1981-06-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, the Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor in Iraq is an event of utmost importance with respect to world security. The entire world has reason to feel the deepest concern for global safety. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House expresses its deepest concern to the government of Israel with respect to the attack and reported destruction of a nuclear reactor in Iraq, and urges all governments in the mid-East and elsewhere to moderation in any contemplated response, and to put foremost the safety of mankind in the increasingly dangerous nuclear age.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the reports from the Grit policy meeting on the weekend indicate that Canadianization of industry will take place in much the same way as the energy Canadianization has been carried out, namely, state ownership.
Under Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House advise the government that any program to Canadianize industry be so designed as to encourage individual Canadians to purchase companies and shares in companies located in Canada and not to purchase
industries by a government-controlled corporation such as the Canada Development Corporation or a new Crown corporation created for that purpose.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lorne Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Cree village of Fort Rupert in northern Quebec is finally acquiring a new sewage system. However, the Cree are now faced with the problem of having insufficient electrical power to run the system. Several weeks ago, as a result of plugging in a four-slice toaster at the construction camp, the electrical system for the entire village was shorted out. This is particularly ironic, given the fact that Fort Rupert is in close proximity to one of the world's largest hydroelectric plants. Therefore, in light of the urgent need for a functioning sewage system and that such a system will not operate without sufficient electrical power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to provide the necessary electrical infrastructure to the village of Fort Rupert as stipulated in the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement in order that the sewage system may operate.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the report on aviation safety by Justice Dubin identifies areas of serious safety problems such as patterns of accidents, the role of senior
10340

June 8, 1981
staff within the department, and implementation of air safety recommendations, and whereas these factors are extremely important in terms of air safety, and whereas the committee appointed by the minister, with the exception of one person, has been touched by the criticism in the justice's report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Minister of Transport appoint an impartial committee to draft the required legislation, regulations and structural plan to implement Justice Dubin's report and, further, that the minister refer the report of Justice Dubin to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Within a period of one week, two riots have taken place in federal penal institutions in my riding of Fraser Valley East, resulting in the destruction of approximately 50 per cent of the Matsqui institution complex and the damaging of 90 cells and destruction of furniture in the Kent maximum security prison.
In view of this challenge by troublemakers, and the wanton destruction of facilities provided at taxpayers' expense, and in view of the failure of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to make a statement to the House on these incidents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study and report.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The second annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Association is being held in Ottawa this week and is combined with the twenty-first annual Canadian Nuclear Society international conference.
The topics of discussion will include nuclear energy as a method of energy self-sufficiency, nuclear exports, waste management, and public acceptability. The conference represents the direct and indirect involvement of 55,000 people in activities related to a high technology energy source which faces the danger of extinction by 1984 if changes are not made in our management.
Since the efforts of the conference are a valuable source of information for nuclear policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House request that a summary of the findings be presented to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for his consideration during the internal government review of nuclear energy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move:
That this House notes that, under various government superannuation plans, if the wife dies first the surviving widower's pension is 100 per cent, but if the husband dies first the surviving widow's pension is only 50 per cent, and this House calls on the government to bring in the necessary legislation to correct this situation on an interim basis by raising the widow's pension in all cases to 75 per cent and to declare that the eventual goal is pension equality between men and women.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great importance. Last week the Ontario Federation of Agriculture held a farm economy seminar in Toronto to discuss the problems which face agriculture today, problems which are forcing many bankruptcies. The federation invited the ministers of agriculture and finance for the province of Ontario and the federal government. Premier Davis, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Miller of the province of Ontario attend-
June 8, 1981

ed, but only the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) attended for the federal government. This confirms our opinion of the importance the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) places on agriculture and related problems in Canada today. He could not care less. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to remove the Minister of Finance from his post and replace him with someone who understands the problems facing farmers today and who is willing to listen to them.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The government has not kept its promise to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Treasury Board has stolen over $100,000 from each and every RCMP member who retired between January 1 and March 31, 1981. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the salaries of the Treasury Board ministers be reduced to $1 a year and that the savings thus effected be put in a special fund to compensate partially those who are the retired victims of the broken promises of this morally bankrupt government. The retired RCMP and their families deserve fair treatment, and ministers who dishonestly break their promises should be the ones who suffer, not the retired RCMP members and their families.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will be aware of his colleague's, the Minister of Agriculture's statement last week wherein he called the 78 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies "a significant increase", an understatement indeed from this particular Minister of Agriculture. He also referred to a
Oral Questions
number of foreclosures and forced sales of farms. Of even greater concern are the much larger number of Canadian farmers who are withdrawing voluntarily from production rather than face the stigma of bankruptcy or foreclosure. In either case the result is the same: a loss of farm production.
I ask the minister what measures he proposes to take, and when will those measures be taken to attack this national disgrace?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated several times in this House, I have held discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and will continue to do so with a view to determining whether any measures to assist could be taken in the present circumstances. If any such future measures are decided upon, they will be announced in the House at the appropriate time.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
William Herbert Jarvis: My supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance, who said last week:
The truly sensitive person is the one who is thinking of the long-term interests of the Canadian people.
I point out to him that a farm withdrawn from production often takes years and years to regain its productive capacity. To avoid this, does the Minister of Finance agree with the Minister of Agriculture's proposal regarding the Farm Credit Corporation which was contained in that minister's letter to the Ottawa Citizen last week, and I quote:
-instituting a moratorium for three years on payments of interest and principal.
Is the minister in accord with his colleague's proposal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the House earlier, I am not undertaking as a matter of daily practice to comment on the views of every person in the country who may make comments on the economy-


An hon. Member:: This is not every person.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I have already dealt with that question-


Mr. Crosbie:: Who speaks for the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -last week specifically addressed to me with respect to the letter in the newspaper by the Minister of Agriculture, by saying that I was holding discussions with him on the subject of the Farm Credit Corporation and if any changes were made as a result of these discussions, then of course the Minister of Agriculture would be making an announcement. However, I assure the hon. member that the difficulties that the farming population may be facing as a result of high interest rates are a matter of deep concern and the subject matter of discussions at the present time.

June 8, 1981
Oral Questions


EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, no one could interpret that letter as other than a clear government proposal, or at least a proposal by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Finance will know that, in addition, the Minister of Agriculture proposed in that letter an extension of the small business development bond to unincorporated farms. I want to know whether the Minister of Finance agrees in principle with that proposal, particularly because in Toronto last Thursday the Minister of Agriculture said in a speech:
So we really have a market problem, not only an interest rate roblem.
My concern is that if the Minister of Agriculture cannot convince himself of the devastation caused by interest rates, how can he ever convince the Minister of Finance, let alone the whole cabinet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I answered that very precise question last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT BANKS ISSUE LOANS AT LOWER INTEREST RATES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Interest rates have just reached a record high in Canadian history because the government's economic policy only aims at artificially supporting the value of the dollar. Those hardest hit, such as farmers and small businessmen, must borrow at rates of 20 per cent or higher. Because of this, many of them will be tempted to sell their assets or to declare bankruptcy.
Under the present circumstances, is the minister ready to ask the banks, which are now making windfall profits, to grant loans at lower rates to small businessmen and farmers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and myself have a meeting slated this week with representatives of the banks, to raise the relationship of banking practices with the plight of small business at the present time.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, it all sounds really so simple to the minister, but I submit to the House that the same policies he is practising led to 35 per cent inflation and unemployment in Jamaica at the time the Manley government was defeated in that country.


SMALL BUSINESS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In Quebec, these interest rates have a stranglehold on hundreds of farmers. A new economic policy must be developed if we are to avoid disaster. Once again, is the government finally willing to implement a special interest rates policy for small businessmen and farmers?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member will have heard the Minister of Finance state in reply to similar questions that he was discussing and had already discussed with the Minister of Agriculture certain of his suggestions concerning farmers. As for small and medium-sized businesses, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just indicated that, jointly with the minister responsible for small businesses, he would meet with banking officials this week.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During the weekend the minister made a speech to some of his fellow and sister Liberals in which he stated that it is now government policy not to initiate any new social development programs for the next three years. Apart from the fact that that is a cynical way of saying to the country, "Nothing now, but watch for the goodies just before an election in 1984", how does the minister square that statement with those made by some of his ministers who advocate improved child tax credit arrangements, help for low-income people in terms of housing, and so on? Why does the minister continue to reject assistance to people who need it, especially when in the Speech from the Throne at the start of this session the government indicated that it would remember those who need help?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member referred to the Speech from the Throne, because it was in that speech we committed ourselves to making a substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement which, on an annual basis, represents an increased expenditure of one half a billion dollars. I believe that was very substantial testimony to the interest of the government in carrying out its pledge of helping those who need help most, because we took action to help those who really needed assistance.
June 8, 1981

With respect to my comments on Friday night, I made the statement, which in the current circumstances is justified, that it was not the intention of the government to launch major new spending programs. I do not believe that statement is in any way contradictory to some of the allegations included in the hon. member's question.


DELAY IN INDEXATION PAYMENTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in that statement over the weekend the minister also said that although there would be no new social development programs those now in effect were to be kept at their value by regular indexation. The minister continues to tell us that these benefits are fully indexed. In view of the fact that indexation is always behind, and in view of the fact that those who will receive an increase in July will be getting what was made necessary by the increase in prices in April, and in view of the fact that those who need it most are needing it even more, will the government not do something about this issue on an emergency basis, even if it means overhauling the system of indexation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should draw to the attention of the hon. member that, in the very same speech, I talked about the funds which had been allocated by the government in the spending plan over the next several years, which provides for several billions of dollars of increased support in the social development envelope-not $1 billion but several billions of dollars-so that our expenditures, year by year, are not being decreased. They are not being kept stationary in the social development field, but they are increasing substantially. It seems to me that this is further evidence of the interest of the government in helping those who need help most.
With respect to the question of indexation, we have had a debate on that matter already during the question period. It is my view that there is not a substantial gain to be made by persons in the categories mentioned by the hon. member in adjusting the indexation factor because, in fact, these groups are fully protected against increases in the cost of living. I believe that studies will demonstrate this fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, that is a myth which no one but the Minister of Finance believes. People who are subject to indexation are always behind.


PENSIONS PAID TO WOMEN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not also realize that these additional dollars which will be put into social development programs make up a total that is a declining proportion of the total expenditures of the government? Is he not also aware of the fact that 61 per cent of the women of Canada who are on pensions are below the poverty line and in a state of degradation? In view of the
Oral Questions
government's protestations all the time that its ministers are interested in people, why do they not do something now, and not three years from now-just before an election-for the women of this country, especially those between the ages of 55 and 65?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think it is rather inappropriate for the hon. member to ask this government to do something three years down the road-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do it now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for those who require help, as if nothing has been done in the present session of Parliament. I remember during the last election campaign that it was the leader of this party who raised the question of increased support for recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. Up to that point it had not been mentioned by the leader of the Conservative party. It had not been mentioned up to that point by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It had not been mentioned in the campaign up to that point by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. But when the Prime Minister made a commitment, the Leader of the New Democratic Party chimed in several days later and, in usual fashion, increased the ante.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the bombing attack on Sunday by Israeli planes on an Iraqui nuclear power plant. Can the minister give us any further details with regard to this very serious matter which could have such an important bearing on peace and security in the Middle East? As well, has the minister conveyed the position of the Canadian government to this Israeli government that we do not in any way condone this act of aggression of one country against another, and that we view the matter with grave concern?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. member that we do not condone this attack, and, indeed, take the most serious view of it. At the moment we have only the bare bones of facts that the attack occurred. We are

June 8, 1981
Oral Questions
endeavouring to find out, from our embassy, all other relevant facts, in particular the question of whether there is a problem with nuclear radiation. If, as I believe, the motion by the hon. member for Edmonton South, which was approved under Standing Order 43 earlier, requests the government to convey our concern to the Israeli government, we will certainly follow those instructions of the House. Beyond that, we would like to have just a little more information before we take any action.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because of the difficulty there is in eliciting information of this nature during the necessarily limited question period, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake to make a statement on motions when more detail becomes available, so that we can have a much clearer picture of the state of affairs in the Middle East at this time?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to give consideration to at least some form of fuller information to the House and the country when further information is available.


PENITENTIARIES
Alexander Bell Patterson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Recommendation No. 1 of the report of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada states:
A crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary system. It can be met only by the immediate implementation of large-scale reforms. It is imperative that the Solicitor General act immediately on this report as a matter of the utmost urgency.
Why have the intent and recommendations of the subcommittee not been implemented in their entirety in view of the fact it was presented as a complete package and was submitted by a unanimous decision of the committee, chaired by the member from Windsor-Walkerville, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, it is true that not all of the measures recommended in that joint committee report have been implemented, but that is because former solicitors general, including those of the hon. member's own party, and myself, do not agree with all of the reforms. Those with which we do agree have been implemented. I think documented evidence of that has been presented to the justice committee from time to time, and has been accepted by the justice committee.
So far as there being a crisis in the prisons is concerned, the fact that no demands were made by inmates during any of the incidents which have happened in the last few days is some
evidence that they were not motivated by a lack of reform or by wanted or needed changes in any of the institutions.


