does not move your way, it means it did not bargain in good faith. I believe that both sides bargained in good faith in this matter. But they have very different responsibilities and a lot at stake. In my opinion, that is the problem.
I am sure the industry feels that government intervention is quite a pain. Industry wonders why it cannot be left alone. But unfortunately if you happen to involve yourself in a business which determines the flow of the entire economy, factors have to be considered that transcend the interests of the company, and even the effect of the policies deemed necessary on the short run level of production or exploration must be considered.
Let us talk about the role of government intervention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 25, 1980


Gerald Augustine Regan: My thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members. 1 will try to be as brief as possible. The oil industry, which faces a problem at the present time because of the change in the amount of government take and the new regulations, is an industry which has shown itself over the years to be able to adjust to almost any change one could perceive. For instance, when OPEC took over the ownership of the oil resources a few years ago everyone assumed that this would be an immense problem for the oil industry. Some predicted a breakdown in relation to the way companies operated on an integrated basis, that the majors were ruined because they lost the ownership of these vast resources which were taken over by OPEC. However, if one looks at the profits of the major international oil companies, they digested that with hardly a hiccup. The profits of Exxon, which were about $1,300 million in 1971, have moved steadily upward to over $4 billion by 1979.
If we take the top 31 petroleum companies in Canada for the same period, profits went from $559 million to $3,075 million in 1979.
When Alberta changed its take from 22 per cent to 45 per cent of the dollar, again the industry in Canada was able to adjust to that. The industry has been able to adjust to new conditions and I am sure that will continue.
If the industry considers there is bad news in the budget arrangements, remember that there is also a lot of good news. In the same way Jack Armstrong and Bill Richards have said that they can see opportunities within it, keep in mind that for Canada conversion to gas will mean new markets for gas. Pipelines to be built to the east will mean new markets for western gas. The gas bank will help the smaller companies. There will be greater incentives for Canadian companies and preference for them in future gas exports. All of these things, I suggest, are very helpful signs which are being overlooked by some people in the west at this moment in time.
Any further remarks I have on the matter, I will make on another occasion, but I want to say that the government of Alberta has its priorities and its point of view. But I believe that the government of Alberta is wrong in feeling that it should take so much. It is my hope that understanding and dialogue will reconcile the differences which presently exist between the federal government and the government of Alberta, differences which are harmful to the country we all love.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
Petroleum Administration Act
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Parks Canada- Decision to cancel Cornwall to Peterborough move; the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Lack of coverage of European conference; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hiil (Mr. Blaikie)-Social development Renewal of federal-provincial funding-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret that I rise today to speak on the proclamations issued by the government under the Petroleum Administration Act. Member after member from this side of the House for the past two days has described the tragic implications the government's energy policy will have for the economy, energy security, and federal-provincial relations.
Canada is losing companies which provide necessary jobs, expertise and capital and other spin-offs which enable this country to enjoy its current high standard of living. Right across this country, including the manufacturing and service heartland of Ontario and Quebec, the situation is about to change. Economic and political uncertainty is about to engulf Canada at the very time Canadians are seeking ways and means to become more united and less dependent upon the help of others.
Today I want to shift the focus of the debate a little bit. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party have shown the incompetence of the government's policy. They have shown how Canadian families, families in my constituency, will be paying about $300 more for the cost of energy than they would have had to pay under the Crosbie budget. My colleagues have shown how the security of oil supply has been decreased as a result of these measures. Rather than achieving energy selfsufficiency by 1990, as our government proposed, we hear of threats to close down the Cold Lake project. We hear of cutbacks in exploration programs by Canadian independents. My colleagues have shown how employment will be hurt across the country.
The deferral of the oil sands project in Alberta means that Ontario and Quebec will share almost equally the economic hardships of Liberal policy as private companies cut their

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
exploration budgets or move to the United States. Almost daily we hear reports from my part of the country of shutdowns or of lay-offs taking place in industries in Ontario. These industries are affected by the decline in orders from western Canada, which are affected, as well, by the deterioration in the atmosphere and relations in Canada today. Western Canadians are looking for other sources of goods, instead of looking toward central Canada, because of the policies of this government. Yet the government cynically prepares to strike a deal with Saudi Arabia on the grounds, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "of security of supply". And we find the government is not serious in its dealings with Alberta, a Canadian province.
As Canadians go jobless, OPEC is receiving the equivalent of $900 a year for each Canadian family. Members of our party have shown that the Canadian oil industry, despite the government's claims to the contrary, is being hit seriously, particularly through the 8 per cent de facto royalty. As Canadian companies move south, the only Canadianizing effect of this energy policy is to create more government ownership. By 1983 this may well range between 45 per cent and 50 per cent, not 24 per cent, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would lead us to believe.
I ask the question: will it help national unity? Clearly the answer is no. The invoking of the Petroleum Administration Act will do more than perhaps any other measure taken by the government to damage the country.
Finally, my colleagues have described the impact of the regressive energy policy and the effects that it will have upon consumers and, particularly, on the low-income family. The government has made no provision to allow energy tax credits, like my government's budget did.
1 would point out as well that this government has imposed taxation upon heating oils which affect many poorer families in my constituency who do not have the option of converting to natural gas, and yet we find the government is not apologetic about its policies and is prepared to continue in this vein. This is divisive and punitive for the Canadians who can least afford to pay for it.
There is another aspect of this budget that is largely forgotten. In part, it is a consequence of complacency among members throughout the House, but it is also caused by the fact that the party opposite has ruled this country for so long that it has confused governing with government. Over the year the power of government has increased dramatically. Bureaucracy and public ownership now count for over 40 per cent of our gross national product.
I am not of the belief that government need be inherently bad. On the contrary, I think every member of this House would recognize that government has a vital role to play. However, when the elected representatives in Parliament unnecessarily delegate their task of governing to non-elected bureaucrats, or to a few select cabinet ministers, government becomes a monolithic entity, insensitive to the needs of people, subject to incompetency or, worse, deceit. I am not, therefore, inclined to give powers freely to any body or agency that has
not been elected by the people to govern for the good of this country. Yet, with the invoking of division II of part II of the Petroleum Administration Act, this is precisely what the government has chosen to do.
I am reminded of the warnings that the long time member, friend and former colleague of mine, Hon. Ged Baldwin, gave at the time of the passing of the Petroleum Administration Act in June, 1975. He warned of a government practice that had grown steadily since the end of the Second World War. The delegation of legislative powers to non-elected government agencies or bodies was increasing yearly and becoming more widespread. Civil servants and bureaucrats were making legislative decisions that were directly affecting the lives of every Canadian. But while Mr. Baldwin recognized that delegated legislation is an historically accepted and necessary method of governing, he warned that it was not a method that should be contemplated unless it was clearly necessary and specific in detail as to the extent of the delegation.
In the past Canada has had dangerous experiences with delegated powers which not only threatened the supremacy of Parliament but also the liberty of the people. In December, 1945, for example, Parliament passed a national emergency transitional powers bill which declared that a condition of emergency still existed in Canada, despite the fact that the war had ended. Very substantial powers under the War Measures Act were delegated to the governor in council until this period of emergency was over. In a few months it was discovered that the governor in council had secretly passed an order giving the minister of justice authority to issue an order to interrogate and detain "in such place and under such conditions as he may from time to time determine" any person whom he believed to be likely to communicate information to a foreign agent. This order provided the authority for the arrest, interrogation, and detention of suspects in the great spy investigation of 1946. The arbitrary nature of this piece of legislation, and the degree to which many innocent citizens' rights were revoked, best illustrate how delegated legislation of the variety found in the invoked portion of the Petroleum Administration Act can be abused when Parliament freely chooses to forsake its role of governing. These emergency powers remained in effect until 1954.
This type of abuse of delegated legislation is by no means the exception to the rule. In my capacity as co-chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, I have seen literally dozens of cases where delegated legislation has been abused by both the executive and non-elected agencies. In the case of the former, the committee found, and I quote from the fourth report tabled in the House last July that:
Far too many statutes contain little or no indication of legislative policy and are neutral documents the object of which is merely to confer powers on the executive to act in certain vaguely defined fields. Moreover, these powers are granted in very broad terms so that little or no detail is given as to the content or type of delegated legislation that can be made.

November 25, 1980

In the case of enabling powers, the committee found that it was:
Far too great a temptation to departments and to ministers to grant general enabling powers and to rely on their exercise being confined to the 'four corners of the act.' They are certain, and the committee speaks in the light of its predecessors' experience, to be used, and probably abused, in the pursuit of administrative convenience, to make subordinate laws never imagined by parliamentarians at the time of passage of a bill.
That is what our report had to say on the subject. To combat the further abuse of delegated legislation, the committee recommended that the intention of Parliament in delegating powers and the scope of the legislation be explained beyond all doubt and clearly limited.
Ged Baldwin was the first to recognize that the Petroleum Administration Act was a prime example of the type of faulty legislation the committee was criticizing. Members will remember that during the 1975 debate on the Petroleum Administration Act, the government of the day assured the House that the main intent of the legislation was to provide a base for the export charge which had been used for the purpose of funding the compensation program. The objective was, according to the government, to create a single national price subject only to differences for transportation costs.
Almost as an afterthought, the minister of energy, mines and resources at that time, mentioned that the bill provided a mechanism for the setting of oil and natural gas prices in Canada. Ged Baldwin, on the other hand, pointed out during the debate that articles 36 and 40 to 44 entitled the federal government to fix the price of oil, "despite the fact that a considerable percentage of the crude is not exported." Though Liberal members at that time shouted, "What do these comments have to do about the bill?", 1 think history has justified Mr. Baldwin's concerns, for articles 36 and 40 to 44 are all part of division II of part II. currently being invoked by the Liberal majority in Parliament. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, not enough members heeded his warning in 1975 and in subsequent amending debates on the bill, so we are obligated to take up his crusade today in the hope that parliamentarians on both sides of the House will come to their senses and reject any recourse to the invoking of the Petroleum Administration Act.
Failing this, I would like the government to take a second look at the implication of articles 38 to 47 of the act. The invoking of the Petroleum Administration Act does far more than give the government the power to set prices unilaterally for oil and gas. If this were not bad enough, sections 38 to 47 give the governor in council the power to delegate broad and sweeping licensing provisions to its regulatory agency, the National Energy Board. Section 38 provides that the "governor in council may, by order, direct that the National Energy Board assume supervision and regulation of the movement of crude oil out of an exporting province."
Section 39 further states that where such an order has been received, the movement of all oil out of an exporting province becomes "subject to a licensing system operated by the board". The governor in council then gives the agency a free hand to impose terms and conditions on licences it issues for, first,
Petroleum Administration Act
selling crude oil for consumption outside the exporting province; second, purchasing any crude oil for consumption outside the exporting province; third, acquiring any crude oil for consumption outside the exporting province; and fourth, selling or purchasing outside the exporting province any crude oil from the exporting province.
These licences may be restricted or limited as to area, quantity or time, quality or kind of crude oil. They may be revoked or suspended under section 84 of the National Energy Board Act when the board, after giving a licensee a hearing, forms the opinion that the licensee has violated or failed to comply with the terms or conditions of his licence. In short, the significance of the licensing system is that once it is in place, all selling, transporting, collecting, and mixing of crude oil for purposes elsewhere than in the exporting provinces, would be illegal unless the person engaged in the transaction was a party to the licensing system. Moreover, the act provides a broad range of penalties for breach of prohibitions under section 45(1) and (2).
While the Petroleum Administration Act would appear to provide a great deal of power to at least a few elected representatives via the governor in council, article 46(B) implies that the National Energy Board may be free of whatever restraining influences that the governor in council may have. Section 46(B) reads that the governor in council may make representations, and I quote:
Respecting the duration of licences, the quantities of crude oil that may be sold, purchased or moved under licences and the terms and conditions that may be prescribed by the board in respect of licences.
Unfortunately, the governor in council may choose, either intentionally or unintentionally, not to exercise this option. As I understand it, the word "respecting" in the article could lead the governor in council to subdelegate his law-making authority to the National Energy Board or to the minister.
Members can envisage a regulation by the governor in council which stipulates that the duration of licences or quantities shall be such as the minister notifies the board, or, shall be such as the board shall from time to time determine, and so on. That sort of provision is not uncommon. More important, perhaps, the governor in council may exempt, or empower the minister or the board to exempt, particular individuals from the regulatory requirement as to duration, quantities, or terms and conditions. In short, those sections, 38 to 47, that I have just described, postulate the possibility of a tightly controlled licensing system, containing many potentially arbitrary features governing the movement of oil in and without Canada.
Parliament in the first place should never have passed legislation that so limited its powers over actions by the government concerning the movement of oil in Canada so that the possibility of abuse could arise. I have pointed out how, in the past, broad and sweeping legislation of the variety here before us led to infringement of the principle of the supremacy of Parliament and of individual liberty itself. Today, with respect to the articles I have just described, one could hypothesize numerous examples of how the governor in council, or the National Energy Board, or the minister, or all of them to-

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
gether, might well abuse the power Parliament granted the government in 1975.
It is possible, under this act, that the government, in pursuit of its goal of "nationalization" of the oil industry in Canada, might choose to licence only PetroCan for the task of moving oil across Canada. The powers in this act would allow the governor in council, or the National Energy Board, or the minister, to cut short the duration of licences to private companies, Canadian or otherwise. They could determine how much oil was sold or purchased by private licences, and impose arbitrary terms on them.
Moreover, and this is an intent that I cannot believe the current government would harbour, the article in division II of part 11 of the Petroleum Administration Act could even govern the extent to which all or some exports from a producing province could be curtailed or stopped altogether. Shockingly, whether or not the government realizes it now, a future Liberal administration might use the licensing provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act to force Alberta into an energy deal. It could legally threaten Alberta to compromise on price or suffer the consequences of a cut-off from its export market.
It is important to remove even the temptation of this type of abuse from the hands of a select few members of the cabinet, or an individual minister, or a non-elected board.
1 understand the government's policy to establish prices below world levels that has led it to invoke the relevant proclamation of the Petroleum Administration Act. Though I disagree with the policy, if the setting of prices is the only concern of the government, why has it asked that all the licensing provisions in division II of part II be invoked also? A check with the National Energy Board reveals that no orders appear to have been made with respect to regulation by the board under section 38. This is commendable, but not entirely reassuring.
If the government's stated energy goals are to achieve a fair blended price and to achieve a large degree of Canadian ownership, it is vital that the means used to achieve these goals are legitimate and based on the underlying principles of Canada's constitutional order. As such, the means used to achieve the goals of government can be far more important than the ends themselves.
To paraphrase from the standing joint committee's report, it is no exaggeration to say that the evolution of Canada's constitutional system since the Magna Carta has consisted of a series of conflicts over means. Administrative efficiency may be the primary goal of the administrative process, but for the community as a whole the means in this process bear upon an individual's liberties, harmony, and constitutional balance. Since I have heard no public attempt to justify the invoking of articles 38 to 47, balance and fairness in our constitutional and parliamentary system dictate that this section be dropped from the current discussions.
After all, if the government has not even explained why these articles need be invoked, why should Parliament grant these extraordinary licensing powers that delegate these regulations to others and effectively undermine provincial ownership of land, mines and minerals granted under section 109 of the British North America Act? Surely Parliament ought to have a continuing influence over the means by which the government's actions are achieved, and surely the ownership of these lands ought at least to give the provinces some authority to decide to whom their oil will be exported and in what quantity, quality, and time frame. Sections 38 to 47 are over-kill. They are unjustified. They are unnecessary. They are just plain irresponsible, if invoked as the government currently plans to do.
There is more here than meets the eye. I have shown how delegated authority has been abused in the past and described the relevant sections of the Petroleum Administration Act that might be abused in the future. I have cited examples of cases where individual liberties were subverted and the power of Parliament curtailed, and related these to hypothetical situations that could arise if articles 38 to 47 of this act are invoked. I have tried to point out to the government how procedure is the handmaiden of liberty, and the lack of any intent to abuse the powers granted to the governor in council, the minister or the National Energy Board, is no excuse for their failure to drop articles 38 to 47 from the proclamation of the Petroleum Administration Act.
Finally, I have tried to show members of both sides of the House that it is the duty of this Parliament to say no to the minister's proclamation of an act that gives a select few, elected and non-elected members of government, blanket authority over petroleum pricing and licensing in this country. It is about time that Parliament began reasserting its independence and supremacy over delegated legislation that can be potentially dangerous to the underlying constitutional principles and individual liberties of the country.
Member after member who has spoken in this debate so far has dealt with the question of the effect of the government's policies on the unity of Canada and upon energy security in Canada. The minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, who spoke a few minutes ago, dealt with what he felt was an urgent need to protect the rights of consumers in Canada. I do not think there is a member in this House or any Canadian who is not concerned about the effect of higher energy prices upon average Canadians, but I think it is essential to remind the government that the arbitrary power it is asking for today-and we ask for justification-is having a serious effect on the national fabric of Canada itself.
We hear it said from time to time in Ottawa and throughout the country that Ontarians should be happy with what the government is doing in that Ontarians benefit, conceivably, in the short term from this federal intervention in an area which falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that to the extent to which Ottawa is able to expropriate energy wealth from the producing provinces it is to the benefit of consumers.
The hon. member from the NDP who spoke earlier pointed out that it was not the Albertans who ran up the $14.5 billion
November 25, 1980

