1980-07-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that there has been no indication by the government whether or not there will be a payment made under the provisions of the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and in view of the fact that it was the stated intention of the government when the bill was passed that payments would be made to producers at or about the time of spring seeding, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight):
That the minister in charge of the act make a statement in the House advising why there has been a delay, whether or not a payment will be made under the act, and the date when it is expected cheques will be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the past dismal record of the administration of the Canadian Home Insulation Program, a few examples of which are perpetually late payments to home owners, shortage of application kits, lack of information, dishonest insulators fattening at public expense, and lackadaisical accounting practices which lead to home owners receiving double payments for the same job, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urge the responsible minister to immediately tighten program procedures and controls so that Canadian taxpayers' money will not be squandered further.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL WHEELCHAIR OLYMPICS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to consult with the government or the other party in the opposition about this, but I am hoping they will grant unanimous consent to my motion.
Under Standing Order 43 I should like to point out that whereas Canadian athletes have just returned from competition at the International Wheelchair Olympics in the Netherlands, and whereas many of those athletes achieved outstanding performances through tremendous professional, personal and team efforts and Canada placed third out of 43 countries participating, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House congratulate the athletes, trainers and organizers of the Canadian 1980 Wheelchair Olympics team, and that this House request that the Speaker convey congratulations to each of the athletes on behalf of all Canadians and members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1980
5.0.	43

[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the inadequate price set by this Liberal government for domestic grain, grain consumed in Canada, in the last crop year and set arbitrarily for the 1980-81 crop year, and in light of the financial burden which this government has asked the farmers of western Canada to bear, rather than honouring its legal commitments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this government immediately withdraw Bill S-6, recognize its legal obligation to the farmers of western Canada and pay out the $200 million owed to the farmers of western Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter which should receive the unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the fact that the problems of inflation, unemployment and energy are global in nature, in view of the present international tensions that are a threat to world peace, and in view of this year's report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which includes 23 western industrialized nations, that Canada has the most decentralized government of all these nations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly):
That this House acknowledge the need for a strong Canadian national government, and support the Prime Minister in the ongoing constitutional negotiations with the provincial premiers with regard to the split of federal-provincial powers.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(1410)


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
On April 17, I asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) to table the contract for the new fighter, the F-18, and cautioned him on the dangers in that contract. I further asked him about any contingency plans in the event of a United States decision to cancel the F-18 program. On May 6, the same minister was asked in the House by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) to table the contract. On June 12, he finally tabled the contract without annexes, but promised in the House that he would make these annexes available to members of the House who requested them.
On June 20, I wrote to the minister to ask for the missing annexes to the contract which detail the financial commitments made on behalf of Canada, and since that date I have heard nothing. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That this House directs the Minister of Supply and Services to table all the annexes to the fighter contract signed with McDonnell Douglas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, although I am not sure my motion will be passed. The issue concerns the northern gas pipeline.
Whereas the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), when he was serving as parliamentary secretary to the president of the privy council, said in the House on February 15, 1978, that Canada must be protected against "any risk on non-completion" of the northern pipeline; whereas the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), when he was president of the privy council, said in the House on April 4, 1978, "From the very beginning I undertook in the House to ensure that Parliament was brought in at every stage"; whereas the government so far has refused to bring the disastrous sell-out known as the pre-build of the pipeline back to the House so that Parliament can freely and openly determine if Canada is protected against the risk of non-completion under the proposed amendments to the Northern Pipeline Act, I move,
July 8, 1980

seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House directs the President of the Privy Council to honour his predecessor's promise and his own words by bringing any amendment to the Northern Pipeline Act or schedule to that act before this House for full debate before ratification by cabinet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRODUCTION OF GASOHOL-EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada must move toward energy self-sufficiency, whereas the capacity of Canada to produce liquid portable fuels is declining, whereas the production of gasohol in Canada is technically possible on a large scale, and whereas many countries are now producing significant amounts of gasohol, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the federal government exempt gasohol from the seven-cent a gallon excise tax in order to encourage the production of gasohol in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the deplorable, inexcusable and arrogant action by this government in telling young people employed with the federal Summer Youth Employment Program to borrow their pay cheques from chartered banks because the present Liberal government cannot issue pay cheques to these students in less than eight weeks from the signing of a contract-and 1 remind you, Madam Speaker, that some of these young people have been waiting since May for their first pay cheques-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately launch a full-scale investigation into this matter, advise his department that they are no longer to continue to advise these students to borrow their payroll from the chartered banks of Canada, and that government youth project payroll cheques will be sent out in a lot less time than eight weeks from the date of project approval.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN FEDERATION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This year Canada is celebrating the seventy-fifth birthday of two western provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These two provinces supply much of the food and energy of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: The pioneers who settled and developed these provinces came from many countries and are truly representative of the multicultural character of this nation.
In recognition of the seventy-fifth birthday of these provinces, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House extend to all people, and in particular the pioneers of Alberta and Saskatchewan, greetings and congratulations for their extensive contribution to the success of the Canadian federation and, furthermore, that the federal government strike a suitable stamp to commemorate the seventy-fifth birthday of these two provinces.
I suggest this in view of the fact that this has been done on many occasions in respect of other events.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1980
Oral Questions

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, may I, on behalf of all Alberta residents, sincerely thank the House of Commons for its kind wishes extended today.

Madam Speaker, I have some questions for the Prime Minister relating to matters on which I assume he has sought advice, particularly of law officers of the Crown. Can he tell the House whether it is the position of the government that patriation of the constitution constitutes an amendment of the constitution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not sought the opinion of law officers of the Crown on that matter, but I would be happy to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would hope the Prime Minister would convey that opinion to the House, since it could well prove to be germane. Is it the position of the government that the decision rendered on December 21 by the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of former Bill C-20 in any way affects the ability of Parliament to act unilaterally in respect of patriation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure if the reference is to Bill C-20 or to Bill C-60.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sorry; it is C-60.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is to Bill C-60, would the Leader of the Opposition ask the question again?


Charles Joseph Clark: I apologize, Madam Speaker, for miscalling the bill; it is Bill C-60. My question is whether it is the view of the government that the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada rendered in December of last year in any way affects the ability of Parliament to act unilaterally in respect of patriation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can ask for an opinion from the law officers of the Crown in that regard. But the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall that the decision had to do with action by the federal government in respect of the Senate, and I have no recollection that it mentioned in any way the question of repatriation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government of Canada still accepts the proposition put forth in the white paper issued by the then minister of justice, the late Hon. Guy Favreau, which said in part:
-that the Canadian Parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting federal-provincial relationships without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that paper is nearly 20 years old and I am not quite sure in what context the particular phrase was used.


INQUIRY WHETHER NATIONAL REFERENDUM WILL BE HELD ON PATRIATION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Many of us regard constitutional changes as a topic which often transcends partisanship. Many of us are concerned about the confrontationist statements which the Prime Minister made in his speech at the Liberal convention in Winnipeg. I refer to such statements as:
-I'm glad you're in a fighting mood-
Also:
-that's why it's up to you, the people, to decide that this matter must be done. So let us move!
In view of those statements which he made to the delegates at the convention, and statements made by his ministers, is the Prime Minister contemplating a national referendum on patriation of the constitution should the topic not find unanimous agreement at the first ministers' conference in September?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered that question some weeks ago in the House. The answer is that I am not contemplating a national referendum. As to the particular reference quoted by the hon. member, 1 think it is a valid statement that the source of all authority in this country is the people: They, being the last resort, will have to exercise their sovereignty if governments prove unable to do so.


Mr. Nielsen:: It would really be nice if you believed that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You don't?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's disclaimer, there still remains serious doubt as to his position-to which he has alluded-and the direction that he may take on the matter after the September meeting. In terms of referendum legislation as it relates to patriation of the constitution, has the Prime Minister instructed any of his officials or, for that matter, any of his ministers to draft legislation relating to a national referendum on that subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have given no such instructions. I have reminded some of my colleagues of a suggestion which I made more than a year ago, that if after several more years of effort the provinces and the federal government are unable to reach an agreement yet again on the patriation of the constitution, there might be some cause to consider a referendum.
July 8, 1980


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure the minister is aware that since the last election 94 per cent of all applications to establish new businesses which went before the Foreign Investment Review Agency were approved, and that 85 per cent of all acquisition requests were approved, all this in spite of the fact the government has indicated that it wants to discourage foreign investment other than where it is of proven significant benefit to Canada.
Would the minister tell the House whether or not he has responded to the request in the letter written to him on June 12 by the United Electrical Workers Union asking for an investigation into the acquisition by Murata Manufacturing of Japan of Erie Technological Products of Trenton, Ontario, and whether or not he has looked into the subsequent lay-off of approximately 150 employees by Murata immediately after the acquisition took place and was approved?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I certainly did respond to this request. I found that while the government had approved the proposed acquisition, it has not yet been completed, and that the lay-offs in question took place before the completion of that acquisition. We are continuing to look into the matter to ensure that all requirements under the act are being met.
Speaking of the administration of the act in general, I can assure the hon. member and this House that under my direction significant benefit, as is required by the act, is looked for very actively to ensure that the act is being enforced with respect to each and every application which is accepted by the government.


Ian Deans: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I am sure the minister appreciates that although it may be technically true that the lay-offs took place before completion of the transaction, it was all part of the arrangement.
When the minister talks of significant benefit, could he explain to the House what significant benefit was derived from the sale of Thomas Holding Ltd. to Monique A. McCool, of Lima, Ohio, of a daycare centre? The answer given publicly by the Foreign Investment Review Agency is that it would improve product variety.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would read the release a little more fully, he would see that in the check list to which he referred there is also a check under other headings showing additional measures of significant benefit which he failed to mention to this House.
He failed to mention something even more important, and that was a small business application, as is the case with most of the ones we are dealing with. We are looking at significant benefits in every case. The economic significance of the trans-
Oral Questions
action he mentioned is certainly not the same as the major acquisitions where we are paying special attention to the matter of significant benefit.
The hon. member is worried about day nurseries. I am worried about improving jobs and working conditions for millions of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: So Herb doesn't care about daycare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Try and get the women's vote.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: In light of the minister's answer, perhaps he might tell the House what the significant benefit was when Houdaille bought and then closed down their operation in Oshawa, and when Nokia bought or acquired and built a plant supposedly to make rubber tires in Ontario, when we all know there is a surplus of tires. Can the minister explain to the House where the benefits are and where all these wonderful jobs are?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as usual, my hon. friend is really poorly informed, which is surprising because of his supposed background in the field. Nokia has not built any plant. In this case, some of the representations were set out in the press release indicating that this enables a change of what is now an import of tires, something that is permissible under present law, to the manufacture of tires in Canada, thus replacing imports with jobs for Canadians. He does not care about that.
With respect to the Houdaille transaction, that was approved under a previous administration. The representations, the undertakings, were being met; but conditions changed. We are investigating that to see whether there are breaches of undertakings so that we can take enforcement proceedings.
I suggest that my hon. friend ought to be more informed than he is on these vital matters, instead of fiddling around with day nurseries. When it comes to helping Canadians, he is still in diapers.


OIL PRICING-SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS WITH PRODUCING PROVINCES
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, the Prime Minister informed the House that at least tentative arrangements had been made for a meeting between himself and the Premier of Alberta for July 24, only one week before the expiration of the energy pricing agreement.

July 8, 1980
Oral Questions
To make this July 24 meeting as productive as possible, am I correct in presuming that a series of meetings between now and July 24 are scheduled, either at the ministerial or top official level, for the purpose of clarifying, altering or setting forth new respective positions between the two levels of government? If that presumption is correct, I wonder if the minister would indicate the schedule of such meetings.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I intend to meet with my colleague from British Columbia in the course of the next week. It may be appropriate to have other meetings.
At the present time, no specific meetings have been set up with my colleague from Alberta. We have already had several meetings and I have put forward at least four or five offers. However, if there is any particular additional information that would be relevant, or if my colleague from Alberta is interested in discussing any particular changes, alternatives or offers he would have to make, I can assure my hon. friend that I am totally available and 1 will make myself available either in Edmonton or in Ottawa at any time that is convenient.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, following the last meeting between the minister and his provincial counterpart, their respected positions were described by both ministers, I believe, as being miles apart, very far apart, or words to that effect, which presumably, unless the minister can inform us otherwise, is the situation today.
Is it the government's position, despite the crucial importance of an energy pricing agreement, that prior to July 24 no efforts are to be made to solve, for example, some of the ancillary issues or to set forth new proposals in order to give first ministers on July 24 some form of basis for agreement other than the situation where the positions are so far apart?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government is now thoroughly considering the results of negotiations between myself and my Alberta counterpart and studying any acceptable improvement to the proposals which I had the opportunity to make. If the government concludes that some improvements are possible, it is clear that the Prime Minister of Canada will have the opportunity to suggest and discuss them with his Alberta counterpart. Should it be deemed necessary to have further talks in the meantime, I wish to assure rny hon. colleague that we will be quite pleased to meet our Alberta counterparts.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister been made aware of any attempts by small oil companies to fraudulently substitute regular gasoline for non-leaded or super non-leaded gas in service station tanks, so that people are getting the cheaper leaded gas instead of the non-leaded gas which some vehicles require?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: No, Madam Speaker.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Solicitor General. As it is my understanding that this is, in fact, a practice which has taken place in Ontario, would the Solicitor General be willing to ask the RCMP to investigate the problem and determine the level of federal responsibility, if any, as to just how widespread the practice is and what measures may have to be taken to prevent further substitution?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter and speak to the hon. member about it.


Erik Nielsen: You do not know what he is talking about.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and follows up on the statement he made yesterday in the House. As of June 30, subsidies to the shipbuilding industry have been lowered from 20 to 9 per cent, which has put an end to negotiations for new contracts because of the uncertainty surrounding new measures to be announced by the government. When does the minister intend to meet the industry advisory group and union representatives? Also, will it be the same advisory group which has already submitted a report on the shipbuilding industry in Canada in 1978, and when does the minister intend to announce the new program?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I hope to begin as soon as possible consultations with groups interested in the future of shipyards. 1 am fully aware of the importance of this industry in the area
July 8, 1980

represented by my hon. colleague, as well as in many other regions of our country, and hopefully it will be possible to obtain cabinet approval to implement a new and more effective program this fall.


UNITED STATES CONVERSION TO COAL-FIRED PLANTS-EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT-EMISSION CONTROLS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the serious threat to the Canadian environment if the American government proceeds with its plan to convert 80 power plants to coal in the northeastern United States, without emission controls, is the minister prepared to insist that before any future increases in the export of Canadian natural gas to the United States takes place the U.S. government gives written guarantees that the emission control standards on coal-fired power plants-or all industries, for that matter- will be the highest possible?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this matter has been discussed both between myself and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy, and between the Secretary of State for the Environment in the United States and the Minister of the Environment. We have impressed upon the American authorities the great importance that we attach to this issue.
My colleague had a meeting as recently as a couple of weeks ago on this very subject. I think we are quite confident that the American authorities are very much aware of our concern, and that we will succeed in achieving a satisfactory arrangement in this respect. If my hon. friend wishes to have more specific information, I would suggest that he address his question to the Minister of the Environment.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be more confident about this problem than we are on this side. This situation has been going on for many years, with little action. If the minister is not prepared to use our natural resource exports to negotiate a clean air agreement with the United States, as I suggest he should, would he consider a special export tax on this resource to partially pay for the pollution damage to our economy that emissions from these coal-fired plants will cause?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member assumes in his question that there will be additional pollution arising from those developments. We are not ready to assume that at this time.
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


INDEXATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance perhaps I could put my question to the Prime Minister. As the deputy minister for finance, Mr. Stewart, indicated earlier today that his department continues looking to the total removal of indexing in the tax system, has revealed that this would produce a federal revenue gain of over $1.5 billion, and has also confirmed that it will reduce the threshold level in income for a family of four, if indexing is removed, from $12,400 down to $11,335-or a $1,000 difference as far as that relatively low-income family is concerned-would the Prime Minister put an end to the speculation about indexing removal once and for all and tell the deputy minister and his Minister of Finance that he wants no part of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance, myself, and the Minister of Finance have answered this question many times before. I fail to see why the hon. member is concentrating his attack on some hypothetical tax which is being studied. Why is he not making the same argument against all forms of taxation? I fail to understand that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, we are concentrating our attack on this because it is hurting the relatively poorer income earner in this country more than anybody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Prime Minister does not need to be told again that the only reason the government is looking for this fresh revenue source is because it has failed to restrain its own spending.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask his question.


An hon. Member:: Not a speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the Prime Minister is with respect to the wage earners who are now settling contracts with their employers through union negotiations. Does the Prime Minister feel it is fair for these wage earners to be settling, presumably, on what they think is a net tax position, only to find that some time between now and the fall they may be surprised to hear that indexing has been removed, and retroactively they will be taxed almost 10 per cent more than they anticipated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this question is hypothetical by its very nature: if something happens, something else will happen. But we do not know and we will not know until the budget. If the hon. member had used the same kind of indignation to prevent the government of which he was a

July 8, 1980
Oral Questions
member from slapping an 18-cent excise tax on all the people across Canada, he would still be on this side of the Elouse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about wage and price controls?


An hon. Member:: Where is your tax credit?


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. It is about the new fighter aircraft. Can the minister confirm that he was recently in St. Louis and, as a result of his discussions with McDonnell Douglas there, is he now able to assure this House that McDonnell Douglas will satisfy all contract conditions and that everything is going according to schedule?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, having heard the hon. gentleman's motion under Standing Order 43 before the question period, I first of all wish to indicate to him that I would have hoped he would have been just a little more patient. I do have the annexes addressed to him with a covering letter that is available to him immediately after question period, if he should wish.


Charles Joseph Clark: What a coincidence.


Mr. Blais:: In terms of the F-18 contract, 1 wish to assure the hon. gentleman that 1 am content that best efforts are being made, in terms of the contract, to satisfy all terms of the contract. The project management team is already in St. Louis and is overviewing the performance of the contract and the meeting of all the milestones in terms of the performance of that aircraft.
We are content that the information that was available to us at the time of the signature of the contract is being maintained, and that aircraft will be the best aircraft available to Canada at the time of delivery. I might indicate, as well, that in terms of the industrial offsets there has been a great deal of interest by all Canadian manufacturers in the aeronautical and space industry. I am most encouraged by the response. In effect, the offset package will surpass the commitment that had been made by McDonnell Douglas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is nice to know that after raising the subject five times in the House of Commons the minister is finally going to give me those annexes. I listened carefully to his reply to my question. Does the minister, then, totally deny a news report in the July 7 Toronto Star which states, inter alia "and Ottawa officials have confirmed that production of
the interceptor will be delayed six months because of a redesign of the aircraft's wings"?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I am denying a number of reports that have been contained in the press, and allegations made in this House by members of the opposition that were completely unfounded. We must recognize that the selection of this aircraft was following analysis in a highly competitive marketplace. In effect, the F-16 is still competing with the F-18 in other areas. That competitive environment encouraged some statements to be made that were completely unfounded.
I might indicate to the hon. gentleman that he has seen the contract: he knows very well there are milestones identified within that contract that have to be met by McDonnell Douglas, failing which there will be financial penalties in liquidated damages which will have to be paid by that company.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, who answers in this House for the minister in the other place who is responsible for the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Can the minister advise this House if statistics gathered indicate that a payment has been triggered under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and, if so, the possible date when cheques will be mailed?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my indication from the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board is that, indeed, that could be triggered. I do not have the figures as to the extent.


Douglas Charles Neil: The minister is probably aware that in the debate, when the act was submitted to this House, the then minister indicated it was the intention, under the act, that payments would be made at or about seeding time in early spring, so that the grain producers would have funds with which to finance their production. Every year the payment gets later and later. I wonder if the minister would pass on to the minister in charge of the act the fact that the delay causes considerable inconvenience. Also, can he determine why each year the decision to make the payments comes later?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 will indeed do so, Madam Speaker, but I might suggest that the hon. member could do so himself by agreeing to send Bill S-6 to committee. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board is waiting there to answer all questions of this type and other types.
July 8, 1980

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Mr. Laurent Char-tier, a higher official of civil aviation in the Department of Transport, told us that a near tragedy occurred at Dorval airport during the month of February. Could the minister tell the House whether it is true that upper echelons in Transport Canada held up an attempted inquiry, whether disciplinary action will be taken against the air controller and when the results of the inquiry will be released?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with regard to the Dubin commission, my position has been not to comment on or make major changes to the air safety standards that are in effect in my department for the very good reason that a commission of inquiry was created specially for that very purpose. My predecessor and the judge appointed to that commission had concluded an agreement that such would be the policy of the minister and the department and I think that makes sense. When a commission of inquiry is created, 1 think the least one can do is give it every opportunity to hear, ponder and filter the evidence and then make the necessary recommendations. That is the position I have taken and I believe it is the right one. If I am not mistaken, Madam Speaker, it was also that of my predecessor.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of recent statements by the major chain stores in Canada, including Dominion, Loblaws, A and P and IGA, is it possible that the rumour is correct that the present government is considering delaying the implementation of metrication in 21 cities in Canada on January 1?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have taken no such decision.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. In light of his throne speech and his commitment to listen to the people and respond to their wishes and desires, and in light of the fact that in the test centres of Sherbrooke and Peterborough up to 85 per cent of the people do not wish to proceed with metrication on January 1, and they are not proceeding there, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will listen to the people of Canada and not
Oral Questions
proceed seven years ahead of the United States with metrication in 21 cities in Canada on January 1?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to be putting his own opinion forward, which is one following some great distance the lead of others. I do not know on what polls he is basing that opinion.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport as well, but on a different subject. When the Dubin commission reports to him, perhaps in October, will he or his department take specific action against those participants who are breaking the safety regulations of his department?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I suggest we wait until we get the recommendations. I can say very emphatically that it is my intention to act as rapidly as I can on the recommendations that the judge makes.


John Raymond Ellis: I appreciate that the minister is going to act on the recommendations. What I am asking, and what has been asked in this House on both sides, is: is the minister not going to act on the specific breaches that have been reported in evidence before the commission? If he is not going to act on those specific breaches, why is the commission taking place? The corollary is that if he is going to act on them in October, why will he not act on some of the more dramatic ones now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think it has been traditional for a minister to commit himself, as I just did, to being respectful and to acting upon recommendations, but I have not heard anything to the effect that a minister is obligated to accept all the recommendations of a commission. That is the fine line that I am trying to walk at this time. I think that is the standard approach to this question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure the minister is aware that the permit to Amax in northern British Columbia, which he took part in granting and which allows the dumping of 100 million metric tons of effluent into Alice Arm, was granted on April 10, 1979, in the middle of a federal election campaign.

Oral Questions
A number of eminent scientists in British Columbia have concluded that the proposed dumping not only poses a serious environmental hazard but also that the permit itself was based on faulty and incomplete information. 1 wonder if the minister would tell this House whether he is prepared to make the permit comply with the act passed by this Parliament, which is the Fisheries Act, and to have the standards of that act comply with the proposal made by Amax.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, first I might say to the hon. member that this permit has nothing to do with the fact that there was or was not an election campaign. Second, a document was given to one of the hon. member's colleagues at a parliamentary committee last week. The hon. member may not yet have become familiar with that, but it gave the honest opinion of the departmental official on what was the most effective way to avoid the problem of bleaching of deposits which would be subject to very heavy rains in that part of the country.
The hon. member also said that there were a number of scientists: I understand that there is at the moment only one who has publicly challenged the view of the department. We will obviously review this whole issue and come back to the hon. member when we have more information.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. I think it is a crucial question and that the Prime Minister should respond to the whole of Parliament.
An order in council was passed in the middle of a federal election campaign allowing 8,000 times more dumping than that allowed by an act passed by this Parliament. I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment on whether he feels that this practice is a good one. Second, would he support a full public review of this permit, which is the only one of its kind in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. If the hon. member would like to have an answer, maybe I could take his question as notice.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It has been reported, arising from evidence at a standing committee, that an official of the Treasury Board indicated to the standing committee that a retraining policy for the public service has been approved by the Treasury Board. Is that true or not?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we have been examining at length a substantial retraining policy for the public service, as I have indicated on numerous occasions and as I have discussed with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. We have given approv-
July 8, 1980

al at this stage to a proposed training program, the details of which I hope will be made public in the very near future.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if the minister can, I would be grateful if he could let me know approximately when the publication of the policy might take place; and could he indicate to the House whether he has completed consultations with the National Joint Council, if those are indeed contemplated by the minister?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 believe the training program will be very satisfactory to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, who has shown a great interest in these areas in the past and I hope will continue to do so in the future. I hope he will be very supportive of this program.
As I indicated, with us "in the very near future" means just that, and I hope that in the next several weeks we will be able to make it public.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Since drought conditions in northwestern Ontario are certainly as serious as they are in Manitoba, I ask the minister if the relief payments which he announced for the prairie provinces last Thursday will also be applicable to farmers in northwestern Ontario, who will need 300,000 or 400,000 bales of hay for this fall.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the question the hon. member asks is a very serious one, because farmers are affected by drought in that area as much as those in some of the constituencies of hon. members from Manitoba or Saskatchewan. It will be a non-discriminatory plan: they will receive aid in an equitable fashion.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the relatively short time the minister has been in office, I wonder if he can recollect for the House the approximate number of occasions on which he has exercised his ministerial discretion by issuing minister's permits either to permit someone to enter Canada or to permit someone to stay in Canada. Of that number, how many has he issued against the recommendation of one of Canada's law enforcement agencies?
July 8, 1980


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows quite well, the ministerial permit is something which is issued in the hundreds, and sometimes thousands. I think last year there were some 7,000 or 8,000 ministerial permits issued. Not all of them were issued directly by me, but I am authorized to give public servants and the commission the authority to make those permit decisions. I cannot give the exact number, but I would be glad to provide it to the hon. member at a convenient time.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, as I am sure you recognized-if the minister did not-the nub of the question was how many, or approximately how many, or what percentage he has issued against the recommendations of law enforcement agencies. If the minister wants specifics, my supplementary question is with regard to the case of Mr. Giuseppe Calamusa. I wonder if the minister could inform us if he issued that permit against the recommendation of one of Canada's law enforcement agencies.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, with respect to any case which comes before us for discussion, I receive recommendations and opinions from a variety of sources and it is my job to make discretionary judgments based upon those opinions. I would not single out any one agency.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A brief supplementary, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody.