REFERRAL OF SUBJECT OF RIOTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Alexander Bell Patterson: Recommendation 65 provided for a permanent reference during the rest of the Thirtieth Parliament, and for the Thirty-first Parliament to enable it to review the implementation of the report. As far as I can see, this was not followed. Will the Solicitor General proceed now to provide such a reference in this Parliament, including a study and report with reference to the incidents to which I have previously alluded? It would seem to me that the magnitude of the riots which have taken place would indicate that something more drastic must be done, and some greater reforms will have to be undertaken in order to bring the penitentiary system under control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have no present intention of recommending such a reference because I am not satisfied that the incidents which took place in the institutions have indicated any kind of fundamental weakness in the institutions. However, I would be glad to hear from the hon. member as to what sort of issues he feels could be considered by such a reference, before considering whether one should be recommended.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the profits of the chartered banks have gone up 210 per cent since 1970, and that their taxes have only gone up 14 per cent, can the minister explain to the House why he and his government have consistently rejected proposals which would close the loopholes and would bring the banks up to a level of taxation which would bear some relationship to their ability to pay, which would reduce the federal deficit by over $300 million in this year alone, which would allow the federal government to provide for the kinds of social programs that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre was speaking about today, and which would allow the government to give help to those Canadians who need it most when the government's interest rate policies are, as I say, driving most Canadians to the wall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer the question because I am not aware-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot answer that question because it is based upon a false premise.
June 8, 1981


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: How do you know, if you are
not aware?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To my knowledge, there has been no consistent rejection of proposals because no such proposals have come forward in the House of Commons or elsewhere. The hon. member has made some general comments about the necessity of taking action in this field, and I have listened to his comments, but at no time have we rejected any specific proposal. 1 have told the hon. member and the House that the matter is obviously of considerable interest to all hon. members of the House and to the government, and is presently under study and consideration.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister's lips are moving, but the words are not coming out. He cannot have been in the same House of Commons or in the same finance committee that I was in, and members of my party have been in, discussing the Bank Act and asking questions. I simply say to the minister that I take the trouble to read his speeches. I suggest that he take the trouble to read some of ours on this side, because we have made some very specific proposals.


REASONS FOR LOW TAX RATES
Bob Rae: My supplementary question has to do with advertisements which have been taken out by the Canadian chartered banks which have blessed us with them over the past week or two, telling us what a good job they are doing and how their profits are reasonable. I wonder if the minister would consider having the federal government take out some advertisements on our banking system, to tell Canadians exactly how much tax the chartered banks have been paying over the last ten years, why it is that their rates are so absurdly low, and how those rates of taxation compare to the rates of tax which are paid by the average Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member's suggestion probably merits consideration, but it has been our experience that when we have taken out advertisements to explain government policy and government approaches, it has been vigorously opposed by both parties, the official opposition and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the New Democratic Party as well. The hon. member is not really making very much of an impression on a Monday morning.


Some hon. Members:: Monday afternoon!
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO DEBATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. Today in The Globe and Mail the hon. member for Edmonton South, the foreign affairs critic for the official opposition, is quoted as criticizing the government for not making House time available for a debate on foreign affairs. Considering the work on the part of all parties in this House on the question of North-South, and in view of the July summit in Ottawa, would the House leader ask the two opposition parties to give up one of their allotted days so that the government could also allot one as well, and thus we could have a three-day foreign affairs debate before July in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this issue is admittedly most important. The government is therefore still willing to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member. However, if three days are too much for the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), the Progressive Conservative party might consider using one of its many allotted days this month to debate this very important issue of the North-South dialogue or international affairs in general instead of seeking a formula for poison pills or injections to assassinate criminals in Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The minister is well aware of the South Cayuga waste disposal site in southern Ontario, a site which was not recommended by the MacLaren report and which was not subject to an environmental study or environmental hearing. It just happened to be land owned by the province of Ontario, dangerously situated between Lake Erie and the Grand River. In reply to my request to the minister to involve the federal environment ministry in order to protect the waterways of Canada and the health of the people of Haldimand-Norfolk, I was informed that toxic waste disposal is a provincial matter and that the federal government would not involve itself, even in this situation of national waterways, contrary to its action in the Niagara River.
Now, Madam Speaker, we receive a news release stating that Environment Canada is co-operating-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put the question.

June 8, 1981
Oral Questions


T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has stated that the government will co-operate with the maritime provinces in setting up a waste disposal site there, how can he turn his back on the concerned people of Ontario?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is both misdirected and misinformed. He should be issuing his beseeching request to his provincial colleagues at Queen's Park who are responsible for the selection of the waste disposal site in southern Ontario.
We have made it clear to the government of Ontario, and to other provincial governments, that we are prepared to consider turning over Crown land if the provincial government felt that would be of some assistance to it in locating waste disposal sites. That kind of question has been discussed both with provincial governments in the west and with provincial governments in the Atlantic provinces. No such request has been received from the province of Ontario.
We are not ignoring the development of the Cayuga site, as the hon. member seems to imply by his question. We have observers at the hearings to try to ensure that if there is any potential damage to the international waterways and interprovincial waterways, we will be fully aware of it and will be able to take remedial action. So far there has been no indication that this is the case.


DISPOSAL OF TOXIC WASTES FROM THE UNITED STATES
T.A. Bud Bradley: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. If that is the case, the minister should be well aware that this site has not even been decided upon yet. It is not known where it will be located in South Cayuga, nor has it been stated what type of facility will be put in place.
I should like to quote briefly from "Environment Update" as follows, "The toxic chemicals problem is complex. We will need the co-operation of producers, users and governments to ensure the safety and well-being of our population and the environment, and to ensure that the public has the information on this subject to which they are entitled. I am personally determined that these objectives will be met." That was signed by the minister, "John Roberts", Madam Speaker. The minister is saying now that he will not co-operate with governments and will not ensure that the people get the information.
Has the minister received guarantees that toxic waste from the United States of America or other provinces which would make this a federal responsibility, will not be disposed of in South Cayuga? If so, will he table these guarantees and if not, how can he not involve the federal government in order to ensure the safety of its citizens as he promised in his statement?


John (Moody) Roberts: I cannot help but conclude, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member was so
intent upon asking his next question that he did not listen to my answer to his first question. I tried to make it clear to him that we are co-operating with provincial governments in the design of waste control management systems throughout the | country, but the responsibility for the location of those centres is in the hands of the provincial governments. We are co-operating with them in every area of the country, including Ontario. It is not our responsibility to select those sites. We are prepared to offer assistance and to try to find Crown land and make it available to them if that is convenient for them, but the location responsibilities are theirs.
I shall be happy to send on to the Conservative minister of Ontario the representations which the hon. member has made. At the present time, the border between the United States and Canada is closed to the transshipment of toxic waste. We are not happy with that situation. There are many occasions on which co-operation between the United States and Canada in the disposal and destruction of toxic waste would be beneficial to both sides. We are exploring that matter with the American government, at the behest of the provincial governments, I may add.
The assumptions that underlie the hon. member's question are far from the facts of the situation, and make it difficult to give the hon. member a helpful answer.


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO DEBATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A moment ago the hon. member for Davenport, in questioning the government House leader, talked about some combination of days given by the various political parties for a debate in the House on foreign affairs. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why the government does not exercise its responsibility and call a foreign affairs debate, bearing in mind that in the nine years I have been in the House there has only been one such government-sponsored debate. That was in 1977.
Of late the Prime Minister has journeyed around the world dealing with the North-South question, having discussions with world leaders. He has given no leadership to the Canadian Parliament or the people of Canada, however. The economic summit begins six weeks from today. It will be discussing the North-South question, and will be followed by two more summits within a short time. The Canadian people and members of Parliament have been given absolutely no direction by the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member might recall that I answered this question more than a month ago by suggesting, as I believe the hon. member for Davenport was suggesting, that since we all view this as a very important subject, each party should give up one of its days. The opposition parties have several days left before the end of June. The government has a limited number
June 8, 1981

of days left before the end of June in which to pass all the necessary legislation. If the hon. member's party is so earnest about wanting to debate this subject, I make a proposal now that we would take one government day if the NDP would take one NDP day-


Mr. Nystrom:: Agreed!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the Tory party would take one NDP day-


Mr. Nielsen:: Agreed!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -take one of its opposition days so that we could have a significant and worth-while debate. I suspect that the question asked by the hon. member should not be put to this side but to his own leader in this House.


QUERY RESPECTING DEBATE
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I am directing my questions to the Prime Minister because he is the Leader of the Government and has the responsibility to bring a government plan on foreign affairs and the North-South question into the House of Commons. I ask him now, specifically, if a debate on foreign affairs in the House of Commons is conditional upon the other parties giving up an opposition day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is not conditional. I just want to make it evident that the hon. member is not in a party which welcomes this debate; he is in a party which, he will recall, was led by a foreign minister who was indicating her interest in sharing more with the southern countries, at the very moment that the minister of finance of that government was saying that there would not be another penny for the Third World. They cannot get their act together, Madam Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is a false statement; absolutely false.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Until they do, I suggest it would be difficult to give the kind of leadership to the Canadian people that we on this side believe should be given.


Walter David Baker: You are stretching the truth as usual.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. When addressing the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance on May 26, 1981, the Governor of the Bank of Canada stated as follows: "I do not think it is realistic to suppose that an economy like ours will work well under
Oral Questions
conditions of rising inflation. Rising inflation", he said "is a recipe for stagnation, not for prosperity."
Since interest rates are still rising, our dollar is still falling, and failure to face up to the problem of inflation will compound our economic problems, has the minister considered requesting all ministers and deputy ministers to re-examine their departments' spending programs in the hope that cuts can be made which will help lower the deficit without hurting those who really need help?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I stated in the budget of last October that expenditure restraint is one of the key elements in the government's fiscal plan. As part of that fiscal plan we have undertaken not to increase the level of government expenditures more than the growth in the economy itself. That is a long-term effort to restrain expenditures, but obviously with respect to the current situation and in preparation for a forthcoming budget, the President of the Treasury Board and his officials, along with mine, will be examining all possibilities with respect to further restraint.


FISCAL POLICY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. As the minister is well aware, nothing stimulates inflation like indifference to it. History gives us many examples of countries that have tried to deal with 20 per cent, 100 per cent and even 1,000 per cent inflation. Eventually they have had to start on the long, hard road back.
Since in some cases of extreme inflation, democratic governments were the casualties in the process, at what stage in our present inflationary spiral will the government announce a new fiscal policy in order to lower this deficit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as was also indicated in the budget, we have projected a gradual decrease in the size of the deficit.
In my remarks over the weekend, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg referred-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Took exception.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I spoke at some length about the importance of reducing the deficit as part of an over-all effort to reduce inflation. The hon. member cited with some approval the comments in the Senate standing committee by the Governor of the Bank of Canada who is following an anti-inflationary monetary policy. 1 assume the hon. member is fully in support of that anti-inflationary monetary policy in the same way that the hon. member for St. John's West demonstrated in his interesting interview on the weekend, namely, full support.

June 8, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Concerning the Radio-Canada conflict which has been lasting for a good many months, I would like to know if there are ongoing negotiations between management and labour and, through the good offices of the mediator, does the minister expect an early end to the negotiations in the hope of reaching a negotiated agreement as soon as possible?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There is considerable and widespread concern about the three work stoppages involving the CBC or Radio-Canada at the present time. The work stoppage that involves the French language journalists has been under way since last fall. As recently as three days ago the Labour Canada mediator met again with the parties and has made substantial progress, even in the past two weeks. However, there remain outstanding differences. It is proving to be a very difficult strike in which to bring the two parties together.
The dispute involving NABET, or the technicians, the two groups, also continues. It has now been under way for a month and a half or two months. Our mediators are available to meet with the striking parties and have been doing so from time to time. With regard to either of these disputes, I am not able to offer the hon. member the hope of an immediate settlement. I can tell him that progress has been made. While they are difficult disputes, we are hopeful that the parties will continue to be more realistic and come to an agreement.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The mayor of Vancouver forecasts an increase in racism as a result of 50 per cent cutbacks in immigrant services. Inasmuch as the employment and immigration task force overwhelmingly points out the need for employment counselling, job placement, and educational services for immigrants, is the minister now prepared to restore funding for immigrant services and adaptation programs, and will he extend programs for immigrant women?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, about a month ago we did announce a number of new initiatives we are inclined to take to assist immigrant women in particular. We have decided to pursue an integrated language training
policy. My colleague, the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism, and I, are presently working on the details of that program. It will be of major assistance in giving immigrant women a chance in the workplace. As far as the ISAP program is concerned, the funding reverted back to its original level as it was established in 1979 before the major movement of refugees from southeast Asia. We are presently examining and discussing whether additional resources can be put into that program.