deficit which the federal government faces today but that it is the Albertans who find their wealth confiscated by this government to pay for that deficit. My friend from the NDP did not say where he was when there were discussions in this House about high federal deficits and that this money will be used to finance them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We were here.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They were here, they were active, and they voted in every single instance to increase spending in Canada and not to decrease it. Nonetheless, I am glad to see this afternoon at least a late-blooming appreciation of the fact that what is happening here is the expropriation of the wealth of one portion of the country to pay for the federal government's inability to control its own spending.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, some people will argue that Ontarians will benefit from that and that we should be happy to see this happens. If they believe that this is so, they seriously misread the mood of my home province. Since confederation it has been Ontario which has been a central force for the unity of this country, and it has argued in all instances that all portions of this country have to be dealt with fairly and equitably. Confederation cannot simply be there as the thumb upon the scales to benefit one region of the country to the disfavour of others.
Ontarians today are deeply concerned when they see the effects of the policies of this government, which damage the unity of this country and make it difficult for us to live our lives in a feeling of harmony, of common sense and of good will, which is so essential if we are to overcome the centrifugal forces in our country which threaten to tear it apart. Ontarians are not happy to see what the federal government is doing. They are deeply concerned about their country and they deeply oppose any actions taken by this government which pit Canadian against Canadian, and which make more difficult our job of fostering a sense of national unity.
As a member of Parliament from a small town and rural area with many constituents who are not wealthy, I am deeply concerned about the effects of this government's policies. When ministers say these policies are necessary to hold prices down, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of the government's energy policies is to drive prices up. It was this government that imposed a tax upon the heating oil which is used by large numbers of my constituents who do not have recourse to natural gas. Yet these are the people who are being hit by the policies of this government, ostensibly brought down to give protection to the consumers and to protect the national interest. It is my constituents who are being deprived of an energy tax credit which was proposed in the Crosbie budget.
Where is the government when it talks about concern for consumers in this country and when it talks about the problems of individual Canadian families? Where are ministers when those families ask for assistance from the government in the form of an energy tax credit which was promised by the former government to help compensate for higher prices? Where is this government when constituents in my constituen-
Petroleum Administration Act
cy and in constituencies like mine across Ontario find their jobs being taken away from them because of slowdowns in the economy as a result of this government's policies?
I do not think my constituents will be fooled into believing that slowdowns in oil exploration and development in western Canada will not have a very serious effect upon their jobs right here in the heartland of Canada, because it is Ontario which benefits most from the manufacturing which is required to supply the oil industry, and a slowdown in that industry affects jobs right here in the industrial heartland of Canada.
This government campaigned against the energy policy proposed by our government, which would have encouraged exploration and development in Canada and which would have given massive assistance to the search for alternative sources of energy, much of that development money going into Ontario. I ask hon. members opposite how they can justify policies which today are costing the jobs of Ontarians.
There is a sense of malaise and uncertainty-which I have not felt before in my constituency over the course of the past eight years-which I feel today when I go around it. Canadians are frightened not just about whether their children will have jobs but also about whether they will be able to hang on to their own jobs because the effect of this government's policies is to take those jobs away. Hon. members opposite would happily pay the Saudi Arabians twice what they would pay Canadians to supply oil for Canadian needs. They would happily see that money leave Canada entirely, as well as industrial benefits going elsewhere instead of staying in Canada where they would provide jobs for Canadians. They would happily see the effects of their policies, which will be to drive exploration and development out of Canada and take jobs from Canada into the United States where development of the oil industry is very welcome.
This is not an issue on which the government can expect to divide Alberta from the rest of Canadians. All of Canada suffers from the consequences of the incompetence on energy issues of this government. All of Canada had a right to expect, after the last election, that the government would keep its promises and bring in measures which would actually stimulate Canadian ownership and do something to encourage employment in Canada, yet what we have found is that promise after promise has been broken. If Canadians liked what was done to them by the Prime Minister with respect to wage and price controls, they will love what he is doing to them with respect to the energy promises and employment promises which he made during the 1980 election.
What the government is doing today is inflicting serious damage upon the unity of Canada and affecting very grievously the jobs of Canadians. I do not believe that a member on any side of the House, whether in the opposition or in the government, has any right to stand here and support such a measure, and I call upon hon. members on all sides of the House to join with the members of my party in saying to the government that these measures may not go forward and that

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
the time has come not to sit down with Saudi sheiks, but to sit down with the people of Alberta, who are Canadians, first, and to work out a regime of pricing and development which is fair to all Canadians and which would put Canadian interests first. That is all Canadians are asking for, and I think they are entitled to no less.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras) for having called it five o'clock.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This gives rise to the subject matter of Bill C-206 to amend the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Knowles:: The subject matter? It is the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before proposing the question on Bill C-206 to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Chair ought to register reservations and enter a caveat as to the procedural acceptability of the bill. The Chair is of the view that certain provisions of the bill may involve expenditures of public funds, which can only be authorized by way of a royal recommendation. However, since the Chair does not want to take too much time of private members' hour to rule now, I intend to allow the debate on the bill, without prejudice to the decision which may have to be made on the procedural acceptability of the bill at the conclusion of the debate at second reading.
November 25, 1980

For immediate reference I would refer to clauses 2 and 3 in which there is a suggestion, if I understand the bill correctly, that there may be a requirement for the expenditure of government funds in so far as Crown corporations are concerned. That is the essence of the caveat being entered by the Chair. The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) may choose to raise that point during his own remarks on the bill, but for the moment it seems to be the best way to proceed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill C-206, to amend the Canada Labour Code (maternity leave), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have noted your caveat on the admissibility of my bill in terms of the expenditure of public funds through Crown corporations. When the Chair is considering the matter, I should like it to take into consideration that I do not believe the caveat applies, because in effect my bill calls for leave without pay. I do not know how Crown corporations, any other business, or all employees under federal jurisdiction, would call for extra expenditures.
Bill C-206 has been on the order paper for some time. It would increase the maximum period of maternity leave which is presently in the Canada Labour Code from 17 weeks to 52 weeks. It would provide up to three years of maternity leave for the employee whose child requires constant care. It would allow an employee to credit maternity leave time toward pension plans or any benefits determined by seniority. That means if an employee chooses, when on leave without pay or after coming back to work, to make payments toward her pension plan or contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, then the employer would match the contributions, which I think does not come under the caveat Mr. Speaker mentioned earlier. The final provision of the bill would be that if an employee were to die during childbirth, or after the child is born, the spouse would be entitled to the remaining leave and benefits.
If the bill were to pass, two other things must happen. It applies only to industries and employers under federal jurisdiction; the provinces would have to be encouraged to pass similar legislation. The federal government should amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the length of maternity benefits which at present is only 15 weeks. This change was not included in my private member's bill because of the risk that the entire bill might be ruled out of order in that it would involve the spending of money. I tried to keep in mind the business about a private member's bill calling for the expenditure of money. Where unemployment insurance benefits are involved, it would be up to the government to bring in its amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to coincide with the provisions of my bill.
There are a lot of reasons why this legislation is long over due. The importance of bonding in the first year of a child's life cannot be overemphasized. Close ties between parent and child affect the child's behaviour for the rest of its life. This has been verified by experts in the field, and it was pointed out as recently as last October in the Senate subcommittee report
Canada Labour Code
entitled "Child at Risk". I invite hon. members to read what the committee reported about good parenting being of overwhelming importance to the developing personality of a child. Extended maternity leave is one of the important means of achieving those close ties.
Maternity leave is no longer a fringe benefit for a selected few who can negotiate it through collective agreements. Women have been entering the labour force in increasing numbers, and can no longer be dismissed as a secondary labour force. In 1979, 49 per cent of the women in Canada, or almost half, were in the paid work force. Between 1969 and 1979 the growth of women in the work force increased by over 61 per cent. The main child-bearing years are between the years of 20 and 44. Last year 63 per cent of working women in Canada were between those ages. There has been concern about Canada's declining birth rate. The 52 weeks of maternity leave could offer further job security to women who want to have children but are reluctant to risk their job security, their pay level, their economic and social well-being.
There have been too many instances across the country where an employee has requested time off from work to bear a child and to spend some time with the child after birth, and after two or three months has been told by her employer, "Well, you have had so much time off; if you cannot get back to work within the next month or two, I will have to hire someone else."
This is not a new provision in other parts of the world. I am asking that Canada catch up with a lot of other places. Also I remind the House that under the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act federal public servants are allowed 37 weeks of maternity leave-up to 11 weeks before birth and 26 weeks after. It is an improvement over what is in the Canada Labour Code. So surely the government cannot object to improving the Canada Labour Code, compared to the provisions affecting federal public servants. I should like to mention what is occurring in other countries. Austria, Norway and the Soviet Union provide one-year leave for maternity; Czechoslovakia provides two years; Spain and Bulgaria provide three years. I find it somewhat embarrassing that we are behind these other countries.
There is another reason why I think this matter is important. Just the other day another private member's bill was before the House concerning abortion. All of us in the chamber have been required to go through the agonizing and heart-rending feelings of hon. members on both sides of the question, feelings that are sincerely held and believed in. I think this provision, as well as a number of others, would do more to end the perceived need and demand for abortion. It is one of many measures which I think would reduce a need for abortion that is not only perceived but which also may be real.
It seems to me that people do not resort to abortion because they suddenly do not love babies. It is because they find themselves caught in a frightening and terrifying squeeze where there is no housing, no job, no health, no acceptance or

November 25, 1980
Canada Labour Code
support. I think all hon. members want to do all they can to restructure our society and make it a hospitable place in which to live. We want to reduce substantially the perceived and felt need for abortion. Of equal importance is the necessity for a mother to be with her new baby, and a one year leave of absence without pay would help. Unless she belongs to a union, if she is lucky enough to have one, she can through a collective agreement negotiate some additional benefits. That is fine. Surely the federal law should set out a minimum of 12 months leave from the position that woman held with her employer, and guarantee her right to return to it, or to a better position with the same employer. This is only one of many things we need to do to strengthen the parent or mother-child bonding, to strengthen families and reduce their perceived compulsion or need for abortion, and to make this a more decent, understanding society than it presently is.
I am aware the government is looking at amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I do not care if it is my bill that passes, or a bill put forward by an opposition member, or a government bill, as long as it gets done. Would the minister or his parliamentary secretary at least agree when they bring in amendments to the Canada Labour Code that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee so that the government can decide whether or not to incorporate the provisions of my bill into their legislation? I will be among the first to applaud and congratulate them for it. This is not the kind of issue for prima donnas or any one person to take credit for. Members from all parties have advocated this and have spoken in favour of it for many years.
1 find it difficult to understand why it takes so long to resolve an issue about which there can easily be all party agreement, which can do much to reduce the divisions that occur among members of Parliament, as well as among Canadians, on social and moral issues, abortion being one of them. It seems to me the way to solve divisions is to bring in a number of measures.
It is not sufficient just to guarantee employment and leaves of absence for women to bear children. There is a host of other wide-sweeping reforms needed to strengthen families, to strengthen the love, care and the ability to care for children. A measure of economic security for single parent families must be enhanced. There must be more daycare centres in a massive way, not just through provincial, municipal and federal governments, but employers must and should make significant contributions to women at work for their children to be cared for while at work. So many of them must work because they want a house and to raise and love a family.
Mr. Speaker, chartered banks must be required to set aside a portion of their investment capital into the area of low-interest mortgages-like 8 per cent. This must be done so that mortgage rates will no longer cripple young families or, even worse, prevent them from having decent housing.
Medicare must be universal. It is something all of us are proud of. I will not just brag about Saskatchewan. It must be the norm throughout society so that it, too, can aid in the well-being of mothers and their newborn.
1 submit federal funding must be made available to provinces and educational institutions to enable them to provide all forms of birth control and family planning information, not just for students but for parents. This would encourage responsibility and decrease the ignorance which exists on those subjects. It would enable each individual, and more particularly women, to be informed intelligently and it would enable them to adopt a method of birth control which best meets their own religious beliefs, economic, social and family needs. It is a decision they should be able to make in an informed and intelligent manner.
Mr. Speaker, this bill of mine is only one of many steps which must be taken in order to improve our society. I end my speech by quoting a statement released by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. It has proven of great value to me. It reads:
To be involved in the task of making this society hospitable to life, is a foremost requirement of social justice. That is why we must take most seriously the rebuke that those who oppose abortion care too little about the special problems of mothers and the burdens of rearing children once they are born. If respect for life seems to end with birth, our perceptions and values are truncated and incomplete. The call of Christ, that we should bear one another's burdens, demands that we reach out in practical ways to share all the burdens of parenthood. The indicated aid and support will include working to change economic and social realities in the direction of justice and respect for life. From doing this, we must not flinch.
Mr. Speaker, whatever one's religious beliefs are, or if one has no religious beliefs, that is a statement that all of us can agree with and support. My bill, in its own limited way, calls for the implementing of one of many measures that needs to be taken to make this a more decent society, one that is more hospitable in which to live for mothers and families in our country.


