1980-10-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the stated intention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) to release on Wednesday some information on some of the public opinion polls taken by the government and also the fact that for three years and four months I have had a written question standing on the order paper asking details of all polls taken for the government by Martin Goldfarb and Goldfarb Associates, including their nature, the results and total cost, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House requests the Minister of Justice to release, in addition to the information on public opinion polls which he plans to give, all details concerning Martin Goldfarb and Goldfarb Associates Limited and the taxpayers' money they have received for government polling since 1968; and that this House condemns with utter contempt the government's failure to supply Parliament and the public with answers to questions on Goldfarb taxpayer-paid polling for over three years while it still continues to allow the Liberal affiliated Goldfarb interests to fill their gluttonous Goldfarb bellies at the public trough.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROSS-COUNTRY MARATHON OF TERRY FOX EXTENSION OF CONGRATULATIONS AND STRIKING OF STAMP IN COMMEMORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. After consultation I am encouraged and assured by the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that Terry Fox, through his Marathon of Hope, has joined the ranks of our outstanding Canadian heroes in his fight against cancer. To those people
suffering from this deadly disease in Canada and throughout the world it is Terry Fox who has given them hope through his courage and determination. Most of us have lost someone dear to cancer, just as I lost my dad. Terry Fox has given us special pride in being Canadians and has touched the hearts of us all.
In recognition of Terry Fox and the Marathon of Hope in the fight against cancer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House extends to Terry Fox hearty congratulations and thanks on behalf of all Canadians and, further, that the government strike a suitable stamp to commemorate Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Seismic signals picked up on Saturday, October 11, indicate the Soviet Union detonated two underground nuclear tests. These tests all add further radiation to our environment and jeopardize the health of all citizens on our planet. All nuclear tests, whether above or below ground, are steps which lead humanity further into the insanity of the nuclear arms race. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House calls on the government of the U.S.S.R. to stop all nuclear testing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 14, 1980


S O. 43 AIRPORTS CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.- PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TERMINAL BUILDING-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In November of 1977 the Government of Canada announced publicly that Canada would proceed immediately with plans for a major redevelopment of the Charlottetown airport. In view of the fact that Prince Edward Island's archaic air terminal building has yet to be replaced despite serious overcrowding and other deplorable conditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House urge Transport Canada to proceed without further delay with the construction of a new Charlottetown airport terminal building and related projects in accordance with the design completed and agreed to in 1977.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HARD RED SPRING WHEAT-ACTION TO CORRECT DISCRIMINATION RESPECTING QUOTAS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I have a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the new grain quotas in western Canada. In view of the fact that all of southern Alberta, served by four Canadian Wheat Board delivery blocks, has been completely overlooked with respect to the new grain quotas for hard red spring wheat, and further in view of the obvious situation that all of southern Alberta is the only area in the wheat board designated area of western Canada without new quotas for hard red spring wheat, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the Minister of Transport, as the senior minister for grain transportation and wheat board matters take immediate action to correct this outright discrimination against southern Alberta with respect to hard red spring wheat quotas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the recent murders of Salvadorian human rights leaders, Maria Magdalena Henriques, Father Manuel Rafael Reyes and family of the catechist, and the murders of many other human rights and community leaders, and in view of the evidence clearly indicating that this is the work of the forces of the Salvadorian junta and paramilitary groups in civilian dress, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House calls on the Government of Canada to condemn the junta of El Salvador, to protest clearly and openly the continued and increasing military support of that junta by the United States, and take international initiatives to assure the safety, health and lives of Salvadorian human rights and community leaders.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR REJECTION OF IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL TAX ON PROVINCIAL RESOURCES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing importance to the future of our country. Given the fact that during the short period of two weeks more than 10,000 residents of British Columbia have already signed a petition in which they express their absolute rejection of any attempt by the Government of Canada to impose a discriminatory federal excise tax against the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from British Columbia, and recognizing also that the mayors and municipalities of British Columbia, meeting in convention last month, passed a resolution unanimously opposing a federal export tax on natural gas, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House rejects absolutely the unilateral imposition of any federal export tax on provincial resources and hereby directs the government to abandon its planned export tax on natural gas, which would discriminate blatantly and unfairly against the residents, the municipalities and the provincial governments of British Columbia and Alberta.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 14, 1980


STATUTE LAW (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS, COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1980 CALL FOR REDUCTION IN PHASING-IN PERIOD RESPECTING BENEFITS TO WIDOWS OF DISABLED VETERANS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House reaffirms its approval of Bill C-40, passed earlier in this session, in which significant improvements were made respecting the widows of disabled veterans, but regrets that the six-and-a-half-year phasing-in period in that bill means that many thousands of widows will still have to wait from one up to six years before they receive the pensions to which, by law, they are now entitled; and this House therefore calls on the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce legislation to cut that phasing-in period in half, or to make it even shorter, for the benefit of widows who deserve their pensions while they are still alive.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is reflecting on a vote which took place in the House. If I understood well the meaning of this motion, the hon. member agrees with the legislation but disagrees with one of the dispositions of that legislation. The vote has already occurred on that legislation and for that reason I feel that for the time being this motion is not acceptable.


An hon. Member:: Three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that there are many precedents-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of a bill being passed in a session and another bill being passed later in that same session amending the previous bill. That is what I am requesting.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, I am prepared to come back at it in another way on another day.


An hon. Member:: Abide by the rules.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I could not understand what the hon. member was saying but I think he said that he was in fact saying something different from the disposition of that legislation and that he will come back another day with a new motion. Is that what the hon. member said?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Then I shall expect another motion on another day.
Oral Questions NATIVE RIGHTS


CALL FOR EXPLANATION OF FAILURE TO FORMULATE POLICY RESPECTING SETTLEMENT OF LAND CLAIMS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the uncertainties caused by the lack of action by both the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his special negotiator from the other place in renegotiating the COPE agreement, which is proving to be unacceptable on account of its having been signed in haste without consultation with the Yukon or Northwest Territories governments, affected municipalities or native groups having overlapping claims, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be called upon by this House to make a statement on motions to explain his failure to formulate and announce a policy which would allow for the fair and just settlement of these outstanding land claims.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General respecting the series of prison disturbances across Canada that have culminated in the disaster at Dorchester penitentiary and the death of William Morrison. The Solicitor General is aware of the hostagetaking incidents and escapes at federal institutions and I am sure has received complaints from those concerned with security and the safety of the guards and staff. He knows a recent search at Dorchester yielded an arsenal of weapons. I want to know whether he has responded to these warnings. I want to know what action he has taken and proposes to take, but mostly, Madam Speaker, I want to know why he has rendered the guards and staff helpless in the face of obvious danger.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I dispute the notion that we have rendered the guards helpless in the face of obvious danger. I should like to inform the House that I have asked the correctional service to begin, and they have begun, to prepare a list of the names of those offenders across the system who are the most violent and dangerous and who represent the greatest threat to order in the institution.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to run them as candidates?

October 14, 1980
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: When 1 see the list and the numbers involved, I will consider proposing some new program within the institutions for protecting not only the guards and the rest of the prison population, but the community in general, from that very violent group.


An hon. Member:: What about the committee report?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I might add that one of the reasons for the problems in our institutions is the trend in recent years, which I welcome very much, and which I think the Elouse does, not to send people to these institutions who can be diverted and who can be punished by fines or other forms of punishment outside the institutions.


Howard Edward Crosby: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The staff at Dorchester penitentiary have complained bitterly about lack of manpower to control the prisoners and the Solicitor General has been told in the House and in committees that the situation is dangerous. Does he acknowledge that he received these warnings respecting manpower, will he tell us how he responded to them, and what can he say about the rumour of more resignations among the staff at Dorchester?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can say that I have not heard that rumour about staff. I am meeting this afternoon or tomorrow with representatives of the union of Solicitor General's employees. I want to discuss with them their grievances and also, of course, the special perspective which they have and which 1 would like to have on dealing with this type of offender.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the great problem in our prisons, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, is the handling of dangerous and desperate prisoners. Yet the Solicitor General disregards the warnings and says that he will take the risks of mixing these dangerous men in the general prison population. Can he now justify these risks in terms of the safety of prison staff and the effective administration of Dorchester?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, again that is not exactly accurate. We have two special handling units across the country for housing the most violent and dangerous offenders. They are put in special handling units and they are not released until a national committee, which studies individual cases, feels their release is justified.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What about your speech in London?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We also have punitive dissociation to which inmates are subject after they engage in incidents.
What concerns me is that so far we have no specific facility for dealing with those who we know are violent, or may be violent and dangerous, and a threat to the institutions and to the guards. It is to that group, the size of which I am not
certain yet but which I will know more about within the next few days, that I would like to direct some special programs.


INQUIRY WHETHER CONDITIONS WILL BE EXAMINED
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my questions are also directed to the Solicitor General. I think the House is rather appalled to learn that only after a study the Solicitor General is perhaps thinking of imposing a fine on some convicted murderers who instigated a problem resulting in the killing of a prison guard on the weekend. Has the Solicitor General considered, as several independent members of this House have come to him and pleaded in regard to Dorchester just this summer alone, setting up some type of inquiry so that at long last we can have some public exposition of the real problems that exist, not only in that sick institution but in a sick system generally speaking?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as to Dorchester, there are three inquiries under way. There is one by a coroner; there is one by the police in the area, which may result in charges being laid; and then there is a special inquiry authorized by the commissioner at my direction which is under way now. The results of the last special inquiry at Dorchester, which I have had for a few days, I read over the weekend. They point as well to this problem of the requirement for some new classification, which I propose to devise within the next while when I see the numbers involved, to deal with this violent, dangerous group, who too often are known ahead of time, but only on the basis of suspicion and special insights on the part of the correctional service, but for whom no special program has been designed with their security needs in mind.


Mr. Beatty:: Appoint them to the parole board.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, as the Solicitor General knows, the coroner feels he has been bypassed by his officials. The RCMP have made extraordinary attempts to make sure that the facts in this case have not been made public and perhaps will not be made public, which I find quite deplorable. Finally, the commissioner's inquiry which the Solicitor General is now talking about is merely correctional service people talking to correctional service people in an in-house type of inquiry in which the report by this minister is never made public. What I think this House and the public are entitled to-and I ask the minister for it today-is an independent public inquiry not only for Dorchester, but perhaps into the whole mess and method of dealing with these dangerous offenders and hostage-taking incidents.


Mr. Nielsen:: That was also a committee recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as to the point of never making the facts public, I would indicate to the House now that I would be prepared, when the facts have been collected
October 14, 1980

by the special inquiry, to make them public in the next few days as soon as I have them.
As to the nature of the special inquiry group, it is true that normally the special inquiry is constituted of members of the Inspector General's office, which is a division of the correctional service of Canada, but in this particular case we have asked to serve on the commission and have the support of a senior official of the provincial correctional service. Therefore, my hon. friend will have his wish before even asking me to have an outsider sit on that commission. There will be an outsider on it who knows a great deal about penitentiaries.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week the minister indicated that he was not aware if the task force report on the future of Sysco had been submitted to the government. Is he now aware that not only was that task force report submitted to the government, but that was done about a month ago? If he is aware that that task force report is now in, is he now prepared to announce the detailed plan of the government to revitalize the steel industry in Cape Breton Island along the lines promised by the Prime Minister almost a year ago?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I met with the steelworkers this morning. In preparation for that meeting, I inquired on Friday as to the status of the results of the task force report and I was advised it would be on hand within a few days. Therefore, if it has arrived, then my information is incorrect.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is not totally unusual for the minister to be incorrect, but I will inform him that the minister responsible for DREE did indeed get the report on September 14; so it has been around for some time. In that context, I would also like to ask him this. In preparing for this morning's meeting, I hope the minister also learned that there is growing potential for export sales of coke in world markets. In order for us to cash in on those export sales, it is essential that we get ahead of our American competitors in modernizing our steel producing facility at Sysco. Does the government have some sense of urgency about this matter, and will the minister be prepared to announce within a matter of days detailed plans for the modernization of Sysco?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is and has been a sense of urgency with respect to developing the possibilities for coke. I believe that some weeks ago the Department of Regional Economic Expansion opened an office in Halifax with the sole purpose of developing interest on the continent
Oral Questions
and elsewhere in establishing a coke plant in the Cape Breton area because it had been established, to my understanding, that such a plant might be viable. So the government has acted long before the hon. member caught on to this idea.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister says he is aware of the matter and is acting with some sense of urgency. He has just demonstrated that he did not know the report was submitted to his government more than a month ago. That is some sense of urgency. An office in Halifax which he announced in order to promote sales will not produce jobs where they are needed most urgently right now, namely in Cape Breton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In the past few weeks alone, over 600 people have been laid off at Sysco. Since there is potential for selling coke if we modernize now-and the man sitting at the minister's left promised in two elections in a row to modernize that facility within the first year after being elected-when is this government going to get off its collective derriere and live up to its election promises to the people of Cape Breton?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate with the hon. member about the arrival of that report. I question very strongly whether his information is accurate, but we can ascertain that later. It is a matter of fact that we can ascertain. My information on Friday was that the results of that task force report would not be available until a few days from now, and would be going forward for study. That is a matter of fact. If it has arrived, all the better.
Having regard to the "man to my left", I would remind the hon. member that when the Prime Minister appeared in Sydney and discussed the Sydney steel plant he repeated a commitment which had already been made by the Government of Canada to the government of Nova Scotia to provide $50 million in support of modernization of the Sydney steel plant. That commitment stills stands and we are awaiting some plan or program which will ensure that when that money and possibly some funds from the provincial government are spent, the Sydney steel plant will have a certain and viable future. I for one am not prepared to advocate spending money unless I have some assurance that the money will result in a viable and certain future for that particular plant.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, in light of reports coming out of the Dorchester penitentiary lately concerning resignation of guards, a state of crisis, hostage-takings and deaths, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. In view of these recent events at Dorchester, will the minister consider what the former Conservative gov-

October 14, 1980
Oral Questions
ernment was considering and acting on, the implementation of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Quite seriously, Madam Speaker, I refer to implementation and action in this House. Will the Solicitor General assure this House that he will allow private members' bills which are now on the order paper to come forward for debate and vote so that we can know whether in conscience the members of this House of Commons are prepared to substitute their mouths for their words on paper and vote on capital punishment? Will the minister give the opportunity to members of this House to vote on capital punishment?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not the member of the government responsible for the business of the House, and the question was about the business of the House. I could remind hon. members opposite that this is an opposition day and they could have chosen any subject that they consider important.


An hon. Member:: That is a cop-out.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in light of the state of crisis, the hostage-taking and the fact that a prison guard has been killed, I consider that a direct cop-out on the issue.
My supplementary question to the minister deals with the report of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs under a former Liberal government which recommended-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I am going to remind the minister of his own report.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am afraid I have to remind the hon. member that he has the floor now in order to ask a question, not to make a speech.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, would the Solicitor General assure this House that he will implement the recommendations of that special subcommittee by setting up a special institution for the hard-core criminals, those serving 25-year sentences, bringing them in from all over Canada? Will the minister implement the recommendation of that subcommittee? Will he give action to their words?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in the first place the inmates serving 25 years are not necessarily the most violent and dangerous in the system. That group includes many of the most violent and dangerous inmates, but there are others as well with extra security needs who have to be considered.
As to the report of the MacGuigan committee, it has been very substantially implemented, as I indicated when I appeared before the justice committee. I would be glad to appear before that committee again on my estimates and go
through those recommendations which my predecessors, including my immediate predecessor, took some care and concern to implement to the degree it was considered practical to do so.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the recent hostagetaking at Dorchester which suggests serious deficiencies in policy-making and/or management at one or more levels of the correctional service of Canada, will the minister reconsider his outright rejection of recommendation No. 24 of the special subcommittee on penitentiaries, chaired by his illustrious colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which strongly recommended the appointment of a board of five members, reporting to the Solicitor General, which would be responsible for the making of policy?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do disagree with that recommendation, and I believe my immediate predecessor, the Conservative solicitor general, did so as well. Because it would remove the accountability of the system to this chamber, and I am not prepared to see that change. Certainly I would be prepared to discuss it with the justice committee, but it would seem unwise to me to interject between Parliament and the correctional service of Canada the sort of board of governors that Air Canada or the CBC has, which reduces the accountability of the institutions in question to the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Solicitor General. If the minister had read the report he would realize that the matter of accountability and responsibility was dealt with by the committee. Inasmuch as the minister has essentially refused to set up a public inquiry which would look into the affair at Dorchester, and at the same time has refused to implement the subcommittee report in toto, as recommended by that committee, will he now implement the intent of recommendation No. 65 of that report by making a special reference of this subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As to whether or not I have read the report, Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that I sat on the committee, I helped gather evidence and I worked on the preparation of that report. On the question of the reference, there is a tremendous volume of work for the justice committee, and I would be happy to deal with questions like that when my estimates, which are now before the committee, are considered. Frankly, it would be for the committee to consider how much of their estimates time they would want to
October 14, 1980

spend on that. There is other work for that committee which I think should have a higher priority.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As you know, the minister has been travelling around the world trying to help Canadian industry and I wonder whether he might be able to give us some information today. He has no doubt noted that the United States auto industry has moved significantly to the manufacturing of small, what they call world cars with front-wheel drive. Given the auto pact and our very close relationship with them, how many of those cars will be manufactured in Canada this year?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my hon. friend back from his recent journeys to Mexico and Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That was great; now answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is my understanding that a number of major motor vehicle manufacturers will be manufacturing smaller cars in Canada in forthcoming model years, and I refer specifically to the Lynx to be assembled in St. Thomas, and the plans of General Motors to assemble smaller cars, 1 think in the next model year, at its plant in Oshawa. Also, in particular, in the coming year the General Motors company, which has recently tripled the size of its transmission plant in Windsor, will begin manufacturing transmissions there for the new General Motors J cars. I think we are making progress in the area of assembling these smaller, down-sized cars in Canada, as well as manufacturing parts for them. However, 1 think we need further progress and I am striving to achieve that progress.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Incidentally, when I was in Washington, the people there mentioned that the minister had been there.
I wonder if the minister might reflect on the ad being run on television which says quite clearly that Americans are not going to be pushed around any longer. That is an ad for Chrysler, and I understand that Chrysler has just announced it will lay off 600 workers in Canada indefinitely on the twenty-fourth of this month. Given that we are not manufacturing small cars and they are not selling big cars, when are we going to stop being pushed around?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Chrysler cars assembled in Canada are down-sized, fuel-efficient-


Ian Deans: Nonsense.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -models of the Dodge Cordoba and Mirada, compared with the ones previously manufactured here, as well as the down-sized Imperial. I hope we will find an improvement in the over-all sales of these cars as the buying season goes on.
I hope also that it will be possible to call back these workers before too long.
My hon. friends are concerned about the Imperial. It is a down-sized, fuel-efficient car, although a luxury car, and with all their supposed concern for workers, I would think hon. members opposite would urge people to buy these cars made in Windsor so that the people in whom they claim to have an interest will continue their work and get back to work.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Can the minister confirm that a significant part of the problem within our prisons is the nature of the institutions themselves and that it was exacerbated by the refusal of the minister's immediate predecessor to proceed with the construction of modern, manageable prisons to replace antiquated, century-old dungeons?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there is in fact no shortage of accommodation for the present inmate population, but it certainly is true, and I agree with my friend, that some of our institutions are very old. The B.C. penitentiary was one which I was pleased to be able to close in my first few weeks on the job. The penitentiary at Laval is now slated to be closed, and two new institutions, one at Don-nacona and one at Drummondville in the province of Quebec, will be constructed over the next four or five years to replace them. However, I want to assure hon. members that the present accommodations of the correctional service of Canada are adequate for the present inmate population.


IRAN-IRAQ CONFLICT-EFFECT ON OIL SUPPLY TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the continuing Iran-Iraq war-in fact, it perhaps is escalating-there is going to be a total shut-off of oil production from those two countries for several months, if not longer. Can the minister tell the House whether he has been in contact with his counterparts in the other signatory nations to the

October 14, 1980
Oral Questions
International Energy Agreement, and can he give us their view as to the likelihood of the sharing rules of the IEA being brought into effect and eastern Canadians being faced with oil shortages of up to 30 per cent?

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question which, I am sure, is of interest to all Canadians. I myself have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with some of my colleagues, and in particular with the American Secretary for Energy, Mr. Duncan, a few weeks ago. In addition, my officials have been in touch with the authorities of the International Energy Agency. According to the agency's findings, there is no reason for the western countries to fear an oil shortage as a result of the current Iran-Iraq conflict, particularly because various countries have accumulated considerable reserves; in addition, the co-ordination between member countries of the International Energy Agency is much better now than it has been in the past.
Consequently, there is no reason to fear the need to apply, in the near future, any of the sharing rules to the various members of the IEA. What the members of the agency are concerned about, however, at this time is preventing the flare-up in prices on the free market which could result from a rush of orders on the part of a number of its members. There has been some co-ordination in that regard and I feel we must rejoice in the fact that there has been no appreciable increase in prices on the free market in the last few weeks. The concern expressed by the hon. member, therefore, does not seem to be justified, especially with regard to eastern Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister's confidence is based on more than just wishful thinking, and I wonder how we can do without the production of these two major oil producers and still not have our future in some doubt.
Given that the Iran-Iraq war is yet another example of the recklessness, if not insanity, of failing to pursue a policy of energy self-sufficiency with vigour, has the minister, if he is unwilling to make those sensible but tough decisions which are necessary to make this country self-sufficient in oil, at least taken a final decision or any decision or action with regard to some strategic storage in eastern Canada so that at the time of the next crisis, if it occurs in mid-winter, Atlantic Canadians will not be faced with wholesale closures of factories, schools and other public buildings?


Mr. Lalonde:: Madam Speaker, the only time when Canada had to face such a danger was in November and December last year while the party of my hon. colleague was in power. Since then the member countries of the International Energy Agency and Canada have considerably increased their reserves. In addition, my colleague should know that Saudi Arabia and
certain other countries have agreed to increase their production to offset, to a large extent at least, the discontinuation of supplies from Iraq and Iran. So conditions are such that once again there is no reason to fear that in the coming months there will be a shortage of oil in Canada.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On Thursday the deputy government leader in the Senate, a distinguished and learned lawyer from Ontario, supported the claim of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to offshore oil and gas. On Friday the Prime Minister hinted that he may be prepared to make resource concessions to the provinces. This is an area in which there is already undisputed jurisdiction under the current provisions of the BNA Act. Was the deputy leader of the government in the Senate speaking for the government when he supported the claim of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
That leads me to the next part of my question. Does the Prime Minister intend, in the concessions he has hinted he is prepared to make, to include rights of the coastal provinces to offshore oil and gas?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not had occasion to see what remarks were made in the other place, but I will gladly refer to them. If, as the hon. member says, it is correct to say that the rights of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are established beyond dispute, it is hard for me to understand why they have not accepted a reference to the Supreme Court, which we have suggested repeatedly over the past years. If their claims are beyond dispute, why do they not establish them in a reference to the court? I have not heard an answer to that yet.


NATURAL GAS-REPORTED ANNOUNCEMENT BY GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS RESPECTING EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
1 have a question for the Prime Minister with respect to an important announcement emanating from Boston today made by the governor of Massachusetts, Edward King, in which he described a new relationship between Canada and the United States which involves a ten-year multimillion dollar contract to pump Canadian natural gas to the northeastern United States. I realize that this is probably subject to confirmation by officials of the two countries but, if this is the case, why have we apparently advanced in priority pumping gas to the
October 14, 1980

northeastern United States ahead of pumping gas to the maritimes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -which the Prime Minister specifically promised in a speech given to the Halifax Board of Trade on January 25 of this year and which was one of seven specific commitments he announced at that time-the Minister of Labour will remember; he was there-to help the maritimes get immediate access to natural gas? 1 wonder if the Prime Minister could give the House a bit more information on this apparent anomaly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not been made acquainted with that statement by the governor of Massachusetts, but the House will recall that a few years ago when the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Gillespie, was proposing the idea of a pipeline, the idea was that it would be built to the Atlantic provinces, and then there could be exports of gas to the United States after it had served the Atlantic provinces.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I welcome what appears to be some sort of assurance from the Prime Minister in this respect, and I remind him and make a representation to him that until we get a natural gas pipeline to Atlantic Canada we cannot take advantage of our natural geographic position to have the terminal point for LNG in the Strait of Canso area. Would he please hurry up with his implementation of this specific commitment? I would ask him to reread his speech so that there can be no doubt as to any vagueness, as apparently there is in this commitment made to a surrogate, Gordon Gibson, on the west coast, as brought out by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the decision of the National Energy Board was made public several months ago. My hon. friend knows the reasons why the National Energy Board did not see fit to approve at that time the immediate completion of the pipeline to the maritimes. We have indicated that this was still our preferred position. There is an appeal now before the Energy Board respecting its decision, and I suggest that my hon. friend should wait a few weeks before hearing more about this.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC. In 1978 the Liberal government made a long-term commitment to municipalities through the community services contri-
Oral Questions
butions program which integrated many important services, such as neighbourhood improvement, sewage treatment facilities and plants for conversion of waste into energy. This program was supposed to be the solution to a host of municipal problems. Recent statements by the minister have contributed to the fear that the program is to be discontinued. Will the minister assure the House that there is no truth to this rumour?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in conversations with each of the provincial counterparts charged with responsibility in housing, yes, indeed, the government is reviewing this program to see whether it will be continued beyond this year. We are looking at the program because nationally it is a program of some $250 million which, in essence, is transferred from the federal government through the province to the municipalities. No doubt it assists the municipalities. As a former mayor I know well the advantages of that program. However, the program is under review. Before the year end I hope to have an answer for the provincial ministers and the municipalities. My objective would be, if the program cannot be continued, that some other way be found to assist the municipalities with their objectives.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Since the minister is unable to give us a clearcut commitment for the continuation of the program, and he has indicated that some substitute program will be put in its place should the other one be discontinued, can he also assure the House that the specific projects under the existing program will be fully funded to completion?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, on the last point, yes, the programs in place will be funded. The terms of the contract specify that and those commitments will be made. But I did not say that a substitute program would be found; I said that that will be my advice to the government and it is my hope that there will be a program.