FUNDING OF CANADIAN WHEELCHAIR SPORTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. All parties in this House today applauded the outstanding success of the Canadian wheelchair sports team at the recent Wheelchair Olympics in the Netherlands.
Since in 1978 the Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association was recognized by the government and granted funding for an executive director to be housed at the national sports and recreational office, and because the organization wishes to continue to work and strengthen its ties with the sports part of the organization-the sports delivery system, rather than through the recreation side-I wonder if the minister could assure the House that the government does not plan to revert to its previous policy of having wheelchair sports treated as a special group of disabled under Recreation Canada.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I will inquire into this matter for the hon. member. I have not taken any position along the lines he has indicated, and it appears to me that the present arrangement is a suitable one.
Oral Questions
Certainly there are aspects of the involvement which are recreational in nature, but the fiercely competitive nature of the athletic events in which wheelchair athletes participate makes them very much sport and very much athletic events, and I think a very good argument can be made in relation to the present arrangement.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, rumours persist that this group is going to be treated as a special group, and it is opposed to that. Can the minister tell us when the group will receive official notice from the minister's office as to whether there is to be an administrative change; and before any administrative change is implemented, will the group be consulted?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the question is hypothetical because I have indicated that I have not taken any such position. If any change is contemplated, there certainly would be consultation in advance and we would attempt to have agreement on any change which might be decided upon. However, I do not at this moment contemplate such action. I think we are all extremely pleased about how well the wheelchair athletes of this country have done, not just in recent competition but in general over the years.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On April 22 government ministers in the Senate refused to release the names of members of the cabinet committees. In view of the commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne on freedom of information, would the Prime Minister overrule his ministers in the Senate and declassify the names of the members of cabinet committees?


An hon. Member:: As we did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My understanding is that the names were published in the newspapers. If they were published correctly, I will confirm them. I have no objection to making them public.


An hon. Member:: Would you table them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister in the Senate was probably reflecting the previous attitude of the government which, as the hon. member will recognize, was changed in the Speech from the Throne.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Will the Prime Minister undertake to table or to have tabled in the House of Commons the list of cabinet committees and their members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Order Paper Questions


WELFARE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the House whether or not her opposite number in Quebec consulted her about his plan to encourage the population growth in Quebec through a $240 subsidy to Quebec women? Does the minister intend to promote that program and recommend the financial participation of the government?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the Quebec government did not consult the federal government on that project and I hope it is no more than a trial balloon. We have received no information other than that supplied by the press to enlighten us on whether that baby bonus is a worthy cause. The real amount of money has yet to be established at which mothers are willing to have more children, and the projects submitted to me by other study groups in Canada dealt with sums of money, allowances to mothers in the months preceding the birth, but certainly not after the birth.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Watson.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Watson.
[Editor's Note: For text of the 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, 7,11,33,44,73, 167,213, 286, 402, 622, 954 and 955.
July 8, 1980


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP investigate, prior to May 22, 1979, the possible misuse of the Unemployment Insurance Commission computer centre in Montreal, Quebec, by persons employed by the government on behalf of outside interests and, if so (a) on what date did the investigation commence (b) was it completed and, if so, on what date (c) did the investigation take long and, if so, for what reason (d) will the results be made public and, if so, on what date (e) will any charges be laid (0 was Key Data Canada involved in the investigation?
2.	Were Mr. Robert Kingsley, former director of the Regional Payment Centre, Montreal, Quebec, and/or Mr. D. Mainville, former chief, computer regional director at the time involved and, if so, what part did they play in the incident?
3.	Will the government confirm, by name and job designation, whether or not it has been determined that an employee of the UIC at the time received a swimming pool in return for his co-operation?
4.	Will the government make public whether or not it was determined that certain employees were given twenty dollars in plain envelopes in an attempt to associate them with the venture and what are the names of those persons who took such envelopes?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1.
Yes.
(a)	October, 1977.
(b)	Yes; September, 1978.
(c)	Approximately 11 months; not an inordinate length of time.
(d)	No.
(e)	The Provincial Crown Prosecutor has advised that no evidence exists to support criminal charges in this matter.
(f)	The only involvement by Key Data Canada was that they were bound by a contract with the Unemployment Insurance Commission to convert and computerize the UIC payment system.
2.	Mr. Robert Kingsley and Mr. D. Mainville delegated three or four UIC employees to work on a part-time basis for Key Data to correct an error made by Key Data on a former contract with another government department. This was done in order to speed up the UIC conversion and it is felt that it was in the best interest of all concerned. These persons acted in an acceptable manner under the circumstances and no criminal activity was found.
3.	An employee of UIC installed a backyard swimming pool at his residence. This person obtained a second mortgage on his home and a portion of this money was used for the purchase of the pool. This matter was thoroughly investigated and it has been established beyond all doubt that this person used his own funds for the purchase in question.
4.	During the time of the conversion, the work force at UIC was reduced by approximately 60 per cent causing a great deal of hostility amongst employees. It is felt that this allegation may possibly have been made by disgruntled employees seeking revenge. Although some of the persons interviewed stated that they had received payments of $15.00 or $20.00, the
July 8, 1980

investigation uncovered no additional evidence to substantiate this allegation.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Mark McClung a member of the RCMP and, if so (a) on what date was he appointed (b) what is his complete history with the RCMP, including whether or not he had any connections with the security service (c) on what date did he leave the RCMP and for what reason, including whether or not he was dismissed and for what reason?
2.	What are all the subsequent positions in the public service held by Mr. McClung, including departments, salaries and dates?
3.	Is Mr. McClung a member of the public service and, if not, on what date did he depart and what are all the reasons surrounding his departure including the causes?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Mr. McClung was engaged by the RCMP as a civilian employee, on a temporary basis, on March 5, 1951.
(b)	Mr. McClung was initially engaged as a civilian research technician in the RCMP special branch. He became a permanent employee on April 1, 1952, a position he held until his resignation in December 1960.
(c)	On December 23, 1960, he, of his own free will, terminated his employment with the RCMP to take up a position with the Glassco Commission on Public Organization.
2. November 1973-October 1976
SAPP appointment-PM 6-Education Research and Liaison Branch
Secretary of State; Salary range $20,565-23,372 October 1967-August 1973
Staff officer on Broadcasting Affairs, PM 6, office of the Under
Secretary of State; Salary range $ 12,917-14,678 April 1967-October 1967
Assistant director of research on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, PM-6,
Secretary of State; Salary range $ 12,917-14,678 August 1962-April 1967
Group chief, finance officer 5,
Department of Finance Salary range $ 10,081-11,800 1960-1962
Order Paper Questions
Researcher, Royal Commission on Government Organization
Salary up to	$12,000
Researcher, R.C.M.P.:
Salary range $5,800-9,800
3. Mr. McClung is no longer a public servant, compulsory retirement, due to age, was taken October 16, 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did former RCMP Commissioner William Higgitt give testimony before the McDonald commission from notebooks in his possession and, if so (a) on whose authority did he keep such notebooks separate from regular RCMP files (b) were the notebooks kept in his residence (c) was it government policy to allow persons to keep private records of a sensitive or security nature in their possession after retirement and, if so, has this policy been changed?
2.	Did any former RCMP official, including Commissioner Higgitt, ever advise the government, directly or indirectly, that they kept such records for purposes of "self protection" in the event that they were called upon at a later date to justify or testify in regard to certain incidents for which they would not ordinarily have files available to them?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes.
(a)	The notebooks contained the personal notes of Commissioner Higgitt kept by him during his term of office. Authority was neither sought nor given for Commissioner Higgitt to keep such notebooks. They were not, and ordinarily would not, be part of the regular RCMP file system.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Although there has been no established policy with respect to the keeping of private records by civil servants, the government is now considering the development of clear guidelines in this area.
2. No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed with construction of the Guy Favreau complex in Montreal and, if so, what is the estimated cost involved at this stage?
2.	Will the government consider not proceeding with the complex as a restraint measure?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and
2. The government intends to proceed with the implementation of the Guy Favreau complex in Montreal, Quebec. The most recent estimated cost is $100,000,000 (1978 dollars).

July 8, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP or any department or agency investigate, or at present are they investigating, whether or not there are separatist elements that have infiltrated the RCMP and, if so (a) on what date did such an investigation begin and by which department (b) what are all the details?
2.	Does the government have any knowledge of persons within the RCMP who have separatist sympathies?
3.	Does the government have any knowledge of persons in the Public Service who have separatist sympathies or who actively support the Parti Quebecois or the forthcoming Quebec referendum, in the affirmative, and, if so, to what extent and what are all the details of the government's plans to deal with the situation?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Prime Minister and Privy Council offices and the Solicitor General as follows:
1 and 2. Internal security requirements and investigations are an ongoing concern of the RCMP. Such matters fall within the category of security operations, which, as a matter of policy, are not publicly commented on. If the hon. member has information concerning the possible "infiltration" of the RCMP by separatist or any other elements, it is recommended that he make it available to the Solicitor General of Canada or directly to the RCMP.
3. The Government of Canada does not consider sympathy or support for the Parti Quebecois as a factor which would preclude employment in the Public Service of Canada unless the activity falls within the definition of political partisanship as defined in Sec. 32(1 )(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many United States citizens immigrated to Canada as landed immigrants in each of the past four years and what is the total of all the years combined (b) what were their main occupational classifications?
2.	(a) How many Canadian citizens emigrated to the United States as landed immigrants in each of the past four years and what is the total for all the years combined (b) what were their main occupational classifications?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I. (a)	1976	1977	1978	1979 Total15,608	12,147	9,305	9,096	46,156
(b) Of the above totals, 18,515 were workers. The following is a table
showing the intended occupations:
Entrepreneurs Managerial, Administrative and Related
1976	1977	1978	1979 *	Total329	112	39	28	508838	663	536	556	2,593
Natural Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics Social Sciences and Rela4ed Fields Religion
Teaching and Related Medicine and Health Artistic, Literary and Performing Arts Sports and Recreation Clerical and Related Sales Occupations Service Occupations Farming, Horticultural and Animal Husbandry Fishing, Hunting, Trapping and Related Forestry and Logging Mining and Quarrying Including Oil and Gas Fields Processing Operations Machining and Related Product Fabricating, Assembling and Repairing Construction Trades Transport Equipment Operating Material Handling and Related Other Crafts and Equipment Operating Occupations not elsewhere classified Totals
1976	1977	1978	1979 [DOT]	Total400	269	199	221	1,089251	168	145	136	700294	298	239	308	1,139971	690	461	406	2,528497	415	293	322	1,527260	274	196	188	91837	28	30	34	129612	538	445	524	2,119244	221	162	191	818273	239	194	213	91993	102	89	102	3862	4	3	5	148	7	7	4	268	5	5	5	2373	42	36	44	195103	59	52	54	268251	198	142	132	723334	233	159	131	85794	58	47	47	24628	10	9	7	5434	32	20	13	99136	166	162	173	6376,170	4,831	3,670	3,844	18,515
* 1979 figures are preliminary estimates
2. (a) and (b).	H
The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission H does not maintain any exit controls. Therefore, it is not H possible to provide the number of persons who left H Canada or their occupational classifications.	H


Mr. Herbert: Does the government intend to bring forward legislation placing controls on foreign ownership of Canadian uranium in light of the problems of foreign ownership facing the uranium industry?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: The government intends to control non-resident participation in the Canadian uranium industry and will be looking at alternatives to do so including introducing legislation which is specific to the uranium industry.

DE HAVILLAND CANADA INC.	I

Question No. 286-Mr. Herbert:	I
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net I
earnings or deficits of de Havilland Canada Inc?	I
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other I benefits conferred by the government on de Havilland (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to de Havilland (c) investment by the government in de Havilland both before and after any write-off?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: In so far as the Department of

July 8, 1980

Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. de Havilland Canada Inc.
Year Ending May 31 1977	1978
Total Revenues Net Income 2. None.
$1,459,197	$1,548,064
$	65,300	$	99,974


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of de Havilland Canada Inc.?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: It is assumed that this question refers to the company "de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited". Concerning "de Havilland Canada Inc.", see question No. 286 answered this day.
The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
1.	(a), (b) $ 000,
Revenues or Sales Pre-tax profit (loss) Income tax (recovered) Net profits (loss)
Financial Year Ending May 31, 1978
$124,774 1,624 (269) $	1,893
Financial Year Ending May 31, 1977


[Stage Direction]
2. (a)
Fiscal Year Ending
March 31, 1978
Fiscal Year Ending
March 31, 1977
Research and Development	$7,896,523
Capital Assistance and
Source Establishment	12,415
[Stage Direction]
The Imperial Bank of Commerce requested and received a letter of comfort from the minister (effective date December 24, 1976) regarding a $70 million line of credit extended to de Havilland; it is not legally binding and its tangible value could only be determined by the measure taken by the government should the company default.
Note: All payments detailed above were made through the Defence Industry Productivity Program with the following conditions attached:
(i) Payments awarded for research and development were used mainly for the DASH-7 program and represent a 90/10 (government/com-pany) sharing ratio. In this case, where the contractor was not able to make a 50 per cent contribution and a Crown contribution in excess
Order Paper Questions
of 50 per cent was provided, the contract entered into with the company contains a condition that repayment be made to the Crown as follows;
(a)	25 per cent of all profits up to 10 per cent realized from the initially supported project and/or follow-on production until an equal contribution to the project has been made by the company and the Crown;
(b)	all profit in excess of 10 per cent until the total Crown contribution to the project has been refunded.
(ii)	Capital assistance payments represent the total costs incurred in the purchase of capital equipment of an advanced nature; the company is required to reimburse the Crown 50 per cent of these costs over a five-year period.
(iii)	Source establishment costs relate to pre-production with repayment contingent upon the profitability of the project supported (DASH-7), i.e., if the DASH-7 is successful, 50 per cent of these funds will be recovered by the Crown,
Funds were also received by de Havilland from the following departments and agency: Department of National Defence, Department of Transport and the National Research Council.
(b)	Nil;
(c)	Nil.
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Public Works?


Paul James Cosgrove: There are no practicing lawyers in Public Works Canada on staff. There are presently three Department of Justice lawyers working at Public Works Canada.


Mr. McKnight: 1.	With reference to the Canadian Wheat Board information release dated March 6, 1980, was prior notification given to producers regarding contracts for Elrose barley being issued for the 1979-80 crop year?
2.	Were the producers who assisted in providing barley for testing and development given information as to when contracts would be issued?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The March 6, 1980 Canadian Wheat Board information release refers to the 1980-81 crop year; not the 1979-80 crop year as suggested by the question. If Mr. McKnight is referring to the 1980-81 crop year, the answer is

Order Paper Questions
no. Prior notification was not given to producers regarding contracts for Elrose barley being issued for the 1980-81 crop year.
2. Producers who assisted in providing barley for testing and development were not given information as to when contracts would be issued prior to the March 6 Canadian Wheat Board information release.


Mr. Mcknight: 1.	Were arrangements made for the testing of Elrose barley by the malting and brewing industry and, if so, what were they?
2.	Where did the Elrose barley, used in the testing by the brewing and malting industries, originate and what are the names and addresses of the producers?
3.	Was there any special compensation regarding the price for the Elrose barley used for testing development?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yes, the Canadian Wheat Board made arrangements for the testing of Elrose barley by the malting and brewing industry. Being that Elrose barley was a newly developed variety and its brewing and malting characteristics under commercial conditions were not fully known, the malting and brewing industry agreed to select and test a number of carlots of Elrose barley produced in 1979.
2. The Elrose barley used in the testing by the brewing and malting industry originated in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The names and addresses of the producers involved are:
G. Boltezar,	J. Dyck Jr.,
Coaldale, Alberta.	Brooks, Alberta.
W. Copeland,	R. Lockwood,
Rosetown, Saskatchewan.	Outlook, Saskatchewan.
3. No, there was no special compensation regarding the price for the Elrose barley used for testing development.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be good enough to call starred question 876?


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Will the government adhere to the 50%, 25%, 25% funding formula developed in the rail relocation act in funding the CPR rail relocation in Winnipeg?
2.	Under the recommendations of the Dillon Study, "Rail Relocation Versus Grade Separation Program" was the federal contribution to be $84,301,000 and, if so, will the government meet this figure for the CPR rail relocation in Winnipeg?
July 8, 1980

3.	In providing the 50% federal contribution, which department or departments will provide the $84,301,000 contribution?
4.	What was the rationale used by the government when it arrived at the "five million a year for five years" formula suggested by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the House on May 7, 1980 and what escalation formula will be adopted to allow for inflation over the five-year period?
5.	On what dates will the departments be making their first payments toward the Winnipeg rail relocation project and what will be the dollar value of the payments?
6.	Is the government satisfied that the project can be completed at the estimated cost of $168,602,000?

7.	Would the DREE grant be made available under the condition that the full Winnipeg rail relocation project is adopted?
8.	Would the DREE grant be made available under the condition that the Winnipeg grade separation project is adopted?
9.	Are the Arlington and Salter bridges under weight restrictions and have recent engineering studies predicted that they will be closed in two years and, if so, will the DREE grant suggested by the minister be made available before the end of the two-year restricted period?
10.	Will the government enter into negotiations with the city of Winnipeg to provide funding for grade separation before the Arlington and Salter bridges become impassable in two years time?
11.	Will the cabinet be submitting its recommendations to the Treasury Board to provide the $84,301,000 for the allocation of the funds for the CPR rail relocation and, if so, on what date?
12. Will the funds for the CPR rail relocation in Winnipeg be diverted from (a) provincial (b) federal DREE programmes and, if so, from which programmes?

[ English ]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, this is a rather lengthy answer. It is a reply to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Transport as follows:
1.	The question is premature as no decision has, at this point, been made to fund the rail relocation project in Winnipeg.
2.	The Dillon study compared the option of relocating the CP Rail facilities to the option of constructing the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass and other grade separations, on the basis of economic and other criteria. The report contains no recommendations.
3.	See answer to part I.
4.	The Minister of DREE was responding to the generally recognized need to reinvigorate the economy of the Winnipeg city core area. The "$5 million a year for five years" referred to the amount DREE might contribute to infrastructure to support economic development, and inflation in costs would be taken into account during project planning.
5.	See answer to part 1.
6.	This figure is the best estimate we have to date, for the yard and mainline relocation option.
7.	The DREE assistance would be available provided that a plan for economic development and relief of disparity was undertaken which is acceptable to the city, provincial and federal governments. The DREE assistance would not be conditional on adoption of the full rail relocation plan.
July 8, 1980

8.	The DREE assistance would not be conditional on the adoption of the grade separation project.
9.	Information provided by Dillon indicates that repairs are under way for the Arlington Street bridge which would extend its life by two years under the present load restrictions (no trucks). Beyond that, the life of the bridge will be determined on a year to year basis. Weekly inspections are carried out by city staff. With respect to the Salter Street bridge, repairs completed this spring will extend the life of the bridge by about one year subject to weekly inspections by Dillon and city inspectors. The structure is subject to annual review for extended service under present load restrictions (no trucks or buses on the curb lanes, vehicles with six tires or less allowed on the inside lanes). Negotiations are already under way with the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg for a Winnipeg core area initiative.
10.	Yes.
11.	See answer to part I.
12.	There are no plans to divert DREE funds from DREE programs to rail relocation. The department is unaware of provincial intentions.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions stand.


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time which I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. So far in this session only one question of several which I have placed on the order paper has been answered. I want to refresh the hon. member's memory because not long ago he indicated that some of the questions which were asked by one of my colleagues should be put on the order paper. It appears that we cannot obtain answers to questions on the order paper.
In particular, I wish to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to notice of motion for production of papers No. 22, dealing with the bureau of physical resources in the Department of External Affairs, a study prepared by Professor Barnhill of Carleton University. This is a very important report dealing with the bureau of physical resources. It will indicate, when tabled, that the fiasco of Admiral Falls' expensive temporary assignment is only the tip of the iceberg. Definitely the study should be tabled in the House as soon as possible.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I also rise on a point of order. I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 970 which stands in my name and which was inserted in the order paper on May 23. This question asked what are the names of the cabinet committees and what are their functions, and second, what are the names of ministers who serve as members and as alternates on each committee.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that the government has changed its policy and has no objection now to allowing the public and Parliament to know what the composition of cabinet committee is, and in view of the fact that this question has been on the order paper now for
Energy
some six weeks, will the parliamentary secretary indicate how much longer he thinks it will be necessary before the government can provide this information to the House?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, in answer to the last question may I say that, in view of the Prime Minister's answer today, I shall endeavour to obtain the answer very quickly for the hon. member.
In answer to the hon. member for Central Nova I should like to point out that we have answered over one-third of the questions to date, or 434. I indicated in the House last week that I was not pleased with the way notices of motions for the production of papers were coming along. I hope to be able to enlighten the House a little more tomorrow when I rise under that part of routine proceedings.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I did not want to let this very historic day go by without this being recorded some place. As Madam Speaker will remember, it was six years ago today that members of Parliament of the class of 1974 were first elected. I just wanted to bring that fact to the attention of the House and congratulate my colleagues who survived the first six years.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved:: That this House deplores the Liberal government's indifference to the consequences of the global oil crisis and condemns its failure to provide a comprehensive energy program that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
She said: Madam Speaker, what the House is being asked to deal with today is a matter of urgency. Both the issue itself, that of international oil prices, and the increasingly limited, critical time frame that the government has to face up to this matter become more urgent with every passing day. Yet the government seems to be oblivious to the magnitude of the oil crisis, both in its international and in its domestic dimensions. Preoccupied as the government and its ministers have been