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few important remarks on Bill C-206 now before the House.
First of all, I should like to express my unmitigated admiration for the architect of the bill, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who obviously acted under the inspiration of altruistic principles. The hon. member shows an awareness of and an interest in the well-being of Canadian women at work, well-being which often is not protected enough.
Hon. members are probably all aware that in almost all parts of the country federal and provincial statutes apply which give some form of protection to women at work, particularly with regard to maternity leave. To those must be added two international instruments that deal with maternity benefits, namely, the United Nations Declaration of 1967 on the elimination of discrimination against women which stipulates that "In order to prevent discrimination against women by reason of marriage or maternity and to guarantee their effective right to work, steps must be taken to keep them from being fired when they marry or bear children, and to provide for maternity leave with pay and the guarantee of returning to
November 25, 1980

their former job, as well as to ensure that they benefit from required social services, including child care."
Convention 103 of the International Labour Organization on maternity protection, the second international instrument, was never ratified by Canada because it considered it obsolete in several regards. In fact, the ILO itself is in the process of reviewing and reinforcing the provisions now applicable so as to bring them more into line with the current needs of all workers who are breadwinners. Here in Canada, the Labour Code, the basic federal statute in the matter, is also being revised.
The Women's Bureau has played a major role in this regard and the department has used much of its resources to promote work equality. Mr. Speaker, the principle of work equality includes several important components, and the hon. members will undoubtedly be interested to learn which factors are considered essential to define equitable treatment. In the simplest possible terms, the first factor concerns reasonable access to leave for the worker in charge of a family. The second concerns the elimination of inherent obstacles to hiring which prevent women from getting the better paid jobs and from developing fully on a professional level. The third is related to a job-evaluation method which would simplify application of the equal pay for equal work concept. The fourth concerns the elimination of any harassment in the workplace and of any behaviour which perpetuates discrimination and constitutes a threat to the job and performance of women workers. Finally, the setting up of an administrative structure to monitor, if need be, and apply the work equality concept would ensure true equality in the work place.
I have referred to prejudice and discrimination which are unfortunately still present in various aspects of the work place. Work segregation, unequal pay for men and women and sexual intimidation are a few of the practices which create and maintain a climate of inequality in the workplace. Many other factors can also come into play, such as the negative effects on a career of absence from work because of the adoption or the birth of a child. Then, there is the leave forced upon the workers concerned. The list is long and there are still many prejudices. One of the most difficult issues to define in this regard is the responsibility of private businesses in relation to that of the parents.
In that respect, as was previously mentioned, the government recently did an over-all survey of the situation here in Canada and in some other countries, and carefully considered and assessed the rules that apply in the industry, all legal provisions, as well as the latest trends. That survey has now been completed, I believe. Very shortly the government plans to introduce into the Canadian Labour Code a package of amendments based on this survey. I think we will thus be in a position to satisfy the more pressing needs. I am sure that Canada will show leadership in providing equal work opportunity.
Canada Labour Code
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer hon. members to a recent book published by James Bennett and Pierre Loewe entitled "Women in Business". Its subtitle is: "A shameful waste of human resources." The book shows that in the vast majority of businesses in Canada not only are women treated as second-class citizens but they are also victims of both conscious and unconscious discrimination. I for one can only applaud the fact that at the federal level at least forthcoming serious legislative amendments will be fighting this type of discrimination so that all workers having family responsibilities may work in a more equitable environment.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this carefully-thought-out bill which would be a real addition to the social legislation of this country. Even though a caveat has been placed on the bill, I urge the government side to let it proceed through second reading so that it may be fully discussed in committee.
I am astounded by the number of excellent bills that are talked out in this House during second reading when only the principle of a bill, not the clause by clause detail, is being discussed. The reasons these bills are talked out are not very apparent. A bill should be defeated only after very careful consideration in committee. This particular bill should not be talked out, for many reasons.
Many of the points raised by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who introduced the bill, are points which can be supported by almost every political party, religious organization, or facet of our society. Since I began my career in federal politics I have always been bothered by the red tape expectant working mothers must go through to obtain unemployment insurance benefits. I am sure all hon. members are acquainted with studies which indicate that the period before the birth of a child is very important to the health and stability of the child. If the mother is worried or ill at ease about what will happen after the birth of the child, it is bound to have an adverse affect on its health and well-being when it is born.
The hon. member who introduced the motion indicated that 52 weeks maternity leave would reduce the incidence of abortion, and I believe he is correct. No matter whether one is in favour of or opposed to abortion, one must be concerned with the increase in the number of abortions in the country, a number which increases every year. While I was a member of the Alberta legislature I asked for a report which would indicate how many women had gone through the medicare program to obtain an abortion more than once. I was astounded to hear that some women had experienced three or four abortions. The first time may have been a mistake or a concern, but some women have experienced three or four abortions. Abortion is being used as a birth control method with which I completely disagree.

November 25, 1980
Canada Labour Code
When one looks at all of the factors leading to abortion, in my view the economic one is the one that comes up most often. The girl or woman is concerned about how she will keep the wolf from the door or about how she will make a living. I attended a type of profile meeting a week ago. I believe everyone there was opposed to abortion. But a woman came up and spoke to me. She said quietly that she had experienced an abortion herself when she was in her late teens. She told me that the anguish she suffered still awakened her at night when she thought about aborting her child who would now be 19 or 20 years of age. She told me that her prime reason for aborting the child was the lack of livelihood and she could not see how she could keep the child. These reasons were the ones which led her to have an abortion. I believe the economic factor is a very important one in a great number of cases where abortion is carried out. It is not the factor in everyone, but certainly it is in a large number. 1 do not know exactly what the percentage is, but I would say that about one-third of the abortions are due to economic reasons.
If that is so, this bill, if it reduces the number of abortions by one-third in this country, would be a wonderful thing. Who knows what wonderful children might be born. These children would grow into adults. We do not know what they can do for the world or the genius that we might be killing because of these abortions.
The 52-week maternity leave would be a major factor in changing the mind, or at least eliminating the worry of a girl, who otherwise might agree to an abortion.
We all talk about making the workplace a place where women and men are equal. In many cases, this is not so. In many cases it is impossible to make them equal. In my view, men and women will never be close to being equal unless we recognize that women bear children. If women are going to be penalized when they have a child, either through a reduction in benefits or through a reduction in chances for promotion, then equality goes straight out of the window. This situation happens many times. At a teachers' meeting I heard someone say that Mrs. so and so could qualify as the vice principal if she were not married. They were afraid she might have a child and be absent. Absence in those days was not very much, I can tell you. As a matter of fact, it was embarrassing for those who were pregnant and had to work up to within a month or perhaps even a couple of weeks of giving birth. It was embarrassing to them and embarrassing to all of their loved ones. If we are going to have equality in the work place between men and women we have to recognize that childbirth is something a woman naturally wants. If she does have a child then the woman should not be penalized because of it. Otherwise, we are simply talking about equality with our lips and forgetting all about it as far as our hearts and minds are concerned.
The federal government can be commended for giving 11 weeks maternity leave prior to birth. That is almost three months. The last three months is an embarrassing period of time. This is a time when a woman should not be bothered with the frustrations of the everyday workplace. However, I
would like to see that time extended to three months at least and possibly more in some cases depending on doctors' advice. But 11 weeks is certainly far in advance of what many employers are giving today to women who are bearing children.
If the 52-week period were granted, it would bring a sense of stability to married women who want to raise a family. Women should not be denied the contribution they will make through raising a family and looking after a family simply because there may be some inconvenience in the workplace. Inconvenience has to be put down as an item which will lead to a better country and a better community. If the number of children born is reduced through artificial methods or economic factors, then the future of the country is really at stake.
I think a pope said once that the first seven years of a child's life were the most important years. It has been said that if people could have the care of a child for the first seven years they would not worry about what happened after that. The foundation of what that child will do has been established in the first seven years of life. Researchers have indicated that the period before birth is also a vitally important time in the life of a child. This aspect was dealt with quite excellently by the mover of this bill. The welfare of the child should be the predominating thought in our minds as should be the welfare of the mother. Both of these are considered in this bill where the 52 weeks maximum is permitted for a maternity case.
To get more equality in the workplace, we should eliminate some of the discrimination we see today. Women should not be subject to embarrassment because of pregnancy. The number of abortions in this country should be reduced. We should provide for the healthy future of the child and the mother. I think this bill should be supported and I urge hon. members to give it their full support on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will allow at least one woman to address this issue. I am not denying him the rights of a father, but I hope that he will at least recognize that I have some rights as a mother.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to speak of the essence of the matter, of the principle involved, and note that this bill favours parental bonding, and in this regard, I would like to quote for my colleagues one of the statements made in the Senate report entitled "Child at Risk," which was published recently and which is an excellent report, concerning the importance of parental bonding. This report refers to the mother at the time of birth and right after, but I believe that the statement concerning the weeks immediately following birth could also apply to the father. The report says:
November 25, 1980

Today, women are having terrible difficulties in parenting and in knowing how to parent... Therefore, we need those moments that nature gives us, in a sense, to become attached to our infants, to become better mothers, to become more sensitive in relation to infants. It does not mean it won't happen on day three, or two weeks hence;-
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that existing benefits granted through unemployment insurance may not always allow this parental attachment to form or to favour the development of the infant. This is why I must say that I agree with the spirit of Bill C-206 introduced by my colleague from Regina West, which promotes attachment on the part of one of the parents, either the father or the mother, but the emphasis is placed on maternity leave, and in this regard, I must say that the bill may show a certain weakness because I think that it should also apply to the father.
I must say that, as a former administrator of a school board in Quebec, I have had the occasion to apply such a policy of 52 weeks renewable for another year at the request of the teacher. In other words, this policy is already implemented in certain public bodies in the province of Quebec. This is now the policy of the Quebec government, but when we took this initiative, we were able to grant teachers leave so that they might see to the education of their own children, and 1 believe that a country and a government which allow parents to take care of their own children while guaranteeing their jobs are basically taking their responsibilities seriously. Elowever, I must say that I also agree with the clause which guarantees that the employee may continue to contribute toward his fringe benefits. We all know that the federal government is now reviewing the question of pensions, and I believe that such a provision for workers who leave the labour force to have or bring up children is very positive and would solve some of the problems that now exist concerning pensions, especially for women.
As concerns the three years of constant care for children with special problems, I must say that this legislation seems extremely positive to me. I would like to quote in this regard section 80 of the report of the Senate committee concerning emotional privation;
80. The importance of establishing good, affectionate, early attachments has already been mentioned. If this does not happen, the child has lost an opportunity for the optimal early development of a healthy personality-Normally, this person is the mother-In some cases neither parent is able to fulfil the needed role of a steadfast and affectionate presence in the child's life. Such circumstances have been referred to as "parental deprivation". This is "recognized as a prime cause of delinquency and other personality disorders".
This means that in the case of children who might have special problems, it is even more important to grant leave to the parent while protecting his or her job. Obviously, what remains is to set specific criteria to define the situation and grant such leave for a period which could be extended.
1 must say, however, that such a provision cannot be implemented alone without other important measures, namely, an
Canada Labour Code
extended program of daycare centres. As a matter of fact, in its report, the Senate committee mentions the case of a child who can secure a love relationship with another person and of the mother who might not be able to afford 52 weeks leave without pay. A child who can have a love relationship with another person can develop in the normal way after the first few weeks. Therefore, I think that this provision to extend the length of maternity leave and to protect the employment of Canadian male and female workers who have a new child is extremely positive.
However, I think that there is a second shortcoming in the legislation. There is no mention of maternity leave in the context of adoption. I think that, in the case of adoption, maternity leave is equally important and that it enables parents to establish that love relationship with the young child they are going to adopt. I should have liked the bill to be more precise in that regard and to allow that alternative to leave because as a champion of equality for women, I think that if, at a certain time, it were possible for the father to look after the child at home, that proposed leave could be equally shared by the father and the mother. In fact, the report of the Senate committee emphasizes the fact that it is very important for the child, even for a young child, to establish that love relationship with the parents in order to develop harmoniously.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to insist that such a measure should be introduced in the context of a global family policy. We often have pieces of legislation which tend to remedy a problem but which finally do not solve the specific problems a Canadian family can have.

For that reason, I wish the bill could be amended by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), who is responsible for amendments to the Canada Labour Code, so that this measure could be easily accessible to those with a new baby. I would like to see the measure discussed with the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to provide better child care service for those women who do not have enough revenue to stay home after the birth and receive only unemployment insurance benefits. These women should enjoy decent services. This would help avoid the problem of children in their early stages not receiving proper consideration.
I hope the hon. member for Regina West will take into account that we gladly support this measure, but we feel there are a few items missing. 1 hope the minister will take this as a recommendation and implement it as soon as possible.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address some pertinent remarks to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. The principle intent of this bill is to extend the maximum period of maternity leave to 52 weeks from the present 17. Other amendments would provide for up to three years maternity leave in the case of a child requiring constant care, permit maternity leave to be credited toward a pension

November 25, 1980
Canada Labour Code
plan and, in the case of a mother's death during or after childbirth, transfer to her spouse her remaining leave and other benefits. These, in short, are the main proposals of Bill C-206.
The hon. member's bill strikes a responsive chord, coming as it does on the heels of the settlement of the translators' strike. It would certainly be a wonderful world if the provisions of the kind outlined, such as 52 weeks maternity leave, were generally available. Most legislative provisions across the country today range between 17 and 18 weeks. At the outset, however, 1 think it would be useful if I were to briefly describe existing maternity leave legislation.
As hon. members will be aware, such legislation appears in virtually all Canadian jurisdictions in various forms. The jurisdiction affected by the proposed bill is, of course, the federal jurisdiction.

The federal legislation maternity leave to be found in part III of the Canada Labour Code was passed in 1971. At that time only British Columbia and Ontario had similar legislation. This legislation provided for 17 weeks leave for employees with 12 consecutive months of service with the same employer. The beneficiary could avail herself of this leave 11 weeks before the expected date of delivery and for a period of six weeks following the birth of the child. The legislation ensured security of employment by providing that the employee had the right to get her job back or any similar position without reduction of wages or loss of benefits. Furthermore, upon her return, employment was deemed to have been continuous with regard to the position she held before leave was granted.
In 1975 the legislation on maternity leave became more flexible thanks to Bill C-16. A pregnant employee then became entitled to up to 11 weeks leave prior to the anticipated date of delivery and to up to 17 weeks after the birth of the child. She could also benefit from additional leaves equal to the difference between the estimated and actual dates of delivery. The leave could therefore cover a period of 26 weeks instead of 17 as was the case before. Three years later. Bill C-8 again amended the legislation by improving the security of employment clause which provides that an employer cannot dismiss or lay off an employee on the sole ground that she is pregnant or has asked for leave.

As hon. members may recall, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) earlier this month indicated the board's willingness to offer all federal employees new maternity and paternity benefits. These include the maternity benefits already mentioned, unpaid paternity and adoption leave of up to 26 weeks, some provision for the care of sick family members and medical and adoption appointments.
Following the federal lead, similar legislation now exists in all other jurisdictions in Canada with the exception of Prince
Edward Island, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The qualification is 12 months continuous service in five jurisdictions, 12 months and 11 weeks in one jurisdiction and 20 weeks in one jurisdiction. Two jurisdictions have no qualification period. The length of the leave period is 16 weeks in one jurisdiction, 17 weeks in five jurisdictions and 18 weeks in three jurisdictions. Only four jurisdictions provide for protection from lay-off or dismissal and, with the exception of two provinces, it is specifically stated that the woman must be reinstated in the same or a similar position. So we can see that the 17-week period is the most commonly applied across Canada.
Beyond these minor differences in legislation there are some jurisdictions which have made some innovative changes to provide the pregnant woman with more job security. For example, in two jurisdictions-Ontario and Saskatchewan- specific mention is made of pregnancy-related illnesses. The legislation in these provinces prohibits employers from discriminating in the provision of sick leave and disability benefits on the basis that the illness is pregnancy-related. The Quebec legislation provides a safety clause which permits the woman who provides a medical certificate to ask for a change of duties if the working conditions are hazardous to her or to the fetus. Also, if the employer does not provide her with alternative employment within eight days, the woman may go on special paid leave up until the commencement of her maternity leave, that is, eight weeks preceding the expected birth.
Provisions for maternity leave also exist in a number of collective agreements in Canada. In 1979 various jurisdictions were surveyed to determine the frequency of maternity leave clauses, and it was found that provisions in existence in various jurisdictions ranged from 10 per cent to 58 per cent of the agreements studied. In general, the clauses followed the provisions of the legislation with some providing for additional leave of up to one year, shorter qualification periods, several weeks of paid leave and continuation of benefits during leave with accumulation of seniority.
However, the majority of union contracts do not provide for any form of maternity leave, relying totally on legislation to provide protection. It must also be noted that of more than four million women in the labour force little more than a quarter are unionized.