CERTIFICATES FOR DOMESTIC WORKERS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, we are pleased at some of the initiatives being taken on behalf of immigrant women, in particular that foreign domestic workers may become landed immigrants. Is the minister considering a requirement that domestics have a vocational certificate in order to remain in Canada? If so, would that not discriminate against Caribbean women in favour of British nannies?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I spent a good part of this morning meeting with a number of representatives of different organizations. They speak for domestic workers across Canada. They brought that problem to my attention. That certainly is not the intent of the new regulations. As the hon. member knows, we issued a series of new regulations applying to domestic workers to give more of them a chance to acquire landed status in Canada. I have taken note of their concerns. We are checking them out. I can assure the hon. member that is not the intent of the regulation, even though it may be applied in that way in some of our offices. If that is the case, we will change it.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. In an answer in this House on April 23, the minister confirmed he had met that day with both the president of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers and the president of the Canadian Organization of Small Business. In his response he said:
They simply asked that with them I look into the possibility of setting another time schedule and of finding other means of easing into conversion.
The minister has now had two months to examine that possibility with cabinet. Has he been successful in obtaining a new date to coincide more with the implementation of metric in the United States?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, after a meeting with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
June 8, 1981

Affairs, we decided to wait until the date of the publication of the new regulations in The Canada Gazette before studying the representations which might have been made to us during that period of time. The officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and of the Metric Commission have now undertaken that study and I have no intention at this time to propose any change to the date for implementing the metric system conversion of scales used in retail food outlets.


REQUEST THAT CONSULTATION BE EXPEDITED
William Henry (Bill) Domm: My supplementary question stems from knowledge of the fact that there is to be a meeting with the retail grocers this Wednesday. The Metric Commission, at great expense to the Canadian taxpayers, will be flying to St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 17 to determine whether the people of Newfoundland want metric on January 1 and Canadian measurement made illegal. Will the minister speed up the process so that these businesses can function within their budgets on January 1, and advise the major chain stores whether they have to purchase American metric weigh scales for January 1.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, there are several inaccuracies in the question and comments of the hon. member. First of all, I fail to understand why he should criticize the fact that officials of the Metric Commission travel to St. John's, Newfoundland. In my opinion, the established practice is that the members of the board of the Metric Commission hold hearings throughout Canada to give to all interested Canadians an opportunity to appear before the commission and make their representations. I believe he said that we ought to state clearly whether or not the conversion will take place. I think I did just that in my previous answer.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I have a short and direct question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why at Niagara College is one of the most basic programs, that of adult academic upgrading for people wanting to better themselves, being phased out, terminating the upgrading of some 230 students and either resulting in a discharge or transfer of some 16 college instructors?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I cannot reply to the specific question of the hon. member. I can indicate that the planning of the curriculum in each of the community colleges is done
Business of the House
jointly with the provincial governments which really have the basic responsibility for education under their jurisdiction. We have a manpower needs committee that works with each of the provinces and tries to plan the most appropriate courses to meet the demand where the most skills are required.
I would be glad to look into the specific case, but I can indicate to the hon. member that this is a decision that is really based upon where the demand and the need for training are the greatest, and where the allocations will do the most good.


REASON FOR DEPARTMENTAL DECISION
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the same minister. As the minister knows full well, the province of Ontario program is based on the number of seats purchased by Manpower, and the province only purchases some 20 per cent of those sponsored by Manpower. When Manpower cuts off its sponsorship and allocates funds to different programs, then there is a substantial reduction in the number of persons allowed to take part in the program. This has now resulted in a phasing out of the program at Niagara College. I would appreciate knowing why the minister is placing this kind of roadblock in the way of people who need this kind of basic training in order to find a way in life and find opportunities as a result of at least a grade 12 level of education.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. This is one of those cases where the federal government pays most of the bills and provincial governments take most of the credit. The fact of the matter is that we consult with provincial governments on the allocation of those funds. It is really a judgment made as a result of those consultations that determines the allocation, but it is the province of Ontario through its department of education that must make the real decision as to where the general bloc of funds we allocate to the province is directed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House which arises out of two exchanges during the question period. When the proposal was first made that the three parties might each contribute a day to a foreign affairs debate or, more specifically, to a North-South debate, we said we were willing to give a day toward that. As matters stand we have only one opposition day left in this month, which is next Tuesday, June 16, and we plan to put down a motion for that day on North-South. Even if the Conservatives will not join I invite the government to add a day so we can have at least a two-day debate on this important subject.

June 8, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Waddell


An hon. Member:: Let's have a response.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't we have an answer in Hansard?


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order involving Citation 712 appearing at page 220 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. In reference to second reading it states in part:
At this stage, debate is not strictly limited to the contents of a bill-
On Friday the Acting Speaker, (Mr. Ethier) was in the chair and he ruled during second reading of the elections bill we had to confine our remarks to the bill's contents. I suggest this is contrary to Beauchesne, contrary to our rules and I would appreciate your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: That point of order, if it was valid, should have been raised at the time this occurred. It is very difficult for the Chair to rule on a point of order when I personally was not in the chair. The matter should have been raised on Friday if the occurrence took place on Friday.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I endeavoured to raise it on Friday, but the Acting Speaker would not hear it.


Madam Speaker:: He probably had his reasons for not hearing it. Surely at the time the hon. member had other recourse by which he might have been heard by the Chair. The matter should have been settled on Friday, not today.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I do not want to continue the debate, Madam Speaker, but I do want to say that I endeavoured to raise it. I suggested that the ruling was wrong at the time but the Chair would not listen.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Those comments on rulings by the Chair should not be made, as the hon. member knows. The hon. member is now showing me Beauchesne. The interpretation is made by the Chair; that interpretation was made on Friday and we cannot come back to it.


MR. WADDELL-REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEETING
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, today is an opposition day dealing with energy and the speakers include both opposition critics in the energy area. At the same time the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works is meeting to consider the very important bill, C-48. It is obviously impossible for the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and myself to be in both places at the same time. I wonder if through you the minister, who is also in the House-and we want to hear him speak as well-would indicate whether this committee meeting could be
postponed. Apparently the government will not do that. If this were done we could at least complete three or four speeches in the debate in the House.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this event was brought to my attention early this morning. I did have consultations with my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), the parliamentary secretary to the minister, and I understand either the minister or the parliamentary secretary will be at the committee, that the steering committee scheduled these meetings and the opposition knew full well that these meetings were scheduled before the motion was put down on Friday for the opposition day. So really there should be no excuse for this kind of intervention at this particular point in time.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I listened to what the parliamentary secretary has just said and I should like to make one point very clear. He may not be aware of it, but I advised the parliamentary secretary and the chairman of the committee that we did have an opposition day and that two meetings on one day was totally unrealistic. I asked at that stage that the committee hold one meeting today. I said we would be prepared to have one meeting today, but not two in view of the fact that members would be required to attend both places.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you could prevail on members on the other side to bring some order into this issue. I should also let you know, and you are not aware of this, that the committee has asked for 12 meetings a week. We have many other responsibilities as members of Parliament, and that is also totally unrealistic. We have tried to impress upon the minister the desirability of moving this bill ahead in a measured way, but not in a way unrealistic to members of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member, I am sure, must realize that I am in no position to prevail upon the chairman or the members of that committee to reschedule meetings. This is entirely the responsibility of the chairman and the committee. These circumstances occur quite often, but the Chair is in no position to change the scheduling of committee meetings.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: On another point or order, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council to indicate to the House whether the government is preparing a debate on Bill C-48 before the session finishes, I gather around the beginning of July? Is it the minister's intention to have that bill back before the House? We have only considered ten clauses out of 80 in committee. Perhaps the minister might indicate to the House that instead it is the government's intention to deal with that bill in the fall.
June 8, 1981

[Translation)


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Committee on National Resources and Public Works is to sit twice today. Perhaps we will be in a better position next Thursday to answer more specifically the question raised by the member. However, may I remind him that the bill has been before the said committee for over four months. Under the circumstances, I find it is difficult, in the light of what happened during the past four months, knowing that some intensive proceedings are now taking place in committee which by the way will be sitting twice today, to answer the member more specifically at this time. Perhaps on Thursday, when the usual questions are asked about the business of the House, I will be in a position to give a more detailed answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,418, 1,711, 2,323, 2,360 and 2,377.


Mr. Blenkarn: Has the government made any loans to Tanzania and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what are the repayment terms (c) has Tanzania defaulted on any payments?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a)	$ 7,251,681	$ 286,482
31,383,904	1,954,501
424,375	2,000,000
1,041,133	4,798,058
1,322,673	14,609,364


[Stage Direction]
(b)	The terms of all loans were made at 0 per cent interest, ten years grace and 50 years maturity.
(c)	All loans were forgiven.

Mr. Stewart: 1.	For each year 1975 to 1979, how many employment competitions were announced or publicized in the public service?
2.	How many competitions were (a) universally open to the public (b) open only to public servants employed in the public service?
Order Paper Questions
3.	How many (a) positions were successfully filled after boards were convened (b) applicants were found to be unqualified (c) competitions were opened to the general public when a suitable candidate was not found internally in the closed competitions?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	The Public Service Commission does not maintain records on the number of employment competitions that are announced or publicized in the public service. However, the Public Service Commission does maintain, and publishes, the number of appointments from inside and to the public service in its annual reports.
There are a number of reasons why the commission does not have records on the number of competitions. First, the commission's primary responsibility is related to appointments and its information systems are oriented to reporting on this area. Second, one competitive process can result in no appointment being made if no candidate is found qualified in a given area of competition or a number of appointments can result from one competition process. Consequently there is not a direct relationship between the number of employment competitions and the number of appointments. Third, processes other than competitions-applicant inventories, in-service inventories, and without competition processes-are often used to make appointments to and within the public service. Finally, because of the extensive delegation of appointment authority to deputy heads, a listing of employment competitions would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the personnel records of both the headquarters and the regional offices of every department and agency. The cost in manpower and time to carry out such a task would be prohibitive.
2.	(a) The number of appointments from outside of the
public service for the years 1975 to 1979 are as follows:
1975	36,251
1976	29,730
1977	22,437
1978	19,225
1979	15,293
(b) The number of appointments from within the public service by competition for the years 1975 to 1979 are as follows:
1975 Figures are not available since they were not broken down by process, but there were 90,920 appointments from within the public service by all processes.
1976	40,780
1977	43,396
1978	46,431
1979	42,954
3. Because of the reasons outlined in the response to question 1, these figures are not available.

June 8, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past Five years, by province (a) what amount was granted by the Department of the Secretary of State to assist English newspapers in Quebec and French newspapers in the other provinces and territories?


Peter A. Stollery: Official Language Minority Groups Assistance to the Official Language Minority Press Fiscal years 1976-77 to 1980-81
(a) Amounts granted to associations representing the official language minority press for administration, coordination and training:
	Outside Quebec	In Quebec
Fiscal year	Association de la presse	Association des media
	francophone hors Quebec	regionaux anglophones du Quebec
	(founded in 1976)	(founded in 1978)
1976-1977	$ 23,900	
1977-1978	30,000	$ 4,805*1978-1979	52,508	8,790*1979-1980	87,100	35,3051980-1981	187,000	40,335
* To McDonald College for research into the official language minority press in Quebec
(1977-1978: $4,805; 1978-1979: $6,790).
(b) Amounts granted to official language minority newspapers through non-profit organizations for advertising and technical assistance:
Provinces	1976-1977	1977-1978	Fiscal Year 1978-1979	1979-1980	1980-1981Newfoundland Prince Edward Island	$ 5,000 15,330	$ 13,676	$ 13,400	$ 11,754Nova Scotia	15,330	13,676	13,400	11,094New Brunswick	$25,000	46,000	179,704	111,800	148,716Quebec	4,805	6,000	99,450	69,840Ontario	107,350	95,732	110,100	96,400Manitoba	15,330	13,676	13,400	11,754Saskatchewan	15,000	13,676	13,400	11,754Alberta	15,330	13,676	6,600	11,754British Columbia	15,330	13,676	13,400	11,754


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all lawyers and/or legal firms receiving or who have received payment from the government for legal work within the constituency of Leeds-Grenville since the government took office following the 1980 general election and, in each case, what was the amount?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Names	Amount
Anderson, C. D. (Brockville)	$ 5,280.50
Barr, R. A. (Brockville)	$10,316.60
Childs, Philip (Kemptville)	$ 1,404.93
Fraser, Duncan F. (Brockville)	$ 545.04
Hart, Hugh R. (Brockville)	$ 571.64
Laushway, Barry (Prescott)	$ 3,387.75
O'Shaughnessy, Michael J. (Brockville)	$ 217.10
Tobin, Richard M. (Prescott)	$ 3,288.52
Warren, Edward (Kemptville)	$ 210.00


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware of theories advanced by certain doctors, particularly in the United States, that the mineral selenium has shown evidence of (a) preventing heart attacks (b) building up body immunity to a number of forms of cancer?
2.	Has the department knowledge as to whether or not there is validity to the theories that the mineral has such effects if given in dosages of 50 to 200 micrograms daily and what research was carried out in Canada?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) Yes.
2.	Minimum daily requirement for Canadians has not been definitely established because selenium deficiency in humans is virtually nonexistent in this country, except in extreme pathological states or very bizarre diets. Almost any balanced Canadian diet would provide selenium in the range of 50 to 200 micrograms daily. Research in Canada has mainly been done in animals which have a higher selenium requirement and can develop deficiencies. Epidemiological studies have been done, attempting to correlate varying levels of selenium in foods and water supplies in different parts of the country with disease states of the local residents, with little success.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, for the fourth time I want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,852, which was placed on the order paper by me six months ago as of tomorrow. That was on December 9, 1980. It is a very simple question which I have brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary on three previous occasions. On each occasion I have received the assurance from the government that every conceivable action would be taken to get a speedy response.
In view of the fact that this question deals now with the former chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, whose term in office has expired while I have been waiting for the government's answer, and in view of the fact that he is no longer in the government's employ, the government should have no cause for any further delay. Why has the parliamentary secretary been incapable of getting the Secretary of State to supply an answer to what is a very simple question?
June 8, 1981