July 8, 1980
Energy
with a domestic pricing regime, it has failed to comprehend the threat that oil poses to the peace and security of the world and to international order as we know it. As a result, the Liberal government's inaction, its procrastination, its dithering, or call it what you will, daily compromises Canadian security, Canadian effectiveness in international organizations and Canadian flexibility in foreign policy.
Instead of showing its willingness to shoulder some of the responsibility to help rectify the situation, the government sends its ministers abroad to whine that Canada needs relief from an energy crisis not of its own making. But at the same time here at home ministers do Canadians the great disservice of trying to lull them into a false sense of complacency that no such global energy crisis exists.
Unfortunately several stark facts become daily more ominous. First, world oil production is not increasing, it remains static; if may even be decreasing. Second, world oil consumption and demand is going up, not down. Third, it is virtually impossible to switch overnight from the use of oil in such key sectors as transportation and heavy industry to the use of some new form of energy. It will take years of lead time to develop those alternative forms of energy and the technology to use them. Of course, in the meantime we will continue to be dependent on oil. Fourth, the struggle for these increasingly limited supplies of oil, even in the immediate future, will bring ever greater tensions between the eastern bloc and the western bloc, between underdeveloped nations and developed nations, and between suppliers and consumers.
These are stark facts, and all of these facts have been of increasing concern to thoughtful people in all countries of the world. But somehow or other that concern fails to penetrate the fog that substitutes for gray matter in the Liberal government. Indeed, it is only too true that they do not recognize the situation.
[ Translation]
The Liberal government did not even concern itself with Canada's vulnerability in this crisis. Seven months have passed since they cheerfully did away with the preceding government's energy policies which would have demonstrated Canada's will to come to grips with the international oil situation and the government has done nothing but waste seven crucial months.
I do not think this will have surprised us for the same group has obviously lost the better part of its time during the last seven years, or since 1973, when for the first time the OPEC countries made their power known.
The Liberal government has not in any way recognized the international oil situation. Nor does it have any understanding of the mounting tension from the implications the situation has on the security of our nation and on our foreign policy. [English]
There is no recognition by the Liberal government of the international oil situation, no understanding of the mounting tension it is producing globally, for the implications that has
for our nation's security or for the effect it has on the conduct of our foreign policy. There are no proposals to lessen Canada's vulnerability to the insecurity of offshore oil, no thought that Canada should be in the forefront of nations committed to face the reality of the situation and to take immediate steps, albeit difficult steps, to alter our present course. There is no recognition, no understanding, no proposals, no thought, and certainly no sense of urgency on the part of the government that there is an international oil crisis which cries out for action by governments of all countries.
It is for these reasons that today we have introduced a motion that deplores the Liberal government's indifference to the consequences of the global oil crisis and condemns its failure to provide a comprehensive energy program that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy. Virtually nothing is as vital to the stability of the western world as secure oil supplies. Yet nothing seems so far from reach. By their failure to blunt the initiatives of OPEC or to develop their own energy resources, Canada, the United States and other oil importing nations have left themselves vulnerable to oil-fired crises that could be havoc-wreaking. These include internal revolutions in the Middle East, conflict over oil supplies and financial ruin for many countries.
This gloomy scenario comes not from some doomsayer, but from Walter Levy, one of the best-known independent oil consultants. His thoughts are outlined in detail in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs". Nor is Mr. Levy alone in his harsh warning to oil dependent nations. There is a growing urgency among informed sources that the western industrialized nations have so far failed to "bite the bullet", failed to see the oil crisis for what it is and to take appropriate steps to reduce their dependency on offshore oil supplies.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, England, recently commented as follows:
The west's most serious security challenge for the 1980s is how to assure the supply from an unstable third world of the raw materials on which its economic well-being, domestic stability and political cohesion has come to depend.
Those were words from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
We all know that the most vital of the resources referred to is oil and that the most unstable area referred to is the Persian Gulf, which provides an essential part of the western world's oil supplies. In the world of today you cannot separate oil from security.
Recently the British secretary of energy warned of the dangers of regional and even global conflict as nations compete for oil resources. Last week in Moscow Chancellor Schmidt made the point that there could well be a worldwide struggle for the distribution of energy supplies. Indeed, the question of oil, its supply and security, has dominated world politics and international affairs since 1973. More and more, foreign policy objectives are inextricably linked to energy considerations.
This linkage was certainly made clear by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance at Harvard recently when he zeroed in on
July 8, 1980

the problems posed by declining domestic oil production on the one hand, and steadily growing imports on the other. Oil, he said, has the power to fuel inflation, undercut our trading position and determine the strength of our dollar. That is no mean feat for one commodity.
Vance warns that in meeting the energy crisis "we cannot rely on the genius of some economist with a new solution; we need acts of political will"; and he went on to predict:
If the United States and the other industrial countries do not act decisively to reduce our levels of energy consumption, and particularly our demand for oil, we will stand on the brink of economic disaster by the end of the decade-or sooner.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London warns of the security challenge oil poses; Mr. Vance warns of the economic disaster it threatens. The tragedy for Canada is that we have a government which lacks the political will to recognize and deal decisively with the energy crisis.
Seven years after the first oil embargo the Liberal government still has not produced a comprehensive energy policy; seven years after OPEC first demonstrated that oil could become a political weapon, a weapon no less strategic than missiles or bombs, the Liberal government remains committed to dependency on offshore oil supplies. It is this situation, this course of action, which my party condemns and deplores.
Some hon. Mlembers; Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The first oil crisis, the one caused by the OPEC embargo in 1973, came as a shock to western economies. Long used to cheap oil-$1.37 per barrel was the average OPEC price only ten years ago-our economies became used to, and dependent upon, large quantities of imported cheap oil. For Canada, the First oil crisis seemed remote; after all, we were then a net oil exporter. However, between 1973 and 1979 Canadian oil production declined by almost 25 per cent, from approximately two million barrels a day to one and a half million, and it is still falling. In the same period, however, while our production was falling our consumption went up by some 200,000 barrels a day. As a result we have become increasingly dependent on offshore oil- offshore oil that is no longer $1.37 per barrel but ranges between $28 and $37 per barrel. But our energy policy, both domestically and internationally, has yet to adapt to this drastically changed situation.
Is it any wonder the 1979 "Annual Review" of the International Energy Agency warns that the maintenance of a continuing and possibly increasing gap between Canadian and international prices will create serious distortions in the Canadian economy? The IEA puts it this way:
If self-sufficiency is not attained and maintained, new public sector budgets will have to take into account permanent and possibly very expensive subsidies.
It goes on to state:
Demand will be greater than otherwise and supply less, and this will be reflected in the balance of payments position. In the medium to long run, it is questionable whether any country can successfully isolate itself on energy.
That is the comment of the International Energy Agency, and the implication obviously is that the Canadian government has for far too long played the short-term game of trying to
Energy
isolate itself from the reality of the world oil situation. This ostrich-like approach was evident in the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) following his participation at the OECD meetings in Paris last month where much of the talk at that time was about energy. What did our Minister of Finance learn at those meetings? He learned there really is a crisis developing and that people outside Canada know about it. He said so in these words:
There seems to be a deeper consciousness in other countries than there is in Canada about the current world situation, and especially the impact of increased oil prices, and the possibilities of a slowdown worldwide.
Those were the words of our Minister of Finance. To think he had to go to Paris to learn that! To think he was so ill-informed he had not realized other western economies had long ago begun to take steps to reduce oil imports through conservation and consumer consciousness! To think he had not realized that the problem is not one of price alone but of supply and security of supply!
Even more serious, Mr. Speaker, is that the situation is likely to get worse, and it could become even more critical for any country which is dependent on offshore oil. There is a growing awareness that, for a variety of reasons, political, economic, financial and technical, OPEC production through the 1980s may be substantially lower than previous estimates have suggested, and the International Energy Agency forecasts serious shortfalls in production before the end of the decade. That agency now estimates that world production levels will not be higher through the 1980s than they were in 1979, and that is a change. These production levels will not be higher, so the very serious adjustment problems which were previously foreseen for the mid-to-late 1980s may well be with us now on a continuing basis and, what is even worse, in a climate of heightened political uncertainty.
The International Energy Agency reports that the anticipated global oil shortfall for 1985 appears likely to reach some three million barrels per day. By 1990, due in large part to declining availability of oil in the world market, the shortfall is expected to reach eight million barrels per day. I should add that these projections are based on the assumption that there will be no interruption of supply, either by further Iran-like revolutions or by oil producing countries deliberately turning down the tap. Yet just over the past weekend, the Iraqi oil minister, in a dramatic change of policy, joined Kuwait, Libya and Venezuela in calling for a limit on crude oil production among OPEC members.
The global shortfall of eight million barrels per day by the end of the decade is not the worst-case scenario, but rather one based on a comprehensive assessment of current realities- economic, political and strategic. Even if new resources were to come onstream, the lead time required to make them operational will take up most of this decade. So we are faced with a global shortfall of eight million barrels per day before we can even hope to bring on significant new sources of energy.
2656

July 8, 1980
Energy
There are two additional frightening aspects to the present oil crisis. The first is the crushing burden oil imports place on the Third World, and the second is the danger to world stability as Soviet oil reserves begin to decline. With regard to the Third World, the International Monetary Fund calculates that this year alone OPEC will have a combined balance of payments surplus of some $115 billion, while the payments deficit of oil importing developing nations in the Third World will amount to $68 billion, an amount which these countries just cannot pay. The problems that these imbalances pose to the international financial system will be examined in greater detail by my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
There is also the question of the growing demand for oil by Third World countries. Some 90 of these countries presently consume four million barrels of oil a day. By 1990 it is estimated that their requirements will increase to 14 million barrels a day. So we have a situation where, at a time when the globe shortfall is expected to reach eight million barrels a day, these poorest of the poor countries will require an additional ten million barrels a day. Surely they will have the right to expect it and, indeed, they will demand it. The competition for scarce supply will be tough.
Second, and further complicating the picture, is the spectre of the Soviet Union going after oil supplies in the world market. The Soviet Union and its satellites are projected to shift from a net export position in 1979 to a net import position of at least one and possibly two million barrels per day in 1985, again at a time when a shortfall is predicted. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker: the Soviet Union will have to import oil and they cannot afford the large amounts of foreign exchange to buy that oil.
Analysing this situation, a U.S. intelligence report states that this-
-sets the stage for an East-West competition for mid-East oil, adding yet another potentially destabilizing ingredient to an area which already has experienced wrenching political events in the past year or so.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan places the Soviet Union in an advantageous strategic position, both in relation to the oil-rich fields of the Persian Gulf as well as the important sea lane of the Strait of Hormuz, through which two thirds of the world's oil passes. Already through a blend of military buildups, subversion and diplomatic initiatives, the Russians appear to be manoeuvring the oil producers into a position where they would offer to pay for Arab oil by bartering commodities or military hardware instead of paying hard cash.
If that does not work, strategically they are in a position to seize the oil. Let us not be naive in our assessment of the potential of the Soviet Union to cause mischief through covert blackmail and subversion or, worse, through overt military action.
A further dimension to the vulnerability of the western countries because of their dependency on mid-East oil is the way in which it has begun to circumscribe their foreign policy. As the New York Times recently editorialized:
The cost of oil dependency cannot be measured only at the pump.
It is increasingly apparent in all aspects of foreign relations. We have seen that as new policies have been worked out between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and between Saudi Arabia and Denmark. It is as I have said: many countries will have to come to new foreign policies as the result of almost total dependency on mid-East oil and, in doing so, their foreign policy becomes hostage to their energy needs. However gloomy this is, it is the global reality.
We must ask ourselves: Where does Canada find itself as we enter this perilous decade? We find that our production of oil from conventional sources is down by 25 per cent in the past seven years, whereas our consumption of energy, and of oil in particular, is up last year alone by some 4 per cent. Knowing that our production was dropping and that our consumption of petroleum was rising, knowing that the previous Liberal government had doomed Canada to a course where it had to rely increasingly on imported, costly oil, the Clark government recognized that energy self-sufficiency was an objective we had to tackle with a sense of urgency. Indeed, the future of our country demanded no less.
As a government we saw the linkage between oil and security, between oil and foreign policy, and between oil and economic stability, so we undertook commitments in Tokyo which were designed to reduce Canada's dependency on offshore oil. We recognized the dangers of further exposure that offshore demands would create and present to this country. At Tokyo we undertook, along with our summit partners, to limit our imports of oil through to 1985. That meant two things. It meant that we had to reduce our growth of oil consumption to 1 per cent a year, and that we had to initiate a comprehensive energy program that would ensure self-sufficiency.
The tragedy for Canada is that the Liberal government has abandoned this policy and these commitments. Whereas we had committed Canada to limit oil imports to 600,000 barrels a day by 1985, it is projected that without the comprehensive program we proposed, Canadian imports will reach more than 800,000 barrels a day by 1985. Whereas we had undertaken to reduce the growth of oil consumption to 1 per cent a year, it is now reaching 4 per cent annually. Whereas we had presented to the Canadian public a comprehensive energy program designed to make Canada energy self-sufficient by 1990, the Liberal government has proposed nothing.
Canada, under Liberal leadership, has decided that rather than be part of the solution to this international oil crisis, it will put the country in the position of being part of the continuing problem. If you want some backup for that statement, Mr. Speaker, just read the OECD report released today which says that Canada has the second worst record among 17 developed countries in trying to conserve and find new sources of energy. But that is exactly what the Clark government's energy program was determined to correct.
Today, there is no longer the same sense of urgency that we attached to the development of oil sands and frontier sources, to the creation of alternate forms of energy, to the building of
July 8, 1980

pipelines where none now exist, to incentives for energy substitution and, most importantly, to greatly increased emphasis on the need for conservation. We as a government knew that Canada had the potential to become energy self-sufficient and we set about doing so.
Our target for self-sufficiency was 1990. That is also the year the International Energy Agency forecasts that there will be a global oil shortfall of eight million barrels per day. The Conservative government had committed itself to making sure that Canada was not hostage to that shortfall, not to the prices it would impose, not to the insecurity of supply it would subject us to, and certainly not to the manipulation of our foreign policy that it would invite.
The Liberal government, not having worried about these things for the previous seven years, not having felt the need to come to grips with the international oil crisis, not having considered it necessary to work out a comprehensive energy policy for Canada, is once more bent on trying to delude the Canadian people into believing that the oil question is some mere domestic squabble contrived for partisan purposes.
In so doing, the government limits Canada's flexibility and credibility in foreign policy. Just ask any of the countries that were at the Venice Summit. It makes us increasingly vulnerable to the global struggle for oil, and denies to us the independence we have a right to expect and which energy self-sufficiency could provide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this debate and to speak after such distinguished parliamentarians as the former secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and ahead of the "charming" Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). That is really quite an honour for a little fellow like me, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to live up to it.
May I say that neither the former minister nor the present minister will be surprised if I disagree with them. I found a certain irony in the speech of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, especially when she focused on the fact that new foreign policies are needed in response to the global realities, the uncertain oil situation and the unstable world that we live in. I disagree with that. I do not think we need more new foreign policies but we do need a new domestic policy. As I listened to the hon. member I thought that Canada is surely one of the most fortunate countries in the world at the moment because, if we wanted to, we could become energy self-sufficient.


An hon. Member:: That is what she said.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will hon. members just listen for a moment. If we were to become self-sufficient, we could be isolated as much as it is possible to be from the harsh realities of the world today.
Energy
I have just finished reading a little paperback book which I am sure many other Canadians have read as well. It is called "The Seven Sisters" by Anthony Sampson. It outlines the history of oil and especially the history of the oil companies. I will read the last paragraph which is very relevant to our debate today. In a postscript written immediately after the crisis of 1979, Sampson had this to say:
But the problem of controlling the companies is only part of the broader question of national self-discipline and restraint. It is convenient for the western powers to use OPEC as their scapegoat, and to criticize the Middle Eastern nations for their reluctance to increase production. But the insatiable consumption of the west is putting those nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, in an impossible position with regard to their internal and external politics; and the only effective escape from a future oil crisis will not lie with increased Middle Eastern production, but with more serious western conservation and economies. The real lesson of the crisis can only be: we have met the enemy-it is us.
Today, I will focus on how we in Canada can become energy self-sufficient, and in that I think I am going to depart from the position of the other two parties.
I agree with the second part of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that the present Liberal government has failed to provide a comprehensive energy program. But what else is new? They have had years in office but they have not produced an energy program, and I doubt if they ever will. The minister has tried to come forward with a program but it is riddled with inconsistencies.
Our past record of resource regulation and development in Canada is unworthy of us as a people. There has been a vacuum in public policy. We should not blame it on the world situation but instead should look at the enemy, which is here.
In the recent past we were told that we were rich in unused energy and that our main problem lay in finding buyers for the surplus. Now we are being told that shortages are on the horizon and that unless we pay big for these wonderful megaprojects, they are not going to get off the ground and we are not going to have any oil. We appear to be doomed to a perpetual cycle of shortages and foreign ownership, not surpluses.
Canadian governments, it seems to me, think like foreign-controlled oil companies. We have allowed our future energy reserves-not the stuff we have been using and have been giving away, but the oil sands, the Mackenzie delta reserves, the High Arctic reserves, uranium and coal deposits-to be controlled by the same corporations that control our present conventional resources. We have sold out our oil and now the minister and his colleagues are about to sell our natural gas by prebuilding the Alaska pipeline.
We all remember industry's claim in 1972 which was echoed by the then minister, Hon. J. J. Greene, that Canada's oil reserves would keep the country in a state of self-sufficiency not for one year or a decade but for hundreds of years. What did we do then? We exported three billion barrels of oil. Then we were told that there was a shortage. Now we are being told there is a gas surplus and that we will have to export it. In a few years' time no doubt we will be told that there is a shortage. That is the kind of policy that has been followed.

Energy
We have a clear continentalist oil policy. The seeds were planted long before the fruit of the 1961 national oil policy appeared, whereby eastern Canada would consume Venezuelan oil and western Canada producers would look to United States markets for their surplus production. Today we have a shortage of oil and pay $3.7 billion into the compensation fund, mainly for the Atlantic provinces. Because of that and because of the uncertainty of the oil situation, the government cannot bring down a budget and 1 suspect-although he probably would not agree with me-that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not going to get constitutional change without a settlement of the resource question, specifically an oil pricing policy.
We must have a new national energy policy and the basis of that policy must be to break away from the historic pattern of foreign control of Canadian resources. For the New Democratic Party this is the key to the problem. Unlike the other two parties we say that, to make Canada self-sufficient in oil and self-sufficient in energy, we have to break away from foreign control. We can be self-sufficient if we do that; that is the key. I hear my friend to the right asking me what our position is, and I tell him that I am outlining our position.
It appears that the position my Conservative friends are maintaining and articulating is that price is the key. That is what I pick up. I cannot figure out the Liberals; they are still in the muddled middle. The minister is still trying to squeeze by. I notice he is getting thin. He is going to be even thinner if he tries to squeeze by that Liberal energy promise to Ontario. If he could just get by this year, he might just narrow it down enough that it is not more than $4 a barrel for this year; then he can sock it to us next year. Yet I still say he is getting out of his promise to have a lower price than the Conservatives'. That is no energy policy at all. At least my friends to the right are prepared to articulate their policy.
I am saying that we have a third option or policy. We say that the Canadian people can move to self-sufficiency if a move is made to control the oil companies and the large energy companies in Canada. This will be a big challenge. Sometimes I look across the floor and see the minister and his colleagues from Quebec and admire the fight they made to get their rightful place in confederation. As a young English Canadian, I sometimes feel a little bored with my country, especially the English part because we do not have anything to fight for and we do nothing.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Speak for yourself.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But we do have something to fight for. I have to fight in my own part of the country. What we are going to fight for is something that we can combine in English and French Canada, namely an energy policy by which we can take over control of our own energy industry. That is the future of Canada as I see it, and that will be the fight.
I have listened to the present debate. It seems to me that the Conservative party is continuously fighting the last election
July 8, 1980
through their questions to the minister. There is much talk of the deal which the Conservatives had. I am not too sure they had a deal with Premier Lougheed. 1 have never seen a copy signed, sealed and delivered. Even if they did have a deal, it seems to me that we should not focus so much on what the price increase would be, but instead on where the revenues are to go.
As I understand it, the Conservative "arrangement" with Alberta, as I call it, would have raised the industry's revenues, which were already $13.3 billion over the four-year period between 1975 up to the end of 1978 and into 1979, to $33 billion. That would be their take from 1980 to 1983.
If we go back to 1920, Lloyd George said this:
Oil profits generally seem to find their way by some invisible pipeline into private pockets.
And as Tommy Douglas would say: What the Conservatives were doing was taking money out of the consumer's pocket and putting it in the pocket of the oil industry. That is unacceptable to the country.
The revenue implications of these schemes that we are now talking about being negotiated are simply enormous. Let me go into that in a little more detail. It has been estimated that between 1980 and 1984 the excise tax would have contributed $10.5 billion to the federal coffers and the revenue sharing arrangements would be $17 billion. At the same time, the oil import compensation expenditure would have been almost eliminated. Alberta's royalties, which rose from $1 billion in 1974 to $2.6 billion in 1978, would jump to $5.3 billion in 1980 and to an astounding $11 billion in 1983. So over a ten-year period, that is between 1980 and 1990, that would result in an accumulation of $143 billion, or $79,000 for every man, woman and child in Alberta. I look at Canadians sitting up in the gallery. I hope some of them are from Alberta. It would be nice to have $79,000 for each person. That is a pretty high accumulation of wealth.
The transfer of wealth from the rest of the country would be much larger than this amount, including additional industry revenues, the share of the rent which the federal government spent in the producing provinces and likely the substantial secondary effects. Under almost any set of assumptions this scenario would result in rapidly rising double-digit inflation and a prolonged and more severe recession in the rest of the country. There would be lay-offs and plant closures.
It seems to me that Ottawa and Alberta are miles apart now and they are likely to remain so in terms of oil prices as long as Alberta retains its goal of linking domestic oil prices with world prices. It seems to me that both players have whetted their appetites by the kinds of numbers they are looking at. They each seek to force the other to make up the shortfall created by a different price scenario. I think the Conservatives' wild card of 85 per cent of the world price, which is the Clark formula, has unfortunately raised everyone's expectations.
I want to focus for a moment on the supply situation in Canada because the next five years will be crucial. Imports in 1985 could easily be triple their present level. We could easily

*July 8, 1980
*fail to meet our Tokyo target of oil imports of 600,000 barrels la day. Alberta has delayed approval of Alsands and the Cold * Lake developments until a pricing agreement is reached. Hib-lernia, on the east coast, may be very promising but it is lunlikely that oil will start flowing before 1986. Conventional loil supply, which presently constitutes 95 per cent of total I production, will fall to 50 per cent in ten years; perhaps even to 125 per cent in 20 years. Frontier and non-conventional oil will I rise rapidly in absolute and relative importance.
I A minute ago 1 mentioned that price negotiations were I going on. One of my concerns is the confrontation tactics used I in the negotiations. I am not sure that the Minister of Energy, I Mines and Resources opposite really wants an agreement. I I am not sure that the Premier of Alberta wants an agreement. I Hon. members will notice that everyone in this game benefits, I but I ask, who is it that benefits? The Prime Minister benefits I for being a strong centralist. Premier Lougheed benefits at I home for sticking up for the population. Premier Davis can win I another election in Ontario by sticking up for lower prices and I putting it to his Conservative brothers and sisters in Ottawa. I Everybody benefits-that is, the big boys benefit. But who I loses? The answer to that is the Canadian people. I think that I is the problem on which we should focus.
i I will now suggest to the minister a basis for negotiating the oil price increase. It seems to me that everybody has a real interest, not just a confrontational interest but a real one. The minister and the federal government need more money. An energy program is needed. Regional disparities need to be reduced. Canadians can agree with that. Provincial governments need to have protected the principle that resources belong to the provinces, and Ablerta is quite right about that. More money is needed in Alberta because oil is a depleting resource.
Despite my rhetoric a moment ago about there being $79,000 for every man, woman and child in Alberta, nevertheless that situation will only last so long. Money will be needed to put in alternate programs, industrialization programs. But the Canadian people have an interest because they are the masters and not the servants of highfalutin ministers. They need a secure supply. They know that higher prices are regressive. But higher prices themselves are an argument for redistribution of income, as Amory Lovins said, not necessarily against higher prices. They know that if there are to be higher prices, they will pay higher prices. Then the government have to get some of that money back to the people. It has to be made easier to replace oil with gas or other resources.
Therefore, there can be an agreement. Let me suggest to the minister that the agreement be in these terms. First, that the price goes up. It is not important whether it is 18 cents, 16 cents, 14 cents, 12 cents, or whatever. It should go up substantially, but in steps in order to protect Ontario industry. The second principle is that that same money go back to the people directly in reduced income tax. It could go back into their own pockets. Third, Alberta could get more money. Fourth, the federal government could get more money. The federal government should not use the money for a mortgage interest deduct-
Energy
ibility program to benefit the better off, but for an industrial strategy for Canada. Finally, there could be a joint fund between the provinces and the federal government invested in energy alternatives, transit and buying back industry. We do not want it all to go to the federal government because we know what they would do with it.
The Canadian people would accept this because it is equitable. I have just returned from Alberta where I was told that the minister is not negotiating seriously. They have their own axe to grind, but Alberta would accept these kinds of suggestions.
My colleagues will speak further on alternatives, probably the real future in energy. We cannot continue to go at the same apple. As Solzhenitsyn said, 12 worms can only gnaw at the apple for so long before it goes. We must find alternatives. We in the New Democratic Party are going to set out as well in the future the position that the money from increased energy prices should go to the federal and provincial governments, but not a penny to the oil companies because they do not need it.
Let me bring my remarks to a conclusion.


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


Mr. Knowles:: One minute.


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker. In order to have the greatest number of speakers participate in the debate, I believe that all members should abide by the 20-minute rule.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I recall on a previous occasion suggesting that the hon. member get extra time, the very member who just spoke.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to participate in this debate. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has put this particular motion on the order paper. I have noticed, however, that the official opposition carefully avoided making it a motion of confidence. I can understand, with their own record of dealing with energy, why they would not make it a question of confidence.


Erik Nielsen: That's cheap.


Marc Lalonde: Today we have the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands coming forward with a motion endeavouring to condemn the government for its "failure to provide a comprehensive energy program". The government is very pleased that two prominent members of the opposition have raised the question of energy since the House opened. The first time was within the first month of this government coming to office, and

Energy
again today two months later. The first time it was put forward by the energy critic and today by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I wish that the government of which these two able members were a part would have attached the same importance to the question of energy when they were in office.
If we are going to talk about failure, as this motion tries to do, the dismal failure of the former government in the field of energy should be what this motion refers to. If we look back at the main elements of the energy policy of the previous government, essentially it was socking it to the consumers in that famous budget that was defeated by Parliament and which raised such an outcry in the country.
Second, it was to try and dismantle, dilute, dissolve, and I do not know what other verb to invent when referring to the so-called energy policy of the previous government vis-a-vis Petro-Canada, the only major Canadian institution set up in the last few years in the field of energy which has proved to be of such great significance in the few years it was in operation.
The hon. member spent a lot of time talking about the international energy situation. The only contribution the previous government made to this very delicate international energy situation, and particularly to the protection of Canadian interests in that regard, was their famous proposal to move the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem. That had the effect of Canada being blacklisted by every Arab country. It put us in a very difficult situation vis-a-vis OPEC. This situation was something the new government had to work at repairing as soon as it took office. That is the type of background that the previous government left us and it is the context in which we took office.
The hon. member referred to the international energy situation. What she described is established by many publications and authorities, but I submit that it is nothing new; it has been with us for several years. If the hon. member has bothered reading even the government documents of 1974 and 1976, she would have found in those documents as well as the studies made public at the time, such as the major study published by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1976 entitled "Energy Future for Canadians", that all the facts she referred to today in terms of the international crisis were referred to in those documents and put forward for examination by Canadians by the previous Liberal government.
The member from the New Democratic Party stressed the importance of dealing with the matter in Canada. He pointed out a very important fact, the exceptional and very privileged situation in which Canada is.
[ Translation]
I am convinced Canadians are not unaware of the world energy crisis but I think they are truly aware of the particularly privileged situation in which Canada finds itself. If we have a crisis in Canada, it is not an energy crisis. Canadians know that, despite any speech the hon. member may make. Canadians know basically that Canada is extremely rich in terms of energy resources, that considering its population, Canada is
July 8, 1980

undoubtedly the most privileged country in the world in terms of energy resources.
Today and for years now, Canada has been in a position of being not a net importer of energy but an exporter of energy, year after year. We are still today, even in the area of petroleum products, that is if you include gas and oil, a net exporter of petroleum products, a very large exporter, and I am talking about several net billion dollars of exports of petroleum products. I am not talking of exports of electricity or coal which, according to all forecasts, are going to increase considerably in the coming decade.
So Canada actually finds itself in an extremely favoured situation, an extremely privileged situation, a situation that is the envy of all industrialized countries with which we are in competition. However, we are facing a problem with respect to oil. Our oil production is not sufficient to meet our needs and, at the present and for several years already, we have had to import a large part of our consumption. We are now importing about 25 per cent of our domestic consumption. That situation is, of course, not very favourable. It is not a situation that we are very pleased to see developing but it is not, on the other hand, an insoluble situation-it is a situation that Canada can indeed meet in the coming decade. There is no doubt that Canada has not only the human resources but also the financial and physical resources to achieve total energy self-sufficiency, including oil self-sufficiency during this decade.
In order to achieve this energy independence during this decade, since the government took office it has worked very hard to put back in shape the energy policy which the previous Conservative government spent so much time attempting to dismantle rather than developing an energy policy of its own. As the hon. member should have known, the previous Liberal government established a policy in 1974 and then in 1976 which is quite clear and which is a matter of record. It is an energy policy which has been the envy of the OECD countries and which has been referred to by many other countries as a policy which they would have liked to be in a position to follow. Unfortunately, they were not in a position to follow it, and for a very good reason. They did not have the privileged situation Canada had, that is, of being able to rely on vast resources in the field of energy, even though we have to import part of our petroleum requirements.
When the Tories were in office we had the problem that 25 per cent of our oil requirements were imported. The result of that was that the Tories tried to resolve the problem by tying Canadians to having to pay 85 per cent of international prices, whatever they were, on all Canadian domestic consumption, including the 75 per cent which was produced domestically. We rejected that Tory policy. The people of Canada rejected that policy, and rightly so. As soon as we were elected and could recall Parliament, we presented to Parliament on April 4
July 8, 1980

in the Speech from the Throne the basic elements of the energy policy we intend to follow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: April 14.


