1980-11-24

THE LATE RIGHT HONOURABLE JULES LEGER


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said yesterday, with the death of Jules Leger, Canada is losing one of its most prominent sons and servants.

All Canadians were filled with admiration for the strength of his spirit, the wisdom and dignity with which he performed the duties of the high office of Governor General in spite of the stroke which he suffered early during his mandate. [Translation]
Madam Speaker, we often admire in others and especially in great men, the qualities that we would like to have ourselves. That is why every one of us will admire such and such aspect of the character and life of the former Governor General. As far as I am concerned, it is the quality, the extent and catholicity of his patriotism which were paramount in Jules Leger, as well as the extreme generosity with which he served the public good. He also had a sense of history and a concern for lucid expression, which might explain why he was at first attracted by journalism. I also appreciated his kindness and the obvious relish with which he underlined the humorous aspects of life.

He has given us many standards to emulate. One of them was the harmony of his married life. His wife, Gabrielle, shared in his duties, burdens and accomplishments. In this she served all Canadians. Today all Canadians share in her sorrow.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition 1 want to associate ourselves with the words of tribute and deep regret expressed on behalf of the government by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on the death of His Excellency, former Governor General Leger.
Governor General Leger was an outstanding Canadian who served his country as newspaper editor, as a public servant, as a diplomat of distinction and finally as Governor General. As a member of a distinguished family of Quebec, Jules Leger never lost sight of his rural roots in that province, he never lost the strength of his faith and he never avoided what he knew to
be the responsibilities of his citizenship. Throughout all these years of service Jules Leger had the undaunting support and encouragement of his wife Gabrielle. We shall all remember Mrs. Leger in our prayers today.

Mr. Leger rendered immense services to this country and he deserved the admiration of every Canadian. During his entire career in the public service, he showed great competence and much wisdom. After he was appointed Governor General of Canada, millions of Canadians discovered a man with unequalled courage and determination. Mr. Leger was a great Canadian.

Jules Leger shall always be remembered for his steady, quiet pursuit of excellence. Every task he performed-and he performed several under the most difficult of circumstances-was approached with determination and a clear understanding of what it was he wished to achieve. His vision of Canada as a home for both French and English, where both languages and all cultures could flourish, was a consistent theme in all of his endeavours, whether as ambassador to France in difficult times, or as under-secretary of state during a period of growing cultural and political awareness in his home province of Quebec.
As Governor General, Jules Leger sought to make his office a positive instrument of Canadian identity and to establish Canadian traditions befitting a sovereign nation. We were all saddened by his illness which, so early in his term of office, might have caused a less determined person to stand down. Not Jules Leger. He demonstrated to all Canadians that illness should not deter us from responsibility. We shall always remember his eloquent words in his 1975 New Year's messages when he stated:
These long months have brought me close to those who suffer... They should not despair.
Madam Speaker, we mourn the loss today of Jules Leger, but we do not despair. For the life of Jules Leger is a shining example of public service, of quiet excellence and of the best of the Canadian spirit.
[ Translation]


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker,
Canadians were very sad to hear about the death of Mr. Jules Leger. He deserved the admiration of everyone by remaining in office after a serious illness. He performed his duties with

November 24, 1980
dignity. Mr. Leger believed firmly in the duality of Canada and he devoted his life to our country.

He will be missed for the simplicity and the serenity he brought to a life which was committed to the public service and which culminated in the high office of Governor General.
When speaking of Jules Leger, it is impossible not to pay tribute to his truly immense courage. Scant months into the sensitive and demanding job of Governor General, a serious stroke forced him to slow down, but only momentarily. Within months he was again giving all that he had for his country, the country he loved and served so well all his life.
[ Translation]
To Mrs. Leger and all the family, I extend my most sincere sympathy on my own behalf and on behalf of my party.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the devastating earthquake which has struck the Naples-Salerno area of southern Italy, in view of the death toll of over 400 people and the extensive damage to property, and given that Canada has always acted with generosity and swiftness in meeting such natural disasters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker):
That this House urges the Secretary of State for External Affairs to consult urgently with the Italian government as to the special and immediate needs of the victims of the earthquake of the Naples-Salerno area of southern Italy and that the minister report to the House at the earliest opportunity and advise the House on the ways in which the Canadian government is willing and able to render assistance. Further, that the government consult with the many Canadians who wish personally to assist the victims of this earthquake and provide special programs which will allow for the people of Canada with special ties to Italy to respond in an urgent and generous manner through airlifts, emergency relief and reconstruction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I will second that motion.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter which is both pressing and urgent. Given the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) more or less told Canadians to buy foreign-made cars if they were unhappy with the rust warranties offered by domestic auto manufacturers, and, further, given that his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has just sunk $200 million into saving Chrysler, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House urge the two ministers to have a meeting in the official language of their choice so that a consistent policy with reference to the Canadian auto industry can be hammered out.


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.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the previous leader of the Conservative party was a man of great courage and personal integrity and showed no fear in censuring a candidate of his party from Moncton whose statements were blatantly un-Canadian and a slur on our land and people, and whereas the present member from Capilano, a former member of the cabinet, has made statements recently supporting western separatism and indicating a desire to destroy this great country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the present leader of the Conservative party attempt to summon courage as shown by its past leader and censure the member from Capilano for his separatist remarks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 24, 1980


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion which is of urgent importance and pressing necessity. Given that the federal government has unwisely decided to terminate the services of the two Pacific coast weatherships, in spite of the fact that these vessels have provided an essential early warning weather service and scientific data base for several decades, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the government be required to continue the services of the west coast weatherships in accordance with the advice of eminent Canadian scientists, the World Meteorological Association, the United Nations Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and the International Council of Scientific Unions, all of whom agree that sea-based reference stations are an essential element of any weather reporting network because they provide necessary data which cannot be measured by an orbiting satellite.


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.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In material distributed by the Liberal Party of Canada, contributors were asked to respond favourably to the following statement: "Yes, I'm concerned and I'd like to add my personal support to the efforts the Liberal party is making to create my kind of Canada". In view of the recent statements of the Minister of Finance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the next mailing of this material soliciting funds also contain the following caution: "Provided your kind of Canada is one in which you will have a lowered standard of living, lower wages, higher inflation, higher taxes, higher unemployment, and higher interest rates"; because that is the kind of Canada we are getting under this Liberal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the federal government's obviously discriminatory policies on aid to urban transportation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the federal Liberals make good on election promises made in 1974 to inject hundreds of millions of dollars of aid into urban transportation; that the federal Liberals make good on an agreement made five years ago to foot one half the cost of improvements to Union station in Toronto and the railway yards west of the station and that this government honour a commitment made by the Clark administration to give Ontario an additional $10 million per year in transit aid for three years.


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.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada is the major supplier of high-grade tungsten concentrates to the western world, and whereas the strike at our sole large producer, Canada Tungsten Mining Corporation, is jeopardizing Canada's reputation as a secure source of this strategic commodity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour take the necessary action to ensure that our customers and allies can depend on secure supplies of tungsten from Canada, that our international reputation is not threatened and that our offshore markets are preserved.


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.


NATIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, this government has a woefully inadequate record in the furtherance and advancement of the rights of Canada's original peoples. It has refused to recognize the special and distinct place in the

November 24, 1980
Canadian community of the Indian, Metis and Inuit peoples. This is being demonstrated even at this very moment by the convergence on Ottawa of thousands of aboriginal people aboard a special "Constitution train". These Indian, Metis and Inuit object strongly to the all-encompassing term "native" which is being used in the proposed constitutional charter to protect only vaguely defined rights.
Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this government act immediately through all forums, means and assemblies to recognize the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canada's original peoples: the Indian, the Metis and the Inuit.


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.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a non-partisan matter, which I am sure will receive unanimous consent. As a result of a question I raised last year on the International Day of the Child, which was supported by the then Conservative minister of national health and welfare and members of all parties, a group of women workers have been quietly and persistently working to organize the first day care centre on Parliament Hill. Recently we learned that you, Madam Speaker, have approved use of space in the East Block for a day care centre which will give House of Commons employees adequate care for their children.
In view of the unprecedented action to provide day care in the work place, which is a model that all federal departments should follow, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House congratulate Madam Speaker and the House of Commons day care committee for their tireless efforts to establish day care on the Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have been resisting congratulatory messages under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I would hesitate to accept one which is addressed to me, but I am sure the House has taken good note of the excellent sentiments.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The federal budget has done and will do nothing to curb inflation. Social programs which are bound by fixed yearly budgets from funding agencies will have to compensate for as much as a 10 per cent to 12 per cent increase in the cost of their operations due to inflation, increases which curtail and limit the effectiveness and service these programs and institutions can provide. Whereas these programs are aimed particularly at native people, low income families, senior citizens, the handicapped and the needy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this government abandon its misguided budget immediately and table not later than January 15, 1981, a budget which realistically addresses Canada's primary economic enemy, namely inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion on a matter of great urgency. Now that second reading has been given to Bill C-42, an act to transform the Post Office into a Crown corporation, and in view of the sagging reputation of the Post Office for efficient service because of the government's continuing freeze on letter carrier service to Canada's expanding suburbs, among other things, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the Postmaster General begin immediately the restoration of public confidence in the post office by ending forthwith the letter carrier freeze, thereby providing job opportunities for some of Canada's 800,000 unemployed workers rather than forcing them to go on unemployment insurance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 24, 1980



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister indicate what urban transit assistance will be extended to Ontario this year or next, especially with regard to the metropolitan Toronto area where there is such an increasing transit problem which cannot be solved without federal attention?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, under the UTAP program, the Urban Transit Assistance Program, each province is entitled to an allocation, relative to the size of its population, of $10 per head. Ontario receives the same treatment as every other province. If my memory serves me well, it amounts to some $86 million a year. Ontario is making full use of that, mostly for grade separation rather than urban transportation in the strict sense of the word.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport must know that the $86 million he is referring to is simply for the type of activity he has mentioned, grade separations on overpasses. Does the minister's answer mean that they intend to renege on commitments made by the federal government to the government of Ontario, namely the Clark government commitment to give up to $10 million per year to assist in transit matters in Ontario; second, the promise made in the 1974 campaign by the Liberal government to give up to $290 million to various provinces; and, finally, the commitment that was made to assist with regard to the realignment of trackage west of the Union station and to redesign the Union station itself. Is the government going to renege on all those commitments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the provinces have extraordinary freedom under the UTAP program. They can use the money for grade separations, or anything related to urban transportation. Some provinces use the money to purchase buses. In certain circumstances, others have even used it to build sidewalks. Therefore, the freedom of the provinces is great. The province of Ontario has decided to use this federal money which has been allocated to them for grade separations only. That is their decision to make.
The hon. member made reference to a commitment of a previous administration to provide $30 million for the Bathurst Union station project. Obviously I have looked at the file. The file answers a request from Mr. Snow for $30 million of UTAP money for that purpose. My distinguished predecessor answered yes to that. A communique issued on the eve of the election leaves it open as to what was offered, but my interpretation is that it was UTAP money that was offered. If there was a commitment to give $30 million extra UTAP money to
Oral Questions
Ontario for this subject, it must have been the result of a shaking of hands between my predecessor and Mr. Snow, because there is no reference to it in the file. That is the truth of the matter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I happened to be a party to the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario to which the minister has just referred, and I can assure the minister that it was a commitment to extend $10 million of assistance per year for three years to the government of Ontario. Based on that, would the minister kindly stop trying to rationalize his reneging of that promise and tell us whether he will honour the commitment of the federal government to the government of Ontario to help the commuters of Toronto with a problem which has become not only chronic but also urgent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if it was a commitment, it was a political and moral commitment. However, there is no reference to a Treasury Board submission or approval of it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But it was.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is no reference to it in my file. I would like to see it. There is certainly no reference in my file to a cabinet decision on that subject. So what Mr. Snow asked of my predecessor was $30 million of UTAP money, and that is what he is getting.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Nothing to do with it.


INQUIRY WHETHER COMMITMENT TO ONTARIO WILL BE HONOURED
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue that matter with the Minister of Transport. Before we get too far off the track on this, I might remind the minister that when the government gave Ontario its freedom to spend money on urban transit out of the grade separation program, at the same time it reduced Ontario's grade separation money, thereby putting Ontario in the position where it had to choose between spending less money to save children or helping transit.
Would the minister please advise this House very clearly- because he has not yet done so-whether he proposes to honour the commitment to give Ontario an additional $30 million to help it do something about transit for the first time, or whether in fact he proposes to continue not only the reduction in grade separation programs but also to cancel the $30 million to Ontario, thereby making sure it never gets a penny out of this government for urban transit?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I have already said. The program is one which allows the provinces to decide in which way they are going to spend their UTAP money. They can spend it on railway grade separation, overpasses and so forth. They can

Oral Questions
spend it on buying buses or for other worthwhile urban transportation objectives.
This is one of the difficulties of the federal system, if I may say so in a reflective mood. If a province decides to use a federal program in a certain way, all the other provinces are bound to ask for similar use of the same program even if they are given the full freedom to use the money in a different fashion. This is a way of adjusting regionalism in this country. It is not always easy, as illustrated by the present series of questions.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, since we have received a reflective answer, I will ask a question which might draw another. Because this matter is critical. I should point out that this is the first time in the history of any government that a promise on urban transit has been broken twice.
Will the minister explain to me, to Toronto and to Canadians why it is justified to reduce the amount of money for grade separation, to produce no money for urban transit support and to produce a budget which will reduce social spending, all of which means that municipalities must bear an ever greater burden using the less progressive tax system which they have to use? Can the minister justify this in the context of a budget which goes to $80 billion in spending which spends $50 million on more advertising to tell us how good we should feel and which spends less on matters which will help solve the problems we already face?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I said in the interview which is referred to at this time, there is no doubt that way back in 1977, or even earlier than that, there was a certain overenthusiasm on the part of the government of the time about the belief that it could spend great amounts of money on urban transportation.
There is no doubt that there is a great need. At the moment, for example, the trend is toward relocation of railway lines. There was a time in the ninetheenth century when it was a status symbol to have a railway line right in the centre of town. The mood of the people has changed; they would like to see it way out of town now. All this is to say that the amount of money which can be allocated to urban transportation is really not unlimited. I will do my very best to increase this amount, knowing full well that it will not go a third of the way to what might be useful.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to increase what you have never spent on urban transit. The point is that in 1977 the government took Ontario's share of grade separation funds down from $18 million a year to $16.5 million, and the government said Ontario could spend some of that on urban transit. The effect of this government action is either no funds for urban transit or fewer dollars to help at railway crossings where children are killed.
Can I now have an assurance that, contrary to what some of us believe, the grade separation fund will not be further reduced but will in fact be increased and will be used for its primary and proper purpose, that of saving lives?
November 24, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to say. There are different views as to what is needed under the label of urban transportation. Some people say that this is essentially railway separation or overpasses. Ontario believes that. There is less of a need for that in Prince Edward Island, for example. There are fewer railway crossings there, so Prince Edward Island is using the money for other purposes such as buying buses and building some types of sidewalks occasionally. The program was aimed at allowing maximum flexibility to the provinces for what they considered to be important in urban transportation. Previous to that I am the first to admit that Ontario was getting more for railway crossings; but what Ontario considered then to be fair, that is, having 58 per cent of the money under this program, was considered by other provinces not to be fair, so the federal government at the time decided to give for each province an equal amount depending on its population. Some people will consider that fair, others will not.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Friday I made public copies of certain correspondence between the Exxon Corporation in the United States and its subsidiary here, Imperial Oil. I understand that the minister himself has copies of that correspondence. In it it is made clear that technology and other patentable information that is developed in Canada by Imperial Oil will reside in its final ownership form with Exxon in the United States. Considering that over the weekend, an official from Imperial Oil confirmed the existence of this arrangement, I would like to ask the minister what steps the government plans to take to reverse this totally unacceptable situation in which Canadian taxpayers are financing a project which ultimately ends up in the United States.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I contacted the president of Imperial Oil this morning to discuss with him the point the hon. member raised last Friday in order to obtain whatever information is available at this time. I am advised that Imperial Oil modified the policy somewhat in 1979 and that the patents are now issued in Ottawa in the name of Imperial Oil of Canada. However, the arrangement for the pooling of the research remains integrated under Exxon and, obviously, this is a source of concern for Canada not only in the oil and gas industry but also with regard to research and development generally for all firms in this country.
In a review of industrial policy the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is examining very carefully this whole question of research and development and the assurance that Canadians will first benefit from research and development
November 24, 1980

undertaken in Canada. I have this preliminary information. We, as a government, have stated that we believe there is not enough research and development undertaken by the oil and gas industry inside Canada. We have stated that quite clearly in our energy program and I have done so in several speeches I have made. That is one of the reasons for our program of increasing Canadian ownership to over 50 per cent and ensuring that a significant number of the large oil and gas firms will be Canadian controlled. These are steps which are in the direction of ensuring that we will have large firms in Canada which will conduct research and development in this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will have something to say about the minister's latter point later today when the debate on that important topic resumes. I noticed the minister said that Imperial Oil somewhat modified its policy as of 1979. Since my information is that the Prime Minister was made aware of the policy of Imperial Oil in May, 1976, could he tell us what the government has done in the four-year interval to reverse this totally unacceptable policy? Could he tell us if it is just Imperial Oil which practises this kind of arrangement with its subsidiary, or are Shell, Gulf, Texaco and all other multinationals carrying on the same kind of process?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the first question is concerned, obviously I am not in a position to answer whether or not the Prime Minister received a particular representation. The only thing I have seen is an unsigned letter, and I am not in a position to know whether it was ever received by the Prime Minister.
As to the second point, it appears that it was an anonymous letter which was sent. I checked at a meeting last week with Suncor as to what was happening with the technology which had been developed. For instance, if one takes the case of Suncor, I was assured that the technology and the patents belong to Suncor of Canada and they are here in this country. But one must realize that if a company is 100 per cent foreign owned, even if the patents are held by the Canadian subsidiary in Canada, the patent will belong to the foreign multinational which controls it 100 per cent. This is why our policy of Canadianization of the oil and gas industry becomes so very important, and 1 hope we will get the support of hon. members opposite for this policy in the next few months and years to come.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my party has been calling for that policy for more than 20 years, so we do not need to take any lessons from the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Shell corporation, to the surprise of no one, announced on the weekend that it was following the noble example of Imperial Oil by cutting back on its northern project commitment for 1981, saying that it was not going to proceed with some $200 million of intended spending until they too had a meeting with the minister like the one held
Oral Questions
between the minister and a representative of the Imperial Oil company, I should like to ask the minister for two assurances this afternoon: first, that not one additional penny will be granted to Shell; and second, since we have Petro-Canada and the minister is so proud of Petro-Canada, will he finally tell Imperial Oil and Shell that we do not need them in the north, that Petro-Canada can do that development for us?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am advised that the Shell group, the Alsands group, does not require any financial loans or arrangements; they are not asking for this. They have an agreement which expires at the end of December. They are concerned that they should know by then what the rules of the game will be, if they have to carry on any further or whether the agreement expiring at that date will become null and void. They have asked to meet with me again. I met with them a few weeks ago. Certainly I will be available to talk with them further and advise the hon. member as to the results of those talks.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. No doubt at this point he is aware that very many small Canadian oil exploration companies are leaving our country, for the United States particularly but for other parts of the world as well with more hospitable political climates. Many of these companies have already left and have taken with them Canadian expertise, technology and equipment. Since the minister appears to have discovered a mysterious fountain of wealth from which he is drawing $40 million to secure Imperial Oil's confidence in Canada's energy future, what measures does he have in mind to convince Canadian entrepreneurs that, instead of their assets being confiscated, they will be allowed to operate in their own country under fair and equitable rules in comparison to those by which the game is played in other parts of the world?


Mr. Waddell:: Try Norway or Mexico.


Charles Joseph Clark: You try it, Ian.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question was rather long and convoluted. I should like to remind him that indeed such a policy was put forward in the national energy program. It is totally oriented toward giving advantages to Canadian-owned and controlled companies.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is why they are all leaving.


Marc Lalonde: Once those companies have examined the program and the implications of the budget, they will realize-
4984

November 24, 1980
Oral Questions
and more and more of them are realizing it at the present time- that indeed the program will be extremely beneficial to them. I can tell the hon. member that we have had discussions with a large number of Canadian-owned companies that consider the program put forward very much to their advantage.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Marc Lalonde: There is no question about confiscating anything. It is a matter of helping Canadian firms grow and enlarging the Canadian control of that particular industry over the next few years.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, despite what the minister said and his assertion that all is well, the fact remains that there is a mass exodus from western Canada not of multinationals but of Canadian companies to other parts of the world, the effects of which are not only disastrous to our energy future but to the economy in general, particularly in the producing areas of our country where small companies and businesses which service the oil patch are going bankrupt at unprecedented rates. Has the government given any thought to helping these areas most directly affected by the recent budget to overcome this incredibly stupid experiment in energy politics?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, by his own rhetoric my hon. friend is weakening his argument very much indeed. We believe the program is a fair one and compares very favourably with the treatment given to the oil and gas industry almost anywhere else in the world.
As I have said, as far as the program itself is concerned, it is built in a way to give advantages to Canadian firms. We are convinced that those Canadian firms will profit from those arrangements put forward in the national energy program.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Shorten up your answers, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: As to the last point raised by my hon. friend, I ask him to compare the take of the national government of this country with the takes of national governments in any other country in the world. He will find that the national government in Canada is getting less.


An hon. Member:: Fifty per cent.


Marc Lalonde: It is getting a lot less, as much as half that of any other national government in the world. I suggest the hon. member should look around, because he will find that the national government of Canada is providing a very fair deal to the industry.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science
and Technology and Minister of the Environment, I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. On November 8 of this year the minister caused to be filed in The Globe and Mail of Toronto a notice directed to leaseholders in national parks. The leases were on property in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Why was the notice put in the paper rather than sending a letter? Secondly, why was it in The Globe and Mail? Perhaps in his answer the minister could confirm that there are newspaper companies in Western Canada. Why would this notice have been placed in view of the fact that the matter is before the courts in the province of Manitoba?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the advertisements to which the hon. member refers were placed to ensure that any person affected who had not received a direct letter-and to our knowledge a direct personal letter went to all persons who were affected-might be reached through the public media. That is the purpose of the advertisement to which the hon. member refers.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has not answered the question. Why was it in the Toronto Globe and Maill Why was it put in that paper in light of the fact that the matter is before the courts? Would he please answer those questions?


Roger Simmons: As the hon. member has indicated, the individuals involved have the right of appeal and some of them have been exercising that right. But that aside, the policy is in effect and there is nothing wrong with publicizing the policy while individual appeals may be ongoing. What the member has against Canada's national newspaper, I do not know. For his information I will undertake to see what other papers the ads were placed in.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I would like to address to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Generally speaking, in order to obtain approval from the Foreign Investment Review Agency, any person or company wanting to locate or to purchase in Canada must prove that there will be a significant benefit to Canada from the sale or location of the business. How could that be applied in the cases which are simply "deemed approved", given that all that is required is that the agency has not dealt with the application for 60 days in order to achieve "deemed approved" status?
November 24, 1980


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the concept of deeming is simply an alternative to formal order in council approval. When cases are deemed, there is still the assessment by the agency and the negotiation of undertakings, along with consultation with other government departments and provincial governments. So deeming does not mean that there is not the seeking and obtaining of significant benefit to Canada. It is obtained there, just as it is in the case of order in council approval.


Ian Deans: In the proposal put forward by Midland Pipe (Canada) Corporation of Calgary in which they were given approval deemed to have been dealt with by the agency to locate a warehouse to import, to gather and to distribute steel oilfield tubing and casing, can the minister explain to the House how the decision was arrived at that they should be allowed to locate this particular operation in Canada, given that there are already at the moment in Canada a large number of companies manufacturing those exact products in western and eastern Canada which are not operating to full capacity? They could use the work and create employment in Canada and they are obviously going to suffer as a result of action by the Foreign Investment Review Agency.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the existing confidentiality requirements of the law, which I hope to have changed over time, prevents me from giving-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -the kind of detailed answer the hon. member is seeking. I simply want to repeat that even when deeming takes place the process involving the Foreign Investment Review Agency is carried out all the same.