In November, 1979, the government of Quebec offered its public and related employees the most interesting provisions regarding parental leave. All agreements are not yet in effect at the present time, but here are some of the clauses they contain: 20 weeks of leave with pay divided as follows: 93 per cent of the salary will be paid to the employee during the two-week waiting period before payment of unemployment benefits; moreover, during the 15-week benefit period, the employer agrees to pay the difference between the amount of the benefits and 93 per cent of the salary and to pay the same portion of the salary during the additional three weeks.
November 25, 1980

Another provision allows extension of maternity leave without pay for a two-year period. This leave is available to the mother or the father. It can also be split between the two. The employee on leave gets credit for seniority, other leave and benefits.
Countries other than Canada have similar legislation and some have made outstanding progress in that respect. Sweden, for example, extends up to two years of leave with pay to either parent. That country also favours part-time work and flexible working hours for parents with children under six. In Sweden, maternity provisions go far beyond leave for confinement and the subsequent recovery period. In that country the legislation provides that parents may take whatever time they need to look after their children. In other words, Sweden has recognized that women are a vital and permanent part of the labour force, and that they can go on with their careers after their children are born.
Such changes did not come about only due to the pressure of the women's liberation movement. They are also derived from economic factors. This means that working conditions have had to adapt themselves to the changes in the role of man and woman in order to promote a healthier family life. The Swedish legislation is quite wide in its scope, and the philosophy underlying it might very well serve as an example here.

South of the border, an increasing number of employers in the United States private sector are taking the lead in introducing creative employment benefits. The latest move in this direction relates to adoption. A recent study of benefit programs offered by 14 large corporations indicates that adoption benefits were established as an equity consideration. The survey found that the infrequency of adoption made the program inexpensive when compared with other benefits, particularly the amount of positive public relations value generated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Good. Question!


Louis R. Desmarais: Although the number of firms offering such benefits is still relatively small, it is a step in the right direction.


Mr. Paproski:: Question!


Louis R. Desmarais: This, then, is a very brief review of some of the highlights-


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business is expiring, but I will recognize the parliamentary secretary on a point of order.
Petroleum Administration Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that according to the provisions of section 35 of the Petroleum Administration Act, the question, if any, must be put at 9.45 on the last day of debate on that section, which will be this evening, as agreed in the House order.
After consultation between the parties it has been agreed that the question will be put at 10 p.m. tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The parliamentary secretary indicates that there may be agreement to the suggestion that the vote on the Petroleum Administration Act proclamation take place at 10 p.m. rather than 9.45. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, in case anyone misunderstands, I should just reiterate that the question will be deferred until tomorrow; the actual putting of the question must be tonight, but the vote will be tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question is put tonight, but the vote is tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think I need to repeat. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras) had the floor.


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess at 5 p.m., I was speaking generally of my riding of Abitibi, which is according to the privilege granted to new members in their first session. I referred to its immense

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
territory, 750,000 square kilometres, that is 48 per cent of the province of Quebec. I dealt with its contrasts, its history and its rural vocation. At five o'clock, I was broaching the subject of tourism in that part of our country.
The Abitibi region, Mr. Speaker, is a marvellous region for those who love nature; it embraces thousands of lakes and rivers, wide open spaces, and plenty of fresh unpolluted air. It is a small paradise for fishermen and hunters. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you, if 1 may, that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) while a young student in the forties canoed down the Harricanaw River to James Bay. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he insists on being in good physical shape while he is at the helm of this country of ours.
The Harricanaw River runs within my riding, Mr. Speaker, and flows into James Bay, site of the project of the century. I would like to give a few energy data on the James Bay project. By 1990, the La Grande complex will generate 11,400 megawatts. With the expected excess water, dams could be overequipped to produce 4,652 megawatts more. The NBR project proposed in the same James Bay area will include the Notta-way Broadback and Rupert rivers, with a possible production of 2,870 megawatts. When completed, the whole James Bay program will have a total production of 27,632 megawatts.
I would like to take this opportunity tonight to point out how far-sighted Mr. Robert Bourassa was in giving the go ahead to the project when he was the premier of Quebec.
1 could not make a complete survey of my riding without mentioning forestry. From the small sawmill of the thirties to what we see today, things have changed quite a bit.
We now have modern plants with an increasing capacity to finish products right here. A kraft pulp and paper mill was established at Lebel-sur-Quevillon, a brand new town in existence since 1965. At Val d'Or, we have a particle board plant, and a newspaper mill is now being built at Amos, at a cost of over $190 million, thanks to the regional development assistance granted by DREE. This is the very first newsprint plant to be built in Quebec since 1938. Moreover, it is the only one wholly owned and controlled by Francophones. The plant will use nothing but locally produced energy, that is coming from the riding of Abitibi, electricity coming from James Bay and forest waste products.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the national energy program, and more specifically renewable energy and energy conservation. With regard to the national energy program, allow me to make a few comments concerning sources of renewable energy and the role the government intends to play across the whole spectrum of those energies.
I want to speak today about forests. I quote from page 67 of the document entitled "The National Energy Program":
The federal government currently administers the FIRE (Forest Industries Renewable Energy) program, which provides a substantial grant for forest
industries that convert to wood waste. To encourage even greater displacement of petroleum by biomass fuels, this program will be expanded to apply to other organic materials such as agricultural and municipal wastes, and to cover all industrial and commercial establishments, in all areas. Grants will also be made available to firms that undertake cogeneration of electricity (the generation of electricity and process heat at the plant site). To provide additional flexibility, and make this program attractive even to the largest industries, the existing $4 million upper limit on grants will be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I have here another document entitled ktThe Green Gold." It is an article written by Mr. Louis-Jean Lussier and published in Foret Conservation, August-Septem-ber 1980. I quote:
In this world going through an energy crisis .. . could it be possible that the huge Quebec forests, an essentially renewable resource, replace someday the exhaustible oil of the Arab sheiks, the price of which is skyrocketing every year, somewhat as the whim takes them? From time to time, a daily newspaper looking for a good story will tell you about methanol, this precious fluid made from wood which will soon fire your car engine. And don't you dismiss it as a dream: already in Brazil they use as a motor fuel a mixture of gasoline and 30 per cent methanol known as gasohol.
I will limit my remarks tonight to a concept that is more elementary than gasohol, but which still interests me a great deal. 1 would like to give as an example a public building located in my riding and that building, as everything else in Abitibi, is close to a wood waste burner. In that particular case, the building is close to five such burners.
So, that building uses 250,000 gallons of heating oil or the equivalent of 6,250 barrels of oil. As hon. members know, an imported barrel of oil today costs Canadian taxpayers $21.50 in subsidy to importers. So the heating bill for that building is $175,000. If that oil were paid at the international price it would cost after deductions $134,375 more, that is $309,375 for heating that building.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that building is very close to five wood waste burners. A simple calculation has shown that one tonne of dry chips is equivalent, as far as energy is concerned, to three barrels of oil. So that establishment would use about 2,000 tonnes of chips a year, the energy equivalent at prevailing prices would be $84 a tonne of dry chips and almost twice that if the cost of oil were estimated at the international price. You will ask me: do we have in the northwest enough chips to heat that building? 1 mentioned 2,000 tonnes of chips a year for that building.
At the Department of Lands and Forests, in Abitibi, I was assured that natural reforestation represents 1,676,000 cunits. For the laymen, a cunit is 100 cubic feet. It is the equivalent of a cut forest of coniferous trees. In fact, the forest regenerates entirely. One thing is difficult to find: that cut wood represents 55 per cent of the tree. So, to cut 1,676,000 cunits you must cut a volume of trees of three million cunits. Those three million cunits are made up of 12 per cent chips which makes 360,000 cunits of chips. Those volumes have a weight of about 500,000 tonnes which represent, as I said earlier, three barrels of oil per tonne. So, the chips we produce in Abitibi are the equiva-
November 25, 1980

lent of 1.5 million barrels of oil every year. Furthermore, such energy losses cost us $32 million in oil imports at today's prices. And that, Mr. Speaker, is only the bark; 33 per cent of the tree is still left in the bush.
I am pleased that the government is aiming at energy self-sufficiency by 1990. The example I have given clearly proves there are huge wastes of energy. The CF1IP program is oil conservation legislation. The conversion of heating systems, particularly in my constituency, and the incentives to do it, that is up to $800, is a step aimed at reducing our oil consumption. I leave it to my colleagues to deal with the other benefits of the national energy program.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to go on and on in my maiden speech in the House. I thank you again for allowing me to rise in this debate. This proclamation could have been avoided if an agreement on oil pricing had been possible with the main producing province. I feel, however, that an agreement might be reached before long. However, we must go forward in order to achieve energy self-sufficiency. I hope that these brief remarks on one aspect only of the energy program will bring home to us here, in Canada, our lack of concern about conserving this valuable energy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this debate is on the Petroleum Administration Act. I think we ought to analyse it to some extent and consider what in fact is happening.
First of all I should like to refer to section 22(2) which reads as follows:
An agreement for the purpose of this part need not be expressed in any formal document executed on behalf of the parties thereto if the expression of that agreement is contained in reciprocal orders in council issued by the governments concerned.
Mr. Speaker, last December 11 the Conservative government of the day presented a budget which set out the details of an energy agreement. That energy agreement would have been confirmed by orders in council had the budget been passed. The agreement would have been in accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act. Members on the government side today say "show me the agreement." Sir, the agreement was expressed and shown to them on December 11. It was not completed in accordance with section 22 of the act simply because the government was defeated and an election called. The government did not feel it proper to go through the order in council procedure with the government of Alberta to complete a deal under the Petroleum Administration Act. Members opposite talk about an agreement and the ability to reach an agreement. Sir, there was an agreement. That agreement would have been reduced to order in council in accordance with the act. Of course it could not have been because of the defeat of the government on December 13. Throughout the election campaign we were criticized for the terms of that agreement.
Petroleum Administration Act
What happened during that period? When that agreement was made the price of oil on the international market was approximately $22 U.S. per barrel. Today it is approximately $30 to $32 U.S. a barrel in the Persian Gulf. And what has happened about the 18 cents a gallon? Well, it was 21.9 cents per litre for gasoline in my riding in December of 1979. It is now November, 1980, and the price is 29.9 cents per litre. That is 8 cents more per litre. There are 4.5 litres to a gallon and by my figuring the price of gasoline has gone up 36 cents under this government so far this year.
We talk about agreements. The concept of the Petroleum Administration Act is that effort should be made to obtain agreement between the producing province and the federal government. This calls into question the nature of the effort to obtain an agreement. There were virtually no discussions of consequence between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the minister of energy in the legislature of Alberta during this period. Not until July 25 did the minister of energy from this House decided to have one more meeting. I point out that there have been no meetings since July 25 with the government of Alberta. The old agreement under the existing act expired on June 30. We have been without an agreement since that time. There has been no honest effort by the minister of energy or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to come to grips with the making of an agreement. We are now faced with the enactment of section 35 of the Petroleum Administration Act whereby this government is telling us that it cannot get an agreement. Mr. Speaker, ministers over there have an obligation to demonstrate to this House and to the people of Canada that they have tried.
We have all had the opportunity of seeing Premier Lough-eed on television telling us about the letter he wrote three weeks before the budget was handed down asking for another meeting. There has yet to be a meeting between the minister of energy and the Premier of Alberta, or a meeting between the Prime Minister of this country and the Premier of Alberta. Indeed, the Prime Minister has spent more time negotiating with the President of Mexico, Mr. Portillo, and Sheik Yamani than he has with the Premier of Alberta. He is more interested in dealing with the Mexicans and the Arabs than he is with the Premier of Alberta or, indeed, the Premier of Saskatchewan. He has made no honest effort to come to an agreement.
I would like to speak for a moment about this Mexican deal. What do we get from it? He went around talking about the great deal with Mexico. Well, it is a deal that will aggravate marketing of heavy oil to the point where we will have difficulty in refining it. It imposes significant cost burdens on Canadians and Canadian consumers. We are paying an outrageous price for this oil, a price far in excess of what we get for selling equivalent heavy oil, produced in the Lloydminster fields, to the United States. This is difficult oil to refine; it has a high sulphur content. We are buying it at world price plus, yet we cannot even sell our own heavy oil produced in Lloydminster and other fields in the west. Indeed, some of those fields are prorated down to 50 per cent. That is the type of oil

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
deal we have had. That is the kind of effort we have seen to make an agreement-agreements with Mexicans but no agreements with Canadians. What is being said through this act to the people of Canada is: "I cannot make a deal". Well, the Prime Minister has not tried. He has not wanted to.
I could talk about other deals they made with foreigners. Specifically, they made a deal with Roumania back in 1972. They bought 100,000 barrels of oil which was so poor that it could not be refined. They could not burn it, or use it. Whatever happened to that oil we do not know. What have we seen in terms of negotiations with the Prime Minister, the sheik of sheiks, who is going around the world trying to make deals but who is really not honestly trying to put together compromises that will make an energy policy?
I am very pleased to see the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Fleming) is here tonight since I want to talk about the philosophy of this government and I want to refer to the speech he made to the Canadian Club in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 12, 1980. I refer the minister to page 11 of his speech and 1 intend to quote the whole paragraph, which reads:
Until the energy crisis, the provinces had almost a free hand in exporting resources as they saw fit. Ottawa didn't want to stand-didn't even appear to want to stand-in the way of western development. It didn't want to weaken national unity while separatism was gaining ground in Quebec. Nor could it afford a confrontation with the combined power of the provinces, the multinationals, and the government of the United States. And power unused is power abdicated.
Who are our enemies? The minister says that the provinces are our enemies. The minister says number two enemy is the multinationals and enemy number three of the government is the government of the United States. That is the way in which this government approaches national unity. Their number one enemy is the provinces. And this is the minister talking, sir, a man who is a representative of the government and of government policy here. Their number two enemy is the multinationals and enemy number three is the government of the United States. "And power unused is power abdicated." That is what this act is all about. Power unused is power abdicated and "- confrontation with the combined power of the provinces, the multinationals-" is what the minister refers to. I would like to read another paragraph from that speech:
Clearly, the federal government has lost some credibility. But if it can be blamed for Canada's problems, it's not for asserting too much control but too little; not for too much confrontation but too much accommodation.
Where is the accommodation?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Read the whole speech.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, 1 read his whole speech. The hon. minister can speak later and explain it. When he talks about confrontation that is the-policy of this government.
The policy of the government is to beat down the provinces and the companies which have been trying to develop this country. That is the reason the Petroleum Administration Act was proclaimed. It is not for want of agreement, but for want
of confrontation, because that is the way in which the government approaches, and has always approached, such issues. I first spoke on this matter in 1973 during debate on a bill to bring about the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. I spoke in this House on December 12, 1973. While preparing for this debate I thought I would take a look at what I had already said in this House with respect to energy, so I dug up that speech. I was most interested in some of the remarks contained therein, and I would like to quote from my own speech.