Marc Lalonde: April 14, yes. 1 believe that is what 1 said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You said April 4.


Marc Lalonde: 1 am sorry. If I may be allowed, I might refer hon. members to the elements of that energy policy. The first element is that an energy policy is critical to the success of the country's economic policies, and therefore we cannot have an economic strategy or an energy policy which would ignore the impact of energy decisions upon inflation, unemployment, regional development and money transfers in this country. We could not have an energy policy which would be developed in some kind of vacuum whereby we would have in the end slower economic growth, more unemployed and much higher inflation than Canada needs to have. That is a basic element of our energy policy.
The second one is that the price of Canadian oil must be based upon Canadian conditions and circumstances and not upon the vagaries of a turbulent and unpredictable world market. The last Summit of seven heads of industrialized countries in Venice condemned the recent increases imposed by OPEC as being intolerable, unnecessary and excessive. We have decided that the prices which would be established in Canada for Canadian consumers would be based on Canadian costs and Canadian conditions and would not be tied to the cartel-type of pricing which OPEC decides.
We have also indicated clearly that the made-in-Canada price for oil we are proposing will result in a lower price to consumers than the one which had been proposed in the budget of the previous administration and which had been rejected by Parliament and by the people of this country.
We have indicated, in addition, that a petroleum auditing agency will be established to report on the financial situation of petroleum companies and to administer criteria relative to Canadian ownership objectives. We have also indicated that we must reduce our dependence on imported oil by promoting conservation and by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies. We have also indicated that conservation measures will be designed and promoted relative to transportation, home and industrial use. We have also indicated that steps will be taken to encourage consumers to switch from oil to natural gas or electricity for home heating, and other steps will be taken to encourage more rapid substitution from oil to other energy sources. Finally, we indicated in the Speech from the Throne that Petro-Canada will be maintained and expanded as an instrument of public policy.
A new Canada oil and gas act for all the territories and offshore properties under federal jurisdiction will provide for increased exploration activity. It will also be designed to promote Canadian ownership and Canadian objectives.
An alternative energy corporation will be created to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy resources to
Energy
replace oil, and Canadian companies and investors will be given opportunities to involve themselves more heavily in the energy field. The government has set the objective of a 50 per cent Canadian ownership target for the petroleum industry by 1990.
In the few short months we have been in office a number of decisions have been taken on each and every one of these subjects toward the implementation of these policy objectives, and I would like in the few minutes at my disposal to refer to some of them.
In the area of energy conservation I have already had the opportunity to sign three agreements. The first was with the minister of energy for Saskatchewan, then with the minister of energy for Manitoba and lastly with the commissioner of the Northwest Territories. These agreements deal with energy conservation and renewable energy technologies. In these three agreements we have agreed to spend several tens of millions of dollars among ourselves to promote energy conservation and new renewable energy technologies in the various provinces.
There has been a conference between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), on behalf of the federal government, and industry on energy conservation. That conference covered about 80 per cent of industry energy use, and at that conference there were reports from 15 different task forces set up by different sectors in response to a call issued to industry by one of my predecessors, the Hon. Alastair Gillespie. Fifteen different task forces have been set up, and they reported on the first five-year program which had been set up. We were pleased to see that industry had not only met its target of energy conservation, but had overtaken that target substantially. We got industry to commit itself to another five-year program of additional energy conservation. In this respect we have done as well as, and I would say even better than, any other OECD country in terms of co-operation with industry.
We have also extended during the past several months the Canadian home insulation program which probably has been the most important and successful of all conservation initiatives; and at present we are continuing research and preparation for a retrofit oil furnace program to improve the efficiency of home heating units. We are designing automobile mileage standards at present, and that measure will soon be brought forward before the House. The alternate energy corporation has been announced and a budget of $20 million has been set aside in Petro-Canada to cover the initial cost of that corporation. At present we are interviewing candidates to run that corporation, which we intend to set up in the near future.
While I am speaking about Petro-Canada I might also mention that one of the first things we have done since we have been in office has been to reassure the Canadian public that this government stood fully behind Petro-Canada. We intend to make PetroCan an even more significant instrument of energy policy in this country. As soon as we took office, we reinstated to the budget of Petro-Canada the $80 million

July 8, 1980
Energy
which the Conservatives had cut from that corporation when they were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada has been very active ever since it has been shown that it has the support and confidence of the government. It announced in the last few weeks a project for a fourth tar sands plant with Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company, a project which could cost as much as $10 billion. This is the first totally Canadian-owned project in the tar sands area. This has been done thanks to the initiatives of Petro-Canada in co-operation with the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company.
Petro-Canada also announced during the course of June three drilling programs in the Labrador Sea, and it is now the operator for a number of other companies in that frontier area which has a high discovery rate as compared to other frontier regions.
I should like to say a word now on oil and gas pricing; some of my colleagues have referred to it. I have indicated what our target is-a made-in-Canada price which will give all Canadians one uniform price at a level well below international levels.
In March I also indicated that, in order to achieve this target, I had the intention of invoking the force majeure clause in the tar sands projects, particularly the Syncrude oil sands project, in order to arrive at a cost to Canadian consumers for that oil, which will make it more and more important to arrive at a price which reflects the real economic cost of developing incremental oil supplies.
While discussing this matter with the government of Alberta, I indicated that we are continuing to pay compensation payments, subsidies which were provided under the previous agreements to the level of international prices. However, one area, which is probably even more important than the question of pricing itself in relation to the problem raised by this motion, which is security of supply, is the whole question of conservation. Because if there was one problem with the previous Conservative policy, it was its almost exclusive reliance on price as an instrument of policy in this field. It was what I would have called the baseball bat approach to energy policy: hit the consumer hard enough that he will not be able to afford the oil he needs.
In effect, there are many other ways of dealing with the problem. One has to do with conservation; the other has to do with substitution. I have already announced in the first few months since we have been in office a number of decisions by this government in order to move people to switch their consumption of energy from oil to other forms. In May I announced the government's policy and the government's goal to reduce the residential, industrial and commercial use of oil in this country to 10 per cent of their net energy requirements. The policies that we have under way and the others that we will announce shortly will permit attainment of this objective in most oil consuming sectors and areas within a decade.
Let me point out that to reduce oil use to 10 per cent would save about 150,000 barrels of oil a day in the residential field alone, another 150,000 in the industrial sector, and 75,000 in the commercial area, for a total saving of about 375,000 barrels a day in this country. At present the oil share of consumption in those fields is about 32 per cent. I am convinced that we can, without any harm to our Canadian consumers and Canadian industry, reach that 10 per cent level within the decade.
We also indicated in the Speech from the Throne that we were favouring the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.

During the weeks which preceded today's motion, I had already had the opportunity to announce the decision of the government to approve the recommendation made by the National Energy Board to support the development and approve the immediate construction of a gas pipeline to serve the entire province of Quebec. The first section of this pipeline will go as far as Quebec City, and various branches will then supply the entire province so that the citizens of Quebec will be able to use natural gas rather than heating oil, which is much more expensive.

We have also indicated that the extension of that pipeline to the maritimes remained the preferred option of the present government, and we have been in touch with the sponsors of this project to review the reservations that have been expressed by the National Energy Board and to see what further steps are required to ensure that the maritime provinces will have sufficient gas available to meet their needs, whether that gas comes from the west or whether it comes from new discoveries in and around Sable Island.
Those measures of substitution which have been already announced are only some among others and I should like to mention another one which is of great significance. It has to do with making much better use of residual fuel oil in this country. During the month of May I announced that I have reached an agreement with the five refining companies to instal upgrading facilities in their plants which would provide a capacity to make better use of about 125,000 barrels a day of residual fuel oil. This will not only lead to the production of premium fuel, such as gasoline or heating oil, instead of unwanted and surplus heavy fuel oil, but it will also make way for natural gas and provide for a more efficient use of our total domestic and foreign petroleum supply. The net result again will be a reduction in our dependence on oil imports.
In terms of volume, these measures are the equivalent of the net addition to our oil supply which would be made by a $68 billion tar sands plant, and yet through the set of investments in the refineries which I have announced, Canada is getting this kind of production at half the cost and about three years sooner than it would come from a tar sands plant. I do not think there is a more telling rebuttal to the argument that only
July 8, 1980

through a pricing mechanism can we increase our total oil supply.
In the field of international energy, Canada has not been dragging its feet. In the last few months since we have been in office, I have had the opportunity of attending the ministerial meeting of the governing board of the International Energy Agency in Paris, of attending the Venice Summit and of meeting several times with my colleagues, the secretary of energy for the United States, the Australian minister for national development and energy and the Japanese minister of energy. We had the privilege of the visit of the Saudi Arabian energy minister, and I had the privilege of meeting with the minister of energy for Algeria, who at the present time happens to be the president of OPEC.
These meetings and discussions which have taken place with the representatives of those various countries achieved good results for Canada. Certainly as far as OPEC and the Arab countries are concerned, I think they have helped in re-establishing the normal relationships which existed and should have continued to exist between our respective countries but unfortunately had been seriously damaged by the foolish steps in the field of foreign policy of the previous Conservative government.
I should like to summarize the various initiatives taken by the government during the past four months under three broad objectives. The first is to achieve energy independence, which we believe can be done during this decade. As 1 have noted, this goal is being achieved by conservation measures particularly directed toward oil. Also 1 have cited measures to substitute other forms of energy for oil. There are major incentives for enhancing energy supplies, and we will be going further in this direction when the oil pricing negotiations and revenue sharing questions are settled. We continue to have strong research and development activity in this country, particularly directed to our unique conditions of climate, terrain and location.
Also I have spoken of the government's oil pricing policy, and closely associated with this is the objective of ensuring a distribution of benefits from oil and gas revenues to all Canadians. As I noted before, we want a revenue system so structured that as prices rise the national government will get the share it needs to carry out its national responsibilities. We need to have a national government which will have not only the powers but the resources to ensure that regional disparities in the country are not going to become excessive.
Also our pricing policy very much reflects the right of producing provinces and corporations to a fair return for their resources and their investment, as noted in the Speech from the Throne.
The Speech from the Throne placed considerable emphasis on the specific goal of at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry by 1990. The objective is to enable Canadians to participate in their energy industries.
Energy
The central issue in the matter of a Canadian energy program is how the costs and benefits of developing and using energy are shared among Canadians. The government's objective in each one of the projects I have outlined today-and there are many more-is to ensure a fairness in the complex process of harnessing energy supplies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), I should like to deal with the proceedings on the adjournment motion this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service Superannuation Act-Request for measures to correct unfairness-RCMP provisions; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Shipbuilding-Reduction of subsidy-Comparable program of assistance; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Employment-Programs to create jobs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald:
That this House deplores the Liberal government's indifference to the consequences of the global oil crisis and condemns its failure to provide a comprehensive energy program that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it would be in order if I were to pose a question to the minister. I think he had further time remaining in his speech. If I am in order in posing a question, and if the minister will answer it, I should like to ask one.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, the hon. member can ask a question.
2664

July 8, 1980
Energy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the minister has used up his time. The practice has been that sometimes a member or minister can take questions if he has time remaining. But since the minister used up his time, I cannot permit a question.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for giving us the opportunity to make very important comments on the energy situation. I would also like to say once again that 1 support the proposals that we have already made. I am quite certain that time will prove these proposals to have been quite reasonable.
At the same time I was rather surprised to hear the minister repeat his energy policy. Of course, he was referring to the throne speech which contains proposals which I believe we heard as far back as seven or eight years ago. When the minister said today unhesitatingly that there was no energy crisis, I believe he should have said that there is no hydroelectric crisis because we indeed have a surplus of this type of energy.
However, by making a simple calculation, we can see that this government has been in power 14 years and five months during the last 15 years. So I do not think that we can be blamed any longer for that lack of energy policy and that lack of foresight. In the circumstances, 1 think that talking as he did today the minister has demonstrated to all Canadians his incredible failure, the failure of his government to provide any measure, to have any foresight and to give any guarantee to Canadians when he confirmed, with regret of course, that we are still importing 25 per cent of our domestic consumption. He deplores it, of course, but what has been done during all these years? Today he comes with the same proposals that we have already heard, and that have not been implemented for political reasons. I remember very well that within a few months we had to take strong measures because of the inaction of a government which did not take the present situation seriously.
And the minister responsible does not hesitate to accuse the former government of having attempted to mislead the consumers because, Mr. Speaker, we had proposed measures which took reality into account, and which required courage, to put Canada back on the road to prosperity and reach all the objectives mentioned today by the minister, self-sufficiency and, of course, benefits for Canadians. Did we have to pay because of the failure of the previous government to do its job and take its responsibilities?
We had to present a budget and I think that we were trying to shoulder our responsibilities. We were not taxing those who are not using gas and this was important. I look forward to the next budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is still not able today to assure us that he rejects the idea of deindexation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the least we can say about the dubious situation in which the government finds itself is that it is the result of a Liberal and New Democratic conspiracy-we should not forget-to have Canadians believe that they could avoid higher oil prices more in line with international prices. I do not think there is anything new in this respect. How could anyone believe that the Liberals were sincere when for three or four years, if not six, they themselves had warned Canadians that the current oil subsidization program could not last forever and that sooner or later consumers in this country would have to pay for their oil at prices comparable to those of European, Japanese or American consumers?
Even the New Democrats, playing it both ways, had admitted the necessity of a price increase but they let Canadians believe that through some sort of miracle they could elude the fate of citizens of other industrialized countries in the free world. The New Democrats paid a stiff price for their complicity with the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, for not only were they frustrated in their own attempts at substantial electoral gains in Ontario, but they also favoured the re-election of the Prime Minister whose defeat they pretended to engineer. The New Democrats repeated their stupid tactic. In 1972, rather than give the Progressive Conservatives a true chance to show their stuff and find solutions to the practically insoluble problems they had inherited, the New Democrats sealed their pact with the Liberals. They simply put back at the helm the very people they pretend to attack publicly but whom they go on supporting and helping underhandedly.
Today the New Democrats are shocked that the Liberals are not keeping their more recent electoral promises, particularly with respect to oil, but could they give just one example of a situation in which the Liberals did not cheat the people, play on words, invent simplistic slogans, give out complicated formulas that no one understands or has any way of corroborating? Is the Liberal approach to the oil price issue not confirmation of their double dealing? The famous Canadian formula is but a lure which they used to regain power but already there are a number of indications which lead us to believe that in the long run the price Canadians will eventually have to pay for their oil will be the same as, if not higher, than the one foreseen in the budget submitted by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and this in the wake of I do not know how many denials, including the solemn promise made by the Prime Minister at the Bonn conference to spare no effort to see that Canadian oil prices would rise to international level. And all this while shelving the understanding between the Clark government and the Lougheed government, and doing nothing to avoid a new political crisis that might mean the end of Canada itself.
Indeed, the silence of the Prime Minister during the campaign should have alerted Canadian consumers to the sell-out being prepared. The Prime Minister and the Minister of
July 8, 1980

Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) were careful at that time not to give details of the famous made-in-Canada price they wanted to establish for oil. They were careful not to suggest that one of the means they intended to use was quite simply a probable infringement upon the constitution, laying their hands on Alberta's, Saskatchewan's and British Columbia's oil and gas resources.
What guarantees have we that, if the Liberals succeed in overcoming these three provinces, they will not tomorrow launch an attack on Quebec's hydraulic resources, and later undermine Ontario's industrial and mining potential, for the benefit of the central government? These are questions we should ask ourselves now. The proof is that in respect of Atlantic provinces, they want to shelve the generous Progressive Conservative policy and to recoup for Ottawa's sole benefit the control over offshore mining resources. The Liberal conspiracy to lure Canadians takes various forms, Mr. Speaker. In general, they avoid resorting to outright lies that would be too gross to be believed. Most of the time, they are content with half-truths, or if you will half-lies, subtle understatements or again, quite simply, mute silences.
The Liberals have a very particular propensity for the tactics of silence. That keeps them from having to give their constituents explanations which could put them in a disadvantageous situation. Indeed the example comes from the high circles. Did the right hon. Prime Minister himself not hide from Canadians, when he was asking them for his first mandate in 1968, that his true objective was to centralize federal powers even more in Ottawa? As everyone can see, bad habits are not easily lost. Not only have the Liberals misled the Canadian people by luring them with the possibility of freeing the country from international constraints in oil prices, but they have to be held directly responsible for the instability of our own energy supply sources. They have always ridiculed, verbally and in their policies, the energy self-reliance objectives which the Progressive Conservatives have been advocating for quite a long time. They have allowed the situation to get so bad as to force us to pay high prices to foreign suppliers while the present government refuses to Canadian producers the price it pays to foreign sources without raising an eyebrow.
Nobody is blaming the government for having created in 1974 a subsidy system to help Canadian consumers adjust to the price increases which were dictated by OPEC. But what should have been a temporary policy became a permanent policy. The most direct result of that lack of foresight and courage of the government is that Canadians continued to delude themselves, thinking that they could inconsiderately waste oil and pay indefinitely a price which is below the international level. Another result, Mr. Speaker, is the incommensurable increase in our balance of payments deficit and the ensuing pressures on the Canadian dollar. Finally, we should realize that if the price of Canadian oil had reached the international level as early as 1975 or 1976, billions of dollars
Energy
could have been invested in exploration for new hydrocarbon sources and new renewable energy sources. In order to gain electoral benefits in the short term, the Liberal party will have contributed to weaken the Canadian economy, to deceive consumers on the necessity of a sharp rise in the price of oil and at the same time it will have aggravated tragically our dependence on foreign energy sources for our supplies.
Further betrayal of the oil consumers by the Prime Minister and his government: did we not hear him, during the last election campaign, praise the merits of Petro-Canada of which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources spoke just a while ago? Did we not hear him say to whomever wished to listen to him that Petro-Canada would become the cornerstone of the policy on exploration and development of new sources of energy in Canada? What happened? In a reply to the leader of the NDP, a shortage of funds was invoked recently as the reason for dropping the presumably grandiose projects he had claimed to be planning with that Crown company. Is it any wonder the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) accused him of betrayal, but is the latter himself to be taken seriously? We heard from the very mouth of the right hon. Prime Minister-even while the NDP and especially its leader were castigating the Liberal party and its leader-that in the back rooms of their respective parties, they were discussing the possibility of a coalition government to stem the tide of Progressive Conservative popularity with the public. What confidence can we have in those two seemingly opposed political groups which down deep have but one objective, the subjugation of the citizens to the will and dictates of a state grown ever-present and all powerful?
But most obvious of all, despite appearances, the oil policy advocated by the Liberals and widely supported by the NDP benefits the rich unduly to the detriment of the working classes. A big fuss was made over the 18-cent a gallon of gas tax proposed by the Crosbie budget, but the Liberals and NDP carefully avoided telling the people that the same budget also provided, for the less well off and public transport companies, tax advantages that would have cushioned the effects of the price increases which were also designed to moderate consumption. What the Liberals and NDP failed to say to the consumers is that the present subsidy system is largely of greater benefit to the big than to the small oil consumer. At the present time, all Canadian taxpayers are called upon to pay, through their taxes and the money the federal treasury borrows, a subsidy of at least $20, if not more, for each barrel of oil imported from abroad.
Now, who benefits most from this subsidy? Naturally, those who consume more oil. And who are these people? The owners of castles like the one the right hon. Prime Minister bought for himself some months ago in Montreal. Whereas the average expense in heating oil for a modest bungalow is between $400 and $600 a year, that of the bourgeois palaces easily reaches $2,000 and even $3,000. One can easily conclude that the

Energy
bigger the house, the higher the heating costs and also the subsidy one gets from the state. The Liberal policy claims to help the poor but in reality it helps the rich take advantage of the largesse of a government seeking to protect their privileges.
To the heating costs of these immense castles, add the heating costs of the swimming pool with which they are practically all appointed; add the gas expenses for members of the family driving either big cars, sports cars, not to mention snowmobiles, yachts, or even motorcycles or Jeeps to get to the ski slopes or the resort areas. Add up these gallons of fuel burned by the people and you will realize that the true beneficiaries of this subsidization policy are not the poor people, Mr. Speaker, like members opposite would have us believe.
In fact, those who benefit are the richest elements of our society, playboys who can afford the luxurious homes, the latest cars, the expensive snow blowers, motorboats and what have you; those who can afford to spend the warm evenings dining in a high-class restaurant, attend summer theatre productions or simply while away the hours in the fresh air while the poor people, forced to pay part of the gas expenses, must be satisfied with sweating it out on their poorly ventilated balconies.
It is with a view to correcting this injustice that the Crosbie budget forced consumers to pay the true price for oil and provided tax relief measures to help the less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, it is against this act of justice that the Liberals and the New Democrats voted not too long ago. History will show that it is the Progressive Conservative Party which defended the true interest of the Canadian consumer. 1 have nothing against those who can afford the luxury of large houses and gas guzzling cars, absolutely nothing, but I cannot bear to see the poor being forced to pay part of the costs through their taxes. I do want richer people to enjoy their wealth but provided they do not waste a resource that is getting scarcer and scarcer and provided they pay an appropriate price for the fuel they use.
1 am not kidding myself, however, about the effect of my remarks on Liberal members opposite. Until the people decide to get rid of them and send them back in the opposition, we will witness the same little game of compromises and expedients, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, did the right hon. Prime Minister not warn us in 1963 that no burst of energy or burst of dignity was to be expected from the Liberals? In spite of his NDP past, did he not rather choose in 1965 to join the Liberal ranks because he knew that tool was malleable at will to implement his policies? The present Prime Minister knew, as he indeed wrote, one would not find in any other party the abject submission of members to the will and whims of its leader.
Did the recent Winnipeg convention not give us once again the example of a party incapable of thinking by itself, of giving itself policies that correspond objectively to the needs of this country? That convention gave us the proof once again that
July 8, 1980
that political formation no longer has any will of its own, but what counts for it to stay in power is to obey the leader even though its members know he is leading the party and the country to ruin.
It was a great pleasure to participate in this debate because I think Canadians must be reminded of the proposals we made. I think Canadians must also grasp the repeated promises of a government that has been in power for years and is trying once again to fool the people by repeating promises that have already been made. But we must remind Canadians-and it is our obligation to do so-that this government refused to take responsibilities that were necessary for the good operation of a country if one really wants to put this country back on the road to prosperity, and the government across has been doing the opposite up till now.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in this debate and listening to the empty rhetoric of his intervention, which was really in essence a pile of words supported by very few facts- and, if any, by the realization, which he unfortunately did not imply in his words, that he was re-elected by the slimmest majority that he has ever had since he entered politics-one is forced to look at the proposition before us today and to read it very carefully.
The Progressive Conservative party has put before us a motion which hinges on two words, "indifference" and "failure". Those are the two key words with which they would like to identify the Liberal government's energy and oil policy. Let us look for a moment at those two words against the background of the policies which have been evolved over the years.
You were a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, as I was and many of those who are here, and will remember when we had the debate on the Petro-Canada legislation, which was introduced by a Liberal government and passed in 1975. At every stage of that bill, when it was introduced on second reading, when it went to committee, when it came back at report stage, and finally at third reading, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party fought the bill tooth and nail, including the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Sure.


Mr. Caccia:: His party even asked for a recorded vote, and it is on record as having voted against Petro-Canada.


Roch La Salle: We are still against it.


Charles L. Caccia: And today we hear from that side this great rhetoric which accuses the Liberal government of having done nothing. Unfortunately, the memory of the hon. member for Joliette is filled with holes. He has no memory and he cannot recall the past. He can only look at the present. He cannot even remember what happened on February 18 of this year.
July 8, 1980

Petro-Canada is not indifference, nor is it failure. I would ask the hon. member for Joliette if it is indifference or failure.
If that is not enough, then let us go back to the policy paper which was published by the Liberal government in 1976. This policy paper for the first time put on record the intention of the Government of Canada to become self-reliant in energy. Here again it was criticized. Either it was too little, too late, too much or too soon. Whatever it was, again the so-called loyal opposition-which in drafting this motion today, I must admit, was perhaps more inspired by the word "opposition" than by being loyal to the facts-opposed that policy of 1976. Today they are claiming there has been no policy introduced by the Liberal government. That is not true. That policy, as you will well remember, Mr. Speaker, was advanced by the then minister of energy, mines and resources, the Hon. Alas-tair Gillespie.
Let us move to another policy to demonstrate the emptiness of this resolution before us today. I wonder if hon. members in the opposition remember the package which was announced in July, 1978, on renewable resources. Some $400 million was put forward by the Liberal government. I regret very much that the hon. member for Joliette finds my remarks so hot and the criticism so unbearable that he has to hide behind the curtains.