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, every time someone in the House asks me to follow up on a question, I do try to get the answer. There are many reasons for delays. Sometimes the answers required entail a lot of work and expense.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Not in this case.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps certain questions are not priority questions to the particular departments concerned. However, I will look into this matter again and try to get an answer for the hon. member.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That this House condemns the government for again unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consumers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to adjust.
She said: Madam Speaker, last Wednesday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) moved the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to allow an emergency debate on the unprecedented price increase and tax increase on petroleum products. Those increases had been introduced the previous day by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). In denying that motion Madam Speaker indicated that she felt this matter would be the subject of debate on an allotted day in the very near future. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, she certainly guessed right.
Because of our deep concern about these steep price and tax increases and because we know they are creating very real difficulties for a great number of Canadians, we in the official opposition are using the first possible opportunity-our first allotted day since Madam Speaker made her ruling-to raise this issue for public debate. Of course, this is what the government should have done because, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) knows, and as his alter ego, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, knows, these price increases are in fact tax hikes and should be introduced for debate by the government as is regularly done with taxation measures.
Instead, rather than for once facing up to his responsibilities honestly, the Minister of Finance continues to duck, bob, weave and evade both the implementation and the conse-
Energy
quences of his tax hikes. He has become the yo-yo at the end of the Lalonde string. The minister might think it is smart to bob up and down and ignore the financial and personal hardship his measures are creating, but meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Canadians are daily becoming more deeply mired in the slough of despond which his measures are creating for them. They are stuck; they do not have the latitude to indulge in fancy footwork and to sidestep issues as the minister does. They can only suffer and wonder what new blow he will aim at them in their already vulnerable position.
I have just arrived back in the House of Commons from another weekend in my constituency. My weekend was spent talking to people, not to politicians or pundits. I spoke with people who are staggering under the burden of record high interest rates, rampant inflation and crushing energy costs. When my telephone in Kingston rings or when I walk down the streets, I know I will hear another tale of hardship, struggle and, yes, even of ruin. People say to me: "What in the name of heaven is going on up there in Ottawa? Don't they have any idea of what they are doing to us?" Farmers, businessmen, home owners and consumers are fighting just to keep their heads above water. The situation is depressing for them and for those of us who are trying to do something to relieve the situation.
Do hon. members know what was the worst part of this past few days of speaking to these people? It was in knowing that we would return to the House of Commons on Monday and that I and my colleagues would have to face the frustration of talking to a brick wall, for the Minister of Finance listens to the problems of Canadians and reacts to the financial plight of people with the same interest and the same compassion as would a brick wall. I simply do not know what kind or degree of hardship it will take to snap the Minister of Finance out of his lethargy or to keep his eyes open to what the government's policies are doing to Canadians. If only the Minister of Finance would go out across the country and look for himself, rather than cooping himself up for the weekend at a Grit policy conference with a bunch of yes-men and yes-women who are only too willing to tell him he is doing a great job, and if only he would go back to his own riding and ask a few of his constituents how they are doing, how they are making ends meet and what kinds of problems they are facing, then maybe the minister would realize that Canadians are not happy with the government's economic and energy policies and that they are certainly not happy with the minister's cold and uncaring attitude.
The Minister of Finance has been in Ottawa too long and he has been at the trough too long to muster any compassion for the suffering of others. He no longer seems to care. He does not even acknowledge that a problem exists. As he said to me and the House on May 25, as recorded at page 9858 of Hansard:
-the increase in the number of bankruptcies compared to the very large number of Ontario farmers is not very great.
That is what he said. I am sure Canadian farmers do not see the situation through the same rose-coloured glasses as the

June 8, 1981
Energy
minister. They certainly acknowledge the problem. They have to live with it. They have no other choice. I wonder what kind of blow it will take to shake the minister and his colleagues out of their complacency. The blow Canadians suffered last week certainly shook them out of any illusion they might have had that the Liberal government cared about their predicament. It was a blow which hit every Canadian and one Canadians could ill afford to absorb, in light of all the other economic burdens this government has forced on them.
I refer, of course, to the increased energy costs which were sprung on us last week by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has, I am sure, been taking lessons from his colleague, the Minister of Finance, on the cavalier use and abuse of the hard earned incomes of Canadians. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is intent on punishing the Canadian people for his inability and his unwillingness to reach an oil pricing agreement with the producing provinces.
Last Tuesday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced another increase in the price of oil. Canadian consumers will have to shell out nine cents more per gallon for their gas and 8.19 cents more for their heating oil. This was just the latest instalment in a string of increases the Liberal government has implemented since coming to power last year and, by the minister's own admission, this is by no means the last increase.
I have no doubt that the minister will keep that promise, unlike the major promise he and his colleagues made during the election and subsequently broke. That election promise, made over and over again, can best be summed up in two headlines which depict the before and after syndrome of the Liberal party, headlines that say: We will give you this before the election; we will give you that after the election. One headline, sir, is dated January 23 from The Scotia Sun and says:
Vote Liberal, and the price will stay down!
The other one is in the Toronto Star dated June 5, 1981, and says:
Oil price: It's going to keep climbing-MacEachen.
That is what they said. The first one is what the Minister of Finance said before the election, and the second one was said after the election. That tells the story, sir, the story of deceit, hypocrisy and sham. A two-faced approach.
I know, of course, what the minister and his colleagues probably want to say at this point. They will say: Oh, well, you were going to increase the price of oil, do not forget it.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well, we have not forgotten. The hon. member and the NDP are right. They, of course, voted along with the Liberals to do away with the kind of proposals we were making. We were going to increase the price of oil but with two major differences, something which the members of the NDP should remember. The first difference, one that goes
to the heart of our democratic system, is that we believe that if we are to have a free government, freely elected, then political parties have a responsibility to the electorate to deal with them openly and honestly. Political parties should not see election campaigns as a time to cheat, manipulate and lie. To do so is to make a mockery of the very meaning of democracy itself. Indeed, to do so is to erode and abuse the trust that must be there between people and their government, a trust which is fundamental to our political system.
The Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, has abused the trust of the voters time and again by saying one thing and doing another, but never so blatantly and dishonestly as with the issue of energy costs. The Progressive Conservative party told the people straightforwardly that there would be higher oil and gas prices in the future. We played fairly. We said the international oil market is unstable, we need more money for exploration and development and we have to organize ourselves now in order to be self-sufficient and secure in the future. However, while we were saying that, Liberal candidates all across the country were saying that they would not raise oil prices, that there was no need for it, even though they knew all along there was no truth to that. Of course, they won votes on it and there are some who would call that kind of campaigning smart politics. Well, sir, I call it just smarmy electioneering. It is that kind of posturing that turns Canadian voters into cynics.
The Minister of Finance obviously finds it easy to live with a lie. It does not seem to bother him that his credibility is shattered. After all, he has his motley crew of backbenchers to cheer him on, these backbenchers who seem no more concerned about high inflation, high interest rates and high energy costs than does the minister. You never hear a word of protest out of them.
The second difference between our proposed energy increases and those that were "unproposed" but nonetheless implemented by the Liberal government is that we did not forget or ignore those Canadians who would be hardest hit by high energy costs. We realized, sir, that many consumers needed time and help in absorbing what inevitably would be higher costs. For one thing, our excise tax was on transportation fuels only, not on home heating fuels as were the government's tax measures of last week. Not everyone drives a car, and as you move down the income scale or into the higher age brackets, you find fewer and fewer people who can afford to own their own means of transportation. They can, however, even then look to other options. However, everyone has to contend with the cold of a Canadian winter; everyone has to have heat. Unlike a car, heating a home is not an option, it is a necessity.
We knew that the inevitable higher heating costs would impose severe financial difficulties on many Canadians, and we tried to alleviate that by exempting home heating fuels from the excise tax. That, we felt, would be one means of easing the burden for the consumer. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), like the Minister of Finance, does not seem to understand, or perhaps he does not care, what these higher
June 8, 1981

energy costs mean to people. Last week he flippantly remarked, as is his wont, of course, the following:
It seems people are prepared to pay these higher prices ... You still find some people roaring around in fast cars.
That is what he said and it seems to be the extent of his analysis of the situation. Well, if he thinks that a 63-year-old woman on a spouse's allowance of $369 a month is roaring around in a fast car and thumbing her nose at high energy prices, then he is more misguided than I believed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Who drives a fast car around here?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is the Prime Minister who drives a fast car. But it is the woman who has to exist on a spouse's allowance who is concerned about how she is going to pay her fuel bills. She has had to absorb an increase of $244 for heating oil since the Prime Minister took office some 15 months ago. Add to that the general cost of living increases that we have seen soar to new heights and you just have to know that this woman is in trouble. She is but one of the many Canadians who would have been eligible for the second measure by which the Conservative party sought to cushion the impact of higher energy costs. She would have been able to claim the energy tax credit we proposed which would have eased her burden by up to $220 a year. But no, instead she and thousands of other Canadians like her are being left to sink or swim under the Liberal's punitive energy program.
The energy tax credit, sir, was not the only means we had devised to aid Canadian consumers through the difficult transition to self-sufficiency. We took stock of those regions of the country that would be hardest hit, particularly in the Atlantic area. Much of the electricity in the maritime provinces is generated through burning oil. Consequently, higher oil prices would affect that region to a much greater extent than anywhere else in the country. If you look at electricity bills in various parts of the country to compare the cost of home heating fuels, Mr. Speaker, you find that the average residential electricity bill in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, including heat, in 1980 was $296.33 a month. In Cape Breton, where the Minister of Finance comes from, it was $221.35 a month. Now, in Montreal that same bill would be $127.40 a month, in Ottawa, $128.39 a month, and in Calgary $119.16 a month. So those living in Atlantic Canada have to pay much higher costs for home heating fuel than those elsewhere in the country.
Recognizing the discrepancy, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) stated the following in his budget of 1979:
We will be mounting a major effort to ease the burden of adjustment to higher prices in the Atlantic region. We will provide grants to compensate for the additional costs of electricity generation resulting from oil increases in excess of $2 per barrel per year.
One can find no such grant in the MacEachen budget, although the per barrel oil increases for 1981 have already exceeded the $2 limit. Indeed, one can find nothing in the
Energy
budget or since to help consumers, except for an ill-fated conversion grant which has taken far too long to put into operation. Even then, there seems to be so many snags and loopholes that it may well cost the consumer even more than he saves.
What about all those people who do not live near the natural gas mains or electrical generators and must rely on only one energy source, oil? Because of the vastness of our country, many communities find themselves in relative isolation when it comes to utility conversion. These people have no relief, no substitute, no choice but to pay the ever increasing oil prices. Even then, the price to consumers would not have to be so high if the government were not determined to make a profit out of these recent tax hikes on petroleum products. This is what the government is out to do-to make a profit.
Let me explain what I mean. In March of this year the government paid out a total of $148 million to refineries and importers of offshore oil, but it collected revenues in various taxes and charges on sales of oil and gas to the Canadian consumer totalling $337 million. In other words, the government made a profit of $189 million in that month off Canadian taxpayers. "That is only one month", the minister has told us; "That is only one month", he blusters. The trend is for a higher take by the federal government, if we look back over the several months preceding it, over and above what it needs for compensation payments on imported oil.
If we look at the first few months at the beginning of this year, we find that in January the government had a deficit in its compensation account of $124 million; in February it had a surplus of $67 million; in March it had a surplus of $189 million. Those surpluses are going to reduce the government's huge deficit. Of course, it is not admitted; it is all done on the sly.
On June 30, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) said:
The government is indulging in price gouging. It has claimed that the money from these new taxes is to be used to pay for the cost of subsidizing imported oil, but their own figures show that the petroleum compensation charge and the "special Lalonde levy" are already collecting much more money than is needed. In the first month of this fiscal year, the government collected $189 million more than needed.
Then the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre went on to ask:
Why doesn't the government admit that they need the money to reduce the deficit and introduce the taxes in the proper manner?
The government can take by illicit means, but it will not even consider giving by fair means. I know the Minister of Finance said that he cannot afford an energy tax credit, given the current deficit. Of course, he can afford $1.5 billion to buy Petrofina and to send that amount of hard-earned taxpayers' money out of the country. He can afford $60 million in government advertising to try to brainwash Canadians on what a great job the government is doing. But he cannot afford to provide any relief for those who must heat their homes and run their electrical appliances, even though he is making $189 million on his energy tax hikes.