An hon. Member:: Oh, God!


An hon. Member:: Are you that hard up for material?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Perhaps some members of the New Democratic Party were here at the time, but most of them were not because they do not last long in this House. I would like to quote from page 8690 of Hansard of December 12, 1973:
The government does not really care about those provinces. It has simply told them what it intends to do: it has operated on a principle of confrontation.
Mr. Speaker, in a situation like that, when one person declares unilaterally that he will tax the resources of your province, the next thing that happens is that the person who has been treated in this fashion acts, or reacts, in the same fashion. It is impossible to develop a spirit of community in Canada on the basis of the concept of two lawyers engaged in a lawsuit, or of two businessmen competing with each other at an auction. This whole atmosphere of confrontation in dominion-provincial relations, is one which ought to arise and did not arise before this Prime Minister became Liberal leader. This has been the climate over the past four years and it is about time it changed because it is not doing Canada any good.
1 will not read my entire speech. My friend for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) was here and he will remember his comments. I went on to say at page 8691:
If we continue to tweak their noses, and continue to push the interests of central Canada against the resource provinces, we are not going to keep confederation together-and that is a pretty serious matter.
I made those remarks in 1973, and since that time the government has continued to carry on in that fashion. It is no wonder there is no agreement. Its policy is confrontation and further confrontation. What has happened since 1973? We eventually arranged the passage of the Petroleum Administration Act and there was agreement for $1 half yearly increases in oil prices. A portion of that increase went to the federal government, 45 per cent went to the provinces and 45 per cent to the companies. It became apparent early in 1979 that it was necessary to renegotiate that deal.
As a result of that necessity to renegotiate, the Clark government proceeded through the summer and fall of 1979 to renegotiate the deal and settlement which became the subject of the Crosbie budget of December 11. The question is, could we have continued with the negotiations this year which were terminated as a result of the defeat of the Crosbie budget and as a result of the fact that the arrangement under section 22 of the Petroleum Administration Act could not be completed.
Ronald Anderson in his column in the Toronto Globe and Mail recently reported that a company called Data Resources of Canada has suggested the probability of a compromise does exist, that a compromise can be reached. Compromise is essential to this whole question of dominion-provincial rela-
November 25, 1980

tions, of fairness and of the way in which one part of Canada perceives the tax levied on its resources. The suggestion in the article is that while Alberta has been asking for a $4.50 increase in the price of oil, under the current split in increases the province would probably reduce that claim to approximately $3.25 per barrel. Indeed, the Premier of Alberta indicated that he sees no reason why oil prices in Canada should be any more than 75 per cent of the world price, to be phased in over a period of time.
There have been all sorts of efforts at compromise, but because this government perceives the provinces, the companies and the United States as its enemies, these efforts have not been effective. When I spoke in the House in 1973 this country was a net exporter of oil. The problem then was moving oil from our surplus region in western Canada to our deficit regions in eastern Canada. It was difficult to move oil then because there were no pipelines or other systems of easy delivery to the east.
It was also apparent in 1973 that Canada had to become self-sufficient in oil because OPEC had been organized and oil prices had escalated to $4 a barrel. These events were seen to be disastrous. Of course, prices have escalated many times since, but at that point we understood the potential of the tar sands and what could be done. We knew that in the bituminous sands of the west there was buried heavy oil-more oil than in the whole of Arabia. At that time the government of Alberta along with Imperial Oil and other companies put together the Syncrude project. It was suggested that instead of a royalty they would take 50 per cent of the profits. It was suggested by the then leader of the New Democratic Party that there probably would not be any profits from the Syncrude project for a long time and that the province of Alberta would get very little out of it. All of this has happened since 1973, and 18 months ago the Syncrude project came onstream. However, there have been no further projects of that nature since.
As a nation, we have really done nothing to mobilize the resources of our country. We have witnessed confrontation and fights, but there has been no need for these antics. We have the greatest land in the world and resources which are unmatched by any other country. We have long known about our potential oil resources in the north, but we have not taken a single drop of those resources to market. We have known about the gas reserves in the north, but again, none of that gas has gone to market. Again, we have had nothing but regulation, confrontation and the government going after the multinationals because they are bad boys-they might conceivably make a profit and we might become self-sufficient.
Mr. Speaker, we could become self-sufficient and we should be self-sufficient now. The tragedy is that we have left it so late. If it was to take ten years to be self-sufficient, we should have started in 1973. The crime is the responsibility of competing governments, particularly of this government which views as its enemies, the provinces, the multinationals and the United States. It is unfortunate we should wind up with this kind of attitude. Look at the way this government views one
Petroleum Administration Act
company which some years ago experimented in the tar sands. That company was called The Great Canadian Oil Sands. It has since amalgamated and been renamed Suncor. It is largely foreign owned by Sun Oil Company which owns 98 per cent of it. It is a multinational company and therefore an enemy of the government. But that company invested and built the technology on which we can now rely for oil self-sufficiency in the tar sands development. How does this government treat that company? It says to that company, to the explorer, the developer of the technology, "You are no better than any other Joe who drills an easy well. The price of your oil is $16.75-or whatever-a barrel. That is what you get. Ycu do not get the $38 plus change and the CPI on top which your competitor Syncrude gets or any other person who goes into developing heavy oil or tar sands recovery. You have done all the work. You have developed all the technology but you will not get the price because that is the way we treat the risk investors. Besides you are a dirty multinational and enemy number two." They are not enemy number one. Enemy number two is good enough, but maybe they could be enemy number three because their head office is located in the United States.
There are all sorts of possibilities in this country in terms of energy development. We hear from this side about the lack of employment for people in the north, the lack of employment for native people, and so on. How will we ever put people to work if we do not develop the resources we have, resources capable of putting them to work? How can we put them to work? What do we do? Do we put them on welfare forever? Can we not put people to work? Can we not give people opportunities to be part of this world in this century? Would hon. members rather pay these people off? Do they want to look after them in the welfare cage forever? That is the NDP attitude. That is the attitude which says our enemies are the multinationals, the United States and the provinces. That is the attitude of the confrontation which this group to my left, the red rump of the group over there, would like to develop and push on. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) talked about making sure the private companies do something. Then he stopped and said he had said something wrong; he meant public companies. He knows perfectly well that public companies will never produce anything really worth while. They never have before, nor will they in the future.
1 do not normally repeat what I have said on other occasions in this House but I have talked about some of the things we should be doing. We have the potential for being energy producers and energy exporters of petroleum and natural gas. But what do we do? We do not use that potential to negotiate tariff reductions with the United States. The U.S. is our enemy. We just sell that country natural gas at whatever price we can get. But we do not use the ability to negotiate to make sure that we sell plastics, oil in tin cans and all the things one can make with the resins from the petrochemical industry.
We have a concept that it is wrong to make a profit. I do not know of any successful business yet-that did not make a

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
profit. A profit is the motivating force behind doing something. If people organized in a business do not make that activity profitable, they will not do it. If people are asked to invest their money and they do not see a return on it, they will not make that investment. These fellows over here do not understand that, Mr. Speaker. Presumably the government does not understand it either. Presumably the government is going to make sure it is not profitable to be in the oil business. In other words, the government is going to make sure it will be exceedingly unprofitable to do so.
I shall read a short letter which was delivered to the Minister of Finance. It came from a small oil company in Alberta called Gladstone Petroleum Ltd. and it reads:
I am forwarding under separate cover to the provincial government, applications to abandon six oil wells. This decision to abandon oil wells has been made necessary due to the onerous taxes and royalties to which have been added the terms of the presently proposed budget.
Admittedly, these wells are marginal, each capable of yielding 40 to 60 barrels of light gravity oil per month. In a favourable royalty, taxation, and pricing climate, these wells could operate at cost, or at slight profit.
That is the kind of attitude this budget has presented to these small companies. They say to themselves, "Better that we do not invest our money." Or else they say, "We cannot make any profit pumping 40 to 60 barrels a month from a well which costs a lot to operate. It is better to turn off the taps and not doing anything." That is the incentive given under the pricing system imposed under this act. The refusal, the unwillingness and the absolute disregard for the interests of the provinces and the people involved in the oil industry in determining the price formula demanded under this proclamation are what is wrong with the proclamation.
The concept has been developed in the ivory towers here in Ottawa by people far away from drilling rigs. These people over in the EMR building, the Taj Mahal, are the ones who have figured out what they think is a proper rate of return for someone going into a risky business, what they think they can get away with in terms of an imposed pricing structure. But this attitude is not working. Companies are abandoning exploration and development opportunities. Companies have decided they cannot make enough money here, so they will go somewhere else. Members from this side of the House talk about rigs leaving Canada. They know about it because they happen to come from western Canada. They talk about the industry not going ahead the way it should. We all know the industry is not going the way it should. We all know that under this government there has been no new tar sands project started since Syncrude. We all know that no new development has gone on.
The efforts of this government have been directed to the Sheik Yamanis or the Portillos. Those are the kinds of people with whom this government wants to negotiate. It does not want to negotiate and settle with Canadians.


Mr. Rae:: Thank Exxon.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have a situation where productivity in this country this year has declined 3.3. per cent on the basis of individuals employed. While employment has gone up 2 per
cent, we are producing 1.1 per cent or 1.2 per cent gross less goods and services this year than we did last. In other words, we are employing more people this year to produce less goods and services. Yet there is opportunity to make this country great. We have the resources. We know there is a world out there demanding our petroleum and gas resources and the chemicals we can produce from them. All of this means employment for Canadians. When we have 8 per cent of Canadians unemployed-and maybe more pretty soon-and when businesses are slowing down and there is a drop in productivity, something is wrong.
I want to mention a concern that I and others have with respect to what is happening in Canada and the effect the invocation of the Petroleum Administration Act has on the unity of this country.
Normally speaking, an ordinary statute setting the price of a commodity would not cause much concern. However, we have witnessed a period of constitutional debate and increased concern about oil, oil pricing and resource policy. On top of that, we have seen the unilateral imposition of a pricing formula which is clearly not satisfactory to any of the producing provinces or even the potential producing provinces.
As a result, when speaking in this House, my colleagues have said there is a bit of a prairie fire developing in western Canada. That prairie fire has been fanned by a confrontation attitude on the part of this government. It is not the first time a prairie fire has developed there. Members of this House will realize that at one point the old line parties-an expression used by my friends to the left-were totally frozen out from the UFO, the progressive movement, the social credit movement and the CCF movement. These political movements developed in western Canada because of true economic reasons.
There is today a political movement developing there, led by many people. I have known for quite a while-and I wish I could call him a friend again-the former leader of the opposition in the province of Saskatchewan, Dick Culver. There are people in politics seriously advocating that a part of this country leave and join the United States or leave and become some other country. That is serious. While the poll taken prior to the budget may have showed only 10 per cent separatist leanings, there was a significant indication of unhappiness and of a feeling that the west could go it alone. As a result of the policies of this government, confirmed in the proclamation of this act, we could very easily wind up with no honest attempt to obtain an agreement. This could cause a disaster, a unity problem and the separation of our country.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see my good friend from Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) so much in anticipation. I shall not disappoint him. I thank him for coming out tonight, braving the weather, sacrificing to be here. My good friend from Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) is here
November 25, 1980

tonight in body and spirit. I thank him as well. I want to especially thank my good friend from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I want to say something to him before he leaves the chamber, as he is about to do, to indulge in one of his weaknesses.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Explain.


Roger Simmons: I say to him there was no agreement. He really should not mislead the Canadian people about that. I remind him that a day or so before the budget came down, indeed, I think the day after the Tory budget came down on December 11, a senior governmental official in Alberta said quite candidly and publicly there was no agreement. I know there are those who want to rewrite history and say it was otherwise, but the public record is quite clear that there was no agreement.
I concede to the hon. member they may well have been near an agreement. After all, they are bedfellows, being of the same political stripe. They should have been able to get their heads together, given the seven or eight months they had. However, the hon. member should not mislead the people of Canada by perpetrating this motion of agreement. There was no agreement.
While I have the ear of the hon. member for Mississauga South, may I say he did some rather interesting arithmetic when he talked about the price of gas in his riding last December compared to now. He said it had gone up 32 or 36 cents. He tied that somehow to the Tory gas tax. What he did not tell his listeners was that under the Tory administration, had it continued beyond December 13, the price of gas would have gone up by perhaps an equivalent amount. One can argue about whether it would have gone up 32, 34 or 36 cents, but it would have been roughly an equivalent amount. In addition, there would have been an 18-cent tax on top of that. That is the point he should have made to his listeners.
I thank the hon. member for his wisdom and his arithmetic. The last time he treated the people of Canada to his considerable wisdom, he was telling them what he thought of Canada's native people. As we did not share his views on that subject, we do not share his arithmetic either.
I am told the Chinese have a set of symbols or a word in their language which not only means crisis, but opportunity. They use the same word or set of characters for both crisis and opportunity. There are those who tell us that the oil controversy is reaching a crisis. Whether that is the case or not, it is certainly at the point where it is an opportunity for us to do something in this country that should have been done a long time ago. It is time for some planning and determined action. That is what brings us to "The National Energy Program" tabled in this House two weeks ago.
There are three elements in the program I wish to mention briefly tonight. Before doing so, I want to reflect for a moment on a point I was making in response to the hon. member for Mississauga South. No national government, Liberal or Tory, and I am not deliberately omitting my friends from the NDP,
Petroleum Administration Act
because it is not a worry they have to contend with in the foreseeable future-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: My good friend from Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) is always worth mentioning. We are delighted to see him out this evening. As a matter of fact, the opposition is out in force tonight. There are at least a dozen or 15.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How are you doing over there?


Roger Simmons: We are doing very well over here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Some are, but not you.


Roger Simmons: No national government, whatever its political stripe, is going to be able to get an agreement easily. The hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) found that out when he was prime minister. He came close, but he did not quite get the agreement. We have reached the conclusion that the time has come, if we intend to build something of a heritage for those who come after us, to cease doing things on an ad hoc basis as far as energy matters are concerned.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member from Come-By-Chance just mentioned that there are a number of members in the House. I do not think he should begin to reflect on the attendance of this House when we have different committees meeting in other places.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), I think he has made his point.


Roger Simmons: I am proud to tell my good friend from Edmonton North that my riding is Burin-St. George's. His good friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) actually represents Come-By-Chance. He will learn that if he stays around long enough.
There are three elements to the program, Mr. Speaker; security of supply, the opportunity for Canadians to participate in the oil industry and some fairness in pricing and revenue sharing. I should like to spend a little time on each of these. I submit they cannot be obtained if we are to depend on OPEC, if we are forced to allow circumstances half way round the world, the vagaries of political life in a politically unstable part of the world, to determine one of the basic economic facts of life here in Canada. If we continue to do that, we are fooling ourselves. We will have difficulty in planning the economic and industrial development of this country. How can a farmer or a fisherman build his enterprise over the next few years if he does not know what the price of oil will be two, three or five years from now?
We are fortunate in this country that we have enough petroleum for our immediate requirements. We do not need to worry of being deprived of winter heating oil because there has been a sudden change of government half way round the globe.
5072

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
In this we are more fortunate than most countries. It would be immoral if we let slip by this marvellous opportunity to plan the energy supply and pricing mechanism for Canada and to secure for our fellow countrymen some measure of security.
The second part of the government's energy program is opportunity, opportunity for Canadians to participate in the energy industry. It is difficult to achieve this as long as the greater part of our gas and oil industry is under foreign control and ownership. These resources are finite and they are the heritage of the people of Canada. The federal and provincial governments are the custodians, the trustees of that particular heritage. The people of this country should in the end be the prime beneficiaries of the resources of the oil industry. As long as the greater part of this country's oil and gas industry remains foreign owned and foreign dominated, that is impossible.
The foreign companies export capital from this country at an alarming rate. Between 1975 and 1979 the total outflow of capital was $3.7 billion. That is a monstrous transfer of wealth from Canada to foreign shareholders. It is a state of affairs tolerated by no other nation in the world.