FISHERIES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A few days ago the minister of fisheries announced the implementation of an export licensing system whereby the federal Department of Fisheries would use its definition of product quality as a basis for approving or denying any request to export a quantity of fish to a foreign purchaser. Does the minister have any evidence at all to suggest that Canadian fishing companies are exporting substandard fish products to foreign markets? If so, will the minister name those companies so that all members of the Fisheries Council of Canada may know who these unscrupulous operators are?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, there is a problem of consistency of quality and it is in trying to deal with this problem that we are looking at the possibility of grading products before they are exported so importers would know if they are dealing with an A or B quality product. That is not unusual in this type of industry. In
Oral Questions
fact, the industry itself has been requesting that we put more stringent measures on the end product and that we put forward a grading system.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my information, obtained from the members of the Fisheries Council, does not concur with the minister's answer. Perhaps he ought to add the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to his list of shyster companies, in view of their recent multi-million dollar sale of wormy Lake Winnipeg whitefish to Poland in exchange for granting Polish trawlers a quota of Atlantic squid, which Canadian fishermen were not allowed to catch. Be that as it may, why is the minister imposing another bureaucratic burden upon Canadian fishing companies? Will he indicate if export licensing is only the first stage of an orderly marketing philosophy of his which will ultimately lead to a federal monopoly in the marketing of saltwater fish, patterned along the communistic lines of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, some of the hon. member's assertions boggle the mind. 1 am not sure if they boggle his mind, but they certainly boggle mine. He starts his question with a gratuitous insult to a Crown corporation which is seen by the fishermen of the freshwater area as having served them well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: In fact, it is a corporation which is seen by the provincial premiers and provincial governments as beneficial. It was asked for by them a few years ago, during my predecessor's term of office, and they have not asked that it be abolished or changed radically even when I offered them the opportunity to do so. We are trying to make Canadian fish the highest quality fish exported in the world. I hope hon. members in this House will join with me in this crusade.


EXTERNAL AID
Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, in view of the resolution presented earlier by the hon. members for Brampton-Georgetown, Nepean-Carleton and Saint-Denis with the approval of all political parties in the House concerning the devastating earthquake which has struck the Naples-Salerno area in southern Italy, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs care to outline to the House what action the Canadian government is prepared to take to assist the earthquake victims?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Italian government has not yet asked for any international assistance with respect to these victims but the Canadian government has set aside $100,000 as an initial contribution in the event that such assistance is requested.

November 24, 1980
Ora! Questions
Given this opportunity, i would like to say to Canadians in general that we would join with the Red Cross in encouraging Canadians to respond with contributions of cash rather than kind. This would enable the local Italian relief workers to purchase quickly the appropriate supplies needed urgently to meet local needs and not impose our priorities on them.


TOURISM
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Business, who is responsible for tourism. Given that tourism generates income in the range of $ 11 billion a year in Canada and provides jobs for more than a million Canadians-it is Canada's sixth largest earner of foreign exchange-and given that there is a subcommittee comprised of representatives from customs, immigration CGOT and transport who are looking into ways in which government officials can help welcome tourists, which subcommittee was to report a year ago to Parliament, may I ask the minister when we can expect this report?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, I feel that if the hon. member recognized the minister who is responsible for tourism at first glance, he could join me in promoting even further the interests of that very important industry. As the hon. member is probably aware, at the end of August I had occasion, jointly with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, to announce the setting up of a new program, at ports of entry, with regard to a brochure that port officials are asked to hand out to our American visitors welcoming them to Canada and advising them of the various programs and addresses which can be of interest and use to them. That is a result of the interdepartmental committee that was set up. I shall enquire about exactly when that committee will report to the House, as requested by the hon. member.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the information given by the minister. In view of the circumstances outlined in my first question, will the minister now give this report the priority it deserves?


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is it?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I have just advised the hon. member that I shall enquire about exactly
when that report will be ready and let him know as soon as I have had a reply.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last week it was reported that the U.S.S.R. has launched a new submarine with a weight of 30,000 tons and capable of travelling 40 knots 4,000 feet below sea level. Is the minister able to assure the House that Canada's contribution to anti-submarine warfare, the frigate program, will now move promptly to cabinet and through cabinet?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I believe that I can reassure the hon. member for Victoria by saying that the frigate program is now under way. Our government has approved the program in principle and I can assure the hon. member that it will go forward as soon as possible. We are now assessing or analysing the evaluations made by our department and the Department of Supply and Services so that we may make our choice as soon as possible and move forward with this program.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. This submarine of the U.S.S.R. represents a quantum leap forward in technology, particularly in the use of titanium and the depths to which it can submerge. Would the minister assure the House that none of these innovations is due to the sale of Canadian underwater vehicles to the U.S.S.R. over the past few years? Also, has the minister approved any export permits since he took office some eight months ago?
[ Translation]


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Victoria that the fact that the U.S.S.R. have a submarine of this size is certainly not due to any technological assistance from Canada. I can assure the former minister that this is impossible.
As for the frigates, I would like to remind him that he was probably ready to make a decision when his party was in power, but that the decision was not made at that time. For our part, we shall make this decision in the very near future.
November 24, 1980


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent public statement by CN Express with regard to cutbacks, lay-offs and, indeed, the close-out of certain express offices, particularly in the Atlantic region, and in view of the adverse effects these announcements and cutbacks will eventually have on the economy, unemployment and regional development, particularly in northern New Brunswick but also in other areas of the Altantic region, would the Minister of Transport give us the undertaking that he will request the president of CN, Dr. Bandeen, and other CN Express officials to come to Ottawa and meet with hon. members so as to ascertain the precise reasons CN is taking these moves and, indeed, better to inform us of the heavy-handed attitude of CN in recent times in terms of cutbacks, lay-offs and the closing down of certain vital services in the country?


John Horton McDermid: He will be in the estimates committee this week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was about to say that Mr. Bandeen will appear before the comittee on transportation this week where hon. members will have an opportunity to ask him to justify why CN Express must retrench in this particular manner, and perhaps the opportunity to question him further on CN's program on relocation, retraining and the general fate of employees. A tremendous effort will be made to reduce the inconveniences and setbacks to permanent employees.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to a study by Environment Canada which indicates that 28 of the reserves in northern Manitoba have contaminated water because of the inadequate disposal of human and other wastes. In his absence, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
According to the chief of the St. Theresa Point reserve situated on Island Lake, a large part of the contamination of drinking water of that reserve comes from a fish plant which operates on the lake and which processes one million pounds of fish each year and disposes of the waste in the lake. Would the minister indicate whether or not he will see that the fish plant finds alternate sources for disposing of the fish waste which is now polluting the drinking water of that reserve?
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter. I am not familiar with the problem, but I will try to give the hon. member some information within the next 24 hours.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in view of the absence of the Prime Minister, who is still somewhere or other, and the Deputy Prime Minister, I will ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. A report by the Economic Council of Canada on the province of Newfoundland reveals a very serious situation. One-twelfth of all personal income is from unemployment insurance compared to one fortieth in Canada and the average earned income in Newfoundland was only 53.6 per cent of the national average in 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We hear from those on the left who have been in power and have done so much during their years in power.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You were in power in Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Economic Council of Canada has recommended that the government be prepared to change a wide range of government policies to overcome problems in the economy of Newfoundland. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell me whether or not his government is prepared to change a wide range of government policies, and will it consider changing its policy with reference to the offshore mineral resources of Newfoundland and Labrador and perhaps confirm the province's ownership and control of those resources in an attempt to overcome these deplorable and depressing figures?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, the report which has been published and to which the hon. member has referred is extremely important and the government is examining it very carefully.
The hon. member asked whether the government is willing to change some of its policies. The flexibility of this government is well known, and so is its willingness to adjust and adapt its policies to the problems of the Canadian society, and this same flexibility will be shown in the particular case of Newfoundland.
As for the constitutional problem mentioned in the second part of the question asked by the hon. member, he is well aware of the great flexibility shown by this government in its wish to renew the Canadian constitution, and specific action has already been taken by this government and steps have been initiated to patriate the constitution and entrench the charter of rights. Such endeavours have been made in a spirit of flexibility and adaptability, as the hon. member and the House know full well.

November 24, 1980
Oral Questions


HYDROELECTRICITY-DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not to the thirty-sixth acting Prime Minister. Enough of this nonsense and gobbledygook when the province of Newfoundland has only 53 per cent of the average earned income of Canadians as a whole. The Newfoundland government has just tabled in connection with their new legislation a report that shows that Hydro-Quebec has benefited by $2 billion since 1972 under the Upper Churchill power contract while the government and people of Newfoundland have benefited by an amount slightly in excess of $100 million net.
In view of the figures I used in my original question, will the minister give the people of Newfoundland a guarantee that he will take steps immediately, first, to use his powers to ensure that Newfoundland can develop the Lower Churchill project and transmit electricity across the province of Quebec, particularly the powers under section 92(10) of the BNA Act; and second, will the minister use his powers to assist the province of Newfoundland in righting this imbalance of income of $2 billion as compared to $100 million, from the Upper Churchill project, a contract which was instituted by a fellow Liberal, Mr. Smallwood, in his heyday in Newfoundland?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question I am very happy to tell my friend that not only do I stand ready to correct this situation, or to give the assurance with regard to the transportation of electricity, but the Prime Minister himself is on record as saying, in a letter he wrote to Premier Peckford in October:
In my letter of July 29, 1980, to you I indicated that the federal government stood ready to act if it could clearly be demonstrated that the exportation of electricity from Newfoundland was in fact being prevented by Quebec. This, as you will recall, was also the essence of my comments to you when we discussed the matter at the recent Conference of First Ministers on the Constitution.
So we are on the record in that respect. Madam Speaker.
As far as the second point of the question is concerned, I want to stress to the hon. member that what we are facing is a contract between Quebec-Hydro and, I believe, Rio Tinto, a private British corporation at the time. If the hon. member can tell me what constitutional means there is in the hands of the federal government to cancel a private contract entered into in that way, I will certainly be very happy to examine this.
In addition, I said last week that I had indicated to the government of Newfoundland that if it felt that the federal government could be of any help with respect to this contract-we would be very happy to sit down with them and the government of Quebec and see whether any modification or improvement could be made. We still stand ready to help if the
two parties concerned are willing to have us sit at the table with them.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications who will be aware that on August 5 the CRTC announced a policy which would allow customers of Bell Canada to purchase their own equipment to be attached to Bell's lines although that decision did not require that the equipment used should originate in countries which allowed Canadian equipment to be attached to their lines. In view of the fact that some 6,000 to 7,000 jobs are involved in this vital sector of the Canadian manufacturing economy, will the minister respond favourably to the request made to the federal government by Bell Canada and by the government of Ontario that only equipment from those countries which allow Canadian equipment to be attached to their lines should be allowed to be attached to Canadian lines?
[ Translation]


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which clearly is very important to the communications industry. As he indicated, the CRTC issued a decision on August 5. Since then a number of applications have been received from provincial governments-the hon. member referred to the Ontario government-and the private sector, on the one hand, to put the CRTC's decision aside, and in other cases to uphold that decision. A number of companies now manufacture in Canada telephones that meet the standards of the FCC in the United States among others and they support the decision. I would also like to point out that, since the initial decision by the CRTC, there has been a significant reduction to the consumer in the price of telephones. But, in any case, we are now reviewing all the questions arising from the petitions before us. My officials have had important discussions with those in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to look at the possible implications, and I hope to be in a position to come up with a proposal for a possible solution to those appeals before my cabinet colleagues within a week or two.


ACTION TO SAFEGUARD CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the vast majority of the cheapest telephones being attached to Canadian phone lines come from Japan, a country with a state-owned national telephone system which does not allow
November 24, 1980

Canadian telephone equipment to be attached to its lines, what action does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce propose to take to ensure that the jobs of 6,000 to 7,000 Canadians involved in this sector of our manufacturing industry are not threatened by the government's decision?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, when I was in Japan in August one of the issues I raised with the Japanese authorities was greater access to the Japanese telecommunications company of Canadian products, and we are certainly pursuing this. I want to add as well that the issue my hon. friend raised is certainly of concern to us. It is something 1 am reviewing not only with the Minister of Communications but with the Minister of National Revenue to ensure that our laws with respect to imports are respected.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. I have just returned from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, held in Madrid, involving 33 European countries, the United States and Canada. Since this conference is stressing human rights, economic co-operation, detente in Europe and disarmament, would the hon. minister please indicate to this House why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation, did not have at least one reporter attending this conference; and will he assure Canadians that the remainder of the conference, which will continue to sit until March 31, will get better coverage by CBC than it has during the first two weeks of its deliberations?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in stressing the importance of the conference that is going on in Madrid. As the hon. member had the courtesy to give me notice of this question just before entering the House this afternoon, I have had the opportunity of checking back with the CBC. The CBC informs me that there has indeed been a good deal of coverage of the conference on the CBC in Canada. However, they decided in pursuing the coverage of this conference to enter into agreement with Visnews, which as I understand it is a European news-gathering agency. I have brought the concerns of the hon. member to the attention of the CBC, and I will pursue the matter with them.
Introduction of Bills BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


ADJOURNMENT DURING FUNERAL OF FORMER GOVERNOR GENERAL LEGER
Mr. Pinard:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning the funeral on next Thursday of our former Governor General. There have been discussions, and we have agreed not to sit on Thursday afternoon, so 1 think there is unanimous consent to the following order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Thursday, November 27, 1980, the House shall sit only from 8 to 10 p.m.;
That the only item of business to be considered at that time shall be a motion pursuant to section 52 of the Petroleum Administration Act; and
That the said day shall be included as one of the three days designated by the said section of the said act.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the minister have the consent of the House to present the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agreed and so ordered.


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) did in fact refer to a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-and he quoted from it. In anticipation of that part of the order paper dealing with tabling of documents, would the hon. gentleman prepare himself to table that letter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the letter in question. My hon. colleague will understand that the letter is in English only. I do not have the French translation so I will table it as it is. I could table it immediately if the House agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, to amend the Pest Control Products Act.

November 24, 1980
Order Paper Questions


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

Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, to regulate the importation into Canada of fresh, chilled and frozen meat and to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,134, 1,556, 1,658, 1,733 and 1,737.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that Miss Hazel Eaglesome has been collecting signatures on a petition against sculptures erected in Rockcliffe Park by the Canada Council?
2.	Did Mr. Larry Sobovitch of the Canada Council refer to Miss Eaglesome as "She's obviously no one of importance'' and, if so, did the government take any action in regard to the statement and, if so, to what extent?
3.	Is it government policy to permit public servants to make such remarks about a citizen exercising their right to petition the government?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as
Secretary of State of Canada and the Canada Council are concerned: 1. The government is aware that signatures for a petition against the sculptures in question were collected by Miss Eaglesome.
2.	No. Mr. Sobovitch was quoted incorrectly and out of context. He was asked in informal conversation whether Miss Eaglesome was "anyone important in the field of contemporary art" and replied that, as far as he knew, she was not.
3.	Employees of the Canada Council are not members of the public service and are therefore subject only to the internal policies of the Canada Council. Further, the response of the
council to question two indicates that Mr. Sobovitch was quoted incorrectly and out of context.


Mr. Wenman: Has the government made any plans to reassess CIDA's bilateral and priority aid list with the view of making Somalia a target country for aid and, if so (a) does the government have any immediate plans for dispatching emergency food supplies to Somalia above the initial 6,300 ton wheat commitment (b) has the government considered any specific policies for encouraging and assisting Canadian non-governmental organizations in establishing humanitarian relief and development projects in Somalia (c) has Canada any intention of taking initiatives at the United Nations to focus international attention on the suffering in Somalia?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Canada regularly reviews countries' eligibility for Canadian bilateral assistance. Eligibility is determined by a number of factors, among them the major are-developmental need, political and commercial implications, etc. To date, Somalia has not been deemed eligible for Canadian bilateral assistance, although Mission Administered Funds ($25,000 annually) and Canadian Bilateral Food Aid ($3.0 million- 1980/81, $5.0 million in 1974/75 and 1976/77) have been provided. During next year's review of aid eligibility, the Somalian case will be reconsidered.
(a)	No, not at present, although Canada is constantly investigating the situation to determine if further involvement is warranted and can be accommodated within budgetary constraints.
(b)	Canadian NGO's are involved in relief work without assistance from CIDA. CIDA does assist, however, in NGO's rehabilitation efforts (including all second line operations, e.g. logistics support, health care, water, etc.)-in support of humanitarian relief activities. The Canadian Government responds to requests for funds from NGO's and has no specific policy which encourages the NGO's to request funds for country-specific needs. In September-October 1980, however, a group of Canadian NGO representatives participated in a one and a half week mission to Somalia to gain a better understanding of the current situation and how they might best assist in Somalia. Involved in this mission were the CCIC (Canadian Council for International Co-operation), the Overseas Book Centre, the YMCA, and L'AMI (L'assistance medicate internationale). CIDA supported this mission by providing matching funds and by providing briefing assistance to the mission members. CIDA anticipates that NGO projects will be developed in Somalia as a result and that CIDA will be approached for financial assistance to these projects.
(c)	Canada has supported the resolutions of the UN General Assembly concerning the refugee problem in general. It is well recognized by all, including Canada, that the Somalia case is one of the most serious today.
November 24, 1980


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Are claims outstanding, under section 33 of the Pension Act, with respect to funeral and burial grants for veterans and, if so, how many?
2.	How many such claims were received by the Canadian Pension Commission in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980 and, what was the average (i) length of time required to settle the claims (ii) amount paid with respect to each claim?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1. Yes. 44-as at November 12, 1980.
2. (a) 1,478;
(b)	1,267;
(c)	957;
(d)	1,223-as at September 30, 1980.
(i)	5 weeks;
(ii)	$575.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	(a) What was the total combined cost to produce the "Explorations" and "Canada 11" games (b) are there any plans for making more of them (c) where were they made (d) what company was in charge of producing them (e) was there any bidding on the contract to produce them?
2.	Are there any plans for producing other types of such games?


David Michael Collenette: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.
"OH! CANADA 2"


Mr. Neil: What was the cost for the 300,000 copies of "Oh! Canada 2" and what was the name of the company who manufactured the game?


David Michael Collenette: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petroleum Administration Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on the Petroleum Administration Act. Following the short comments 1 was able to make on Friday last, 1 wish to underscore again at the beginning that this is a piece of legislation which strikes at the sensitivities of confederation. It will be viewed in western Canada as yet one more attack upon the authority which is granted to us through the British North America Act over the resources of that region.
What we are witnessing at this very moment of our history is a very serious grassroots movement. It has come to the state of vocalization that it has largely on the basis of the constitutional proposals of the federal government, on its energy package, and now because of the decision to establish unilaterally the price of petroleum products. Not only that, but this particular legislation has been brought to the House marinated in the myth that somehow there will be a lack of co-operation among provincial legislatures. What we find is a tremendous lack of will on behalf of the federal government to meet with the producing provinces in a negotiating forum.
Meetings have taken place, but anyone who is following precisely what has been happening knows full well that documentation, one piece after another, from ministers and from the federal government is not in each of those instances a negotiating forum. It is fair to say that by and large, in those meetings that took place during the late summer and fall of this year, the federal government did not negotiate. Yet today we are into this milieu of the federal government pointing to a province, and claiming that in provinces west of Ontario there is ill will in the Canadian family. There is a view that somehow there are partnerships in the family of confederation that are not behaving in the way the federal government wants, and the federal government now wishes to bludgeon them with its own will.
It is imperative upon us all to recognize that we should take a view of what would happen to Canada if the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia could be given their free opportunity to be able to play their fair and constructive role in confederation. So often it has been portrayed, particularly by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), that somehow the motives of the western provinces are those of greed. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in any careful study of what would happen with greater production in western Canada, there would be an immense benefit to families in central Canada and throughout all of Canada, along with more jobs.

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
I ask hon. members to take a look at just one rather remote situation, that of Dome Petroleum, which is presently exploring the north slope of the Arctic. In Dome's estimated spending of $40 billion between 1980 and 1990 to develop five oil fields on our north slope, at least 60 per cent of those dollars, putting together the multiplier effect of some $120 billion, would be spent in central Canada for barge-mounted production facilities, ice breakers and tankers. On this project alone, annual direct and indirect employment would exceed 150,000 man years. It is estimated that the majority of those jobs would be in central Canada.
I say that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tends to perpetuate in his statement, which I view as being false, that somehow there is a position of greed in some part of this region, or that there is a lack of will in some provinces to play the role of good Canadians, he is really exacerbating the situation for his own political gain. I want to underscore that in the developing and producing provinces people are attempting to bring forward proposals by which we would have enhanced development of our petroleum products in Canada. By doing this we would be adding tremendously to the economic and social benefits throughout the whole of Canada.
I want to speak again in direct terms of what happens as we develop each of the tar sands or heavy oil plants. It should be noted that through the 25-year lifetime of a tar sands plant there would be an expenditure of between $60 billion and $65 billion to sustain the investments. There would be another $20 billion for the operation of a particular plant throughout the 25-year period. That gives us a figure of some $85 billion. If we take the Canadian Petroleum Association multiplier effect of 3.4 we find that $290 billion will be pumped into the Canadian system in the next 25 years, over 40 per cent of which would be spent in the province of Ontario. Those numbers should not be jocularly set aside.
Almost half of this $290 billion would be spent, in interesting ways in the province of Ontario. For example, some $800 million would go into iron and steel production. Another $370 million would go into metal fabrication and machinery. Another $325 million would go into transportation equipment. Another $740 million would go into manufacturing and processing. Another $370 million would be for financing from banking institutions, and for trade and services another $750 million. The list goes on.
I find it very perplexing, as one who comes from a part of the country which desires very much to be a member of the Canadian family, to find pressure leaning very heavily upon us to fall into some whip line of doing that which the federal government thinks is right but in fact is counterproductive. In all of this view of Canadianization, and "let the federal government do it," what is the end result?
I phoned the Sweetgrass, Montana, border crossing to ask about the number of Canadian rigs leaving the country. I was told they simply could not keep up with the daily processing of rigs. One man told me they were leaving in droves. Another said that never in his life had he seen so many Canadian oil
rigs leaving this country as he has seen since the last federal budget. On one hand we have the minister, in his sinister way, telling Canadians that he is attempting to Canadianize the oil industry. On the other hand he chases that very industry out of the country.
The situation is even worse than in 1974 when we had 22 taxation policy changes in one fiscal year. At that time they chased 30 per cent of the Canadian-owned oil drilling rigs out of Canada and into other countries.
Let us look at what is happening under this disguise to convince Canadians that the federal government has their interests at heart. The people of central Canada are losing jobs. Manufacturing has to slow down its production. People in all parts of the country have to bear the burden of increased federal debt because the money is not circulating here. We have, instead, a mentality which says that by the middle of this decade $8.5 billion will be taken out of Canada for the purchase of oil from some foreign country for use east of the Ottawa Valley line. By taking these billions of dollars out of Canada and giving them to some foreign country, not a single job will be created in this land. All that you do is make some other nation rich, whether it be Mexico, Venezuela, or the Middle East. While some of those nations may need extended wealth, it is not necessarily the obligation of Canada to provide it. We have the wherewithal, but we need a sense of co-operation from the federal government to put together a petroleum package which will sustain itself and work to the advantage of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is now spending his 40 days and 40 nights in the desert getting $40 a barrel oil. I submit that one tar sands plant would produce more daily oil than he contracted for in Saudi Arabia. Somehow he is over there talking about security of supply. What a nonsensical statement from the leader of this country. With one tar sands plant we would have greater security of supply than by travelling to some foreign land looking for security there. What absolute rubbish, to try to make Canadians think somehow we can have greater security from the Arab nations than from our own provinces. If one would analyse the situation, one would not believe that there is such a shortage in our nation today that we could not have security of supply from within our own borders.
I know that these points I am mentioning are very distressing to western Canadians. The word separation is certainly being used all too often in my part of Canada. When I heard the word being repeated last summer with ever-increasing frequency, I became very much alarmed. I thought there might be a will within my constituency that they could somehow go it alone. If you talked to someone for five minutes, that might be his view. However, if you talked to any of them for an hour, you soon find that it is not Lake of the Woods, Summerside, Shawinigan, old Quebec City or other parts of the country about which they are disgruntled. It is the Prime
November 24, 1980

Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and this federal government from which they want to separate.
The government is trying to create the myth that there are bad Canadians, and enemies that we have to set other Canadians against. The will of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia has always been to play their role. We live in a milieu of distortion. Because it is in power, the federal government, with its own poisonous thoughts, thinks it can do everything better than the regions.
Let us look at the notion that oil companies will become 50 per cent Canadian owned. Canadians should know that they are not talking about Canadian ownership. There will not be a single Canadian owning one share in a Canadian oil industry if this government has its way. They are talking about government ownership.
We in western Canada have reason to be suspicious when the federal government, not the citizens of Canada, wants a share of an industry which affects only one or two provinces. Is that not reason to suspect it is not in the interests of Canadians but in the interests of protecting the power of the federal government? Should it not raise the eyebrows of people west of the Ontario-Manitoba border when they hear that the oil industry, which is a multinational, ought to be 50 per cent Canadian owned? The federal government did not choose all multinationals, it singled out some of them.
This year Chrysler Corporation is to receive $240 million in guaranteed loans, and a study is being made into Massey-Fer-guson to see whether the federal government can help that multinational corporation. Why is the myth being created that multinationals are good in one region of the country but bad in another region? Surely the criteria must be extended beyond that. There should be a criterion for all multinational corporations in Canada, so that Canadians have the right to buy the shares.
The government must not take the view of singling out multinationals for government control simply to pick on a particular region. Canadians ought to rise up and say that is unfair and unjust. They must take a stand against a government which takes the position that, as the arbitrator operating out of the population basin of the country, it will make and impose decisions upon the regions regardless of their desire to play a part in the fulfilment of Canada's wishes and needs.
In my part of the country, the province of Alberta, there is a strong desire to play a greater part in the building of a better Canada. We can do that by developing upon the strength that is ours. Rather than send billions of dollars out of the country to purchase offshore oil, we should develop our oil here which will create spinoff jobs and great employment opportunities in virtually every region of this land. If we can capitalize on our strengths and build on them, what a great country we would have.
We must be the laughing stock of virtually every nation in the world. In Japan the only resources are fish and tin, yet they have one of the strongest economies in the world. Here we have virtually every resource a country could want. We have
Petroleum Administration Act
ambitious and educated people. We are lacking only because we have a Liberal government which goes to other countries to purchase, and therefore creates employment there.
This government has failed to commit the people of Canada to the development of what we have here because, for the purpose of re-election, this government would rather create enemies in the family, gather a few of the partners together and point fingers. Once the government has finished pointing fingers it creates a group which says, "In this atmosphere of fear we will rise up and resist those who are branded as enemies". If this attitude continues, the grassroots movement operating today in western Canada without a leader may well find a leader.
This government may seem to be destroying this country with its desire to stay in power, but there is a will in every part of this country to serve this country. Those who display a different attitude and try to persuade Canadians that there is not that will, are simply not speaking the truth. Starting now, I submit that every Canadian should travel more extensively in this country to find out how very much it is the government which is wrong. There are great opportunities for employment in all the regions of Canada. How can we possibly justify a government which destroys those opportunities for work?
Let us discuss just a few of the companies whose positions would be enhanced if we had policies which allowed them to go forward. Canadian Fahramet has four plants in Orillia, Ontario. The company manufactures heat corrosive and abrasive resistent castings used in the petrochemical industry, and equipment for oil rigs. Last month it laid off 33 of its workers. There was a total of 500.
As a direct result of the last budget a Stratford manufacturing firm withdrew a half million dollar contract and rescheduled orders amounting to several million dollars. The company is indifferent as to completion dates.
A drilling company, Simmons Drilling Company of Calgary, purchased $180,000 worth of new cars and trucks last year. Because of the budget ten of its 17 oil rigs have now moved to the United States. The president of Simmons estimates that there is probably a need for three times that number of vehicles this year. Unfortunately, those vehicles will now be purchased in the United States. Let us remember that last year the company purchased $180,000 worth of vehicles in Canada. It now needs three times that number, and because of the budget of this government those vehicles will be purchased in another country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my appreciation to hon. members for their courtesy, even though it is my choice not to extend my remarks but only to conclude.
I say in all sincerity that there is a will amongst the partners in confederation. We believe that resources belong to the provinces. It has worked that way for 113 years for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It has worked that way throughout confederation. The tables have turned and another region now has resources, in this case petrochemical resources. That region is saying to Canadians that they can have that resource at 75 per cent of the Chicago composite price, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talks about selfish people talking about the world price. I say to the minister that that is utter nonsense. That has never been the position of western Canada. There is a 25 per cent advantage over the United States price guaranteed ad infinitum. That is the package from the provinces, yet government members continue to say that there is greed.
Throughout history the west has bought virtually everything at above world prices. Not only do we pay world prices but we also pay discriminatory freight rates. Automobiles, farm machinery and anything manufactured, have been purchased at prices higher than world prices. Today the province of Alberta sells its oil at below the world price. Its contribution to confederation is now in excess of some $20 billion, yet there is the feeling among government members that this should be dismissed and that prices should be cheaper yet.
If hon. members opposite say that the west is making too much money on light and medium weight crude, perhaps there could be some argument. However, the availability of light and medium weight crude will be zero in eight years. At that time we will have a supply of secondary recovery, offshore, north slope, heavy oils and tar sands. The method used to extract each of those is enormously more expensive. We are now receiving $16.75 for oil when it costs us $22 to produce tar sands oil. If there is to be a guarantee of supply, we need an enormous commitment to get plants in place.
Just this year we have lost a $7 billion plant which was ready for construction. The company involved said it could not operate with this government. Just last week another $8 billion plant closed down. The company said that with this government in power it cannot operate. This government is guaranteeing Canadians cheaper oil, when it is very uncertain whether there will be any oil at all. This government is destroying the industry. It is removing incentive and the potential for discovering new methods. 1 could go on about this for quite some time.
We have no energy crisis because we have very ample supplies of petroleum and coal. Each could last hundreds and hundreds of years. We do not have an energy crisis today, but we have a systems crisis brought on not by the greed of westerners for money but very much by the hunger of a Liberal government for power. This is not a question of supply or of dollars. It is a question of power. The federal government is trying to wrench power from the provinces, to the detriment of the fabric of Canada. Canadians should realize that, and if
they do they will understand the views of westerners who say that throughout the course of confederation one set of rules has applied, and now there is a new wealth in their region. Because of this the federal government wants to change the rules of the game, even though in the spirit of co-operation the western provinces have said that they will take only 75 per cent of the Chicago composite price.
I will conclude by saying that we ought not to underestimate the grassroots movement of western Canada. We can have a better Canada if we change disruptive policies. However, if we continue with this Liberal government, I very much fear that we could end up with no Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make a couple of comments about some of the remarks of the hon. member who spoke before me. I am sure he does not want to leave the impression that it was because of eastern Canada and its industrial base that he said Canadians paid more for farm machinery. Farm machinery has been subjected to no tariff since the 1930s. One can bring in farm machinery from the western United States that was made in the United States. The bulk of it is moved from central Canada to the United States, to the huge assembly plants and fabrication plants in that part of the world. There has been no duty on farm machinery coming into Canada since 1944 or something like that. I do not have the correct date, but there has been no duty for many, many years.


Mr. Knowles:: Since 1944.


Eugene Whelan: Yet we continue to hear that they have paid more. Let us be factual, because they have not paid more for farm machinery. They have paid the same as their American counterparts across the border. They can go over and get it, drive it home or put in on a truck. They can do anything they want. There has been free trade coming into Canada, but there has not been free trade in farm machinery parts, for instance, going into the United States. Farm machinery parts come into Canada free, but going into the United States it was as high as 10 per cent at one time. Even the recent Geneva trade negotiations did not lower the cost of farm machinery parts going into the United States; they did not remove the duty.
The hon. member talked about getting to know the people of Canada, getting out into the country and meeting them. 1 do not think anyone does it any more than I. One of the member's colleagues criticized me the other day for doing just that. I do not find Albertans that much different, that is, the real, ordinary Albertans, the vast majority of Albertans. When they talk about Canada and sharing their resources with the rest of Canada, they are willing to do it. They are willing to do it when it is explained to them properly and honestly. They understand that the resources the federal government takes are the least of any federal system in the world.
Let us make comparisons. The former arrangement for industry was 45 per cent for the provincial government and a magnanimous sum of 10 per cent for the federal government.
November 24, 1980

Was that a tremendous sum? Let us move down to the area south of the border. The hon. member knows as well as I that a lot of the rigs go there because the weather is better for them. It is not just the economic weather about which he talks, but the general trend is the movement of rigs back and forth, a seasonal movement.
Under the new national energy program we are proposing 43 per cent for the provincial government, which is a lessening of the amount by 2 per cent. Certainly that will not greatly lower the billions of dollars or the tremendous amount in the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan. We are suggesting the tremendous amount of 24 per cent for the federal government! We are suggesting 33 per cent for the industry.
Now let us move to the state of Texas where they do things really big in their great free enterprise system. In the state of Texas 48 per cent goes to the producers, that is, if one just happens to live above it, 48 per cent goes to the producing company, and 17 per cent goes to the great state of Texas. It is not 43 per cent nor 45 per cent, it is 17 per cent going to the state of Texas, and 35 per cent goes to their federal government. It is not 24 per cent, but 35 per cent that goes to the United States government.
We could move into the other states south of the border and we will see that they never transferred the resources to the states where those rigs go. They practically all belong to the federal government in that area.
Then we could move to a fellow Commonwealth country like Australia. We have talked about the Commonwealth and how we must work together. We have talked about how we have so much in common. Let us talk about the common wealth of these two nations and how they share the common wealth of their own nations. In Australia 37 per cent goes to the producers, 15 per cent to the state government or the equivalent of a provincial government, and 48 per cent to their federal government. That is in the Commonwealth country of Australia. They have something in common with us because we belong to the Commonwealth, but we do not have much in common when it comes to sharing the wealth.
I say to members from western Canada that they should say it like the mayor of Saskatoon did when we were in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, last Saturday evening. He was talking about sharing when he stood on the platform in front of 750 people at a banquet and said, "No one will rip my country apart. Our country was built by sharing these things in an equitable fashion". That is what the mayor of Saskatoon said when talking about those matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: On Friday I was in Lethbridge talking to a group of farmers, a group of potato growers in the potato commission. When I talked about Canada, they said, "Don't you worry, Mr. Minister, about us. We are Canadians, and we understand because we are people from the rural parts. We understand how this nation was built and we are going to continue to see it done in that fashion".
Petroleum Administration Act
Hon. members opposite talk about things being done in a unilateral fashion. Let them remember how we transferred the resources to the western provinces-that terrible federal Liberal government did it unilaterally without discussing it with the rest of the provinces! They just handed over the resources.
When we talk about doing some of these things now, like bringing the constitution back, we are bad fellows. But we were good fellows when we transferred the resources unilaterally without discussing it with the other provinces. One province may have objected to it at that time, but the federal government did it in that instance.
I find it difficult to accept some of the remarks of the hon. gentleman when he talked about what is going on. He referred to that "federal group in Ottawa". One would think we did not represent the people of Canada, and one would think that we are holding the money inside the Parliament buildings in some kind of heritage fund and not spreading it around. The federal government's responsibility is to see that there is some economic equity and a distribution of it in the nation For instance, 34 per cent of the federal budget is for social services in Canada. Some members have been suggesting that some parts of Canada will be so much better off because there are no taxes on certain things. They call themselves Canadians within an economic democracy and say that they will have the same economic rights and privileges. They will not have that. Even with the little bit we are suggesting should be shared in a better fashion, one would think we are the destroyers of the free enterprise system.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Eugene Whelan: When one checks the multinationals, one will see that they are not sharing as fairly as they will under the policy we are proposing at the present time. So, I do not understand how they can say that it will be the same and that we do not represent the people of Canada.
Let us look at the voting pattern in the province of Alberta. Less than 50 per cent of the people of that province voted in the last election, and less than 50 per cent of them voted for the administration. So, one-quarter of the people with the right to vote voted for the present government of Alberta.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You will be the next minister of finance.


Eugene Whelan: That is approximtely the same vote as my party has in western Canada. Out of those who voted 27 per cent voted for us, and we must remember that 32 per cent is the most that we have ever had voting for us in western Canada.
They talk about democracy and that type of thing. They talk about socialistic ownership. How can someone who is a member of the House of Commons from the province of Alberta talk about socialistic ownership in the tone of some of them?
The most socialistic province of all is the province of Alberta. They own more of the land, more of the resources-the airlines and trust companies. Saskatchewan looks like a "little

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
bitty" chicken alongside Alberta when it comes to socialistic ownership. They come on with the strong stand that we should not travel Air Canada because it is a Crown corporation. What in the hell is Western Pacific Airlines, on which I flew last night from Saskatoon to Winnipeg? It is owned by the province of Alberta, that great bulwark of a free enterprise system! They just bought it up and gobbled it up like some kind of an economic monster. Nobody could compete with them, because who in the hell could compete with those resources? They could make up their minds to buy anything, as far as that goes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Eugene Whelan: 1 am sorry. Who in heaven's name could compete with them? Some people may be better off in heaven, and in the other place, as far as that goes.
When talking about sharing the energy and the resources of this land I am told that no matter which part of Canada you go to the people recognize the way that this nation was built. It was by sharing. Some people can point out the unfairness, etc., some people can point out how poverty was suffered-my God, everybody, during the dirty thirties no matter where you lived, in what part of Canada, if you can remember those days, suffered. But as the Mayor of Saskatoon said the other day, "We are not have-not provinces any more. Some of the provinces have more but we are all provinces that have some".
Even when we compare the poorest people in Canada with people in any other part of the world we see that we are very rich, as far as those things go. When we talk about the sharing in resources we use these old stories, and I come back to farm machinery and cars and everything. Sometimes I wonder if we have ever studied any of the facts. I run into that every now and again.
I remember about a year or so ago when I was up in the Peace River district and someone said that his combine cost him about $1,500 more than it should have and I asked him why. He said it was because it came from the east. But his combine came from down in Wyoming some place, I believe it was, and there was no duty whatsoever. There is exchange on the money. That has been the best thing for agriculture Canada has ever seen.
This year our agricultural exports will be $2 billion more than they were last year and they will say, "Yes, but you imported a lot", but not nearly as much as before. Last year it was $4.7 billion and this year it will be about $5.3 billion, which is an amazing thing and a wonderful trend for us. The hon. member opposite is shaking his head. He knows full well it is because of some of the things we just did, like on saving energy, so that trucks would not go to the United States and bring in apples. We made an arrangement in our government-


John Horton McDermid: I wrote you a letter and thanked you for it.


Eugene Whelan: -and we acted in a responsible fashion. That is how they worked it out by making a little representation about it. We went to work with the Ontario people, the Quebec people, and the maritime people. They agreed to work with that. All we did was participate with about $500,000 to offset transportation costs. But every bit of cider and apple champagne will be Canadian because they are not importing thousands of tons of apples. That was worked out in the true spirit of confederation, which we are supposedly working in to sort out these problems, in a moderate, considerate, co-operative way.
I never got a thank-you note from you, either-


John Horton McDermid: You should read your mail.


Eugene Whelan: I appreciate those gestures of kindness. 1 believe I acted on your behalf at least twice in the last month-


John Horton McDermid: No, the last year.


Eugene Whelan: I do not think you made any requests before the one last month. Mr. Speaker, on the two that he asked of me, I acted almost right away.
So when we talk about the energy, the sharing and how we will develop the country and the total energy policy, I return to agriculture where we talk about priorities for energy. It is a difficult thing if you have to have gasoline, diesel fuel or heating fuel for energy in agriculture. These are most important types of fuels and could be the ones that there could be a shortage of in the future.
The total food and beverage industries are classified in one class at the present time. The beverage industry that makes the soft drinks, soda pop, bicarbonated sodas, the wines, the beers and the candy shops-do we give them that high priority classification that we all feel is so necessary for food production on the farm, the primary producer, the food processor and the person who is going to transport the food that you and 1 need? I think there has to be a different kind of classification in those categories. You cannot lump them all in as one.
Those people who will use natural gas, under this program never have to worry about being in that category that will be restricted in the first place. We have an abundance of natural gas and propane, and this program encourages them to switch over to that. So those people who are producing flowers and other things which may not be classified as essential will be in a preferred area. Many of them are using that type of energy at the present time so they do not have to worry about what is going to happen to their production. In case a shortage of a product existed, as I said before, in the top priority fuels like diesel fuels, heating oil and gasoline, those would be the ones about which you would be concerned.
To date, we have heard about energy in its crudest form, and I say that with no pun intended. I would for a moment like you to consider energy in a more refined state-the energy that fuels the body, food. The raw material that provides the food is also a natural resource. It is also a renewable resource.

November 24, 1980

Canadian farmers have been totally unselfish in their attitude and in the mustering of their energies in order to supply that most important source of energy-food-to their fellow Canadians, for many decades, at reasonable cost. They have performed their tasks efficiently and proficiently to a point at which their achievements are now the envy of the world-and I mean the world, regardless of whether it is communist, socialist, free enterprise, or whatever.
There is no country that works as closely in harmony as we do in providing that source of energy, food, throughout the total food industry. That is probably closer to the true concept of confederation than anything else. It is interesting, when you look at the recommendations about changing the constitution, that not one provincial premier, or the federal government, has recommended any changes when it comes to authority concerning agriculture. It stands for itself that the Fathers of Confederation were far-seeing people who recognized that in order to make a success of it they had to work together.
Since the early 1950s the output for each agricultural worker in Canada has quadrupled, while his or her counterpart in the rest of the commercial sector has only managed to double their output. For example, between 1975 and 1978 the annual rate of growth in labour productivity for farming was a fantastic 4 per cent, while the non-farming sector increased by about 2'A per cent. This has continued. Now the average person who produces food energy for you and me has gone from the point 20 years ago where he only produced enough food to feed approximately 30 people to the point today where he is producing enough food for himself, his family, and 60 other people. If we look at what will happen by the year 2000 we will see that one Canadian farmer will be feeding as many as 150 to 200 people, mainly because of the use of energy.
When we talk about the conservation of energy in the food and beverage industry we see that they have proven to be some of the most conservation-minded people. In the last two years they have cut their energy consumption by 15 per cent, and in the next three to four years they will cut it by another 8 per cent. When we look at how and what we use our energy for, the people in agriculture probably use it more efficiently than any other part of our society. This is argumentative, but I do not mind arguing.
We harvest up to 6 per cent of the world's wheat and barley, 12 per cent of the world's oats, and we produce 2 per cent of the world's meat and milk products. We do not have that much of the world's land. We only have 3 per cent of the world's farmland compared to the world's land resources, yet each of our farmers is more proficient as far as production goes compared with nearly any other country in the world. When you compare our climatic conditions to any other part of the world you will see that we are the most efficient.
If you travel from coast to coast in Canada you will find that the average farmer produces nearly $3,000 worth more of food per farmer than the American farmer. That is going right from Cape Breton Island through to Vancouver Island and Port Hardy.
Petroleum Administration Act
Not only have our farmers been performing amazing feats in the fields, the work has been accomplished with great energy efficiency as well. Only 3 per cent of the total energy consumed in Canada is used by the agricultural producers, while the car gobbles up more than 25 per cent. It takes equal amounts of energy to produce one pound of wheat as it does one pound of steel. That is taken in the context of planting the seed, tilling the soil, harvesting the crop, processing the product, and getting the product to market. Canadian farmers do not have to apologize to anyone for their use of energy because, compared to their small consumption rate, their contributions to Canada and Canadians are great.
More than 100 years ago eastern farmers laid the groundwork for a national economy. A short time later, western farmers sowed the seed to one of the world's great granaries. The results of their dedication to the Canadian land are now a matter of record, and this tradition, I am sure, has been a source of inspiration to other Canadians from coast to coast.
I believe another one of the major strengths of the Canadian farmer has been the ability to seek security through self-reliance and self-sufficiency, while at the same time working in a spirit of co-operation and unity. These characteristics of selfreliance, self-sufficiency, co-operation, and unity perhaps place the Canadian farmer in a unique position. The amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act have been placed before this House to exact this kind of self-reliance and self-sufficiency for the whole Canadian economy.
Let us take a look at some of the facts. The pricing formula which is being presented now is in no measure as substantial as the increases which were contained in the December, 1979, budget, a move that was supported by the government of that day. In addition, the current amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act contain considerable incentives regarding conservation and alternative energy research.
The Canadian farmers' record for conservation achievement, as I have said, is a record to which one can pay tribute. The Canadian growing season, as hon. members are aware, is short, the climate harsh and the environment at times can play havoc with the orderly growing of our produce. Yet, faced with these odds, the Canadian farmer can still supply Canadian and world markets with food at competitive prices. For example, a tomato grown in a field feeding from the light and heat of nature requires less direct energy than one grown in a greenhouse with artificial light and heat. It takes about $40,000 worth of fuel to maintain one acre of greenhouse and, despite these costs, the Canadian product is still competitive in the market.
Another example is in the area of poultry, such as chickens or turkeys. In warmer environments producers do not need heated buildings or artificial drying procedures for the feed, which is the biggest cost to producers. Although it probably takes one bushel of wheat to prepare a turkey for market, considering the fuel-related additional costs, the Canadian producer is still competitive.

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
Many people do not realize that our cattle must be housed longer before they are ready for market. Practically all successful dairymen house their cattle 12 months of the year, leaving them outside only for exercise. The rest of the world is learning our methods in the fields of dairying and poultry. Our methods in poultry are some of the most efficient in the world and can compete on any terms. In spite of our higher costs for wages and energy, we can compete because of our efficiency and marketing ability.
If we are ever to reach self-reliance and self-sufficiency, the key words of the eighties must be conservation and energy alternatives. This perhaps is one area where Canadian farmers are in the most unique position of all, that of being able to produce energy on the farm from low grade wheat, or any product which does not meet the standards of human consumption. Some products, such as manure, can be recycled and, combined with proper conservation, these prospects could, in the very near future, enable the Canadian farmer to snip the umbilical oil cord to foreign supply.
There are many programs sponsored by the government to help people implement their ingenious ideas on energy conservation. Many such projects have been approved by the government as demonstration projects set up by farmers, businessmen, and people in general, who have ideas which they would like to put to good use for Canada. Nobody knows how many of these programs will be successful, but if these people are not given the opportunity to try their ideas we will never know how many of these ideas will be working for us next year or five years from now. Even if one tenth of the hundreds of projects which have been accepted are successful, it would be a tremendous contribution in the field of energy conservation.
Could it be that some day we will be growing energy alternatives as the ultimate resource, because it is a renewable resource? For example, there is wheat. Can we supply the technology to harvest enough energy from one acre, to farm that acre for ten more years while at the same time using the wheat in its traditional form as food? We would simply derive the food from the protein and the energy from the starch. There is also oil from oil seeds and alcohol production from cull crops. In short, it is the ultimate resource that not only fuels the body but would also fuel the technology of the eighties and the nineties. That is the ultimate self-sufficiency and self-reliance. This ultimate goal must be fed by research in order to provide, at a reasonable cost, energy alternatives.
It is in this area of self-sufficiency and conservation I know the Canadian farmer will show leadership to the direct advantage of other Canadians because, on a global scale, rising energy costs will bring about changes and will alter the competitiveness of different farm production and processing enterprises. It only stands to reason that imported foods which have high energy costs in production and transportation will not compete successfully against domestic products. That is another reason why these amendments are important as well as reasonable. They will help our producers use energy efficiently and keep down per unit costs.
Our farmers will be rewarded by a greater share of the domestic and world markets which will produce greater economic advantages. A healthy, growing farm economy means a healthy, growing Canadian economy providing thousands of jobs. At present, one of every four Canadians now works in a food-related job. In addition, every dollar taken in by farming is multiplied by three as it weaves its way through the economy. This year alone the gross farm income will surpass $15 billion. As all hon. members can realize, the impact of the Canadian farmer today is great, and the presence of agriculture in the economy will be felt in the future even more significantly.
1 have drawn a number of parallels, Mr. Speaker, with Canadian agriculture, which include self-reliance, self-sufficiency, the economy, and, indeed, the very essence of development and prosperity, just to name a few. I have tried to offer a Canadian view without the flavouring to suit regional and parochial tastes and to speak on behalf of the Canadian agricultural community which is one element of our great society which spans from coast to coast. As I said earlier, these people perhaps understand and appreciate Canada a little more than many other people in the country.
Neither wheat fields nor livestock herds are restrained by provincial boundaries. All of us in agriculture are proud of our achievements, considering the conditions of adversity such as a northern climate and our battle with the elements which, once again, are a factor that affects all farmers from sea to sea, or for 4,000 miles from coast to coast. The Canadian farming community reaches the very extremities of our land and touches the lives of every Canadian to the benefit of the country. The final parallel, of course, is that the amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act will also reach into the very heartland of our nation touching the lives of every Canadian and benefiting all Canadians.
Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world. We are blessed with our resources, our people, and our tremendous opportunities and energies. The chairman of the American Gas Association who was recently interviewed in a television program in British Columbia, said that Canada has the richest resources of any country in the world. Some hon. members heard me mention my brother the other day. I believe he still belongs to another party. 1 do not know why he belongs to that party, particularly after the way in which he was treated by the Premier of Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is the intelligent one of the family.