June 8, 1981
Energy
In my own riding the double whammy of high interest rates and high energy costs is forcing small businesses into bankruptcy. These people are the backbone of our economy- diligent and hardworking. They do not deserve the kind of treatment they are being accorded by the government. Let me refer to one firm which has half its business with the federal government in contracts. It has a number of five-year contracts for trucking mail throughout Ontario and Quebec. These contracts are signed on the basis of a per mile cost of haulage. The basic rate is revised only at two-year intervals. There has not been a revision for over a year, a year which has seen the price of gasoline soar. In July of last year the company's monthly bill for gasoline came to $24,700. But in May of this year, driving the same number of miles at the same basic rate of payment, its monthly bill for gasoline came to $73,000, and the June increase of 9 cents per gallon has not yet been calculated. That firm is going into debt to the tune of almost $50,000 per month on gasoline alone. This is because of the government's inept way of handling oil price increases. The company's financial difficulties are directly attributable to the government.
1 should like to refer to another case, for example a person who owns a small business such as a hardware store. He has a family and owns a home. Such individuals can be found all across Canada. In the past year he has seen his grocery bill rise over 15 per cent. His mortgage rate five years ago was 9 per cent and now he must renew it at 18 per cent. On a $30,000 mortgage, this is almost $200 more per month. On top of those items, he has seen his gasoline charges rise by $158 and his home heating costs by $178. If he has a loan on his business, as do many small businessmen, he is paying over 20 per cent interest. In order to pay off the loan, he might have to let his staff go and work the store himself. He tries to conserve energy, but still the bills come in and every month they seem to get larger. He is at the end of his tether; he cannot make ends meet. He turns on the news at night and what does he hear the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance telling him? They are telling him, as the Prime Minister said the other day:
-we say that Canadians are 50 per cent better off, on average, in 1980 than they were in 1970.
That is what he turns on the television to hear. Perhaps we can find that somewhere on paper, although I rather doubt it; but in the real world it is just not so. People are having a hard time, but no one on the other side of the House wants to admit it. They want to hide behind statistics and sit tight. My constituents are not statistics; they are angry, as I am angry and the whole of Canada is becoming angry. We want something done now.
The Canadian people are not stupid. They know what is going on, even if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources do not want to tell them. They can see that the oil and gas increases with which they are being hit are due in large measure to the government's bungling. They know that if the National Energy Program and the
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had been a little more sensitive to Canadian reality, we could have had an agreement with the producing provinces long before this. But no, the minister was content to drift along in an oil price vacuum, which makes us ever more dependent on offshore oil-more dependent now than we were a year and a half ago. We are sending millions of additional dollars out of Canada to pay for OPEC and Mexican oil, money which should be spent at home on development and exploration of Canadian oil and natural gas.
The minister's battle with Alberta has resulted in investors refusing to place their capital in this country. Indeed, the capital which we have is leaving. We have taken a giant step backward in our drive toward self-sufficiency, and the consumers are having to pay for it. The consumer is having to pay directly at the gas pump and through his home heating fuel bills for the failure of government policies. As well, he is paying through higher costs, higher interest rates and a higher cost of living because of the depressed value of and lack of confidence in the Canadian dollar-a situation which stems directly from the lack of an energy agreement.
Some 18 months ago the Conservative government spelled out the increases which would be necessary to bring us to self-sufficiency. In doing so we were able to reach an agreement in principle with the producing provinces. As well, we had devised a program which would protect consumers hardest hit by the energy increases and the rise in prices. By contrast, the Liberal government has levied unscheduled and erratic increases which now amount to 55 cents a gallon for gasoline and over 40 cents a gallon for heating oil. There is no energy agreement with the producing provinces and there are no programs to shield the consumer.
In considering the motion before us today, will the government not abandon its policy of taking from the taxpayer more revenue than it needs to balance its compensation fund, while at the same time refusing to help those who are hardest hit? Just let the government introduce an energy tax credit to help fixed and lower income earners in this country; then they will see how quickly that measure would receive parliamentary approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to debate once again the question of energy. It seems to be almost a weekly event these days, one we on this side of the House certainly do not shy away from, even if it is the opposition that decides to spend one of its opposition days on this subject.
I have listened with great interest to the points raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I would like to make a number of comments on the points raised by her. She mentioned that last week we introduced a ways and means motion to, in part, collect the funds required to pay for the cutbacks imposed by the government of Alberta and, in part, to ensure that the cost of imports would not be larger on the taxpayers of Canada than had been planned in
June 8, 1981

the budget. This is the way these matters are taken care of, which is a very normal way.
At the time the Chair ruled that the way the government had proceeded was in order. Far from preventing debate, such a measure will, in due time, take the form of specific legislation, which I am sure will give rise to a lengthy debate in this House. Thus, I think the hon. member was talking in the wrong way when she was complaining about the ways and means motion.
The hon. member talked about her visit to her riding over the weekend. She said she listened to her constituents there. I certainly wish that she had visited her constituents more in November and December of 1979. I think her constituents would have given her good advice concerning the proposed budget which the Conservative government was bringing in at that time. Since she has made a number of comments about colleagues of mine who are not in the House today, I might tell the hon. member while she is here that, indeed, she might have better spent her time in her riding listening to her constituents at that time rather than travelling in Europe. I would have thought that if her party's budget was that great she would have been in the House to vote for it rather than being stranded in Europe, as she was at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Dirty blow!


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, there are Canadians who are concerned with the high price of energy, and justly so. They are suffering from higher prices. It is important that the situation be put in perspective and that Canadian citizens have the true story about the situation.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands could have told a great many things to her constituents over the weekend, but obviously she did not. I can suggest a few things which she could have said to her electors. The first thing she could have told them is that, in spite of the latest increases, Canadian consumers are much better off under the Liberal government regime and the National Energy Program than they would have been under the Conservative budget, if it had been approved.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No one would have believed it.


Marc Lalonde: She could have even demonstrated that fact with figures. For instance, she could have said that a family of four has saved about $370 on gasoline and heating oil since the election, compared with what they would have spent under the Conservative budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Table the figures.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give hon. members all the figures. It will be very easy. Last week we made preliminary calculations and I indicated to the House that savings to the consumer had been $1.9 billion. In effect, those figures, including the latest increases, represent a $2.2
Energy
billion saving to the Canadian consumer since December, 1979.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: For a family of four this represents a saving of $370. The hon. member could have mentioned that to the good voters of her riding.
She could have demonstrated this all the more if she had used the figures from the Conservative budget, since she has made some reference to the 18-cent tax. There was a great deal more in that budget than that 18-cent tax. I remind the hon. member that on December 12 that 18-cent tax represented a $6.35 increase per barrel. Then on January 1, 1980, there would have been a $1 increase. On July 1 there would have been a $2 increase. On October 1, there would have been another $1 increase. On January 1, 1981, there was to be a $2.25 increase. To these figures must be added the amount of the Syncrude levy, the petroleum compensation charge, which on April 1, 1980, would have been 15 cents. On June 12 it would have been 75 cents and in January and June of 1981 it would have been a $2.15 increase per barrel under the Conservative budget. The hon. member could have told the voters in her riding: "Even with the latest increases it is still cheaper to buy gasoline under the Liberal arrangement than it would have been under the Conservative budget". It is cheaper by a significant amount, when you take into account the Alberta cutbacks which have added to the price we have had to charge the consumer. In effect, even as it stands at the present time, the difference between the Conservative regime and our arrangement is around 2.4 cents a litre. If one multiplies by 4.5, it gives an idea of what the cost would have been under the Conservative regime at the present time.


Walter David Baker: No self-respecting person will accept that.


Marc Lalonde: Therefore, gasoline is cheaper at the present time than it would have been under the Conservatives.
The hon. member could have used not only the actual figures in the Conservative budget, but she could have also used some headlines. She referred to headlines. I will go further than headlines. I will go to actual statements. These statements were the ones made by the Conservative minister of finance during the election campaign. She talked about it during the election campaign, and this is a statement which was made on January 15 in an exclusive interview in the Montreal Gazette. This is what the minister of finance at the time had to say after the budget increase:
A re-elected Conservative government might have to push Alberta oil prices even higher than previously planned, because world oil prices are rising faster than expected, says Finance Minister John Crosbie.
Here is the quote:
"I believe after the election a new budget certainly will have to take account of the fact that energy prices have moved worse even than we had thought when we were getting the budget ready in November and late December" ... "This certainly will have to be assessed as to whether there have to be any revenue

June 8, 1981
Energy
changes or what would happen to the deficit. We certainly do not want to see a deficit greater than the one that is forecast."
That was said by the then minister of finance. One sees the headline in the Toronto Star, "Crosbie sees even higher gas prices". One sees in the Citizen, "Crosbie warns of higher oil costs". One sees in The Gazette, "Tories see worse gas hike". That was January, 1980. This is the type of thing that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands could have said to her electorate during the weekend. She could have said, "You are very lucky that the Conservatives could not go ahead with their budget and that they were defeated because, indeed, the situation would have been very much worse as far as the consumer is concerned".


An hon. Member:: Shame, Marc! You are going to have to go to confession.


An hon. Member:: They don't like it, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: Another thing that the hon. member could have said to her voters is this. Indeed, she referred to the punishment of consumers. I think in all honesty she should have said to her voters that the major part of that so-called punishment arises from what many have called the Lougheed levy resulting from the cutbacks which have been imposed by the government of Alberta. These cutbacks were 60,000 barrels in April and another 60,000 barrels in June, for a total of 120,000 barrels a day. This is the type of cutbacks we have had.
I have indicated that if the government of Alberta were to decide today to eliminate those cutbacks, which are completely unnecessary, counterproductive, are not at all required in the circumstances and are really a regrettable step taken by a provincial government, tomorrow morning we could reduce the price of gasoline by seven and a quarter cents per gallon. That is the type of thing which could be done had we not had the decision taken by the Alberta government. That is another thing she could have said to her voters.
The hon. member could also have gone on to say, "Look at the Liberal commitment during the election and you will see that the Liberals have respected their commitments to the letter, and they have indicated that they will respect their commitments."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: In that election there were two basic commitments. There were a number of other commitments which we have already fulfilled, in the area of conservation, with regard to Petro-Canada-which the Conservatives were going to destroy-with regard to setting up a corporation for the conservation of energy and with regard to helping consumers convert to other forms of energy and oil. All these commitments have been respected, and these are already in place.
In addition, we said to the Canadian consumer in 1980, "We will not have an 18-cent excise tax and the price at the wellhead will be lower than it would have been under the Conservatives." What did we do? There was no 18-cent tax in
1980, and the price of oil went up by $3.80 rather than $4, as had been foreseen by the Conservative government, at the wellhead. This is what happened in 1980, and this is where a good part of the $2.2 billion savings to the consumers comes from.
Then the hon. member could also have said that the Liberals made a second commitment. The Liberals said, "Not only will Canadians have a lower price in 1980 than has been foreseen by the Conservative budget"-and specified that the 18-cent tax would not be there-but they also said, "Over four years the National Energy Program will produce a price to the consumer which will be lower than the one which had been foreseen by the Conservative budget". This is, again, a commitment. She could have said that the Liberals have kept it up until now, and they will keep it during this current mandate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Again, does one remember that the Conservatives said in their budget that oil would cost 75 per cent of world price at the wellhead, and then 85 per cent of the world price at the wellhead in 1983 and 1984? Under the Liberal program, the National Energy Program, it is projected that the price at the wellhead will be about $40 in July, 1983, and $44 in July, 1984. What would the price be under the Conservative budget? The price would be a minimum of $43.50 in July, 1983, and up to a maximum, depending on what happens to world price, of $58.25. In 1984, while our price would be about $44, theirs would be between $55 and $70. That is what the Conservatives had proposed for this country, and that is what this country rejected during the last election; and this was where we said what the Canadian consumer could expect.
There will not be lower prices. Prices will have to increase; but they will increase on a gradual and predictable basis in order to allow the consumer to adapt better to the changes which are taking place. Therefore, even today, as I indicated, the price of gasoline in this country is cheaper than it would have been under the Conservative budget. I do not have to refer Your Honour to the example of other countries, whether it is the United States or Europe, where the difference between the Canadian price and their price is huge.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who has disappeared-


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Well, the hon. member has disappeared.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I want to make it clear to the minister that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was temporarily summoned from the chamber. That happens from time to time to the minister during debates. She will be back shortly.