Mr. Thacker:: Ten million dollars?


Roger Simmons: I know my friend for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) might not want to hear this because his party has adopted the position of being the spokesman for the multinationals. I know the truth is hard to bear but this has to be said. I say to him, this outflow of capital has to stop.
I am not surprised that the oil companies have begun to squirm, that the large multinationals have reacted so violently to the national energy program. This does not surprise me at all because our proposal means they will not make quite as many dollars as in the past. They can afford to cut back on their profits. For example, for the six months ending August 18, 1980, Gulf Canada's net income rose 74 per cent; for the second quarter of 1980 it rose 76 per cent to $95 million.
Is that an isolated example, Mr. Speaker? Let us look at Imperial Oil. Their income rose 52 per cent. What about BP Canada? I promise my friends in the NDP I am not going to mention Husky Oil tonight. I have too much respect for my good friend Tommy Douglas. I am talking about the companies the other opposition party supports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the net income of BP Canada for the six months ended June 30, 1980, more than doubled to over $59 million. That is the group the hon. member for Mississauga South defends. That is the group he is worried about lest they slip back from $59 million to $58 million or $57 million. What nonsense! Of course, the multinationals are going to squirm, they are going to react. They are going to lay out their public relations millions. They are going to put the steamroller into action to see if they can stop all opposition to anything but the carte blanche they have been given in this country for too many years.
The third part of the national energy program is the thrust for fairness, fairness in pricing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Roger Simmons: -fairness in revenue sharing. The present distribution of revenue from oil and gas is 45 per cent for the provinces, 45 per cent for the oil industry and 10 per cent for the national government.


An hon. Member:: Who owns it?


Roger Simmons: Who owns it, the member asks. The people of Canada own it, the same people who own this government, the same people who sent the members to this Parliament. We are not owned by the multinationals. We do not have to bow to the multinationals. We do have to bow to respect the wishes of the people of Canada and we make no apologies for that, Mr. Speaker. The federal government bears the financial brunt of the exercise


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Roger Simmons: The federal government does bear the financial brunt of the exercise of financing the tax expenditures. The national government has borne 63 per cent of the costs of exploration programs. The Canadian taxpayer has underwritten 63 per cent of the cost of these programs. The federal government, representing all Canadians, has an obligation to cushion regions from the sudden effects of price rises and fuel shortages. These activities are expensive and they must be paid for. What we are doing is not unlike what is being done in many other countries. This afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) drew attention to the situation in Australia and United States, where the state administration or the provincial administration is receiving far less under the programs in these countries than is the case under the national energy program.
This government recognizes that while resources must be utilized for the benefit of all citizens in this country the first claim on the benefit of these resources must be by the people who live in the provinces where the resources are located. It is not the intention of the national energy program to increase the federal government's share substantially at the expense of the provincial treasuries involved but rather to do so at the expense of the multinationals. For that we make no apology.
I wish to speak now on fairness in pricing. Why should the price of oil be determined by OPEC in circumstances that are completely beyond our control? Why this sudden urge to pay world prices for a commodity we produce in this country? Where is the precedent for it? Does this mean we should rush out and pay the world price for other items? If we found the Arabs were paying $2 for a litre of milk, does that mean we too should pay $2 for a litre of milk? Should we not say instead, what does it cost to produce a litre of milk and what is a reasonable return on the investment? Should we not add
November 25, 1980

these two figures together so as to determine a consumer price? That is the way we do it.
That is the way we are determining the price of oil in this country. We are asking what it costs to produce and what is a fair return on investment in the first place. Add those two together, and you will have our price of oil this year, next year and five years down the road. It seems eminently sensible to me that we should arrive at the price of a commodity based on what it costs to produce that commodity, keeping in mind that the person who invests the dollars to produce the commodity should get a reasonable return on his or her investment.


Mr. Laniel:: That is what the people voted for in the last election.


Roger Simmons: What has been the practice in this country when the world price of a commodity shoots dramatically upward or dramatically downward? That is a fair question. What has been the practice when the price of wheat, copper or oil has shot dramatically upward or downward? Let us consider those three examples, oil, copper and wheat. What have we been doing?
Is this made-in-Canada price for oil about which we are talking some new scheme we have cooked up over here to aggravate the Alberta government and the oil companies?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Yes.


Roger Simmons: I know that is what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) would like to believe, but what he believes is not necessarily true, as I found out from reading his Householder which I tripped over getting out of the elevator this morning in the Confederation Building. Having read it, I say to the hon. member instructively that I did not understand hate mail until I saw that Householder. It is a terrible piece of stuff. Should my tax dollars be financing that?


Bob Rae: That's all right. We pay for yours.


Roger Simmons: Hon. members may ask which governments were in power between 1960 and 1973. There were three, a Tory government under Mr. Diefenbaker and a couple of different Liberal administrations, one under Mr. Pearson and one under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Under three separate administrations of two party stripes from 1960 to 1973 all of Canada west of the Ottawa River paid about a 25 per cent premium on oil in order to protect Alberta against low oil prices outside this country. There is a precedent. This administration and two or three before it have cushioned Canadians against the effect of dramatically changing prices of oil on the international stage. In the example I gave it was a case where the price of oil went dramatically down, or at least below levels required to continue the production of oil in Canada on an economic basis.
Petroleum Administration Act
For another example why not look at 1969 when international copper prices rose sharply? What was the action taken of the federal government of the day then, led by the same gentleman who leads it today? The federal government kept the Canadian price low and restrained exports to ensure sufficient supplies for Canadian consumers. That is a precedent in the copper industry for what we are doing with the oil industry today.
Do hon. members want a further example which again relates particularly to the western provinces? In 1969 international prices for wheat dropped drastically. The federal government legislated a price higher than world prices to protect the western farmer with regard to grain sold in Canada. The price was higher because the international price dropped so drastically.
Those are just three examples involving parties of two different stripes in government and initiatives which those administrations took to cushion Canadians against rapidly rising or falling prices, as the circumstance may be. These are examples which go back a full 20 years. What we are talking about is not particularly new or novel.
Who will benefit? Let us suppose for the purpose of my argument that tomorrow morning the price of oil were allowed to rise to world levels.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What does Canada charge the United States and the world?


Roger Simmons: Who would benefit? The multinational oil companies would certainly benefit. Their profits would go up more tens of percentage points, and that would make the official opposition happy, but it would not make me very happy. It would not make my constituents very happy.


An hon. Member:: They have enough problems with taxes.


Roger Simmons: Of course the oil companies would be happy, but we have not been sent here, and I have not been sent here, to represent multinational oil companies. I do not make any apologies to them. It surprises me that the official opposition spends so much time defending multinational oil companies.


Erik Nielsen: That is a crock of crude.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has come in.


Erik Nielsen: I just woke up.


Roger Simmons: It looks as though he has had an interesting evening. He has obviously dined well.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It doesn't look like you are exactly starving.


Roger Simmons: I remember when my good friend from Yellowhead was elected leader of the Tory party. The following week a national news magazine, Macleans, had printed across the front cover "Joe Who?" The accompanying article went on to raise some questions about who this new leader was and what he stood for. During the last few weeks when there

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
has been this energy controversy it has become clear what "Joe Who What" means.
It means "Joe XX". The unknown. Those are the two Xs in Exxon. Joe Exxon.


An hon. Member:: Who gave them S40 million?


Roger Simmons: He represents the multinationals. He is the unwitting spokesman, together with his band of Tories, for the multinationals. We heard tonight from the hon. member for Mississauga South. He was quite blatant about it. Most Tories are much more coy in the way they put forward representations on behalf of those companies, but the hon. member for Mississauga South at least deserves credit for being frank and up front about it. If we read the transcript of his address, we will find he was exactly that, very up front about his support for what I think he termed the "poor multinationals" at one point.
We know the multinationals will benefit, but who else will benefit? What about the millwright out in Drayton Valley Alberta, the welder in Brooks, Alberta or the pipefitter out there? Will he benefit if the price of oil now being produced at $16.50 a barrel were to shoot up to $38 a barrel tomorrow morning? How would he benefit? Would the companies rush to the unions and say, "We are going to double the rate for that man"? Would we suddenly see him get twice as much per hour for his work?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He would have to go back to Newfoundland.


Roger Simmons: What would it mean to that worker? Would he pay more for items from the plastics industry which he has to purchase? Would he pay more for gas for his car? Would he pay more for food from the farm because of increased farm prices which would be the result of increased oil prices? The answers are yes, yes and yes. He would pay more. His cost of living would go up if oil prices went up. But let us not suggest for a minute that that welder or that pipefitter would suddenly get more money. Let us not be so naive to think that the companies would rush in and say, "Mr. Union Leader, we want to negotiate a new agreement; your man is not getting enough."


Charles James Mayer: He might be able to keep his job.


Roger Simmons: He might hang on to his job, and he might get as much as he is getting now, but the "might" that he would get a little more is a pretty long "might". He would have to work pretty hard. His union would have to do some very tough bargaining before it would convince those "poor" multinationals that somehow a doubling of the price ought to be reflected in his paycheque. Who would benefit? The multinationals.


Charles James Mayer: Should we pay more to Saudi Arabian workers?


Roger Simmons: I ask the hon. member in the official opposition who is shouting now to bear with me. When I am finished, he can rise and answer that question himself. Who would
benefit, other than the multinationals, if the price of oil suddenly went up? What is all this shouting and screaming about rushing out tomorrow morning and declaring the world price for oil? What would be the benefit for the constituents these members are supposed to be representing in this chamber?


Charles James Mayer: Isn't the purpose of this act to raise the price of oil?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Isn't that the purpose of this proclamation?


Charles James Mayer: The Liberals want to raise the price to the world price; that is what they are saying.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Roger Simmons: Who is delaying the Alsands project and the Cold Lake project? Let me talk about those projects for a moment. The federal government is not delaying these two projects.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is nonsense, absolute nonsense!


Roger Simmons: I wish the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) were here tonight. I read the speech he made last night with great interest. Also I read the comments he made in Fort McMurray last Friday night. The disappointing thing is that he did not say in the chamber last night what he said in Fort McMurray last Friday before his constituents. He made two contradictory statements, and I invite him to correct the record on that. Before his constituents in Fort McMurray he indicated what I just said a moment ago, that it was not the fault of the Government of Canada that these projects have not proceeded. He laid the blame squarely upon the government of Alberta.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Say that again.


Roger Simmons: I will say some more things which might clarify the point for the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). I refer to a Canadian Press story published a couple of days ago. It reads as follows:
Cold Lake businessmen want Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed to let Imperial Oil Ltd.'s $9-billion Cold Lake heavy oil project proceed.
They ask Premier Lougheed to let the project proceed. I am sure it is clear who is stopping it in the minds of the businessmen of Cold Lake. It is not this government, but the government of Alberta.
Perhaps I should refer to a recent editorial which appeared in The Edmonton Sun, a paper which has not been known to agree with everything the government has done in the energy field, but which nevertheless calls unequivocally on the Alberta government to stop delaying the projects. In part it reads:
There is simply nothing to be gained by such an approach. The megaplants will not produce oil of any quantity to speak of until 1987, long after the current energy war. The plants will thus have no immediate impact on oil supplies to eastern Canada.
Mr. Lougheed's stance on the plants is totally punitive and totally negative.
November 25, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the speech we have just heard was very interesting and entertaining. After hearing it I think I finally understand the Liberal policy on energy. Basically they are very strong socialists and very strong nationalists when it comes to the empty wells, but they believe in subsidizing the multinationals when it comes to the full wells.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: A number of areas in Canada will be adversely affected by the government's energy decision. The government has refused to recognize the effects of its energy policies on the north. Last month in northern Manitoba, in the constituency of Churchill which I represent, there was a 29 per cent increase by Steelgas which provides the gas for most northern Manitoba communities. This happened before the budget increase. It is owned and supplied by Dome Petroleum. Dome Petroleum will not give us its cost figures in setting the price to its wholly-owned subsidiary.
There was another action in the last couple of weeks, with CN Express announcing that it will be closing down its operations which will increase the cost of food and other items going to northern communities. Food is already flown into many isolated communities in northern Canada. The higher cost of fuel increases the cost of each and every good to those communities. There are communities in my constituency where gas already costs over $5 per gallon. In other northern communities the price of gas and other items is even higher.
I read with interest an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail earlier this week. It pointed out that the Port Severn Indians, most of whom are on some form of welfare, pay $2.22 for a dozen eggs, as compared to $1.29 in Toronto; $4.02 for two kilograms of sugar which sell for only $2.49 in Toronto; $1.57 for a loaf of bread which costs 80 cents in Toronto; $3.44 for a pound of hamburger which costs $1.98 in Toronto; $1.75 for a fresh quart of milk which costs only 75 cents in Toronto. The price of goods in northern communities is extremely high.
In Saskatchewan the provincial government implemented a program of subsidizing the shipment of these foods into northern communities. The federal government has no program for its northern residents. The cost of transportation over the long distances involved has worked against industrial development in each and every one of those communities. This was the situation prior to the budget.
Now we must add the increased cost of energy imposed by the government, not because of any increase in the cost of production, but because the Liberal government, like its Tory predecessor, is increasing prices in order to enrich its own coffers and those of the multinationals. As the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) said, it might be a smaller slice but it is a much larger pie. The multinationals
Petroleum Administration Act
will benefit from the budget, even without the blackmail and the strikes we hear about in the press at this time. Because the government is weak by nature and by tradition, it will give in to the multinationals eventually. The history of the Walter Gordon budget and the entire Liberal machine has been to talk tough but to carry a very small stick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: No consideration was given to the increased costs of living faced by the residents of northern communities. There were no new programs. There were no new subsidies to help low-income natives and other Canadians who live in isolated areas. There were no programs to compensate for the high cost of running a business in the north. Steelgas, the Dome controlled and owned company about which I spoke earlier, after receiving a 29 per cent increase three weeks ago, is asking for another one.
Throughout the west there is dissent because of what the government has presented in the budget and the energy package. In return for losing potential revenue, the west received a western development fund. It is the old story-the Liberal government takes away with one hand and gives with the other. What does the west receive? It receives a $4-billion fund, of which only $2 billion will be given in three years; no date was given for the other $2 billion. It will be a program controlled by Ottawa bureaucrats. There are no guidelines to ensure that these funds will be used for needed development. There are no guidelines to prove that this money will not be used just to replace existing federal funds which go to the west. There are no guidelines to ensure that the minister responsible-not the minister responsible for DREE, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), but the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)-will not use this fund as a slush fund to rebuild the Liberal party in western Canada. When there is $4 billion for economic development in the country, it should be used where it is needed. The guidelines should be set by Parliament, and as the DREE committee unanimously agreed, it should be under the control and co-ordination of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration loves to make controversial remarks, only because he needs the press. Last week he was out west and he said that Liberals are born-again westerners. I cannot find anyone in my constituency who evens admits to being a Liberal. If hon. members opposite were born-again westerners, they would not have issued this energy proclamation. It would never have taken place because they would understand the resentment and the hatred which they are provoking by this kind of action. I will talk more about the west later.
Right now I would like to talk about the impact of the energy program on the Atlantic provinces. Prices are traditionally higher in the Atlantic provinces. Prices of oil and gas are higher whether or not there is a subsidy. The prices of goods in