Eugene Whelan: He was fired.
He tells me not to worry too much about the resources of the provinces because the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have the richest motherload in the world and Canada will remain the richest land and the envy of the entire world. There are tremendous opportunities in Canada. Now is the time for us to extend the spirit of understanding, co-operation, good will and, above all, our unwillingness to surrender our search for a renewed vision of this great country.
November 24, 1980

I recently saw a televised speech by the Premier of Alberta. I read the breakdown of what he said in that speech to determine the real facts. I do not intend to go into those facts today because I do not have the time, but I would suggest to anyone who really wishes to understand what the Premier of Alberta was saying, that they obtain a transcript of what was said and compare it with the facts, because they are not exactly as the premier put them. Every person, especially in Alberta, should be aware of exactly what the premier said and exactly what the facts are. It would be a good thing if all Canadians had the same opportunity to learn what he said.
Mr. Speaker, we owe this to the traditions that have been established by our forefathers and, indeed, by the Fathers of Confederation, who moulded this nation. To do less would be a discredit to all who have worked so hard to create a home in Canada. We have all come from some other part of the world to create homes here, and to build a way of life which, as I have said, is the envy of the world. If there is a Utopia somewhere else in this world, I want to know where it is. I want to go there if it is better than Canada. In my world travels, as a member of Parliament and as a minister, I have seen nothing that compares to Canada. Wherever I go, average Canadians, whether they be from Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, or from the maritimes say to me, "We don't understand what the premiers are talking about. We don't understand what some of you are talking about, but we like Canada. We are proud of Canada and we want to continue to build it."
To continue to build, Mr. Speaker, we have to share things in a true Christian fashion, in the true Canadian fashion, which has proven to the rest of the world what we can build in this huge country with its small population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy and perhaps a little sad to participate in this debate, in view of its nature. In view of the fact that I follow the ebullient and interesting Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I should say that I am glad he finally spoke about agriculture and the farmer. I am glad that he mentioned gas and oil too. In view of his opening remarks, and long before he got around to dealing with the farm community and the farm industry, which he does know rather well, his title could have been changed to-and no personal reflection is intended-the "minister of fog" or the "minister of gas". His written remarks were a little more reasonable, rational, and better prepared.
In terms of what the minister said, long before he talked about agriculture, he was trying to answer the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and others. In this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, there has been, not misrepresentation with intent, but misrepresentation through ignorance or mischief. I do not say the minister tries to mislead the House or anyone outside the House with intent, but the minister speaks in this House about gas and oil, and then fogs the issue by talking
Petroleum Administration Act
about the shares of Texas and Australia! This is a debate on the Petroleum Administration Act. That is what we are trying to talk about in this House. We are trying to register our disapproval of another unilateral move taken by this government which has a central myopia.
This is the first time this has happened in 113 years-in part because this is rather a new bill, I admit. The issue must not be fogged by the use of red herrings and smokescreens, or by the use of false figures. When the minister spoke of the shares he did not mention that in Texas, as in the Commonwealth of Australia, gas revenue is based on federal revenue. It is offshore. When he talked about the shares, the inference was that Alberta was being unduly greedy. I am not here to defend the details of the division of revenue between Alberta and the federal government or the companies, but I find all this most misleading. He pointed out to Alberta that in effect the state of Texas got 17 per cent, compared to Alberta's some 40 per cent, but he did not point out that in Texas, as in Australia, the federal government takes the lion's share because the federal government owns the resource. Until now in this country the resource was owned by the province, and that is where the rub is.
As far as I know, there is no complaint with the figures in Texas or Australia. Maybe they will debate that issue themselves. Under our constitution, however, the resources in the provinces belong to the provinces. That is why, until now, any division of that revenue has been done by agreement, and not by unilaterally invoking the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture wandered even further away from the world of gas and oil when he tried to pervert the history of this land by saying that the four western provinces had made a big land grab, a revenue grab, a resource grab, in effect, in 1930. It was not a Liberal government that was in office at that time, however. I have not quite got it straight whether it occurred before Mr. Bennett came into power or not. I think it was when Mr. Bennett came to power in 1930. The resources were transferred to the four western provinces by an act passed in 1930.
It was not a great gift to those western provinces. They had been fighting for 20 years, ever since they came into confederation in 1905, to obtain the same treatment as every other province. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker, not these red herrings and camouflages and smokescreens and misleading facts that have been dragged into the debate.
In 1930, after 20 years of fighting in the four western provinces, they were put in the same position as all the other provinces in Canada, which was that the resources belonged to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is all that was done in 1930. It was not a nefarious plot by those greedy premiers out in the west, way back in 1930. It was not even done by a Liberal government, it was done by the then Conservative government.

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
The Minister of Agriculture has left the chamber, 1 see. 1 will pay him some respect for his interest in agriculture. I really do not know how much clout he has within cabinet, but if he really believes, as he said the other day, in the place of agriculture in the whole scheme of things within the world of his government, then why is there not, under the aegis of the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board, some decision on where the industry of agriculture fits if there is going to be an emergency in supplies of energy after they are allocated.
On November 12 the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) whether, in view of something published in The Canada Gazette, the industry of agriculture had yet received an allocation from the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. In the answer, reported at page 4591 of Hansard, the minister admitted that agriculture, which the Minister of Agriculture quite properly says is so important in the scheme of things, has not yet received a number or a letter-A, B, or C-to indicate its priority if an application to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is necessary. Garbage collection is rated B in The Canada Gazette yet agriculture, which as far as I am concerned should be rated A and have first claim on energy, has no claim. This, I think, in a tender way refutes the rhetoric of the Minister of Agriculture, who certainly speaks long and loud about the importance of agriculture. I am much in favour of some of what he said. I wish he would sometimes throw his cabinet weight, if he has any, behind the rhetoric so that agriculture could be assured of finding its proper place when allocations are made.
That is all I really want to say about the Minister of Agriculture, because I have no disagreement with his remarks about the farmer and the industry and their contributions to the economy of the country. This debate is about the invocation of the Petroleum Administration Act whereby the federal government, for the first time in history, may unilaterally and arbitrarily set the price of oil and gas. This is a brand new situation and it is what the debate is about. It is interesting that it should occur at this time in our national history when we are debating something called the resolution to amend the constitution. I think it can be said objectively that this has created much debate, and certainly division and discord across the country. It is not necessary for the federal government to invoke the Petroleum Administration Act unilaterally in order to set prices now.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which was prompted by the motions set down by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and, I gather, by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Both parties in the opposition are concerned by this unilateral act. This debate is to try to get the government to reconsider. But rather than taking another stick to the west, where the oil and gas are produced, the government should take the extra step and try to reconcile differences.
Following the last meeting in July of this year between the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the proposals and counterproposals set up then should be used as the base to resolve this problem by agreement rather than having a government act unilaterally. Obviously the numbers game is not in favour of the opposition. The power of numbers is with the government, to move straight ahead. The government may move straight ahead legally and technically, but that still does not say the action it takes tonight is right, or tomorrow, or any other day, because scar tissue is forming across this land.
As my good friend, the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) has said, it is basically wrong. That is why we are debating this issue today. I must say that a picture speaks a thousand words. I do not know how we can summarize the present state of Canada today in a serious way other than by reminding members of the famous picture which appeared on the front pages of most newspapers last week. I am speaking of our Prime Minister who was off in Saudi Arabia doing the Trudeau tango while this country is in the midst of problems. Never has Canada been more exposed to problems of division and discord with fault on all sides. Another colleague of mine says, "Better away". But, he is the Prime Minister. Picking this time to be offshore when there is a constitutional debate raging across this country, some might say is too pejorative. But now we add to that the debate on the unilateral imposition of prices.
This is the same thing as under a price control bill where the federal government can move and set prices unilaterally within a provincial domain, or set the wages of a worker. It is that type of petty principle that we are talking about when we have the central government moving unilaterally to set the price of gas and oil.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his reply on Friday said, "You have to move some time". Unfortunately, we cannot complain in the sense that legally under our constitution there is the power to do this, but it has never been done before. With that picture offshore of Rome burning while Nero fiddled, which is analagous to the Prime Minister tangoing while Canada is in the midst of debate, of discord and division, which I do not think has ever occurred before, certainly not in my history as a member of Parliament, I say it is something for which the Prime Minister must take a great deal of responsibility.
I am afraid there is a blinker mentality in this House. I am afraid there is a blinker mentality within the cabinet on this whole issue, whether it is on the constitution or the price setting of oil and gas. It is misleading to say Canada is on the one side and Alberta on the other.
Before I became a member of Parliament I practised law for eight years in British Columbia. I have friends and classmates in all the western provinces. I went out west for about ten days this past summer. I spent the least time in Alberta. But there is a blinker mentality here. The Prime Minister, when he was in Regina, insulted not only the people in Regina who heard
November 24, 1980

him speak, but all those people west of the Lakehead who read it the next day. It was as insulting as the statement the Prime Minister made during one campaign when he threw wheat at a little kid and asked, "Who is to sell your wheat?" To equate the concern west of the Lakehead with what is going on in central Canada, either on the constitution or about oil and gas, with hysteria or paranoia, when the same type of concern in Quebec can be called patriotism or nationalism and not get a pejorative from the Prime Minister, will only serve to inflame issues.
I read the debate which occurred on Friday. I was not here because 1 had the flu. I was concerned with some of the suggestions, not only from the member for Vancouver-Kings-way, but also from across the way, of casting stones on federal members and their feeling for this country, and who is really responsible for adding fuel to the fire, if I might say it that way. Yet that type of statement made west of the Lakehead irritated and insulted Canadians, especially those west of the Lakehead, but I think also all across the country because there is a deep concern in this land.
I am not talking about separation. But no one helps the west by calling its concern hysteria when Quebec, for its legitimate reasons, in the 1950s and 1960s wanted to show that Quebec had grown. Quebec at that time wanted to have more growth culturally, and emancipation culturally. Quebec wanted to be treated with the respect and relevance it deserved. Just imagine the government moving unilaterally on oil and gas without agreement. Talk about the blinker mentality, or a double standard.
While you and I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker- although 1 will not go through the whole chronology of the different legislative acts in Quebec on language-we have experienced Bill 101. The federal government has the power to do something with a provincial statute if it wants, just as the federal government, under the constitution, can invoke the Petroleum Administration Act. The government has the power to move. As Kennedy said, "Its grace under power is the sign of leadership". You may have the power within a constitution, but it might be for the better of all circumstances that one does not invoke that power. The Prime Minister and the government of the day, for their reasons, and they may be judged legitimate reasons in terms of Quebec-I am not judging the issue-on something which was as fundamental to Quebec as language, did not invoke the power. Some people did say that the Prime Minister could invoke power under the constitution by calling for disallowance of an act which discriminated against Canadians who live in the province of Quebec in terms of language. For government reasons of the day there was no indication of the power it had under the constitution because it was felt this would not help the situation and could well exacerbate it.
We had questions from the opposition and from citizens. People asked if the government was not going to disallow an act, would it become a party to the stated case in the Supreme Court and a party to that action in challenging that act and lending the weight and office of the Government of Canada to
Petroleum Administration Act
the challenge. We had the answer of the Prime Minister here. I remember it well. He said, "Look, we are not going to get involved with that. If the citizens of Quebec want to challenge one of its acts, let them challenge within the courts of Quebec and let the courts decide on the constitutionality of Bill 101."
In one action the citizens did challenge the constitutionality of that act. It went to the Supreme Court where certain offensive sections were declared unconstitutional. That is on one side. On the other side you have a federal government with the power to invoke the Petroleum Administration Act provisions and unilaterally set prices. It moves ahead like a stream-roller, even though there is a constitutional debate going on which is stirring up the passions, emotions and feelings of Canadians from coast to coast.
My point is that it is not just centred. Any member who thinks that the negative feeling in the west about the federal government is only centred in the province of Alberta, the tycoons, and now Lord Fauntleroy, the member for-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He was reported in the press today as saying that the reason things are happening in the west in terms of movement is that they have been bankrolled by the high rollers in the boardrooms of this nation. I was not talking to any high rollers from the boardrooms of this nation in that ten-day period, primarily in British Columbia.
Whether in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, I have never before run into the negative feeling about the capital of this land and the state of this country that I did this summer. People are deluding themselves if they think this is fabricated because there are certain funds in Alberta. It is much deeper, wider, and more fundamental than that. What is being done today under the invocation of the Petroleum Administration Act does not help that situation which is really straining the fabric of this land. I will leave it at that. At a time when leadership demands a national act of reconciliation, why is there this extra stick to beat the favourite whipping boy, Alberta, in effect suggesting that the whole west is a little off centre, but everything is right and correct in the central part of the land where the sun normally shines? How did we get to this state where we have verbal division and discord that we have not seen across this country for a long time?
As I said, I do not speak with a vested interest, coming from an area which has economic might. However, I can sympathize because my area of Atlantic Canada has always had grievances. The difference between us and western Canada is that we had the grievances in the past which they now have. Now they have an economic emancipation and emergence that we are on the threshold of reaching if we discover gas and oil off our shores. Really, I can speak almost as an honest broker here.
I cannot understand the Prime Minister and some of his ministers who have been extra sensitive to the quiet revolution

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
in Quebec, and its desire for cultural emancipation to show that it is not like the other provinces and that it may need a few powers which the other nine provinces do not need. How can the federal government be extra sensitive to that demand from a very important part of this country, and be so blind toward another section of the country which is not having a cultural emancipation but an economic emancipation and, in effect, is asking for its fair due?
I have tried to figure out how we have come to this sorry state, be it on the constitution or here today. I really have to put it down to the federal government which has now been in power for 12 years less eight months. We have a flawed federalism which is blinding the present government to "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" action.
The flawed federalism is based on four points. First, it is based on a federal-provincial balance which is out of kilter. Second, it is based on a House of Commons that has never been more unbalanced with regard to representation. Third, it is based on a cabinet of that House of Commons which has never had a more narrow perspective. Fourth, and this ties in with the other three, this has happened at a time in our history when we are moving to "one paper towns". The vacuum created by those one paper towns has been taken up by polls and propaganda, and the manipulation of both.
As far as the first point is concerned, I am not going to cast stones against any one or all the premiers. They together have to accept the blame. The Prime Minister, being Prime Minister of this federal union, obviously has to accept the majority of the blame. Prior to the last several federal-provincial conferences, historically at those conferences there had always been a balance and counterbalance. If the federal government was moving too fast, too far, or too strongly in one direction, historically there was always Quebec and/or Ontario which gave a counterbalance to the strong federal presence that has always been there.
We have heard debates in this House of Commons that this country is too centralized or has never been more decentralized. The fact is that any student of history knows that, depending on the emergency and/or a few wars, regardless of what the Fathers of Confederation felt, certainly with interpretations of the judicial committee of the Privy Council thwarting the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation, the Government of Canada, under any political colouration, has some very strong powers. However, there has always been a counterbalance to the over-use of those powers by the historical counterbalance of the province of Quebec or Ontario, or of both.
Since 1976 and the election of the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec, we no longer have the counterbalance from that province. They, for their reasons, perhaps do not really care what happens to this federal union.


An hon. Member:: That's not true.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Someone says that is not true. I am talking about the Parti Quebecois government of the province of Quebec. 1 agree I only speak as an outsider, but the government of Quebec does not have its traditional concern to be a counterbalance in a federal union. That government would like to see it changed. There was a referendum in May which was treading on that road.
What I find more difficult to understand, for whatever the reasons, is that the government of Ontario recently has not exercised its historical counterbalance to the federal government moving too far, too fast down a one way street. The two senior partners of confederation, Quebec and Ontario, for their own reasons have not exercised a counterbalance to a strong federal move. Combine that with a new ingredient in the equation of balance, the fact that now in the west there is the emergence of a very real part of this country with an economic clout that demands to be heard, and this has aggravated the situation.
There is the second ingredient of a House of Commons which has never been more unbalanced in representation. The Conservative party has only one member from Quebec. That is obviously not good for the Conservative party or for the country. The government party has only two members west of the Lakehead. That is equally as unbalanced and equally as bad for the country. In addition to that, other than the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), we do not have a cabinet minister with a strong regional voice to be heard in cabinet circles. This causes an imbalance which allows the Prime Minister to begin on a one-way course.
There is really no one with enough weight or political clout in the cabinet or the House of Commons-there are only two within his ranks-to say, "Whoa, Mr. Prime Minister, are you really helping the nation by invoking the power you may have under the constitution, or are you going to hurt the nation in the long run?" You do not remedy that deficiency in cabinet by appointing some recycled ministers who have no political base in the provinces from which they come, even though they come from the west. That does not help the situation.
The situation is compounded when the only ministers western Canada sees-the active, verbal ministers who deserve a lot of credit-are the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). These three ministers are fine Canadians, but their perspective of the country comes from a narrow base.


Mr. Stewart:: One province.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I say that in an objective way, because all three of those ministers are personal friends of mine. There was a meeting at the weekend in Saskatoon or Regina at which the Minister of Justice spoke about the flag debate. The constitutional debate cannot be compared with the flag debate. 1 will not go off on that red herring, but if the minister has to invoke the flag debate to justify moving unilaterally on the constitution or the Petroleum Administration Act, then he and the government are in a really sick, sad state.
November 24, 1980

Unfortunately, I suppose that my time is almost up. I will conclude. When we have these ingredients in a federal-provincial system, which 1 think is out of balance historically, and when we have a House of Commons which is out of balance in representation and a cabinet which comes from too narrow a base, and we put those together-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to inform the hon. member who is just taking his place that there are three Liberal members west of the Lakehead.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it was last Wednesday or Thursday when we had about 20 votes on the bank bill, and I was looking at the amendments as we were voting on them.


An hon. Member:: There were only 11.


Paul Edmund McRae: Were there only 11? It felt like 20.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Typical Liberal inflation.


Paul Edmund McRae: It seemed that we were here a long time, but it also seemed that we followed a pattern in this House which we have followed for a long time. One party, the New Democratic Party, was saying that we should do more, and the other party, the Tory party, was saying we should do less. Then when I looked at these two motions, one from the NDP and one from the Tory party, I thought that the debate would follow along that pattern. The NDP is saying we are not doing enough, that this bill should go further and that it is opposing it for this reason. The Tories are saying that the bill goes too far.
I have been on the energy committee since early 1973, nearly eight years, and I recall debates on this act, the administration bill and on the allocation bill. There were two allocation bills. I recall the debates on the Petro-Canada bill and on the monitoring bill. With regard to all those debates the parties opposite went along in the same fashion. The NDP thought we should take more control and do more, and the Tory party opposed us violently for doing what we were doing. Most of those debates were long-drawn-out.
However, I was amazed when I heard the first spokesman for the NDP in this debate. He did not take the position 1 thought he would. He took an opposite position by saying that a section of this act goes too far and that it should be abolished. In looking back on the debate of 1975 I was interested in what the then energy critic of the NDP had to say. He said, and I quote from page 5351 of Hansard for April 30, 1975:
I think, therefore, the government requires the power in the event there is no agreement with the producing provinces to set both the price of oil and natural gas. We express the hope, however, that in setting the price the government will keep in mind that the position this party has taken for a long time, and which we emphasize now, is that there is no justification for increasing the price of crude oil on the basis of operating costs or the financial position of the oil industry.
Adjournment Motion
Then he said:
Therefore we are prepared to support the bill and see that it receives speedy passage.
I find myself looking at something new about the NDP, a party with which I have had affiliations in the past. I was a member of it for many years, and I see it changing in a way which surprises me a great deal in just one respect. When he spoke, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) severely criticized the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for going to Saudi Arabia at this particular time or, for that matter, at any time. I found that very strange because the basic problems of the Middle East are the problems of the whole world. I am sure former energy critics as well as present members of the NDP must have squirmed a little bit when they heard him say that, because the NDP has always been a party which has been concerned about world events.
The NDP should be the party which is supporting the North-South talks. This was one of the very strong reasons why the Prime Minister went to Saudi Arabia. I am surprised when he is criticized for doing this by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), who made the same point. He must know that the reason we need this extra 100,000 barrels of oil a day, a secure supply from the most secure country in the Arab world, is that we need to supply the east coast, the hon. member's region. He should be very happy that we have this commitment from the Saudi Arabian government. I think all of us should be aware that the Saudi Arabian government and other governments in the Middle East are embarking on very large expansions of their own economies and that Canada is one of the nations which will be supplying goods, services, jobs, and a whole raft of things to these countries. This kind of trade is what we want to encourage. The Liberal party is concerned about jobs. The jobs which will be created by this trip alone will be very significant.
I was also concerned when the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) went to the Atlantic provinces, to Newfoundland, and said we should turn over the rights-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)- Canadian Pacific Railway-Winnipeg-Inquiry whether permit to build overpass will be authorized; the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon)-Energy-Reported establishment of western energy development fund; the hon.

Voluntary Agencies
member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)-Public Service-Status of women-Equal pay for work of equal value.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing volunteer agencies with financial aid to support their communication and fund-raising activities, so that a greater portion of available funds could be freed for their intended charitable uses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion I want to define its terms. I recognize the reality of the present day where, in the face of the budget, inflation and rising costs, it is unrealistic to urge and press the government to add additional dollars to existing grants to voluntary agencies through a variety of government channels.
This afternoon I am proposing that financial aid be given in equivalents of goods and services. It will not cost the federal government more dollars and it will make use of facilities already in place by using them during non-peak periods.
Recently the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) proposed that the $ 100-deduction be eliminated so that individuals would be encouraged to give more to voluntary agencies. I agree with that proposal and would like to see it go further, to the point where voluntary agencies would enjoy the same tax benefits as political parties. Today, however, I am advocating that the government should pursue the direction recommended by its own Advisory Council on Voluntary Action. In these difficult days the government should provide tangible assistance to offset a number of the fixed costs which voluntary agencies must bear.
It is important to note that such a proposal would seem timely. During times of high unemployment and inflation, there is an increase in the number of people who are in need of care and support. Government resources are already stretched to the limit and there is a question concerning their allotment. Taxpayers have less disposable income, and there is more competition for available voluntary donations.
Another factor which makes it timely is rampant inflation. Many people who formerly could give many hours of voluntary work are now seeking places in the work force, thereby putting increased pressure on available volunteer leadership. The recent budget, with its lack of any offsets for those least able to pay, will dramatically increase the overhead costs of voluntary agencies, due to large increases in UIC payments for core
November 24, 1980
staff and across-the-board energy increases which will affect the heating of their offices and staff travel.
I speak with concern for this sector of our society arising out of my own experience for a number of years with CUSO in its formative years, as a field officer in West Africa and as a co-ordinator of the Canadian and Manitoba centennials. Also, I directed a small voluntary international agency. I continue to sit as a board member of several agencies and councils. I remember the early days of CUSO when goods and services were made available to send volunteers to developing countries. Canadian Air Force aircraft were made available, as were telex and health services.
The direction I am proposing the federal government should take is not in any way new. There has long been a feeling in the country of the importance of the balance among the private, public and voluntary sectors and of the need for recognition of the contribution voluntary agencies make to the life of the nation.
As early as 1951 the Royal Commission on Arts, Letters and Sciences, which published the Massey report, looked at the importance of voluntary societies. In part the report indicated:
The voluntary society has played an important part in modern history, from the religious sects and the salons of the seventeenth century, through the political clubs of the revolutionary era, down to the nineteenth century with its innumerable organizations to aid, prevent, propagate or promote every conceivable end.
We have the fine tradition of the voluntary society which performs work of national importance beyond what the government can or will do.
The Massey report indicated that a special problem of the local society is the scantiness of the Canadian population. It continued:
We were, therefore, interested to see in several different cities a special kind of voluntary association. This is the "Council" representing a variety of organizations, each leading its separate existence, but combining for some common purpose.
The Massey report called for more co-operation between voluntary agencies and government in a "more generous and flexible way". This is the direction 1 wish to impress upon the government this afternoon.
Following on from the affirmation displayed in the Massey report, the Trudeau government set up a National Advisory Council on Volunteerism. Its report will be familiar to the members of the House. It was entitled "People in Action", and was published in 1977. In part it indicated that there was:
-a need for greater awareness of, and increased commitment to, voluntary activity by both government and the general public.
I should like to quote some excerpts from the report which was tabled in the House but not acted upon. It read:
Voluntary action is "active" citizenship. It is people accepting a real responsibility for shaping their communities and their country and acting in some way on that responsibility.
It continued:
The most obvious form of non-financial assistance is aid-in-kind. This includes access to government facilities, premises, resources, efforts to improve the responsiveness of government personnel to voluntary action and various types of non-financial support services.
November 24, 1980