THE CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister following the reasoning of the Prime Minister in response to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. Since the Prime Minister is so sure of the legality of his government's position on the constitutional resolution now before the House of Commons, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, following the advice he gave through the hon. member for St. John's East to the government of Newfoundland, would be prepared to make a reference of that matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with the Prime Minister that this resolution is entirely within the competence of the Government of Canada, or whether the Supreme Court

October 14, 1980
Oral Questions
of Canada will disagree with the Prime Minister, as it did in the case of Bill C-60?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not only mixing apples and oranges, he is throwing bananas into it too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: You are throwing baloney.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that in the case of Bill C-60 the reference was on section 91 of the constitution, something that is in there now-


Mr. Crosbie:: Sour grapes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the Supreme Court was judging whether or not under section 91 the federal government had certain powers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They said that you were wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The courts always say that one party is wrong and the other is right. In the case of the offshore it is the same thing. There is a division of power between the federal and provincial governments. It is a matter for the courts to say whether that power lies in the federal government or in the provinces.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about patriation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The matter of patriation is a matter for the House of Commons. It is before the House of Commons now because there is no provision in the constitution for patriation and there is nothing for the courts to judge upon.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in the middle of all of the baloney and bananas we have received from the Prime Minister, I did not note a response to my question. My question is: will the Government of Canada agree to a reference as to the constitutionality of the action they are proposing in the resolution that is now before the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered the preamble which was baloney and bananas. As to the question itself, I want to see the House study this matter. Then once it is adopted, of course, any citizen or any province can refer the matter to the courts if it so decides. But it is not the intention of the government to ask the courts to decide upon a matter which Parliament itself has before it.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are unreliable.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE RESPECTING HERITAGE CULTURE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Many
ethno-cultural groups in Canada are expressing concern that their heritage language and culture will not be protected by the proposed resolution respecting the Constitution of Canada. This fear was expressed by delegates attending two conventions this weekend, the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress conference in Winnipeg and the delegates attending the Canadian Polish Congress convention in Ottawa. Because of these concerns, would the Prime Minister please clarify whether section 22 or some other section of the proposed resolution does in fact guarantee these Canadians the preservation and further development of their heritage culture, which of course includes their heritage language?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the intention was to address that question in the preamble, and I refer the hon. member to the preamble we submitted to the provinces last June. Unfortunately, the provinces have refused to accept that preamble, and since-


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have preferred to present to me a preamble which was closer to the wording of the Premier of Quebec, who wanted the idea of self-determination to be included, and of course we could not accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE REFERENCE OF PATRIATION QUESTION TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I think that it was on May 28, 1946, that the Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent said, and I quote:
There are other matters given by the act to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments; with respect to any of those it is my view that it would not be possible to deal with them without the consent of those to whose jurisdiction they have been confided.
Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the unilateral patriation of the constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered the second question of the hon. member a moment ago when speaking to the Leader of the Official Opposition. As for the first part of the question, it seems to me that the member must be quoting what Mr. St. Laurent said when the first paragraph of section 91 was amended. He was then saying that some matters were outside federal jurisdiction when it wanted to amend its own constitution. The distribution of powers indeed appear in the first paragraph of section 91.1 would like to point out that we do not alter the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments in the resolution now under consideration. We do not alter what Mr. October 14, 1980

St. Laurent said, that is, that the distribution of powers could not be affected by a federal amendment.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
It is very clear to me that the project aims at reducing the power of the provinces over some matters such as language rights. In my opinion the powers of the provinces will clearly be changed by this resolution. Does the Prime Minister agree? If not, could these matters be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have just given the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition a negative answer to the same question.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSIONER
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether, contrary to general public belief, the consolidated revenue fund is suffering from an overabundance of surplus.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not yet, Madam Speaker.


John Albert Gamble: In light of that rather terse but succinct answer, I ask the minister whether the expenditure just recently incurred by Maxwell Yalden, Commissioner of Official Languages, of $1,360,000 in purchasing 200,000 Parker Brothers quality language games for free distribution is an appropriate expenditure of public funds and, if so, where Mr. Yalden acquired the authority, under the Official Languages Act, for that kind of expenditure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, as I understand it, Mr. Yalden as the Official Languages Commissioner is an officer of the House of Commons and therefore any member of the House or a parliamentary committee would not only be entitled, but would be obligated, to question Mr. Yalden on the reasons for spending such sums of money, just as members can question the Chief Electoral Officer or other persons who are directly responsible to Parliament and not to the government.
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF LNG STORAGE FACILITIES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last summer, Petro-Canada announced the construction of large LNG storage facilities. It would appear that consultant firms have chosen two sites: Gros-Cacouna and Canso in Newfoundland. Can the Minister advise us as to the progress of these studies and, if so, when does he expect Petro-Canada or himself to make a definite announcement?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Joliette that Canso is in Nova Scotia and not in Newfoundland as he indicated. Secondly, Petro-Canada has not announced a decision regarding this project. Rather, it announced a pilot project for the shipment of natural gas from the Arctic to southern Canada. This project will be submitted for consideration to the National Energy Board which will decide whether or not it should be retained. In its submission to the NEB, Petro-Canada proposed two sites, Gros-Cacouna in Quebec and Canso, in the Strait of Canso in Nova Scotia. This question will also be considered by the NEB which will make a decision that will be made public and will be subject to government approval if indeed there is to be an export of gas from Canada. In the meantime, I think we must let Petro-Canada proceed with the necessary studies on the matter and let the National Energy Board do its work. That is all the information I have on the subject for now. As I indicated, the decision at this point is up to Petro-Canada and the National Energy Board.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, since Canso is in Nova Scotia, and also in the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance if I am not mistaken, can I have the assurance that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as a Quebecker, will have as much influence as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on the choice of a location?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, every citizen is entitled to be heard by the National Energy Board. However, it would be rather unusual for me as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make representations to the National Energy Board or to exert any kind of pressures on the board. Indeed, neither myself nor my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, intend to do any such thing. I am certain that the decision will be made in light of what is economically the wisest for Petro-Canada and Canada as a whole. I wish to assure my hon. colleague that this decision will eventually be made in the interest of all Canadians, including Quebeckers.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
October 14, 1980

[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on a National Trading Corporation-Mr. Flis.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-616, to amend the National Anthem Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the House will recall that earlier in this session, in a rather unprecedented act, the House symbolized its commitment to national unity by endorsing the national anthem as being the official national anthem of Canada. Circumstances throughout the country made this symbolic act necessary.
It is also known to all members of the House that there are members here who made certain compromises in respect to that, as some of the words in the anthem do not adequately reflect the ethnic make-up of our country. Indeed, one-third of our population cannot lay claim to the word "native" in the anthem and, in his wisdom, the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), who introduced and piloted the bill through the House, said in his speech that it was the intention to allow a private member's bill to proceed, to make the changes to at least two words in the anthem. Madam Speaker, I want to give the House the opportunity to make these changes through my bill.


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

[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. 350, 744, 1,011, 1,231 and 1,445.


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


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. (a)	74*
(b) (i)	17
(ii) 3
*Four on secondment Two on executive interchange One on executive development leave
2.	(a)	76*
(b) (i)	16
(ii) 3
*Four on secondment One on educational leave
3.	Structural changes have taken place within the commis-sion/department since March 31, 1979. There has not been any effect on the number of SXs employed.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Finance and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: In so
far as the Department of Finance Canada is concerned:
(a)	8 (b)	10 Name	Amount paid $138,966.85 94,963.71 Administrative contracts Number of	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980 CostBIRO Inc.	contracts 1	$ 45,107.75Bruce E. Macdonald	1	25,381.75Societe Gamma Ltd.	2	34,291.50E.M. Jay Productions	1	1,456.20S.A. Kelly Management Consulting Ltd.	1	5,100.00Carty, E.B.	1	24,675.00Shulhan, Donna	1	2,954.65Total	8	$138,966.85
October 14, 1980

Policy Contracts
Order Paper Questions
Administrative contracts
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Name	Number of	Cost
	contracts	
Clarkson Gordon & Co.	1	$ 7,655.37William M. Mercer Ltd.	1	4,800.00MacCormick, Katherine	1	981.00Bird, R.N.	1	300.00Calvet, Louis Augustin Racine, Larochelle &	1	9,500.25Associates Inc.	1	39,287.09K.S. Fortune Associates	1	12,700.00Clark, H.D.	1	7,990.00Grant, A. Cameron	1	11,250.00Brooks, Neil	1	500.00Total	10	S94.963.71In so far as the office of the Auditor General is concerned:	August 1, 1978 to May 15, (b) none	1980-(a) 61 administrative contracts	-$583,593Administrative contracts	August 1, 1978 to May 15, 1980Name	Number of contracts	PaymentsE.A.C. Amy & Sons Ltd.	7	$ 36,631Beamish, R.E.	1	2,000Bolla, J.W.	2	14,628Clarkson Gordon	3	25,308Coopers & Lybrand	2	360Cutler, M.	1	38,938Dannis Management Ltd.	1	10,200Data Profiles Ltd.	2	3,465Demesmaker, L.	3	75,982Donnelly, B.	3	46,945Extral Consultants Limited L'Institut des Annonceurs	2	9,700Noel Gauthier	5	59,569Management Planning Institute	1	23,652Mankowski, M.	3	15,332M.R. Communication Consultants Inc.	4	18,500Price Waterhouse Associates	2	3,253R.J. Quesnel Associates	2	50,010Rosen, L.S.	1	11,644P.S. Ross & Partners	1	488I.P. Sharp Associates Ltd.	1	900Sinclair, S.	1	392Systems Dimensions Ltd.	2	3,845Thorne Riddell	1	2,280Touche, Ross & Co.	2	75,963Traduction Murielle Arsenault Ltee	1	14,144Williams, N.L.	1	7,000Word Processing International	4	28,210H.B. Zimmer Professional Corporation	2	4,254Total	61	$583,593
In so far as the department of insurance is concerned: None.
In so far as the tariff board is concerned:
(a)	One-$6,841
(b)	None
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Name	Number of contracts	Cost
Bureau of management		
consulting	i	$6,841


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Does the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise, have a contract with any individual or firm outside the department for the delivery of mail and/or printed materials to and from the Sir Richard Scott building and, if so (a) what is the name of the individual or firm (b) for how long have they held the contract (c) on what date did the current contract commence and on what date does it terminate (d) what is the value of the contract?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Woltemade & Wright	as of May 15, 1980 May 15/80-Mar. 31/81	511,970.Little John Delivery	as of May 1, 1980	May 1/80-Mar. 31/81	$10,000.


Mrs. Mitchell: 1.	How many foreigners are now working on the Dome Petroleum dredge Aquarius?
2.	Which department issued visas to these foreign nationals and for what reason?
3.	Which departments can issue visas to allow foreign nationals to work in Canada?
4.	Can the Water Transport Commission issue work visas to foreign nationals?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Eighteen employment authorizations were issued to foreign nationals to work on the dredge Aquarius.
2.	Canada Employment and Immigration issued these employment authorizations to fill positions which could not be filled by Canadians or permanent residents.
3.	Canada Employment and Immigration.
4.	No.


Mr. Cooper: For the year (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979, what was the total number of books that were seized by the Crown under section 14 of the Customs Tariff Act and, in each case (i) what was the number of persons charged and/or convicted (ii) what was the title, author and publisher of the book?


Bill Rompkey: The information requested is not available. See the reply to question No. 2,007 answered May 23, 1973.

October 14, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
[English)


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise to refer to two particular matters with regard to answering questions on the order paper. The first matter I would like to refer to deals with question No. 15 which has now stood on the order paper for three years and four months.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It asks a very simple question to this effect: how much money has Martin Goldfarb and Goldfarb Associates and Consultants received from the government for conducting government polls? This question has been on the order paper for three years and four months and has not yet been answered.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) assured this House a few days ago that on Wednesday of this week, and possibly later next week, he will table information about certain government polls. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to assure this House that this question concerning Martin Goldfarb will either be answered at the same time on Wednesday, the same day-because after all he has had three years and four months of notice-or whether the Minister of Justice will include it in his answer.
To quote an old phrase, "Belly up to the bar, boys", it seems to me that with Goldfarb it is "Belly up to the trough and dig into the public funds". I think that it is time the public knew how much money-and it is a lot of money-is going to this enterprise, which is really the chief pollster of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The other point which I would like to raise, Madam Speaker, is with regard to the parliamentary secretary who has been widely quoted by the news media that he would consider or suggest that members be limited to ten or possibly 12 questions on the order paper. Such a move would have the effect of muzzling any member from asking a question if such a proposal were adopted, and I would like to know whether or not it is government policy. After all, if any member of this House were to put ten questions on the order paper, there is nothing in the rules to indicate that they must be answered and, by
leaving the questions on the order paper unanswered, under this proposal the government could simply put a member in the position where he could never put another written question on the order paper.
If this is the policy of a government which says that it is in favour of freedom of information, then I think we should know about it, because it is a serious breach of the rights of members. If the hon. parliamentary secretary has been misquoted, then I think now is the time to tell the House that he has been misquoted. If he should perhaps be speaking on his own behalf, rather than on the government's behalf, then I would contend under this point of order that, because he is the member who answers questions on the order paper in the House on behalf of the government, it is very difficult for him to dissociate himself from that function and to speak privately, and therefore the position from which he makes his utterances should be qualified.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have two very brief points. The parliamentary secretary said, according to these publicized remarks, that the cost of questions on the order paper was between $100 and $1,000 per question per member, and that this was costing the taxpayer too much money. I do not think that it costs too much money to let the public know what is going on when it is with regard to legitimate information, especially when some of the answers are not worth $100, $1,000, but only ten cents, if that.
On my final point, Madam Speaker, I hope we will not be treated to a lecture by the parliamentary secretary on percentages. We usually receive such comments from him as, "We've answered 80 per cent of this member's questions, we've answered 70 per cent of this member's questions, or 75 per cent of that member's questions. The government tries to make it sound as though it is gloriously serving this country when the actual truth is that it answers questions with either a nonanswer, or only questions which will do no harm to the government. But for three years and four months it has neglected a question which it is literally afraid to answer.


An hon. Member:: You guys can have him.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The hon. member sitting next to the parliamentary secretary can have his little jokes and asides, but I say that it is time that the members opposite stopped joking and said to their own government, "it is time we had some answers and freedom of information in this country".


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, taking a cue from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) with regard to his closing remarks, I should say that the government has a freedom of information bill on the order paper, and we hope to proceed with it very soon. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) last week, I believe, made an excellent presentation in which he said that a certain number of polls would be released by the government this week. I will bring the hon. member's question No. 15. to the attention of the Minister of Justice. -
October 14, 1980

On the larger point raised by the hon. member with regard to the use of questions on the order paper, it is quite correct that I have been quoted publicly on this subject in recent weeks. My public comments have emanated from the fact that the hon. member himself on numerous occasions has questioned me before this House after I have given a list of questions and, in my view, has tried to embarrass the government or score political points over the fact that some of these questions were not answered.


Mr. McDermid:: Really?


Walter David Baker: He would never do that!


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member says that his question has been on the order paper for three years and four months. I suggested before that the hon. member's own government could very well have answered that question during its brief tenure in office.


Walter David Baker: You didn't give us time.


David Michael Collenette: So, I do not think that is an accurate point to make. Since taking on this job I have tried very hard to come to grips with the number of questions on the order paper and to ensure that we give an adequate reply to all members. The tabling of answers last Monday to 446 questions means that we have now answered 65 per cent of the questions presently on the order paper.
I should state that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville is, to my knowledge, the most frequent user of the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Good for him; that's his job.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps that is his job, and I can say that the government has answered half of his questions. I would hope he would be at least satisfied with that performance as of today, but I want to get it up to 100 per cent, and I am trying. I spent some time over the summer chasing some of these answers down. The result was the tabling of 446 answers last week.
I would draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to Beau-chesne's fifth edition, chapter 9, at page 129, on the definition of oral and written questions. It appears to me-and this is a personal observation although I deal with these questions every day as part of my duties as parliamentary secretary-that some of the questions which I answer in the House-and I read every answer tabled in this House-really go beyond the bounds of the propriety of written questions as outlined in Beauchesne's at page 129, citation 357.
It is my belief, and I have mentioned it to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who, as hon. members know, is an ardent proponent of parliamentary reform, that when we get agreement among all parties to proceed with reform, we should not only look at sitting hours and length of speeches, but also at the propriety of questions on the order paper as to whether or not members are really going beyond the original intent of our parliamentary practice in posing such questions.
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
I hope that there will be general agreement among all sides of the House that we look at this matter on an ongoing basis. It worries me, as a member of Parliament who is charged, as are all members, with making sure that the public's money is spent wisely, to see an inordinate number of questions, many of which are merely a series of variations on one major theme and the answers to which could be easily obtained if the member's secretary were to call the minister's office. That way the question would not have to go on the order paper and be translated into both official languages, or go through the departmental procedures which we have established.
I was quoted in the press a while ago as saying that just to table a yes or no answer to any one question costs approximately $75 of the taxpayer's money. Most of the answers which are tabled in the House are of much longer variety and some of them run into pages. The process costs quite a lot of money and it is my personal belief that members of the House, perhaps through the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, should be looking into the matter. Members of the House should be concerned as to whether or not this particular part of our parliamentary procedure is being followed in the appropriate manner.
There are limits in question period as to the number and types of questions a member can ask. You, Madam Speaker, have laid down a number of rules, or reiterated the proper form for questions in the question period. We have certain procedures for private members' hour. Not all private members' bills come up for debate, yet the one area of our procedures where I think we have an open-ended situation is that of questions on the order paper. In the interest of efficiency and in the interest of fairness to all members who want to ask questions, perhaps we should consider placing a limit on the number of questions that can be asked on the order paper.
I should say in conclusion, Madam Speaker, that if all members of the House of Commons put as many questions on the order paper as does the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, and they could very well do that-


An hon. Member:: Like the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


David Michael Collenette: -then very few members would be totally satisfied with the answers, because the resulting paperwork and cost to the public treasury would virtually impede a useful flow of answers to such questions.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 know it was a parliamentary secretary speaking and not a minister, but I want the record to be absolutely clear that if there is any movement by the government to limit the right of members to put questions on the order paper, it will be opposed as vigorously as any thing the hon. parliamentary secretary has ever seen in this House. That is the first thing, Madam Speaker.

October 14, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
The second thing is with respect to the interpretation of the rules. As I understand it, Parliament's function is to make government accountable. I think the rules of this House ought to be and have been, to a great degree-even Beauchesne's- construted in a way that would not limit members of Parliament-not just members of the opposition but members of Parliament generally-from holding ministers accountable.
When my friend says it is easy to pick up the phone and call a minister's secretary and get an answer, 1 think he is forgetting two things. First of all, a minister's secretary is likely not to answer a question. I wonder if the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) secretary, or a minister's secretary, whose attention is directed to a question from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), would answer such questions fully? The parliamentary secretary knows that is not so.
What is much more important is that questions on the order paper save the time of the House of Commons so that it can deal with other things. That has always been the preoccupation of the government-to save the time of the House of Commons. More than that, the answer to a question on the order paper appears on the public record; a telephone call does not appear on the public record.
I support absolutely, and I think all my colleagues and any thinking member of this House would support absolutely, the right of any private member of this House of Commons to question the ministry, as the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has consistently questioned the ministry over the years.
The parliamentary secretary might put the same thing to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who is one of the most consistent and tough questioners on the government side. The right is not just an opposition right; it is a private members' right to hold the government accountable. I tell the parliamentary secretary now that if there is any feeling in the House that there is some support for the idea that such right be limited in some way, it will be resisted in every way within the law.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) seeking the floor to speak on the same point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises not from what the hon. parliamentary secretary said, but from what he did not say. What I am getting at is that he, in effect, through certain news media, threatened members of this House that he would recommend ten or 12 questions on the order paper be the maximum allowed. I feel that this interferes with the parliamentary privileges of every member on this side of the House or, as our
House leader has pointed out, on that side of the House as well. If that is government policy, then 1 think we should know it. That was not clarified. If it is government policy, then I think I have a legitimate question of privilege, that my privileges and those of every member of the House are being interfered with by an arrogant government that does not want to give information.
I should like to know if whoever the acting prime minister might be, since most of the cabinet have beat it, or the parliamentary secretary, who remains, will now dissociate the government from his statement that they would recommend limiting us to ten or 12 questions. Otherwise, I reserve the right to move that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee as a breach of privileges, in that it is a threat to members of Parliament.


David Michael Collenette: 1 shall not speak for long, Madam Speaker, but since this involves comments that I allegedly have not made in the House, I fail to see how the hon. member has a question of privilege since hs is referring to something that I have not said here.
In terms of public statements that I may have made in response to questions from reporters, I would point out that I have not gone out and sought a forum on this subject. I have been asked questions, primarily by Canadian Press, and I also talked to The Globe and Mail because of the comments made by the hon. member from time to time. I was just supplying information.
Let me make one thing clear, Madam Speaker. Whether I am a parliamentary secretary does not enter into this. Every member of the House has the right to express an opinion. I have that right, as does the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt). I have every right to speak, even publicly, and advocate a change in the rules of procedures of the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: Shame.


David Michael Collenette: We all have that right. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) may disagree, but he should not deny me the same rights that he is vigorously defending for his colleague, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.
I am speaking in a personal way, Madam Speaker. I have mentioned this matter to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), in the course of conversations. He is a great proponent of parliamentary reform and has made certain public statements on the subject. I hope that when this matter goes to committee we can look at the whole question.
In no way did I threaten the hon. member. In fact, I would hope that the hon. member is beyond such threats.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 suppose the hon. member would want me to remind him that he was referring to a statement made outside the House. A statement made outside the House cannot be referred to, and cannot bring about a question of privilege.
October 14, 1980

There has been some debate, and I will recognize that. I had to listen to the hon. member until he exposed the reason for which he had a question of privilege. I must say, however, that in this particular case there might be a grievance, and maybe an important one, but there is no question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its mismanagement of Canada's energy situation with the consequent loss of economic development opportunities and increased threat to the nation's energy security.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to propose this motion to the House. This government's energy policy, or I think we can say this government's lack of an energy policy, has left Canada and Canadians increasingly exposed to shortages of oil from other countries and has cost Canadians literally billions of dollars in lost energy opportunities through industrial development. That is the reason for the motion, which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its mismanagement of Canada's energy situation with the consequent loss of economic development opportunities and increased threat to the nation's energy security.
This government has become totally preoccupied with the division of revenues between the federal government and the oil producing provinces. It has run, over the past number of years, the financial affairs of this country in such a haphazard, slipshod fashion, that it has run up a deficit which this year will amount to some $14 billion.
This government views oil revenues as the easiest, most painless way of reducing this huge figure, but in so doing it is splitting the country. It is increasing the exposure of Canadians to a shortage of oil and, in myopia, it is cutting Canadians off from the most tremendous economic development and job-producing opportunities in our history.
Recently, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been running an advertising campaign, the objective of which is to "reduce the level of public concern about energy". Those last words were taken from a document leaked from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which set out the objective of the advertising program. Let us look at that objective against the background of what is happening in this country and in the world today.
In 1979 Canada imported some 430,000 barrels of oil a day from countries such as Venezuela and the Middle East. This is about 25 per cent of our consumption of about 1.8 million barrels a day. What greater reason for concern can there be
Energy
when two of the largest exporting countries are at war with each other? Possibly that objective will change in 1985 when our imports from these countries will be some 700,000 barrels a day, because that is what the National Energy Board is projecting.
In 1981 shipments through the Sarnia-Montreal oil pipeline will commence to decline. By 1985 that pipeline may cease to transport western oil. If no further oil discoveries are made in western Canada-and there have been practically none until a recent discovery in the Pembina area in the past few months- the province of Ontario will begin using foreign oil in 1985. That is right, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec will be 100 per cent reliant on foreign sources for their oil, and in 1985 Ontario will also be moving into that very exposed position. That is the nature of our oil supply picture today. That is the result of the shortsighted energy policies of the Liberal government, policies which took us from being a net exporter in 1975, five short years ago, two years after the first oil shock, to our exposed position today.
Any number of experts have been predicting that the likelihood of a world-wide shortage of oil in the next few years is increasing, and increasing dramatically. There was an article in The Globe and Mail this morning setting out some of the aspects of this supply problem in relation to the war between Iraq and Iran. I am sorry to say the answer by the minister to a question put by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) ignored the message this news report was conveying to Canadians. The world has managed to cope with the Iranian shortages starting about one and a half years ago, and so far it has managed to cope with the shortages which are starting to occur resulting from the Iraq-Iran war. But we should not be managing our energy policy oblivious to these threats, particularly when we have it within our control to protect ourselves from these shortages through a policy of developing our own oil reserves.
The Economist of London said it all in one paragraph, as follows:
The war between Iraq and Iran has changed the balance of power in the oil-producing Gulf. An Iraq which has people and guns and an Arab Bismarck of a leader willing to use them (and after this war may also control, directly or indirectly, Iran's potential 6 million barrels) will loom over a humiliated and weakened Iran, a Saudi Arabia which has oil but hardly any people, and the assorted statelets of the Gulf coastline. That is the local consequence.
The next sentence should be the concern of Canadians:
For the wider world, whose factories and ships and aircraft and cars depend on the Gulfs already overpriced oil, the main lesson of this war is its reminder that no hidden hand can be counted on to steer the flow of oil safely through the political rivalries of this turbulent region.
The world is laughing at us today. We are the country which was a net exporter in 1975. We are the country which ignored the danger signals of 1973, signals which other countries took so seriously. We are the country which now imports 25 per cent of its oil needs. The world is shaking its head, saying, "How could they have blown it so badly?" And still we have not learned. This government today is following policies which increase our reliance on foreign oil, which increase the risk of shortages in our country. Canadians should be demanding

October 14, 1980
Energy
energy policies which will protect us from the whims and wars of such a volatile place as the Middle East. In the face of this, the propaganda machine of the Liberal government is telling Canadians to be complacent, to be confident of the future; "the government has everything under control; Big Brother will look after you." This, Mr. Speaker, is an unforgivable manipulation of public opinion to camouflage the lack of policy to date and to prepare the ground for what, from all reports, appears to be a totally misdirected policy for our energy future.
Rather than taking as its theme the objective of reducing concern in our energy position, the government should be attempting to increase the sense of urgency of Canadians to get on with the job of achieving self-sufficiency, to bring on new sources of energy, to increase conservation efforts, and to reduce our dangerously large dependence on foreign imported oil.
One must question why the government has been so complacent and why its advertising policy should attempt to transfer this complacency to Canadians. Why is it that the opposition must bear the burden of carrying that message to Canadians? This is the second time we have had an opposition day devoted to the problems of supply in this country and the problems of the international disruptions which are going to cause great problems to our country in the future. Why is it that we in opposition must pit our resources against the power of government and its propaganda machine? I have tried hard to understand those reasons. The simplest reason is to hide the obvious shortcomings of government policy to date. Another reason is that any move to self-sufficiency must involve a higher price for oil.
The commitment of the Liberal Party in the last election to hold down the price of oil and gasoline is a most shortsighted policy objective. The disastrous consequences of that are becoming clearer every day. I will discuss some of these later in my remarks. In the meantime, the propaganda machine must operate to deflect the concerns of Canadians from the serious short-term dangers of that policy.
The final reason, I believe, is one which must be viewed in the context of the current constitutional discussions. The Liberal government is trying to split the west from the rest of the country. That is clear. It has stated that its energy policy will "poison the atmosphere"-again, that is a quote from another leaked government document-of future constitutional negotiations. Energy shortages are inevitable because of its policy shortcomings. What better way of deflecting criticism is there than to say that things are in good shape now and, when the shortages come, to blame it on the west? I could let my thinking run further, but I will not succumb to that temptation. However, it is a sad commentary in today's political world that one must push oneself in more Machiavellian terms in order to attempt to understand the policy objectives of this government.