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
those communities are higher. The prices of goods shipped to those communities are higher. Communities in the Atlantic provinces are not eligible for the conversion subsidy which other provinces will receive if people convert from oil to gas heating. This region was discriminated against because it was supposed that a number of oil fired generators were being used and, therefore, the program would not save people or the federal government any oil. It would save some in the other provinces. This does not mean that people in Atlantic Canada should not benefit from a program like this. Those people will have to pay the higher costs of oil and gas. They should benefit from a program of this nature.
In addition, the Liberals, as usual, did not get their facts straight. New Brunswick does not qualify for this program yet if you look at the facts you will find that only two of their eight power stations presently use oil as a source of energy- only two. What happened to the Liberal members of Parliament from New Brunswick? Were they quiet? Did they not have any influence on their government? Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, of those two power stations one is in the process of being converted to coal at the present time. So in the future seven of the eight power stations will be using coal, hydro power or nuclear power. But the people in New Brunswick will not qualify for this conversion program.
Obviously in setting their budget, as in setting their energy policy, this government did not know what it was doing. Statistics will illustrate that for every dollar increase in the price of oil there is a 1 per cent increase in the rate of inflation. Inflation is already higher in the maritime provinces than it is in the rest of Canada. This energy package will only increase the cost of living for people in that region.
The national energy policy said some nice things about the future of the Atlantic region. I would like to quote:
As for opportunity, the Atlantic region, long disadvantaged in a number of ways, stands on the verge of an energy boom-oil and gas, electricity and coal-that could provide the basis for a new sustainable prosperity. The national energy program can-and does-provide the framework to ensure that this happens.
Those were lovely words but if you take a look at the energy program they are hard to believe. Things do not happen for the Atlantic region, they happen to the Atlantic region. As I said, unemployment there is already high but with higher energy costs it will only increase. The cost of living is higher. The cost of heating is higher. The cost of transportation is higher. And as a result of this national energy policy those costs will double by 1984.
What will happen with respect to regional economic development? Nothing. There is no co-ordination by the minister responsible for DREE because the cabinet will not give him that power. There is half an effort to do something for that region through the industrial tax credit but that will not work very well for a number of reasons. The most promising industries like lumber, fishing and farming are excluded from benefiting from this tax credit.
As I mentioned in an earlier speech, this program was implemented retroactive to the night of the tabling of the budget. Even though it is supposed to be a tax incentive plan to
attract industry into the Atlantic regions and other parts of Canada which are so designated, it is retroactive to the night of the tabling of the budget. Obviously, companies which were already building in the Atlantic region on October 28 and 29, November 1 and 2, did not come to the Atlantic region because of this tax incentive. For those corporations it is strictly another rip-off. That tax incentive will be given to every corporation which develops in various regions of Canada that are designated, regardless of need and regardless of other subsidies they may be receiving. In other words, if you look at what was supposed to be an effort at regional economic expansion you will find another tax rip-off by the very same people who are now talking in such strong socialist and national tones. Again, the words sound nice but when you examine the actions you find there is nothing there. More important, any positive effects which would have taken place because of the industrial tax credit will be nullified by the huge increases in energy costs predicted in this program. A corporation that is considering developing in the Atlantic will not come in if it knows that its cost of energy will double in the next four years and rise even higher after that. Any benefit from that tax incentive will just not be there.
I would like to say something now about the western development fund to which I was referring earlier. This $4 billion boondoggle is not for Atlantic Canada yet in the west, with the exception of the province of Manitoba, there are booming economies. There is growth in that region of Canada yet they are to receive this $4 billion. It is amazing that the Liberal government should have decided the Atlantic region does not need that kind of money. In the west there are only two Liberal members of Parliament and the west receives $4 billion. I suspect we now have a new definition of political patronage. It used to be the case that the Liberal government would say in a mild, suggestive manner that it would be really good to have a Liberal MP from your region because it would ensure that money flowed back to those constituencies. With the $4 billion plan the opposite is true. What we now have is a benefit for not voting Liberal-the west is being rewarded for not voting Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Just imagine what $4 billion could have done for Nova Scotia. Imagine what it could have done for New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island-


Raymond John Skelly: Where are their MPs?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Not only that. Where are the cabinet ministers from those regions? I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), who is unusually quiet today about the effect of higher energy prices on Nova Scotia, what $4 billion could have done for Sysco? I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) what $4 billion could have done for Devco, Sysco or other corporations which are in need in Nova Scotia? Can you imagine the benefit if the Minister of Finance had allocated that money to eastern Canada, the provinces that are really in need? We would not find him studying a business plan for
November 25, 1980

Sysco at this time. He would be running out there in order to hand out the cheque, especially with a byelection coming. Well, we in the west have learned our lesson. We found that it pays in many ways not to vote Liberal. The people in Atlantic Canada will be finding out the same thing in the future.
Because of the government's lack of planning the boom they talk about as a result of the national energy program, may not happen. There is no guarantee that the ownership and development of our offshore oils will be Canadian. There is no guarantee that the jobs provided will be for Canadians. Last week the Economic Council of Canada released a report pointing out that offshore exploration does not necessarily mean the Messiah has come.
It will take action by both the federal government and the provincial government to ensure that the people of that region are trained to take the jobs which will be available. My party is on record as saying we believe that offshore resources should be controlled by the provinces. We also recognize that there is a strong need for a federal presence in determining the future of those resources. But that will not come about under the Liberal government because it does not really believe in planning when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, hard-core decisionmaking. It believes in putting out pamphlets, advertising and the glitter of progress, but when we get underneath that shell, we find it is the same old game. The whole country is suffering from the government's lack of policy.
Never has there been a strong energy program in this country. To give an example, I refer to my province of Manitoba where there is great potential for the development of hydroelectricity. Indeed Manitoba has a surplus in this resource. It also has a number of power plants which could be brought on stream in the near future, yet that power goes unused. The federal government, however, is encouraging the people of Manitoba to switch from oil to gas. The program does not allow for the development and use of Manitoba's hydro power. It does not set up a western grid or a grid into Ontario to enable that power to be used; it simply ignores it entirely. The program does not look at the alternative sources which are available and which could be developed in the future.
There is no energy shortage in Canada. There is certainly misuse and underuse of resources. The government has set up a paper tiger, something which it can tackle rather than a program which would tackle the real problems which we face. The New Democratic Party believes that oil prices should go up but only in certain circumstances and only at a gradual rate. It believes there must be a cost of living allowance so that consumers who are hit the hardest would be cushioned against the higher prices. We believe that the extra revenues from increased prices should not go to the multinationals as they would under the present policy, or to the federal-provincial coffers but that they should be put into a special fund which would be set up to look into the alternative energy schemes and innovative ways of providing rapid transit.
Petroleum Administration Act
The NDP also believes in an over-all industrial strategy which must be flexible enough to adapt to any increases in the price of oil and gas. These proposals are not provided for in the Liberal energy program. The Petroleum Administration Act is a last ditch effort by the government to take over the control of resources. The Liberals have failed to try to achieve any agreement with the provinces. Their ability as negotiators is a real problem. The Conservatives might also listen because they are not so good at negotiating themselves or they would still be in power. The Liberals' record of negotiation is a record of failure.
For example, in negotiating the fisheries treaty with the United States, the government was too weak to develop and conclude an agreement. It was well aware that the agreement must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, because it is written in the constitution of that country, but it did not negotiate from a position of strength and say, "If the treaty is ratified, there is something more for you". Instead the government gave them the whole package after one week's negotiation in the hope that the Senate would graciously give us the treaty we wanted.
The same thing happens when the government negotiates with its employees. The government does not know what it wants to do so it delays by making unrealistics offers which only result in increasing the anger of the employees. Had it given some reasonable offers in the first place and had it known what direction it was going to take, there would not be the militancy about which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is so concerned today.
Nor could the Liberal government negotiate on the constitution. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) managed to range all ten provincial premiers against him. Those fellows-there are no ladies yet, but there should be one in Nova Scotia soon- particularly the Conservative premiers, had never agreed on anything in their lives until the Prime Minister made his proposal. We recognize that it is not easy to get agreement with the premiers, but I cannot understand how the Prime Minister could not get at least three or four of those premiers to agree with him on his package, which he would then present to the House.
It is not just a matter of arrogance, it is a matter of the lack of negotiating skill. The Prime Minister does not have to be a hard-core, well-trained unionist, but unfortunately he has none of the skills of negotiation, and as a result the government is in a position of confrontation at this time.


Erik Nielsen: He negotiated an agreement with your leader.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We negotiated, he accepted. For the benefit of my friend, I would also point out that it is not easy to negotiate with each and every premier. Sterling Lyon of Manitoba has the ability to make Ronald Reagan look like a Liberal. The Liberals have failed to present a package to the provinces. Instead of healing the wounds which are tearing this country apart, the Liberals have increased the division. Alberta has found itself on the losing end of the constitutional debate, the budget proposals and now this energy plan.

November 25, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
The people of Alberta love Canada just as much as any group in any part of this land, but the government cannot continue to shove things down their throats and expect those people to love and respect it. Just as I suggested that the Liberals did not know how to negotiate on the constitution, they did not know how to negotiate on the energy package and they refused to accept that there are people in western Canada who believe they have a right to some voice as to the future of their resources. The people of the west should be consulted as a part of the negotiations, not treated to the old method of newspaper debating of which the Liberals are so fond.
The Tory party has taken a very destructive attitude toward the constitutional package, and the Liberal party has taken a very destructive attitude in its energy package. They have failed to recognize that there must be some form of national unity and that people must be made to feel good about the way in which they are being treated. Canadians want a united country. They want co-operative federalism as mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) yesterday when he quoted former prime minister Pearson.
Canadians want a government which will rise above the interests of the factions, as prime minister Pearson mentioned so many years ago, but that is not the attitude of the Liberal government today. We recognize that the government has the right and duty to present the federal alternative, but it can only do this if all the people are willing to work together as citizens of a country in which the governments are openly and honestly negotiating with each other, a country in which the federal government can claim to represent all the regions. Imposition of this measure will serve only to divide Canadians. This government must change its mind. It must open up negotiations. It must open up the hearts of Albertans and others in the west. It must really try to bring Canada together.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). I have been fortunate enough to hear him explain the theory of supply and demand twice. The first time I heard him was a week ago at Queen's University. At that time he explained to third-year business students that the theory of taking your costs, adding reasonable profit and calculating your sales price accordingly was all out of the window. These students had spent three years learning this. It was amazing to see the look in their eyes when his theory of taking the cost, adding a reasonable profit and then selling your product for whatever you can gouge out of people hit home. That may come as somewhat of a surprise to members in this House, but I have had the benefit of hearing it once before. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was there as well. One of the employees of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce left the room during the expose of costs and sales. He could not handle it, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I had to stay and listen.
I was interested to hear the New Democratic Party explain tonight that the Liberals are not supporting the multinationals. Does this mean the $40 million loan has been recalled already? Last week this place handed out $40 million to the multinationals with no strings attached. It was a situation of "here you are. We need you. We are desperate". That is the degree of support for the multinationals.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Apparently he is the spokesman on behalf of the New Democratic Party for Atlantic Canada. I thought the job of spokesman for Atlantic Canada would belong to the most easterly member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party, namely, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Apparently if there is no one available from the east, the next best thing is a member who lives close to the water. So the hon. member for Churchill is the spokesman because Churchill is close to Hudson Bay, and in that way he qualifies. I would like to thank the hon. member for Churchill. One cannot dismiss his remarks that quickly. During the course of his remarks he was very careful to endorse theories, such as the energy tax credit and the excess profits tax on companies. He missed the reduced depletion allowances but he remembered the energy bank. These were all policies that our party enunciated in its budget of last December.
During the debate on the Speech from the Throne members of the government side used this House of Commons as a forum to address their speeches to the province of Quebec and to fight the referendum battle in that province. As a result of the policies of this government, we are now faced with unrest in the west. If that unrest is not dealt with, it could reach untenable and unmanageable proportions.
I want to take a few moments now to address my friends in the west and to tell them about the people of Ontario, not central Canada, but Ontario. We are puzzled by the antagonism of the people in the west toward Ontario. We want to know the specific areas of concern. We promise that if these are brought to our attention, we will apply ourselves, correct the wrongs and explain the situation fully. We do not want the current citizens of Ontario blamed for the problems of this government. If members could come with me tomorrow to the tenth concession in my township and tell everyone there that the people in the west are blaming us for the situation, they would not understand. People in my riding are simply engaged in the process of earning a living, bringing up children and being citizens of our community. Our sons, daughters, nephews and nieces and our friends have gone west with our encouragement. The west is part of this country after all. Our friends and relatives now live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. But they are still our brothers and sisters. If people out there want to blame anyone, let them blame this government, not the people in Ontario.
This Liberal government is not now and has not been for some time representative of Canada. I would suggest to Ontario members in this House that the Liberal government is not representative of the great province of Ontario. You were elected to govern Canada because you had 99 per cent of the
November 25, 1980

vote in one province. You are completely swamped, subjected and impotent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest for a moment that you were swamped, subjected or impotent. This leads to what we call confrontation politics. The hon. member for Churchill made reference to confrontation. That means the Liberal party decides that it has more to gain from confrontation than it has from co-operation. There is no bona fide attempt on the part of this government to sit down and negotiate a fair price and agreement with all of the producing provinces. There are some heroes in the cabinet. They have no desire to co-operate or conciliate. They make a lot of the fact that during the last election campaign they promised lower energy costs. But election promises have never bothered them in the past, so why should they bother them now? Nevertheless, these people are risking our country.
I want to deal with some of the comments made earlier in this debate, especially those made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The minister stated that: "I think it is time that members of this House, and Canadians in general, grew up with respect to Canada's role in international affairs." The statement that every other country in the world would give their right arms to have a prime minister like the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is one which I find completely incomprehensible. I suggest that Canada is already giving its right arm because of this Prime Minister. The problem is we are giving it to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico. Perhaps it is about time the government appreciated the domestic situation in this country. Perhaps it is about time the government had more respect for Canada's ambitions than for the people of Saudi Arabia. If the government members really did appreciate our domestic situation, we would not be engaged in this debate. The Prime Minister does not want to stay here and face reality. The government has failed to reach a pricing agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is therefore as follows: Mr. Waddell, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moved that the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980-


Erik Nielsen: Excuse me for interrupting the Chair. It is the first time I have ever done it, particularly when putting a motion. However, I think you will find there is agreement-
Adjournment Debate


Stanley Howard Knowles: We know that. The question is being put now. The vote is tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: All right.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 19802915, be revoked.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Friday, November 21, 1980, the division stands deferred until 5.45 p.m. Wednesday, November 26, 1980.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I intend to spend some time tonight discussing certain of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons). In an announcement to cancel the Parks Canada move from Cornwall to Peterborough, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) claimed, with lofty and saintly tones of compassion that his concerns are with the interests and morale of the majority of Parks Canada employees in Cornwall, especially the support staff who are less mobile and generally have fewer alternative work opportunities. Let me point out to this House that as of tonight there are over 20 unsettled claims before Treasury Board brought by the employees of the Parks Canada regional office in the city of Cornwall as a result of the cancellation of that move.
5080