However, aid-in-kind could be effectively provided at relatively little cost if clear guidelines existed for supplying this assistance.
It went on:
In particular, the government should focus on ways in which it could help voluntary associations overcome the vast distances and geographical barriers separating so many Canadian communities-
It is very costly to communicate or travel between different communities separated by such distances.
In another section the report recommended that:
The Department of the Secretary of State, in collaboration with a committee of voluntary associations, study the best way to implement special measures to help voluntary associations overcome physical barriers to communication.
More specifically, the government should consider how to render such government communications facilities as WATS telephone lines and telex accessible to voluntary associations at no or limited cost. In the area of transportation, the department and the committee should examine how best to ensure that the economies of charter and excursion flights can be made available to members of voluntary associations attending their annual conventions and meetings-
Most voluntary associations depend extensively on the circulation of printed materials to their memberships because, unlike government and business, voluntary associations do not have access to such facilities as WATS lines or telex. Most voluntary associations also cannot afford such facilities, and long distance telephone calls over normal lines can be prohibitively expensive in any quantity-
The council believes that the solution lies in a special reduction in postal rates for the informational materials and publications of voluntary associations. The government already keeps track of many voluntary associations through their registration as "charities" by Revenue Canada. Accordingly, the council recommends that:
The federal government grant a special postal rate for mailing of publications and informational materials by all voluntary associations registered with Revenue Canada.
It continued:
All of Canada's human resources are needed in a time when the realization is dawning that resources are not inexhaustible and that hard times may be ahead. In an environment of concern and support by government, voluntary action could ensure that the diversity of Canadian society is an enriching rather than a fragmenting force. Thus, government should strengthen rather than diminish its support for voluntary action. The problems of this country cannot be solved if people cannot utilize their own tools and resources, cannot participate in decisions from time to time through their own voluntary associations ... Government should not create counter-associations to serve its own interests. Rather, it should let the people confront important issues with their own initiatives and resources and through their own voluntary associations.
Indeed, the people involved in voluntary action constitute a vital, multipurpose human resource.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking that this House request the government to provide to the voluntary sector, which is hard-pressed during these days of rising costs and cutbacks, practical assistance in terms of rail travel in the regions of our country and air travel on a standby or special designation basis between the vastly separated parts of our country. I ask for assistance in terms of computer time, which can help agencies keep in touch with their volunteers, and collect their resources. Translation services, the increased use of the CBC facilities and other cable network facilities, the vastly expanded use of government meeting rooms and facilities, use of telephone service on a restricted basis in off-peak periods, are ways to assist the voluntary sector. They could use assistance in terms of printing facilities which are located in regions across the
Voluntary Agencies
country. They need postal assistance, as outlined in the report of the National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action.
Voluntary agencies from my riding have given me a number of helpful suggestions.They have emphasized to me the importance of maintaining their networks in the communities and across the country. They have emphasized to me the difficulty of obtaining and maintaining equipment. For example, the Kitchener-Waterloo Global Centre wrote a letter to me as follows:
Could we make arrangements to use duplicating equipment which most government offices have available? Even if we had to supply our own paper, our costs would be greatly reduced with the free use of such equipment. What about other equipment-slide/tape, video, etc.?
We would also appreciate access to meeting rooms and office space. The latter would be especially useful when we have specific time-limited projects under way. What does the government do with used furniture and office equipment?
The Waterloo Region Chapter of the Canadian Mental Health Association in a letter asked:
Could some tax incentive be worked out for people who volunteer time as well as for people who donate money?
Mr. Speaker, in these comments and in citing this historical background I am urging the government to look favourably upon a concept set forth in the Massey report advocated by its own Advisory Council on Voluntary Action. The questions which will be immediately raised by those who are concerned about bureaucratic structures and the functioning of this type of proposal are how decisions will be made, who will decide what can be done, by whom and when.
I suggest to you there are a number of co-ordinating councils across our nation. In the international development area I have in mind the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, in the area of international education the Canadian Bureau for International Education, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Council of Churches in terms of our Christian community and the Canadian Jewish Council in terms of their community. There are many other councils of a multicultural nature and others which draw our communities together. I am suggesting that a mechanism be set up to consult with them about ways and means of using the existing resources. These are resources which are already in place and which are already being paid for by the Canadian taxpayers.
In these days of big government and of increased inflation and financial hardship, there are a great many people across our land who are in danger of finding themselves without the caring structures that are needed. These smaller and more personalized individual agencies provide an inspiration, motivation, and a caring focus to our community. I suggest that action of this order would not only be economically appropriate to the times in which we live but it would also be one which takes seriously the social fabric of our nation.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of presenting this motion for the consideration of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 24, 1980
Voluntary Agencies


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this motion I am sure there will be no disagreement on one point, that is, the importance of voluntary agencies within our Canadian society. 1 do not think there can be any doubt about that importance. Through these voluntary groups citizens can focus their efforts on problems that really concern them. The ability of these groups to act promptly and effectively could well be emulated by government bureaucracies. Throughout the years, voluntary agencies have been the spearhead for many important social changes in our society. If we did not have a voluntary sector, Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident that we would have to think of what the quality of life in our society might be like.
This is the second time in this Parliament that we have been asked to consider the financial health of the charitable and voluntary organizations in our society. On June 9 the House debated the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) relating to tax deductions for charitable donations. The proposal at that time involved a rather substantial increase in tax revenues forgone so as to provide greater incentive to charitable giving. Because of the large cost involved there was no agreement at that time on the preferable policy which would be followed.
With today's motion by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) we have another proposal that would involve a new charge on the treasury. Given what the hon. member has said in elaboration on the nature of his proposal, I suggest that that charge on the treasury could be substantial indeed. Moreover, the prospective financial burden is a very indefinite one. Certainly by reading the motion that the hon. member has submitted I was originally of the opinion that the government would be asked to provide certain rather limited services for communication and fund-raising activities, to use the terms of the motion. Yet when 1 hear now what the hon. member has in mind I find that it is a much broader scope of activities and services.
The motion does not stipulate how much financial aid might be required of the federal government. It does not make clear how widely this program of federal grants would be applied. In other words, what kind of voluntary agencies would qualify? How many might be involved and what kind of guidelines would apply to these federal outlays?
I suggest that even with the best will in the world, and with the greatest of sympathy and understanding for the voluntary sector and its importance to our society, we still have a responsibility to examine some of these issues, if not all. In considering a proposal like this we might well look to the Speech from the Throne for one guiding principle which I suggest is relevant here. This guiding principle is:
That Canadians recognize the need to live within their national means, and they understand that in doing so the state cannot meet every demand or satisfy every group. Therefore, in employing the limited resources available, my ministers will help first those who need help most.
Obviously there is no shortage of good causes which appeal to our sympathy and to the federal treasury. But there is also a shortage of funds available to assist them. We must have a very lively concern for the size of the federal deficit. We should be aware of what federal aid is already being provided in this area. And we should be very careful about assessing the financial implications of making bold and generous declarations of principle in favour of helping this or that worthy cause.
The extent of federal support for voluntary, charitable organizations and causes is already substantial. In income tax alone the amount of revenue forgone annually by federal and provincial governments as a result of deductions for charitable givings is estimated at $600 million. The public accounts are sprinkled with references to grants to a wide variety of voluntary agencies. An excellent example is the New Horizons program under which some $11 million is made available for projects by voluntary groups of older citizens aimed at helping themselves and their community. There are many other examples of federal support for worth-while voluntary endeavours.
I suggest that, for all practical purposes, the government is already doing a great deal of what is proposed in this motion. Admittedly, federal grants are not earmarked in support of communication and fund-raising activities of these voluntary agencies, as the motion proposes. But I think it is obvious that, for the organization involved, the contribution is the important thing and not how it might be earmarked.
For that reason I find it rather difficult to understand why the hon. member for Waterloo has specified in his motion that the federal assistance be directed toward communication and fund-raising activities, so as to free up the funds of the voluntary group for its charitable goals. Surely the distinction is a meaningless one in terms of the way voluntary agencies operate. In fact, if any distinction is to be made, I suggest that a better case could be made for earmarking the federal grant for a particular social purpose, thereby making use of the energy, expertise and flexibility of voluntary agencies to achieve a goal that both the agency and the government desire. As I have indicated, that sort of approach is already being followed in a good many federal grants.
I would like to turn to another issue that is raised by the terms of this motion. That is the problem of defining which voluntary agencies are to qualify for the proposed federal assistance. The motion is not clear as to whether the government should have discretion in deciding which agencies receive these proposed grants, or whether some blanket assistance program is to be made available to all agencies that meet a given set of criteria. If it is the latter, then I suggest we could be opening up a very wide door into the federal treasury.
This problem of defining what is a voluntary agency can be a most difficult and vexing one. Let me illustrate by reference to the government's past experience with the deductibility allowed under the Income Tax Act for donations to registered charities. As hon. members can imagine, it is a matter of great importance for a charity whether or not it can qualify as a
November 24, 1980

registered charity and thus be able to issue tax-deductible receipts to its financial supporters.
There is no legal definition of a "charity" for tax purposes. In deciding whether a charity is to be registered, Revenue Canada now uses the common law classification of charitable purposes. Three of these purposes are fairly specific: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, and the advancement of religion. The fourth category is a general one: other activities beneficial to the community. In fact, however, this category of charitable purposes has been subjected in the courts to a fairly restricted common law interpretation which has limited the range of organizations able to qualify as charities. Another general requirement which all organizations must meet is that their activities must be concerned with the benefit of the public or of a large section of the public. The result of all of this is that some 40,000 charities are registered and qualify as the recipients of tax-deductible donations.
Suggestions have been made that a legal definition of charity should be drawn up so as to give a wider meaning to the term, and in this way to reflect better the wide variety of activities carried out by voluntary groups in our modern society. It is argued that we need more clearcut criteria for deciding what is to qualify as a charity. In fact, however, the task of redefining just what constitutes a charity would be a good deal more complex than it might seem. And when we remind ourselves that already more than half a billion dollars in tax revenues are forgone through tax deductions for charitable purposes, we should be very cautious about the possibility of opening even wider the door to this particular kind of tax deduction.
Apart from the legal issue, there are some quite pragmatic justifications for the inclusion of some charities among Revenue Canada's registered charities, and the exclusion of others. For example, national sports organizations are included, but not provincial and local sports bodies. In our federal system I think that makes sense. It is reasonable that, for sports at this level, provincial and local governments be expected to provide the kind of financial support that their electorate feels is justified.
I realize that the motion, as worded, does not limit its scope to those registered charities recognized by Revenue Canada. It refers, instead, to voluntary agencies. But the very same kind of definitional problems would arise in any program of government grants. The questions are not easy. First, what kind of activities would qualify? Second, would the voluntary agency be required to devote a certain minimum of its revenues to charitable purposes, and if so how much? Third, would there be any criteria as to the minimum number of persons benefiting from the charity? And finally, what standards of public accountability would be required?
Some may think that this suggests a lot of undesirable government interference in the activities of voluntary groups. Obviously, that is a danger. There are some philosophical questions which might be asked; such as, how far can a voluntary agency go in seeking government help before it loses its essentially voluntary character and becomes just another
Voluntary Agencies
agency of government? But that is a question the agencies must ask themselves. As members of Parliament, we must concern ourselves with questions about priorities in government spending, and about proper controls on the way federal funds are spent.
Although I share the concern of the hon. member for Waterloo about the importance of a strong and vigorous voluntary sector, I am forced to the conclusion that his motion leaves too many of these essential questions without adequate answers. After listening to the hon. member I became even more concerned in this regard because he indicated that this motion, contrary to my interpretation of the wording, would involve assistance from the government. I am not sure here if we are talking only about the federal government or if we are talking about the federal government and the provincial governments and the municipalities.
The hon. member referred to such services as reproduction services which may or may not include provision for the reproducing paper. The program may involve free mailing service through Canada Post. If the government is to become involved in this kind of program, it must ask some fairly basic questions. When an agency of the government is established, it is through a parliamentary process or some action of Parliament. Presumably that agency is established for a specific purpose related to public policy. A question would arise with regard to particular voluntary agencies which spring up of their own accord. These agencies do not necessarily spring up as a result of some specific policy purpose which has been widely recognized by the population.
As a result, irrespective of how we define voluntary groups or how we define the services that the government or governments are expected to provide to these voluntary groups, the taxpayers of Canada are expected to contribute to their financing through a program such as this. Under this program, all voluntary groups would presumably have equal and free access to a wide range of service from the government, from the public purse. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if those agencies or groups are established as a result of debate and the clear definition of a public policy purpose, that is one thing. Then the taxpayers, it seems to me, can be asked to support, in a very broad way, the activities of these groups. Certainly that question does arise in connection with the tax deductibility of groups and we have defined certain of the groups for tax purposes in my speech to this point.
The question that arises is whether we now intend to allow unlimited access to the public treasury by a large, large number of associations which can be instituted and established on their own volition. If that is the case, it seems to me a great deal of control over the public purse would be lost. More important, Mr. Speaker, we would be asking all the taxpayers of Canada to support, in a very direct way, a wide range of voluntary organizations which they themselves might not otherwise wish to support. I agree they are now being asked to do this as a result of the tax deductibility clause in the tax
5008

November 24, 1980
Voluntary Agencies
system. If I give to a voluntary organization which qualifies as a charity I can write that donation off against my taxes. As a result, all taxpayers are effectively paying the additional tax load to make up for the amount I am not paying as a result of the tax deduction I have received.
I think the motion would take this much further, Mr. Speaker, and would loosen the controls which now exist with regard to voluntary organizations. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, when we realize just how broad the services to be provided under this particular motion would be, that the whole question has to be debated carefully and at great length because under this motion we would be imposing a substantial financial burden on the taxpayers of the country-one which is not well defined in the motion; it is not well defined with regard to the organizations which would qualify to receive this assistance, that is voluntary organizations, as opposed to charitable organizations. To me a voluntary organization means any organization that conducts its business through the efforts of voluntary workers. That is a voluntary organization. I am not being paid for doing a job, I am volunteering my services, therefore I am part of a voluntary organization. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that definition is so broad as to make this motion unacceptable from a public policy point of view and certainly unacceptable from a tax point of view.
The second issue is the breadth of the services which would be available to these groups under the motion. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was of the very strong opinion that the services to which these groups would have access were relatively limited. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing volunteer agencies with financial aid to support their communication and fund-raising activities, so that a greater portion of available funds could be freed for their intended charitable uses.
However, when the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) put forward his list of what he considers to be "for the purposes of communications and fund-raising support", it turned out to be much more comprehensive than I ever anticipated it would be.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion in the motion itself. The first part refers to volunteer agencies and then at the end it refers to the intended charitable uses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for bringing this motion forward for debate today. As mentioned previously, this is the second time it has been up for consideration this session, which indicates the concern members feel with respect to the social policies now being put forward by this government.
We in the official opposition have been rather pleased by the addition of the hon. member for Waterloo to our party and to his membership in the House of Commons because he brings to this House the type of social conscience which has been missing from the government side for too many years. We are
sometimes asked, particularly at election time, what the difference is between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. Some people find themselves hard pressed to find an answer, but I think one could say, Mr. Speaker, that a difference is apparent here today. The difference is that we, on this side, recognize that these social problems exist and want to see them solved by the organizations and the people themselves.
There has been strong tendency on the part of the Liberal government to adopt the principle that if there is a social problem, the government should take over and fix it. That is what we are trying to get away from. I think the people of Canada want to see themselves involved in solving these social problems.
The motion which the hon. member for Waterloo has put forward reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing volunteer agencies with financial aid to support their communication and fund-raising activities, so that a greater portion of available funds could be freed for their intended charitable uses.
The hon. member for Waterloo has indicated that he is looking at this in a perspective which acknowledges that there are financial constraints on governments in times such as these and we are not asking for more money, per se. We want more assistance, which is equivalent to financial assistance. The hon. member for Waterloo has directed attention to a number of the types of services which could be rendered. 1 grant the fact that there is a small pecuniary involvement in some of the services which might be provided, but in terms of large grants, the hon. member for Waterloo was not asking for large sums of money.
I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker. He spoke well and he touched on some of the problems that the government faces in trying to provide more funding. I was a little disappointed and a little surprised- although upon reflection I should not have been-that he did not refer once to the very significant document to which the hon. member for Waterloo referred. "People in Action" is a document on voluntary organizations commissioned by the government a few years ago. A report was made to the Secretary of State in September, 1977, and I am sure that if the government felt it had implemented any of the 81 recommendations in that report, the parliamentary secretary would have told us about it this afternoon. That is what the government usually does-it talks about all the recommendations it has implemented.
Mr. Speaker, I assume that they have not implemented any. Not one in the past three years! I think we should look at those recommendations to see what the government has failed to do by way of implementing a report which it commissioned and asked for. We have raised the question of the lack of funds and the report acknowledges this problem. It contains a chapter on the nature of government's responsibility. At page 138 the following sentence appears.
It will be important for government, not necessarily to spend more money, but to spend existing funds in different ways.
November 24, 1980

The parliamentary secretary was speaking a few minutes ago about priorities of government spending. That is exactly what is suggested here, that we have to consider priorities in government spending. I want to say a few words about a possible shift in those priorities, to support a suggestion made in this report, that not necessarily is it important to spend more money. Recommendation No. 34 reads:
The federal government affirm in principle and through policy its responsibility to safeguard the basic freedoms of action and association through creating conditions within which Canadian citizens are enabled, encouraged and assisted to act voluntarily about those matters which concern them.
Recommendation 35 is even more significant. It recommends that-
Government ensure that voluntary associations have equal access to grants and other means of support-
That is exactly what the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) is suggesting, that voluntary associations should have other means of support in addition to financial means. Recommendation No. 35 continues-
-equal opportunity to make their voices heard and the means to emerge and develop in accordance with their own needs, concerns and priorities.
Further along in this report, at page 253, a whole chapter is devoted to what is headed "Non-Financial Support". We are suggesting the government should have taken a look at this, but it has failed to do so. I will read from the first paragraph in reference to the non-Financial relationships which could exist if we had a government that really cared.
These involve general support, the bestowal of recognition and the release of information. A fourth type-consultative relationships-will be discussed in chapter 13.
As this concept of general support is dealt with, the council talks about some of the problems which exist now and the help voluntary organizations might receive to further their goals. They talk about the need for public access to the information which the government has. At page 268 another recommendation is found. I will read it because it is most apropos. It is recommendation No. 74, which reads as follows:
Access-to-information legislation be enacted by the Parliament of Canada creating a statutory right of persons to obtain access to information held by the government or its agencies, subject only to a list of narrowly defined exceptions, with any refusal to provide such information and any unreasonable delay or costs subject to review and enforcement by the courts on the merits, with burden of proof on the government.
They are asking for what I hope we will see from this government eventually, that is, an opportunity for Canadians to receive the information they need-in the case of voluntary organizations, that they receive the information they need to pursue their activities. This report contained another recommendation in 1977-1978 that the government inaugurate a voluntary action resource centre. So far nothing at all has been done about that. In recommendation No. 75, it is suggested that annual reports be provided by various departments so that voluntary associations would be able to know what was available in the public sector for their use.
Before I close, I want to touch on the matter the parliamentary secretary raised regarding the priorities the government
Voluntary Agencies
has to follow in these days of limited funds for spending. We have become quite used to the concept of universality in all our social programs in Canada. I was pleased a year or so ago when the present government, then in opposition, talked about the need to help those who need help most. During the election campaign we heard the Prime Minister and others speaking on that same topic stress the importance of helping those Canadians who most need help. This runs quite counter to the concept of universality in all social programs.
A number of us in the House have recently had the opportunity of serving on a special committee known as the Special Committee for the Disabled and the Handicapped. We have had occasion to listen to dozens of briefs from dozens of voluntary organizations of the type to which the member from Waterloo has been referring. We are well aware of the problems these people have. It has been brought to our attention very acutely that large sectors of the Canadian population are not adequately being taken care of. In fact, they are not being given the very basics to which most of us in this House think Canadians are entitled. I am suggesting, without anticipating the recommendation in the committee's report which has yet to come, that we as representatives of the Canadian people must consider doing something for Canadians who are underprivileged in some special way, such as those who are handicapped and disabled. As things are, we are not even giving them the very basics. For instance, we are not making any effort as Canadians to see that persons whose mobility is limited are given an equal opportunity to move around. I could go on to talk about those who have vision impairments, hearing impairments, and so on. Voluntary organizations looking for help from this Parliament, and this government in particular, are not necessarily demanding more money. But they are demanding that the government take a second look at its priorities, as I hope the parliamentary secretary was suggesting a little while ago. Possibly the time has come when some of us who receive funds from the government regularly or who have things done by the government on our behalf although we are quite able to pay for them, should now be saying that those who are more handicapped or who enjoy fewer privileges in one way or another should be getting top priority for a little while. As I say, we should be taking a look at the priorities of government and reassessing some of the needs.
I think the hon. member for Waterloo in bringing forth this very commendable motion today is telling us that the government does have the funds, but one way or the other the funds are not being directed where they should be. The government has at its disposal facilities and services which could be utilized by voluntary organizations. Moreover, funds are being spent on people who do not need help just because the service is universal. This money could better be used by and on behalf of people who need it more. While the government might take exception to some of the wording in this motion, I hope it will recognize the importance of the concept which lies behind it. I hope the motion will be allowed to pass so that it may be debated in committee.

November 24, 1980
Voluntary Agencies


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my friend, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), in commending the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for bringing this motion before the House this afternoon.
It must be obvious to him that there is sufficient preparation on the opposite side of the House that the chances of his motion being passed before six o'clock are not very good.


Mr. Jarvis:: They are nil.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But at least we are having a discussion of the subject, and 1 hope the discussion will play its part in persuading the government to review more seriously its attitude toward voluntary organizations.
There can be no doubt as to the important part voluntary organizations have played in our society for decades, indeed for centuries, and there is still an important part for them to play. I believe the people of Canada want to see voluntary organizations given every break that can possibly be given to them. At the same time, 1 should like to say that every time this discussion comes up I get a little uneasy about the efforts which some people make to try to play the voluntary sector and the public off against one another. As I see it, the main contribution of the voluntary organizations is that they have been pioneers. They have persuaded society that something should be done to help less (fortunate members of our society. But as time has gone on, it has become necessary for the public, for the state-the government-to take over these services. The fact is that today I have heard figures as high as 95 per cent. Certainly it is 90 per cent or more of the services which are provided by the government to those who need them. One thinks of such things as housing, health and education. Where would we be today in these areas if this had been left to the voluntary organizations? The government has had to move in.
Then there is the whole question of the maintenance of family income with various kinds of supports. There is the situation which faces our senior citizens, not only in terms of pensions on which to live, but recreation, accommodation, home care and all the rest. As a matter of fact, today voluntary organizations are pioneering in fields such as greater home care, child care and so on. If I had time-and I do not want to be the one to talk this out-I could list things that were done by the voluntary or private organizations when I came here, which was a number of years ago, and which have been taken over.
I do not believe we should play one against the other. In my view, the important thing for some of us to push for is greater public involvement in such matters as security and all the rest which are needed for our senior citizens to improve the lot of those who should be maintained in their own homes, in day care for children and all the rest. Let us not pit one against the other. Both are vitally important.
In the context of this afternoon's motion, it is good for us to realize that even though the public service may be taking care of 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the problems the other 5 per cent or 10 per cent need to be looked at as well. In addition, there is still a pioneering job to be done. It is on that basis I express the hope that the government will give serious consideration to the thrust of the proposal made in the motion before us this afternoon.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the honour to speak in this debate because the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and I had the opportunity to serve together on a voluntary organization, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, some years ago. At that time I learned to admire his genuine concern for those in our society, both at home and in other countries, who are deprived or underprivileged. The concern of which he gave such evidence on those occasions is certainly reflected in the bill before us this afternoon.
Other members from both sides of this House have paid tribute to the hon. member's motives in bringing forward this matter today. I want to share in the expression of concern which is reflected in the bill. It is a concern that voluntary organizations, which can play such a substantial part in our society, should have access to the resources, whether they come from the private sector or in part from the public, to enable them to carry out their important functions, both at home and abroad.
In his motion concerning aid for voluntary organizations, the hon. member for Waterloo addresses a function that is important, perhaps in some sense vital, to a free society: the dynamic and ever-changing human activity whereby individuals, or groups of individuals, contribute of their own volition to the betterment of themselves, their communities and their country.
Voluntary organizations are not necessarily similar in their aims and philosophies. Some lend support to traditional values in our society; others are in the vanguard of change. Yet their very diversity is indicative of the vigour of our society and of the great desire of many of us to work for the general well-being of others.
The government is well aware of the valuable services provided by the voluntary sector to which it continues to give a variety of aid and encouragement. The Department of the Secretary of State, for example, administers a number of programs which provide aid to voluntary groups operating in certain fields of interest. These include the changing role of women in society, the progress of native citizens in today's world, human rights, and ethnocultural groups which honour their past while adapting to life in Canada.
The importance given in the motion to communications is well considered. The National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action to the Government of Canada paid special attention to the difficulties faced by a national voluntary organization in maintaining communications.
November 24, 1980