Roch La Salle: I will be behind the curtains having a cigarette.


Charles L. Caccia: The announcement of that program was made in Toronto, the city from which 1 come. It was introduced to aid, launch and get off the ground Canadian industries interested in the development of renewable energy-solar energy, biomass, you name it. This package of $400 million for the first time gave the proponents in this country of renewable resources, and there are many, hope and opportunity to implement the ideas which exist in that particular sector within the energy policy in our country.
What did the Progressive Conservative Party say at the time that policy was introduced? I do not know. Do they remember? Evidentally they do not; otherwise they would not have used the words "indifference" and "failure".
Another example is with regard to pipelines. The pipeline system which we have today between Sarnia and Montreal is a result of a measure introduced by a Liberal government. That has already been forgotten, of course. The commitment to build a pipeline to the Atlantic provinces is a commitment by a Liberal government and is something which we will carry out. That was not mentioned by members of the opposition as something that supported their charge of indifference and failure. That is a Liberal promise made during the last election campaign and it is a commitment.
What about insulation and conservation, Mr. Speaker? In this country we have a so-called home insulation program. Is that indifference? Is it failure? Who introduced it? It is
Energy
another measure introduced by the Liberal government and which, of course, received no attention at all today.
The agreement that we made with Mexico for oil was not in the amount originally hoped for, but nevertheless, it was initiated by the then minister of energy, mines and resources and a Liberal government, and it was concluded by a Liberal government. Could that be called indifference?


Mr. Paproski:: At $50 a barrel!


Charles L. Caccia: Could that be called failure? A motion like the one before us today can only be described as a sham, written by a group of members who got carried away with the desire to make a political point and gain political mileage without looking at the record.
In the few minutes since the first intervention I have been able to put together a list of Liberal achievements without even the opportunity for doing research but just drawing on my memory. I wish I had the time to do a better job.


Mr. Friesen:: You call that an analysis?


Charles L. Caccia: 1 should like to ask the hon. member who is now whispering but who is not in his seat-


Benno Friesen: I was not whispering.


Charles L. Caccia: -whether the electorate of Canada felt on February 22 that the Liberals were motivated by indifference and had a record of failure. Evidently not, otherwise the result would have been different.
When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) spoke this afternoon, she forgot to tell us, perhaps inadvertently, why the government of which she was a member, just a few days before she tried frantically to cross the Atlantic on a Concorde last December, made an announcement for the sale of natural gas to the United States. How does that fit into her global outlook and her view that Canada ought to be self-sufficient by 1990? Why did she not mention the measure proposed by her colleague in early December which eventually was put aside, thanks to the vote of non-confidence? Why she did not speak about the dismantling policy proposed a year ago by her party and in their early days as the government of this country? There was no mention of the role of Petro-Canada as seen through the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he was prime minister. That was another oversight.
I found it hard to believe that the party opposite had the nerve to lecture this government on how to behave in the world, how to design and implement an effective foreign policy. That is the party which proposed to move the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem just about a year ago. We all know the potential consequences of that proposal.
These are just a few examples of the elements missing from the main intervention of the Progressive Conservative Party which I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

July 8, 1980
Energy
A number of declarations were made by the opposition. They used phrases such as "government lacks the political will" and other sentences of which I made note. Basically, however, the facts speak for themselves. I repeat what I asked a moment ago-whether indifference and failure are the characteristics of a government which in the last few years gave us Petro-Canada, an energy policy in 1976, a renewable package of some $400 million in 1978, is actively engaged in implementing the construction of pipelines, a reduction in the importation of and dependence on oil which is quite remarkable, a home insulation program, and an agreement with Mexico, if not with Venezuela.
1 have limited my remarks to a short analysis of the Progressive Conservative motion. Apart from setting desirable dates like 1990 for self-sufficiency or regurgitating what we already know about the potential offered by renewables, we did not hear anything from them this afternoon other than high-sounding declarations. They offered no proposals on how to make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
There was nothing new on this subject in the speech of the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands or that of the member who spoke for the New Democratic Party. They had nothing to add to what has been said since the energy crisis in the world began. They gave us a regurgitation of ideas that have become commonplace. Nothing new has emerged today. We heard nothing that has not been the subject of debates in previous years.
In order to make their points the NDP quotes from books. That is the only way they can get their philosophy across in this House. They go back to 1920 and authors of the past in order to suggest what we should be doing in the present or the future. But they just come up with the same old chestnut about buying the industry. Of course, they do not tell the Canadian people what it would cost or where the money would come from and, if it were to come from increased taxes, how they would be increased and by how much. That is the extent of the NDP intervention so far today on this very central issue which is a puzzle to every nation in the world.
On the questions of how to reduce our dependence and how to become self-sufficient, the NDP repeated the old refrain of more renewables. Having said that, did they go on to tell us what share of the total energy package renewables, non-renewables, and so on, combined, would take care of? Are they able to tell us what the renewable energy sources can provide for the next five, ten or twenty years as an alternative to dependence on non-renewables today?
Judging from their performance so far, one can only wonder what contribution the official opposition can make by basing a motion on a charge of indifference and failure in light of the record of the Liberal party and in light of their own record. Only five years ago in this House they opposed tooth and nail, at every stage, the creation of Petro-Canada. It is incumbent upon those of us who believe that Petro-Canada has a central, vital role to play in Canada-where over the years we have developed a quite unusual balance between the public and private sector-to put on record some facts concerning Petro-
Canada. I shall be glad to devote a few minutes of the time that I have left to doing just that.
As my remarks have clearly indicated, Mr. Speaker, on February 22 Canadians rejected a government which had committed itself to privatizing Petro-Canada-the Progressive Conservative party. A decisive mandate was given to the Liberal party which had declared its determination to maintain and strengthen Petro-Canada as a fine instrument of public policy-a policy which is in the interests of the public sector.
Petro-Canada was under fire from the Progressive Conservative government but certainly not from the Canadian public. In fact, the process went so far that one Montreal newspaper characterized it as "the slow destruction of Petro-Canada". Happily, the situation has been reversed and Petro-Canada is again a dominant force in the development of our oil and gas industries. As well, it is functioning as the necessary intermediary in state-to-state arrangements which are taking shape to supplement, but not supplant, private oil import supplies.
As hon. members know, Petro-Canada has played and is playing a most important role in frontier areas of Canada. Apart from the Beaufort Sea, where the continuing efforts of Dome and its partners claim our attention, Petro-Canada is actively represented almost everywhere.
On the Labrador shelf, Petro-Canada is the operator for a group of companies which are maintaining a high level of exploration effort with three drilling units operating during the short season. Indeed, one of these units was recommissioned at St. John's just last Friday. This part of Petro-Canada's exploration program will involve the completion and testing of two important wells which were started last year, as well as the drilling of new wildcats.
The most promising success of the 1979 frontier exploration program was the Hibernia oil discovery on the eastern Grand Bank. Here Petro-Canada has a 25 per cent working interest in what is almost certainly our first major commercial oil discovery in the frontier areas. Three drilling units are presently operating in this area to facilitate continuous evaluation of these important prospects. Simultaneously, environmental studies are in hand to determine how development can take place with a minimum risk of environmental damage.
Another important success with which Petro-Canada has been associated is the Venture gas discovery off Sable Island, in which Petro-Canada has earned an approximately 30 per cent interest. This discovery is the first potentially commercial gas discovery to be made in the eastern frontier area. It is obviously strategically located in relation to supply for the energy deficient Atlantic provinces.
In the north, Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada has a 48 per cent interest in Panarctic Oils Limited. Successes there have included the major Whitefish gas discovery, estimated to contain as much as one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In 1980 and 1981, Petro-Canada will finance over 80 per cent of
July 8, 1980

the Panarctic budget to ensure that the necessary level of activity is maintained. This high level of Petro-Canada participation results from a lack of budgetary commitment from the private sector partners of Panarctic to continue funding their representative shares. That in itself commands the attention of the Progressive Conservative Party to the presence of a publicly-owned Crown corporation, such as Petro-Canada.


An hon. Member:: It costs $80 million.


Charles L. Caccia: Maybe it is $80 million, but that is what protects the future interest of Canadian consumers. Probably the Progressive Conservative member over there cannot look beyond the tip of his nose; he just thinks in terms of what it would cost today without thinking of how much it would cost tomorrow.
Finally, Petro-Canada is the government's designated agent for the importation of some 50,000 barrels a day of Mexican crude oil which, from October onwards, will help to supplement eastern Canadian supplies from a secure oil supply source pending the development of indigenous supply for that area.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At $50 a barrel.


Charles L. Caccia: Such supplies, of course, include hydro and nuclear electricity, natural gas from western Canada and the commercialization of the Atlantic area's offshore oil and gas resources.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today from the other side on this very important motion which my friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), has put forward today is an illustration of the total lack of understanding that is quite clearly seen in the government benches. I have been waiting to hear whether there is any understanding of the serious nature of the international issue that we are facing. All that we have had is a repeat of the halfway attempts which the government and the previous Liberal administration have made in trying to come to grips with this problem. But as my hon. friend has said, there has been a total lack of understanding and an inability to come to grips with the political necessities and the very tough political decisions that are essential here if we are to avoid the exposure we are facing today.
I would like to commence my contribution to this debate on the serious state of Canada's energy policy in this increasingly unstable world by quoting what Cyrus Vance, the former U.S. secretary of state, said:
In meeting the energy crisis ... we cannot rely on the genius of some economists with a new solution. We need acts of political will.
This is what is lacking in this government and in previous Liberal administrations since 1973 when this problem first arose.
The challenge and the clear feasibility of achieving energy self-sufficiency has been before us for many years. The pressing need for action has been clear. The opportunity for massive economic development is equally clear, and still the govern-
Energy
ment has not accepted energy self-sufficiency as a clear policy objective.
The first time action was taken and the first time the opportunity was recognized and acted upon was by the Clark government last fall. Sadly for Canada, this far-sighted initiative was defeated by the near-sighted political opportunism of the Liberal-NDP coalition last December.
The tragedy and frustration of this government's inactivity on the energy front is best illustrated by the recent Venice Summit. In paragraph 7 of the communique, the seven leaders said it all, as follows:
To this end, maximum reliance should be placed on the price mechanism and domestic prices for oil should take into account representative world prices. Market forces should be supplemented where appropriate by effective fiscal incentives and administrative measures. Energy investment will contribute substantially to economic growth and development.
This could have been the preamble to the Clark government's comprehensive energy policy announced last fall. But what did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) do? It is difficult to understand how he can defend his so-called energy policy to his Summit colleagues. Instead he appeared to walk away from the meeting and laugh in the faces of the other six leaders. With this much respect for commitments by world leaders on such an important matter, it is a wonder that the Prime Minister bothers to attend these meetings.
The Prime Minister said that Canada should not be servilely bound to world oil prices which the Summit nations then violently condemn. These are soothing words for the folks back home, but this rhetoric has nothing to do with the energy reality of today.
How can we have his so-called made-in-Canada energy price when oil imports could reach as high as 45 per cent of our oil consumption by the mid-1980s? That is the most critical element of Canada's energy position, and that is the element around which we have to build an energy policy. This is the key problem. With no change in energy policy, we will continue to pay more and more money for more and more foreign oil in an increasingly volatile international environment.
During the recent election campaign I spoke frequently of "security of supply". I wish to elaborate on some aspects of this security, or shall I say "insecurity", for this government's inaction has exposed this country in two important areas to greater worldwide instability than we have ever seen. The tragedy of it is that it has been and is still within our power to reduce this exposure. We are now greatly exposed to the increasingly volatile international scene through the greatly increased cost of oil imports and through our chronic balance of payments deficit.
Let me set out the magnitude of this problem. Gross crude oil imports have averaged about $3.3 billion from 1975 to 1978. In 1979 they grew to $4.4 billion and this year will be between $5.5 billion and $6 billion. Our balance of payments deficit on current account has averaged $4.6 billion for the

July 8, 1980
Energy
past five years and could be in the $6 billion to $6.5 billion range this year. The cost of crude oil imports by the mid-1980s is expected to be of the order of $10 billion to $15 billion. The impact on our balance of payments is clear.
But do not let me leave the House with the impression that oil imports alone caused these payments deficits. Hon. members will recall a speech I made recently in this House when I outlined how the disastrous economic policies of the Liberal government from 1973-76-their fiscal, monetary and collective bargaining policies-brought us to this position of chronic deficits. There are signs that we are sliding back into those discredited policies. Clearly action is needed on an urgent basis to meet the challenges ahead and reduce the risks of today's unstable world. We must make no mistake; the international situation is very volatile and we are in a very exposed position.
Third World debt has grown alarmingly. The cumulative figure to the end of 1979 was some $300 billion. In 1980 this is projected to increase by $60 billion to $68 billion and by a further $70 billion to $75 billion next year. Five countries to date have been negotiating a rescheduling of debt, tantamount to a corporation declaring bankruptcy. These countries are the weak ones. Others, including the ten largest LDCs which represent two-thirds of the Third World debt, are under great stress. It is expected that other countries will be the subject of further rescheduling in 1981. it is clear that the World Bank and IMF must move to play an increasing role in this program. I urge the government to support the initiatives of these two institutions in the work they must do.
These newly industrialized countries represent promising new markets for Canada, markets where we need to improve the balance of payments deficit. But these markets may not develop because of the oil problem and we will remain exposed because of our large deficit position.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has been wringing his hands because our interest rates have been so severely affected by the U.S. government in their monetary policy. Has he ever stopped to think why this is so? It is because we are in such an exposed position through our payments deficit. Unfortunately, we are caught in a vicious international circle. As the oil price increases, it leads to further instability in international foreign exchange and money markets, particularly the U.S. dollar. Since 1973, U.S. dollar holdings by official foreign institutions have doubled from $70 billion to $140 billion, and are increasing. This overhang represents a continuing source of instability in world financial markets. So unless we take action now on a broad front, we will experience the same pattern in Canadian interest rates again.
Today the political environment in the Middle East is more unstable than at any time in recent history. Iran is totally unpredictable. This is the country which knowledgeable observers regarded as one of the most stable countries in the area only a year or so before the return of Ayatollah Khomeini.
The Soviets now occupy Afghanistan. The Soviet Union today is a net exporter of oil, about 800,000 barrels a day. In 1985 this is expected to be reversed to a net import position of
one million barrels a day, a turnaround of 1,800,000 barrels a day. The Soviets have clearly served notice that Middle East oil is not exclusively a western preserve.
This is a delicate situation, and not only from the standpoint of oil supply. A significant portion of the money on deposit in the major international banks, money that has been used to finance the balance of payments deficits of both the industrial and less developed countries, emanates from the Middle East. Any disruption in this flow of money, any disruption in this recycling process which has worked so well up to now, will have serious repercussions on, first, the LDCs and, second, the major industrial countries.
I do not want to be an alarmist, but it would be foolish for us to ignore the potential of some destabilizing element in the Middle East. At the very least, competition for Middle East oil will intensify during the same period as Canada's oil imports requirements increase, a condition brought about by the neglect of successive Liberal governments.
The rising degree of trade protection is another area of major concern, a concern which would be considerably less were we not facing a $6 billion to $6.5 billion payments deficit this year and had we not experienced a $17 billion deficit in trade of manufactured goods in 1979. Countries like Japan, Korea and Germany are facing a desperate struggle to increase exports of manufactured goods since they have few raw materials to export and such large oil and other import requirements.
In spite of the brave words of Venice, we are currently seeing national self-interest forcing these and other countries to slip into a more protectionist posture. Preferential treatment for United States produced steel by New York State, and controls on U.S. petrochemical and synthetic yarn exports to the EEC, are two such examples.
What is Canada's response? We cling to an outmoded energy policy which threatens seriously to damage our manufacturing industry. We have not learned that high energy prices and scarce supplies forced Japanese and German car makers to adjust quickly and early to the changing energy environment. Our North American car manufacturers are now in the most serious downturn in years, being badly beaten by foreign imports.
If we do not move our energy policy into this new world, other industries will follow this same path. They will also produce products geared to the energy world of five to ten years ago. Our $200 million bailout of Chrysler may only be the first of its kind if we do not move soon enough.
We must be careful not to link automatically higher oil prices to inflation. Certainly they have an impact; but the experience of Germany and Japan with inflation rates which are lower than Canada's in spite of moving to world oil prices proves that the adjustment can be made, because these are the countries which are providing the greatest competition to Canada and the U.S. For how long can Canada expect countries which have made this tough adjustment to higher oil prices to ignore the threat of our subsidized oil price in this
uly 8, 1980

eriod of growing protectionism? Surely countervailing duties n our manufacturing industries, particularly those which are nergy-intensive or use petrochemicals as a feedstock, are a far reater potential dislocation than having to adjust to a more ealistic energy policy. The longer we keep our heads in the and, the greater that threat becomes.
There is another important element in the trade picture, the urrent very damaging competition in export credits. This is an bvious result of the need to increase manufactured exports to pay for oil imports. Countries with little or no oil production have now moved to an increasing extent to subsidized manufactured exports. The Venice Summit set December 31 of this year as a deadline to agree on a new set of rules to control this damaging aspect of a trade war. To be frank, 1 do not hold out much hope for improvement in this situation. The pressures of self-interest are far too great. Canada clearly has an interest here since subsidized exports can be very costly. This represents one of the largest single items in the U.K. budget. France has been said to have embarked on a policy of financial colonization in support of its subsidized exports.
Our needs are that much more pressing because of the serious state to which we have allowed our energy and trade position to fall. But the tragic part of it all is that we in Canada had and still have some options. Japan, Germany, Korea and France have no options. They continue to import oil and fight to increase manufacturing exports. We expect at an early date to be presenting to the House of Commons some views of these options as they relate to manufacturing and trade policy.
In the meantime 1 urge the government to act and tell the truth to the Canadian people. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), when he was the federal-provincial critic in the opposition and when he was sitting on this side of the House, said in this House on October 12 of last year, and I quote:
There is only one thing that matters; to be honest with the public. That is all 1 ask of the government.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I ask of this government. We have tried to give the government and the Canadian people some understanding of the present and growing seriousness of this situation, both domestically and internationally. I hope the government will listen. I hope it will face these facts and display the necessary political will and leadership and tell the truth to Canadians. Action is necessary. Action is needed now. The future is too important to Canada, and it is too precarious.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express real appreciation to the opposition for bringing forward a motion which gives us an opportunity to boast about and to explain the policies which the Liberal government has pursued in the energy field for many years. Of course, the motion was planned as, and intended to be, a political ploy to try to condemn the Liberal government and the Liberal party for their policies. The motion was worded to say that we should be condemned for a failure to have a comprehensive program. It strikes me that it provides us with
Energy
precisely the opportunity we would like to have to prove and to show how comprehensive our policy is, and how long-standing has been our awareness of the problems of which the opposition has just spoken.
I would like, for example, to point out that in 1973 the OPEC nations began their efforts by putting on an embargo which cut off oil supplies to the western world. This began to arouse the attention of the western world to the dangerous and vulnerable position in which it was situated. We found that OPEC could raise its prices arbitrarily from $2 a barrel in 1973 to $10, and then $12 within a few months, and then to proceed arbitrarily ever since to so raise the price higher and higher that it was dizzying. That was certainly evidence to the western world of the precarious position in which we found ourselves.
Our government was conscious of the need to be energy self-sufficient and, as has been pointed out already, Canada has the lowest dependence on offshore oil of almost any nation on earth, particularly any other western power. In fact, only 15 per cent of our oil comes from offshore sources, or OPEC sources, whereas the United States imports 28 per cent. Next year the United States will be 40 per cent dependent on offshore oil. Other nations in Europe, as has been pointed out, are anywhere from 75 per cent to 98 per cent dependent on offshore oil. Canada in fact is not only not energy dependent- it is a net energy exporter-but we are also in a strong position to help other nations to see their way through, and the Canadian government has tried to help them find their own solutions.
In 1973 we found that Canada, along with other western nations, faced a critical turning point. It faced the OPEC embargo and OPEC energy price increases. From then on we knew that energy would never be cheap again. It was clear that there were profound strategic problems. We do not need to be told by the opposition about those problems today.
Strategic problems were confronting us when we were dependent upon Middle East oil. We do not have to be told that now, because already in 1973 Melvin Laird, a former secretary of defence in the United States, said this was the greatest danger to the western world since Hitler and World War II. That was said by the American secretary of defence back in 1973. We certainly have been aware of the strategic dangers which faced the western world at that time.
We also realized the economic dangers and disasters which loomed ahead. In 1974 the British publication The Economist said that our world monetary system was being set awash and that this was the greatest transfer of human wealth that has ever taken place in the history of mankind. Much wealth in a short period of time was transferred to Middle East nations which had oil, and there were prospects of ever-increasing and arbitrary price increases which would force the monetary system of the western world to be set awash. Then we were told that the western world was heading toward possible recession and, in fact, to depression. We were told of the tremendous balance of payments deficits which would come about in the west as the west spent endless amounts of money

Energy
for oil and energy but would be unable to get it back in terms of sales. That might set the whole western world into a state of chaos.
We have seen what this has done to the American economy. There has been an enormous transfer of American dollars and Eurodollars to the Middle East.
We certainly also can say that we were tipped off back in
1973	and 1974 about the danger of the loss of our independence as nations in the west. This is nothing new. In 1973 and
1974	it was quite evident-it was spoken about-that certainly some of the Middle East powers would be able to exercise both blackmail and bribery. We saw that various American civil servants were bought up. They resigned their jobs to work for certain powers which were not American. They registered as agents for foreign powers. 1 refer, for example, to the former vice-president of the United States, Spiro Agnew, a certain former American defence minister, and a certain former expert in Middle East affairs for the CIA. We saw already back in 1973 and in 1974 that there were signs that foreign powers would use their wealth both to bribe and to blackmail. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) very correctly just said that those powers were going to be able to use money and force to effect foreign policies in the world and that we are in danger. That power is a threat. The hon. member was quite right.
Let us recall the Jerusalem embassy issue. We remember how the last government faced the force of certain Arab governments which came forward and said that we had to behave in a certain way, and because of their threats we did. We changed our national policy in order to accommodate them. We can also see that there are dangers which arise from this foreign force and this foreign power to blackmail, in terms of the Arab boycott, which can threaten the individual rights of Canadians, whatever their origin or religion. Arab power and blackmail can threaten action to put one Canadian business at odds with another, to force one Canadian business not to buy and deal with another, and in fact to question the integrity and the right of certain individuals to work in Canadian companies because of their religion.
Indeed, we realize the power of OPEC oil to affect the economy, to affect our military and strategic future, and to affect our monetary system. This is not new; we have been talking about it for years.
But what is important is that in order to reply to such blackmail, to such bribery and to such dangers in the strategic situation in the world, Canada has been carrying on-I happen to know this from personal experience-not only a program to try to develop alternate sources of energy but also a comprehensive attempt to try to educate the population of Canada to the urgency of conservation of energy.
I remember, when working for a non-governmental organization, coming to the Government of Canada back in 1974 and
1975	and finding that the government was producing and printing all kinds of materials for schools, for homes, for
July 8, 1980
companies and for corporations, which we helped to distribute to citizens to inform them on how to save energy, how to use CHIP, how to insulate houses, how to cut down on the use of oil in homes and factories, and how to cut back on the over use of oil and gas in automobiles. All this was being done years ago; it is not new. This opposition has to be reminded of the publications, which are still available today, which were printed years ago on this subject to help the Canadian population know how to conserve energy. Through these very important programs. I am glad that the opposition has brought to our attention the importance of concern for energy and for energy conservation, for alternate forms of energy and the proper pricing of energy. But we can see that the Canadian government has been involved in a widespread diversification of efforts to reduce our dependence on energy, and to provide not just one answer, but several answers, in a number of directions. The very capable Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has pointed out that we have, first of all, a policy on natural gas, that we have been developing a gas pipeline, for example, throughout Canada. You will remember our pipeline debates, you will remember the discussion of the Quebec and maritime gas pipeline, and you are aware of the Alaska pipeline and of the efforts to use gas as one alternative. Another alternative is coal, another is atomic energy, another is methanol and ethanol the use of which we have been trying to encourage in terms of technology, research and development. We have also been trying to encourage the development of tar sands and the use of heavy oil, implemental oil, solar and wind energy and residual oils.
1 know, for example, that when the Conservative party was in power, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who was then the energy critic for the Liberal party, tried even at that time to meet officials in southern Ontario in what we called the energy caucus. He visited solar plants and schools which were heated by solar energy, and he encouraged the use of solar energy in southern Ontario. I remember his concern about this, and in fact just a few months ago, as a result of the R & D policy of the Liberal government, a large corporation in Brampton extended its dry cleaning plant, augmenting its facilities with solar heating. There is no question that there are many ways in which we in the government try to meet our energy needs with diverse plans, not just with only one answer to the whole subject of energy.
In closing I should like to focus upon one particular area, that is, the area of gas. I agree with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) when he speaks about the problems being faced by the United States. Perhaps he should have been giving his speech in the House of Representatives in the United States when he spoke about the dangers that were facing the auto industry there and the whole North American auto industry, the decisions concerning which are mainly made in the United States. He was correct when he assessed the problems and the vulnerability of the United States in using oil as its one source of energy.
What the Canadian government has done through the Alaska pipeline is to try to induce the Americans to run the
July 8, 1980

pipeline from Prud'hoe Bay overland down through Alaska, across the Yukon, across northern British Columbia, down through Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, into the United States, both east and west. The Canadian government has tried to encourage the Americans to bring their own resources, other than oil, into the western United States. This would help the U.S. to face its energy problems and not to continue to depend on offshore oil.
We would thereby also encourage the Americans, if they would accept this project, to also consider the possibility of bringing their oil from Alaska overland, to protect the environment of B.C., to protect us from the huge tankers which can smash up and thus destroy our ecology on the west coast forever. I believe the Canadian government is trying to help the United States to recognize its vulnerability to dependence upon the tanker system. If we ever had a war, God forbid, the American tanker system bringing American defence oil from northern Alaska by tanker would be extremely exposed and vulnerable. Bringing it by land would be a much safer solution for all.
The Canadian government is trying to see if we can also expand our own natural gas industry by bringing in a pre-built system, and I hope this will be possible. By bringing some Alberta gas initially to the United States, we will help to increase the awareness of the Americans of their addiction to the use of oil and gasoline and of the need to rely on natural gas more quickly.
The American energy system in the west is too dependent on gasoline and oil. By bringing natural gas from Alaska we would encourage the Americans to become more aware of the use of natural gas and the need for replacement of oil by Canadian gas in the western United States. Americans in Chicago and in the middle American states should also be made more aware of their dependence on oil and gasoline and of the importance of using Canadian natural gas instead. By the conscious policy of the Canadian government to try to bring the American government to encourage the use of natural gas from Alaska, and by building a prebuilt pipeline to get Alberta gas to the United States as a first step to getting Alaska gas going to the United States, we will be able to help the Americans recognize the possibility of using gas instead of oil as a fuel.
This gas project will also induce small Canadian gas exploration companies in Alberta to initiate programs to find more gas which can be used in the eastern part of Canada, which can be used in Quebec and the maritimes, and which can be liquefied and used as a substitute fuel for automobiles and larger vehicles. Canadians have been in the forefront in developing this technology as an alternative. Let us therefore be aware of the fact that in this one field alone the Canadian government is trying not only to provide a substitute for oil, as this resolution does not recognize, to make us more self-sufficient, but is also aiming at improving our economy.
Business of the House
By using gas instead of oil, we will be able to reduce our dependency on foreign offshore oil. We will be able to reduce our balance of payments deficit. It will mean the production of $2 billion worth of steel pipeline which will give jobs to thousands of Canadians in Regina and Hamilton producing the steel and the pipeline for the Alaska line. It will provide tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians involved in laying the pipeline and maintaining it where it is on Canadian soil. In every way this policy, just in the field of natural gas alone, is not only aimed at helping Canada become more self-sufficient and to provide Canadians with a cheaper ultimate source of energy, but it helps Americans to understand and learn of the value of depending on natural gas and it helps Americans to receive this on a safe overland route. Also it provides the United States with a more secure and less vulnerable source of energy. As Americans become more conscious of this, they too will develop new technologies in the use of this vital resource. Therefore they will be able to help their automotive industry and perhaps will be able to change over some vehicles to the use of natural gas.
This whole policy is not just selfish for Canada. In fact it is intended to meet the very criticisms just aimed at us. It is aimed to help the United States to meet and understand its own problems, and for us to co-operate to make it less dependent on strategic energy from the Middle East and their unstable governments, such as were described. I do not believe we should play political games with world problems. Indeed I believe we should co-operate. Therefore I should like to say I am glad this debate was held. It provided us on this side of the House with an opportunity to stand up and point out why our policies in each of the areas are indeed helpful not only to Canada but in fact to the entire western world.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of order. First, I had consultations with the other House leaders earlier today concerning reverting to presenting reports from standing or special committees. There seems to be unanimous consent for the House to revert to presenting reports from standing or special committees to allow the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to table his report. When he is finished, I will have another point of order to raise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. President of the Privy Council indicates that there may be unanimous consent for the House to revert to presenting reports from standing or special committees so that the hon. member for Sarnia may present the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Is there unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.