Marc Lalonde: I am glad to hear that. I am glad to hear the leader of the House on the Conservative side reassure us in that respect. I listened to her. It was a great pleasure, but I
June 8, 1981

was rather sorry to see how someone could be so misguided and so misinformed about the situation and about the facts.
Again, what could the hon. member have said? She could have said that the Conservative proposal was hurting the consumer a lot more. She could have said that a good part of the increases which have taken place result from the Alberta government production cutbacks. She could have said the Liberals have kept their commitments during the election. She could also have said that, in addition, the Liberal government has brought in measures to protect the consumer. She forgot to mention these.
For instance, the people who live in Kingston have choices and can switch to heating fuels other than oil. The government is providing up to $800 per family to facilitate this conversion to products other than oil, whether they be electricity, natural gas, wood, propane, solar energy, wind energy or other forms of renewable energy that they might prefer. That grant is available to all those who want to abandon oil for heating purposes and switch to other forms of energy. As a matter of fact, the government has allocated well over $1 billion for this particular program so that Canadian consumers can be helped to adjust to other forms of energy that will be cheaper than oil.
We have also taken other measures. The hon. member referred to the maritimes. We have allocated up to $500 million to help in the construction of a gas pipeline to the maritimes and one to Vancouver Island in order to ensure that the people of the maritimes in particular will have access to natural gas in the same way as the other major regions of the country have at the present time. That money will ensure that the people of the maritimes will be able to count on a natural gas supply coming to them at a price that will not only be competitive with other forms of energy but will be the same, basically, as the price in Toronto. Through that policy we will help the people in the maritimes and eastern Quebec get a fair deal as a result of the National Energy Program.
Mliss MacDonald: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is back; I noticed her return to the House.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and other members of this House could have mentioned to their constituents.
In fact, the National Energy Program proposed and announced when the last budget was brought down protects the consumer much more adequately and even generously than did the Progressive Conservative budget that was defeated in 1979. Mr. Speaker, because of the price increases we have had to impose as a result of the cut of 120,000 barrels a day made by one provincial government in the production available to Canadians, a shortfall that has to be made up with foreign
Energy
imports at a very high cost, we have had to add about 7Vi cents per gallon, that because the Alberta government decided to reduce production needlessly, doing considerable harm to Canada as a whole in the process. Despite those increases, the current price of gas is still lower than it would have been under the Progressive Conservative government. The hon. member could have pointed out once again that the Liberal party, this government, has lived up to its promises to the consumers. Last year, we saw to it that the price of gas did not go up by 18 cents. So far, we have managed to see to it, and will continue to do so until the next election, that the net result of the National Energy Program is a consumer price that is much lower than it would have been under the Progressive Conservative government.
We implemented a program of predictable and gradual increases to allow consumers to adjust. It is precisely for this reason that a few weeks ago we announced a program of grants of up to $800 to help people convert their heating system from oil to some other form of energy, either electricity, natural gas, solar energy, wood or any form of energy other than oil.
The measures we announced are efficient and they will provide an alternative to oil dependency, as petroleum prices can only rise in the years ahead. Furthermore, we added an extra $500 million for the construction of the Q & M pipeline so that it could be built at a reasonable cost for the consumer and generate sufficient revenue for producers. We also announced that the price of natural gas in eastern Canada would be the same as in Toronto so that the have-not regions would be protected by the measures we announced and that we will implement as soon as the pipeline to eastern Canada and the maritimes is completed. So these are some of the measures we announced. I think the hon. member could have mentioned other things as well.

The hon. member alleged that the government would make money from the petroleum compensation account. I think she could have said to her voters on the weekend, "Don't believe that garbage; it doesn't make sense".
What happened was that in the last budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated, as did the previous minister of finance in the Conservative government, that there would be a maximum subsidy for imported oil. In our case it was $350 million. It has been shown that with the previous petroleum compensation charge, this would be totally inadequate to meet the cost in 1981-82. Had we continued with the previous charge only, we would have found at the end of 1981-82 that we had a deficit of some $500 million that would have had to be paid by the taxpayers of Canada. By increasing the petroleum charge, we ensured that there would be an adequate collection of funds to make sure that the total deficit would be held down to only $350 million.
The net increase in expenditures that we expected because of the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the United

June 8, 1981
Energy
States dollar remained low, and the fact that we had to import a higher volume because of the Alberta cutback in particular meant that we would have had a net increase in expenditures of S595 million in the petroleum compensation account. The increase of $1.25 per barrel announced last week will bring in about $605 million, or a net total difference of about $10 million in total income and expenditures as foreseen at the present time. As I indicated earlier, the increase that has been announced has returned us to a situation where the net deficit would be about $500 million, out of which we would have to deduct another $150 million of revenues that will be collected by way of the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. At the end of the year we should arrive at a net total deficit of $350 million in the petroleum compensation account.
1 think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands missed a great opportunity to explain to her constituents that the information, whether from press reports or statements made by members of the opposition, just did not make sense. I hope that on her next trip to her riding she will have an opportunity to put the facts straight for her voters.
The hon. member concluded by saying that she wanted something done now. The government has wanted something to be done for quite a long time. The government went into extensive negotiations last year with the government of Alberta in particular, and with the other producing provinces.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is a joke.


Marc Lalonde: Unfortunately, like the Conservative government, we could not come to an agreement. The previous government which was defeated in December, 1979, tried its best, and I will give it credit for that; but it did not reach an agreement either.
I heard the hon. member say "an agreement in principle". She does not talk about an agreement any more; she says an agreement in principle. Mr. Speaker, you either have an agreement or you do not. She should admit the truth and say that they had no agreement.
That is confirmed in a book by Jeffrey Simpson entitled "Discipline of Power", which I commend to the hon. lady. I quote from page 204:
On Tuesday, December 11, the day of the government's fateful budget, Joe Clark spoke to Peter Lougheed by telephone. A committee of officials led by Mickey Cohen, Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a taxation expert, had proposed a new formula for the energy self-sufficiency tax that seemed acceptable in principle to Lougheed. But four other points remained to be clarified, Lougheed said. Maybe an agreement could be signed the following week, maybe not, Lougheed concluded. They would see at the first ministers' conference on the economy the following week.
That is the record. They had no agreement. We have tried but not have been able to get one yet. We are working hard on it. Tomorrow 1 will again be going to Alberta to try to reach a satisfactory compromise that will be helpful to all Canadians. I cannot promise an agreement, far from it. There are many difficult issues. I certainly cannot promise an agreement
tomorrow or the day after. I believe the view held by the government of Alberta is the same.
What we must do is try, and try we did, try we do and try we will. This government has indicated over the past few months that it is willing to compromise, willing to take steps to accommodate the needs of the industry and the producing provinces. Surely we are entitled to expect the same sort of compromise from the producing provinces with which we are negotiating. I hope we will see that in the days and weeks to come.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to follow the minister. Before getting into my main speech, which will deal with the position of the different parties on petroleum pricing and with this motion in particular, I want to say that I take objection to the minister's comments about the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the former external affairs minister, being away for the vote that brought down the government. I know she is very strong in defending herself, so I will not say very much except that I thought she was away on government business. That was a pretty cheap shot to take at her. Surely the minister had enough other ammunition to deal with. Maybe that is why the minister is having so much difficulty reaching agreement with the provinces. If he would stick to the facts and forget about the cheap shots, perhaps he would get further.


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was in this House when I made my speech and when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made her speech. I did not say that she was not on government business. I said she was not here for the vote. It is on the record.
As far as cheap shots are concerned, I invite the hon. member to refer to the speeches made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to see what she said about some of my colleagues who were not in the House, whether it was the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, and the kind of cheap shots she took at them which were objectionable and completely unnecessary. We did not say a word about that. We thought we would let het get away with it, but she went back to it. The hon. member should remember that, if she wants good treatment in this House, she must show elementary courtesy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank the minister, with all his experience, for teaching me, a young member, that one cheap shot deserves another cheap shot. Maybe that is part of the difficulty this government has had in the past.
I now want to deal with some of what was said by the minister. The minister suggested that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands talk to her constituents. I have just returned from Toronto where I made a point of visiting different gas stations and speaking with various consumers. Having talked to those consumers and listened to the speeches today, I am reminded of the poem, "Strange that these
June 8, 1981

differences should be, 'twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee". I thought of Alice in Wonderland. Tweedledum and Tweedledee talked alike, looked alike, acted alike but said they were different. The consumers are saying there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals in terms of price. The consumers are paying higher energy prices. There is no agreement with Alberta and so the consumers are not getting money back in their pockets. They say progress is not being made on renewables and conservation. They want to know what is happening. It is really a Tweedledum, Tweedledee situation.
This was set out in Jennifer Lewington's article in The Globe and Mail of Monday, March 23, 1981. Under present government policies, the article states that consumers are paying less for gasoline than they would have paid under the Conservatives policy. However, they are paying more for heating oil than they would have under the Conservatives policy. That is the truth of the matter.
The minister was not intentionally misleading the Canadian public but he was nevertheless misleading in his speech a few minutes ago. He said that if Alberta settled the dispute on pricing today, he could reduce the price of gas by seven cents a gallon. The Canadian people were not born yesterday. They know that if there is a settlement with Alberta and if the government, to use the minister's words, is willing to be flexible in its negotiations and is willing to compromise, that means higher prices. Does the minister think the Canadian people believe that if there is an oil agreement with Alberta, a higher oil price agreement, then he will withdraw the seven cents a gallon? He will subtract that, but he will still increase prices. He is misleading the people by saying that.
The other matter with respect to the minister's speech concerns consumers. He said this government had taken measures to protect consumers. Well, what has the government done? It took the watchdog for consumers, Mr. Bertrand, who produced the report showing that the oil companies had ripped off Canadian consumers anywhere from $12 billion to $14 billion under both Liberal and Conservative governments, and dumped him in the Anti-dumping Tribunal. What did the government do with the report? It sent it to another tribunal for more study and action.
The minister said the government had shifted Canadians off oil to gas. That is a good idea. In part it is going to subsidize the building of a gas pipeline to the maritimes. That is a good idea, but only if those Canadians can be assured that, having converted their oil furnaces to gas, they will be able to get cheap and available Canadian gas in the future.
At the same time as the government has approved the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline to continually ship out cheap Canadian gas to the United States, there is a real chance that the consumers, those in the maritimes in particular, who have converted from oil to gas will have to pay more in the end because there will be no cheap Canadian gas available.
The minister should not pretend that this Liberal energy program is any better than the Conservative program. I want to deal with that program and the promises that were made.
Energy
The Liberals were elected on the promise that their price would be less than $4 more in 1980 and less than prices would be under the Conservative program by 1984. However, we have to look at the National Energy Program, which is a detailed blueprint of what the Liberal party really wants. There is a new promise in the National Energy Program. It talks about an increase of $3 in 1980 and $4.50 in 1981, 1982 and 1983. For consumers, under this schedule the pump price so far would have increased 23 cents a gallon since the Liberals were elected. This was the promise of 1980; this was the new promise in the National Energy Program. The price was to increase by 23 cents a gallon.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker? There have been ten increases, and I will count them. On March 1, 1980 there was a $1 per barrel crude increase. I mentioned Toronto so let us take an Imperial Oil station in metropolitan Toronto for my example. At that time you would be paying 25.4 cents per litre. In 1980 there was a $1 per barrel crude increase which meant an increase of .7 cents a litre, bringing the price to 25.4 cents a litre. There was a second increase on April 22, 1980. There was a change in federal sales tax which added .5 cents per litre, making the cost 25.9 cents a litre. Third, there was a Syncrude levy increasing the price .5 cents a litre, which made the price 26.4 cents a litre. Fourth, there was a $2 per barrel crude increase plus higher company costs on September 30, 1980, adding two cents a litre, making the price 28.4 cents a litre. Fifth, there was a sales tax increase in the Syncrude levy on November 1, 1980, which added .6 cents a litre, making the price 29 cents a litre.
On January 1, 1981, there was a petroleum compensation charge of 179 cents a litre, which increased the price to 30.9 cents a litre. Can you not see that pump price going up and up as you fill your car? On March 1, 1981, the seventh increase took place. There was an increase in the price of crude, or a higher company cost it was called, of 1.3 cents a litre, which made the price 32.2 cents a litre. On March 3, 1981, there was a surtax because of the Alberta cutback of .5 cents a litre and the price then became 32.7 cents a litre. On May 1, 1981, the PetroCan levy occurred, which was .8 cents a litre, so the price became 33.5 cents a litre. Finally, there was a tenth increase on June 2, 1981. It was a petroleum compensation charge of .8 cents a litre, and a cutback levy of an additional .8 cents a litre. So this morning in metropolitan Toronto at that Esso station you are paying 35.1 cents a litre. It is strange that there should be these differences between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. What the consumers see is a rapid increase in the price of gasoline no matter which party, Conservatives or Liberals, they placed their trust in.
We have also seen an inability to reach a negotiated settlement with the producing provinces. The minister has said it is a tragedy that one province should cut back the export of a commodity like oil to another part of the country. That should not happen in a confederation and I agree with him, but I wonder what the minister expects. This does not make that right, but what does the minister expect when he unilaterally

June 8, 1981
Energy
brings in the Petroleum Administration Act and thumps the provinces? Canadian consumers are about to say: Well, a plague on both their houses.