An hon. Member:: Anything for power.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: At any rate, the clear results of the policy shortcomings are that we must plan for a period of oil supply interruptions, allocations, and rationing. We must plan for periods when some Canadians will not have enough oil to heat their homes, drive their cars, run their tractors and run their fishing boats. We must plan for the shock that our manufacturing, our mining, our paper, our tourism and our transportation industries will suffer when emergency allocation commences, when we have the gas line-ups which have been such a serious problem in the United States' economy. We must expect to suffer a far larger shock when higher prices for offshore oil are forced into our economy in emergency conditions. These are the conditions which we must anticipate and plan for. But they are conditions which are so unnecessary. They are conditions which we could have avoided with a comprehensive energy policy in place, similar to that announced by our government last December.
The Clark government took, as the keystone to its energy policy, the clear objective of energy self-sufficiency. Our fundamental concern was supply. Security of supply was at the core of all aspects of our policy. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, and in a northern climate such as ours it is a critical element to the livelihood of all Canadians. We were concerned about the impact of the policy on low and middle-income earners. That is why we introduced an energy tax credit, to protect certain groups of Canadians from the price impact of the policy. But without a supply of oil, the price becomes irrelevant.
The damage, both real and potential, which this lack of energy policy is inflicting on the country, is incalculable. We, in the official opposition, urge the government to take as the central theme of their energy policy the objective of self-sufficiency, and to do those things which are necessary to bring on new sources of supply, to avoid the hardship that consumers, particularly those in Ontario and the east, will suffer if shortages occur. We urge this government to reverse the ill-conceived and dangerous direction which their policies have followed in recent years.
The picture which we are facing is not without its bright spots. Canada has the potential of being one of the great energy producers in the world. The tragedy is that we are not capitalizing on it. Canada's energy future can be strong. There is a tremendous opportunity for economic development based on energy if we can get our act together, if we can grasp the significance of this potential and translate it into policy. For some months now I have been referring to our energy future as an opportunity for our over-all economic development.
The energy industry is the growth industry of the 1980s and 1990s. Canada needs some $300 billion in investment in its energy sector during the 1980s, and at least double that in the 1990s. To put that into perspective, our total national income in 1980 will be about $300 billion as well. In other words, we will be spending in the next ten years, in the oil and gas, electrical, pipeline and other energy industries, an amount
October 14, 1980

equal to the total size of our economy today. And this spending will occur across Canada.
This growth will not happen to nearly the extent possible with the attitude and approach which the government has shown to date. There is no energy policy. The Liberals defeated us on December 13, ten months ago yesterday, on the issue of our budget and energy policy, and to date there has been nothing to take its place. In the meantime Canadian industry loses valuable time and opportunities to take advantage of our natural strengths. We have job opportunities in the next seven years in these industries to employ some 350,000 throughout Canada. Many of these will be created by equipment purchases totalling an estimated $120 billion, much of it in central Canada.
The potential stimulus to our manufacturing industry is virtually without parallel in our history. The huge energy projects provide a chance to expand and modernize manufacturing industries in order to provide the wide range of goods and services needed. Project engineering and construction management will be required, as well as steel pipe, valves, compressor stations, construction equipment, prefabricated buildings, welding equipment, electrical generating transmission equipment, and so on. Our oil and gas supply manufacturing sector is becoming one of the most advanced technologically in the world. These are all goods manufactured in Canada. But this manufacturing base must be encouraged through sound economic development and energy policies. Without these policies, the jobs will not be created, the new plants will not be built, and our manufacturing trade deficit, already far too high, will increase further.
To be more specific, the proposed $7 billion Alsands synthetic crude oil project will create some $23.5 billion of economic activity, of which $6.2 billion will be spent in Ontario. This project is being continued at some risk to the sponsors, in anticipation of an early settlement of Canada's oil policy. The Cold Lake project is of a similar magnitude and is in the same holding pattern. If that policy is not brought forward with some degree of urgency, both projects are likely to be shelved. I understand the Cold Lake project now has some 500 engineers on staff. If that project is stopped today, those engineers will disperse to other jobs and it will take some time to revitalize the project. The result will be a considerable delay in completion. Valuable time will be lost in bringing in these new reserves of oil. Investment will be postponed. Jobs will be lost. Our balance of trade will suffer through increased imports of oil. Finally, we will lose ground in this industry of the future.
Today we are a world leader. Venezuela, with its giant Orinoco oil sands, has already shown an interest in Canada's technology. If we do not continue developing our technology, others will overtake us to the point where we could end up importing the technology rather than exporting it.
This same picture holds true in pipeline projects over difficult terrain. The pipe for the Foothills gas pipeline will be worth about $2 billion, split roughly equally between Stelco in Hamilton and Ipsco in Regina. The turbines will cost about
Energy
$200 million, valves and other materials $70 million. It has been estimated that this pipeline will produce in excess of $1 billion of business for Ontario based companies. Equally important, Canadian pipeline engineers and construction companies will be in the forefront of the technology and will be in a position to bid on similar projects in other countries.
The North American automobile industry is currently undergoing a difficult transition from large gas-guzzlers to smaller energy efficient compact cars. Many thousands of workers are out of work because foreign manufacturers have doubled their share of the market in the past four years. I recently visited Washington and Detroit, with six other colleagues, to learn more about the automobile industry. There we were told that the energy policies of the United States and Canadian governments had contributed significantly to these problems.
North American consumers have for some time been protected from the impact of higher gasoline prices. Japanese and German consumers have been forced to face this reality. As a result, Japanese and German car manufacturers have been at the forefront of developing new energy-efficient cars. When the North American consumer suffered the second oil shock, the revolution in Iran, American consumer preference changed abruptly to the smaller cars. When the North American producers could not meet the new preference for smaller cars, the Japanese and Germans stepped in. This is a classical illustration of how an unrealistic government policy has been overtaken by market forces, to the great disadvantage of local industry. The United States government has recognized this. The Canadian government still has its head in the sand.
Let me give you another example, one that deals with an industry of the future. We hear stories of great advances being made in other countries in the development of alternative sources of energy: gasohol, solar, wind, miniature hydroelectric units. Why not in Canada where we have the climate and industrial capacity to use such alternative sources? It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Until we get the right mix of energy policies-and price is the most critical element-that development will occur in other countries, and Canada will miss out on a huge new industry. The higher energy prices in other countries are providing a powerful and natural incentive to develop this new technology. This situation is no different than the energy efficient car.
The Royal Bank recently published some statistics which look at this phenomenon from another perspective. Because of the unrealistically low energy prices in Canada and the United States, we have become inefficient users of energy in our industry. To illustrate, the Royal Bank estimated that industrial output for each ton of oil consumed in 1978 was as follows: West Germany, $1,718; Japan, $1,669; Britain, $1,175; United States, $954 and Canada, rock bottom, $840. In other words, Canada was less than half as efficient in its use of energy as was West Germany, partly due to climate and distance, you might say. But, look at the change in consumption patterns in recent years when this difference in price has been so obvious.

October 14, 1980
Energy
Since 1963 output per unit of energy consumed has changed as follows, and again I am using Royal Bank figures: Britain, up 25 per cent; Japan, up 12 per cent; West Germany, up 10 per cent; the United States, up 2.3 per cent; and Canada, down 5.3 per cent.
Government policy has unwittingly encouraged Canadian industry to be less efficient in its use of energy than its main competitors. Industry is now forced to adjust, and in a short period of time, to these new realities.
If this government does not produce a rational and comprehensive energy policy, Canadian industry will continue to suffer and will continue to lose market position. It will continue to have a lack of confidence to invest and expand in these new industries in the future. Valuable business opportunities will be lost in all parts of the country.
Let me urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) to work closely with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), to establish policies and guidelines to encourage the highest possible procurement of Canadian goods and services in the energy field, both in the megaprojects and frontier areas as well as in the conventional fields. Canadian companies have proven to be both competitive and innovative in meeting this challenge.
Government support in the form of procurement policy guidelines could help to carry this success further. This need not be done in a punitive way. Government guidelines can set the operational background. One of the departments could act as a clearing house to ensure that oil companies were aware of the Canadian talent available.
Finally, research and development policies should be formulated to assist these Canadian companies to stay abreast of current technology. In this way Canadian companies can place themselves in the forefront of the market place and be in a position to exploit the huge international market in energy development in the future.
Canada is endowed with massive reserves of many forms of energy and other natural resources. I have spoken in the past of the importance of matching these two ingredients in the development of our industrial policy. There will be many opportunities in the future as the value of these resources increases and their availability decreases. We must be alert to these opportunities and provide the industrial structure and policies to capitalize on them.
Australia today provides the most spectacular example of that to which I refer. Australia is currently planning seven aluminum smelters. Because of high energy costs and scarce supplies Japan is closing down aluminum smelters and will import the finished product from Australia in the future. The reason is very simple: Australia has cheap and readily available coal, as well as the principal natural resource, bauxite.
There will be other opportunities, not necessarily on the same scale, in situations where Canada can combine our plentiful energy and natural resources with profitable, jobcreating industrial development. The opportunity is clear. Energy is the number one growth industry for Canada.
We implore the government to show some real sense of urgency, some direction, in order to give our industry the confidence and the sense of commitment that this promise can be fulfilled. The performance by the government to date has been dismal, practically non-existent, and in some ways even negative. This must change if we are to create the jobs, the investment, the new technology, the exports and the sharing of all these benefits by all Canadians.
Energy is our future; it can bind us together and make us strong. This government has chosen to use it to make us weak, to divide us and to undermine our confidence. It is absolutely essential to the strength and future of our country that this government develop a comprehensive energy policy on an urgent basis in order to capture the economic development opportunities which are available and to protect Canada, particularly Ontario and eastern provinces, from the increasing threat to our energy security. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for my party, the New Democrats, on this motion today. As I was listening to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), 1 had the horrible sense of deja vu, that we had been through this before, had this debate before. I checked through Hansard and I found that, indeed, we did, on July 8, 1980. I believe the preceding speaker mentioned that we had spoken on a Conservative opposition day on a motion virtually covering the same topic. I will send a copy of my speech given on July 8 to the hon. member. We will all see, if we look at that debate, that not much has really changed in the interim. We will find that nothing has happened. As the hon. member from Calgary has said, nothing has happened, the situation has become worse. That is true.
We have no energy policy in this country and there does not seem to be one on the horizon. There has not been an energy policy for a number of months, and the country is suffering. The minister can check the situation with any of the members of the all-party committee on national resources and public works. That committee of the House of Commons, of which I and some of my colleagues are members, travelled to the tar sands this summer, as well as to Washington. We saw areas where there is certainly a need for energy policy.
I want to speak today about some of our concerps and ideas regarding a real energy policy for Canada. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), later in the debate, will speak about an issue that has had little debate in this House of Commons, the nuclear issue. In my view and that of my colleagues, this is a matter the Liberal government is really sweeping under the rug. I see here the parliamentary secretary to the minister who has been the outstanding culprit in this particular matter, no doubt following government policy. I invite the minister who intends to speak after me to reply.
October 14, 1980

The fact is that this government is gung-ho on expanding the nuclear industry at the risk of accidents and harm to future generations. This is a serious matter. We are not going to go into all the difficulties involved in the industry. What we are saying is that we should at least have this out in the open. We may hold different views from our friends to the right about expansion of the nuclear industry, but at least they were prepared when they were in government to have an inquiry, hear argument, and get the matter out in the open. This present government is not prepared at all to do that. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill will speak on that and, if hon. members to my right will listen, I will speak a little bit about our concern over the present lack of energy policy today.
I should like to put forward, if 1 might, what perhaps a typical Canadian consumer would say if he or she were here in the House today.
The first thing a consumer would ask is: who is the minister of energy for this country? I see a gentleman over there who purports to be, but he does not seem to be very effective as the minister. Who fixes the price that we now pay for our gas? It is not fixed by that minister. He was unable to get a deal with the province of Alberta. Indeed, his leader, the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Trudeau), met for two days here in Ottawa with his namesake, Peter, and he spent the rest of the summer worrying about the constitution. I recognize the situation in Quebec and what we have been through in that regard, and I know the constitution is important. However, the people in my riding out west are asking about where our priorities are. Surely the priority should be to have a decent energy policy. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) has pointed out numerous times in this House, other priorities should be to have a decent housing policy and a policy with respect to inflation. Those are the priorities the man or woman in the street feels.
On August 1, 1980, the price of gasoline went up two dollars. That was a unilateral increase. The minister had nothing to do with it. When asked about it by the press he said, "Well, we will just let it ride and maybe we will get an agreement later on". The question is, who pays for that? I say that the Canadian people pay for that lack of policy because every time Canadians fill up with gas, under the present distribution of gasoline dollars, they fill up the pockets of oil companies. The oil companies are making vast profits.


Marc Lalonde: What about the government?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: An hon. member says the government too. As hon. members know, on every increase and with the existing formula, a one-dollar-a-barrel increase is split such that 45 cents goes to the provincial government of Alberta, 45 cents goes to the oil companies, and ten cents goes to the federal government. If the minister wishes to challenge that, he will have a chance in his speech. I see him nodding. What I say must be true, or else he is tired, either one.


Marc Lalonde: Maybe both.
Energy


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The point is that the 45 cents which goes to these companies and which comes out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers goes to the oil companies because there is no proper energy policy or agreement between Peter and Pierre. If Peter and Pierre are unable to make an energy policy or sit down and agree, perhaps it is time they both moved on. That is what Canadian consumers say.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Maybe you, Waddell, will be moving on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The money is going to companies which are controlled largely by foreigners, and Canadian consumers will eventually get tired of that split.
I listened to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the spokesman for the Conservatives, and it seems to me that just as in the debate on July 8 the Conservatives are really still fighting the last election. I am surprised that they raised this matter. I might say that they are fighting the last two elections. They still suggest the policy that Canada should go to world prices. The problem with that is that the consumers of Canada do not really accept that. They see that as an artificial price, and they do not accept that the price of gasoline should go to world levels. The other thing they do not accept, and this is why they defeated the budget of the former minister of finance, is going too quickly to world prices. Consumers do not want the price of gasoline to increase too quickly.
I think Canadians are prepared to accept an increase in the price of gas. They are prepared to take more money out of their pockets to pay the price of gasoline, but with the rider that that money must come back to the government. It has to come back to the people in different ways. It has to come back through tax credits for low income people, and it must come back-I will talk more about this later in my speech-as a way of buying back control and taking public ownership of the Canadian energy industry with that money. If we told the Canadian people that when they pay that extra money for gasoline it is going to take control of their own industry, which has been sold out by previous Liberal and Conservative governments, they would go for that.
While I am on my feet, I want to deal with two matters of government policy which also come to light. Today in the House the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked the Prime Minister about a report that the governor of Massachusetts was talking about getting Canadian natural gas exports. Once again we are into a situation in which we are talking about selling out Canadian gas resources rather than using them here in Canada. Other than making a few speeches since he has been minister, the only thing I see that the minister has done has been to make one decision, and that was the decision on the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline. The minister opted for selling out Canadian gas resources in vast quantities to the United States, in this case Alberta gas resources. I say to Mr. "Ironclad Guarantee" that it now appears that there is even some thought of selling out more gas from the maritimes. Where were hon. members to my right
3642

October 14, 1980
Energy
when I raised the matter of the pre-build in the House of Commons?


An hon. Member:: Hiding.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Half of them did not vote on the matter. The other half voted with the government and continued their policy of selling out Canadian resources.


Mr. Benjamin:: Instead of looking after Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This past summer I instituted a law suit against the Government of Canada, and it is now awaiting trial. In the suit the legality of the government's proceeding on the pre-build is challenged, and that matter will soon come to trial.
I visited the United States this past summer, and it became clear that the Americans have not-and I stress have not- arranged the financing of the full Alaska pipeline, contrary to what we have been told. There is some hope and some movement, but still there is no financial package in place, so right now we have a pre-build of the southern pipeline with no hope at the moment of building the northern part. We have a sell-out of Canadian gas resources.
This summer as well I, as federal NDP energy critic, and Ms. Evelyn Gigantes, who is a provincial member of the Ontario legislature from the Ottawa area and provincial NDP energy critic, proposed that instead of selling out these resources to the United States-or perhaps to Massachusetts now-we should be banking them in Canada. I recognize that some small companies have a problem with cash. They have explored and found gas, and they need to sell it. The minister can reply to my suggestion when he rises after me. What about taking that gas, having Ontario, the federal government and Quebec buy it from those small companies, bank it in Alberta, and then use it later on when there is need for it? I suppose that makes too much sense as an energy policy, but I suggest it to the government. Instead of selling out resources, I suggest that the government adopt that policy.
I want to say something about the industry in this debate. Industry-wide 1979 after-tax profits rose 53 per cent, to $4.7 billion. This money came from Canadian consumers who are having difficulty with unemployment and high inflation. These profits represent a rate of return of 33 per cent on stockholder equity. The cash flow of oil and gas companies has risen 45 per cent, to $7.1 billion. What does the Canadian consumer see? He sees fairly hefty profits and government tax breaks. Dome Petroleum pays no income tax, while the average Canadian consumer pays income tax, and he has no participation in this.
What is the policy of the government in this regard? So far there is none, but I suspect that next week the policy might be to Canadianize the industry. How will that get any money back into the pockets of the average Canadian? What is the point of replacing Andrew Mellon with, say, Bob Blair, or Rockefeller with Bronfman?


Marc Lalonde: Or T. C. Douglas.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is no difference, in my view; it is not going to help the average consumer. The consumer sees the amount of a company's income tax and says that the saving grace is that all that money and cash flow will be used to find petroleum. Is that right? It is wrong because, according to the government's own monitoring report, industry-wide petroleum-related investment dropped steeply, from 93 per cent to 80.1 per cent of cash flows. What is happening is that these companies are making large amounts of money and are beginning to invest it in other industries. In other words, when we put gasoline in our tanks and pay for it, we are financing a further takeover of Canadian industry by foreigners. Any government worth its salt would tackle that right away and not wait.
We in Canada should have our own energy policy, and in the short time I have left I would like to state what the basis of that policy should be. The policy should be two-pronged. The first base should be that Canada be energy efficient. We must create an energy-efficient society. That should be the number one goal. Rather than talking about security or whatever, let us talk about Canada being energy sufficient. That should be the goal. That means conservation measures, and in the weeks to come my colleagues will be outlining some such measures. The hon. member for Vancouver East, who sits in front of me, will outline what energy efficiency means to the housing market and the housing industry. The member behind me from Regina will, in his own inimitable fashion, set out what it is like in terms of railways. The first and central goal is that Canada must be energy efficient. That would be the NDP cornerstone of the energy policy: Canada must be energy efficient.
The second goal is that we must have public ownership of our petroleum industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This goal is what makes our party fundamentally different from my friends across the way. I ask the minister to reply to these arguments. He should tell my why his Canadianization is better than our policy of public ownership. If we have public ownership, it seems to me that we can develop a national energy policy according to public priorities, not according to private ones or the priorities of Mr. Blair, as much as I love him. I have slept on numerous floors with Mr. Blair up in the Arctic and I saw him doing very well in the corporate world. The point is that we could set public priorities and we would have lower costs, because the money would not flow out of the country and it would not flow to fewer shareholders.
Third, we could stop the financing of our own takeover by foreign industry. One dollar out of every three in profits in our total economy in 1990 will come from the gas and oil industry. They are using this money to expand. As the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) said, if we let this situation go, this could not simply end the country as we know it but could end
October 14, 1980

the country itself. That is the key issue today. Will we get control of our energy industry?
I ask the minister to reply. His own monitoring report shows that Canadian companies are investing outside Canada. How will more Canadianization solve that? I am in favour of Canadianization, as is my party, but my party is in favour of Canadianization through public ownership of the resource industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) permit a question? He has a little time left, I believe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He has a minute and a half left. Will the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) accept a question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Certainly 1 will accept a question from my friend, as long as he does not ask about our lunch today.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the comments of a head of a Canadian-owned company with whom perhaps the member has slept as well.


An hon. Member:: Explain!


David Kilgour: I will read the quotation and ask him for his comment. He said:
It is possible to increase the amount of recoverable oil by 50 per cent from six billion barrels to nine billion barrels ... it would happen if we began to pay the world price for oil. Somehow in Canada we think it is sound economics to pay the Arabs $40 to $42 a barrel for oil, and to pay $15-
It is now SI6.75 per barrel.
-a barrel for Canadian crude oil. It is madness, absolute madness.
Would the hon. member comment on that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In 30 seconds.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be glad to comment on that. When we were in Washington we got the same line from the president of Texaco who said, "Just give us more money and we will find all kinds of oil". 1 do not believe it, 1 simply do not believe it. We can do it. It seems to me we can find and develop heavy oil, the tar sands and all the things we have to develop through Petro-Canada and through Canadian public ownership. As I said, that is the direction in which we should go.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to see that the Progressive Conservative opposition has decided to raise today such an important matter as energy. It is a matter which, of course, is of concern to all Canadians, and I hope that in the few hours the members of the House will spend on that matter they will have the opportunity to deal with the options open to us.
Energy

I must say I regret the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) has left the House. I was inclined to be a little bit harsh on him until I noticed that he does not have the responsibility for energy issues in his party and that the spokesman for the Conservative party on energy is absent from the House. There were so many distortions and a lack of knowledge of the real situation in the energy field in the speech of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre that one would be very tempted to take to pieces the statement he put before the House. In fact I was rather surprised at the tone of the motion put before the House.
When I heard that the Conservatives wanted to debate energy today, somehow I expected the hon. member would relate it to Thanksgiving that took place yesterday and subconsciously he might be giving thanks that the energy policy of this country is under the direction of a government which has established national goals that will best serve the interests of every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: If one looks at the record of the Conservative party when it was in office last year, indeed its failure can be attributed to its failure to come to grips with the essential energy issues our policy is addressing. I do not want to spend much time on this, but if one looks at the sad record of the Conservative party during its eight months in office, one wonders how they can even raise the energy issue in the House. What does Mr. Speaker remember of their so-called policies on energy?


An hon. Member:: Sweet nothing.


Marc Lalonde: Well, a few things. First there was their attempt to destroy Petro-Canada. That was the first thing they put forward.
Then they allowed the oil stocks in this country to deplete to such a degree that in November and December of last year they were required to set up the Emergency Supply Allocations Board because we were concerned that there would not be enough heating oil to take us through the winter. That was the second element of the so-called energy policy of the Conservative party.
The third element was that they severely damaged our relations with our suppliers. Indeed there was concern as to what would happen over the next while in terms of our supplies from abroad. I do not have to spend much time talking about what that government did to our relationship with Arab countries with their famous Canadian embassy-in-Israel debacle. But the fact is that they seriously jeopardized our relations with all Arab countries and neglected to develop relationships that should have been kept very warm with the government of Mexico, a potential supplier.
Then there was the cherry on the cake, as we say in French, la cerise sur le gateau. They came with their famous budget in

October 14, 1980
Energy
which they imposed savage taxation on Canadians with large price increases which fortunately both opposition parties at the time, ourselves and the New Democratic Party, rejected categorically.
Since they have been in opposition the Conservatives have continued very much the negative stance they adopted vis-a-vis energy, as was evident this afternoon during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. What have we heard in the last few months? There has been the kind of haranguing we witnessed this afternoon during question period and during the speech of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, and the doom and gloom worries and predictions of members of the Conservative party. 1 could add to this their self-induced paranoia about the possible gas export tax. They do not even realize the electricity of this country has been taxed for something like 35 years between 1928 and 1963 and that we have had an export tax on oil in this country since 1974.
In effect, apart from calling for higher and higher prices and toeing the line of the fat cats with company-paid cars and expense accounts, the Conservative party has contributed- indeed, as one of my colleagues so ably said, "sweet nothing"-to the development of energy policy in this country. I do not want to spend much time on the demise of the opposition. I would like to talk about our record, our plans, what we have done and what we plan to do.