July 8, 1980
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order relates to the veterans legislation. Yesterday 1 undertook in the name of the government to agree to proceed with that legislation under the condition that it was considered through all stages and completed through all stages tomorrow. I want to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to give copies of that bill to House leaders of opposition parties as soon as it is printed. That might be at about 9.30 or ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
I should like to specify that the bill is not printed yet. Our intention was to deal with it later on this month, but since we were requested to deal with it tomorrow I did what was necessary to make sure we could proceed tomorrow. The bill will be printed only in time for it to be distributed to House leaders tomorrow morning. I would not like to set a precedent, but in that particular case, taking into consideration the agreement made yesterday, I should like to have the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to give copies of the bill when printed tomorrow to House leaders of the opposition parties before it is introduced in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are hon. members agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a point of clarification, that does not in any way jeopardize the debate on that bill tomorrow afternoon; it will proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the contrary, it facilitates it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald:
That this House deplores the Liberal government's indifference to the consequences of the global oil crisis and condemns its failure to provide a comprehensive energy program that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising to debate the motion presented on behalf of my party by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The motion condemns the government for its lack of planning in the field of energy in a manner that would take care of the future needs of Canadians. I take particular pleasure in doing so today, because it was exactly six years ago that I was elected to this chamber, the class of 1974. I remember very clearly the campaign on which we were elected at that time, we of the class of 1974. At that time we were debating wage and price controls, and there were very hard decisions to make.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Grits do not remember that.


Benno Friesen: They have a lapse of memory on that score. The prime minister of the day went around saying that it was not necessary. I remember very clearly that western Canada in particular was willing to make very tough decisions to meet the future needs of Canadians. They were willing to do that, even though that concept was not naturally acceptable to us in the Conservative party. We were willing to take that short-term risk for the long-term gain and benefit of Canadians.
I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) today talk about all the things the government was doing, as though the Liberal Government of Canada is free to do all those things. But I would remind him of an old French proverb which says, "He who drags his chains is not free". I would point out that the Liberal government has some very, very obvious chains it is dragging about which limit its activity. Therefore it is no longer free to do what it wants.
The first one is the chain of deficit financing. The Liberal government talks in grandiose terms of doing what it wants, and all the time it spends beyond its means and imprisons itself to world economic forces. That ought not to be the case if it were running its ship the way it should. The second one is the chain of lack of planning for the future of Canada. The third is the chain of having to depend on offshore sources of energy. Today we are depending on offshore sources of energy when it was just a matter of ten years ago that we were net exporters of oil. Is that planning on the part of the government? Is that being creative? "He who drags his chains is not free".
I want to remind the Liberal government that the western part of the country was willing to take a tough decision in 1974, it was willing to take it in 1980 as well. The major fault
July 8, 1980

I would assign to the Liberal government is its continuing fault of trying to suggest to Canadians that there are easy panaceas for very difficult problems, that we can spend our way into prosperity, and that no one has to pay the extra cost which energy is naturally costing today. They suggest that we do not have to pay that 18 cents or more for the extra cost of production today. They say that there are easy solutions to very difficult problems. The crime of the Liberal government is that it is doing this at the expense of our children and grandchildren. They are the ones who will have to pay the bill.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening, at which time the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) again will have the floor.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as we broke for the dinner hour I was saying that the success of the Liberal party at the polls lay in the fact that they were able to convince the majority of the Canadian people there really are easy solutions to the most difficult problems we face, whether they are in respect of the economy, wage and price controls, energy or, the 18-cent excise tax that was to be placed on gasoline. The Liberal party was able to convince the voters there was an easy solution to this most difficult problem.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what it is.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) loves to talk but he does not perform very well.
The crime of their success lies in the fact that in both cases, in 1974 and in 1980, they made our children and our children's children suffer for a delusion they were able to perpetrate. This is not a matter of solutions they have provided, but postponement of those solutions.
If they had been successful on the political stage at home they would have moved on an entirely different platform, particularly when they move into energy negotiations around the world. It is a different stage, it is different players and there are different stakes. On the world stage it is a matter of survival, not simply a matter of re-election.
Domestically they have been able to pull it off as far as re-election was concerned, but the great concern I am sure of Canadians is that the Liberal government, because its major concern is one of public relations rather than of substance, is going to be snookered when it comes to working with the big players on the international stage.
Energy
Incidentally, I might add, it is strange in the last week that the governments of Mexico and Venezuela have announced at least $1 per barrel increases in petroleum prices, without one whimper from the Liberal government regarding what it will cost the Canadian taxpayers for that increase in the price of petroleum products, yet let the premier of Alberta suggest that the price of Canadian petroleum ought to move to at least 50 per cent of world prices and he becomes greedy and selfish. He becomes everything but a Canadian. Somehow there is a double standard in the Liberal party on that score.
I recall watching on television just the other day the president of Dome Petroleum saying that the difference is not a difference between $34, the world price, and $ 14, the domestic price, but really a difference between $34 and $5, because the $14 per barrel domestic price means that the provincial and federal governments receive the additional $9 and the oil companies receive only $5. However, the Saudi Arabians, the Venezuelans, the Mexicans and those in Kuwait are receiving the full $34 price. Guess where those companies are going to go, those companies which are receiving only $5 on the domestic scene? If they have a choice of $5 return per barrel in Canada and $20, $30 or $35 in the United States, Mexico or Venezuela, guess where they are going to go? We are pretending that in Canada we can suppress the price of energy, keep it artificially low, and still maintain or achieve self-sufficiency in petroleum products.
On the world stage, while countries are mildly concerned about price, they are not concerned so much about price any more as they are concerned about security of supply. That is now the name of the game. It is the future and the existence of those countries about which they are worried. While members have been talking about the tragedy that Third World countries are facing because of increases in the cost of energy, the real question is, will they make it at all? One hon. member referred to this just before the dinner hour. Some of these Third World countries have effectively declared bankruptcy already. They are rewriting their loans. The name of the game in those countries is survival.
If we are to look only at price then surely we are going to lose out on security of supply. The price is important, but on the world stage the very fact that security of supply is an issue, means there is going to be greater competition for a diminishing source of supply. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out in her speech earlier, Russia is competing for world supply now. I do not know how many Canadians are aware of the fact that the greatest producer of petroleum in the world today is not Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran, but the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union produces almost 12 million barrels of petroleum per day and is a net exporter to the satellite countries. It is also exporting natural gas to western Europe. However, this is the last year in which the U.S.S.R. will be a net exporter. Next year it will become a net importer of oil and, when that happens, hon. members can guess what will happen in the Middle East.

July 8, 1980
Energy
Is it any wonder that the government of the Soviet Union is interested in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Persian Gulf? Is it any wonder that the Middle East countries in wanting to preserve their cash flow over the next 20 years, 30 years, 40 years or 50 years, are diminishing their production? That is why these countries are the centre of interest of all the nations of the world, because supply is the issue of the day.
The issue is not simply price. Therefore it becomes critical as to how sensitive we are in handling our foreign policy. All our friends, including the United States, will be competing for that same limited source of supply. The issue which we must face is how well we can preserve our domestic economic integrity without alienating our best friends. Earlier in the evening the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned a continental energy policy with some fear. He does not have to worry because it is already here. There is no signed continental energy agreement, but there is a de facto continental energy agreement, because there is one thing which the United States and the other countries are very well aware of, and that is Canada's budgetary problems.
The other countries know that we are in debt and that we need money. They know that Mexico is in the same position. The United States, for example, knows very well that while Mexico has vast reserves of natural gas and petroleum, and is talking about limited sales to that country, it needs the cash flow to raise their standard of living. If they know about Mexico, they certainly know about Canada. They know that we are facing a $14 billion deficit this year. They know that we are $80 billion in debt.
The United States also knows that when the crunch comes, the Liberal government, having created the problem, will try to extricate itself in the easiest plausible way, and that they will sell. Who needs a written continental agreement when one is in the kind of trouble which Canada is in in terms of its fiscal arrangement? I said earlier in the evening that he who drags his chains is not free. The Liberal government has brought the Canadian economy to such a strait that we are not free any more to decide whether or not we will sell. That is why the Liberal government is so anxious to impose an excise tax on natural gas in British Columbia.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about hydro power?


Benno Friesen: There is also hydro power in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. The United States know that they can pull it off because they know that the cash flow is necessary, that the sale will go through and that the federal government will benefit from it.
This leads us to the importance of the pre-build section of the pipeline about which some hon. members spoke earlier. The question is not whether or not the pre-build section of the pipeline will be built; the question is if and when it is built, will this Liberal government ensure that the future of Canada is protected in the transaction?
Just a few weeks ago the cabinet sought more concrete assurances on this matter from the United States. Now, the congress of the United States has passed a resolution reinforcing the intention of the Americans to build the Alaska leg of that pipeline. But what if, after that pre-build section is completed in Canada and we have invested $1.2 billion in its construction and we begin to export natural gas to the U.S., the Americans decide in the ensuing five years, in 1985, that they have a better way of providing their energy, whatever the means may be? What if the Americans decide to cash in the chips? What will Canada do then?
Does this government have any kind of alternatives or contingency plans in case the Americans decide after five years that they do not want to build the Alaska section of that pipeline? What are their contingency plans? Are they, for example, willing to subsidize the pre-build section afterwards? Is there a contingency to increase Canadian sales of natural gas to the United States, because Canada needs the cash flow? Will that contingency plan be to extend the natural gas pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley to the Delta gas fields?
What are the contingency plans, if any, of this Liberal government? There are some limitations to the American proposal. The Americans cannot subsidize the Alaska leg of the pipeline with tax money. They cannot allow oil companies to invest in an equitable way in that pipeline, and they cannot allow Canadians to begin tracking of the costs through the Canadian section. There are some severe limitations.
Recognizing those limitations and the fact that all we have is an international agreement at this time-there is no ironclad agreement on finances-what assurances has the Liberal government extracted from the Americans that Canada will not be left in a greater debt position as a result of that agreement?
The Liberal government is talking about an export tax on energy, particularly natural gas and electricity to the United States. What about the consumptive products in Canada which are produced as the result of consuming energy, the byproducts of natural gas? Will the Liberal government decide that all the resins, plastics and the energy-consuming products which are made from petroleum and petroleum byproducts will be taxed? What is the limit to which the Canadian government, because of its reckless spending in the past, is willing to go in taxing energy exports?
Will the government stop at taxing energy and electricity, or will it include uranium? What about natural gas products? How far will the government go? The fact is that the industrial complex of the United States is already shifting. It is moving from the cold north where so many of the factories have become obsolete. They are rationalizing their industries and moving them further south where less energy is required and it is closer to the sources of energy. They will be closer to the Mexican pipelines and the ships and pipelines which come up the Mississippi Valley.
What implications does the fact that the industrial complex of the United States is moving further south have on Canada's marketing of petroleum and petroleum-products to that country?
uly 8, 1980


Mr. Evans:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is mumbling again, but that is about all he ever does. How far is the Liberal government willing to go to protect the future of Canada? I said at the outset that he who drags his chains is not free. Canada has been chained by indebtedness. The Liberal government has chained itself to indebtedness and, as a result, Canada no longer has the freedom of movement which we enjoyed at one time. Ten years ago Canada was a net exporter, but today we are a net importer. That is why I fully endorse the motion introduced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that this government stands condemned for its failure to adopt an innovative energy program.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the motion which we are discussing was introduced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) because, as the former secretary of state for external affairs and with her knowledge and her expertise in international affairs she hoped the debate would take on some international connotation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what I was hoping.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is unfortunate that it has not. I must say to the hon. lady, however, that if it has not she should look around at members on that side of the House for the particular reason since most of them insisted, once again, on discussing events leading up to the last election. It boggles the mind somewhat that many, many months after the election, speaker after speaker from the opposition has taken this approach. I feel sorry for the hon. member who set the right tone and raised the international complications and implications of a worldwide energy policy, and who now finds that the debate has bogged down and become a repeat performance of the issues that dominated the last election.
1 believe it was a former minister, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who referred again to the almost immoral action of the NDP and the Liberals in "ganging up", I think is the expression he used, to defeat the government of the day last December. It is unfortunate that he has forgotten that the real defeat was not in December; the real defeat was in February, after the people of Canada had a chance to analyse the policy of the Tory government and found it discriminatory, ineffective, and hardly suited to the 1980s.
Although the government was defeated in December by the collective vote of the opposition parties, that government had an opportunity to be returned with a greater majority, if they had not been so adamant in stating that if they were returned they would introduce again precisely the same energy policy, without the slightest change.
I think that between December and February Canadians, at first glance appalled at the thought of another election so soon, concentrated on the issues. Because the December budget was, in effect, a piece of legislation through which the Tory energy
Energy
policy was enunciated, it is logical that the debates during December, January, and February centred on it. The government of the day had ample opportunity to explain its policy to the Canadian public, to explain the need for conservation, to explain the need for a policy. The people listened and found that government wanting.
The one conclusion that I came to after listening to the debates and participating in the election campaign, was not that people were particularly concerned about paying an additional 18, 20 or 30 cents for a gallon of gas; that is inevitable-


Benno Friesen: It is?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is inevitable.


Benno Friesen: All right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What is important is that the increase should not be imposed in the discriminatory manner in which the government of the day was prepared to impose it.
When I heard the argument that the price had to be raised in order to conserve gasoline, I knew that it would not convince the farmers in Lincoln. Whether gasoline was $2, $3 or $4 per gallon, they would have to use the same amount to earn a living, or cultivate their land. The people could not understand an energy policy that on the one hand asked them to leave their automobiles at home and use public transportation and, on the other hand, put an excise tax on transportation.
Fishermen could not understand how they were expected to cut back on the use of fuel and gasoline despite the increase that was proposed, when the only way they could survive was to pay the tax and continue using energy.
Once again, the Tory policy seemed to say, "If you can afford the increase, so be it." As usual the farmer, the cab driver, and people who had to go to work by public transit, the fisherman-the little fellow-would be expected to pay the 18cent excise tax.
It is amazing how insensitive that governent was. It failed to appreciate that the excise tax that already existed did not apply, because of rebates, to the farmer, to the commercial traveller, to the cab driver, and to people who had to use their automobile or tractor in order to earn a living. These people rose up in anger in the last election.
I think hon. members opposite would now agree that, all things being equal, it might have been a little wiser of the Conservative party, during that two-month period, to have suggested that if they were returned they would exempt those traditional groups who, because of their profession or background or way of life, had to use gasoline, and for whom it was not a luxury.
The problem is not how much gasoline costs but, rather, that policies be applied with equity, justice, compassion and understanding-that we do not penalize that segment of society which is least able to protect itself. I suppose in many ways that is the difference between our two parties, Mr. Speaker. We in this party care about people.

July 8, 198
Energy
If gasoline were to cost $2.50 or $3 per gallon it would not prevent anyone who wants to drive a Cadillac, a Mercedes or whatever, from doing so. Those people can only be attacked through rationing. An extra 18 cents per gallon for the farmer or nurseryman in Lincoln, or the fellow who has to drive 12 miles to the steel company, or people who go to work in buses which pass on the 18 cents in the form of increased cost, shows insensitivity to their position. It is obvious that the government of the day was not defeated on its energy policy; it was defeated because of that insensitivity. I am surprised that all these months later that party still has not realized that they were not defeated in December; they simply were not re-elected in February. There is a fundamental difference there, and one that they should heed.
They had the opportunity to go to the people and say, "Look at the big bad coalition of NDP and Liberals who defeated us. They did not give us a chance. We have only been in office nine or ten months and we have only had six months to study the issues in Banff or Jasper, or whatever secluded area. We were just back and the big bad opposition ganged up and threw us out." When they were thrown out they had an opportunity to explain their energy policy to the public-why they would put an 18-cent excise tax on a gallon of gas even for the farmer, the fishermen or the cab driver. In fairness to the opposition, I must say that they tried, but smug in their arrogance about their policy they went so far as to say, "We would not change a comma-not a semi-colon. If re-elected we will do exactly the same thing."
As a government they may have underestimated the opposition, but they made a more serious error in underestimating the intelligence of Canadians who recognized their energy policy as disastrous, discriminatory, and unnecessary.
I think all of us would agree that we must move to energy self-sufficiency. We must be as independent as we can from foreign sources. The motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands reads as follows:
That this House deplores the Liberal government's indifference to the consequences of the global oil crisis and condemns its failure to provide a comprehensive energy program that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
We are self-sufficient in energy, Mr. Speaker, we are one of the few countries in the world that is self-sufficient in energy. We have a surplus. At this moment we are exporting natural gas, coal, uranium, copper-you name it. We have a surplus. Where we have a shortage is in oil, a particular form of energy. The prime objective of this government, as the minister has stated on ample occasions, and he repeated it today, is to divert industries and homes from the use of oil, wherever possible, to natural gas. It is not a policy that is unique to Canada. England announced a growing emphasis in this particular field about two weeks ago.
That was the rationale behind the extension of the pipeline to Quebec City and eventually to the Atlantic provinces so that we utilize natural gas as much as possible rather than oil. That is the reason why we are spending millions of dollars in
research for other forms of energy for our automobiles. That i the reason why we have brought in such programs-an maybe the opposition did-in the whole field of insulation. Th whole thrust of this government is to reduce the use of oil an that has been going on for some considerable time. Frankly offshore oil is the greatest single contributing factor to infla tion in the seven industrialized nations whose representative met in Venice recently. It is stated right in their policy paper.
1 am sure that we all agree with the objective, which is t make Canada self-sufficient. Where we differ with the Con servative party is how we do that. How do we force people t conserve? The previous government of the day suggeste putting an 18-cent excise tax on the farmer and the fisherma and maybe he would only fish and farm half of the week. It i mind boggling how such a program could result not only in th defeat of the government in December but in a very definite defeat of the party in office by the people.
It is wrong to say that this government does not have a policy. Its policy has been enunciated a dozen times by the minister. It is reflected in actions. It is reflected by the commitment to the extension of a pipeline through to Quebec and eventually through to the Atlantic provinces, or if Sable Island proves to be the success we think, it will no doubt result in natural gas being available to the maritime provinces- certainly the Atlantic provinces-from Sable Island.
There is another fundamental difference in the policy between the opposition and the government, one that was clearly elaborated and discussed almost ad nauseam during the election campaign, namely, Petro-Canada. Now the member opposite does not like it. Why would he? 1 would not either, if I was sitting there. But in 1975 the Conservative party made it clear their concept of private enterprise was so pure-and rooted in Adam Smith's time, certainly in R. B. Bennett's time-in no way should the government of the day get involved in such a terrible thing as Petro-Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is an Irish company.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, we did. In fact we even let the NDP help us a little bit. It is there. The bill was passed in all three stages. I think the Conservatives voted against it, on all three stages as I recall. That is true to their convictions, philosophies and ideals. I will have to say that the Conservatives are consistent because, from the moment they formed the government, they decided to destroy Petro-Canada. They made it clear. They got the head of the Treasury Board to do all kinds of studies and to roam around feverishly to see what private groups would buy PetroCan, at what price and so forth. Just to make it clear where they stood on PetroCan, I think they cut off about $80 million from its budget and made it clear that the company was not to expand and that it was on borrowed time. The word went around among the key people in PetroCan that they had better start looking for other jobs.
I do not hear the opposition members now getting up in this debate and suggesting when and if they get back into power that they would destroy PetroCan. It has proven to be a very big success. Perhaps it is a surprise to members opposite to
uly 8, 1980

ind that perhaps the greatest booster of Petro-Canada today s private enterprise. In many of the projects in Canada, specially where it is very risky and where it takes risk capital, rivate enterprise is sitting down with Petro-Canada and plot-ing out future moves. For instance, Hibernia, the Beaufort 'ea and all these things, which the hon. member for Daven-ort (Mr. Caccia) talked about earlier today and which I am ot going to repeat, are all concrete examples of how government and private enterprise can act in concert. Unlike the
DP who would buy it outright, we vary to a degree.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If there are some fresh ideas from that arty, I would be tempted at times, but I think I lost all my llusions with that party in the field of energy when a former leader found himself as a director of one of the largest private nterprise oil companies in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: To say nothing of being president of Air Canada.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the hon. lady who introduced the motion did bring a dimension to the debate that is necessary and useful by bringing it onto an international plane. She emphasized the fact that perhaps we do not talk about it enough. But this problem is not unique to this country. We are one of the fortunate countries to have a surplus of energy, even though we have a shortage of oil. Other countries have a shortage of all forms of energy. This is certainly true of the emerging nations.
What did come out of Venice? What did the seven leaders and their officials who discussed the whole thing-what did they think? It was their realization that the OPEC policy, its cartel and the terrible cost of oil, which has become a necessity in this world as we industrialize, are really the main causes of inflation. I often wish the fiscal policies of some of those governments would reflect an appreciation that that is the cause of inflation.
Before the dinner hour I read the documents that came out of that meeting in Venice in order to find out what solutions there were and how they differed from those of the present government. What was suggested? The very same thing which the minister of energy for Canada has suggested ever since he took over the position in May, that is to break the link between economic growth and the consumption of oil. In other words, conserve oil on the one hand, and increase substantially the production and use of alternate energy sources on the other. That is exactly what we are trying to do by encouraging the use of natural gas in this country.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to export it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes. The hon. member is very concerned, as a good socialist, that we will be exporting natural gas. I am fully in accord with the exporting of natural gas to the United States. I have no trouble at all with that policy. 1 do know that
Energy
there are anywhere from 8,000 to 11,000 natural gas wells capped at this very moment in Alberta because a market cannot be found. I think it is ridiculous to deny the Americans natural gas providing, as the hon. member stated earlier, that some of the cash flow is used for further development, exploration and refinement of that industry. I have no trouble at all dealing with that argument.
The socialists over there would cap all the natural gas wells other than those with which their former leader is associated, and take the caps off 50 years from now. That is a little silly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is profitable though.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member reminds me of something that Bernard Shaw said, "Anybody under 40 who is not a socialist needs his head examined, and anybody over 40 who is, should also have his head examined."
At the Venice Summit it was suggested the major planks of the seven countries for their energy strategy would include increased investment in alternate energy sources. We are doing that. We are providing millions of dollars for a pipeline to be extended to the Atlantic provinces. Provision of incentives to help substitution of oil in both industrial and residential use was also suggested. We are already doing that in Canada. That is part of our policy, to use natural gas, and to use coal and use electricity wherever possible rather than oil. The introduction of new-


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


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker. I certainly enjoyed what he had to say. I was somewhat alarmed, however, about his comments regarding the sale of natural gas, recalling a previous member from across the way, a minister, who not that long ago suggested we had enough oil in Canada to last 900 years. I was suspicious that we might be hearing a repetition of that.