The hon. member and I recall that most voluntary associations depend extensively on the circulation of printed materials to their membership because, unlike government and business, they do not have every access to such facilities as wide area long distance telephone service or telex. Most voluntary associations could not afford such facilities, and long distance telephone calls over normal lines can be prohibitively expensive in any quantity. Thus, in order to maintain adequate and efficient communications with their members, voluntary associations are forced to restrict themselves to mail service. There is no alternative for them and the effects of continually rising postal rates can be very serious, not only in strictly financial terms, but also because they force some associations to rely on bulk mailings which have a low priority in the post office.
The Advisory Council proposed a plan that would help qualified associations to make good use of the mails. Noting that voluntary associations may be registered as charitable organizations by Revenue Canada, it was suggested that the federal government grant a special postal rate for mailing of publications and informational materials by all voluntary associations so registered.
Other measures of support and encouragement are provided by the government, but before continuing I should like to express a concern which I have with regard to this motion. I do not feel we shall best serve the voluntary sector by supporting specific areas of activity such as, in this instance, communications and fund raising. Some of these independent organizations, serving different needs in different regions and circumstances, may identify other needs that they find more urgent. It is my conclusion, and that of the voluntary organizations themselves, that the most appropriate, the most useful, role of government is to create an environment which would encourage members of the public to make donations in support of the voluntary actions of which they approve. One interesting proposal currently before the government is to change the present tax regulations, which provide little incentive for charitable gifts except among richer citizens, so that all could have similar tax savings by virtue of charitable gifts.
Before speaking further on this tax proposal, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to refer to a special quality of voluntary groups which it would be well to consider. Generally speaking, "voluntarism" is the independent action of an individual or a group to bring about what are seen as desirable changes in society. It therefore seems important to the viability and, indeed, the validity, of a voluntary association that it not rely too heavily on direct government aid lest it lose its independent spirit-


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour set aside for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.
Petroleum Administration Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, to recapitulate for a moment, I was discussing what I have observed over many years, particularly when we were dealing with a series of energy bills over the last years and particularly in the national resources committee of which I have been a member during those years. We on this side have tended to be in the middle with the New Democratic Party pushing for more and the Conservative party saying we had done too much.
This pattern has developed over the years. The New Democrats have taken a very strong stand with regard to the Petroleum Administration Act, and I read a quotation from the remarks of Tommy Douglas, their energy critic, supporting the bill strongly and saying that prices should not go higher. There was no vote on that bill at any of its readings, but it always passed on division with the New Democrats supporting it.
I am surprised that the New Democratic Party should now take an opposite stand to that which it has taken all along. I think there is a real contradiction in this area. I also suggest that there are one or two other contradictions.
I mentioned the genuine concern my party has traditionally had for underdeveloped countries; the Prime Minister is out of the country for a series of reasons but one very strong reason has to do with the North-South dialogue.
I will not spend too much time on this, but before we adjourned the debate at five o'clock I did mention something which disturbs me very much because 1 think it marks a real departure from traditional NDP policy. The Leader of the New Democratic Party went to Newfoundland and once again laid out the idea that offshore resources should be owned and controlled by the province. That is a recent policy of his party, and I think it is a very strange move. To my mind it has always been traditional among progressives whether in Canada, the United States, Britain or wherever that the smaller the juris-
*

Petroleum Administration Act
diction the easier it is for multinational corporations to control that jurisdiction. If control over offshore resources were in the hands of the province of Newfoundland it would be much easier for it to shift into the hands of very large multinational corporations. I think it has always been the tradition of the New Democratic Party that a strong central government is necessary in this country. Evidently there is a diversion from that tradition.
This evening I would like to try to put myself-I have been trying to do this over the last six months or a year-into the shoes of an Albertan who was born and grew up in Alberta. In some ways I can understand the way many Albertans must feel. I grew up in Toronto and moved later in my life to Thunder Bay where I spent a good portion of my adult life. Thunder Bay is in many ways as distant from Toronto and the southern Ontario horseshoe as is Alberta, and I do not mean geographically. I am talking in terms of differences in outlook. At least part of my riding is in Thunder Bay, and at this time it is fairly affluent, perhaps even more affluent than some areas of southern Ontario. I cannot believe the people of Thunder Bay or the people of Alberta are feeling the way they are feeling out of greed, I just cannot accept that. I was interested in what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) had to say because I think he was saying basically the same thing. There are always people who will do things out of greed in any society, but generally speaking I do not think that is the situation here.
If I had lived in Alberta in the 1920s or 1930s, I could understand the tough years when Alberta was a kind of hinterland to the east or to central Canada where there was a lot of wealth, development and growth. I could understand the tariff approaches and so on. This would be in my mind as an Albertan. I would feel strongly that over the years Albertans had been "had" by the centre of the country, particularly Ontario. However, as an Albertan, I would also have to recognize that from the early 1950s things started to change. I would have to realize that 15, 20 or 30 years have gone by and that Albertans are perhaps the most affluent people, as a total group, in Canada. I would think my concern as an Albertan would be very much to continue this affluence and seek security. It is the insecurity that would bother me and the fact, as Mr. Hyndman would say, that oil and gas are depleting resources and as someone said over the weekend at one of the meetings in Alberta, when they are gone Albertans would become beggars. If that was on my mind, I could understand exactly why I would demand a good deal more than I was getting. I think the problem is that Mr. Hyndman tells only part of the truth. There is nothing wrong with what he is saying, but he is leaving out a very significant part.
It has been known for some time in the rest of the country and in Alberta that conventional crude oil reserves will probably be delivered by the end of the decade at about a third of the rate they are now being delivered. There is no question that the conventional crude oil resources are being depleted at a very rapid rate. There is no question that in the longer
term-perhaps in the middle or the end of the next decade- the same might happen to natural gas. I find this proposition a little harder to handle, though, because so many people in the industry are saying we have so much gas we should keep exporting it. I know the argument to the effect that the more you export, the more you discover, however, it creates a problem. But nothing is being said to the people of Alberta by their leaders-I do not think it is dishonesty; it is perhaps that it is not thought out well enough-about the long-term resources such as the tar sands, the in situ heavy oils, the coal and so on. If I were an Albertan looking at the matter as objectively as I could, I think I would conclude that Albertans will be affluent for a very, very long time; it is not something which will come and go within a decade.
1 tried to develop this theme in the House during the throne speech debate in the spring, and perhaps I am trying to say the same thing again tonight in a slightly different way. We hope the tar sands will come on. I differ strongly with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) when he totally blames the tar sands holdup on this government. After all, we have offered $38 per barrel for tar sands oil and we have offered to add the inflation factor to that. We know that a year or so ago that oil could be produced at something in the order of $20 per barrel. We think that is a pretty reasonable offer for a long-term project. 1 have not heard anyone from the industry dispute that seriously, I have not heard the industry say there is anything wrong with it. Last week we lent Imperial Oil another $40 million just to keep the thing on ice, just to keep it ready to go. It seems to me that somewhere along the line the blame for this must be shared in the sense that the province of Alberta is not accepting this basically because it wants more for its other resources. So, I have difficulty in agreeing with the hon. member in this area.
If Albertans were aware of the way the deal is working out, I think they would find it quite acceptable. I tried to look through history, I tried to look at some contemporary situations in other nations, but I do not think there is any single jurisdiction in the industrial world where so much has been lavished on one group. For example, the resources in the North Sea are shared by all of Great Britain, not just the people in Aberdeen or the people in Scotland. Those most locally involved will get advantages because the activity is there, but I do not know of any place where the amount of money going to a jurisdiction is as much as is going to Alberta in this particular period. I am sure the people of Alberta are not aware of this.
The estimate-and I have not heard it questioned by anyone-is that the revenue of the Alberta government, not for production or anything like that, but just in terms of royalties and so on for oil, gas and coal, will be something in the order of $100 billion in this decade. By 1983 that will amount to $4,300 for every man, woman and child in Alberta. That will go into the Heritage Fund or whatever else is done with the royalties. If I were in the shoes of an Albertan in 1983, I would say, "It is time you distributed a little bit to us". I know that some of the Indians on the Blood Reserve have said they do
November 24, 1980

not want that money just to go into the band fund; they want it to be distributed among the people of the band. If I were in their shoes, I think I would want to do the same thing. It is a significant amount and, of course, it increases.
Today there was an argument concerning other jurisdictions in terms of their percentages. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants was totally incorrect when he said that the government of Australia owns the resources. It does not.


An hon. Member:: It does.


Paul Edmund McRae: The Australian states only get something in the order of 20 per cent or less. It is the same in the United States of America. I do not think any other jurisdiction has ever had such an amount of money coming to it. Take a look at the other provinces in this country. This is something which is totally unique, totally new; it cannot be compared with tariffs or anything else that has ever happened to one region. I think it will last for a long time. Putting those two factors together, it seems to me that if Albertans were well aware of what was going on they would feel much more secure. I think insecurity is creating a great deal of the problem for them.
Let us look at the natural resource revenue of other provinces in 1979, the latest year for which I have figures. Newfoundland received $27 for every man, woman and child; Prince Edward Island, $3; Nova Scotia, $8; New Brunswick, $13; Quebec, $18; Ontario, $14; Manitoba, $23. Then it goes up a bit: Saskatchewan, $502; British Columbia, $221; Alberta, $1,874. We are talking about very, very large figures compared with anything else that has ever been known. We must take that uniqueness into account. I hope Albertans hear this and think about it. The things I will mention repeatedly are the amount of money, the fact that it is relatively secure and the fact that these other projects like tar sands plants which are coming along will last for a very long time.
I would like to talk about the way in which the government's policy affects the national scene and how consumers must be concerned about this. I would like to dwell on this for a minute or two since 1 come from Thunder Bay where distances are very great and where the weather is very cold. We are large users of oil, gas and whatever petroleum fuels come into our area. We have a great deal of concern about whether we can continue to function as a community in northern Ontario because of this very special problem that we face along with most Canadians to one degree or another. I do not think anyone in my area is saying we should give less to Albertans. What we are saying is that there is a national interest which must be served. We do not think it is good enough for the province of Alberta to say that they want this money so much and that they will lend it back to the CNR and the CPR. We do not think that is good enough. We think the nation must do that; national transportation priorities are something we have to deal with federally, something we cannot let a province deal with alone. There are other provinces and regions which have quite different problems.
Petroleum Administration Act
To give an illustration, there has been a lot of red-necking about the Quebecois fact and so on. I did a very rough calculation of the cost of the bilingual program in the country. In one area, it is the cost to government; in the other it is the cost of printing the other language on cornflakes boxes and so on. I calculated that the outside limit of that expenditure would be about one billion dollars a year in an economy that is in the range of $250 billion to $275 billion. That is on behalf of seven or eight million Canadians. If we take the entire amount of money that is going to Albertans per year over the decade-and it is about $10 billion-we find that is about ten times as much going to about one-quarter as many people. The factor there is about 40. I am very happy to see that we are spending the amount I mentioned on the second language. I am also pleased to see that Albertans are getting a fair share for their resources, but I must demonstrate here that we can go too far. No single jurisdiction can expect much more than is being given at this time.
I will conclude now as my time is just about up. I will return to my initial idea and say that my party, which has formed the government for most of this century, basically because we have been a middle-of-the-road party and have not gone to extremes one way or the other-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at the west!


Paul Edmund McRae: I left your party to come over here for one reason, which is simply that I did not think this country could be put together by extremes. One of the reasons the Progressive Conservative Party is not in power right now is because they got off that mainstream. What this party has done over the years is stay in that mainstream.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The muddled middle.


Paul Edmund McRae: I believe the policy we are adopting at this moment with respect to the amount of money in that package is fair and reasonable and in the long term it will be recognized as such in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is rising on a point of order?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If he still has time, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a minute left.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) seemed to indicate he did not trust the provinces with respect to his point about offshore resources. Specifically, he did not trust the province of Newfoundland to protect those resources from multinational companies. Looking at the record of the other provinces like British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec, would he not agree that they have a better record of taking control of resources than the Government of Canada which has allowed our energy resources, our oil and gas, to be 82 per cent foreign-controlled? Where does he obtain the evidence for his argument that compared to the Government of

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
Canada the provinces are weak-kneed when it comes to dealing with multinationals?


Paul Edmund McRae: I believe what I said is true. Certain jurisdictions which are very progressive, have probably done a better job, in particular the province of Quebec, in relation to the asbestos company. I remember attending mass in the church at Dorval and listening to the Archbishop speaking about the strike at the asbestos plant. It was a very thrilling moment for me. In the province of Quebec these resources were controlled by multinational corporations for a long time. In my view, the multinationals think a smaller jurisdiction is easier to handle. I do not say that the present government in the province of Newfoundland is going to give its resources away suddenly, but the tendency for it to happen is far greater; it is much easier for a large corporation to manoeuvre a small jurisdiction. There are some exceptions, but I think that for each of those exceptions the hon. member will find cases where what I have said is true.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to rise in my place without giving credit to some of my constituents-they happen to be called the Edmonton Eskimos-in regard to their magnificent victory yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: I must say there was a great deal of sportsmanship shown on both sides yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering today the proclamation of sections of the Petroleum Administration Act. The essence of this proclamation is to permit the federal government to set the price of oil and gas in Canada unilaterally on the pretext that it was not possible to establish a price regime through co-operative negotiations with the provinces. More particularly, we are considering the proclamation of sections 35 and 36 which relate to the maximum price to be set for oil.
This House is being asked some questions and, hopefully, we will receive some answers. The questions are these: In regard to negotiations, why have they failed with respect to the national energy program? What is the real intent and extent of the government's national energy program? What is the impact of the program? What are the possible short-term impacts and results of the federal government's national energy program? What are the possible long-term consequences?
In regard to the first question, why had negotiations failed, I think the answer is simple enough. It is based upon the record which was set forward by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, that is, that the negotiations were not conducted in good faith, each side having established pre-conditions which the other side could simply not accept in totality. Alberta's pre-condition was that it should receive the same benefits as it was to receive under the near-agreement with the Clark government. Second, it would not under any circumstances accept an export tax on natural gas. The federal government's intention was not to reach agreement at all and then to impose a national energy
policy with very specific objectives. That was its main pre-condition.
All the available evidence substantiates the objectives and intent of the federal government. The minister of energy of Alberta very carefully documented the extent and nature of negotiations that went on in a speech he gave to the Alberta legislature on November 3, 1980. There is one statement which he repeats on several occasions, and that statement is as follows: "It was the Ottawa government's will, formed shortly after their election, to impose their will upon the province of Alberta and not to enter into an agreement". I have known and worked with the minister of energy of Alberta for many years. He is a tough and exacting negotiator, but he is an honest and honourable man and 1 believe him when he makes such a statement.
There was nothing in the speech of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in this House last Friday which refutes that statement or would convince me otherwise. Right from the onset of this Parliament, it was the intention of the federal government to use the Petroleum Administration Act to set the pricing regime unilaterally for oil and natural gas. If it was not so, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have called a first ministers' conference on energy pricing during the summer so that a pricing regime could have been thrashed out with all the provinces present, both the producing and the consuming provinces.
Why was this not done? Why did the negotiations have to rest on agreement or lack of agreement between the Prime Minister and one premier? Surely at such a meeting of the Prime Minister and one premier agreement was impossible, as it would have created a winner and a loser because of the pre-conditions established on both sides. It is obvious to me that apart from desiring substantive revenues from the oil and gas industry, virtually the only major growth industry in Canada today, the intent of the federal government was to wrestle from Alberta a much greater influence and control over the supply side of the industry in Canada.
The government of Alberta has directly and indirectly accumulated enormous influence and control over the oil and gas supply industry through directly owning about 85 per cent of these resources in Alberta. Therefore, through lease sales and allocation, drilling incentives, royalty impositions and rebates, equity and debt investment, through the Alberta Energy Company, the Alberta Opportunity Company and the Heritage Savings and Trust Fund, it exercised this influence.
Simply put, the national energy program has one objective and that is the reduction of the Alberta government's dominant and increasing role in Canada's hydrocarbon supply and petro-chemical industries. Such an objective may be temporarily popular in central Canada, but it does have the capacity to evoke grave repercussions in Alberta. We keep asking how far the federal government is prepared to go in centralizing power in Ottawa?
November 24, 1980

This leads me into seeking answers to my second question; what is the intent and extent of the federal government's national energy program. The national energy program has three main goals, as I see it. The first is an oil and gas pricing regime of ten years' duration which will provide increasing revenues to the federal government basically from provincially owned resources. The second goal is substantive Canadianiza-tion and nationalization of the oil and gas industry by effecting a major shift in the ownership and control structure with the following stated goals: (a) at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990, (b) Canadian control over several of the larger oil and gas companies and (c) an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the federal government-in effect, the nationalization of some of the industry.
The third over-all objective is oil and gas security of supply within the decade basically through conservation, substitution, new conventional and synthetic supplies and assured import and contractual arrangements and renewable energy development. These goals, if co-operatively evolved between the provinces, the federal government and the industry, are desirable to a majority of Canadians, but the proposed methods of implementation and the time-frame for implementation are devastating in their possible effect.
The Prime Minister in a recent news release referred to the goals as energy security, opportunity and fairness. I ask; fairness and opportunity for whom? For the oil and gas industry, for the producing provinces, for the consuming provinces, for the nation in total, and, if so, by what measuring stick? I ask, what analyses were made and whether they were made in regard to equity and fairness or, for that matter, energy security, because those are the goals of the Prime Minister. Would the government table these studies or documents so that we can all view them? The government should allow us to see these documents so we may all share the same analyses and knowledge.
Flow could one possibly set out a policy of such magnitude without doing analyses of this nature? Yet it seems to me that what is being advocated and attempted here is a national energy policy imposed without prior consultation, without adequate analysis of the impact, without meaningful negotiation and without the most elementary agreement of the partners involved. It did not have to be so. It is a program designed for a period well beyond the mandate of the present government and beyond the mandate of every provincial government in Canada.
Even if agreement were not possible it was essential that such a far-reaching program should have been exposed and discussed thoroughly with all the provinces and the many segments of the industry before being announced and brought forth as an integral part of the budget. I recommend to the Prime Minister and his government in the most humble way that they impose the first year price increases and keep the budget intact, then take the remaining package to all the provinces and the industry for consultation.
Petroleum Administration Act
1 suggest that the government call a first ministers' conference for February with regard to the national energy program during the period, say, 1982 to 1990. The government should immediately reopen discussion with Alberta in preparation for such a conference on the package on the understanding that after the budgetary year all aspects of the program are open for discussion, review, adjustment and negotiation. A national energy program, if discussed and at least partially agreed to at a first ministers' conference by at least a majority of provinces, both producing and consuming, might endure and, indeed, set a meaningful direction for the nation in energy security.
This nation has one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves in the world. It should be a net exporter rather than a major importer of oil; that is, at today's prices. Our import position is shameful in the eyes of the world community. Ours are problems of inadequate politics, faulty management, intemperate greed and sheer stupidity rather than those of reserves or opportunity. It is incumbent on the federal government to renew negotiations with the provinces. So often the success of a difficult direction or a complex policy is a function of the manner and procedures used in the processes of implementation. With power, there must always be present, humility. In weakness there is desperation. Let the federal government act from a position of power and signal its desire to negotiate by carrying an olive branch, rather than a sword. Meaningful negotiations with the province of Alberta and all the producing provinces must be resumed so that the future energy self-sufficiency of this nation can be assured.
The Prime Minister in his news release on October 31, 1980, made the following statement referring to the use of the Petroleum Administration Act.
We took these steps in the hope and expectation that they would be only a short bridge to the time when new pricing agreements could be signed with the producing provinces, at which point the pricing regulations can be rescinded. We are anxious to reach agreement on this point as the ministers of energy and finance have indicated in the House of Commons.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, as I consider that by the term "short bridge" he meant one year would be needed in order to make a national budget possible. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in his speech last Friday, November 21, at Hansard page 4964 also stated, and I quote:
-we changed our plans as indicated in the budget; when it was obvious that we could not reach an agreement, we used the powers under the Petroleum Administration Act; and we indicated that as soon as an agreement could be reached, we would be willing and ready to rescind those proclamations in order to work on the basis of an agreement. Preferably this country must work on the basis of an agreement-
This statement supports the Prime Minister's position, but the minister appears to have changed his mind minutes later last Friday; and Hansard, at page 4967, reports his answer to a direct question I put to him on the matter. I will not go into his answer now but it is there for all to see, indicating rather strongly that the ten-year pricing regime was here to stay and negotiations were not possible any longer. As I said, his answer to my question does not suggest a climate for negotiation; it
5016

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
confirms a policy of imposition and to heck what anyone else says.
This House must demand that the Prime Minister make a very definitive statement on this matter, an assurance that the ten-year pricing regime for conventional oil and gas is not fixed, and is subject to renegotiation with the producing provinces and that meaningful negotiations will be undertaken immediately. Is meaningful negotiation possible or has Alberta only one option, that of conserving its resources by cutting supply?
Mr. Speaker, oil in the ground is far more valuable today than money in the bank, and as a result of the federal government's pricing regime, one which imposes a low price increase early and a much more rapid one years ahead, Alberta is simply being forced to do what it is doing.
This brings me to my final question. What is the immediate impact of the national energy program? Many members of this House will be discussing this matter. I will refer in part to the excellent summary by Hugh Anderson in last Saturday's edition of The Globe And Mail. The national energy program policy prescriptions have produced the following: First, apoplectic rage among executives of foreign-controlled oil and gas companies whose organizations will be relegated to being second-class corporate citizens under the new rules, and considerable dismay among officials in Canadian-controlled companies resulting in both a curtailment in exploration and a partial exodus of exploration capability to the United States.
Second, a carefully planned and explicitly stated position by the premier of Alberta of the province's intent to start turning down the flow of Alberta oil beginning in March, 1981, if a negotiated agreement cannot be found. In other words, a rescheduling of Alberta's conventional oil production regime to conserve and delay the use of a rapidly declining resource. This is no less than any owner of a resource would be forced to do under a suppressed short-term pricing regime followed by a more generous long-term pricing schedule. Nevertheless, such cutbacks, if effected, would create enormous precedent complications.
Third, serious effects on mid-term and longer-term energy security by further delays in the construction of multibillion dollar oil sands plants in Alberta and a decline in spending on exploration in the Arctic and off the east coast. This really concerns me because the consequences go far beyond the wisdom of present day governments. If such delays persist, historians will look back upon the action of today's leaders as almost treasonable and as against the interests of our children.
Fourth, increased, and in some cases almost feverish discussion of western Canada's unity options within confederation. It is in this area that I want to make some remarks a little later.
Fifth, expressed apprehension and suggestions of protest from our neighbour, the United States of America, where a pro-business administration will soon be entrenched and movement towards world oil pricing is rapid.
My list of reactions to the national energy program continues. We are witnessing, sixth, a very substantive drop in the
stock market evaluation of Canadian oil and gas companies, both Canadian and foreign controlled, and an anger on the part of individual Canadian stockholders who have witnessed major re-evaluation of their assets. Seventh, accusations by an increasing number of economists and energy analysts that necessary long term economic policy is being subverted by the political preoccupations of the federal government, and, eighth, a situation in which western firms are undertaking a boycott of materials from eastern companies.
Mr. Speaker, in the time I have left I wish to speak on the mood in western Canada, particularly in Alberta. There is today in Alberta a general anger, a frustration and a disillusionment. It is an anger not directed at Canada, not at the Canadian people, but at the Canadian government.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: There is frustration, not at the lack of opportunity, not at the lack of challenge, but with a federal government energy policy that penalizes success, that stifles the initiative and constricts the vision of men and women whose dream is to mould and to build and to embrace a mighty nation in which the individual, the family, the community and enterprise can flourish and reach heights of performance and excellence unequalled anywhere in the world.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