Harvie Andre: That will be a shorter speech.


Marc Lalonde: 1 could take a lot of time, contrary to what the hon. member opposite has been saying. What we have done between 1974 and 1979 and what we intend to do over the next few years is to continue the policy of moderate price increases that will allow the industry to prosper, that will allow the producing provinces to see their revenues and wealth increasing but will also protect the consumer in this country and prevent inflation from running away in Canada. This policy which we have had in effect over the last few years has proven effective and, as it is even now, this year.
Everyone knows that in the fifties and sixties Canada's inflation rate was higher than in the United States. What we see this year, in good part, is that our energy prices are indeed lower than in the United States. The inflation rate in the United States at the present time is running at well over 12 per cent-12.8 per cent in August, 1980-while the rate in Canada was 10.7 per cent at that time. This is significant in terms of the Canadian standard of living as compared to the American standard of living.
What are our objectives? We have three objectives which we stated quite clearly before the Canadian public during the election and since-only the Conservatives have not heard them yet. The first one differentiates us from the Conservatives. I heard the hon. member saying supply was at the core of their policy. Supply is their obsession and, as a result, the only thing they can think of is giving more money to the companies,
as if this would necessarily produce one more barrel of oil tomorrow. In effect, it has been proven that this was not necessarily the case. Even if you were to double the price of oil tomorrow there would not be more activity taking place in this country because, as hon. members well know, the industry has been occupied at full capacity over the last few years.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: The objective in this country should be to achieve energy security, which includes looking after supply. It also includes, just as much, looking after substitution, the development and encouragement of Canadians to go into other sources of energy rather than oil, of which we have an abundance. Second, is conservation. We should encourage Canadians to use energy in a much wiser way than we have done in the past. That is our first objective-energy security.
Our second objective is fairness, which means fairness between regions, between producers and consumers, and between levels of government.
Our third objective is to provide Canadians with an opportunity to participate in that industry which will make them not only employees but full partners in the oil and gas industry. These are our objectives.
We have already taken steps in those directions over the last few months, since we have been in office. The first step has been to save Canadian consumers from the infamous 18-cent tax the Conservatives wanted to impose upon Canadians in their budget of last December, a measure which would have cost the Canadian consumers this year over $2 billion more than they have had to pay since we took office.
Our second step has been to improve and increase the security of supply in Canada. We have re-established our traditionally good relationships with the OPEC countries and the other oil producing countries which are not members of OPEC.


An hon. Member:: What about Iran and Iraq?


Marc Lalonde: These steps have taken place over the last few months and we have succeeded in re-establishing those relationships which had been either destroyed or jeopardized by the stupidity of indifference of the previous Conservative government. And today, in spite of the Iran-Iraq conflict, Canada is probably the country in the world with the best balanced sources of supply with regard to its oil supply.


Harvie Andre: You didn't have anything to do with it.


Marc Lalonde: We have not only relied upon our contacts with other countries in the world producing oil, we have acted inside Canada. One of our first steps was to encourage intensified activities in the Canadian oil and gas industry. In the last few months drilling in western Canada has gone up in comparison with last year.


Harvie Andre: That was planned years ago.
October 14, 1980


Marc Lalonde: This year we estimate 8,300 wells will be drilled in western Canada compared with 7,400 last year. The hon. member may talk as much as he wants; the fact is they are there, and I invite him to look at them. If you look at Canada's offshore activities, there were nine wells drilled last year, and 19 this year. This is a clear indication of what has happened inside Canada in the oil and gas industry in the last year.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the tar sands?


Marc Lalonde: I am getting to the tar sands in a moment and I will have more to say about this than you will like.
In addition to encouraging oil and gas activities in Canada, we have given our full endorsement to Petro-Canada, an endorsement that had been sorely lacking under the Tories, and in effect we have reinstated to Petro-Canada the $80 million the Conservatives had cut off from that company. That company is now one of the most active and dynamic companies operating in the oil and gas industry in Canada, with the full support of the government.


Harvie Andre: Do you know they are drilling half as many as Pacific Pete?


Marc Lalonde: I suspect the hon. member from Calgary is going to die from apoplexy and, if you could do something about him, Mr. Speaker, that would be quite helpful.


Harvie Andre: I want an energy minister that knows what is going on, for the sake of Canada.


Marc Lalonde: I thought it was a case of apoplexy, but I regret to say it is only a case of lack of elementary courtesy. There is not much I can do about his lack of education.


Harvie Andre: Courtesy requires honesty in the House, too.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the activities of this government are concerned, I have indicated that we have fully supported Petro-Canada and we intend to continue to increase that support. We have also indicated a full program for upgrading our refineries. The net result of the upgrading of the five Canadian refineries will mean that something in the order of 125,000 barrels a day of residual oil will be much better used in this country in the next few years. In this way we will be able to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
Finally, we put before the producing provinces last July a fair and generous offer. That offer meant that the western provinces would have obtained over the next four years something like $40 billion. And even more recently we decided to increase our offer further to $38 a barrel for tar sands and heavy oil, plus indexation of that price to the cost of living over the next few years, plus the possibility of reopening this agreement after five years of operation if for any reason it was found that this price was inadequate.
Energy
This, indeed, was a most generous offer, and it certainly answered the expectations of the proponents of the various tar sands and heavy oil plants. As a matter of fact, I can state in this House that this offer corresponded exactly to the request made to us by the proponents of the Cold Lake plant. So, let us not hear stories and arguments from the other side that the federal government is not co-operating with regard to tar sands and heavy oil development. Let us not hear stories that the federal government is delaying the implementation of those projects.
If there is any delay, it is not the fault of the federal government and it is not the fault of the proponents of those various projects. I leave it to the opposition to reach its own conclusion on whose fault it is if there is any delay at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that our policy is first of all to ensure the security of supplies for Canadians, whether it be in the form of supplies from abroad or in the form of increased production within Canada. And I indicated we have already taken a number of steps in Canada to reach that objective, whether it be in the form of the massive support we gave Petro-Canada, the support we gave business to make sure the oil industry would fully develop under our leadership, or yet the extremely reasonable and adequate prices we offered the producing provinces to reach an agreement regarding the production of oil and gas in this country. But it is a matter not only of increasing production, but also of encouraging Canadians to change their habits as consumers and be less dependent on oil than they have been in the past by encouraging them to use other forms of energy.
Just a few months after taking over my department I announced a national objective for this decade which should enable us to arrive at a situation where only 10 per cent of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors would use oil which means that 90 per cent of those sectors would depend on natural gas, electricity or other forms of energy for their supplies.
In fact, if we could reach that objective-and there is no doubt in my mind we can-we could reduce tomorrow morning our oil consumption by 375,000 barrels a day which would be about the equivalent of our total current imports and the equivalent of the construction of three tar sands plants like Syncrude. That objective is fundamental to our policy, and we firmly intend to reach it. Indeed, we have again already taken steps in that direction. We have already announced the approval of the construction of the pipeline east of Montreal and for Quebec, and we have indicated we were also encouraging the extension of that pipeline to the maritime provinces as soon as possible.
I recently announced an additional program for the solar energy industry in order to help it achieve state-of-the-art

October 14, 1980
Energy
technology in this area, through federal subsidies and a very generous tax system.
I recently signed a new agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories concerning energy conservation and alternate forms of energy. These are some of the measures we have taken. It is our intention not only to encourage Canadians to substitute other forms of energy for oil consumption but also to encourage them, by all means available, to conserve energy even more.
For example we have allocated more than $200 million this year to the EnerSave Program, to encourage Canadians to insulate their homes much more efficiently than we have done in the past. We already signed some contracts to promote better insulation in federal buildings throughout Canada. We have launched a public education campaign whose significance the Progressive Conservatives are deriding, but that is most important to reach that objective. If I had a parallel to make, it would be with the policy followed by the Canadian government around 1974 or 1975, the new perspective on the health of Canadians, a policy that succeeded not only in Canada but also in other countries, a policy that has been internationally recognized as a breakthrough in government health policy. What we intend to do in the energy sector is something similar. What does this mean? It means relying on citizens, recognizing that citizens themselves, when given a sense of direction by government policy, can change their lifestyles and readily co-operate to reach clear and well-defined objectives that are both in their own interest and the interest of the country as a whole. That basic direction is the one this government intends to follow, even if it does not please the opposition, by calling upon each Canadian citizen to do his share to ensure that Canada will become truly and completely self-reliant in energy matters over this decade.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the question of increasing energy security through increasing supply, better conservation, or substitution of other forms of energy, all three approaches are fundamental to an energy policy for this country. These are the basis for our approach to the question on oil and gas. In a few weeks the federal government will release a national energy program which will supplement all the steps that we have already taken in the last few months and that the Liberal governments have taken since 1974.
What we will not do is follow the actions of the previous Conservative government which established a budget with all kinds of oil and gas increases, but without any program to ensure energy security for Canadians. What we will do is implement our objectives and commitments to the Canadian public concerning security, fairness, and an opportunity to participate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about price?


Marc Lalonde: With regard to energy security, we will stop Canadian dependence on imported oil well within this decade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: With regard to fairness, first of all we will put a price on oil in Canada which will be related to Canadian cost of production and which will not depend on the gyrations of the international cartel, OPEC.


Howard Edward Crosby: Why don't you call it a "made-in-Canada" price?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, it will be a "made-in-Canada" price based on the Canadian cost of production.


An hon. Member:: Is that the same one you talked about a year ago?


Marc Lalonde: In fairness, we will also introduce a better and more fair division of revenues between the federal government and the governments of the oil producing provinces.
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), has referred to the present division of 45 per cent to the producing provinces, 45 per cent to the industry, and 10 per cent to the federal government. I should like to put on record what the situation is in other federal states where the resources are owned by the component states or provinces. In Texas, for instance, a federal state just south of here, the situation-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I hear a Tory is worried over there; he does not like the fact. In Texas the revenue shares are approximately 48 per cent to the producer, 17 per cent to the state government, and 35 per cent to the federal government. That is in the United States, which our friends are so happy to talk about.


An hon. Member:: What about Alaska?


Marc Lalonde: If you look at Alaska you will find that the situation is very similar. I invite you to look at it and find what is happening there.
In Australia, where the situation is very much like that in Canada, what do we see?


An hon. Member:: That they have an elected senate.


Marc Lalonde: The share is 37 per cent to the producer, 15 per cent to the state government, and 48 per cent to the federal government. Australia is a federal state where-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister entertain a question at this time or at end of his speech?
-ft.



October 14, 1980


Marc Lalonde: At the end of my speech 1 will be happy to entertain a question, Mr. Speaker.
1 ask the House and the people of Canada if it is fair that when the federal government, which has to bear all the cost of incentives to the industry to expand its activities in the oil and gas field-


An hon. Member:: Like DREE programs in Quebec.


Marc Lalonde: -where the federal government has to pay higher equalization costs, where the federal government has to pay for the oil compensation fund, where the federal government has the responsibility to provide the national infrastructure in the field of energy, it should be left with only 10 per cent of what Canadian consumers pay for oil and gas? We say that is not fair.
We must look at what is happening elsewhere-what is happening in the United States and what is happening in Australia. I challenge members of the opposition to look at what is happening in any other federal state in the world. They will find that national governments have a much larger share of those revenues than Canada has in order to fulfil its responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: But you don't know what to do with it.


Marc Lalonde: Finally, Mr. Speaker, not only are we going to ensure fairness as well as security of supply through this policy, we are going to ensure an opportunity for Canadians to participate in the ownership of the oil and gas industry in this country.
Not only will 1980 be the year that the Constitution of Canada is patriated, it will also be the year when Canada begins, in a systematic and determined way, to patriate the oil and gas industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister would have us believe that when he went to Alberta to talk with the oil companies and the Alberta government regarding the development of the tar sands-first he offered $32 per barrel to the oil companies-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Jack Wendele Shields: I am getting to my question. Are you afraid to listen?


An hon. Member:: We want a question, not a speech.


Jack Wendele Shields: Your minister wants to listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


Jack Wendele Shields: The minister would have us believe that the government is not at fault in any way for delaying the tar sands project, but he was told very clearly by the companies
Energy
which wish to develop it that they must have world prices. They are saying, "We will refund. All we want as a return on our investment is 12 per cent. You may tax it at the top." That is what is done in the United States. Would the minister not consider that more feasible?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this issue. I am happy to tell him that the offer of $38, plus indexation according to the cost of living, is exactly the request made to me by the proponents of Cold Lake, a request that was also put forward to the government of Alberta. Exactly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister's time has expired. 1 shall recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pose a question to the minister to get some clarification on figures that he gave, but if his time has expired I shall have to do it some other way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may put his question with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: The minister quoted the distribution of revenues from oil in Texas as 17 per cent to the state, 48 per cent to the private sector and, I believe, 35 per cent to the federal sector. Could he advise the House of the basis of those percentage figures? Are they based on crude oil at the world price level, or are they on the basis of gasoline at the pump? Perhaps the minister could clarify this.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we used the same basis of comparison for Canada as for Texas. We have not used two different bases. Obviously that would have been very unfair. What we have used for the purpose of comparison is exactly the same basis in the two countries, and the figures obtained are those that I have mentioned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for La Salle- Joliette!


Roch La Salle: You are nearly correct, Mr. Speaker, we could perhaps call it La Salle's constituency!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on an undoubtedly serious matter, and I shall try to do so as modestly as possible since, compared with other members of this House, I am not that knowledgeable when it comes to energy. First of all, I believe I should remind the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that the absence of the official critic is due to the fact that he is now in Paris for a meeting of the Association of French Language Parliamentarians. Moreover, I am happy about it. The member who opened the debate was supposed to be in Toronto this evening, and the

October 14, 1980
Energy
minister must be aware that there is something important going on in Toronto today.
I would like to say immediately that while listening to the arguments of the minister, we ourselves had the impression- and any Canadian who has not followed politics in the last few years would also have had the impression-that we were hearing a new minister within a new government speaking about new objectives. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has been in power a long time. I recall hearing very similar comments ten years ago.


An hon. Member:: That is not a speech; it is a question!


Roch La Salle: For the moment, I am not putting a question to the minister. I am beginning my comments. This disturbs the hon. member. I can excuse the absence of the minister convinced as I am that he has important responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I heard similar comments some ten years ago and this government which was then in power had begun to speak about energy self-sufficiency. I do not forget the practical wish expressed by the minister to the effect that Canada should be autonomous in energy matters. We entirely agree about that, the difference being the means to be used. There is no doubt about it. We had considered and suggested some steps aimed at energy self-sufficiency in the interests of Canadians. Nobody can prevent us from repeating it. This was still clear a few months ago.
However, what happened in the past ten years? This is why we can condemn the government for failing to practise several years ago what they are now preaching. This is not a new problem, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned 1974 to 1979. I remember that in 1978 and 1979, for merely partisan reasons, this government deferred general elections on three occasions, thus delaying the implementation of essential steps which are still required to get close to world prices.
I think present members of this House or those who sat from 1974 to 1979 will remember perfectly well that there was a period of eighteen months over which the election was deferred three times before being held in 1979, and the Minister of Finance refused to apply certain increases that were necessary to meet the budgetary requirement for energy self-sufficiency.
I believe we must remind Canadians that that was the sinister doing of the government that is still leading the country at this time. So when the minister talks about his efforts, his proposals, the importance of self-reliance for Canada and less dependency upon foreign countries, there is a ten-year lapse the government must live with and be blamed for and that is what we are going to do. We must recall we have an urgent need of a policy that will enable us to reach and maintain self-reliance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk more particularly about my province. A few moments ago, an hon. member talked
about Ontario. Others will also take the floor. So I would like to tell you for a few minutes about modern Quebec. In order to do that, one has to acknowledge the clearly economic character of its evolution. It is true that cultural and linguistic considerations have stimulated modern Quebeckers in their efforts and that that has caused an acceleration in the evolution of Quebec in the sixties. But let us not allow the acknowledgement of the French fact in Canada to blind us and make us forget about the economic problems which are at the root of the Quebec quiet revolution.
The Quebeckers of today and especially the workers aged between 34 and 45 have benefited from a period of growth in North America which gave them a lifestyle their parents had never enjoyed. The universality of education and television placed them before an opened window on the world and consequently, like it or not, they are fully aware of the values currently defended in our times.
Mr. Pierre Laurin, Director of Hautes Etudes Commer-ciales, this dynamic Quebecker who embodies so well the virtues of this generation 1 am talking about, reminds us of this often and proudly. The Quebec entrepreneur, and here I also include our outstanding Quebec women who so successfully harmonize the qualities of the heart and of the mind, the Quebec entrepreneur emerged during the last two decades. Whether a technocrat, an industrialist or owner of a small business already dealing in exportations, or a leader in our labour unions, this entrepreneur, and here I use the word in its largest definition, is much more concerned with the present and the future of Quebec than his grandfather was concerned with its past. Quebeckers today are living intensely in the present and are looking forward with great energy to the future. They can afford to do so because they have had the wisdom to weigh the respective merits of a cherished past, a present they want to enjoy fully, and a future they would like promising and secure.
And now, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to get to the heart of the matter we are discussing today, that is energy as a resource, since up until now I have spoken of the creative energy of Quebeckers.
Energy has been the key that opened the door to modern day Quebec just as its abundant production lead to the industrialization of the province in the nineteenth century. We all recall that the creation of Hydro-Quebec represented an important phase in the evolution of Quebec. The majestic and powerful rivers of Quebec prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God smiles favourably on my native province. The fact that Quebeckers recognized the economic potential of these rivers also fills me with pride. Manic, that gigantic power station which provides energy to Quebec, was created by French-speaking engineers, technicians and workers, which disproved once and for all the shameful misconception about the ability of Quebeckers.
October 14, 1980

Nobody today can claim that French-speaking Quebeckers are strangers to science, entrepreneurship, and leadership in the business community, the big guys in other words! There is no doubt today that French-speaking Canadians are just as competent in the marketplace as in the realm of ideas. And as if this were not enough luck in itself, natural energy resources ensure the present economic viability of Quebec as well as its future self-sufficiency. For the hydro power of Quebec, the potential of its gas and uranium reserves, the latter giving an indication of its future nuclear capability, the studies on alternate sources such as solar energy of the treatment of waste materials along with the use of a growing technology oriented manpower, all these elements hold in store a definite energy-oriented future for Quebec.
Unfortunately, just as its purely economic future had been jeopardized by the narrow conceptions of a number of previous administrations which, due to a spirit of adventure or by sheer neglect, had gone astray from the natural evolutionary trend of Quebec, this energy future is now in compromised. The federal Liberal government, by appealing to the needs of Quebeckers for economic security during the referendum campaign got a reprieve or, as people said, the last chance for federalism. Those same Liberals have now forsaken them. The lack of courage and honesty of the federal Liberals, their neglect with regard to their economic and energetic fate are quite scandalous, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed true that Quebeckers would rather have a constitution that is really theirs, home made in Canada and reflecting their pride. But just as they rejected the hang-ups of previous administrations which no longer cared about their real needs, or rather about their real needs as a whole, both those of the heart and of the body, Quebeckers should reject the narrow views of the present federal administration. To those who claim that man does not live by bread alone, I would simply answer that they probably always had all the bread they needed and can afford to make such a selfish comment.
The economic future of Quebec will ensure the cultural and linguistic future of Quebec, it is as simple as that. They are interrelated, and Quebeckers know it. This is why so many of them are thinking of getting hold of the economic levers to achieve their aims. This is why so many demagogues play also with the feelings of Quebeckers when it suits them while others play with their fear in economic terms. Sometimes, some people succeed in persuading Quebeckers to put their needs in terms of economic security and growth in the background and to follow their hearts. But Quebeckers pull themselves together eventually. This time, however, I am afraid that they do not have enough time to do so.
Without a secure energy supply, Quebec will miss the boat. Besides, energy is the greatest challenge Canada has ever faced as well as the main factor in its future economic development. In terms of energy, Canada is behaving now as
Energy
an underdeveloped country, while it should prepare for the most glorious times in its history.
Our dependency on foreign oil imports is increasing instead of decreasing contrary to what the federal Liberal ministers generally, and especially the minister concerned, would have us believe. Quebec is dependent on foreign oil by as much as 60 per cent. Quebeckers know what is going on now in Iran, Mr. Speaker. Like all other Canadians, they can watch it on television. But are Quebeckers aware that not so long ago, Nova Scotia, Quebec's neighbouring province, was fully dependent on Iran for its oil supplies? And I am not talking here about the requirements of corporations or faceless groups, but what Canadians need to heat their homes and fill up their gas tanks.
Canada is importing oil from abroad, from Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. It is in the latter area that Iran and Iraq are fighting their war. These supplies of fuel oil and gasoline are not intended for western Canada or even Ontario for the most part, but for Quebec and the maritimes. Should there be another war, another revolution, like in Iran, or even a natural plague like an earthquake, where would Quebec find its oil? Today Quebec depends heavily on oil for its heating, automobiles and industry.


An hon. Member:: Where were you last summer?


Roch La Salle: I am used, Mr. Speaker, to hearing certain comments from the other side but they are also invited to express their concern about the absence today of guarantees of self-sufficiency in the area of energy. Quebec depends on oil for 75 per cent of its heating. Cars run only on oil and industry uses mainly oil. Indeed, 78 per cent of all energy consumed in Quebec comes from oil. Some 200,000 barrels of oil enter Quebec every day from foreign countries; 300,000 come from the producing provinces in western Canada.
Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at least concerned with making sure the supplies coming from within this country are assured, as he is certainly not able to assure the supplies from outside countries? No, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aggravates the dialogue between Ottawa and the producing provinces. At the same time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) laughs at the complaints of the producing provinces which want to obtain maximum protection for their resources and thus assure the economic welfare of their people. Those gentlemen who are supposed to be representing the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers so passionately are insulting the oil producing provinces of western Canada that must nevertheless heat Quebec homes this winter and enable Quebeckers to go to work.
During the last election, Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers who were convinced by the Liberals in Ottawa that to pay 18 cents more a gallon for their oil was a useless sacrifice will not have any oil for their cars no matter what price they are willing to pay.
3650

October 14, 1980
Energy
In the meantime, the same Quebeckers that were convinced to reject an 18-cent increase, a small short-term sacrifice required to ensure Quebec's and Canada's economic future, achieve self-sufficiency and guarantee oil supplies to Quebec, these same Quebeckers have just gone through the 15-cent increase since February 18, 1980. Moreover, the former finance minister's budget that Liberals used as an excuse to defeat the Clark government also proposed to give Quebec families tax credits to offset all price increases. Right now this Liberal government is increasing oil prices 15 cents, without any tax credit.
In April, 1980, each Quebec family with revenues below $21,000 would have received a $15 per child and $40 per adult tax credit, with $30 per child and $80 per adult in 1981. So the average Quebec family would have received in 1981 a $220 tax credit, whether they paid taxes or not. Since that time Quebeckers saved 3 cents per gallon with the 15-cent increase for which they are receiving no tax credit, which they had to pay without hope of recovering it. They had to absorb the total increase needed without any compensation based on their revenue, low or otherwise. All paid equally, and the increase does not apply only to all but heating fuel. Our excise tax did not apply to heating fuel.
In the meantime, Liberals in Ottawa promised not to increase the cost of oil as much as Progressive Conservatives were proposing in order to ensure Quebeckers safe supplies of oil and develop Canadian wells to replace foreign ones. We were proposing a $4 increase for 1980 and a $4.50 one for 1981 and 1982. Until now, without the benefits of our integrated program that would have led to self-sufficiency in 1990, Liberals here in Ottawa would have allowed a $3 per barrel direct and indirect increase, but the price is now $4 more per barrel. In the meantime, the cost of subsidies we are paying on foreign oil is increasing tremendously.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because you are indicating that my time is coming to an end, Quebeckers will have saved 3 cents to find themselves confronted with the danger of losing the free use of their cars if foreign oil becomes scarce. Mr. Speaker, the oil matter is basic in Quebec as elsewhere. The essential supply of oil must be ensured until Quebec can partially rely on its alternative regional resources.
We are aware of the importance of the debate. I deplore the fact that we have been discussing this matter for ten years. I cannot accept that the government should give, or try to give, the impression that it has found a new formula. Today, the blame lies with the fact that this government has been in power too long. It has not had the foresight to give Canada the autonomy we all wish for on both sides of the House.
To my mind, it is our duty to remind them of their faults and failure with regard to that foresight, which has been sadly lacking in parliamentary debates. If they were to make proposals to achieve self-sufficiency by taking into account private enterprise, because here in Canada private enterprise is important, they could get some form of support. But it is our duty to call them to order when they do not offer any guarantees or enough aid to the underprivileged when the time comes to make proposals in energy matters.


Mr. Demers:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) if he will allow me a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With the permission of the hon. member for Joliette.


Yves Demers: The hon. member for Joliette claims that since the Liberal government took over power on February 18 last, the price of gas has gone up by 15 cents a gallon. I should like to know whether, had his own party stayed in power, Canadians and Quebeckers in particular would not now be paying roughly the same increase, that is 15 cents a gallon plus an excise tax of 18 cents. I should like to be enlightened on that point.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers) has surely read the proposal of the last budget where it is clear that we were about to legislate an increase as well as a tax credit for those who earn $21,000 or less. Our position was very clear. It was aimed, precisely as the minister said today, at ensuring self-sufficiency in the field of energy. As a result, we wanted to encourage Canadians toward a very specific goal, that of saving energy. We needed millions of dollars-the minister spoke about it today-to achieve that self-sufficiency, that self-reliance. I believe we were protecting those who were unable to pay. We were asking Canadians to recognize the need to make certain sacrifices. The difference was that we had the courage to explain their needs to Canadians while the Liberals hid behind an increase which will come one way or another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) on a point of order.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) if he would accept one more question?


Roch La Salle: Yes, certainly.