An hon. Member:: Was he a Liberal?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, he was a Liberal. I also appreciated the former speaker's comments regarding one of the pages that the Liberal party tore from the NDP handbook, that of PetroCan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: While recognizing that indeed it was the Liberal party that bore PetroCan, we must keep in mind it was the NDP that conceived PetroCan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 8, 1980|
Energy


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am very pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak in this debate on what must be the most important topic before Parliament this session and, indeed, the most important topic facing Canadians today, that of energy. Our future is at stake. As the previous speaker from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) indicated, we are also concerned tonight about the future of our children when speaking about Canada's energy future.
Unquestionably a great deal more attention must be paid to the question of our energy future by both government and Parliament. Listening to the speakers from the government on this issue, I am reminded of my years at university, taking courses in policy-making and planning. My professors would stress how important planning is for business, industry, cities, families and, indeed, government. They would outline the process of planning as being three simple steps. The first was the establishment of a clearly defined goal; second, to identify strategies to attain that goal; last, to implement those strategies in a satisfactory way toward that end.
1 suggest that the Liberal government has failed at step one. What is our goal in terms of our energy future in Canada, let alone what is our strategy for our energy future? We are distinguished among nations of the world as being one with no comprehensive national energy policy. Now, like never before, we are in need of one. Now, like never before, we are in need of strong leadership. It really is a political decision and a political priority requiring backbone and courage to come to grips with this very crucial issue.
The tragedy, of course, is indicated here today in the fact that this discussion on our energy future comes up during opposition day. An earlier speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) indicated that "here is a chance to explain our policies". I ask, is this leadership from a government that waits until an opposition day before this crucial issue is discussed in Parliament? Is this courage being demonstrated by the present government?
In his speech earlier today, the minister indicated that Canada has an energy policy. That will be news to many Canadians. Ask the members of his own party, what is their energy policy? Ask the members of this House what the energy policy is of Canada. Ask the oil companies. They would be happy to know. Indeed, ask Canadians what our energy policy is. I suggest that our inability here in this House to articulate our energy policy indicates the reality of the whole situation. The language we use in a sense betrays our confusion, in that tonight we are discussing a motion concerned with the lack of a comprehensive energy policy that would make Canada self-sufficient in energy.
We have read comments by various ministers and other people within the Liberal party, commenting on the need for energy self-sufficiency. We have energy self-sufficiency today in Canada. We are net exporters of energy in the form of hydroelectric power, natural gas, coal and oil. Perhaps members opposite ought to get together in their caucus and come to grips with just what in fact the wording is, regarding energy self-sufficiency.
I would like to review the dilemma facing Canada in a| particular context. Canada has the unique reputation in thel world today of being one of the most wealthy nations in termsl of its natural resources, thanks to the generosity of nature.I However, we are also the most underdeveloped industrialized! nation in the world. We devote a smaller percentage of our| gross national product to research and development than virtually all other industrialized nations, with the one exception I being Greece. We have more foreign ownership of our econo-1 my both in absolute and per capita terms than any other! nation in the world. We are the only energy-rich nation in the world that has handed its strategic oil and gas industry, and | thus its energy future, over to foreign corporations.
In an era of growing energy scarcity, we are distinguished I among peoples by using more energy per capita than any other country in the entire world. It is amazing that the rest of the world takes us even half-way seriously. The fact that Canada was even asked to participate at the Venice Summit talks can only be interpreted as a tribute to mother nature, and surely | not a recognition of leadership provided by this government. The Liberal government has failed to provide the much-needed I leadership during these crucial energy times, and there is little indication of change. Certainly we have heard nothing today | that would indicate any change for the future.
It has been seven years since the energy crisis first hit the I United States. However, we in Canada never had to face the problems that American citizens faced a few years ago- lineups at the gas pumps and serious shortages of home heating fuel. The prices being paid for gas in the United States, Europe and Japan, we have not had to face. This, of | course, has tended to reinforce and prolong wasteful industrial and consumer practices, raising energy comsumption per capita in Canada to record levels. This shows a singular lack of | leadership on the part of this government in that it has failed, and I must stress that term failed, the Canadian people. It has failed to develop actively and implement through policy the principles of conservation necessary to build a conserver society.
Surely our first line of defence in this energy battle must be conservation and substitution. The federal government has failed to promote aggressively research and development of alternative energy sources. The Canadian government has indeed supported research and promoted the development of the Candu nuclear power technology, but I suggest that the use of this technology is highly questionable on both safety and moral grounds, and it is certainly unnecessary within the Canadian context. If there exists a country in the world today which does not need to run headlong into the development of nuclear technology and nuclear energy, it is Canada. What country in the world has the energy resources at its disposal that we have? 1 suggest that we are not heeding that and in fact are running headlong at an unnecessary pace.
A responsible energy policy in our country should have as its foundation a comprehensive conservation program. It is possible, for example, to match the output of a multi-million dollar

*July 8, 1980
I Beaufort Sea oil well or a multi-million dollar oil sands plant Iby simply not using oil the way we do.
| There is a very tremendous opportunity to save energy in ICanada by re-insulating and improving the design of our [homes, by improving energy designs and standards across the Icountry, using automatic thermostat adjustments, more efficient industrial practices, building lighter and more fuel-effi-Icient automobiles, discouraging the use of single passenger I automobiles, improving public transit systems in our urban [centres and developing solar, wind, wood waste, tidal and Ismail stream alternative energy sources.
| A recent study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute I indicates that an annual saving by 1985 of no less than 29 I million cubic metres of crude oil equivalent is possible if all I residential, commercial and transportation sectors were mobil-I ized to introduce and adopt conservationist alternatives. This would more than match the combined output of both Syncrude Canada and Suncor tar sands plants at Fort McMurray by the year 1985, five short years away.
; Another way of looking at these conservation measures is that the savings would potentially reduce Canada's current level of oil imports by 35 per cent, a problem which has been thoroughly discussed and examined tonight by a number of speakers. This is a devastating aspect in terms of our balance of payments, and this would be a simple and very humanistic way of dealing with that dilemma.
It is imperative now, before it is absolutely too late, that the Liberal government provide leadership in this area of alternate sources of energy and substitution of energy. Unfortunately, the leadership has not come at the federal government level up until this point.
I use as an example of this a school in my riding of Kamloops-Shuswap where the local school district took the initiative and provided the leadership to construct a prototype school which would be energy-saving, utilizing solar energy for heating purposes. In terms of its energy-saving devices this school has been successful beyond the wildest expectations of the school board and its advisers, and the solar energy component has been extremely successful. I recognize that funding for this prototype was provided by both the provincial and federal governments, but from the federal government only after a considerable amount of time literally begging for a few thousands of dollars to experiment, and that, 1 suggest, is not the kind of leadership our federal government should be providing in this area.
Something more recent which I dearly hope and pray that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) considers seriously is a proposal from Seymour Arm along Shuswap Lake in my riding. A small community of 300 dwellings and a number of small forest operations plus a few thousands of tourists in the summer now depend upon approximately 50 private generators for the creation of electrical power using one thousand barrels of oil annually. Nearby three streams exist coming off the mountain peaks, and the community wishes to harness the energy in these streams and has asked the federal government for support in its effort. The
Energy
federal government should provide this leadership. The federal government could provide research and development of small scale hydroelectric technology and provide encouragement and support for the development of this small scale energy project. This would recognize that we want to use our renewable resources. It would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, and it would provide encouragement to Canadian manufacturing firms.
I would like to end with a modest proposal in terms of Canadianizing our energy industry. Our oil industry in Canada has a very special status. It has repeatedly and with considerable success convinced the federal government and consumers that higher prices are necessary to ensure adequate energy supplies in the future. By and large 1 suspect that Canadians agree with that. What the oil industry is really saying, however, is that this business is so risky that it cannot afford to go to the equity or bond markets or to the banks to get the necessary capital to finance its exploration in energy supply programs, so what it does is add a surcharge onto the price of oil and gas products.
The consumer provides the risk capital through a higher price in the marketplace, risk capital that the oil companies do not have to pay dividends on or interest on and never have to pay back. Of course the oil companies do not explain this to the consumer because it is not enough. They want even more. That is why the consumer as a taxpayer also provides the oil companies with all those tax breaks, investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, depletion allowances, super deletion, and deferred taxes. Imperial Oil has now accumulated half a billion dollars in deferred taxes. Rather than worry about collecting those taxes in the future, why not have the government receive ownership equal to the amount of those deferred taxes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: This would provide Canadians with ten million Imperial Oil shares, at the present value. I suspect that we are not going to see those deferred taxes ever, ever, and I suspect that ten million shares in hand would certainly be a much more appropriate approach. Considering the earlier comments, is it any wonder why the oil companies' profits are so unconscionably high? Would small businesses across our country not welcome those same benefits which we give to the major oil companies, the seven sisters? If Canadian consumers are providing the bulk of risk capital used for exploration by the oil companies through paying higher prices at the pump, they should be receiving an equity position in the oil companies for that investment.
For example, if a person were to buy 4,000 litres of gas from Gulf Canada during the year and, out of an average price of 25 cents per litre, Gulf spends two cents on exploration, then this consumer over the year has financed $80 of Gulfs exploration package. If Gulf common stocks are selling now at $30 a share, then this consumer should be entitled to two and two thirds shares of Gulf for that particular year.
Energy
We must give large foreign oil companies credit. The Canadian government has allowed them to charge higher prices, part of which is used, by their own admission, to provide risk capital for exploration and to expand further their ownership and control of Canada's energy resources. They do not have to pay interest or dividends on this money and, what is more, they do not even have to pay it back. It would be a big step into the twentieth century for this Liberal government to recognize that it is the Canadian consumer through paying higher oil and gas prices, and the Canadian taxpayer through generous tax and investment incentives to the oil companies, who are really financing the development of Canada's energy resources. Consequently, we would go a long way in repatriating our energy resources if we required foreign-owned oil companies to provide Canadian consumers and taxpayers with equity ownership in exchange for their, so-called, investment.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the last speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and in his proposal that, in return for some tax concessions, oil companies give the Canadian people some equity. In essence, I want to point out to the hon. member that this is the same line of thinking that we had with respect to PetroCan because there is a far greater difference in benefit, I suggest to him, in having the Canadian people own a corporation and have individual Canadians hold the shares of that corporation, receive dividends from it, go to meetings and take an interest in it, than there is in having that corporation owned by the state. I think there is a subtle distinction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I see that some hon. members over there are disturbed by what I am saying-


An hon. Member:: So were the voters. Look at what happened!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1 believe that there is a much different feeling among Canadians who own corporations individually and collectively in shareholding than there is in their owning of the CBC or of Air Canada. They can be very proud of these corporations, but they do not have the same feeling of participation and ownership in them. 1 am only pointing that out to say that it is interesting that the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap should bring that line of thinking to this debate, and I should like to discuss this with him some time.
I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), a distinguished member of the House for many years. He castigated us on this side of the House for bringing in matters pertaining to the last few months and the election, and then proceeded to do just that himself and to build a great deal of his speech around it. He was rather selective in his language. He spoke about the benefits that his farmers and fishermen in Lincoln were not getting. I did not realize there were so many commercial fishermen in Lincoln. But he failed to mention the energy tax credit, which is another part of that equation. He talked, and
July 8, 1980
rightly so, about the initiative of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in bringing this important topic for debate, and I certainly agree with him there. I think all members would agree that she brought an important international dimension to the debate today. She spoke about the needs of the Third World. She spoke about the strategic and even military importance of oil as a commodity. She spoke about the various balances that had to be maintained in our global community. I think we should all commend her for that.
I would have liked to have seen a more direct approach to that sort of thinking from the other side, since it was the Liberal government in the last number of years that had, through sheer tenure of office, the opportunity to do many of the things that they now claim they have done and in fact have not.
I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record a barn-burner of a speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made when he was campaigning in Halifax on January 25. I referred to it briefly before in this chamber. Let us see what he said of the Liberal party's energy policy, following which I will indicate to the House, or perhaps we should all consider, just how far the Liberal party and the government have come to making a start. The Prime Minister said at that time:
The Liberal plan seeks to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians.
That is very commendable. He went on to say:
Our energy program for the 1980s consists of seven major commitments. We would start at once to:
1)	Set a made-in-Canada pricing policy to secure adequate supplies of energy
at reasonable prices.
I do not see that this has been done yet, nor do I see any great progress.
He went on to say:
2)	Achieve energy security through the accelerated development of Canada's
domestic potential and the ensuring of Canada's offshore supply.
Again, to be fair, I do not see much progress there either. The President of Mexico came to this country. He had a cordial visit. I think it would be generally conceded that, when he left, Canada had achieved much less in the way of security of petroleum supply than we had hoped or than we had been led to believe would occur.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
3)	Develop a more balanced energy program through the replacement of oil by
natural gas and other energy forms.
Well, sir, I and other members in this chamber have been urging the government to get on with the provision of a pipeline for natural gas to the Atlantic region. That has not been done yet, and despite the specific commitment which was made later on in this very same speech, the most we can get out of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is that it is the preferred option or that he is interested in it. So much for that commitment.
The fourth commitment made by the Prime Minister was as follows:
4)	Strengthen and expand Petro-Canada as an instrument of national policy.

July 8, 1980

Perhaps this has been done, and to that extent I commend the Prime Minister and the government for it.
His fifth commitment was:
5)	Place a new emphasis on conservation and the promotion of energy
alternatives.
I do not see any there. As a matter of fact, coming back to something which the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said, he neglected one item which 1 think was promised, that is, a closer supervision and discouragement of the kind of use that is made of oil to heat large buildings and private homes. A tremendous amount of emphasis has been placed on the automobile industry, getting them, in an attempt to save petroleum products, to bring out cars that are more energy efficient, and yet there are many buildings in this country which consume enormous amounts of oil and in which the furnaces have nozzles that are not suitable. All they succeed in doing is sometimes causing them to burn twice the amount of fuel that is required and destroying the furnaces in the process. There should be some energy conservation program specifically directed at what 1 consider to be an almost criminal practice of using precious petroleum to heat buildings in larger amounts than is necessary.
Another point which the Prime Minister emphasized in Halifax on January 25 before the Halifax Board of Trade, was:
6)	Ensure that Canada's energy sector becomes more Canadian owned and
controlled.
I do not see any initiatives there, either.
His last commitment was:
7)	See that energy becomes part of the larger economic strategy, forming the
core of any industrial or regional development approach.
Again, on the seventh commitment I cannot see any tangible progress toward its achievement. Those commitments were made in January of this year. One thing the Prime Minister did not mention, which I would have thought he would have particularly emphasized in the Atlantic region, was some sort of strategic storage program for petroleum. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, western consuming nations are not equipped to withstand an even temporary interruption of oil supplies.
It is well known to the government that just about a year ago tremendous interest was being shown by a consortium of Home Oil and Gulf Oil to store approximately 68 millions barrels of oil in salt caverns in Cape Breton Island near the Strait of Canso. At the same time another corporation, at the initiative of Power Corporation, were going to store 90 million barrels of oil in an abandoned iron mine on Bell Island in Newfoundland. This type of conservation must, I suggest, be implemented sooner or later. It is particularly appropriate for oil, but it could be extended to other commodities as well, and it should not just be concentrated on the east coast of Canada. Provisions should be made on the west coast as well.
If the western industrialized world is ever held to ransom even for a short time by the Soviet Union or its satellites, we would not have the raw material to survive, whether it is
Energy
petroleum, cryolite, whether it is chromium, or whether it is some other type of commodity. It is becoming more and more evident, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the former secretary of state for external affairs, pointed out, that our security of supply is becoming more and more tenuous. The Soviet Union has long had its eye on Iran. Some of us can remember the days when the crying prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq, was practically a Moscow puppet, and strenuous efforts were required to get the Russians to back off at that time. I think President Truman of the United States had to make extraordinary efforts in that direction.The Soviet Union is not the type of country which would be easily deterred, and it is just as anxious to take Iran as it is to take Afghanistan. Their aims have not changed.
I should now like to quote Lubor Zink, a columnist who is probably not read enough or listened to enough, who does meticulous research. Some members in this chamber may smile at that, but I suggest to members that Lubor Zink is one of the best authorities to whom we can turn regarding the intentions or, indeed, the charting of what the communist world hopes to achieve. He pointed out that Soviet grand strategy is now grounded in the mutual support of military sub-systems on four continents, and he goes on to describe them. Also he pointed out that three-fifths of the world's oil is now nearly encircled by military allies of the U.S.S.R. in South Yemen, Ethiopia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. He indicated that the southern third of Africa, the Saudi Arabia of minerals, is under siege by Marxist guerrillas. Mr. Zink wrote that a good look at these facts leaves little doubt that NATO cannot be sustained if the links of a Marxist commonwealth the Kremlin strategists are forging were to choke off the flow of oil, essential minerals, and seaborne commerce that is essential for Europe, Japan and the United States.
e (2U0)
In this hemisphere we have the potential of getting oil from other nations. We do not seem to have done too well with Mexico. I suggest part of the reason we have not, as was indicated by one of our speakers today, is that we do not have the financial muscle any more to make the kinds of deals that are advantageous with some of the oil producing nations.
One country which has been overlooked and which shares the extremity of this hemisphere with us is Argentina. Argentina is rapidly approaching energy self-sufficiency the same as we are. In its territory of Tierra del Fuego, the explorations for oil, some of which are being carried out by Canadian companies, will soon make that country self-sufficient in oil. As well, Argentina is providing a market for Bolivian natural gas to help that country, and it is thinking of entering into an arrangement with Brazil, not only with respect to natural gas but also with respect to hydro power to stabilize the energy needs of that region. It is at potential major suppliers of energy, such as Argentina and Mexico, that this government ought to be looking in order to supplement our own position until we are able to develop some of the alternate sources of energy to which many speakers have referred this evening and earlier in the debate.

Energy
We seem to have forgotten very quickly the lessons the OPEC nations tried to teach us. We continue in this country to buy expensive oil from OPEC. We do not want to pay this money to Alberta. We would rather buy it from OPEC. By keeping an artificially low price in this country, we encourage the wasteful consumption of that commodity which costs our federal treasury so much to import. Unless we do something to become more realistic in our attempts to balance the needs of this country, we may very well have to go back to some kind of rationing.
It seems to me that there is something extremely wrong when a country like ours which is selling petroleum and keeping the price artificially low domestically also is subsidizing the automobiles, aircraft and fishing fleets of other nations at the same unrealistically low price. If we are to encourage Canadians in all walks of life without restrictions whatsoever to burn precious petroleum, particularly gasoline, without charging them the proper price, then we may very well have to consider imposing some kind of allocation or rationing on people who do not need to burn this much gasoline to make a living. Right now anyone can go out and drive as much as they wish in as energy-wasteful a car as they want to purchase, without any inhibitions whatsoever. We just wonder how much longer this can go on.
Not many months ago the Prime Minister, in his widely-publicized speech in Halifax, told the Halifax Board of Trade that we must move on our oil problems now, but we must also think ahead. I would like to see some indication that he is thinking ahead and will do something. On page two of the speech he went on to say something very profound when he talked about the OPEC countries. He said:
I say that what is good for OPEC is not now in the interest of Canada.
I wonder if it ever was in the interest of Canada. We can only reflect and try to learn a bit from the lessons of history how advantageous it might have been if western nations and western oil companies were a little more forthcoming in the price they paid OPEC countries for oil ten years ago. It was only after some of the young, middle-class or upper-class people from those countries had the opportunity to come to western universities, see for themselves what the situation was and then go back to Arabic countries, that they realized how they were being cheated out of a non-renewable resource and how they were selling their resources-in many cases the only resource they had-for something over $1 a barrel, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, while enormous profits were being made and enormous wastes were being caused by the profligate use of that precious, non-renewable resource. But those days are over, and now the western nations and even the Arabic countries themselves are paying for them. This is because of the tremendous amount of inflation and international tensions that are caused and have been caused by the unwise and shortsighted use of a very precious commodity which is rapidly running out.
To be regional for a moment, as far as the needs of Atlantic Canada are concerned, it seems to me that as the development of Hibernia oil becomes more and more promising, there could
July 8, 19801
be no higher or better use of that commodity than to proceed I to carry out the project discussed about a year ago by our I government and the United States to fill some salt caverns in I the Strait of Canso area, or the abandoned mine on Bell Island I with some petroleum from Hibernia. At least then we would I have some security of supply, and from there we should I immediately try to stockpile other sources of petroleum and move into other commodities, whether they be foodstuffs or strategic metals. It does not seem logical or reasonable, taking a close look at the international scene, that the Soviet Union or indeed many other nations will continue to refrain from, if not acts of aggression, then calculated acts in their own self-interest.
We in Canada have not been nearly shrewd enough in the way we have conducted our affairs. I guess all of us in the House of Commons and all of us, period, are equally guilty in that we have not highlighted some of these concerns years ago. If we took better care of our country, if we managed our country better, we would not be in the state of tension and the state of constitutional unrest in which we are today. I only hope the government opposite are not using some of the understandable concerns of this country about the constitution to mask their own incompetence in running this country for the last number of years, which has contributed to this very unfortunate situation for us.
It may be a bit irrelevant, but 1 must put on the record my own concerns in this respect. I am far more worried about some of the well-meaning but over-enthusiastic constitutional reformers than I am about any separatism either in the east or the west. Basically I think we have a very sound country. It is unfortunate it has not been run better. Rather, if we could fine-tune our Constitution and make some revisions in it, whether it be in telecommunications, an elected Senate or what have you, instead of, to use an old German proverb, "throwing the baby out with the bath water", we would be much better off. Indeed it is refreshing to be here this evening talking about matters of energy, global energy concerns and something which is basic to the autonomy of our country, rather than trying to get through the semantics of some of the rather obtuse arguments being put forward under the guise of national emergency respecting our constitution, a constitution which has served this country pretty well ever since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate tonight to address the motion put forward by the official opposition which may have set a record in this House by its vagueness. The motion condemns this government for its "failure to provide a comprehensive energy program for Canada." I find it a curious position to be put forward by members opposite.
uly 8, 1980

(2120)
This morning I forced myself to re-read the Speech from the hrone delivered on October 9, 1979. 1 had anticipated a party hich knew what a comprehensive program was not would now what a comprehensive energy program was, and that it ould be reflected in the Speech from the Throne delivered by he leader of that party. What I found was four statements, nd I would like to read those four statements to you, Mr. peaker.
First, it stated the way to build a whole nation is to respect ur individual parts; second, agreement in principle has been reached with certain coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources; third, self-sufficiency in energy by 1990, and this would be accomplished in consultation with the provinces, and seek to encourage a reduction in Canada's over-all energy consumption, and stimulate expansion in our capacity to supply and distribute energy in various forms and, finally, accept and respect provincial jurisdiction over resources.
Let me suggest that members read the Speech from the Throne delivered on April 14, 1980. The first thing you will notice is that this document reflects criticisms made by the leader of my party on October 10, 1979, in his response to the four points I have just mentioned which were put forward by the now right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
The second thing you will notice is that this document offers a ten-point energy plan based on two goals; first, achieving security of energy supply at a fair price for all Canadians and, secondly, strengthening national institutions while at the same time making them more responsive to provincial and regional goals.
On October 10, 1979, Mr. Trudeau stated:
I need not remind this House that the problem of guaranteeing a sure supply of energy to Canadians at a price they can afford is the most urgent and critical economic issue facing this Parliament.
This position has become a commitment for the Liberal government.
Speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on May 27 of this year, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who has already spoken so admirably in this debate, stated:
Our aim is to give all Canadian consumers a fair deal... to keep the economy growing and keep the national debt within bounds; above all, to hold the country together. We need a pricing policy that serves these aims, not the policy aims of foreign and not always friendly nations.
A single national price for consumers of oil is one of the ten policy initiatives referred to in the Speech from the Throne of April 14. Others include an oil price based on Canadian conditions and circumstances; the establishment of the petroleum price auditing agency to report on oil company costs, profits, capital expenditures and levels of Canadian ownership; the maintenance and expansion of Petro-Canada; the creation of a new Canada oil and gas act for preferential rights for Petro-Canada and other Canadian companies of federal land and the establishment of new and more demanding requirements for exploration and development in frontier
Energy
areas; and 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry by 1990.
A sixth initiative is the reduction of dependence on imported oil by promoting conservation and stimulating production of new domestic energy supplies.
This final area is an area which I have followed very carefully since coming to Ottawa in 1975, especially since becoming a member of this chamber on May 22, 1979. I wish to spend the remainder of my time addressing the issues of conservation and renewable energy sources in this debate.
The energy conservation program which exists in Canada, and I repeat the word "exists" because it does exist, started to come about in a very meaningful way in 1974. It was conceived in that year when the initial OPEC crisis occurred. It was conceived and implemented by an earlier Liberal government. I will deal with conservation in terms of various sectors. There are four sectors with make sense in dealing with a conservation program. First of all there is industry; second, commercial and residential; third, transportation; and, fourth, research and development.
Hon. members who have preceded me in this debate have indicated that the previous Liberal government did nothing in the area of conservation, did nothing in the development of renewable energy resources, and did nothing in the development of alternatives to the use of oil and gas. I tell you that is pure nonsense.
In the area of industrial energy conservation the industry program is operated on a voluntary basis through 14 industrial energy conservation task forces established in 1975. Some of the measures available under this industrial energy conservation program are: first of all, assistance to undertake energy audits at the plant level so that a firm can determine how much energy it is using, where it is not using energy efficiently and what can be done to improve energy efficiency of the operation; second, co-operative government-industry communications programs which include publications, seminars and regional workshops between government agencies, academic and industrial units; a pilot project in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to provide grants for consultant advice and capital equipment to improve energy efficiency; an industrial energy conservation research and development program to encourage the development of new or modified energy efficient processes; and studies to determine the potential for co-generation in Canada, and the identification of opportunities to improve energy efficiency in various sectors of the industry.
Industry has essentially achieved its 1980 over-all goal to improve energy efficiency by 12 per cent since the program commenced in 1975. The task forces' new goal is to increase efficiency beyond the 12 per cent to 23 per cent by 1985.
In the area of commercial-residential energy conservation, there are several major thrusts in the housing area: there is the CHIP program-the Canadian Home Insulation Program; there is the home insulation program in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia which has some differences from CHIP;