William J. Yurko: It is a pioneering spirit that we have out west. We truly have a dream. On this remarkable formula for success and accomplishment, the federal government is imposing its formula, for essentially a form of de facto socialism. There is in Alberta and the west, a disillusionment with the trustworthiness and honesty of governments. For governments say one thing but mean another; governments create expectations then throttle them.
This Albertan and western anger results from a bruised ego and many are lashing out and kicking in the only way they can-against the perceived menace in Ottawa. Some are flirting with the concept of separatism as an outlet for their anger and frustration and as a method of striking back at the hand which seems to have them by the throat. Sprinkled among the many who are angry and frustrated and disillusioned and looking for retaliation, are the few at the forefront of the separatist fringe. These genuine wreckers of confederation are finding a ready audience in Alberta.
I sympathize with the many but condemn the cause of their anger. I also condemn the hysterical few capitalizing from the fever of separatism. I reject categorically their view and their purpose and their concept. 1 reject those who are fostering the fungus of division and separatism as being unCanadian, as having selfish motives and inflamed egos. Such a movement would only produce hurt and harm in Alberta, for as it grows, and if it grows, it will pit Albertan against Albertan and neighbour against neighbour. Every action will produce an equally forceful reaction. Our ancestors-and I count seven
November 24, 1980

generations of Albertans in my family-did not sweat and die in poverty so that our generation might fight amongst ourselves with greed over the legacy of the riches they left us. We need a new formula for sharing our riches in Alberta with the rest of Canada and a new formula for representation and influence in Ottawa. But that will come peacefully and politically and with time. The first great step is to patriate our constitution so we can deal in Canada as Canadians with some of the problems that are facing and have faced this nation for many years.
It comes as somewhat of a surprise to me that western premiers, and leaders of opposition, and members of the legislative assemblies and members of Parliament from western Canada have not categorically rejected the embryonic western separatism movement. 1 trust that in time they all will and I hope they all will. "I am a Canadian", Mr. Diefenbaker was so fond of saying. That is what we are. The final chapter or the inevitable conclusion of such a movement is north-south integration rather than east-west sharing and co-operation. I reject such a movement totally. But it is also necessary to remove some of the fears in western Canada. What are these fears? There is a primary fear, that it is the intent of the Government of Canada to nationalize the resources of this nation, indeed, to go contrary to the fundamental basis of Canada itself as laid down by the Fathers of Confederation. That accusation will intensify-Ottawa and central Canada are determined to nationalize resource ownership and rob the west, particularly Alberta, of its potential and destiny.
We need to show unequivocally in the coming months that Parliament acted in good faith during the patriation process to remove any possibility or intent to nationalize provincial resources. How can this best be done? I submit it can be done by at least two amendments to the proposed resolution for a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
The first amendment would be to section 42 so that a referendum would require a majority of the votes cast in each province before acceptance by Parliament as a constitutional amendment.
The second change would be one maintaining the unanimous agreement formula only with respect to changes to provincial assets or property, in particular ownership of lands, resources and provincial boundaries. My own preference would be for the insertion of a whole new section in the proposed resolution overriding all formulae. It would say something like this: Notwithstanding sections 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 contained herein, and any sections contained within the BN A Act of 1867 and all subsequent amendments which may have bearing on this section, no existing land and/or resource ownership rights shall be taken from or diminished in any province, nor shall any present provincial boundaries be altered without the expressed consent of the affected province.
What I am saying is that after two years the unanimity formula would be maintained only in one area of concern, namely, in this area of concern. With such a change we could diminish the anger, the frustration and the disillusionment and the fear in western Canada. There is indeed a fear that the federal government, central Canada, is out to nationalize the
Petroleum Administration Act
resources of the rest of the nation. If this government got its constitutional proposal through Parliament and then came before the people with a referendum two or three years from now and put before Canada two formulae, first, the Victoria charter formula and second, some other formula, that would be terribly divisive for this nation. The fears and the intensity would be unlimited because it would come at a time of elections in western Canada and just before an election on a national scale. Therefore, I say to this government that it should take the utmost precaution; it should take the necessary action to guarantee the fundamental rights given to Canadian provinces by the Fathers of Confederation, namely, control and ownership of their lands, resources and boundaries. None of these rights should be taken away or diminished in any way unless by agreement of the province in question.
[Translation\


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be allowed first of all to join the previous speaker in congratulating the Edmonton Eskimos, but I venture to express the wish that the Alberta government will not rely on the difference in points yesterday to try to obtain fair oil prices from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this evening, not only because The National Energy Program tabled on October 28 last was up to the challenge of the eighties, but also because the present government had decided to act, well aware that the time had come to do so.
In the past few weeks and months, I was in a position to note in the various parliamentary committees and in the House and, more especially, in my constituency of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, to what extent the energy problem has developed. Therefore, on October 29 last, a first step was taken with the tabling of The National Energy Program. The principles of that policy have been explained at length, but I would like to take this opportunity to recall its main themes; first, security of supply, and ultimately, energy self-sufficiency in Canada; second, the possibility for Canadians to play an increasing role in energy industries, especially oil and natural gas industries; and third, fair prices and revenue sharing among governments and industry.
The last budget also stated the basic energy policy under which the federal government would be induced to set the prices of gas and oil. The government was hoping no doubt to get the agreement of all provinces in that respect. However, as our colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) pointed out so well last Friday, after many negotiations during which even the former government was unable to get the consent of all provinces, such consent was not given.
My distinguished colleague opposite claims they did reach an agreement, but we never saw it. It was never tabled in the


November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
House and they never spoke of it. So, Mr. Speaker, as so aptly pointed out last Friday, this government made every effort and keeps trying to negotiate with the provinces with a view to reaching an agreement. If my kind colleague opposite would also give us the possibility of saying what we think about the energy policy, he would have the opportunity-which I believe he has already had-to express his own ideas on the matter. So, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we are still in favour of getting the agreement of the provinces; we hope and trust we will get it. Although we may be discussing at this time in the House the proclamation we tabled, if we manage, as we hope, to reach an agreement with the provinces, we will gladly withdraw the proclamation.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have realized to what extent friction between the federal government and the producing provinces might have set back deadlines that were already overextended. Also, the present government can always be criticized for its decisions but at least they were a step forward as opposed to the determination with which some provinces defend regional interests.
I think that Alberta has clearly demonstrated to us, by defending so eagerly the regional points of view, that joint efforts aimed at achieving objectives that would satisfy all Canadians were the least of their concerns. In the face of ultimatums such as Alberta's threat to oil supply, no federal government can apply a coherent energy policy. The provinces have shown us, Mr. Speaker, that the political climate in Canada is no better and no worse than in other countries, but that joint action remains an essential step in achieving agreements in these times where the economy is the main concern of all Canadians in all parts of the country. Such joint action is still possible, I think, as long as energy-producing provinces as well as the consuming provinces remember that the national interest is paramount. Finally, the federal government must keep in mind that now more than ever each and every Canadian is affected by this national policy.
Mr. Speaker, the energy challenge of the eighties will at least have the advantage of calling on the intelligence of man, just as many thousands of years ago when man had to find ingenious ways of dominating the forces of nature. In our present day society, energy supplies and their accessibility with regard to price are one of the chief concerns of all industrialized nations. Since the 1973 energy crisis, OPEC has managed to gain control of the situation on three main levels: price control, the control of production levels as well as the control of oil distribution systems. In turn, oil companies did not hesitate to pass on the energy bill to the consumer. Countries with adanced technology were great sources of income to the extent that their deficits increased in no time.
Whereas the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries showed current account surpluses of some $60 billion in 1969, all the other OECD countries experienced huge deficits which varied according to whether they had enough natural
resources to meet their needs, provided those resources were endless. In the middle of the seventies, industrialized countries felt the need to join together in order to fight the measures which increasingly threatened their economic security. The International Energy Agency, which was created in 1974 following the embargo on Arab oil, made rather gloomy forecasts regarding world oil supply and demand. At that time, they figured out that in 1979 there was a surplus of 1.2 million barrels between the world oil demand and supply.
For 1985, the projected figures showed a deficit of 2.1 million barrels that would reach 5 or 7 million barrels by 1990. In view of these rather disquieting figures, the seven industrialized nations meeting in Venice in June of this year came up with the following resolution and I quote:
"We must turn to energy resources other than oil to meet energy needs made necessary by future economic growth. This will require immediate, steadfast and long-ranging actions."
One can see that several of the measures suggested then have found their way into the new energy policy. In addition to that, the seven industrialized nations expressed their concern for the impact of the increases in the price of oil on oil importing developing countries. The oil expenditures of these countries were then assessed at around $50 billion. If this tendency is maintained, these countries will be forced to go deeper into debt thereby jeopardizing their future growth and social progress. This incidentally is one of the concerns of the participating nations in the North-South dialogue. Next August, there will be a new meeting of the seven industrialized nations here in Ottawa and their representatives will again deal with this thorny issue.
As for Canada's oil costs, the situation is not so disastrous. However, the proposed policies are most welcome. Indeed, the Montreal Business-Review indicates that the $15.5 billion cost and the nine billion grants over the next five years are enough to make the most optimistic economists shudder. Of course, the solution proposed by the federal government will not eliminate overnight the need to import 425,000 barrels of oil a day or 25 per cent of the Canadian consumption. But our energy policy will allow us to reduce our projected dependency which would have climbed to 600,000 barrels a day by the mideighties. We should remember that Canada is endowed with enormous resources, human as well as natural, and the challenge presented by the greater use of renewable energies will lead to numerous opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, this government has stated its intention to continue to work toward energy self-sufficiency which is dependent upon the use of alternative oil-replacement forms of energy. For this purpose, a special committee of the House was established some time ago, with terms of reference which include seeking the opinion of the Canadian people on these matters. It seems to me that the committee, which considers alternative energy sources to replace oil is doing a tremendous
November 24, 1980

job, as it calls on human intelligence and the spirit of co-operation which I mentioned earlier.
We already know that the national energy program will include additional incentives for the commercial use of various alternatives through both the comprehensive conversion program and special, new or extended programs. It will also provide more financial help for research and development and demonstration projects.
While the Canadian government was involved in developing energy alternatives long before 1980, it should be kept in mind that the concerns resulting from the energy crisis, the sustained efforts of researchers and ecological considerations have certainly contributed to make the people aware of the scarcity of energy resources. As a matter of fact, this phenomenon was heightened, as 1 mentioned earlier, by the brutal realization of the impact of world oil price increases on the development of western economies, including even those of developing countries. As for the federal renewable energy programs, it was in July, 1978, that the government of the time announced the implementation of a series of renewable energy programs between 1979 and 1985. These programs will cost $380 million.
I should remind the House that this initiative was to be the major component of the program related to research and innovation, the creation of a Canadian solar heating industry, a federal-provincial program of technological demonstrations and a greater use of biomass energy. At the time, the government was convinced that there were very valid reasons to promote the development of renewable energy. Today, through its national energy policy, the government is showing the consistency of its decisions. In this regard, when the budget was brought down and the national policy was outlined, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the government were happy to announce the creation of a Canadian corporation, Enertech Canada, which would restrict its activity to the field of renewable energy and conversion from oil. A starting capital of $20 million has already been provided for this Crown corporation. Its activities will be centred on support for commercial production, renewable energy and conservation methods.
Mr. Speaker, time is not available to explain the complete breakdown of the $380 million I referred to. Let us keep in mind, however, that of that amount, $104 million was earmarked for helping financially the projects approved under the renewable energy program and the forest industry until 1985. Moreover, projects that have been approved for a number of regions should allow to identify renewable energy and fossil fuel resources equivalent to three million barrels of oil a year.
The private sector also contributes, which means that $105 million will be invested in that area, and some sources indicate this is only a beginning. Other programs continue as well, such
Petroleum Administration Act
as the federal-provincial demonstration program aimed at illustrating newly developed technologies in the areas of renewable energy and energy conservation, biomass incentive programs and solar energy programs. In addition to demonstrations announced under the federal-provincial program, the National Research Council also maintains an important program of wind energy research and development. Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud of the National Research Council, an institution that has been far too long ignored by the public. Although it is bound by financial restrictions like any other department, it nevertheless kept on fulfilling its research and development mandate.
In fact, the council's role suffered two drawbacks. First, the public were more or less interested in and aware of its achievements, or people simply preferred to ignore the work done by hundreds of scientists across Canada, when they did not simply view them as dreamers. Without exaggeration, I can say that only people in the scientific world and in industry were aware of the achievement of the National Research Council of Canada. Yet, unbeknown to us, the technological quality of our means of production was made possible by the many achievements in the field of applied research. Those achievements will have allowed our companies to benefit from the results obtained in various and vital fields of scientific and industrial research and information.
It must be noted, however, that with the oil crisis, the intelligence and the creativity of all Canadians are utilized. The rational use of energy, the conservation of our resources, the protection of the environment depend essentially on the consumer's concern with preserving his own life and that of future generations. More specifically, with regard to renewable energies, the National Research Council assesses the Canadian situation in these terms, and I quote:
Over 10 per cent of energy supplies in Canada today come from renewable sources of energy, the main ones being hydroelectricity and forest waste products.
The council finds, and rightly so, that the high cost of investments in conversion equipment slows down a greater use of renewable energies. Still, the rate of international events which jeopardize traditional supplies of energy may well result in changing the situation drastically. As they gain in maturity, renewable energies will gradually break down the barriers, psychological and economic, and open up vistas never envisioned previously. For the consumer, the ultimate objective boils down to restoring the balance between his demand and his capacity to pay.
Of all renewable energies, which as we know constitute a mere 10 per cent of energy supplies in Canada, wind energy is the one on which I should like to dwell for a few moments as one offering promising possibilities. According to the National Research Council of Canada, the contribution of renewable sources of energy will double in the next 20 years. To that end, Canadians will concentrate their efforts on the development of

November 24, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
technology, techniques and equipment which will be economically advantageous and make it possible to reach these goals. As for wind energy the federal government pours $1.5 million each year into research and development. The research deals primarily with the development of generators operated by vertical axle windmills producing several megawatts of electricity and linked to existing transmission networks. Similarly experiments are being conducted with hydro companies in order to collect data on the energetic output of more complex equipment. These experiments are conducted in remote areas of Canada and in foreign countries. The question that arises as far as the energy of the wind is concerned could be put this way: could wind be profitably used as an additional source of energy in remote areas with little exposure?
It was precisely to answer that question that the experimental windpower station in my riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine was built in July, 1978. We learned a lot from the experiment, and after an accident had caused the project to stall, work was resumed with renewed enthusiasm. Today wind energy is working and we have already reached the stage where results are being compiled.
The building cost of this windpower station is estimated at a quarter-million dollars. Although still at the experimental stage such a station could produce between 130 and 250 kilowatts and supply 115 households, with an average family consumption of two kilowatts.
In addition, prospects are encouraging if one considers that the Magdalen Islands are an ideal spot as winds are extremely strong there almost all year round.
We know also that other similar projects are considered. A site has not been selected as yet for the building of another windmill. However, the location on the Islands has a disadvantage with regard to the transportation of materials, for instance. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that it costs about 25 per cent more to build any structure on the Magdalen Islands. So the same thing will happen with the construction of a windmill. Outside Canada, experimental projects permit us to foresee the future of wind energy with confidence. For instance, the results achieved with the large windmill built in North Carolina have shown that with two megawatts of power between 300 and 400 homes could be supplied with electricity. That windmill is located 1280 metres high up in the Appalachian Mountains.
Besides, the U.S. department of energy has selected a windy location in the Columbia Valley where as early as 1980, this year, three giant windmills will be erected with a potential of two and a half megawatts each, capable of providing power for about 3,000 homes.
So the contribution of the universities is essential to some projects such as those carried out in Massachusetts and in Thailand where a construction project was carried out with locally available materials. Finally, further information leads us to believe that windmills generating 50 kilowatts of the
same type as the one built on the Magdalen Islands will be connected to the Newfoundland and Saskatchewan power grid. The problem experienced in the Magdalen Islands as well as everywhere else is essentially due to wind irregularity which requires the storage of energy, which is a very expensive proposition.
The production costs have been assessed in the Islands. The data available suggest that the fuel savings make the use of wind energy probably the most economical solution, since it is less expensive to produce one kilowatt hour by this method than to produce the same amount of electricity with oil. The data have hardly been collected and they are already thinking about increasing the output through larger facilities. It is planned, for example, to set up in Quebec in 1983 an $18 million machine capable of supplying electricity to 600 or 700 households. We all know that the sky is the limit in this area. It is to be hoped that governments, through budgetary incentives for instance, will give high priority to ongoing projects and to the building of new facilities so as to promote the tapping of wind-generated energy.
Mr. Speaker, when speaking a moment ago about the producing provinces, I touched upon the matter of federal-provincial relations within the context of the national energy policy. I already said as well that consultation was an essential condition to the implementation of this program. But what is true for Alberta is also true for Quebec.
As concerns the province of Quebec in particular, priorities in energy matters for the next ten years have been clearly defined in the premier's inaugural speech. Essentially, Quebec is planning to invest about $55 billion in the Quebec Hydro development program, especially in the harnessing of secondary rivers. Then, the province will launch an operation to replace oil as an energy source through the development of natural gas. In that last instance, the federal contribution and that of the producing provinces will have to be planned so as to allow true consultation. That is why our government has already approved the extension of a natural gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City. In addition, it is hoped that the gas pipeline will be extended to the maritimes, so as to cover the eastern part of Quebec. Also, discussions are proceeding on the route of the natural gas pipeline.
Then, Quebec should place itself above political bickering for the well-being of all its citizens. Until now, the minister of energy for Quebec has expressed some reservation about the program to convert from oil to other energy sources. However, he opened the door to a greater co-ordination of programs particularly the one aimed at promoting the use of natural gas. However, as it goes with any major project, it must be well understood that time will be the determining factor in order for public funds to be used for the well-being, the security and the availability of natural resources for the benefit of each Canadian consumer. And as was observed recently by our
November 24, 1980

colleague and Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it is a tremendous and difficult challenge.
Mr. Speaker, the big difference between the world of scientists and the world of consumers is assuredly their concept of the future. As far as they are concerned, governments should get involved in both these areas. And especially since World War II, the role of the government has greatly expanded to such an extent that there has been a renewal of the schools of thought in favour of economic liberalism.
Today, people have clearly expressed their desire to see governments let go of their hold on the individual. However, it will be noted that the wind did not blow as hard as expected by the previous government who tried to initiate a so-called energy policy. Its policy was based, indeed, on an overbearing will which paid little attention to the taxpayers: the dismantling of Petro-Canada, accelerated increases in oil prices, etc.
Mr. Speaker, from this statement it appears that the government's intentions cannot escape from the international realities. As in many other industrialized countries, Canadians have had to learn to live with inflation. This means, among other things, that we accept, whether we like it or not, doing business using a currency which fluctuates according to the circumstances. This also means that we will have to put up with the inconvenience of skyrocketing prices. In other words, we pay more to get less. Concepts like the scarcity of goods and the net loss of buying power will have resulted in the weakening of what was called the American way of life. But at some time or other Canadians experienced periods when it was difficult to obtain the bare necessities.
The rationing system implemented during World War II is one of the factors which restricted our freedom to consume. But seldom will Canadians be as concerned with regard to their future as have been industrialized countries as a whole. Mass consumption is about to yield to a new way of life or, even better, to a modus vivendi which will require a greater choice and a better selection to meet our aspirations and our needs. It has almost become unsafe to speak of economic recovery as a direct result of successive events at the international level.
Recently, OECD reports suggested careful optimism for the years to come. Unemployment rates will reach unprecedented levels affecting about 20 million people of all ages and all walks of life. More recently, the United Nations warned us about the food supplies of some countries: The outlook for world supplies and the security of food in 1981 is so bad that there is an over-all emergency situation. It points to the situation in Africa, for example, as being quite alarming in view of the fact that grain imports in 1979-1980 increased by 21 million tons or 19 per cent over the preceding season. On top of this there was a deterioration of the political climate in several areas of the world.
Petroleum Administration Act
Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly think that some miraculous system could remedy all these problems. For several years we praised the merits of so-called planned economies but even those have felt the ill-effects of the oil crisis. Leaders of communist countries, for example, quickly realized that their production of goods and services fell behind the levels anticipated or planned for the short or long term. That is why, as the Economic Council of Canada noted in its fourth annual report, objectives will have to be balanced if we want to achieve sustained economic growth. The key to success, therefore, lies in the choices to be made and must be aimed at the well-being of all Canadians. Future efforts toward a greater use of renewable energy present a major challenge which will be beneficial to this and future generations. Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act. The government, with this national energy policy, calls upon all Canadians to participate asking them to act sensibly and with good spirit in the use of our country's energy potential.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the November 22 edition of the Financial Post. It reads as follows:
The New York investment banker who floats multibillion-dollar issues for a gaggle of Canadian governments (and for that reason, who chooses anonymity) is puzzled.
"I can't get this straight," he says over the phone. "Your government says it wants self-sufficiency in oil. It wants to encourage Canadian companies. So it brings in a policy that results in Canadian companies coming down here to help the U.S., while the U.S. subsidiaries left up there cut back their Canadian exploration budgets. Does this make sense to you?"
No, Mr. Speaker. Sections 35 and 36 of the Petroleum Administration Act allow the government to unilaterally impose prices if no agreement is reached with the producing provinces. It begs the question: why was the government unable to reach an agreement with Alberta?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would have us believe that he walked miles and miles to reach an agreement. That is a total sham, it was a show staged for the media and for the public. He made lots of mileage out of it, but he did not even come close to an agreement, nor would it appear that he had any intention of doing so.
The minister of energy for Alberta outlined the meetings he had with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May 13 was a "get-together" meeting; they had coffee, they discussed the weather. On June 18 one proposal was discussed, the one which is essentially in the energy package today. When it was not accepted by the Alberta government on June 18, the minister asked the provincial energy minister to remain until June 19. He said he would take it back to his colleagues. The indications were that he came back on June 19, at which time he offered an absolutely ridiculous proposal which was worse than the first, knowing full well that it would not be approved. It would appear he
5022	_______COMMONS
Petroleum Administration Act
wanted to keep up the appearance of negotiations, so that people would think they were still negotiating.
After meeting with Mr. Lougheed in July, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that Alberta had made a very generous offer to the rest of Canada, but he announced that there was no agreement. I suggest that the government never intended to reach an agreement with Alberta, that it had set the goal of nationalization of the oil industry, that it was prepared to go full steam ahead, and damn the consequences. The government is prepared to challenge any provincial government for jurisdiction unilaterally if that province appears to be breaking its economic dependence on the central government. It is the aim of the present government to remain in power at all cost, and, of course, that is "by Goldfarb". If this were not the case, we would not be debating the imposition of sections 35 and 36 of the Petroleum Administration Act. Such an act should only be used when all else fails. Every possible avenue must be explored before these sections are imposed. They should never be used to club a provincial government into submission. What will the imposition of these sections of the act do? First, it will provide cannon shells to an increasingly militant group in western Canada, particularly in Alberta. If I mention this only briefly, it is not because it is unimportant. Responsible men and women are saying, "Let's get out of this mess." Nothing is more dangerous to our country today than the attitude which is starting to fester in western Canada.
The minister would have us believe that the imposition of this act may be rescinded at any time, if an agreement is reached with the provinces. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the debates of November 21 and I would like to quote from page 4964 of Hansard for that date in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported as saying:
-we indicated that as soon as an agreement could be reached, we would be willing and ready to rescind those proclamations in order to work on the basis of an agreement.
I also refer you to page 4967 of the same date on which the minister said:
It was to ensure a certain degree of certainty and clarification as to the government's policy that it was decided to put forward this long-term plan. We have indicated that this is a ten-year program.
Further down the page he says:
We have put forward a pricing regime which we think will be fair for the industry over the next ten years and for the various regions of the country.
I suggest that if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is ready to enter into negotiations with the province of Alberta those statements are contradictory. In no way has he created a climate for proper negotiations. I do not suspect for one moment that the government is willing or ready to change its position on the energy policy budget brought down on black Tuesday. I suggest it will continue in exactly the way it is going-no negotiation whatsoever that will bear fruit. What has happened? No agreement and no oil sands plants.
Let me focus on the oil sands and tar sands. I know there has been a lot of fall-out because of the energy program, the
DEBATES	November 24, 1980
budget and no agreement. Let me focus on those factors. There is Cold Lake, which is the Imperial Oil project worth $8 billion. There is private capital waiting to be invested in northeastern Alberta for the benefit of all Canada. There is Alsands in Fort McMurray, another $8 billion of private capital ready to be invested in northeastern Alberta for the benefit of all Canada.
What is the benefit of one plant? Let us deal with them one at a time, looking at Alsands first. Alsands will produce 137,000 to 140,000 barrels per day. It can start up production in 1988. It was to be 1987 but it has now been delayed one year. It will operate like a factory for a term of 25 years producing 140,000 barrels per day every day. The total capital investment will be $8 billion to $9 billion, creating 8,000 jobs during construction. Over 80 per cent of the material and equipment will be purchased in Canada. This will reduce oil imports and will improve the balance of payments by $40 billion over the life of the project. That figure is in 1980 dollars. The economic benefits to Canada as a whole have been estimated at $100 billion. That, too, is in 1980 dollars. The benefit to Alberta will amount to $66 billion. Ontario, as a centre of Canadian manufacturing, will benefit from secure oil supply and increased demand for equipment and materials, both during construction and operation. Of course, it will reduce unemployment.
What are some of the requirements? They are: major equipment; columns and vessels, $109 million; tanks, $31 million; exchangers, $73 million; fired heaters, $70 million; pumps and drivers, $44 million; compressors and drivers, $41 million; extraction equipment, $109 million; mining and material handling equipment, $496 million; boilers and steam turbines, $31 million; instruments, $67 million; piping, $233 million; structural steel, $52 million; insulation, $29 million; electrical, $173 million. The list goes on and on.
Who will benefit from the purchase of this equipment? Central Canada. It is the lifeblood of the manufacturing industry. It creates jobs.
Look at the Esso project at Cold Lake which commenced in 1963, 17 years ago, at a total construction cost of $9 billion. We hear consistently from our NDP friends: Let Petro-Canada do it. Questioned in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Petro-Canada indicated it would be ten years before they would be ready to proceed even with the first stages of a heavy oil or tar sands plant. The Esso project is the first of its kind anywhere in the world. It is a joint research project. The private venture capital of $8 billion, Mr. Speaker, is waiting to be invested to prove technology. On completion the plant will produce 140,000 barrels per day. It will contribute $2 billion plus a year to our balance of payments. Again, this project has a life of 25 years. The total crude to be produced is expected to be 1.3 billion barrels. In its peak construction period it will employ 10,000 people. The plant will employ 2,000 to 3,000 people when it is built. Indirectly, it will produce jobs for 6,500 people. It does not stop there. The Esso Cold Lake plant will cost $9 billion to construct. Related facilities will cost another $1 billion. The infrastructure will
November 24, 1980