November 25, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Leaving aside for the moment that 115 of the 145 employees of the Cornwall office went on record as being in favour of the move of the office to Peterborough, I take great exception to the sanctimonious appeal that the minister in cancelling the move is acting principally in the best interests of the employees of the Parks Canada regional office.
It is more than passing strange that this one small move of a regional office with no more than 150 employees was cancelled on the strength of employee morale. The reasons given in the Liberal policy announcements for the centralization were, first, to move the administration of federal government programs closer to the people directly affected by them and, second, to assist areas of slow economic development and high unemployment.
A 1978 Parks Canada document states, and 1 quote:
-average unemployment in the Peterborough area during 1977 was estimated at about 10 per cent of the labour force compared with ... 7 per cent in Ontario.
I might add that October, 1980, figures from the local employment office in Peterborough indicate that there has been a 33 per cent increase in unemployment there in the last 12 months. This compares to a less than one per cent increase nationally. With regard to the second point of the government's decentralization policy, that of economic development, the document states:
Peterborough's current economic difficulties are directly related to major layoffs and shutdowns . . . overall. The Peterborough area cannot continue to depend on its long established manufacturing industries for the steady supply of new jobs required by its expanding labour force.
Finally, with regard to the contention that a proposed move brings programs closer to the people affected by them, I would cite the following from an ADM in Parks Canada to the minister dated July 3, 1979. This document stated in part:
In 1974, a study of the implications of operating from Cornwall showed that inordinate transportation costs were involved in operating the region (as a whole). The essential close working relationships and co-ordination with the Ontario regional operation was seriously inhibited by the office location ... (In 1978) due to changed economic conditions, it was decided that Peterborough was now the best choice of location.
1 hope I do not weary members opposite with my unrelenting reiteration of the true facts of this case. But I digress for a moment. The minister was concerned with the welfare of the staff. I would like to point out that if the welfare of the staff is his major concern, what about the move of the staff of veterans affairs to other parts of Canada; what about the Liberal government's agonizing over the morale of the employees in Supply and Services when they moved to Shed-iac, New Brunswick, in the riding of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc)? Did they squirm in mealy-mouthed Liberal platitudes voicing their compassion toward all the employees affected by moves which benefited no fewer than six Liberal cabinet ministers after federal relocation from Ottawa?
I suggest the reasons given by the Minister of the Environment on May 5, 1980, for cancelling the move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough were nothing less than
hypocritical hogwash designed to camouflage this unmitigated piece of pork-barrelling, this clear case of patronage, this varnished example of cabinet level double dealing to satisfy rashly made election promises on the part of the present Minister of State for Trade, the minister from Cornwall (Mr. Lumley).
I would like to take this opportunity to make a certain sequence of events in this issue very clear. On August 3, 1979, I announced, and I quote, that "The Ontario regional office of Parks Canada will be moved to Peterborough during the summer of 1980". This was obviously not, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment was pleased to put it in this House on May 12, 1980, an "announcement to defer". It was an announcement to inaugurate the proposal. The member for Burin-St. George's is simply factitious, adulterated and pettifogging and mendacious to suggest otherwise.
I suggest that I have not yet been satisfied on this point by the hon. member opposite. I would also ask that he fulfil the promise he made in this House on May 13 to produce documentation to support his claim, and to support the Minister of the Environment's contention that the minister "did not overlook the question of costs and the effects on the Parks Canada administration" in deciding to cancel the move.
I have in my hand an authority to enter into a lease in Peterborough, file No. 1020-P22/38, issued by Treasury Board on behalf of Public Works Canada, dated January 18, 1980. This document states:
It is estimated that the rental rate for the space now occupied by the client in Cornwall would increase to approximately $270,000 for fiscal year 1980-81, should the client continue to occupy this space.
In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary these figures stand as an indictment of this government's shameful, unforgivable and manipulative disregard for anyone or anything which does not relate directly to their own revolting self-interest.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the move from Cornwall to Peterborough was cancelled. It was cancelled on May 5, and I really would suggest to my good friend for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that he get that message clear. It is cancelled. It is done. I said that to him last week. If I have to say it next week, I will be pleased to do so, until he gets the message that there is no mileage in this for him. We are aware, as he says, that not everyone was happy with the proposed move or with the decision to cancel. How many times does he want the careers of those people in limbo? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the move is cancelled, it is done with and is not up for reconsideration.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), acting in his capacity as minister responsible for Parks Canada, made the decision and announced it publicly on May 5 of this year.
November 25, 1980

The hon. member for Peterborough and I differ on what it was he, the hon. member for Peterborough, said in August of last year. He says that when he announced in August that something would take place the following year, that was an announcement to go ahead. I say that that was an announcement to delay a further year. He is not going to convince me, and I doubt whether 1 will convince him, so I suggest to him that we just leave it at a healthy difference of opinion.
As to the promise I am alleged to have made to this House, as I said to the hon. member last week, I made no commitment to him. I made a commitment to Madam Speaker to assist her in expediting the matter, as I knew she would. She did expedite it without my assistance, and I saw then and see now no need to pursue the matter any further.
At the same time, if the House feels that the document ought to be tabled, I would would be very glad to do so. There is nothing mischievous about the document at all, but I do think at some point, in fairness to the people of Peterborough and Cornwall and particularly to the Parks Canada employees involved, the hon. member should stop fighting yesterday's battles.
Surely the people of Peterborough riding sent the hon. member here to deal with more than one issue. I appeal to him to honour the mandate he has been given and to get on with some other more productive things such as tomorrow's issues and today's issues instead of yesterday's issues.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-LACK OF COVERAGE OF EUROPEAN CONFERENCE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 24, I asked a question of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) about why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation, did not give adequate coverage to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe presently being held in Madrid. This conference is the second follow-up meeting to discuss the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The First such meeting was held at Belgrade at the end of 1977 and during the early months of 1978.
The Madrid conference, as it has now become known, is expected to last through to the end of March, 1981. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is focusing on three major themes or "baskets".
Basket 1 deals with respect for human rights and other principles of the Final Act: disarmament, arms control proposals, military confidence-building measures and military build-up in Europe.
Basket 2 deals with economic co-operation. This includes imports and exports, protectionism, transportation, energy and scientific research.
Adjournment Debate
Basket 3, which is of great importance to Canadians, covers such topics as family reunification, family visits, free flow of information and cultural exchanges.
The Helsinki conference in 1975 adopted ten principles which would guide relations between participating states. The ten principles adopted are as follows: First, sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; second, refraining from the threat or use of force; third, inviolability of frontiers; fourth, territorial integrity of states; fifth, peaceful settlement of disputes; sixth, non-intervention in internal affairs; seventh, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; eighth, equal rights and self-determination of peoples; ninth, co-operation among states; and tenth, fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law.
The Final Act states, and 1 quote:
All the principles set forth above are of primary significance and, accordingly, they will be equally and unreservedly applied, each of them being interpreted taking into account the others. The participating states express their determination fully to respect and apply these principles-
One of the goals of the Madrid conference is to analyse how far signatories of the Final Act have gone in implementing the provisions of the Final Act and to examine the progress which has been made in achieving the objectives of Helsinki.
Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) at the opening session of the Madrid follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation on November 12, 1980, was one of the first speakers to address the delegates from the 35 participating countries. The minister said that over the past five years we have seen important developments in co-operation between participating states through economic, scientific, cultural and other exchanges. The world is a better place for the conclusion of the Helsinki Final Act, 1975. There has been a recognition, with all due respect to national sovereignty, that no state is an island unto itself, able to conduct its affairs, either internal or external, in complete disregard for its neighbours.
The minister went on to say that the Final Act is designed to reduce tensions and to increase co-operation in Europe. In reviewing the implementations of the provisions of the Final Act, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the following:
The deterioration in east-west relations, culminating last December in the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, cannot be ignored in this forum . . . Soviet actions have challenged directly the principles in the Final Act of sovereign equality, refraining from the threat or use of force, inviolability of frontiers, the territorial integrity of states, non-intervention in internal affairs, and equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.
The minister went on to say that the alternative to detente is armed conflict. The shadow of Afghanistan will inevitably chill detente as long as Soviet troops remain there.
Under the human rights basket, the minister noted with great sadness that since the Final Act was signed people have been harassed, arrested, tried, exiled and imprisoned simply for trying to monitor and exercise their rights endorsed in the

November 25, 1980
Adjournment Debate
act. This persecution is inevitably a cause of friction in east-west relations today. The minister proposed a CSCE experts' meeting or some high level meeting to discuss the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms which are reaffirmed in principle No. 7 of the Final Act and the application of those rights in basket No. 3 dealing particularly with the question of the freer movement of people among participating states.
I have made the preceding remarks to indicate to Canadians the importance of the CSCE conference being held presently in Madrid and my great disappointment that our own Crown corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, did not see fit to send even one reporter to cover this conference.
In reply to my question and concern, the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) answered in this House that the CBC entered into an agreement with Visnews which is a European news-gathering agency. Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to hear a Canadian viewpoint of this conference, not a European one.
Canadians are fed up with getting news secondhand, either through American or European news-collecting agencies. When taxpayers pay the money they do to have a publicly owned media, they expect better service than what they have been getting to date. I again put my question to the Minister of Communications: what steps does he propose to take to ensure that the remainder of the conference will get better coverage than it has received in the first two weeks of its deliberations?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and his parliamentary secretary, who are unavoidably absent tonight, I should like to respond to the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). I thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He is quite right in stressing the importance of the Madrid conference which is being watched with interest throughout the world. It is to my friend's credit that he raised the issue at this time.
I do not think I need to remind members of the House of the arm's length relationship between the government and the CBC. While the Minister of Communications reports to Parliament for the CBC, he does not interfere in the day to day management of the corporation. I am sure all members are in agreement with this policy, especially in the area of news services.
However, as the minister undertook in the House yesterday, this question has been pursued with the CBC management. In response to the minister's inquiries, the CBC examined its coverage of the conference and informed the minister as follows. As far as English television is concerned, the decision was made not to assign a reporter to Madrid for two reasons. The first was that all the coverage which would be needed was available to the CBC through Visnews, the world's foremost agency in the field of television news. By the way, the CBC is a founding member of Visnews which was formed by a number
of broadcasting agencies specifically to provide television coverage of international news events. In this way individual broadcaster's resources are not stretched by having to assign reporters or film crews to an event which is already fully covered. Visnews provides pooled coverage of the conference which is available to all its member organizations. Within that context it was felt by CBC that as the conference lasts for many weeks, and no one could be spared for that length of time, the Visnews service would be adequate for network purposes.
During the first week of the conference in Madrid, "The National" carried four stories, first a scene-setter from Mark Phillips in London using film footage from Visnews and Eurovision of the delegates gathering. For three successive evenings after this, "The National" carried footage by satellite from Europe and voice-over reports from speeches by the Secretary of State (Mr. MacGuigan) and the chief delegates from the United States and the Soviet Union. The English television service is monitoring the work of the conference closely with the help of its London bureau and will resume the story as warranted by events.
On English radio 19 separate items on the conference were carried on network newscasts between November 10 and 16. There is no CBC reporter in attendance but reports have been taken from the BBC, NBC and freelancers. English radio's current affairs section carried interviews about the conference on "As it Happens" and "Sunday Morning." Also, commentary on the meeting featured Jim Cutler, law professor at McGill University and lawyer for Soviet dissidents.
Coverage on the French services is being greatly hampered by the strike of their journalists in Quebec, but the radio service has, as well as carrying a pre-conference item, included in its information programs a number of items about the conference.
Mr. Speaker, the conference has a long way to go. The CBC feels its news staff must exercise judgment in deciding which parts of the proceedings to report. The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park can be assured that his comments tonight will be noted by CBC management and the Minister of Communications will make a point of bringing them to the attention of the president of the CBC.
In conclusion, on behalf of the minister, I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park for raising this important issue.


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT-RENEWAL OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FUNDING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight deal with the question I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on November 4 about the meaning of the words in the second last paragraph on page 13 of the budget paper in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) claims that he expects significant
November 25, 1980

savings to come out of the upcoming renewal of federal-provincial funding arrangements for health and social development. I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare where she expected the savings to come from. Mr. Speaker, instead of receiving an answer I received the usual lecture, plus a vague indication-and I quote:
-the savings to come as a result of discussions with those provinces which presently have a surplus-
This evening I ask: what does this mean? Does it mean there is to be a continuation of block funding for medicare, with a reduction of federal contributions to block funding? Likewise, are the provinces being expected to pick up a higher percentage of the established programs themselves with the federal government moving in, perhaps as Justice Hall recommended, to cost-share with the poorer provinces in order to maintain a comprehensive health care system? Is this the intent of the minister? This may sound good superficially but I think caution is in order since it further erodes federal ability to enforce national health care standards. It presupposes that richer provinces have better programs, which is false. It is in the three richest provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario that we find phenomena like premiums and extra billing, evidence that the quality of health care in any particular province is as much a matter of philosophy as it is a matter of wealth. The minister needs to tell us more. The Canadian public deserves to know more about what she intends for health care funding in Canada. Because the Hall report has been released, she can no longer hide behind the fact that it has yet to be released. Instead, we find her hiding behind the idea of federal-provincial consultation. She cannot give anything away because she is embroiled in this process of consultation. I ask this evening, Mr. Speaker, what happened to the great defender of medicare who we heard so much about during the time the Liberals were in opposition?
On that same day the minister indicated she would not turn to block funding for social services. We are glad to hear that. We welcome that announcement on her part since we feel that block funding has not been a success where it has been applied, particularly with regard to medicare. Unfortunately, she is also reported to have said, outside the House on the same day, that post-secondary education, another aspect of established program-financing, might be an area where savings could be made. The minister was quoted in the papers as saying that post-secondary education was an area where savings could be made because it was elitist. Does this mean she thinks postsecondary education should be elitist? If the federal government pulls out of this area and reduces its commitment to it post-secondary education will become elitist in this country.
There is a trend toward a renewed elitism in post-secondary education. I hope the minister will try to fight this trend and not give in or use it as an excuse to save money at the expense
Adjournment Debate
of equality of opportunity. It is time we heard from the minister personally, if not tonight, then on some other occasion, as to just what she meant when she indicated that in her view post-secondary education was elitist and therefore an avenue which the government might use in the upcoming renewal of federal-provincial funding arrangements for established programs.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the second part of the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). The hon. member has consistently made allegations in the House with respect to the minister's commitment to medicare and the government's response to the recommendations of the Hall report. The minister has pointed out in the House on previous occasions that the government is spending $7.1 billion on medicare. We have also pointed out that the increased commitment of the federal government with respect to the established program funding laid out in 1977 has enabled the provinces to use those additional funds to expand into the field of extended health care. As a result of this increased federal spending, the provinces, with the exception of Alberta and Ontario, have been able to, for example, extend denticare to children and intermediate nursing home care to the elderly. These are the areas of growth with respect to medicare.
As a result of the policies developed by the minister and the government these programs have been implemented. Many of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and other hon. members opposite have led the public to believe that the government intends to decrease the amount of money to be spent on social development in Canada. It has been pointed out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on several occasions in the House that this is simply not the case. It is a basic priority of this government to cover those groups in our society which it has traditionally supported in terms of our priorities and our principles. I refer to the elderly, the sick, the oppressed and the underprivileged.
I think our expenditures in these areas indicate that we have been true to our commitment and our philosophy. Over the past ten years expenditures in the social development envelope have increased by 300 per cent. In the coming year there will be an increase in the total amount spent on social development in Canada. The government is still committed to those basic priorities which have traditionally been part of its philosophy, and we have no intention, as the hon. member has mentioned, of going to block funding for social development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 26, 1980