July 8, 198
Energy
there was an oil furnace retrofit pilot project introduced to help individuals improve the efficiency of their oil furnaces in their homes; there were energy efficient new housing demonstrations put on by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; and there was the Enersave program, a computerized home energy audit available free of charge to Canadians. It recommended cost effective actions for reducing energy consumption through re-insulation and thermostat setback techniques. All those measures were in the area of housing. The suggestion was that there has been no energy conservation program at all-I can see that already!
Having regard to buildings outside homes, a national federal policy has been formulated toward the development and application of building energy codes and standards to improve these for greater energy efficiency and energy conservation. In this area there has been an energy conservation task force network providing a forum for information transfer, training, research co-ordination and other activities designed to stimulate energy conservation.
I could go on and on in these areas. There is an internal program in the federal government, the "Save 10 Program" which was to improve the energy efficiency of federal government buildings by decreasing energy consumption by some 10 per cent. That program has been successful. It has saved $100 million in cost to this federal government alone since its inception.
In the area of transportation, Mr. Speaker, there have been all kinds of energy conservation programs introduced since the 1974-75 fiscal year. We have seen standards for the average fuel consumption of new automobiles, fuel consumption labelling, publications such as the "Gas Mileage Guide" and "The Car Mileage Book" and we have seen the tax on automobile air conditioners, which consume a substantial amount of fuel.
There are a number of programs, and finally there are the energy conservation R and D programs. The main priorities of the energy conservation R and D programs are energy efficient buildings, technology, efficiency in automotive engines, alternative fuel activities, energy systems studies, and energy efficient processes for industry. We have carried on a public awareness program to make the people of Canada understand that the energy problem is indeed a real problem, that something must be done, and that action must be taken by the individual because that is the way the transition will come about to reduce the consumption of energy.
Almost every household in Canada has received or been in touch with at least one of the brochures or booklets which have been put out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether it be "One Hundred Ways to Save Energy and Money in the Home", "Billpayer's Guide to Furnace Servicing", the "Garbage Book", "Keeping the Heat In". All these types of information programs were initiated to give the Canadian consumer a means of understanding how they can help themselves by conserving energy. There are similar programs in industry and business.
There are newspaper programs. We have all seen the televi sion and radio advertising on energy conservation. There ar films, conservation vans and so on. There are also the van which went through Europe and which were acclaimed as on of the most advanced energy conservation information system in the world.
It is amazing that the opposition can say, "Oh well, ther has been nothing done, no energy conservation programs intro duced at all".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It has been a disaster.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Kingston and the Island (Miss MacDonald) says that it has been a disaster. I sugges to the hon. member that while she was the secretary of stat for external affairs she learned very little about what wa going on in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I suggest that she talk to the hon. member for Saskatoon Wes (Mr. Hnatyshyn). He will admit that the Department o Energy, Mines and Resources had a vast number of programs which were on line and moving ahead when he took office as minister of the department, and which are going on now. There are a great many more programs coming up.
I was fortunate enough, prior to the election of May 22, 1979, to be part of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and involved in the human behaviour aspects on research energy conservation. We were doing a vast number of research projects on how we could help individual Canadians move from an energy consumptive environment to an energy conserving environment. In fact our research program which we put together in conjunction with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of the Environment was one of the most advanced programs in the entire free world.
We were called upon by countries in Europe and the United States to enter into joint research projects because we were ahead of these countries, not behind them. We were not sitting around doing nothing about energy conservation. We were laying the groundwork for the kinds of energy conservation programs which will be implemented in the 1980s and which will make Canada a leading nation, not a trailing nation, in energy conservation in the free world.
We can talk about what the hon. members for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), and Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said with regard to price not working. All the research we did during the time I was in behavioural research in Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicates just the opposite, that in fact price does work. However, what price does not do is work overnight. The transition between a high consumptive society where there are massive investments by individuals and businesses in capital equipment which is energy consumptive, energy inefficient, takes years, years to replace and to make the transition from an energy consuming society to an energy conserving society.
July 8, 1980


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is why we should have begun in 1973.


John Leslie Evans: We did start in 1974 those programs which are on line and which are now having their effects. They are good programs and they will be improved. The idea that nothing has been done because something did not happen overnight is absolute sheer nonsense. The fact is that it takes time and that it is happening. Price can and will change behaviour, but it does not work overnight.
Over time the difficulties which are being faced right now by, for example, Chrysler and Ford in their automobile sales, because they are selling relatively fuel inefficient automobiles, will be ironed out. People are changing their consuming habits. But it took many years for people to realize finally that in fact the energy crisis is real and that they must switch their purchase patterns from large automobiles to small automobiles. Unfortunately the automobile industry of North America did not pick up the signals which were there at the beginning. They did not change their production patterns. As a result we have seen a massive increase in the sales of Japanese cars, German cars, French cars and other foreign fuel-efficient cars in this country.
If the North American auto industry is to have any future it will have to bring in highly fuel-efficient automobiles. In fact the industry is moving in that direction at a very rapid rate. I am afraid that it waited a little too long before beginning, but it is moving in that direction. The fact is that the signs were there. Canadians and Americans were receiving the price information and energy information which was coming forth through the OPEC crises and the successive increases in oil prices. They were saying, "Something is happening. Is it real? Will it last?" And over six years, seven years, eight years the transition started. And now it is moving and industry will have to make the kinds of adjustments about which we are talking. We are now seeing that the auto industry is in the process of making those adjustments.
It takes time, but the price system works. However, I would suggest that it is not the appropriate way in which to adjust to a situation, particularly in Canada where there is relative richness in energy. It is a form of massive societal masochism to say that we must immediately go to world prices because it is good for the people, because it is somehow good for our souls if we go through a situation of biting the bullet. That term is so appropriate, but the problem is that the bullet is in the gut and they are pulling the trigger.
Price will rise because it must rise. However, in Canada where there is the unique opportunity to make an orderly, stable transition from a highly energy-consumptive society to a conserving society, because of the fortunate state in which we find ourselves, why is it absolutely necessary, as the official opposition would have us believe, that we immediately go to world price which would immediately create massive turmoil in this country, when it is not required?
The energy policy which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is putting forward is precisely designed to avoid the
Energy
kind of traumatic adjustments which would be brought about by the energy policy which was suggested by the individuals in the opposition. The reason that they are in the opposition is because they did not realize the simple fact that the people do not have to be beaten over the head before they will change their ways. They can be led in the process.


Marc Lalonde: Listen to him.


John Leslie Evans: The kind of research which has been done and which has led to the energy policy-and there is an energy policy, if hon. members opposite could read and understand, but I understand that it is difficult for them-has resulted in a broad energy policy which is guiding the direction in which we are going. In the kind of behavioural research in which I was involved for the government, at the initiative of a Liberal government in prior years, we asked questions such as, "Why do consumers conserve or fail to conserve?" The answer to that kind of question is essential. We asked such questions as, "What incentives could be used to get consumers to change their ways?" That is where the tax progams such as CHIP came from. But first we had to find the incentives which would move people in the direction in which we wanted to go in future years.
What role does information play and how does it play that role in society? We have an energy research program called "Energy Use Display Monitors" in co-operation with the United States that will put a monitor on the wall in the home to show people how much energy they are using when they turn the stove on and how much it costs in dollars and cents if the meter moves faster. They can say, "If I use the stove this way, if I turn the heat up or the air conditioner on, this shows the effect on the cost of energy in my home." These kinds of straightforward research programs-


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


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I felt compelled to deliver an address today on the very important resolution brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
This is an auspicious occasion for some of us. For those who were first elected on July 8, 1974, this is an anniversary of sorts. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Postmaster General (Miss Nicholson) is in the House. She is one of those who entered the House at the same time as I, and I just wanted to take the opportunity on this sixth anniversary of the election of a very good group of members to call the occasion to the attention of the House.
The resolution before the House is not only very appropriate at this time but it underscores the desperate circumstances in which we find ourselves today in Canada, due to the inability
2688

Energy
of this government to realize that not only do we require an energy policy but that we must make a comprehensive examination of the problems facing this country and the world.
This government took office some five months ago. Since then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has attended a number of international conferences. It has been my impression, and that of many other people in Canada, that our participation in those international conferences has been minimal. Our representatives have sneaked in and out of those conferences as the proverbial Arab slips across the desert, without participation in events and without any real knowledge or understanding of the problems that face us.
1 would reiterate the point made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in opening the debate when she pointed out that the OECD issued a report today which castigated Canada on its record of oil importation and oil conservation. It is the second worst record of all industrialized nations. That is an indication of the severity of the problem we face as a country and a participant in international dealings on the energy front.
Between 1960 and the mid 1970s world demand for oil almost tripled, while production in the United States, the world's biggest producers, began to decline in 1970. A large body of opinion believes that in 1975 the world reserves began to turn down. The world is now burning some 20 billion barrels of oil a year, and the drills are only adding in the vicinity of 11 billion to reserves. This basic truth has been masked by the fact that recession reduced oil demand, and new oil from the North Sea and Mexico cause a temporary glut. This has now been worked off. Demand now exceeds supply, perhaps by a million barrels a day; no one is quite sure. It is a good guess there is a lot of oil still in the ground. But a guess has no market value. Available oil is a dwindling resource.
In the past technology has baled us out, but our problem today has no precedent. Earlier transitions-from wood to coal, from whale oil to gas-came about because a superior fuel was attainable. This time, I regret to say, there is no bail-out in sight. Research can certainly help to develop new energy sources but, ironically, high energy costs leave less money for research.
In fact the belief that we owe our affluence to our technological breakthroughs seems, in retrospect, to be no more than a half truth. The whole truth is that abundant resources, especially cheap petroleum, made everything from mass air travel to high yield agriculture, possible. Energy-intensive machinery skimmed the cream off high grade resources and gave us the money to fill our homes with appliances and gadgets that give us the energy equivalent of 80 manservants a day. We are now putting out five to ten calories of energy to produce one calorie of food, and already we are looking back on cheap food with nostalgia. It is cheap and abundant energy, not the magic of technology, that has been the essential dynamo of progress.
Now we stand at the end of an awesome discontinuity: the beginning of the end of the petroleum era, the end of living off
July 8, 1980
capital, the end of rising expectations. We will still be using petroleum well into the twenty-first century, but even our optimists realize it will not be cheap. The price of OPEC oil in Montreal is now in the vicinity of $36 per barrel. The higher prices have slowed demand. World recession could bring a brief glut. But the Iranian cut-off revealed how narrow the margin of surplus is. Any serious shortage could bring a surge in price. What are the chances of this happening?
Prophecy, of course, is even riskier than politics. Which of our economic projections considered the Ayatollah Khomeini, or the Arab oil boycott, or the accidental break in the TransArabian pipeline? When you are looking at the mid-east supply and demand-and that is where the crunch will come, because that is where 80 per cent of the oil for export is being pumped-the incredible often looks only too much like the probable.
The main key to supply is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have had, until recently, enough spare production capacity to hold down the world price if other producers tried pushing it too high. Between 1974 and 1978 they dropped the real price of oil by 20 to 25 per cent. Even now they have set their selling price at something like $28 or $30, well below the price asked by other producers.
The Saudis are concerned about the economies of the western nations, their chief customers and chief investment outlets, and they are afraid that a deep recession would strengthen the communist parties of Europe. As demand has risen, the Saudis have run into pressure problems in trying to raise production capacity and have in the past year reduced the level 10 per cent to their present 9.5 million barrels per day. As the financial cost of controlling OPEC rises, conservation looks even more attractive. Like some other Arab producers, they have more income than they need, and there is no economic reason to deplete their oil so quickly when later it could be worth so much more. After seeing how too fast development brought corruption and chaos to Iran, they might well want to slow their massive industrial development program.
Most OPEC producers hold similar but even stronger views, and it is anticipated on the basis of announcements now made that we can look forward to a reduction of some three million barrels per day. Right now OPEC is producing about 30 million barrels of the 51 million barrels per day the world is burning. The best we can hope for from OPEC in the late 1980s in an increase of 20 to 25 per cent.
This is not too reassuring when we contemplate future demand. The Third World is expected to grow by six or seven per cent. By 1985 this could add 40 per cent to their oil needs which are now about five million barrels per day. For example, the Mexican economy is growing so fast that by 1985 it will probably need half its estimated output of three million barrels per day. By then the OPEC countries, with their huge development programs, will likely be using another five million barrels per day themselves.
Production growth has slowed in the Soviet Union. The Soviets supply nine-tenths of the oil used by eastern European countries, and have told the eastern Europeans not to expect
July 8, 1980

these supplies to be raised. Increased western demand alone could take all of OPEC's late 1980s' production, and if we add this new demand we could possibly all be scrambling for a static supply of Middle East oil in the 1990s.
Nor can we shut our eyes to the tensions in this area. In the last three decades the Middle East has had half a dozen wars, a dozen revolutions, and innumerable assassinations. It is the heartland of terrorism, the politics of desperation, and an endless chain of tankers pass through the Straits of Hormuz carrying half of all the OPEC oil that powers western civilization. A supertanker sunk in the mouth of the straits could cut this lifeline. Significantly, Lloyds of London, the world's leading underwriters, have designated the Persian Gulf a war risk area.
Uncertainty is the order of the day and no one can predict what the price of oil will be next year, let alone in three or four months time. After the oil embargo in 1974, 20 OECD nations formed the International Energy Agency to co-ordinate a common approach to consumption, and much depends on its members meeting their year-end targets: a cutback in consumption of two million barrels a day which is about five per cent of the western world's oil demand. The less oil we use collectively, the less chance of further disruptions and the slower the world price will rise.
Notwithstanding the disregard which this government has shown with respect to its commitments internationally, Canada does have a big stake in the International Energy Agency. Any significant rise in price will intensify conflict between western allies, between the west and the communists and between factions within nations. Every 10 per cent rise in the world price adds one half a percentage point to OECD inflation. A sharp rise would strain the world monetary system and shrink world purchasing power. What price is Canadian self-sufficiency if we cannot sell our goods on the world market? We have to take our part in bringing supply and demand into balance.
Last July Canadian targets were set by the previous government. They were set by the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We agreed at that time to reduce our net imports of oil by 100,000 barrels a day throughout 1980, to hold the 1985 imports to 600,000 barrels.
Recently the late Prime Minister Ohira of Japan spoke to this Parliament and he reiterated the necessity of the western industrialized nations reducing in a substantial way their imports of oil. The present government has not yet come to grips with this reality. At the last Summit there was great pressure on the Prime Minister and the delegation representing Canada to reaffirm the commitments made at the Tokyo Summit.
These targets that we have set for ourselves are not going to be easy to meet. We are pumping crude at the rate of 1.6 million barrels a day, and that is near capacity. It leaves us very little flexibility. In Canada we are burning something like 1.9 million barrels, and that calls for daily net imports of
Energy
about 300,000 barrels. The production in western Canada is in decline and the most optimistic estimate is that by 1985 we will be short by at least 600,000 barrels a day. Some estimates put the shortage at 900,000 barrels a day by 1985. In 1990, the daily shortfall will grow, and keep growing.
The fact is that this is the background in which the international negotiations and circumstances have taken place. I want to say that notwithstanding the attempt on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to hand out press releases with respect to what has happened at the Venice Summit, there was a great similarity with respect to the resolutions which were brought forward at the Venice Summit to those that were brought forward at the Tokyo Summit. I simply say that to reiterate and underline them. At Venice there was a reinforcement of the commitments made, and an attempt to bring Canada into the mainstream with respect to the western industrialized nations on the commitments that are to be made by Canada on the international scene.
The Tokyo communique is interesting and I want to refer to it to indicate the great similarity in wording in what took place then with what the release was with respect to the Venice Summit which has just concluded.
One of the statements made at the Tokyo Summit, which was reiterated again at Venice, was:
The most urgent tasks are to reduce oil consumption and to hasten the development of other energy resources.
1 suggest this statement has a familiar ring.
What were some of the commitments made at Tokyo? One of the commitments was that we pledge our countries to increase as far as possible coal use, production and trade, without damage to the environment. Does that sound familiar? And does this statement sound familiar?
We need to expand alternative sources of energy, especially those which will help to prevent further pollution, particularly increases of carbon dioxide and sulphur oxides in the atmosphere.
Without the expansion of nuclear power generating capacity in the coming decades, economic growth and higher employment will be hard to achieve.
Further on we find this statement:
We reaffirm the understanding reached at the Bonn Summit with respect to the reliable supply of nuclear fuel and minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
New technologies in the field of energy are the key to the world's longer-term freedom from fuel crises.
These are very familiar statements with respect to the leaders at Venice. It is a reiteration, and yet one would believe from hearing the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy that somehow there was a new attitude taken by the leaders. It is precisely a carrying on of the position taken at Tokyo in which Canada on this occasion was out of step and out of place. Canada was not fulfilling its function on the international scene, and in not doing that it was causing itself to do a disservice to the Canadian people as well.
I was very proud and pleased that my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, did bring this resolution forward. It does give us an opportunity to point out that notwithstanding the fact that this government has been in

July 8, 1980
Energy
power almost continuously since 1963, with the assistance of the New Democratic Party, it has not as yet come forward with a comprehensive energy policy. It is still struggling with the question of pricing with the producing provinces. So I ask what are we faced with now? It is the prospect of going past July 1 with no assurance and no idea of where we are going in terms of pricing in Canada, nor do we have an indication from the federal government or the producing provinces that they are anywhere close to an agreement.
The uncertainty is causing a great deal of concern in the industry itself. It is only reasonable that unless there is some long-term agreement arrived at, the investment that is going to be required to develop our oil self-sufficiency will not be forthcoming. We are getting involved with the Prime Minister going to a conference possibly, he says, at the end of this month within six days of the conclusion of the extension period of the existing arrangement. Do members understand, particularly on the government side, what the consequences will be if there is no arrangement or agreement with respect to energy pricing in this country? Do members have any understanding? Are members quite satisfied now to rely exclusively on imports of oil with respect to generating our industry and heating our homes next winter? What are members' thoughts on the other side with respect to the activities of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy on the negotiations? In my opinion their activities have been shameful, confrontationist, and they have certainly not given any hope to us that there will be any arrangement or agreement for any reasonable period of time.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada look back with some affection to the Progressive Conservative government which, in a short period of time, came forward for the first time in history with a comprehensive, national energy policy benefiting all regions of this country. We had a program that was negotiated with all the provinces of this country and with all the regions of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it shows one minute to ten by my watch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This clock shows ten o'clock. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may have one additional minute. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to conclude this very important and good debate by outlining and pointing out the fact that there was with the last government a comprehensive national energy policy. I want the government to listen to these points. It is within their capability and interest possibly to follow by way of constructive suggestion the initiatives that we had taken in our short time in government. Key ingredients of our policy involved an oil pricing agreement maintaining a competitive advantage for Canadians over U.S. and other world trading countries, a massive substitution
program off oil to natural gas and other regionally indigenous energy sources, an effective energy conservation program in co-operation with the provinces, the dramatic development of our country's energy resources utilizing the increased revenues from petroleum and, finally, a firm program of Canadianiza-tion of our energy industry through such innovative initiatives as a Canada energy bank. Thank you for the time accorded to me, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, July 3, as recorded at page 2539 of Hansard, 1 put two questions-perhaps I should say a question in two parts-to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). My questions had to do with what I regard as unfair provisions in the Public Service Superannuation Act. This is by no means the first time that 1 have drawn attention to these unfairnesses, but it is my hope that by persisting in this effort, one of these days we will get these unfair provisions corrected.
The first one about which I questioned the President of the Treasury Board last Thursday has to do with the fact that when a retired public servant dies, his widow gets a pension of only 50 per cent of what he was getting whereas, if the wife were to die first, the widower's pension would be 100 per cent.
I know that has been the practice for half a century or more, or for as long as pensions for employment have been in effect. I know that for many years it was accepted as perfectly all right. However, 1 do not think there is any place for this sort of arrangement in our society any more. If there is anything to the modern belief in equality between men and women, surely it should be practised when it comes to retirement. I suggest that it is completely and grossly unfair that the Public Service Superannuation Act has in it this provision giving, as I say, to the surviving widow a pension of only 50 per cent, whereas it would give to the surviving husband a pension of 100 per cent.
The other complaint I made when I put my question to the President of the Treasury Board last Thursday had to do with the way a pension of a widow, in this case a widow of a retired public servant, is cut off if she marries again. Here too is a practice which has been in vogue for a long time, and society tends to accept it. Society does that because it still has the
July 8, 1980

notion that somehow a woman's place in our economy depends upon her attachment to a man. This turns up in even more sinister ways in other provisions.
1 have in mind the spouse's allowance which is paid to some women between 60 and 65 but not to others, and certain other provisions, but they do not come under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I insist that if a woman, by being the wife of a public servant-and it applies to a woman who is the wife of any other kind of employee-has earned a pension which comes to her if the husband dies, that pension should not be taken away from her simply because, to put it in language which I hope people will understand, she finds another meal ticket. Surely that pension is a matter of right. Surely it is not a form of welfare. Surely it is not just income maintenance because she does not have other means of support, and, if it is a matter of right, I think it should persist.
1 recognize that when we were discussing this in developing the Canada Pension Plan and made provisions about what happens to a widow, we included in that legislation a provision such that if a widow marries again, she loses the pension while she is married, but if the second husband dies, she has the right to pick up whichever survivor's pension is the better. I remember the amusement we had in the committee when we discussed that and decided that we did not want to make it possible for a woman to marry half a dozen men and pick up one pension after another. It really was a bit of amusement because those second or third marriages do not last long enough for substantial pensions to be built up.
I am back to my basic contention that if a woman earns a pension by being a wife and mother, she is just as much entitled to that pension, as a right, as if she had earned the income in industry or as if she had earned it by investing money or what have you, and I suggest that dropping of the pension of the widow of a public servant because that widow marries again is wrong and that this should be corrected.
I suggested the other day that I hoped that any changes which are made will also be made for the widows of RCMP personnel or personnel of the armed forces, and my hope and belief are that if the government will start setting its house in order in this area, then there will be the necessary improvements in the rest of society. That is why I want a start to be made. I have been at it for a long time. I hope I do not have to keep at it just as long to win these very necessary improvements in our pension arrangements, necessary in the light of our belief today that men and women really are equal.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to excuse the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Daudlin), who is unavoidably absent tonight because his family is in Ottawa. 1 will try as best I can to answer the hon. member's question and to give some satisfaction as to the possibilities.
Adjournment Debate
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke on many occasions of the benefits provided for widows in retirement plans. He is aware, I am sure, as mentioned in the House last Thursday by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) when he raised the matter, that the government has already begun a general study of the survivors' benefits provided by the pension plans within the civil service. This study was instituted after the adoption of a regulation concerning the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the pension and life insurance plans.
Some people think that providing for survivors' benefits favours married contributors rather than single ones; that is why the amendments proposed were deferred so as not to accentuate this discrimination. However, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its statement declared that these benefits are not discriminatory per se although it did add that some aspects of the survivors' benefits programs were incompatible with the principles of non-discrimination.
In the course of its study, the government will take into account the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as other related matters such as the eligibility requirements for retirement benefits when a spouse remarries and the possibility of splitting up the benefits in the case of a divorce, a matter which he did not necessarily raise. This study will encompass all retirement plans within the federal civil service and will obviously require some time to be carried out. Various recommendations concerning the proposed survivors' benefits discussed in a number of studies recently made public will also be studied.
The issues raised by the hon. member deal with two qualifications on the payment of survivor benefits; one on the amount of the benefits payable, and the other being the requirement that a spouse must have become married to a public servant prior to retirement in order to qualify for benefits. Surviving spouses are entitled at present to approximately 50 per cent of the contributor's unreduced pension. Moreover, if a surviving spouse has minor children, each child receives a pension equal to 10 per cent of the contributor's benefit, so that a spouse with four minor children will receive approximately 90 per cent of the contributor's pension. I know the hon. member knows about all that.
It is quite true that representations have been made in recent years for improvements in the amounts of survivors' pensions; some suggest raising the percentage to 75 per cent, others to 100 per cent.
The second qualification under discussion is the provision in the plans that a survivor's pension is not payable to a spouse of the public servant who married after retirement, or in the case

Adjournment Debate
of a retired member of the Armed Forces or the RCMP, where the marriage took place after age 60.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 have to interrupt the hon. member, regretfully.


Gérald Laniel: All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a costly exercise and I am sure that the minister, being fair to everybody, will bring the necessary modifications.
July 8, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the Elouse is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:13 p.m.

Wednesday, July 9, 1980