Henri Tousignant: The hon. member recognizes that the Progressive Conservatives had suggested an increase of $4 a barrel. At the present time, oil prices have increased somewhat less. During the election campaign, the Liberals forecast that the price of oil might increase by the amount mentioned by the Progressive Conservatives but perhaps by less. In view of the 18-cent tax and the 7-cent reimbursement tax for those who use vehicles for commercial purposes, which makes 25 cents a gallon, can the hon. member figure out how much on a gas tank of 20 gallons these 25 cents a gallon, which we have saved Canadian taxpayers, represent?
October 14, 1980


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the hon. member is asking what this represents on the one hand, but he has forgotten to mention that our tax credit was geared to the problem that this would cause to low-income Canadians. In this case, I could perhaps ask him if he has figured out what the tax credit, which could come to $250 a year and correspond perhaps to 40,000 miles in view of the increase that we had suggested, represented for an average family of three children. 1 believe we had a solution which the Liberals refused to use. The hon. member says that reference was made to an oil price increase during the election campaign, but I must say that in my constituency, the Liberals did not talk about any oil price increase. I reminded Canadians and people in Joliette that there would be an increase in any case, but we all know how they responded.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren), I should deal with the late show this evening.
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 Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Energy-Oil-Price increases for home heating; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- Nuclear Energy-Inquiry respecting nuclear policy-Request for tabling terms of reference; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Health Care-Hall Report- Recommendation respecting extra billing by doctors.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson:
That this House condemns the government for its mismanagement of Canada's energy situation with the consequent loss of economic development opportunities and increased threat to the nation's energy security.
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
Energy
that we have this opportunity today, an opposition day, to discuss energy questions. These questions will, of course, be before the House again very soon, in a matter of weeks, when the new energy policy of the government is set forth. I am sorry, however, that my neighbour to the south in Etobicoke, having introduced this motion and having made a number of broad generalizations about the energy policy of the government, is not in the House and apparently was unable to stay for this discussion, even in fact to hear the reply of the minister to his earlier statements.
Be that as it may, I would wish to point out to the hon. member who introduced the motion that Canada is, after all, an energy-rich country, having an abundance of resources, and that we are, indeed, a net exporter of energy. Certainly in that sense there is no energy crisis in Canada. For example, we had in 1978 an excess of exports over imports of almost $2 billion. The cost of imported oil was more than offset by our exports of natural gas alone. In all areas, except oil, Canada has today a surplus of energy: in natural gas, hydroelectric power, coal, and uranium for nuclear power. Indeed, we export natural gas and we are negotiating the export of additional coal. On current account, in other words, we export more energy than we buy.
The challenge to Canadians in a sense is a challenge of managing abundance. This is an enviable position in today's energy-scarce world.
The current problem, of course, is in respect of oil and not the other areas of energy that I have mentioned. In that specific area of oil, Canada was until fairly recently self-sufficient. In light of the then estimates, we were even an exporter of oil. Unfortunately, that self-sufficiency has temporarily disappeared, but certainly the potential is there, especially in the oil sands, the offshore and the Arctic regions. Unlike almost all other industrial countries, Canada has enormous potential and enormous opportunity in energy.
Conventional sources in Alberta are expected to decline, but vast reserves in our oil sands, offshore, and in Arctic regions promise Canadians once again self-sufficiency. When cheaply produced oil in Alberta was available so too was cheap offshore oil. With those two sources, Canadians were provided with ample oil resources. With the suddenness of OPEC price increases, however, Canada was faced with the challenge of rapidly developing its non-conventional sources, a challenge which involved costly and technologically novel methods.
The results are now beginning to show in the oil sands, in the vast gas reserves identified in the Arctic, and in the offshore reserves of oil and gas on the Atlantic coast. The gap between when we were and when we again shall be self-sufficient has required imports of oil for which we have had to pay increasing amounts. We have subsidized those imports to ensure a gradual increase in price and to ensure equality of costs for all Canadians across Canada. Today we are at a stage when we need to phase in yet higher oil prices in Canada-let no one be mistaken that there will be higher oil prices-to compensate for our import costs and to ensure that the necessary further development of our petroleum industry continues

October 14, 1980
Energy
unabated. There will be higher prices, but they will not be world prices. We are committed in this government to maintain a made-in-Canada price which will blend the lower cost of conventional oil, the much higher cost of non-conventional oil and the imported oil, the price over which we have no control.
On the question of non-conventional oil pricing, there can now be little disagreement in principle. The minister pointed out that the government has proposed a price of $38 a barrel, plus an inflator which will provide the necessary funds to ensure that the additional oil sands projects go ahead as planned without interruption.
On the question of conventional oil, we all agree that the price must increase. There has, however, been some disagreement about tying that Canadian price to world levels. It is not our intention to do so and we are committed to a policy which will maintain a made-in-Canada price.
We have had some discussion this afternoon about matters which might better be described as fiscal rather than energy policy. We have talked about the division of oil revenue among the producers, the provinces, and the national government. As the minister pointed out, in all other federal states the revenue accruing to the central government is much greater in proportion to total revenue than here in Canada. Quite obviously there is a need at the federal level for more revenue to meet our obligations in respect of redistribution through equalization payments. There is obviously a need for more national revenue to reduce and eventually eliminate the oil compensation import program, and there is a need to ensure that energy projects receive the essential stimulus of the national government.
In addition, while we recognize the need of industry for funds to develop non-conventional sources, we see that there are also real requirements to move quickly and substantially in the direction of greater Canadian participation in the petroleum industry.
During these past days we have been discussing the patria-tion of our constitution. We have yet, in my view, to patriate our economy, and one part of that goal will be achieved by our energy policy which aims directly at the question of greater Canadianization of the oil industry.
In introducing this motion the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) referred to possible supply problems and painted a rather gloomy picture of possible disruptions in the supply to Canadians of their essential oil requirements. I would remind the House of the success of this government in negotiating and completing arrangements for the import of new sources of oil from Mexico, the delivery of which I am pleased to say will commence very shortly.
In addition, in Canada today we have Canadian oil inventories of approximately 160 million barrels, and that amount is by no means negligible. Those reserves amount to about 90 days of oil consumption and over 1,000 days-three years-of our current net oil imports.
Nevertheless, the government is also committed to alternatives which will also assist Canadians in being assured that their offshore oil supplies will be adequate to meet all essential needs. We are, for example, currently considering alternatives for establishing an emergency oil inventory. I might point out that given Canada's relatively modest oil imports, this emergency inventory need not be too large. An emergency stock of from 15 million to 25 million barrels would provide from six months' to one year's protection from a loss of 10 per cent to 20 per cent of our current crude oil imports. Even with larger disruptions, this inventory would provide time to evaluate the situation and implement, if necessary, our emergency allocation procedures.
Also in connection with the possibility of emergency supplies, which the hon. member raised earlier, we have made significant progress in the preparation of contingency plans for the allocation of crude oil to refineries and petroleum products to wholesale consumers. Should an emergency become so severe that rationing became necessary, plans are available for that as well.
I might also add that in the international arena we have engaged, with other industrialized countries of the western would, in a third international test to appraise the procedures of the allocation of oil under the International Energy Agency. This may suggest further improvements which might, as necessary, be made to our present procedures.
The hon. member opposite also spoke this afternoon about conservation and renewable energy. I should like for a moment to turn to those two subjects as a further illustration of the ways in which this government has acted, is acting, and will act to provide Canadians with a new energy policy capable of providing the security and fairness of supply which all Canadians have a right to seek.
In the context of energy conservation, the Government of Canada has recently moved, with the provincial governments, in co-operative programs intended to develop promising energy savings or alternative energy technologies. Most recently, an agreement was signed with the government of Saskatchewan. In total almost $120 million has been allocated for joint projects with provinces under this promising conservation program.
Industry is one of the major consumers of oil in Canada. We have worked out co-operative programs with various industry sectors, which has led to substantial savings already in the amount of oil they use, particularly in the manufacturing sector. In co-operation with industry, we have engaged in setting new targets which look for a 23 per cent reduction in the amount of oil consumed by Canadian industry over the base year 1975.
I hardly need remind the House-in any discussion of conservation-of the success of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. CHIP has made more than $200 million available to Canadians for more energy-efficient homes. As has already been announced, new arrangements and additions are being made to that program to ensure greater efficiency and further extension.
October 14, 1980

On the question of alternative sources, I was pleased that the hon. member opposite raised some questions in his opening statement because the record of the government in this area has been one of constant improvement since the first efforts in, for example, the solar area in 1978. The House may recall that at that time government funding of almost $400 million was offered to assist new research and development in renewable energies, particularly solar. Those programs have already begun to show results, although solar technology is not yet at a stage where it can be widely applied in oil saving procedures. There is no question in my mind that, while not looking for dramatic immediate pay-offs, we must make such investment in what is a Canadian industry offering real potential for the future.
More recently, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) announced further expansion of the federal programs intended to develop solar technology in Canada, including a program which will provide for the construction of a number of dwellings heated in part or in whole by solar water heaters.
In this area of solar energy, as indeed in the areas of a number of other renewable energy resources such as wind, tide or biomass, we are still at an early stage of technological development, but with the significant funding which is becoming available through the federal government in support of these programs I have no doubt of their ultimate success.
1 might say in addition that we on this side of the House welcome the recent announcements of the Ontario government regarding its commitment of substantial new funds toward the same end of promoting renewable energy sources in Canada.
1 might also note that the government announced in the Speech from the Throne the creation of a renewable energy corporation. That Crown corporation has a mandate to provide essential support for the promotion of renewable energy technologies beyond the demonstration stage and particularly to benefit smaller Canadian companies. The new corporation is now on its way to inception. Funding has been provided for its initial activities, and Petro-Canada is providing, for the moment, necessary administrative support while the new corporation comes into being.
With these few comments on our energy wealth and potential, and with one or two remarks about policies to ensure all Canadians adequate supplies of energy sources, I hope that 1 have indicated the government's general policy approach to the provision of energy in Canada. 1 hope, too, that by referring to the conservation initiatives and the new programs in renewable energy 1 have given substance to our commitment to the need as well to act on the demand side of the equation. In our view, it is not adequate simply to search for new sources of conventional energy within Canada. It is also essential that Canadians recognize and develop methods for conservation and for renewable sources.
With these references to the government's energy policy principles and objectives, to the evidence of the dynamic growth of our energy economy and to the many initiatives we have taken in the past six months, I trust that the House will
Energy
recognize that our management of Canada's energy situation is fully in accordance with our best national interests. The actions we have taken as a government have greatly reduced the threat to our national energy security experienced in the not too distant past. We will be announcing in the very near future new energy initiatives on the basis of the planning and decisions of the past six months which in our view will enable Canadians to meet the very serious challenges of energy supply and price, the problems of price impact on inflation and on the economy generally facing all countries in 1980. But I believe we in Canada have the opportunity to meet those challenges in a way that is unsurpassed by any other industrialized country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). In order to refresh the minds of hon. members as to what we are debating on this allotted day, it is an opposition procedure by which the opposition can pick a subject and in effect debate the merits and demerits of that subject; it is sort of a replacement of the old supply procedure. But for those people in the television audience, this is one of the few opportunities the opposition has to bring to the fore issues which can be debated because it feels they carry a rather high priority.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre ably led off the debate by moving the following motion:
That this House condemns the government for its mismanagement of Canada's energy situation with the consequent loss of economic development opportunities and increased threat to the nation's energy security.
Other than perhaps what is going on in Toronto today where the premiers are talking about the constitution, and what will take place tomorrow when the House recommences the debate on that topic, I do not believe there is a more fundamental question which affects the unity of this country than the question of energy and the policy, or the lack of one, from the federal government. When the scales are weighed up yonder, regardless of what happens to the Constitution of Canada and/or its reform and renewed federalism, there is no doubt in my mind that the policy or lack of policy of the present government on energy will be its single most important substantive indictment. Frankly, that covers a fantastic field because there are many other areas about which we can talk in which the government has not moved with much decision or knowledge. Naturally we in the opposition would think that.
I have only a brief remark to make about the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I was a little disappointed that he reflected on the absence of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre who moved this motion, it is nevertheless the minister's responsibility to be in the House and participate in the debate. He has a responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer and those who cannot pay taxes because they do not have enough money-there are almost more of those than taxpayers. If the minister has developed the arrogance of which many

October 14, 1980
Energy
have quite rightly accused him, if he can speak and then disappear, he has almost reversed what Caesar said when he came to Gaul. He would say, "I saw, I conquered and I left".
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) condescended to sit here and listen to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre move the motion. He listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the energy critic of the NDP, when he spoke. Perhaps he has good reasons in his mind for not being here today to discuss this fundamental issue of energy, but it is most unfair for the parliamentary secretary to the minister to stand in his place and comment on the absence of a member of the opposition who does not hold a ministerial post and is not paid an extra stipend by the Crown to discharge government business. I have another comment to make about the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren). Again it is just a brief reference to Toronto. It is not just facts and figures or the writ of a constitution that makes constitutions or countries. It is an atmosphere; it is really a feeling which goes a long way toward getting into the intangibles of a constitution. But it is easy to understand why we have problems with the constitution and/or an energy package when we hear the minister of energy or his parliamentary secretary stand in the House and say that there is no crisis in energy. That was the purport of the minister's remarks earlier-that there is no crisis in energy. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where one would have to go in the western world today to find a country which does not have an energy crisis, unless one finds the foxhole Alice in Wonderland slid down years ago in that famous little book Lewis Carroll wrote, which I think the minister and the parliamentary secretary must have read, and lives in a fool's world. There is not a spokesman worthy of his salt who does not appreciate that every western country is confronted with an energy crisis regardless of how one might want to particularize. We talk about the export of gas and the parliamentary secretary says we are only a little short of oil. The parliamentary secretary only has to go east. He can go through the province of Quebec and certainly to Atlantic Canada, and when he is talking about a little deficiency in the supply of oil, he is talking about 80 per cent of the generation of energy in Nova Scotia and more than that in Prince Edward Island. That is real cause for concern in the minds of those in Atlantic Canada and, I would think, among many people in Quebec. It is the basis for what any moderate person would say is a crisis in energy. Whether one wants to talk about conventional sources, gas, solar, alternative supply or conservation, there is not a responsible person in the western world who does not realize that this is a problem on which we do not have a handle because the supply in so many cases is beyond our shores. As was intimated by the parliamentary secretary, the sad thing is that we have the potential, if developed, of developing a sufficiency of supply, and the previous government tried to do something about that. There is an honest difference of opinion. This was expressed in the vote last year and certainly it was expressed in the vote in February by the people of Canada.
Perhaps, with respect, they did not understand the full implications of what was attempted in the budget of December last year. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre had to go to Toronto on parliamentary business. I think it is the height of hyprocrisy for the parliamentary secretary to comment about his absence when the minister responsible for the whole energy field is not in his place and perhaps we will not see him again for the rest of the day.
The minister made an allusion to Thanksgiving and offered some rejoinder as he started. When I heard his remarks, I thought he might have been speaking on April Fools' Day, poking fun, making jests and April Fools' jokes along with some of his larger generalizations. The minister can be a likeable person away from the House. I do not intend this personally, but in the discharge of his ministerial responsibilities, whether in the House or talking to fellow ministers in the provinces, this minister has a capacity to give a turkey indigestion when he tries to explain the problems in the energy field. Looking ahead in the holiday field-and again this is not a personal reflection-in the discharge of his duties outside the House he is a very affable and most humble man who has much about which to be humble; but in the House and dealing with his fellow counterparts in the provinces he has the capacity to make Santa Claus on Christmas Day into Scrooge. Instead of using his energy to develop the policies or the security of supply about which he talks, I submit he is creating discord and division across the land as great as any we have ever known outside Quebec in terms of our future and in terms of the constitution.
Worse than that, there is an element of deception in almost everything he says. I say this with reluctance because I do not want to deliberately accuse a minister of deceiving the House, but this is what is going on, whether it is intentional or unintentional and, frankly, the minister has more brains than a lot of people give him credit for. I do not believe it is unintentional. I believe it is very intentional and we saw several examples of it here today. All right, it can be a matter of debate for him taking pride in so many more wells being drilled this year but the minister knows that in order to drill a well this year you have to plan for it the year before. The real test of this government's mandate will be how many wells are drilled next year. If there is not a satisfactory oil pricing agreement I would venture to say-and I am prepared to bet the minister when he returns to the House-that there will not be as many wells drilled next year as this year if there is not an oil pricing agreement, and we have not seen one yet.
The parliamentary secretary commented on figures and the minister used figures. We all know-government members know, opposition members know and I think the public out there in televisionland know-that any politician worth his salt can play with figures. Figures lie or liars figure, but figures do not lie. Take the precise example the minister used in terms of deception-and I am not talking about the television ads across this land which are trying to lull Canadians into a false sense of complacency that we have security of supply-that we
October 14, 1980

have all those great reserves and resources out there. Getting around to developing them may be another question but do not worry too much. When you see that type of ad how interested are you going to be in conservation? I know what my children think when they see that ad. They ask me: Dad, don't we have a problem with oil in Atlantic Canada? I have to say yes. They ask: Then what is that ad telling us that everything is all right?
You can talk about all your programs-and the insulation program is good as far as it goes-but there have been some other projects involving alternative energy. 1 think of the Fundy tidal project which used to be in my riding and is now in the riding of the hon. member for Southwest Nova (Miss Campbell). That was an experimental project involving some $42 million, $25 million of which might be the forerunner of the development of tidal power in Canada. Certainly, in Atlantic Canada that could be an alternative source of energy.
But where is the incentive to develop those alternate sources or follow any conservation program in our daily life when there are ads on television which say it is all right, don't worry, Canada is the greatest and there is lots of potential under the ground and under the sea? The exercise defeats its own purpose, Mr. Speaker.
But let us look at the figures used by the minister today. He talked about Texas. I am not the expert in terms of figures but 1 have these from a fundamental source. The very fraction that he talked about he compared to Texas. He was talking about Alberta. This deception is repeated and repeated so that people think that Alberta is the only bad boy in this picture. The minister knows, even if the parliamentary secretary does not, that it is not 45 per cent that goes to Alberta from the first dollar to the last dollar. The hon. gentleman over there smiles and 1 take it the smile is in acquiescence. He does know it is a weighted figure. I have heard 45 per cent at federal-provincial conferences, I have heard it on radio, 1 have heard commentators use it and until I heard the minister use it again today and then went behind the curtains to talk to a couple of members who are more knowledgeable in this field than I am, I did not fully appreciate how deceptive that figure is. The 45 per cent that Alberta supposedly gets is a weighted figure. The province does not get 45 per cent of every dollar that flows into their coffers. Of the first four dollars they only get 16'/2 per cent. And the figure is weighted up to the 45 per cent. The average, Mr. Speaker, is 37 per cent.
What does that 37 per cent do on $16-a-barrel oil in Alberta? Let us not talk about paying the Mexicans $34 or $36 a barrel. That money would go out of the country and would not develop a thing in Canada. Let us just talk about the $16-less than half the world price-that we pay our fellow Canadians. Thirty-seven per cent of the $16 works out to $5.92 a barrel. The 17 per cent that the minister says is paid to the Texan state government, because they are getting much more as their wholesale price, works out to $6.46. If my figures are wrong I hope the minister will stand in this House tomorrow and ask me to correct this calculation. 1 have it from a man in our opposition who knows much more about oil than I do and I take his figures as being correct. I saw the charts
Energy
behind them. But, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to stand and be the one to be rebuked if I am in error. This is just an example which, on my information, shows the deception in regard to this whole energy picture. I find it a very interesting situation when the minister relies on the Texas reed and realizes it is a broken reed, a broken straw.
There are so many other things one could say in the brief time allotted. The minister said he was going to talk about three points. I hope he will start by talking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In that memorable speech which the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, gave during the election campaign before the Board of Trade in Halifax on January 25, the Prime Minister did not talk about three commitments, he talked about seven major commitments. There were seven major commitments and I am going to talk about one, the Q and M pipeline. Only two have even come close to being acknowledged. Let us take the minister's words. Forget about the Prime Minister who made seven commitments only two of which have even been acknowledged, and let us take the three the hon. gentleman mentioned here today. He talked about security of supply, alternatives and conservation.
I won't repeat some of what I have said but in terms of supply we have not got an oil pricing agreement, we have not got the development of the tar sands and our supply picture is questionable. Wayne Cheveldayoff, in an article he wrote for The Globe and Mail on May 12, 1980, before he became assistant to the governor of the Bank of Canada-and I think everyone in this House and certainly members opposite would agree with me that Wayne Cheveldayoff would be a very objective commentator on the energy scene-said that within six years the conventional supply, in effect from Alberta, will be used up unless we develop some of those frontier supplies. We are talking about Canadianizing the oil industry. If we do not get down to developing our oil industry, Mr. Speaker, we will have no oil industry to Canadianize.
The minister's second point was fairness between regions. 1 want to ask the parliamentary secretary how fair is it to end the Q and M pipeline in Quebec and not extend it to Atlantic Canada, though the Prime Minister promised he would do so in the campaign; the Liberal party in a full page ad after the Prime Minister spoke in Halifax promised, in point three, that there would be a natural gas pipeline to ensure all Canadians access to their resources. It said:
Liberals would take immediate action to begin negotiations for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
To quote the Prime Minister's words which appear on page ten of his speech-it was one of the few printed speeches in the campaign:
I am announcing today, as part of our program, that a Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
Mr. Speaker, the cabinet can either accept or reject a National Energy Board decision. I charge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the two ministers from Nova Scotia in this minis-

October 14, 1980
Energy
try-and I do not know who else is from Atlantic Canada because we do not hear about them down there-with selling out the interests of Atlantic Canada by not rejecting the NEB report.
The NEB says that the need for environmental studies is the reason we should not proceed. They know and the minister knows that gas pipelines, and there are all sorts of them buried across this country with grass growing on top of them, would follow the hydro lines which are a worse environmental eyesore. The fuel being transported is gas, which is a heck of a lot less polluting than coal. If there were a break in the pipeline or any other problem, we would know, as he knows and they should know, that in terms of environmental impact the blow-off of methane is a heck of a lot less harmful than many other spills.
They tried to justify not extending the Q and M pipeline by saying there might be something offshore in Sable. We in Atlantic Canada know, as the minister and the NEB should know, that any development offshore would be within a three-year to four-year range which would coincide with the building or construction of a pipeline beyond Quebec if it got under way today. The environmental studies are merely an excuse for the minister. I believe the NEB did a disservice to Atlantic Canada, but it is supposedly beyond parliamentary criticism. I am starting to wonder if it should be.
The whole matter is a political question for the same reason as the building of the CPR to the west to tie it in with the rest of Canada back in 1867 was a political question. It should be a political decision made by a government with fibre in its soul and an interest in all of Canada, not just pieces of Canada, to make sure that that pipeline goes from coast to coast and certainly beyond Quebec into Atlantic Canada.
I cannot get very excited over what the minister said today about fairness to the regions. He need not talk to me about fairness to regions. I am sure there are members on the other side from the province of Newfoundland who must be embarrassed at the present position of the federal government in not allowing the government of Newfoundland to transmit power across Quebec from Churchill Falls. What is the rationale? How can there be a double standard, letting pipelines cross provinces yet not allowing a hydro line to cross Quebec?


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am very limited in the time I have left, and that man spoke some time ago. He wants to ask a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) may be correct in that the interruption is pursuant to the desire of the hon. member to ask a question, but the Chair cannot know that before we find out.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already answered my question. He has anticipated it, and I must say that it is very convenient for him-


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


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am going to ask a question which he can certainly answer with fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am informed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that if it is the intention of the hon. member to ask a question-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It certainly is that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -that the hon. member does not accept the proposition and does not intend to answer questions while he is speaking. This being the case, there seems to be no point whatsoever in encouraging a question which will not be answered.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to take any barb from the hon. junior member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), who has made some very interesting and dynamic contributions in his own way. However, that young member does not need to talk about the truth to me. I am not going to follow the rabbit tracks of the hon. member when I am after bigger game.