cost another $1 billion. The investment on a continuing basis will be $20 billion. Operating expenses over 25 years will be $60 billion. That represents a total expenditure of $90 billion with a normal multiplier of $250 billion to $300 billion in the economy of Canada.
The stupidity and vindictiveness of this government never ceases to amaze me. Our entire energy future is being jeopardized by confrontation politics, all because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), with a preconceived idea, will not sit down and negotiate in good faith with the province of Alberta. Ted Byfield said in the Alberta report of November 7, 1980, that this was a calamitous year. The article took me back to last November and the time when the final touches were being put on an oil agreement between the then Conservative government of Canada and the government of the province of Alberta.
Had that agreement been allowed to stand, he said, consider what the situation would have been today. The Cold Lake and Alsands plants would have gone forward at full throttle, exploration would have been proceeding on the whole northern and eastern rim of this continent, the pipeline construction would have been under way as would the exploration of the further reaches of the deep basin which holds such promise. Mr. Byfield felt that oil rig operators would have been desperate for men. Investment capital reaching across the whole west would have been opening new jobs and new opportunities. Billions of dollars in equipment orders would have been streaming forth to central Canadian plants and our provinces would have been working hand in hand with the federal government toward a goal which everyone would have clearly understood, oil self-sufficiency by 1990. All that could have been.
I submit that the most important factor to be considered in Canada today is an insecure energy supply and, therefore, the necessity of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to meet with his counterpart in Alberta to hammer out an agreement. The government is jeopardizing the future of all Canada by failing to sit down and work out that agreement.
I would like to present a few points for the government to consider. Canada is a net importer of costly, insecure oil- about 350,000 barrels a day. These imports contribute to an adverse balance of payments. Conventional reserves are declining rapidly. Canada has reserves of hydrocarbons in the tar sands and heavy oil deposits to last for centuries. It is a known and reliable resource and the technology is available to develop it. There is some risk involved but the technology is there.
Current costs for a major tar sands project of 140,000 barrels a day would amount to about $8 billion or $9 billion. What is the problem? Why is the government not developing this vast resource? There is an absence of a dependable ongoing policy on pricing, royalties and taxation to give industry the confidence required to proceed with the development of the resource; I need only refer hon. members to the Suncor problem.
Petroleum Administration Act
What does the future offer? The balance of payments position will worsen as imports are increased. Imports in 1978 cost Canada $1.8 billion. On the basis of a price estimate at $240 a barrel by the year 2000, we could still be importing 500,000 barrels of oil per day at a cost of $44 billion per year. That is staggering. The security of our supply situation is not likely to improve. We must develop an acceptable policy on pricing, royalties and taxation and a realistic, well-planned program for optimum utilization of all Canada's energy resources. Such a program would provide an opportunity to turn the economy around by reducing imports and even to begin exporting in the future.
In order to provide materials and services for these huge megaprojects, the government should develop programs to gear up all of Canada. It must recreate an atmosphere of co-operation rather than confrontation. The technology and equipment of the tar sands and heavy oil industry could be exported to other parts of the world. Oil companies do not want to get involved in politics, but rather, want all levels of government to provide a good business climate in which to operate.
To Canadianize the industry would require a long-term, realistic plan to cope with the ownership problem. It would require a reasonable rate of return higher than the accepted utility rate of return because the risk is greater. There are many advantages to such a program. There would be self-sufficiency and security of supply so we could all sleep at night. It would reduce our adverse balance of payments position and strengthen the Canadian dollar; it would improve the over-all economic situation of Canada. We could possibly find ourselves in a position to export oil if such steps were taken. These proposals would create many employment opportunities for our children and their grandchildren. No longer would they be leaving university, trade schools and colleges not knowing whether they will have a job or not; our economy will be healthy and able to absorb these graduates.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of creating a technological expertise which, one day, will be needed all over the world. The technology we have gained in the heavy oil and tar sands industry is saleable to other countries. We could help to create a more unified Canada and believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is the main objective. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate tonight, in the few minutes that are left, to speak of the proclamation under the Petroleum Administration Act, which opposition members ask to be revoked because in their view the federal government should not unilaterally have set prices. I can understand that members of the Progressive Conservative Party should take that position but I have difficulty understanding why the New Democrats say that we should not have acted unilaterally when, after six months of fruitless discussions the two parties

Petroleum Administration Act
have been unable to reach an agreement. I find that strange coming from a party which has always said that the federal government should have greater control over the economy since, according to the basic philosophy of the CCF, that was the way to achieve socialism in Canada.
If it is opposed to the federal government's unilateral move in setting prices, the NDP should at least not try to make believe that it does so out of respect for Alberta's and B.C.'s position. It wants to play both sides at once and still be loyal and faithful to the position it took in the past and in recent years, since it would probably have imposed a much more rigid price than the one set by the present government.
Mr. Speaker, when we hear people say that the federal government has been too harsh on Alberta, we should consider a few facts. First, for about five years the federal government's share of oil revenues was about 10 per cent, whereas the producing provinces' share was a little more than 45 per cent and the industry's a little less than 45 per cent. In his budget of October 28, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) proposed some changes. Instead of being shared 45, 45, 10, revenues would be split 43 per cent for producing provinces, 33 per cent for industry and about 24 per cent for the federal government. In other words, the budget reduced by only 2 per cent the producing provinces' share, while increasing the federal government's share by 14 per cent to 24 per cent. It is therefore not Alberta, British Columbia or Saskatchewan which lose a great deal, but industry. The industry's share goes from 45 per cent down to 33 per cent. It is quite strange to see the NDP oppose such a change. On the other hand it is easy to understand that the Tories should be against it, as they have always claimed that it was bad for government, whether federal or provincial, to get too involved in the nation's business.
Let us consider whether the federal government's position is really ungenerous. During the coming four years, Alberta would receive $31 billion from the oil industry, Saskatchewan $3.2 billion and British Columbia $3.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite simple. We have to ask ourselves now whether our central government will be looking after the interests of all Canadians. Such is the question that has to be asked, because we know that energy is the most important asset for the future development of our society.
We will have to invest in Canada over $250 billion for energy purposes during the next ten years. This means that from now on our economy will be energy oriented. If we want a government that looks after the interests of all Canadians, how will such a government wield the necessary power if it has no money? How will a government which is supposed to look after the interests of all Canadians be able to do so, that is, conduct future energy development, protect the poor after steep price increases, give areas of the country deprived of natural gas and oil other forms of energy and bring together
November 24, 1980
the productive regions of the country and those which do not have any.
But how can it be done unless the federal treasury has money in its coffers? I would like people and the Progressive Conservative Party to explain to me how they would have the federal government take care of Canadian interests without money. To hear them, they would like Alberta and the producing provinces to continue receiving an important share, as well as the others. For our part, we want to leave them 43 per cent. What is it they do not like? Is it the fact that the share of the industry will be reduced from 45 per cent to 33 per cent? Are they willing to allow the companies to develop and operate freely, as they see fit, simply by reaching agreements with the producing provinces?
Mr. Speaker, I doubt that it can be done. Eater on in my speech which I shall bring to an end tomorrow, I shall explain why it is important, even outside the energy question, to protect the federal treasury. I had an analysis made of the difference between the expenditures of the federal government in the last five years and those incurred by the provincial governments. I also had one made of the percentage of the federal budget that is used to finance the debt compared to those of the provinces. And I shall demonstrate, later on in my speech, how close we are getting to having a federal government which, compared with its provincial counterparts, will be unable to look after the interests of all Canadians. Who will then take care of those interests? The ten provincial governments in a common effort? A community of communities? How amusing to remember how the Deader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who was prime minister for nine months, started in that office saying that we are a community of communities. But just before the last election, he had to admit in a speech given in Alberta that he understood why it is important to maintain a strong central government, which means that in the fields of energy and taxes, the federal government should have a greater share of the revenues.
So, that was sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Conservatives to change their minds today, now that they are in the opposition and want to make political hay out of the fact that some people out west are not happy with the government's energy policy and to say that the government is hogging it. Their leader realized, Mr. Speaker, when he was prime minister, even if it was for only nine months, that it is important to have a federal government with full coffers and not just debts.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I shall continue tomorrow.
November 24, 1980



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, on October 16 as recorded at page 3720 of Hansard 1 addressed specific questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) relating to speculation that the government's budget would contain reference to something called the western development fund and a natural gas export tax.
In fact, it was the leader of the government in the Senate who announced in mid-September that such a development fund would indeed be part of the budget, only to have that announcement denied by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few days later. I felt at the time that my questions were pertinent. The second question which dealt with the natural gas export tax has also proven to be most pertinent. In fact, over 32,000 residents in British Columbia in the four-week period between the middle of September and the middle of October signed petitions opposing the implementation of any form of federal tax on the natural gas resources of British Columbia which would be exported from that province.
The reason I asked the two questions of these ministers was to determine the extent to which the Liberal party was prepared to honour its commitment made clearly and unequivocally to the people of British Columbia during the last election campaign. During that campaign they stated there would not be any form of natural gas tax levied on the export of natural gas; there was a suggestion, at least, that the federal government did not have its eyes on provincial resources for the purpose of raising federal revenues, a suggestion which has proven to be completely untrue. We have seen with the passage of the October 28 budget that both the natural gas export tax and the western development fund have come to pass. I suppose we ought to be grateful for the token western development fund which was thrown into the budget-I might say it was a $2 million slap in the face to British Columbians, because in the period during which that western development fund would return $2 billion in resource revenues to the western provinces, this same federal government will expropriate over $14 billion worth of revenue which it will raise by levying various forms of taxation against the production of those natural resources which, to this date, belong to the western provinces. If the western provinces have their way, these natural resources will belong to those provinces for a long time to come.
The budget includes a petroleum compensation charge, a natural gas tax and an 8 per cent federal tax on net revenues
Adjournment Debate
from the production of gas and oil as well as a Canadian ownership tax. This myriad of taxes so craftily and sneakily incorporated into the budget add up to a tax levy on the people of western Canada amounting to at least $14 billion between now and the end of 1984, in other words, over the next three fiscal years.
The thrust of my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was to determine whether he had any conscience about promising that the government would give back a pitiful $2 billion while craftily extracting $14 billion out of the pockets of western Canadian producers, provincial treasuries and indeed the consumers of western Canada, Ontario, and Quebec, all of whom will be hit hard by these unconscionable taxes which the federal government is imposing. The natural gas tax will have a significant impact on British Columbia where revenues totalled $320 million to the provincial treasury in the last fiscal year through the medium of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.
The federal government, under the proposals of the present budget, will expropriate or take $200 million of this revenue each year when we reach the schedule of 60 cents per thousand cubic feet levied, as well as the 8 per cent federal tax on natural gas. This amounts to $200 million per year taken out of British Columbia to contribute to this so-called concept of sharing, which 1 will come to in a moment. That $200 million will be distributed between all consumers of natural gas in British Columbia, not only industry but home owners who heat their homes with natural gas. Another $100 million will be taken from the producers, but ultimately from the treasury of British Columbia, in lieu of exports of natural gas from B.C. which will be subject to this tax. The consequence to the consumer is a $40 increase in the home heating bill this winter and a doubling of the surcharge next year. That will place an unfair and undue discriminatory burden upon the people of my province and those in western Canada generally.
I want to say a word about the concept of sharing. We in the western part of this country are sick and tired of the Liberal myth which suggests that somehow we are selfish. That is absolutely untrue. It is a political myth which the party opposite perpetuates most dishonestly. The western concept of sharing is that we want to share our resources, and sharing is an outward gesture which involves generosity and mutual consent. That is quite contrary to the Trudeau concept of sharing, which amounts to unilateral confiscation of western resources, the resources of the people of the provinces as granted to them under the British North America Act.
The federal government will not account for the net costs to some of the provinces of the confiscation of those resources. It is atrocious that government members can sit in their places and show no sense of conscience about this issue or the right of resource ownership to which all provinces have been entitled since the time they joined confederation.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in response to

November 24, 1980
Adjournment Debate
the hon. member's comments, I could spend a moment or two on the question of the application of various taxes he has cited. He seemed to think they had a regional impact of a grossly disproportionate character. If he wanted, for example, to take the case he cited of the natural gas tax, he would find that the major burden of that tax would fall on the people of Ontario. About 44 per cent of the revenue from the application of that tax will be raised in Ontario.
However, in the few moments I have available, 1 think it would be better to address ourselves to some more positive elements and to note that, along with a variety of other new energy expenditures and initiatives, the national energy program announced the establishment of the western development fund. This special ten-year, $4 billion fund has been set up to finance a series of economic development initiatives to be chosen jointly by both the federal government and the individual governments of the four western provinces.
The federal government will not make any unilateral decisions relative to the disposition of these funds. The western provinces will be genuine partners in any decision to be made on where and how allotted funds will be spent.
While 1 do not propose to make judgments on where this money will be spent, I would anticipate that much of this funding will be used for infrastructure improvements in the west, especially in transport, for industrial development and diversification, for agricultural programs and for water resource development which will be required for the tar sands and hydro projects.
The Government of Canada will also examine, as a matter of priority, how its trade policies could be strengthened or modified to encourage diversified growth of western Canada's economy.
The federal government is most interested in assisting western Canada in diversifying its economic base which has been traditionally dependent on non-renewable resources. The national energy program has outlined the government's desire not to see more oil-based petrochemical capacity in eastern Canada. This means that the concentration of future growth within this industry will take place in western Canada, notably in Alberta. The federal government promises to support fully this trend of western diversification.
The benefits to be derived from the western development fund are additional to the many other benefits which will result from other initiatives of the national energy program. The pricing regime, particularly as it is designed to encourage the development of the oil sands and the heavy oil areas, will lead to major opening up of these resources and, as a spin-off, the growth of many new supply and service industries. The new initiatives system for oil and gas exploration will lead to broadening the resource base and the industries that are allied to resource development activity. Such programs as financial support for a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, the construction of a heavy oil upgrader in Saskatchewan and a number of conservation and renewable energy programs in Manitoba will
all assist in the resource development and industrial diversification process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I perhaps should not take up the time of hon. members, but it has been brought to my attention several times that the time limits for members are rigid in the extreme in the adjournment debate, so perhaps I will say now, because I see some hon. gentlemen here whom 1 see regularly, that the Chair is going to be forced to call time on hon. members when the time arrives, and there cannot be any relaxation of that because it detracts from other members as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-WINNIPEG-INQUIRY WHETHER PERMIT TO BUILD OVERPASS WILL BE AUTHORIZED
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight to speak about the issuing of the CTC permit for the building of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, and I hope this is the last time I will have to bring this issue up in the House of Commons because there has been an undue delay over the last couple of years with regard to the issuing of this permit.
1 received an assurance last week from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission that the permit will be issued to the city of Winnipeg to go ahead, finally, with the building of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, which should have been built in the first place. I will go into that in a little more detail in a moment.
I see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) here tonight. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, and I hope he will confirm that the permit will be issued this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 hope he will not.


A. Daniel McKenzie: My main reason for raising this issue tonight is the cost overrun which the city of Winnipeg has had to suffer because of the ridiculous nonsense we have had to put up with over the last almost two years with regard to the issuing of this permit.
The original delay and stoppage of the permit was caused by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, who used his authority as a Liberal to have the permit withheld. He talked a former minister of transport, Mr. Otto Lang, into stopping the issuing of the permit to build the overpass, stating that there should be rail relocation. Nobody is opposed to rail relocation, but the first thing he should have done was check federal Liberal policy to find out whether there were funds available for rail relocation and whether there was a firm policy for going ahead with rail relocation. If he had checked that first, he would have found that the government had dropped its policy of funding rail relocation. He might then
November 24, 1980

have stopped his pilgrimage to pursue this rail relocation issue in Winnipeg.
Instead of checking first, the Minister of Employment and Immigration had the permit stopped. This has caused the city of Winnipeg no end of problems, and there is a cost overrun of some $2.5 million.
I am on my feet tonight hoping that the hon. member for St. Boniface will let us know what he is going to do about getting this $2.5 million for the city of Winnipeg. As a former councillor the hon. member is well aware of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass and all of the implications. He has an obligation to the city of Winnipeg to see that the city is reimbursed that $2.5 million, the cost of the overrun, because of the interference of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
February 20, 1979, was the date on which the Minister of Employment and Immigration called for a delay in the construction of the overpass, and this interruption has cost the city of Winnipeg about $2.5 million. That figure is based upon a cost of $7,000 per day for delays in the construction of the overpass.
I should like to go into some of the history in connection with this sham and the confusion caused by the unnecessary interference of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In June, 1980, the Minister of Transport authorized the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass which ended a 14-month delay and forced the cost to rise by $2 million to $20 million. Of course, as of today it is $2.5 million. Mayor Bill Norrie stated that he would begin the battle to get Ottawa to cover the increased costs, and I am continuing the battle here tonight. We will keep after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to do something about this issue. There is no use going after the Minister of Employment and Immigration; it would be an absolute waste of time.
The project was delayed by the federal government pending a study on the cost of rail relocation. On that basis Mayor Norrie said that he felt the city had a good case for increased federal aid. The city and the province of Manitoba did not ask for this rail study. If there were a firm commitment from the federal government in respect of rail relocation-they had about $1 billion in funds set aside because other cities would also want rail relocation-then the city and the province would have been required to come up with money for rail relocation and there would have been justification for it. Everybody except the Minister of Employment and Immigration knew that the federal government did not have the money or had no intention of putting up the money. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made it perfectly clear that there were no funds for rail relocation. So the cost overruns are the direct responsibility of the present Liberal government.
I want a statement from the parliamentary secretary tonight confirming that the permit is being issued, and also, as a member of Parliament from Manitoba he should let us know
Adjournment Debate
what he will do about recovering this $2.5 million for the city of Winnipeg. This nonsense has gone on long enough. The parliamentary secretary made some statements in the past indicating that the minister will not provide the funding and that he will not do anything about it. That is not good enough for me or for the citizens of Winnipeg. The parliamentary secretary has an obligation to speak up and indicate what he intends to do about getting the $2.5 million for the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's original question on June 2 was sparked by the announcement that there would be a core area initiative for the city of Winnipeg. The initiative consisted of a five-year program under which federal funds would be provided to enable the city to respond to various social and economic problems in the downtown area.
At the time of the announcement, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) indicated that it was up to the city and the province to decide the course of action they wish to follow with respect to the Sherbrook-McGregor grade separation. He said that if the consensus was to build an overpass, he was prepared to approve funding for construction immediately under the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. Previously the province indicated that it was prepared to dedicate $7.6 million of its UTAP allotment for this purpose. The city and the province confirmed their desire for an overpass, and on June 16 the minister approved the $7.6 million UTAP contribution. I mention the date to emphasize how fast the federal response was once the final position of the city and the province had been received.
Normally, the Canadian Transport Commission would have issued a construction order shortly thereafter to allow construction to begin. However, Rossbrook House, a community organization which opposed the overpass, took various steps to attempt to block its construction. It applied to the CTC asking that the construction not be permitted on the basis that a safety hazard would exist. Rossbrook House also appealed to the Federal Court asking that the federal contribution be quashed on a technicality. The application to the CTC has just recently been denied. Though the court appeal has not yet been settled the CTC feels it cannot hold back the project because of this and intends to issue a construction order in a matter of days. I understand the city plans to start the actual work in the spring.
The delay in getting this needed project under way is regrettable but I am sure the hon. member will understand the reason I have just outlined. The overpass, along with the funds provided under the broader core area initiative, will go a long way toward improving conditions in downtown Winnipeg. As such, the federal initiative has been welcomed by both the city and the province.
I would like to add-

November 24, 1980
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Churchill.


PUBLIC SERVICE-STATUS OF WOMEN-EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the last six months I have raised issues in this Elouse questioning the Liberal government's commitment to achieving equality in the workplace. I am talking about equality for groups which have been disenfranchised or which have been receiving unequal treatment in the past-women's groups, native groups, the physically handicapped and others.
I have a number of reasons for believing that the government has no real commitment in this area. We have questioned them in the past on paid maternity leave. We have questioned them in the past on affirmative action programs. We have questioned them on whether or not they are really committed to equal pay for work of equal or comparable value. This is a problem which is not faced in the government sector alone; it is faced in all sectors of the Canadian economy. In all cases the Liberal government has been afraid to act. I think the reason for this fear is their own slow progress when it comes to affirmative action programs.
In 1972 there was a cabinet directive encouraging managers to hire women. Yet eight years later we find the women in the public service overlooked and underpaid. In a document prepared by the National Advisory Committee on the Status of Women it is pointed out that it will take 66 years at the present pace to achieve any equality. In other words, it will take until the year 2046 A.D. before we have equality in the public service, at the rate the government is proceeding at this time. In that document they pointed out that 60 per cent of women are still working as clerks and secretaries. They point out that in only three of 100 government departments and agencies are there any affirmative action programs at all. Most senior executive positions are still occupied by men and there has not been much change at the level of the younger executives. In the senior executive group, of 200 under 40 years of age only 16 are women. When we turn to the senior executives under the age of 35 we find only three out of 34 are women.
In all these areas we find that the pace has been very slow. The government has not acted. Instead, the government has reacted. It has not been initiating programs, instead it has been reacting to human rights cases brought against it. It has taken a long time to act even in those cases. First of all, the union applies to the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission invariably responds by saying that the government has acted wrongly. Then there is a slow follow-up by Treasury Board before it acts in this area. So people who have been suffering from unequal treatment by government for years and years find that it takes years and years more to get action by the government after that.
What our party has been saying is that instead of taking this passive approach the government should take a positive
approach. This was suggested by my leader in a letter he wrote to the minister in June. He asked for an approach by which the government is committed into looking into each and every one of its departments and agencies to make sure action is taken affirmatively.
Last week I called for a comparative wage study, a co-operative wage study in which both union and management would sit down and draw up job descriptions to ensure that people in the public service are being paid for what they are doing, not on the basis of whether they are male or female. I am sure that whichever parliamentary secretary has been deemed the expert for tonight will talk about the great progress, the new initiatives and the recent actions of the government. I suspect that some parliamentary secretary said exactly the same thing, back in 1972, "We have written a directive encouraging management to act", and so on. But nothing has happened. 1 hope that the parliamentary secretary will not give the usual blase answer tonight but will say instead that the government is committed to doing something on the matter. I will give him a chance now.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not disappoint the hon. member. The question he has raised this evening has attracted the close interest of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) as he is most concerned with the expeditious implementation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
As hon. members may be aware, Mr. Speaker, section 11 of the act introduced a new concept, adopted by very few jurisdictions around the world, one without any appreciable jurisprudence elsewhere. Under the equal pay for work of equal value concept, in contrast to the normal provision of equal pay for the same or like work, jobs of quite different nature may be compared, using job evaluation techniques to determine whether they have the same intrinsic value. This is a new and untried approach to the elimination of pay discrimination.
Prior to the 1978 proclamation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Treasury Board submitted a brief on the equal pay concept to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Subsequently, ongoing meetings have been held with officials of the commission in attempts to clarify the application of the new concept to the complex area of collective bargaining and compensation administration.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that over a year ago, in anticipation of the need, a universal job evaluation plan, the Aiken Plan, was adapted from the private sector for use in resolution of equal pay complaints. This plan has been accepted by the commission as being free of sex bias and is being used in current pay discrimination complaints.
To date, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has notified the employer of six complaints accepted for investigation. The first three were related to nurses in penitentiaries and have been settled on terms agreeable to the employer, the commission and the original complainants. The fourth case
November 24, 1980

involved a director of nursing versus other directors in a hospital. This complaint was settled on November 17 of this year and is in the process of implementation.
With respect to the case from Churchill raised by the hon. member, that of the general services group, the secretary of the Treasury Board informed the Canadian Human Rights Commission on May 20 of the employer's agreement that a case of sex discrimination affecting pay, within the terms of the legislation, exists. The commission, Treasury Board Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have held discussions on possible settlement alternatives, and a settlement proposal is in preparation. Officials of Treasury Board have been instructed to tackle the problems of applying the
Adjournment Debate
principle of equal pay for work of equal value to this group of employees as expeditiously as possible.
In addition to the foregoing and in order to allow the employer to take the initiative rather than merely responding to complaints, a study in depth has been authorized to commence in the new year with the object of identifying and removing pay discrimination in the public service.


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

Tuesday, November 25, 1980