Marc Lalonde: What would you have done?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister asks what I would have done. I would have continued negotiations with Alberta and I would not have invoked the act. I think he invoked the act too soon. He could have continued negotiations with Alberta. Alberta indicated it was not going to take that kind of measure. The invocation of that act, coming as it did right after the budget and with the constitutional proposals, made what I would like to call an overreaction on the part of Alberta inevitable.
Let me continue by noting what the government has done in monitoring the industry's profits. There has been an ineffective, toothless monitoring of the industry and profit levels have never been higher. Imperial Oil's profits are up 70 per cent to $680 million. The government has done nothing about that. Last March the companies piggybacked a 6-cent a gallon increase, and surveys show that the consumers' price of gasoline after it was all finished went up 55 cents to 60 cents a gallon. If the federal take was 35.5 cents a gallon and provincial sales taxes accounted for five cents to eight cents a gallon, then the companies were in the trough for another 15 cents to 20 cents per gallon, representing $2.4 million a day.
What is the government prepared to do about that? Is it prepared to look at those prices and, if they are unjust, roll them back if necessary? If Mr. Bertrand's report was right, is the government prepared to take some action to give consumers a break? Is the government prepared to make these companies which had illegal profits, if they were illegal, disgorge those profits? That is not what the government is prepared to do.
My conclusion about what the Liberals have done since being elected is that we have to look at their actions and not their promises. They brought in higher prices without really doing anything, not even bringing in the energy tax credit the Conservatives suggested-and I will get to that in a moment- even though it was a weak tax credit. This government has not even brought that in but has allowed fairly substantially higher oil prices for the oil companies.
I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing what the Conservative policy has been, in view of the fact that they have brought this motion forward. One has to look very closely at what their budget tended to do. Their budget was for high prices, high prices, high prices; it was literally following Alberta hook, line and sinker. That party literally associated itself with one producing province and really bought a bill of goods, tying our price into a world price war. That was the position the Conservative party took.
As much as I personally admire the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and her concern for low-income people and pensioners, the fact is that the Conservative budget was really going to hurt, and hurt badly. The way it was to work reminds me of a mouse trap. There was a little bit of cheese in the beginning in that there was to be a $4.50 increase
in 1981-82; but in 1983 the trap would slam shut, because there would have been an increase of $25 a barrel in the one year bringing the price up to $47 a barrel, and that does not include the excise tax on gasoline. The total impact would have been just tremendous. In 1981 the increase would have been 42.5 cents per gallon, in 1982 there would have been an additional increase of 24.5 cents a gallon, and in 1983 the consumers would have faced an increase of $1.75 a gallon. Who would have been the winners? I suggest they would have been the producing provinces and the foreign-owned oil industry, the same industry which has taken $3 billion out of this country in the last five years in dividends and credits.
I put it to members of the Conservative party to my right that the tax credit they speak about in their motion today would have been meaningless next to the $1.75 per gallon increase in 1983. I do not think Canadians are fooled by this.
Second, Canadians were not only not fooled, but they were not amused by the changes the Conservatives made in their policy on Petro-Canada. The minister quoted from Jeffrey Simpson's book "Discipline of Power" so I will not quote from it except to say, Mr. Speaker, that you will see a reference to the Wilson committee on Petro-Canada and what some of the Conservative proposals were to privatize that company. I do not think Canadians believe in that or would accept it for a minute. When the Petro-Canada signs go up around these Parliament Buildings here in a few months, I predict that Canadians in this city will rejoice. They are going to say that the NDP was right in pushing the government at all times to expand Petro-Canada. They will be proud of those signs, proud that it is a Canadian government oil company and will show their pride by patronizing those stations. I predict that will happen in Ottawa in a few months.
I would like briefly to say something about the directions the NDP think should be followed. I suggest, first of all, that Canadians have difficulty paying more for gas. I suggest they are not against that in principle, but it comes at a very bad time; we have inflation, prices are going up and the economy is troublesome. What we suggest, to begin with, is that you cannot divorce the pricing issue, with increased prices for gasoline and home heating oil, from the economy as a whole. If a person in Newfoundland, St. Catharines or in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway is not working, he cannot afford to pay higher prices. If that worker is paying increased costs because of inflation, he has difficulty paying higher prices for gasoline.
I suggest most Canadians are prepared to pay higher prices, and I have said this before in the House, but they want to make sure that the money that comes out of their pockets does not go into the pockets of the multinational oil companies, but goes back into making this country energy self-sufficient and into public ownership of these companies.
They also want to be assured that there is some cushion. To the hoots and howls of my friends next to us, I suggested in the House of Commons the other day that there should be a cost of living allowance. A component of that would be an energy
June 8, 1981

Energy



[Stage Direction]
tax credit, but it would be broader than the credit proposed by the Conservatives. It would be a cost of living tax credit, and I think it could be fashioned in such a way that people making $20,000 a year or less would not have to pay any more money when price increases for heating oil and gasoline are imposed. I think this could be done.
I hope in a few weeks to be able to tell the minister about this in detail. He asked for some detail about how prices can be dealt with in this way and how we can get an agreement in principle with the producing provinces. There has to be a cost of living tax credit which would cushion the people. We are talking about $1.8 billion, but this could be done if we were to reform our tax system in relation to corporations and companies. We could collect taxes in a different way and have money available to distribute to the people.
As I understood the people with whom I spoke in Toronto this past weekend, consumers are not prepared to view the Liberal government program in a different way than they viewed that of Tweedledee, the Conservatives. Consumers see the programs as being the same. They see rising energy prices with no real cost of living tax credit and with no real commitment to renewables. Consumers see a continuation of the selling out of natural resources by way of the pre-build.
Consumers hear a lot of talk about Canadianization, but in fact that is just a feathering of the bed of Canadian capitalists like Dome and others in comparison with Americans. Consumers do not see this Canadianization being tied into a whole industrial strategy for this country in such a way that if there were rising oil prices they could be sure that the proceeds would be going toward building a Canadian, publicly-owned industry. That is the position we would take, and we think the Canadian consumer will come around to that position as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), 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 Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki)-National Defence-Support for participation in militia training; the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Metric Conversion-Opposition by grocers and small businessmen; the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-National Unity-Western separatism-Call for review of Constitution and energy policies.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald:
That this House condemns the government for again unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consumers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to adjust.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before moving to the main content of my remarks today I would like to refer briefly to the blatantly cheap shot taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in reference to my colleague's being absent from the House on the day of the vote of December 13, 1979. My colleague was in Europe on government business. She had paired with someone in the minister's party. That pair was broken, and my colleague was unable to be in the House for that vote. That is the fact of the matter, and that is why I say the blatantly cheap shot taken by the minister should not have been taken in this House.


Marc Lalonde: Your leaders told her to stay in Europe.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What we are addressing here in the House this afternoon is a problem faced by many Canadians. The problem is the price of gasoline and heating oil, which is rising drastically. That is the fundamental problem Canadians are facing.
During the last election campaign the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) advertised as follows: "Vote Liberal, and the price will stay down because Allan J. MacEachen and the Liberal party spoke up for you". The Liberal party is certainly not speaking up for the people of Canada because since then the price has increased 60 cents a gallon. The minister tries to confuse the matter by citing figures in an attempt to show that prices are lower than they would have been under the Conservative government. I want to examine those prices later on in my remarks in order to prove to the people of Canada that the minister is wrong.


Marc Lalonde: You are wrong.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He is playing with figures, and he knows it. We have seen all this before. We have seen the two-faced policy of saying one thing when running for election and another thing when wanting to get people's money. Back in 1974 the Liberal party ran on the platform that there would be no wage and price controls. Hon. members opposite said, "Zap, you're frozen; we will not have any of that if you elect us to govern this country". Fifteen months later we had wage and price controls.
We have the same time-frame now with respect to oil and gas prices. In 1980 hon. members opposite said we should vote

June 8, 1981
Energy
Liberal and prices would stay down. Fifteen months later price increases are hitting the magic figure of 60 cents a gallon. Canadians trusted hon. members opposite. Canadians believed they would stand by their promises. Canadians took them at their word. So much for trust; Canadians were deceived in January and February of 1980.
Canadians are speaking out today. They are asking members of my party to speak out for them in this House of Commons. At one time they believed the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Canadians recognized that prices would have to be higher. They recognized that there would have to be some price increases, but they believed there would be some offset. They believed there would be some assistance to people who could not afford the increases which might be coming. They took a chance. They trusted, but they were let down.
We are speaking here today for Canadians who are bewildered at the reasons that this blockbuster tax increase was imposed last week. The minister sneaked that increase in. He did not have the courtesy or the courage to explain to this House why it was necessary to increase prices at this time so much more than in a similar situation just three months ago. Last week the price went up nine cents a gallon. That was about three times the increase we faced back in March of this year. We have not heard a proper explanation for this by the minister today.
On June 3 I asked the minister if he would table the internal report substantiating the need for this increase. I received a very evasive answer. The minister did not even address the question, let alone give me an answer. Throughout his speech today I waited to see whether there would be some indication, but all the minister said was that if there is not an increase now, we may experience a larger increase down the road than we had planned for. However, that is not good enough when we are talking about a price increase of nine cents a gallon. He will have to do better than that.
Since the National Energy Program was announced on October 28 of last year, there have been five increases totalling 22 cents a gallon. As I have said, since the beginning of 1980 the price has increased 60 cents a gallon. In a few minutes I will come to what part of that 60 cents has been taken by the federal government in increased taxation, not including revenue to the provinces and not including revenue to the industry for producing oil.
In the last six months we have seen probably the largest single tax grab in the history of this country. This tax grab has been sneaked in through little undebatable motions. The people of this country are coming to realize that this is a shying away from reality on the part of the minister and other members of the government.
I listened to the numbers cited by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I heard him say that in the 1980 election campaign his party had made two basic commitments. I would like to address those two basic commitments right now. The first was that in 1980-and these were the minister's
words-there would be no 18-cent a gallon excise tax. That is correct; there was not. However, he said that the price at the wellhead would be lower than the $4 we projected. Well, Mr. Speaker, that price at the wellhead was not $4, it was $4.40 or $4.88 depending on where you live. So much for that promise.
Over the four years they said that the energy program would result in a price to consumers lower than that-


Marc Lalonde: That is nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -presented by the Conservative party.


Walter David Baker: That is what you said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, he knows about that promise. He cannot stand there in the House and make that promise today because he has broken it already. In his own words he said that the price of gasoline now is about the same as it would have been under the Conservatives.


Marc Lalonde: It is cheaper.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And that does not include the impact on heating oil, which he never talks about. He is afraid to talk about the increase in the price of heating oil.
Now let us talk about these price increases. My friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) summarized the increases but I would like to put it in a somewhat different way. On the wellhead price we have had three increases amounting to $4, shared between the industry, the provinces and the federal government. There have been six other categories of price increase. The petroleum compensation charge, three increases totalling $4.55 a barrel. The removal of the Sarnia-Montreal subsidy, 18 cents a barrel. Two increases in the Syncrude levy amounting to 90 cents a barrel, and a special levy amounting to $2.01 a barrel on two occasions.


Walter David Baker: That is the Lalonde levy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, that is right. Then the Canadian ownership charge of $1.15 a barrel on April 23, 1981, as well as an ad valorem tax which allows the federal government to participate in every increase to the extent of 9 per cent. The total amount of those increases is $12.79 a barrel, of which the provinces got 14 per cent, the industry got 14 per cent, and the big, fat federal government got 72 per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to show that the federal government's figures do not hold water. The minister is playing with numbers and he knows it. However, I think there are two fundamental facts here, particularly the second one which we are debating today, and I want to focus on that. First, the dishonesty of the government in presenting to the Canadian people their promise in the last election, which has been broken. The deceit and dishonesty in presenting that promise and attempting to win an election on that basis-


Marc Lalonde: Utter nonsense.
June 8, 1981


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -is something that is developing a greater degree of cynicism toward the whole electoral process in this country than we have seen in many years. Certainly before my time, Mr. Speaker, and possibly before yours as well.
The second point, implicit in the motion, is that there has been no relief for the disadvantaged people of this country as a result of the government's program of increasing energy prices. I pointed out that 72 per cent of the revenues raised as a result of these increases has gone to the federal government, yet they do not see it within their capabilities to provide anything approaching the energy tax credit or the special compensation we provided for the Atlantic provinces to compensate for the production of energy from oil in those parts of the country. That is the fundamental direction of the motion we are debating today. My friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, avoided that to a very large extent in his remarks but I want to focus on it now because there is a very powerful reason for it, particularly in the eastern provinces.
In St. Anthony, Newfoundland, on a comparable basis the cost of 5,000 kilowatt hours of energy is $387.58. In Summer-side, Prince Edward Island, it is $296.23. That compares to Montreal, the minister's home town, at $127.40. Toronto, my home town, is at $145.35. Here in Ottawa, it costs $128.93. That is the reason we felt it was fundamental to allow some form of subsidy to those living in the Atlantic provinces who are suffering from the high cost of energy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out the impact of the energy tax credit in the Conservative budget of December, 1979. This again proves that the minister's figures are trying to tell a narrow story without looking at the broader picture, because he has distorted the figures. Now, on Conservative party stationery, available for every member of the House to see, there is a press release indicating that the annual impact of energy taxes under a Liberal government, including gasoline and heating oil, was $451. That is the increase to the average family. Under a Conservative government, because the impact on heating fuels was much less than under the Liberal proposals-


Marc Lalonde: Don't you believe it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the total amount is $292. So it is $451 for the Liberals, $292 for the Conservatives. However, the value of the energy tax credit is $220 for a family below the income level of $23,000, or $21,000 if I am not mistaken, and that credit would reduce the increased costs of energy to only $72, as against the $451 which applies regardless of income level.