Erik Nielsen: Mouse traps.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not going to follow mouse traps when 1 am talking about the minister or even the parliamentary secretary. When the hon. member from the back side comes up to the front side, then I might condescend to listen to him.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not think that I have much time left, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that you do not include these last remarks in the time 1 have used. In terms of fairness we in Atlantic Canada-and I am disappointed and amazed that the hon. member from Newfoundland does not understand-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and this is one reason why you have had your birthrights sold out, because you have not stood in your place and complained about the fact that you could not get the hydro line from Churchill Falls, Newfoundland, through Quebec. It is members like this, Mr. Speaker, who are not speaking for Atlantic Canada and who are doing a disservice to Atlantic Canada. I hope his constituents will recognize that instead of asking me questions, he should be questioning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on why there is no transmission of power from Churchill Falls so that the government of Newfoundland could get some dollars to help develop the other section of the project. That is to whom the questions should be directed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 14, 1980


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In conclusion, because I know my time is just about up, I will talk about offshore rights which the present government will not honour. I would like to draw attention to an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of October 4 which deals not only with the offshore problem today but with some of the history of this country and points out facts which make our offshore situation even more accute and compounds the sense of unfairness which we in Atlantic Canada feel.
As other provinces came into confederation, be it Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or Quebec, vast territories in the north were given to them by act of this Parliament. We do not begrudge this. But, for example, one of the most important developments in Quebec, the James Bay project, is located in this territory. Much of the development which took place in Alberta and Saskatchewan is found in such northern areas. The size of these territories is immense, with approximately 379,000 square miles going to Quebec, approximately 382,000 square miles to Ontario and approximately 237,000 miles to Manitoba. Alberta and Saskatchewan each received 250,000 square miles of new territory.
If one turns to Nova Scotia, which has only 20,000 square miles of territory in total, one can begin to appreciate why in the deep east, if we have any feeling for the deep east and are true sons of the deep east, we feel there is a double standard. We do not mind other provinces getting the territories which make up their present boundaries because it has obviously helped us with regard to equalization grants.
What we cannot understand is why there is not some recognition of the mineral wealth off our shores since those other provinces, through those extra gifts of land, received so much wealth. I would hope the minister will come back into the House and address his mind to a couple of the matters which I have raised.
The most interesting and ironic situation came up when the minister talked about the third item.
I have a different clock from yours, Mr. Speaker, but since yours is the one that governs us, I gather you are indicating that my time is up. In conclusion, the third item mentioned by the minister had to do with Canadian participation in the oil industry. There are reliable assessments that, based on the known supply in this country at the present time, we will not have any oil within a ten-year period unless we develop non-conventional resources. The interesting thing which the minister did not tell us is that it was the fledgling oil industry in the west, when Turner Valley was first discovered during the 1940s, which came east to look for financing. That industry came to the Government of Canada of the day for financing. It happened to be the same type of government in power, a Liberal government, as is the case now, and has, unfortunately, been the case for so long.
Because of the lack of financing from eastern financiers and the government, the oil industry had to go south of the border for financing to develop its fantastic oil potential. I hope that some of the deception, discord and division which is constantly being sown by the minister on this issue will be directed to resolving problems rather than to creating more problems.
Energy
[ Translation]


Mr. Bujold:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very lively debate, but as Your Honour will see, it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If that is agreed, the Chair will call it six o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. When the House took recess at six o'clock this evening, the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) had the floor. The hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine-Bonaventure now has the floor.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you have ever been to the Magdalen Islands but I can see that you have adopted the same attitude as the "Madelinots": you have just said "iles-de-la-Madeleine-Bonaventure" which will make them very happy because they have been raising Cain with a view to getting a single riding at the federal level; they will be very pleased indeed to see that the Speaker of this House has started speaking of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am indeed very pleased to participate in this extremely important debate and, as my friend, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) was saying this afternoon, this debate is just as important as the other because the two go together. However, my hon. friend took offence at the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had to leave the House after having heard a representative of each of the two parties of the opposition, in order to get to Toronto and attend the meeting he had convened a few weeks ago, precisely to discuss the extremely important matter that energy is. Our friend took offence at the fact that the minister left his parliamentary secretary to take over in the House; let it be said, in passing, that he does an extraordinary and exemplary job of helping his minister in this tremendous task. But what I find even more regrettable is that our friend, in making such gratuitous affirmations, should have overlooked the fact that his colleague, the energy critic, was not present here in the House. The energy critic of the official opposition is somewhere, in Canada I trust; in addition, the hon. member, his colleague, who presented the motion of non-confidence, left the House immediately after having finished his remarks. He did not even

October 14, 1980
Energy
deign to stay in the House to hear the NDP representative and added to the insult by leaving before the minister responsible could reply to the parties of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that our friends on the other side have anything to teach us. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who especially now has awesome responsibilities to bear, has always shown great respect for the House of Commons and the Canadian people and he will continue to do so, I am sure.
I would also like to refer to another point that my friend made in his speech when he was disagreeing with our government's statements on revenue sharing in the oil field. He objected to the figures we quoted, specifically to the fact that the provinces and the industry each receive about 45 per cent of revenues while the federal government receives 10 per cent. Obviously if we go back to the fifties or even the sixties those figures are no longer valid. Even at the beginning of the seventies, revenue sharing had not reached those percentages. We are only considering the figures for the period 1975 to 1979 during which the oil crisis reached its peak throughout the world. If we go back on these years, Mr. Speaker, we note that the provinces' share of the revenues for those five years was 36 per cent in 1975, 40.8 per cent in 1976, 47.1 per cent in
1977,	46.3 per cent in 1978 and 46.5 per cent in 1979. I think, Mr. Speaker, that averages around 45 per cent.
What about the industry's share? In 1975, it received 53 per cent of the revenues, in 1976, 48.8 per cent, in 1977, 41.3 per cent, in 1978, 44.2 per cent and in 1979, 43.4 per cent. As for the federal share, I said earlier 10 per cent. In 1975, it was 10.4 per cent, in 1976, 10.4 per cent, in 1977, 11.6 per cent, in
1978,	9.5 per cent and in 1979, 10.1 per cent. Those are the figures published by our department and which our minister has quoted many times. In view of the figures provided, I feel that those who claim the federal government is putting forward inaccurate data are wrong. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the federal government's share during the crucial years of the energy crisis has been, as I said, approximately 10 per cent. On top of this, because of our government's involvement in the oil industry, which has increased its responsibilities, it is true that our revenue in that area is not very high.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that whenever the energy issue is raised in the House, it seems to bother and disturb our hon. friends opposite. And with reason, I think. This afternoon, our friend, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) dealt with the so-called surrender of our government in this area and he tried to make the point that the gas tax had increased in spite of our commitment to the contrary; we must not forget, however, the increase the official opposition wanted to impose when it was in power. If we had been compelled to bear this increase on top of the other, the total increase would have been over 18 cents a gallon. But our friend from Joliette also said
that the federal government, our government, had done nothing about the oil situation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some dates and facts. Obviously, I shall not go back to 1963, when we came to power, because I think it would put some of our friends to shame. Let me go back no further than February 1973, when the Hon. Donald Macdonald announced that from then on oil exports be regulated by the National Energy Board and be constantly monitored. On September 4, 1973, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced a price freeze on oil products and suggested abandoning the 1961 national oil policy which, by the way, had been put into place by the former government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. On October 1, 1973, a tax was imposed on oil exports. In January 1974, the oil import compensation program was implemented.
A compromise was reached and it was agreed that the price of Canadian oil would be frozen until March 31, 1974, and that eastern Canada consumers of imported oil would be subsidized, to standardize the domestic price of crude oil. On January 14, 1974, two important bills were given royal assent, Bill C-236, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, and Bill C-245, the Oil Export Tax Act.
On March 27, 1974, the oil price was raised to $6.50 a barrel effective April 1. On April 8, 1974, the then minister, Mr. Macdonald, tabled the Petroleum Administration Act and on October 25 of that same year the act received royal assent, that is after the 1974 general election. On July 30, 1975, the famous Petro-Canada Act received royal assent. On December 12, 1975, the general agreements on oil price increases were signed. On June 23, 1977, the then minister, Mr. Gillespie, announced the new curves prices would follow until January 1 1979, in other words from July 1, 1977, domestic price for crude would increase by $1 a barrel every six months until January 1, 1979. On November 30, 1978, once again the minister announced that oil prices would go up as expected on January 1, 1979. On February 8, 1979, the minister then announced an emergency plan and on March 29 Bill C-42, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act received royal assent.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, those are the actions the Liberal government has taken since 1973 with respect to oil.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to look at the performance of our friends across the way when they were in power. On June 20, 1979, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Hnatyshyn, announced an increase in oil prices. On October 8, 1979, Premier Lougheed and the then prime minister, Mr. Clark, could not agree on an oil price. On November 14 of the same year, the meeting between Premier Lougheed and the prime minister failed.
On November 23 of the same year, the then prime minister threatened to take unilateral action. On December 27 of the same year, there was still no agreement between Premier Lougheed and the prime minister. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1979, the minister of finance of the government of the day introduced his disastrous budget, and
October 14, 1980

we know what happened after that. The government was defeated and the people of Canada saw, after looking at such a performance, that they had no choice but to return the Liberal government to power, a government which knew how to take its responsibilities and carry through all its undertakings. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in one area our government has always been and will continue to be in the years to come a responsible government which will take its responsibilities in this area.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to a particular point of the whole energy policy, namely the extremely important area of natural gas. Our government took extremely important decisions in this area. One only has to recall the agreement this government gave on the construction and the extension of the pipeline to Quebec City; it also urged the extension of the pipeline to the maritime provinces.
This also brings me to talk about another fact that was noted by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. He complained this afternoon that the government had not acted on this extremely important matter of extending the pipeline to the maritimes. Yet he should know that his colleagues in the House of Commons regularly ask questions about this and that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has always answered adequately, and that there is now an appeal before the National Energy Board. We hope that a decision will be made in the near future and that it will favour an extension of the pipeline to the maritime provinces. Mr. Speaker, this would mean that our government is truly taking its responsibilities seriously and give great importance to the natural gas sector of energy, to show how our country will be able in the future to stop depending on oil producing countries for its energy needs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline briefly the importance that this pipeline, especially the part from Montreal to Quebec City, and then the extension to the maritimes, will have for my region, eastern Quebec, and especially the Gaspe Peninsula. As our region is rather remote from major centres, it must accept enormous deficits for residential heating, and oil is very expensive to transport. We have to accept some slight increases compared with major centres.
The extension of such a pipeline will obviously eliminate all these cost increases. This is precisely why this Liberal government is taking its responsibilities by wanting to extend part of the energy distribution system in Quebec, especially east of Montreal and in eastern Canada, because these are the regions where unemployment is the highest, and which suffer most from their remoteness, and this is why our government has undertaken to see to it that the population of these areas can have access to the enormous supplies of Canadian natural gas.
I find it difficult to understand another criticism that I heard this afternoon concerning the possible running out of conventional oil within six years in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that, according to our figures, if we compare proven
Energy
reserves to consumption this year, these reserves will last from six to eight years.
1 think this is forgetting most important energy factors, namely the Canadian energy situation-they forgot that each year we have significant oil discoveries-and neglected all the efforts made by our government in energy conservation. There has been much talk about government advertising in that area. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the advertisements put out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Canadian government each week, each day in the newspapers and each week in weeklies is most important. The aim is simply to make the people understand and realize the need to conserve energy.
Another action by our government is the 10 per cent reduction in the use of oil for home and commercial building heating in Canada, to be replaced by natural gas. These are actions by our government, and in order to explain briefly that such a six to eight-year figure for oil reserves is wrong, our actions in that area must be considered.
This leads me to refer to our natural gas reserves. We know they are important to our energy potential, but we also know that in the late fifties and the early sixties demand for natural gas was not very high. However, a much steeper price increase for oil than gas resulted in significantly higher volumes of natural gas consumption, which experienced a threefold increase between 1962 and 1972. The consumption increase was nearly 12 per cent per year, and the over-all natural gas consumption doubled. Up to 1970, new discoveries more than offset annual production rates, that went from some 35 billion cubic feet in 1962 to nearly 57 billion in 1970. However, at the end of 1974, proven reserves remaining in Alberta and the area were estimated at some 57 billion cubic feet.
However, to continue to maintain the price of natural gas as it was would have greatly hindered discoveries in that sector. This is why our government has stated on several occasions that it would like to increase the price of natural gas. Such a policy has promoted prospecting for natural gas so that in 1979 our known reserves amounted to 80.4 billion cubic feet, good for 52 years. Our reserves also figured out in 1979 were 260 billion cubic feet, enough for 179 years. It therefore means, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has assumed its responsibilities in the field of natural gas, so that our dependency especially on oil is likely to be reduced. The great efforts that we will be making in the years to come in that area, as the minister said this afternoon, will enable us to reach that self-sufficiency which we seek and all want.
Mr. Speaker, I would like finally to point out another very important fact in the field of natural gas, that is its anti-pollution effect in the sectors where it is used. It is evident that hardly any pollution can be traced to natural gas.
When it comes to regions such as Gaspe and eastern Canada where fishing is a very important and almost vital activity for the people, the use of natural gas will have a definite impact

October 14, 1980
Energy
on this area. When we come to the issue of acid rain and consider all the resulting problems in that area, we must make an enormous effort so that natural gas, this natural energy product which does not produce much pollution, be accepted in this country. This is why, Mr. Speaker, our government is taking its responsibilities and we hope that in the forthcoming years the use of natural gas will have increased considerably, especially in eastern Canada.


Mr. Bill  Doram@Peterborough: Mr. Speaker, even a brief review of the energy and industrial opportunities awaiting this country will impress anyone with the folly of failing to produce a national policy to match our Canadian economy. Month after wearying month has gone by while this government sits in thumb-twiddling repose contemplating its constitutional navel.
Is there not one of the members opposite, one of true vision and sincerity who will admit that the strength of a country is derived of substance, of things, of the industrial and social facts of its economy? Perhaps it is the Liberal philosophy to erect a facade of grand and lofty constitutional rhetoric to the world to cover the crumbling ruin of the building it hides. Perhaps it cares more for developing its advertising technique to create false hope than it does to developing the tar sands to create genuine hope.
I am sure the huge irony of the Liberals having watched five increases in the price of gasoline since they came to power on a promise of keeping prices down has not been lost on all Canadians, whether they live in the west, central or eastern regions of this country.
The Liberal demi-gods have been presiding over one of the most divisive rifts between the provinces and the federal government this country has ever seen. Hostilities between different parts of the country have been fostered, encouraged and even initiated. These animosities between the people of Canada need not exist. I can assure this House, and my colleagues from western Canada will bear me out, that there exists an interdependence and a mutual feeling of co-operation between all working people and their families right across the land. There is nothing that unites these people of Canada more than their frustration with the absolute lack of initiatives in the field of energy development on the part of the Liberal government.
Certainly, the people of my own riding of Peterborough and all those who live in the industrial heartland of Ontario, can see very clearly that what is good for the producing provinces is very good for the so-called consuming provinces. For they do not just "consume", they are not just ravenous non-producers wanting a free ride from Alberta; they work, they produce, they conserve, and ultimately they will help move this nation towards a fine and truly national balance of equalization.
The government might also care to ask an Ontario worker whether he would care to choose between losing his job
because of lost orders to his firm, or paying a few more cents at the gas pump on his way home from work? I know that the workers at one Dundas area company, for example, who made the bucket wheel reclaimers for the Syncrude plant, are all for Alberta's oil industry getting the green light on revenue infusion for capital investment. That is the only way to keep their orders coming. I am sure these workers would rather not sit at home and debate the merits of section 42. I am sure, too, that they would rather see geese over the end of their shotguns on well-deserved hunting weekends than watch them flap over their TV screens in slow motion.
In my own riding of Peterborough, that city's major industry, the Canadian General Electric plant, depends very heavily on our indigenous energy package. I spoke the other day to a representative of the CGE plant, which employs 4,800 people. He told me that "any expansion in any area where electricity is involved will benefit us". "Our whole market," he said, "is based on the expansion of industry, and the more developments and capital investment projects, the better it is from our point of view".
How is this electricity produced in Ontario? Some 45 per cent of Ontario's total energy requirement is based on oil. Canadian General Electric at Peterborough, for example, can produce pump motors, industrial controls, wire and cable for the resource exploration and development market. This is what is really meant by Ontarians being Canadian; a two-way railroad of goods, services and capital between the west and all parts of Canada. It is not the bird's-eye view gained from the Liberal dirigible gliding through the constitutional clouds.
I must impress upon the government and upon the people of Canada that holding up the development of the oil industry in Alberta or indeed in Newfoundland or anywhere in Canada where oil may be found, is holding up industrial development and economic security for the whole nation, and that is very clear. Second, how can we dispel the horrible misconception throughout the country, especially in central Canada, that the most important thing, the one paramount element in this whole mess, is the cost of a litre of gas for the family wagon or, in Mr. Trudeau's case, a tankful for the Mercedes?
The consumer is already paying a fair portion of the true price, the price that should be displayed on the pumps anyway, through the massive $1.5 billion subsidy payments in 1980 alone, and this because of lack of honesty and sincerity. This amount has to be paid on oil imported from offshore to supply Canada east of Ottawa. As the Ottawa Citizen noted on September 29:
If the world price keeps rising and Canadian prices are kept artificially low, the cost of the federal oil subsidy, currently $3.5 billion, will keep rising, so will the federal deficit.
Why not pay what we are paying anyway directly at the pumps, approach the world oil price, attract back expansion and exploration capital, achieve our goal of self-sufficiency in the 1990s, and at the same time protect our jobs and industries in central Canada? As the west and east expand so does
October 14, 1980

central Canada, and as they wither in the west and east so does central Canada.
The production manager of Mobil Oil of Canada recently told delegates to a Halifax mining conference that markets will have to be developed in Quebec and Ontario once offshore gas comes into production. The maritimes have offshore natural gas coming into production. Ontario can supply only .2 per cent of her total energy requirements from her own gas sources.
Premier Bill Davis of Ontario is quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying the Ontario government must "actively advance the interests of the people of Ontario." Is it not apparent to everyone in this House that while doing this in Ontario we are advancing the interests of the people of the maritimes? Co-operation, not confrontation over resources, is what the federal government needs to achieve.
Gulf Canada filed a brief with the National Energy Board a short time ago stating that "Canada has only a remote chance of becoming independent of imported oil" in the 1990s. Gulf Oil stated that if appropriate government policy decisions are not made soon, Canada will need to import up to 500,000 barrels per day throughout the 1990s and the cost of these imports could be $15 billion a year.
Of imported oil, Imperial Oil said in its brief to the National Energy Board that:
-continuation of today's uncertain investment environment relative to energy pricing, revenue sharing and the regulatory system will mean that investments will not be made to achieve self-sufficiency.
I have been in touch with Imperial and have discussed the critical nature of this situation in very real and human terms as well as harsh financial ones. The Cold Lake project alone, for example, is accounting for $10 million a month in running, development and support costs. Imperial reckons that this can continue at the outside for only four months under present Liberal government policy. When that time runs out, all the skilled labour and technical research staff will leave Canada to be flung over all parts and corners of the world, wherever there is a climate of expansion and co-operation.
Turning once again for a moment to Ontario, the area which possibly has the most to gain or the most to lose in the long term in this whole question, I doubt if there is one industry or service in Ontario that is not affected by the oil industry. Non-residential construction, for example, accounts for about one-tenth of Canada's gross national product and is one of the few areas of growth anticipated in the 1981 economy. As the vice-president for Stelco of Hamilton said in Toronto the other day, as reported in The Globe and Mail:
"For this growth to happen, governments must allow the price of Canadian oil to approach world levels and remove the many regulatory roadblocks to petroleum and natural gas development".
The people of Ontario and all people of Canada are anxiously awaiting the forthcoming budget which they hope will restore national confidence, national will and true national pride in the opportunities that await them. The president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada said recently:
Energy
Lack of consumer confidence is our main concern and the forthcoming budget can be a very important element in restoring confidence.
Uncertainty about our national energy goals cannot continue. As the Alberta chamber of commerce recently pointed out, Shell's Alsands project alone will inject 23.5 billion into Canada's gross national product; 6.2 billion of that would accrue directly to Ontario. The impact of the Alsands project alone on Ontario industry is enough to dispel the suspicious doubts about provincial motives on the part of any Canadian in central Canada. For example, $800 million would go to the iron and steel industry in Hamilton and other places; $370 million would go to metal fabrication and machinery in Toronto; $740 million would go to manufacturing and processing; $325 million would go to transportation equipment in Ontario; $370 million would go to finance industries; $750 million would go to trade and services, and so on. Naturally this massive infusion would spill over into other areas of the economy and stimulate consumer spending.
We do not even dream at the moment of a producing well that might be found somewhere under the 5.1 million acres presently under exploration in Hudson Bay whose coastline is shared by Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. That would make some provincial governments dance to a much different tune.
I need not tell anyone in this House that Canada possesses enormous potential for the development of all her energy sources, particularly gas and oil. It cannot be reiterated often enough that Canada's industries, particularly those in central Canada, are ready and willing to move ahead. High inflation, unemployment, a massive trade deficit, and a national debt which now exceeds $100 billion demand action by this government. They demand more than the sanctimonious, highfalutin camouflage which this government presently is indulging in. This tries the patience of the country and it tries the patience of members of this House, and I can tell you that our growing dependence on foreign oil is far more humiliating than the alleged humiliation we suffered on the few occasions-very few occasions-when this country has had to involve Westminster in the last century.
It is humiliating for a forward-looking country to be the highest per capita consumer of gasoline when all other countries in the western world are making conservation a national priority.
The previous Conservative government had the courage and the vision to put forward a budget which sought to confront the trauma which is felt when habits and lifestyles of individuals are changed in a very visible but ultimately not very significant area, at the gas pumps. The Liberals took advantage of this momentary trauma and exploited the immediate fears of Canadians by pretending that their long-term ones did not exist. As the budget last December stated, low prices have led to excessive consumption, and Canadians pay proportionately less now for gasoline than they did 25 years ago. Consumption of gasoline over the first nine months of 1979 was up 4.3 per cent and down by 4 per cent in the United States.

October 14, 1980
Energy
The Crosbie budget also stated that the oil and gas industry, and I quote:
-would receive $33 billion net of all production costs and taxes. The funds flowing to the industry should be ample to support all needed new energy investments. If this does not turn out to be the case, adjustments will be made to ensure sufficient cash flow to the industry for all needed energy projects.
This was a position which I submit coincides very well with what the oil and gas industry and all the other related industries across Canada are asking for today, and would have been given if the Liberals had not landed this red herring of gas prices hook, line and sinker.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and comment on the ludicrous motion of the opposition in this House. Hon. members opposite are clearly out of touch. Nothing could be further from the truth than their conventions.
I have not yet heard about the subject of coal. The Canadian government is actively seeking solutions to the very many important problems we face in terms of energy security and consequent economic revitalization. My colleagues have referred to aspects of our energy policy upon which I shall not dwell at this time. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to outline to this House and to the Canadian people the very positive steps taken by the government in the past several years in an effort to stimulate the Canadian coal industry and, in doing so, assist us in our commitment to energy self-sufficiency.
Coal, once out of favour, is now a born-again fuel. After years of relative neglect in the energy industry coal has emerged as a much needed alternative fuel. Spurred on by the dramatic price increases of OPEC, the development of coal resources has taken on renewed urgency. And Canada has large resources of coal. Measured resources are estimated to amount to some 50 billion tons of all types.
However, in 1979 coal contributed only 9.3 per cent of Canada's primary energy supply. Canadian coal production last year amounted to 33 million tons, yet Canada remained a net importer. This situation will likely reverse itself as early as 1982 or 1983 due to the expected increase in demand for Canadian thermal coal on both the domestic and export markets. However, Canada has been a net exporter of metallurgical coal for a number of years, and it is worthy of note that Canada exports a higher percentage of its coal production than does any other country-indeed, 45 per cent in 1978.
Currently, coal is used for two major purposes in Canada. About 75 per cent of the coal consumed is used to produce electricity, and the remaining 25 per cent is used in the steel industry to produce coke, the necessary fuel of the blast furnaces. There is now no doubt that the importance of coal in the Canadian energy economy will continue to grow in the next decade and that by the year 2000 production will exceed the current level by three to five times.
The Canadian coal industry is primarily divided geographically into two sectors, one operating in western Canada and the other operating in the Atlantic provinces. The government
has been active recently in both areas. In the western region we have taken a leading role in the development of the northeastern British Columbia coal deposits. We have committed ourselves to the Roberts Bank expansion in co-operation with the provincial government, and dredging work will begin in 1981. The Ridley Island terminal has been identified as an integral part of the future development of the northeastern British Columbia reserves, and we are ready to play our part. Railway line expansion, upgrading and construction will play an important part in this development.
On the east coast, in Atlantic Canada, the government has been working through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in an effort to identify methods by which the viability of the Cape Breton coal industry may be revitalized. The Cape Breton Development Corporation should be commended for its efforts in working closely with DREE on this matter. The Elfstrom report into the accident at No. 26 colliery is presently under consideration, and the recommendations of the commission have been accepted by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and are currently under active review.
Further to that, I am pleased to tell the House that I am currently participating in and, indeed, encouraging the establishment of a research centre in Cape Breton as a direct result of the Elfstrom recommendations. Clearly, we have been responsive and active in both areas.
My department has been especially active in the development and encouragement of coal as an alternate energy source. Significant new opportunities exist to increase the use of coal in the Canadian energy economy in addition to the present electrical and metallurgical markets. This will be of special benefit to Atlantic Canada and, as this House is aware from previous policy pronouncements of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the federal government is prepared to assume a large proportion of the technical risk in the introduction of new technologies-indeed, up to the point of commercial use.
There are presently two new technologies of interest for which we are financing research and development initiatives in the near term. They are fluidized bed combustion and coal in oil combustion.
The fluidized bed combustion process offers an improved way of burning coal for utility, industrial and institutional needs. This technology permits the burning of a wide range of coals in the same equipment-including the combustion of colliery wastes-and at the same time makes possible a significant reduction in the release of sulphur dioxide through the addition of control agents such as limestone to the combustion bed. Studies are currently under way to introduce this technology to allow the better use of the higher sulphur coals of eastern Canada.
In co-operation with the Department of National Defence I am sure the House will be happy to know that we are planning the replacement of a plant heating unit at the armed forces base at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, with fluidized bed combustion technology. We believe this technology will allow
October 14, 1980

the use of the higher sulphur Cape Breton coals in an environmentally acceptable way.
The new unit will also use wood chips, to take advantage of the forest resources of the island not now being worked to their full potential. Canadian process design teams are involved and equipment will be manufactured in Canada. Current expenditures for this project are in the neighbourhood of $11 million.
The development of coal in oil combustion technology allows the use of coal in facilities originally designed to burn oil only. While this possibility has been known for many years, a number of technical problems have yet to be resolved to allow widespread use of this technique, and these are being addressed in Canada and elsewhere. The Canadian coal in oil combustion trials have been undertaken in co-operation with the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, and combustion studies are under way in the ten megawatt facility of the commission at Chatham, New Brunswick. This particular investigation has been directed to the possible use of the limited quantities of very high sulphur coals produced in that province. A new process developed by the National Research Council known as the spherical agglomeration process has been incorporated into the preparation system. This process has the unique capability of using the oil itself as a mechanism by which sulphur-bearing impurities in the coal may be rejected. Another possibility for Canadian coal currently under investigation is its suitability for use in the tar sands heavy oil projects as the make-up fuel to supply the necessary steam.
One matter of primary consideration, of course, is the manufacture of synthetic fuel from coal. The coal liquefaction option for Canada will be determined in part by international and domestic developments in the field of synthetic fuels production technologies. While the process has been known for some time, its economic viability is still in question. This brings me to the subject of CAN MET.
I am surprised members of the House are unaware of the research work being conducted in Ottawa by the research division of my department. Early in the spring I invited every member of the House to visit the CANMET research centre. I believe only a handful showed up including, I think, just one member of the official opposition. If members had visited us at CANMET, they would have learned of the extensive work being carried out in that department, work which is essential and which has proved that we in Canada can encourage and enter into many programs which will be economically viable.
CANMET is actively pursuing a variety of research projects. We are continuing research into coal liquefaction and gasification. These research projects are being conducted here and across the country as well, particularly in Alberta. Research into clean-burning coal is very important to Canada because our coal, like all coal, has very specific characteristics and qualities that must be considered. In fact, we know definitely that coal from the east coast has a higher methane content and is therefore combustible in that area, while the metallurgical coal of the west coast is highly combustible but
Energy
offers fewer methane problems. We must develop the specific technology for our Canadian coal.
I am very proud to say this has been done in a great spirit of co-operation with the provinces, particularly with the province of Alberta. CANMET has been working with Alberta in coal research for some time through the Alberta-Canada Energy Resources Research Fund where moneys are being made available for the development of a major coal mining research centre in Edmonton. Also, moneys are provided through this fund for construction of the Energy Resources Building adjacent to the University of Calgary campus and for the Energy Resources Research Building in Devon. I am sure most of the members from that area are aware of these projects.
Under the Canadian coal conversion program the federal government shares the cost on a 50-50 basis with other funding bodies. I have referred to programs financed under this program already, but they are categorized under a multitude of headings, which I would encourage members to read and discover-economics, exploration, strata mechanics, mining methods, underground environment, equipment safety, coal preparation, carbonization, combustion, gasification, liquefaction, coal slurry transportation and environmental aspects. All this work is being conducted here in Canada.
Also, I would urge members of the House to read the book entitled: "Coal-Bridge to the Near Future". In it, coal experts from this country and indeed from my department have offered much-needed advice which has been heeded by many experts in the world. We have been declared to be one of the foremost countries in the development of coal. It is a very interesting book and I would urge all members to look into it, particularly the role Canada must play.
Canada has participated in the world coal study and was party to the conclusions which the study outlined in relation to the world coal system. Incidentally there are a number of projects under way which we would be very happy to describe. The document entitled: "The Current Coal Research and Development Projects in Canada" published recently by my department would bring members up to date on just what is happening in coal.
The conclusions of the world coal study are quite interesting. Perhaps I have time to go into seven of its recommendations. Coal is capable of supplying a high proportion of future energy needs. It now supplies more than 25 per cent of the world's energy. Economically recoverable reserves are very large-many, many times those of oil and gas-and capable of meeting increasing demands well into the future. The coal study went on to indicate that coal will have to supply between one-half and two-thirds of the additional energy needed by the world during the next 20 years, even under the moderate energy growth assumptions of the study. To achieve this goal, world coal production will have to increase 2.5 to three times and the world trade in steam coal will have to grow ten to 15 times above 1979 levels. Many individual decisions must be made along the chain from coal producer to consumer to ensure the required amounts are available when needed. Delays at any point affect the entire chain. This emphasizes

October 14, 1980
Energy
the need for prompt and related actions by consumers, producers, governments and other public authorities. It is interesting to note that coal can be mined, moved and used in most areas in ways that conform to high standards of health, safety and environmental protection by the application of available technology and without unacceptable increases in cost. The present knowledge of possible carbon dioxide effects on the climate does not justify delaying the expansion of coal use.
Coal is already competitive in many locations for the generation of electricity and for many industrial and other uses. It will extend further into these and other markets as oil prices rise. The technology for mining, moving and using coal is well established and steadily improving. Technological advances in combustion, gasification and liquefaction will greatly widen the scope for the environmentally acceptable use of coal in the 1990s and beyond. Finally, the conclusions of the world study indicate that the amount of capital required to expand the production, transport and user facilities to triple the use of coal is within the capacity of domestic and international capital markets, though difficulties in financing large coal projects in some developing countries may require special solutions. Of course the protection of the environment remains one of the primary considerations in any decision to go ahead with large-scale coal development and use. The problem of acid rain can be met through the application of methods now becoming available to limit the release of sulphur and nitrogen compounds. The technology exists.
In co-operation with the provinces interested in coal, we are negotiating an improved agreement on coal technology with the United States department of energy. The Government of Canada was a party to the "Principles for Global Action re: Coal" adopted by the governing board of the International Energy Agency in 1979. It is heartening to the government that our support of these principles was, in the words of the Coal Association of Canada, "adequately representative of the views of the association", and as such they adopted them as a statement of their own policy. So, reality is far removed from the substance of tonight's motion.
In closing I should like to mention that my department is seeking ways to stimulate the educational institutions of this land so that they might begin again to produce qualified Canadians in the very important field of coal mining engineering. Last Friday I participated in a seminar where it was brought out that there are no real coal engineering schools in existence in this country; if we need a real coal expert we have to go to England or the United States, and if we want to train some of our mining engineers specifically in the field of coal we must send them offshore. I think this is a shame. Canada produces many hard-rock miners, but unfortunately there are major differences in both mining technology and in safety considerations when one enters a coal mine. I would hope that through our research station plant in the Cape Breton area we would develop some sort of training at the higher level, as well as at the mining level, for those in the trades. We have relied on foreign expertise for the most part in this field but clearly the future trend now suggests our emphasis in this area must
change and our universities must meet the challenge, as I am confident they will.
In the near future-not later than the mid-1980s-a comprehensive international market for coal will be operating. The maturing of the international market for energy coal will yield a new international energy reference price. How Canada chooses to react as a supplier in this emerging international market will have important implications for the stability of that market and important implication for the resilience and depth of Canada's own energy supply capabilities. The Canadian government has not and will not abdicate its responsibility to take a leading role.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills rises on a point of order. I might point out that the time of the hon. minister has almost expired and there are many other members wishing to be recognized.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister knows that in Lethbridge-Foothills Petro-Canada is developing a test mine in coal. We have millions of tons of low sulphur coal. My question, which I wonder whether she would consider answering, is: what is the minister and her department doing to encourage the Ontario government, which presently imports over 20 million tons of high sulphur coal from the United States, to switch that to importing low sulphur, Alberta coal, something which would provide part of the answer to our trade balance deficit, as well as to the acid rain situation?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that Ontario, indeed, has been discovering its own coal and that at the present time our own CANMET is co-operating with the Onakawana Company to investigate the possibility of an electrical generating plant very close to the source. They will probably be operating within five years.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, one is tempted in the course of a debate on energy policy in general, especially speaking at the end of the day as I do, to take time to refute many of the things that have been said over the course of the debate, particularly by members on the government side.
Perhaps all I will do in commenting on the debate thus far is to congratulate the government on a well-arrayed barrage of papers prepared by the civil service, by the officials in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the various Liberal members who have spoken today. It has been a fine display of how the bureaucracy runs the government in this country.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned earlier this afternoon, we thought it appropriate in a debate on energy that a particular topic which has not received very much attention in this House be at least brought up during the course of the debate today. My responsibility is to say a few words about the whole question of nuclear power. In my view, any debate on energy policy would have a fatal
October 14, 1980

flaw in it if it were not to take into account the reality of nuclear power and the difficulty of the questions which that particular source of energy raises for us. I find this to be a topic which is often left out of energy discussions, almost as if it is something one does not mention. We talk about off-oil policies, for instance, but we act as if everyone knows what we mean by 'switching to other sources'. We do not really want to talk about it. The words "nuclear power" almost carry, the same stigma as cancer had 20 years ago. It is almost unmentionable.
Today we want to mention it within the context of the obvious commitment of this government to nuclear power as an integral part of the energy strategy for Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren), with whom I have debated in the past, particularly over the experimental vault which they are using to study the effect of long-term radioactive waste disposal in Lac du Bonnet gave on the late show one night what I considered to be a most uncritical description of the role of nuclear power in Canada. It was really disgraceful to hear a member of the government coming out with such a naive innocent view of nuclear power. He did not even acknowledge there were any serious questions attending the subject of nuclear power. I think that is bad.
My contention this evening is that nuclear power should be the subject in this country of a genuine political debate. It is too important an issue to be pursued uncritically by this or any other government, dependent upon the advice and, more important, the world view of the people who are involved in the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is not just a technical question, it involves a way of seeing the world and understanding how we want to move into the future. Topics of these kinds are appropriate subjects for political debate and this is what I wish to suggest this evening to the House of Commons. If we want to do our job properly, and if the government wants to enable us to do it properly, then somehow, in some context, the subject of nuclear power should come before the House for open and intelligent debate.
My colleagues to the right, the Progressive Conservatives, when they were in power were willing to hold a parliamentary inquiry. We would prefer a public inquiry-a much larger exercise into the whole question of nuclear power-but at least, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said earlier, they were willing to acknowledge that there was dissension and concern about this particular subject. I give them credit for that. It may have been the case-as I suspected at the time-that the committee would have been force-fed with documents from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It would not really have come to any startling conclusions, but nevertheless there was the acknowledgment there of the issue.
We in the NDP are in favour of a moratorium on the construction of further nuclear reactors until such time as a real debate can take place. We feel that without such a debate the Canadian people will be led down a particular energy path they would not wish to follow if they had the opportunity to really think about the matter in any great depth. I prefer-and
Energy
as an individual member of Parliament I will have a private member's bill coming before the House to this effect-that we have a referendum on the use of nuclear power. At least if there were a referendum there would be a conscious choice to be made. The Canadian people would have the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to have a nuclear future. I know the subject of referenda is quite controversial these days, but 1 nevertheless personally support such a course in this case.
In the debate on metrication in this House, I said that one of the things which needed to happen if politics was to continue to be an alive and vital process in this country, was that the parameters of political debate needed to be expanded; more and more of the decisions which have traditionally been made by the bureaucracy have to be brought into the political process. If people are to continue to have a feeling that political processes matter, if they are to continue to feel that this House of Commons matters-if, indeed, they still feel that-then the parameters of political debate have to be enlarged. This is part of the general malaise which besets us- the parameters are so small that people feel that too much happens automatically without any real debate. This may be the fault of the people as well. However, it is also because they are being falsely comforted on issues such as energy. For instance, in the area of energy, they are being falsely comforted by the advertising campaign of the government, by assurances that we have what it takes, that it is just a matter of relying on the structures, the values and the goals that we have now and our energy needs will be looked after with no problem at all.
Why then is nuclear power such an important question? Why should it be set aside as different from other energy decisions for a specific debate, a debate which might take the form of a moratorium-followed by a decision-making process such as a referendum or perhaps merely a decision of this House or some other process? Actually, nuclear energy is not all that different from any other form of energy in the sense that all energy decisions involve the kind of moral and political decisions which we contend are involved in this issue.
Nuclear power, like any other energy form, cannot and must not be discussed only within a technical framework. The minute we begin to do this we narrow the scope of the discussion and in doing so we miss many of the important points which must be taken into consideration. The form of energy we use determines many aspects of our life, from our relationship to others to our relationship to the environment, our relationship to the future.
In terms of our relationship with others, for instance, and its effect on the structure of our society, nuclear power is a highly centralized form of energy which creates dependence and destroys the self-reliance of communities and regions. Nuclear energy creates the need for security to protect the installations from, for example, the theft of radioactive material. Nuclear energy involves a highly technical and capital-intensive infrastructure in order to maintain and operate the system, not to

October 14, 1980
Energy
mention all the other hidden costs into which any inquiry should look. On these grounds alone we need to debate the topic of nuclear power.
Nuclear power has many effects on our relationship to the environment. There are many concerns about its effect on, for example, uranium miners, which in the end may be the most important environmental consideration of the whole question of nuclear energy. There is the effect on the environment as such, particularly in the area of the long term and unsolved problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste. This long-term problem of the potential of this waste material for contaminating ground water, for example, is what distinguishes nuclear energy from other forms of energy. And it is the long-term risk which makes it the appropriate object of a special political debate, and that is what I am calling for tonight. It is dishonesty on the part of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ontario Hydro or anyone else to suggest otherwise and to trivialize the qualitative difference between the risk involved in nuclear power and the risk involved in other forms of energy. It is that long-term uncertainty which must be taken into consideration.
This brings me to the third point which I raised about the way in which energy forms affect our relationships, and that is with regard to the future. Nuclear power affects our future through long-term uncertainties which cannot be allayed by any false faith in science and technology. God knows, they have gotten us into enough trouble already. So, as in the case of other energy forms, the decisions we make have an effect on our future. Our decision to use up all the conventional oil reserves uncritically and foolishly for no better reason than to adopt a way of life that cannot be sustained and will eventually have to be abandoned was a decision which affected our future. It means now that the people in the future will not have the petroleum resources they may need in order to manufacture plastic goods essential for medical technology or the fuels which are necessary to agriculture for the production of food.
All these energy decisions which we made in the past have affected the future, and nuclear power will be no different except, and here again I want to make the point about the qualitative difference, that there is an irretrievability about the effects of nuclear power which makes it different from other forms of resource depletion or pollution. The half-life of many of the substances about which we are talking is beyond our ability to guarantee structures that will enable us to deal with the risk inherent in their exploitation.
This leads me to say that the government has a responsibility to provide the context for a conscious political choice on the part of Canadians so that they may decide what they really want, what kind of society they want to live in, whether they want the kind of society which nuclear power implies, whether they want the highly centralized, capital intensive, etc, kind of society which is involved, whether, indeed, they want to take those kinds of risks with regard to the environment and the future. These are the topics which I think the Canadian people should be given a chance to debate openly, without feeling that the nuclear power program of this country seems to be going
on inevitably in any case, and perhaps we should set aside time for debate in Parliament even though it seems we have already decided. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in response to a question by me some time ago that we are either in the game or out of the game. The government is obviously in the game.
I contend that this decision should not have been made without the appropriate political debate. We call on the government at this time for an opportunity to debate this topic. Having the opportunity of choice is particularly important to Canadians because we do not need nuclear power. We are not in the position of a Third World country which has its back to the wall in the area of energy and is in a moral dilemma and must make the decision between all the moral and environmental implications of nuclear power and whether or not they will have enough energy to bring up the standard of living for their people to the barest minimum. That is not the position in which we find ourselves.
Canadians have other choices. If half of the money invested in nuclear power were invested in renewable energy resources and other alternative energy resources which are more environmentally responsible, then perhaps we would not need this debate at all. We in the NDP are ready for this debate, but that is not to say we are unanimous in our position.
The question of nuclear power crosses ideological boundaries. There is debate within our party on nuclear power with regard to, for example, the policies of the government of Saskatchewan vis-a-vis uranium mining in the north of that province. We are not afraid to admit that this topic is the subject of debate within our own ranks. I personally am proud to stand up and say that within the New Democratic Party of Canada the subject of nuclear power is taken seriously enough that we are divided on it, that we debate it and that it is still a matter of conscientious debate when it comes up on the convention floor.
We are not a bunch of uncritical sheep like the other parties, both of which would in the final analysis allow Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro to go on completely unchallenged, and I have no hesitation in saying that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Broadbent has a divided party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I encourage the government to create the environment for the kind of healthy, political and philosophical debate on nuclear power that we in our party have had up until now and no doubt will continue to have.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my comments today are motivated by both a specific concern for 33 people and a general concern which I am sure is shared by all members of this House for the health of a Canadian economy.
There is a company in my riding called Fahramet Limited and it is a Canadian company. It has four plants in Orillia, Ontario. It is a high alloy steel foundry employing a wide variety of production methods. It manufactures heat corrosion
October 14, 1980

abrasive resistant castings, items which are used in the petrochemical industry. It recently opened a $4.3 million extension and at that opening I discussed the company's prospects with the general manager. He told me he was proud of his company's ability to produce its products, and that it had the people and the equipment to handle far more orders than the current demand. He said it wanted to increase its share of the petrochemical industry and get into the business of supplying equipment to drilling rigs. He said that drilling is on the decline in Alberta, however, and that the prospects are it will decline even more in the future. This means less demand for pipe for steel castings. Last week the company laid off 33 men in my riding.
1 believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to treat the energy situation as an opportunity rather than a problem, those 33 men would still be working or would not have as much difficulty as they are presently finding in getting a job.
I welcome the opportunity to intervene in this debate. In my opinion the discussions in this House, in the media and indeed, across the country, have focused for far too long on the benefits that natural gas and crude oil bring to the place in which they are found. For far too long the focus has been on price; the time has come to focus on what those natural resources can do for the country as a whole.
As Canadians, we have been too narrow in our viewpoint. We have lost sight of the tremendous benefits that these resources could bring to Canada. We have failed to put them to work for Canada.
Crude oil and natural gas were originally found in Ontario. Shortly after World War II, far richer and more vast quantities were found in the west. The expansion of the drilling industry, the pipeline industry and the oil industry in the west is a success story of which every Canadian is proud. It has raised the sights of everyone in the west. There is a sense of pride and vision there which excites everyone who goes to the west.
Canadian technology, ingenuity and resourcefulness have enabled us to find further reserves in the Arctic and off the shores of Newfoundland. Despite the wide geographical sweep of the finds of natural gas and crude oil, the Liberal government remains narrow and unimaginative about the development of these resources. We have the necessary ingenuity and resourcefulness in the field but the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources certainly do not share these qualities.
Because the government has no energy policy, every Canadian is suffering; every province is suffering. I do not mean because of price and I do not mean because of supply. I mean from good old opportunities lost. Those are opportunities which exist in the production and refining industries, opportunities which exist in the manufacturing industries that use crude oil derivatives as a raw product and opportunities which exist in the various product and service industries which bring these megaprojects on stream.
Energy
This government has failed to reach a fair domestic price agreement with the producing provinces. As a result, the Alsands projects have cancelled the $50 million winter works program and suspended its 1981 budget. The Cold Lake project is still on schedule but could be cancelled if there is no agreement.
What do these tar sands projects mean to Canada, Mr. Speaker? If a tar sands project is delayed one year it means one more year of foreign imports of 140,000 barrels per day at a cost of $1.9 billion; it means inflation would add $700 million; it means 8,500 direct and indirect jobs will not come on stream. One tar sands plant, Mr. Speaker, creates an annual average of 11,500 jobs.
My colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough, (Mr. Domm) told the House what the $6.2 billion which would be spent in Ontario would do for the economy if the Liberal government concluded an agreement. Household income in Ontario would be increased by $1.8 billion. Ontario is the industrial heartland of Canada and wants to participate in these opportunities. Ontario wants some more of the $738 million that was spent on the Syncrude oil sands plant. We know large sums will be spent in Ontario because it produces the necessary products.
I suggest that the next time the government brings in an energy policy, the next time an oil sands plant is brought on stream, it examines the amount of Canadian content in those projects. As the member for Simcoe North I do not want to see reformer tubes brought from the United Kingdom through a subsidiary company; I do not want the Celanese company bringing them in through the United States through a subsidiary, Mr. Speaker. I want to see them produced in my riding.
The lack of action on the part of the government boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker. I am not an expert on crude oil or energy but I am fortunate inasmuch as 21 members of our caucus are experts. The problem is that these people from Alberta are shy and retiring; they will not tell us what the deal is and we have to read about it. When I do read about it, I find that the drilling companies are going elsewhere. They cannot get $40 per barrel for their oil so they will not drill here. Can they be blamed?
I see the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has come in, Mr. Speaker and this will be of interest to him. Are we going to repeat the tragedy of our research and development program? Over the years there has been a decline in the share of the gross national product which is spent on research and development. At one time our aerospace industry led the world. We produced water bombers, small jets, research rockets and sophisticated communications systems.
Where has the Liberal government concentrated its efforts, however? On the car industry, Mr. Speaker. Loans to have been guaranteed to Chrysler-a company which got into difficulties because it produced a car which was too big. What did this government do? It bailed them out. Next, it gave $60 million to Michelin so that it could produce tires in Nova Scotia where it had not produced them before. This defeated

October 14, 1980
Energy
the Ontario tire industry. The government has completely ignored the consumer, claiming it must protect the textile industry in the province to the east of us.
The government is completely ignoring what could be in the energy situation but this is not surprising when we consider who represents the industrial heartland of the country in the cabinet. As far as the three musketeers from Windsor are concerned, if a product does not have wheels it is not a manufactured product. The minister from the steel city travels around the country. The minister from Toronto, the heartland of manufacturing, travels the country and goes to see the Queen. The other minister is in charge of propaganda. Of course, he is very busy with the advertising campaigns for legislation which is before the House. We must give him full credit for that.
Ontario does not want a handout, Mr. Speaker. It wants an energy policy which will help Canada realize the opportunities which exist. It is shortsighted to view the present situation as a crisis for consumers; it is a crisis for the worker. Jobs are being lost at great cost to the Canadian consumer at this moment. It is small comfort to have cheaper gas if you do not have a job and cannot afford a car. We need jobs to produce the money with which people can buy the gas.
Hon. members opposite did not ignore the energy situation in the past. On October 10, last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was very loquacious and suggested that this party did not have a policy. He said we were offering lame excuses. He complained that Canadians wanted to know where we stood on the question of energy prices. "Where does the government stand?" he asked. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who was in the House until a moment ago said the government had had five months in which to establish its energy policy. Mr. Speaker, the present government has been in office eight months and it still does not have a policy. 1 should like to know where it is.
In the Speech from the Throne the following passage appeared:
My government's energy policy is critical to the success of all its economic policies. Energy policy is as important for Canada in the 1980s as railway policy was in the 1880s. Like railway policy in that earlier era, energy development has the potential to create growth and prosperity across Canada.
1 agree, Mr. Speaker-but now, not some time in the future. That is what they said. They indicated the country would be presented with an opportunity rather than a crisis and promised they would do something about energy. Then what happened? People know that railways have tunnels. This government has tunnel vision when it comes to energy. We were told we would have a made-in-Canada price. That is a terrific idea they said. Also, that we would shut our eyes to market prices and have a made-in-Canada price. They just wanted the industry to agree that this was a good idea. One hundred dollars invested in the United States returns a fair profit to everyone involved, but with $100 invested here no one knows where they stand.
The Speech from the Throne went on to say that the government is vigorously pursuing a policy consistent with its energy policy commitment. Where is that vigour leading? We have had eight months of vigour and nothing has happened. While this Liberal government fiddles and diddles, at least the Ontario Progressive Conservative government, which some members opposite have been so quick to criticize, is taking action. Last week a plan was announced to invest $165 million in the energy field to encourage conservation and the development of alternative transportation fuel. The development of solar energy would be stimulated and help would be given to local governments to convert heating systems to accept new forms of energy. A lot of things will be done in Ontario. Specifically, what will be done? First, $75 million will be spent. Also, 6,000 man-years of work will be created. That is what we want in Ontario. We do not want any more stalling from this federal government. We want an energy policy. We want work. We do not want handouts. Stuart Smith, the economic genius in Ontario-he has a Ph.D. in something and that makes him a genius-called the policy that of nickels and dimes. If that is a nickels and dimes policy, you Liberals have nothing. I say you do not even have a "cents" policy. The Liberals have done nothing to produce a policy. When will we have one?


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The hon. member says tomorrow. I heard "a few weeks" mentioned by another member a minute ago. I ask hon. members: is that vigour? Ways in which the insulation program will be improved were talked about in the Speech from the Throne. That was in April. It is now October. Hon. members can tell from my voice that it is cold and that I am getting one. But we are waiting for improvement. I would be glad if I could just get the forms, let alone wait for the program. There are three million housing units in Canada built between 1961 and 1976 that would be eligible. If we had a comprehensive program to provide insulation for those homes or to improve the insulation in them, we would save energy. Home owners would benefit and we would provide work for Canadians in the production and installation of insulation materials. A background paper produced for CMHC as part of the material I have as housing critic indicates that manufacturers of insulation material would consider increasing their capacity if there were a significant increase in demand by the public. We have to understand that we cannot get that capacity increased until we have a program from the Liberal government.
Canadians must begin to understand the benefits which self-sufficiency in crude oil would bring to every one of us. We would be freed of the need to depend on foreign resources and our lack of stability, well known to Canadians because we do not have a plan, would be gone. Moreover, we are presently paying close to $3 billion a year to purchase foreign crude oil and the effect of this on our balance of payments is horrendous. If we were to develop what we have, we could reduce our
October 14, 1980

dependence on foreign oil, we could reduce our deficit, we could reduce our balance of payments problems. Most important of all, we could create an estimated 350,000 jobs for Canadians.
That is the energy situation. That is the energy opportunity. And it is about time we started to treat it as an opportunity and not just as a situation.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to have an opportunity to speak this evening on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) relating to energy policy. I was surprised to see the hon. member put forward a motion of this type and 1 am surprised the official critic is not here to support this motion of the official opposition. Even the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre did not stay around very long after he had made his speech. However, it is rather interesting to note this hon. member alleging there is really a great lack in energy policy when just twelve months ago if we examine the energy policy put forward by the former Progressive Conservative government during the course of their tenure from May 22 to December 13, it was not remarkable for any great amount of policy, as I recall.


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


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaking just now referred to my seat-mate, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre as leaving shortly after making his speech. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre had a long-standing commitment in his constituency and he has left for Toronto to fulfil it. I assume there is a similar reason for several other seats in the chamber being vacant.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if we look back at one of the very first actions taken by the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister a year ago, I believe the day on which his government was sworn into office an announcement was made that the Canadian embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We all recall what a fiasco that was and how it poisoned relations with the Arab states from which we get much of our oil. It is rather interesting to note that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre was the minister of trade at that time, and he spent most of his six or eight months in office trying to rectify the negative impact of that action. If we think of some of the other actions taken by that government during the brief tenure in office, we do not see much energy policy emanating from it. During the 1979 election campaign there was a clear commitment by that government to dispose of Petro-Canada as soon as it came to power. But soon after that, that decision was reversed. As I recall, the plan was to sell part of PetroCan and then to give away part of it or, finally, to sell part of it so some of it could be given away and some could be kept. That national petroleum corporation which is so active in many fields in exploration and in developing transportation systems etc. was thrown into limbo during the course of the nine-month period of the Clark government.
Energy
If we look at the budget of December 13, much of it related to energy. But it was rejected first by the House of Commons and then by the country in the general election which ensued. That budget really did not set up much of an energy policy except to raise the price of oil dramatically, both the price per barrel and the excise tax which, I think taken together, amounted to $8 or $10 per barrel equivalent, although most of it was in the excise tax.
If we examine that budget and look at that nine-month period, I ask hon. members where do we see the actual policy statements and policy announcements? Where do we see that interest of the federal government being protected? If we look at the share of benefits we find that over a five-year period I believe it was some $48 billion would go to the producing provinces, some $29 billion to the industry and only $17 billion to the federal government which had the responsibility for the oil compensation program and many other energy initiatives across the country. During that nine month period, not a single major energy project was announced.
However if, we look at some of the Liberal actions during the past four or five years, we see a number of programs relating to energy saving. I think of the Save 10 per cent program. In 1976, the federal government decided to save 10 per cent of its energy needs during the next four years. During the period 1976 to 1980, the consumption of energy by the federal government was reduced by 10 per cent per year. It resulted in a $100 million per year saving in energy costs for the federal government. The government is committed to retaining that 10 per cent reduction during the next ten years in spite of growth in the civil service and government activities. This is a real success story for the federal government. It is a good demonstration for the entire country.
In 1975 the Liberal government set up ten task forces in the major industries of the country. The objective was to reduce the consumption of energy by 12 per cent over the course of five years, 1975 to 1980.
They recently set a new target. During the next five years energy saving is to go from 12 per cent to 23 per cent, an increase of 11 per cent. There are now 15 task forces in the various industrial sectors working to reduce energy consumption in Canadian industry. This is a good example of the federal government and industry co-operating in a voluntary way to save energy and money, and make Canadian industry more competitive and efficient.
There are a number of other areas in which we can make substantial improvements in the conservation of energy. I hope that when the minister announces the full energy policy later this month action will be taken.
The CHIP program should be improved. There should be better inspection. I would like to see mandatory car mileage legislation. This was forecast in the Speech from the Throne. Great pressure should be put on provincial governments to implement the building code recommendations made in 1978, or perhaps something might be done through the mortgage

October 14, 1980
Energy
system for which the federal government has a responsibility. There are demonstration houses in various provinces such as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, which have a super-energy saving of 70 per cent. We should move toward implementing building codes across the country in co-operation with the provinces to ensure that these savings are effected in the case of new houses. Task forces should be set up in other areas, such as that of commercial buildings. There is an opportunity for tremendous savings there.
This afternoon the minister indicated a number of initiatives which the federal government has already taken, major initiatives in the energy field like the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline the Quebec City pipeline, the increase in the PetroCan budget, solar energy and technology development policy which was recently announced, and an increase in the EnerSave program. All this, of course, is without even getting into the major policy statement which the minister will make later this month.
I want to mention two other important programs announced by the minister a few weeks ago. In the oil substitution program, the federal Liberal government has set a goal involving a very substantial reduction in the use of oil by industry and other major users. This would mean a substitution from oil to gas, electricity and renewable energy resources. If this program is implemented, over the next few years the saving across the country will be 375,000 barrels of oil per day. That is equal to two tar sands plants, or $12 billion. It would be a tremendous saving to the country, utilizing natural gas, electricity and renewable resources which are in good supply rather than crude oil which is in short supply and is rising in price.
Likewise, the policy announced by the minister to upgrade residual oil is a tremendous policy. Much of this residual oil is now used inefficiently and should be replaced by other sources such as natural gas. Much of it is exported. With a capital investment of $3 billion, we could effect a saving of 125,000 barrels of oil a day, the equivalent of one tar sands plant. With a capital investment at various refineries across the country of $3 billion, we could save the equivalent of a $6 billion tar sands plant.
These are some of the actions the Libera! government has taken in its determination to build an energy policy that is fair to the consumer, the producers, the provinces and the federal government. When the full policy is announced later this month by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sure it will be apparent to every member of this House that there is no substance to the opposition motion placed before us today.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate tonight, I congratulate my colleagues from all parties who have taken part with vigour, and in some cases, understanding. I thank the participants for the arrangement which allows me to participate this evening.
The problem of the Atlantic provinces has, regrettably, been featured for many years by high unemployment and regional disparities. The aspect of regional disparities is recognized in
many ways. One is that the many segments of our labour force, Canadians who live in Atlantic provinces, earn two-thirds of the wages that are paid in other parts of the nation.
One of the reasons for the slender and fragile industrial component of our economy in the Atlantic provinces is the high cost of electrical energy. Prince Edward Island has the dubious distinction of having the highest energy rates in Canada. The number two position is held by Nova Scotia. The other two Atlantic provinces fare a little better but because of their dependence to a great degree on oil-fired thermal plants they are closing the gap at a rapid rate.
Clearly what we need in Atlantic Canada is a blueprint which integrates the efforts of governments and government departments at all levels, along with the private sector and the labour movement, in arriving at a strategy to resolve these difficulties and formulate a program for moving forward progressively to see that the ingredients of regional disparity are erased once and for all.
Another feature of regional disparity is that one-half the total revenue of the governments in the Atlantic provinces comes from Ottawa. This is a reflection on the ability of the economies to generate the dollars needed to carry out basic fundamental government services. One feature of any such blueprint has to be an enlightened energy policy, particularly in the field of electric energy which is the lifeblood of our industrial economy in Canada, most certainly in Atlantic Canada.
A principal and fundamental element of any such policy has to be the ability of governments in the Atlantic provinces to use economies of scale in the creation of thermal electrical producing facilities. To do this we in the maritime provinces have interlocked our electric energy systems by submarine cable between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and by high voltage transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I view with regret the fact that the Maritime Energy Commission really did not get off the ground, because it would have been a vehicle to supply a pool creating a larger market which would permit us to use economies of scale in building more efficient thermal generating plants. The Maritime Energy Commission, had it got off the ground, would have provided a natural financial vehicle to enable us to move forward with the design stage of the great Fundy tidal power development facility which has been under study and talked about for so very long, and would have allowed the maritime provinces to become the powerhouse of North America.
The spin-off from a development of this nature would attract chemical and metal-based industries on an unprecedented scale, creating good jobs for Canadians living in the maritime provinces. How could we accomplish this with our slender financial resources?
The successor to the MEC may well still achieve this purpose, but what we must have in Atlantic Canada is a solid
October 14, 1980

financial commitment from Ottawa which will enable us to move in this direction.
About ten years ago the premier of Ontario speaking at a federal-provincial conference, and they seem to be going on all the time, suggested that we borrow on the credit of the nation $1 billion to help put the maritimes on their feet. Reflected in the declining purchasing power of the Canadian dollar that comes to about $2 billion today. I think it is a good idea and I would like to tell you how I would use less than that if we had the opportunity.
New Brunswick is just finishing construction, and we hope to bring on line next year, a thermal nuclear plant which will produce 640 megawatts of power. If Ottawa could pay for the capital cost of that plant, which is capital intensive, we would have 640 megawatts of cheap electric power that would impact on a system of only 2,000 megawatts and give New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, because it is tied to New Brunswick by submarine cable, the lowest energy rates in Canada, creating a climate that would really be attractive to industrial growth.
Nova Scotia is in the process of building two thermal plants at the mouth of the Lingan coal mine. This means they do not have to handle coal twice and they can buy it cheap. Those two plants combined will produce 300 megawatts of electric power, and they have two more on the drawing board, which would give Nova Scotia 600 megawatts of power. If we could pay for those plants Nova Scotia would have 600 megawatts of cheap electric power, but their 600 megawatts would impact on a system of only 1,600 megawatts because Nova Scotia has a service-based economy whereas New Brunswick is resource based. That would give Nova Scotia cheap electric power too and would enable us to create a climate which would really be attractive to energy and industrial expansion. However, where is the money going to come from?
Eastern Canada, thanks to a serious error in judgment made some years ago, is completely reliant upon imported foreign oil. Eastern Canada imports 500,000 barrels of foreign oil every day. The Atlantic provinces use 300,000 barrels of this; the province of New Brunswick uses 90,000 barrels. At a subsidy of $20 per barrel Canada is paying $10 million a day in subsidies on imported oil and the Atlantic provinces are completely reliant on this insecure supply source. Would it not be much better to displace much of this imported oil and give the Atlantic provinces the tools to pull up their boot straps and solve their own problems? That is the recommendation I make to the government tonight.
In terms of renewable energy, the government has expanded its system of grants, and I commend it for that. Over the past few years we are spending more money on research and development of new technologies in this field of renewable energy. However, I think the renewable energy program should be given a development dimension, because by any criteria, the Atlantic provinces do not receive their fair share of these projects and this research. This is one area that is not reliant on transportation policies or freight rates which cripple
Energy
the Atlantic provinces. This is one area where they could be productively used and put to work.
I shudder when you move, Mr. Speaker, because I have one eye on the clock and the other on you.
We have the natural resources which can provide the basis for such research. We have an abundant supply of coal that could provide a research opportunity for the gasification and liquefaction of coal. We have oil shale in abundance. We should research various means to find the most efficient way of getting the oil out of the oil shale and thus make a contribution to our national economy.
We have the agricultural products, the waste wood and the biomass that could develop a methanol industry. We should move in this direction because our national economy needs it. We have an abundance of wood that now, at long last in New Brunswick, is being properly managed, and it, too, could provide a renewable energy source. We have seen some experimentation in New Brunswick in geothermal research; I think it has proved very successful, but the technology has to be improved. This is one area in which I think we could make a productive contribution.
One man who lives in my riding, in Millville, has developed a means of using sawdust blown into the furnace to create a low cost heat source. He has an alternate oil and sawdust burner which I think is a tremendous thing. He has made it out of his wife's sewing machine, her vacuum cleaner and all kinds of parts he has put together. I believe people like this should be harnessed in the national interest to help us by making a contribution to the solution to our problems.
In my view the cornerstone of any intelligent energy policy applicable to the Atlantic provinces should give serious consideration to the harnessing of the tides in the Bay of Fundy. These are the highest tides in the world, and our studies so far, involving the government of Canada and the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, indicate it is feasible to do this. The big question is, what do you do at that point when the tides are balanced and are still? In an enlarged electric grid, a power pool, the energy from the tides in the Bay of Fundy could become firm power by integrating its development and use with the development of Gull Island in Labrador, or Muskrat Falls below it, or, indeed, with the Dickey-Lincoln Dam in the State of Maine, if that development moves forward.
The attraction of huge blocks of energy like this for industry has been well demonstrated throughout the world. Metal and chemical-based industries use huge blocks of energy in their development. My plea to Parliament is to take a good look at this source. Help us in the Atlantic provinces help ourselves. Give us the financial commitment necessary so that we can move forward with this development and share in the good things this great nation has to offer.
One research aspect is that we could use, at will, power from the Fundy development to take part in the scientific experiment now going on in other nations of the world whereby electrolysis is used to develop hydrogen for experimental pur-

October 14, 1980
Adjournment Debate
poses as a possible gas source as well as oxygen which already has a ready market.
One thing about Fundy which I would like to mention is that the full development of the 4,000 megawatts of power in Fundy would take 20 years. During that period, plants erected around the perimeter of the development could be contributing the electric components to the market, which is the development itself.
I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, and for your endurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 58( 11).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 1980, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) what he proposed to do about the expected increase in the cost of home heating oil. At that point fuel oil retailed in Halifax West for 75 cents per gallon. Today it is at least ten cents more a gallon, at 85 cents. I wanted to know then-and I still want to know-how lower income people across this country, senior citizens and those on fixed incomes can be expected to pay increases of this kind.
Let us remember that many Canadian homes, especially in eastern Canada, still use fuel oil for space heat and for heating water. There are over 7.5 million homes in Canada, and approximately 3.1 million are heated by oil. Another 2.8 million are heated by natural gas, so any increase in the cost of home heating oil presents a problem to a great many Canadians.
More important, those in the lower income bracket spend twice as much on home heating in terms of percentage of their total income as do upper income Canadians, yet we face this great increase when we are told the now-famous "made-in-Canada" oil price is to be established in the future. It is certain that the cost of heating a modest bungalow of, let us say, 1,200 square feet, will rise from its current level of about $800 to approximately $1,000 and involve an increase of about 25 per cent. How will the average Canadian face this $200
increase in his family expenses? Many families across Canada will face even higher increases in their home heating costs.
I ask again today, what will the government do to help those who cannot pay this increase? Unfortunately, I expect the same answer which was given when I asked the question back in June, which is that the government intends to do nothing. Those who faced increases in mortgage interest costs in 1980 know the kinds of answers the government gives to such problems. They, too, went without assistance.
There is another equally serious problem in eastern Canada, particularly on the east coast. We not only face a drastic increase in the cost of home heating oil, but we are also in doubt about the supply of heating oil products. As the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) has just pointed out, we are totally dependent for home heating oil on foreign sources. The crude oil which is refined into home heating products comes from foreign sources and we are cut off from access to Canadian oil and other energy supplies. This means we must have an alternative source of energy, which, at this stage of our development, means natural gas.
Natural gas, as hon. members may know, is priced in Canada at approximately 85 per cent of the basic cost of petroleum products. In a city like Toronto a householder can heat his home with natural gas at approximately 75 per cent of the cost of heating with oil. Of course he will incur conversion costs, but these are in the area of $1,200 for a new unit and something like $450 for a converter unit. We on the east coast are without this option at the present time. In order to put us on a parity with the rest of Canada, there must be an extension of the natural gas pipeline to the east coast.
At present the situation is that the application to extend the natural gas pipeline to the east coast was turned down by the National Energy Board. However, the province of Nova Scotia has entered an appeal from this decision and hopefully the matter will be considered in the very near future. What is of concern and should be underlined in the House with respect to the dealings before the National Energy Board on the matter of the pipeline extension is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) while campaigning in Nova Scotia in January of 1980 promised at a public gathering the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the east coast. Not only did the Prime Minister promise it in the furore of an election campaign, but in September of this year the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) came to Halifax and underlined and repeated the same promise. Yet while the National Energy Board is now deliberating on this very question the government is silent as to what support it will lend to this undertaking.
In terms of the financing, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) just pointed out to the House, we are spending approximately $3 billion of our national resources in subsidizing foreign oil used in eastern Canada, particularly on the east coast. This money would be better spent in subsidizing a natural gas project if indeed subsidies are required. The ultimate effect would be to make energy available on an equal
October 14, 1980

basis across Canada so that those on the east coast will have the same access as other Canadians to the supplies necessary to heat their homes.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) is understandably concerned about the impact of oil price increases on consumers, particularly as they may affect low-income people in the maritime provinces whose annual home heating bills approximate $800.
1 appreciate this concern, and the government is fully aware that the fuel price increases which inevitably must take place could create hardships for a number of Canadians. For this reason the government is including a number of programs in its energy planning to alleviate the burden of rising energy prices. I should like to refer briefly to two or three of those programs.
The supply of natural gas to the maritimes is a matter of high priority for this government. Gas supplies to the maritimes will be provided at the earliest possible date. The Atlantic region is fortunate in its future supply opportunities because gas could be supplied from either western Canada, east coast offshore, or the Arctic islands, or a combination of all of those sources. In any event, we can expect by the mid-1980s at the latest that natural gas will be available to maritime residents.
Nova Scotia has important coal resources. Several programs will be implemented to provide for the use of this coal in electric power plants in place of high cost imported oil. As an example of the type of developmental research now under way, combustion plants which use local coal are planned for Sum-merside, Prince Edward Island, Dartmouth, and Point Tupper, Nova Scotia. Plants at these locations will be converted to coal and will be equipped with facilities which will permit them to burn the high sulphur Cape Breton coals without resultant environmental hazard.
The federal and New Brunswick governments are co-operating on an assessment of New Brunswick peat resources to determine their feasibility for use as a replacement for imported oil in the generating of electricity.
Even with rising fuel costs annual fuel bills can be kept close to present levels with great attention to conservation measures. The federal government's home insulation program is proving to be very beneficial in this respect. The grants available enable home owners to insulate their homes resulting in fuel savings in the range of 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Such savings cancel out a significant part of heating fuel cost increases.


NUCLEAR ENERGY-INQUIRY RESPECTING NUCLEAR POLICY-REQUEST FOR TABLING TERMS OF REFERENCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you fully appreciate, proceedings on the adjournment of the House of Commons are reserved for those of us who ask
Adjournment Debate
questions of the ministry and who are dissatisfied with answers received during the course of the question period. The particular topic I intend to raise this evening is a prime example to you and to all here of the kind of inadequate and ridiculous responses one gets from the minister of energy from time to time with respect to very important matters in our nation's affairs.
Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the government of which I had the honour and privilege to be a part, initiated and brought forward in the name of my colleague who is in the House tonight, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the terms of reference for a national inquiry into nuclear policy of our country. The purpose of that proposed inquiry was one that has been sadly neglected over the course of many years of Liberal administration. The federal government, which claims to have jurisdiction over matters relating to nuclear policy, was virtually the only government which did not consult with the people of our country, give leadership or get its own act into line with respect to national policy; it lacked the will and motivation to take an in-depth look at the policy which should be developed for our country in terms of nuclear industry both domestically and internationally. The terms of reference we brought forward and presented to the House for debate and reference to a committee composed of representatives of all parties in the House were broad; they dealt with the issues which should be dealt with in terms of national nuclear policy and they received the general acclaim of all people within the industry as well as the general public concerned about these matters.
I should point out that in addition to the broad basis on which the inquiry was to be held and the broad terms of reference, there was provision for this inquiry to report and make its recommendations within one year. I think that is significant when one looks at what is happening today in respect to this government, which is taking no action, no initiatives and no steps other than to reverse itself at every opportunity.
I raised my question initially with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and he indicated to me that the energy issue is of such pressing concern to the government that it could not take the time for a national inquiry and that such an option was out of the question in so far as his government was concerned. Instead, he said they would have what is termed "an internal inquiry". I subsequently raised the matter on June 11 with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) during the course of the question period that day. I asked him what the terms of reference for his internal inquiry might be, what would be the provisions with respect to public input and what kind of inquiry was envisaged. I asked him to describe it generally and to make some announcement. Indeed, I asked if he would table those terms of reference in the House. In his response the minister indicated that the policy was being reviewed, that there was no formal task force that would be set up with specific terms of reference but that if I wanted further details he would certainly give them to me. I took the invita-
3674

October 14, 1980
Adjournment Debate
tion to heart, Mr. Speaker, and wrote to the minister on June 18 asking him what exactly he had in mind.
I received a response by letter of August 19, 1980. I would read part of it into the record as it is germane to the question tonight. The minister said in part as follows:
As you are aware, slower economic growth in Canada and throughout the world has reduced the growth rate of electricity demand. This, in turn, has reduced the demand both in Canada and abroad for AECL's Candu reactors. In consequence, I have asked that in the first phase of our nuclear policy review, emphasis be placed on the status of the industry and its prospects over the decade. As part of the review, we will be examining the policy options open to the government should it appear that support is required beyond that which current policy entails.
There are, of course, other significant areas which need to be examined as part of the policy review and, subsequent to completion of the industry's study later this year, we will turn our attention to them. Included in the list are radioactive waste management, revisions to the Atomic Energy Control Act, and uranium export policies.
You inquired about public input into the review process. Once the study of various aspects is further advanced, I intend to release documents for public comments. It might also be advisable to set up a parliamentary task force to review those documents. In addition, officials of my department have recently been in contact with several non-governmental organizations with an active interest in energy issues in general and nuclear energy in particular.
We now have the situation where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated there will be no parliamentary review and the minister has indicated that he is considering a parliamentary review on this particular topic. One year has gone by since the government gained the opportunity to deal with this matter. It is incumbent upon us now to ask what are the terms of reference and their content, when does the government intend to bring them down and what about the parliamentary task force. Or are we to wait for maybe another year before the government acts on this matter?
I would remind the parliamentary secretary that if our resolution had been passed and the matter referred to committee, we would now be in the position of expecting a report in the very near future. Delay and inaction on nuclear policy is the trademark of this government to the detriment of the Canadian public.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of representations to the government relative to nuclear industry, issues which the hon. member for Saskatchewan West has raised, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explained in the House on June 11 in response to an earlier question by the hon. member that a formal task force with specific terms of reference has not been established for the nuclear industry review now under way within the government. He noted, however, that there will be an opportunity for public input when documents dealing with a series of nuclear industry related questions are completed and released.
The interdepartmental study on nuclear industry issues is being conducted as part of the development of a broad energy strategy. Although formal public hearings are not part of this nuclear industry review, the government has had the benefit of extensive hearings held elsewhere in Canada and, in any case,
it is the intention of the government to be fully cognizant of views coming from the public on the nuclear industry issues before making policy decisions.
When the decision stage is reached, we shall examine ways in which Parliament and the public can best express their views about proposals put forward at that time. Views of members of this House or organizations and individuals outside the House will certainly be welcomed and taken into consideration.
We believe nuclear energy can play an increasingly important role in helping to meet Canada's future energy needs. There remain, however, questions in the minds of some regarding its application on a larger scale. The government's energy program is designed to come to grips with those questions in the context of a total national energy strategy.
The assessments to be completed in the coming months will provide the policy framework for the decisions required to ensure an appropriate role for nuclear energy in the future. The decisions regarding that role must serve the national in all respects and, accordingly, will encompass informed public views. The government expects to issue background papers on nuclear industry matters in the near future. These papers will help to provide the basis for the development of informed public views on important nuclear industry questions.


HEALTH CARE-HALL REPORT-RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING EXTRA BILLING BY DOCTORS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to try and obtain from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), or from her parliamentary secretary on her behalf, a clear enunciation of what she intends to do in order to bring about one of the main recommendations of the review by former Justice Emmett Hall on medicare in Canada, the outlawing of extra billing.
There are many other recommendations of Mr. Justice Hall that we in the NDP would like to see implemented. I mention briefly just some of them-the abolition of premiums, the promotion of community health care models, the abolition of user fees, the promotion of preventive and rehabilitative medicine, and cost-sharing with poorer provinces to widen the scope of health care services in these provinces. We agree with Mr. Justice Hall that the original vision of a comprehensive health care system in Canada has not been fulfilled, and we will do our part to ensure that eventually it is.
But the recommendation to outlaw extra billing, the practice whereby doctors charge their patients over and above what medicare pays, must be dealt with immediately. Its continuation will, as Mr. Justice Hall rightly points out, lead to the eventual destruction of medicare as we have come to know it by creating a two-tier system of health care in Canada. If it continues, then some people will move to insure themselves against this extra cost through private insurance schemes. This, we submit, would be the beginning of the end of medicare.
October 14, 1980

Thus, Mr. Justice Hall recommends amendments to the Medical Care Act-which would have to be made by the federal government-declaring extra billing to be contrary to the intent and purpose of the act. We support this recommendation and we support it in the full knowledge that it is part of a package which also recommends a mechanism to ensure reasonable compensation to physicians, including binding arbitration if necessary, as long as it comes at the end of due process by which doctors and provincial governments have had ample opportunity to come to a voluntary agreement.
The medical associations do not run this country and ought not to run the medicare system. Doctors must realize at this point in our social development, that their special status is a thing of the past; that they have no more right to send extra bills to patients than railroad workers in my riding have to "extra bill" the CNR because they are not happy with their incomes or because their standard of living is not what it used to be, or think it ought to be.
The minister said last night on the program "The Watson Report", that public opinion in the provinces would have to protect medicare. This insight into the importance of public opinion must not be used by the minister as a way of abdicating her own responsibilities as Minister of National Health and Welfare and, therefore, as the person in charge of maintaining the medicare system in Canada, responsible for ensuring that we have national health care standards and that over a period of time the vision of a comprehensive health care system in Canada will be fulfilled. The public will do its job with regard to medicare and, in fact, has already done so in various provinces.
Any political party that dared to suggest it might want to tamper with the principles of medicare has consistently been rebuffed by the electorate from time to time. So I am not worried about the public, Mr. Speaker. But the government should be worried about public opinion. It should be worried about what will happen a couple of years from now when the public finds that much of the rhetoric and many of the promises made regarding medicare by the Liberal party in the last two campaigns have not been lived up to and that action has not been taken. We hope action will be taken, however, and that is why I am here tonight, not to ask, as the minister constantly does, what our position is or what that of other people is. We are making our position clear and the public position is clear. We want to know when the position of the minister will be made clear and when she will begin to do her part to stem the erosion of medicare.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) I should like to express once again the position that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) expressed in the House last week with respect to the
Adjournment Debate
recommendations in the report of Mr. Justice Hall on extra billing by doctors.
I think the hon. member pointed out that two of the major recommendations made in the Hall report dealt with the concept or problem of extra billing and its twin, binding arbitration.
The minister strongly supports Mr. Justice Hall's view that the practice of extra billing is unacceptable. It should be noted, however, that the whole report states clearly that any action to ban extra billing must be twinned with a mechanism to protect the legitimate interest of doctors with regard to reasonable compensation. Accordingly, he recommends to the provinces that they implement a system of binding arbitration. He acknowledges that the federal government cannot impose such a system on the provinces. That is why he does not recommend that this particular mechanism be specified in the proposed amendment to the federal legislation.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) mentioned in the House last week, immediately following receipt of the whole report, she convened a federal-provincial conference of health ministers in Winnipeg. This meeting was the first step in a process of consultation to be followed by a meeting of deputy ministers of health in November and by a meeting of ministers in February. In the coming weeks the minister and her officials will be meeting frequently with representatives of the users of health services in the medical profession.
This is an issue of great complexity and of vital importance to all Canadians. A deliberate, thoughtful and determined consultation must take place. The government believes that precipitous legislative action at this time could seriously disrupt the nation's health care system. The government's aim is to preserve and strengthen medicare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has assured hon. members in this House and, indeed, all Canadians that she is personally giving the highest priority to this issue in order to find resolutions to the problems in our health care system.
1 think the minister stated very clearly last week that the federal government will not be disposed to act in a unilateral manner. She has given assurances to the deputy ministers of health and to her counterparts provincially that we hope to address this whole problem of extra billing and the binding arbitration mechanism over the months ahead and that we intend to do it by a consultative method.
\ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, October 15, 1980