Marc Lalonde: You have got to be kidding.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: So the minister ignores these very real facts for the people who have to pay the bill month in and month out. As his colleague said the other day, prices are going to continue to rise but there is nothing for those people who are unable to afford these high increases.
The minister would have us put all the blame for this on the producing provinces. It is clear that he is again misleading the
Energy
public. The blame rests largely on his own shoulders and those of the other ministers in the federal government, and they do not have the courage to explain the whole background. This we have tried to draw out in other debates. We have tried to understand better the government side of the negotiations with the producing provinces over the past year, but we have been very unsuccessful in getting that understanding. The consumer wants to know. He is asking us as members of Parliament, why is he being hammered this way? Why do we not have an agreement; why do we have to pay these excessive costs?
The negotiations last summer were a sham. There was no attempt on the part of the federal government to reach an agreement. The minister said just a few minutes ago that he cannot promise an agreement, but I think that at this time last summer he could have come into the House and very honestly said to us that he can promise no agreement, because the federal government went into those negotiations making no attempt to come together with the province of Alberta and the other producing provinces. That is the reason we have a deadlock, the reason we have these major projects on hold, and-


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister says "nonsense". Might I ask him why it was that the energy program, when it came in, was less attractive to the producing provinces than the last deal put to them in July of last year? There was no attempt whatsoever to reach any meeting point between the two positions, and that is why we have deadlock today.
I also would like to make reference to the fact that there were two types of taxes prior to the negotiations which the producing provinces told Canadians they would find objectionable. The first was an export tax on natural gas. The government brought it in; the Alberta Court of Appeal heard a challenge by that province and upheld it; it will be heard later this month by the Supreme Court of Canada. So much for the attempt at compromise. The second one was a production tax, which essentially is a wellhead tax. It clearly impinges on the jurisdiction of producing provinces. Finally, there was the inadequate pricing when compared to prices in practically any other country in the world.
When we put all this together, is it any wonder that there will be some form of deadlock? If there is no attempt to negotiate and the terms of the final policy are unacceptable, there is bound to be a deadlock.
I am not at all happy with the response of the Alberta government in cutting back on supplies and putting major projects on hold. I would have preferred it done in another fashion, but I am hard pressed to suggest any alternative to develop any momentum in the negotiations which must take place if we are to reach an agreement.
It is the old story of trying to deal with a stubborn mule. He must be hit over the head with a sledgehammer to get his attention and make him do what one wants him to do. This is

June 8, 1981
Energy
what the province of Alberta had to do with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On March 1 there was a cutback and the increase in tax at that time was half a cent per litre. On June 1 there was another cutback and the increase in tax was almost three times that amount. Many people are asking why, because imports are down. There was a drop in imports in the first two months of this year. These are Statistics Canada figures which were given to me this morning. Year over year there has been a 16 per cent reduction in imports; consumption in February and March was down by 10 per cent. Over the weekend we saw Mexico cutting its price by $4 and the United Kingdom by $2. The financial reports of the government show that the various funds are $250 million in surplus. The world picture shows greater conservation. It is expected that we will see more spill-over into Canada, so there will be less consumption in the country.
Also the minister's department has been calling companies, advising them that demand was down and, if this trend continues, there should be no need to import to the full extent of the second Alberta cutback. So why was there this significant price increase of last week?


Walter David Baker: Money, money, money.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me close by saying that the deceit and deception of the advertisement of the Minister of Finance must ring a very, very sour note for those in the country who are struggling on insufficient incomes, knowing that the government would prefer to pay off foreign shareholders and commission agents rather than provide some small subsidy for the oil price increase caused by the government's inability and inaction. The Prime Minister said that drivers seem to be willing to pay for the high price of gasoline so that they can drive their fast cars. What about persons who have never driven fast cars and never have any intention or hope of driving fast cars? The only person for whom that comment makes any sense is the Prime Minister himself with his little Mercedes sports car which he drives around when he wants to have fun. That is the difference between the outlook of the government and those of us on this side of the Flouse.


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, it appears as if it is my turn to join in the debate on the usual negative motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) dealing with petroleum pricing. I cannot help but observe that if we could capture and produce the gas from hon. members opposite, we would be well on our way to resolving the energy problems in the country.
Although the cost is admittedly high this year, it will level off over the next three years. In 1984 our projections indicate that the made-in-Canada oil price for petroleum will be substantially less than that proposed by my colleagues opposite in their ill-fated budget of 1979.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the word "objectionable". I suggest that Canadians will
continue to remember the most objectionable tax of all, the 18 cents per gallon tax.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was 9 cents.


Judith A. Erola: I remind Canadians that this was to be over and above other scheduled increases. It would have clearly affected most those who could least afford it.
We on this side of the House are committed to establishing a made-in-Canada price for oil which will reflect our relative strength in the energy sector. Canadians know that the OPEC market price is an artificial one and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing oil in Canada or, for that matter, in Saudi Arabia. It is a price arbitrarily established by a cartel which dominates the international petroleum market. The government's energy policy will ensure that future Canadians are not burdened by an insecure relationship to a foreign supplier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: The Canadian oil substitution program costs are to be outlined by my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren). It is the first in a series of initiatives designed to assist the Canadian switchoff from oil to some other form of domestically generated energy. Average Canadians in every region of Canada will benefit.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) suggested earlier that consumers were objecting violently to oil pricing in Canada and that they were not reacting positively. If the hon. member checked with his constituents, he would know that there is a great demand by people in every sector of Canada for the Canadian oil substitution program; it is working.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre mentioned the reduction of oil consumption in Canada in the first quarter of 1981. I should like to repeat those figures. In that first quarter, daily consumption dropped to 530,000 barrels per day as compared to 644,000 barrels on an average in 1980.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Those figures are not correct.


Judith A. Erola: That is conservation; that is a reduction in consumption due to our National Energy Program.
I should like to point out, particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the number of programs initiated by the government. These programs are largely unrecognized and perhaps even unknown to hon. members opposite.
First I should like to talk a moment about coal. There is no doubt that the importance of coal in the Canadian energy economy will grow in the next decade and that by the year 2000 production will exceed its current level by three to five times. Further, it is becoming increasingly obvious that in the near future-and certainly not any later than the mid-1980s- a comprehensive international market for coal will be operating.
June 8, 1981

The Canadian situation in the field of coal is quite different from that of most other countries. Canada is a nation which has rich coal resources, very rich, but at the present time we use only a small amount of coal in our energy supply mix. We hope to change that. Currently, only about 9 per cent of our primary energy is derived from coal. This contrasts dramatically with the ratios of our western nations. Twenty per cent of the primary energy needs of the United States is supplied by coal. In the United Kingdom the figure is 36 per cent. It is 38 per cent in Australia and about 68 per cent in South Africa. In fact, South Africa leads the world in the introduction of coal into its energy supply mix, and it presently derives a significant fraction of its supply of liquid fuel directly from coal.
I am sure members opposite will want to know that Canada has estimated coal reserves of some 50 million tons of all types. In 1980 Canadian coal production rose by approximately 9 per cent, in physical terms, over that of 1979; and while our coal production in 1979 amounted to some 33 million tons, Canada remained a net importer. This situation will likely reverse itself as early as 1982 or 1983 due to the expected increase and demand for Canadian thermal coal on both the domestic and export markets.
However, Canada has been a net exporter of metallurgical coal for a number of years. It is worthy of note that Canada exports a higher percentage of its coal production than does any other country. Indeed, we exported fully 45 per cent in 1978. It is interesting that, in contrast with other energy sources, coal is relatively unregulated in Canada, and coal and coke enter and leave Canada duty-free. Importing countries have been attracted to Canada because they see us as a secure supplier. Canada is a nation whose coal production is still small in relation to its reserves and whose dependence upon its coal resources for its own needs is still not great. But we are doing much in this area.
1 would like to cite some of the federal government's initiatives with regard to coal. We are, of course, actively seeking new markets but, more important, we are carrying much of the financial burden of new coal development by ensuring that the infrastructure is present to adequately handle the increase in coal traffic. We will have a new coal port built at Ridley Island. The coal terminal at Thunder Bay is expected to be expanded and upgraded. There will be major expenditures for the purchase of bulk rail cars and improvements to rail facilities on the west coast, the east coast and areas adjacent to the Seaway.
The oil sands could well be the major source of Canada's future oil supply. We are currently examining processing techniques at the tar sands, and we are convinced that under certain circumstances coal can be useful in both the extraction process and in the upgrading of these oils. Where steam is required to stimulate the production of heavy oil, coal could be used to generate that steam. Where carbon dioxide is required for enhanced recovery, this also could be provided from coal using processes such as the production of methanol. The
Energy
linkage between the technologies needed for the optimum development of our oil sands resources and for the coal conversion processes is important. The Alsands group, a consortium led by Shell Oil, is planning a major oil sands mining and upgrading plant north of the existing Syncrude facility. This group of companies intends to use fluid coking as the main technology to upgrade the separated bitumen.
Another interconnection of the oil sands and the coal liquefaction process is being studied in our own laboratories here in Ottawa. For many years we have believed that in the long run it is better to treat the bitumen with hydrogen to upgrade it in order to expand the quantity of liquids which can be produced from the raw feed stock. Our scientists and engineers found that it was better to use a disposable catalyst supported by coal in conjunction with what is called a hydrocracking process. When the object of the process is to upgrade bitumen only, a small quantity of coal is used-that required to supply the necessary catalyst. However, it has become evident that coal could play a much larger role in this process and that coal might be increased to as much as 50 per cent of the feedstock weight. In this mode of operation, what we call coal processing, both bitumen and coal are significant contributors to the final liquid fuel product. These projects are all under the auspices of the federal government.
Coal liquefaction, here in our Canmet laboratories and also in Alberta-the member opposite expresses some doubt. I invite him to examine some of the work which is being carried on.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I was just agreeing with you.


Judith A. Erola: Coal liquefaction and gasification processes are the most exciting aspects of the current and future research and development programs in this sector. In this connection I think it is appropriate for Canada to take an outward look at the situation. The government recognizes this and has provided yet another incentive. We have offered to finance a large portion of the technical risk involved in the introduction of new technologies-indeed, up to the point of commercial use. A number of serious studies of the liquefaction of coal are currently under way. In Alberta-and, I might add, on a very amicable and co-operative basis-our department has joined the department of energy and natural resources of that province to support a study being undertaken by the Nova group into the application of liquefaction technology to sub-bituminous coals.
In another development of interest, the Fording Coal Company has been examining the possibilities for building another major electrical generating station. In this study the possibility of removing liquids from coal prior to combustion of the char is being examined. I would like to acknowledge the efforts in this field over the years of the research council of Alberta. I would also like to commend the intention of the government of Alberta significantly to expand its coal research and development efforts. Studies have also been made of the conditions under which coal can be used in place of gas as a feedstock.

June 8, 1981
Energy
In British Columbia several important studies are under way. The government of that province, in conjunction with Japanese interests, has been examining the possible application of South African liquefaction technology to the very large resource of low rank coal known to exist some 200 kilometres from Vancouver at Hat Creek. In northeastern B.C. our department is providing some measure of support to a study being undertaken by a consortium consisting of Westcoast Transmission, Petro-Canada and the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, together with some Japanese interests, who are looking at liquefaction processes applicable in that region of the province.
In Saskatchewan, which I am planning to visit tomorrow, a number of possibilities are currently being examined to determine how coal can be used in conjunction with the extraction and upgrading of the province's heavy oil resources.


Gary Michael Gurbin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member who is speaking would entertain a short question.


Judith A. Erola: Yes.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The hon. member has given information with regard to activities in the liquefaction of coal. Would this indicate that the government has made a decision that it would like to see Canada go into coal liquefaction in contrast to, perhaps, becoming involved with another tar sands plant?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, it is not an either/or situation, it is both. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), has already addressed this problem. I believe he announced last fall that we would support coal liquefaction studies on a case by case basis, but certainly not in preference to oil sands projects. I would have thought that was very obvious to the hon. member.
I would now like to deal with Nova Scotia for a moment. A major feasibility study is now under way in Nova Scotia entitled Scotia liquid fuels project. The five partners in the study include Gulf and Nova from the private sector, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Petro-Canada and Nova Coal from the Crown corporations. My department is participating actively in this study which involves the processing of a coal known to be readily soluble. One option of special interest in the latter study is the possibility of processing heavy oil and coal together using hydrogen derived from natural gas. We are hopeful that a fluidized bed combustion unit will be constructed at the adjoining facility of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. We are examining the feasibility of using the waste product from the coal liquefaction plant as a fuel to power the plant itself.
There is an existing refinery, not now in use, and should the coal processing option prove attractive at that site, we could see a number of facilities of this kind being built around the world. The important advantage of this project is that more modest quantities of coal, one to four million tons a year, could
be processed into liquids without incurring the very high capital costs and the major risks involved in free standing coal liquefaction plants.
In Summerside, P.E.I., the construction of the atmospheric fluidized bed combustion heating plant has been annouced. The project will replace two obsolete heating boilers at the base with modern boilers that use a pioneer fluidized bed combustion process. In addition to providing a more efficient heating system for the base, the conversion will allow the system to burn a low-quality, high-sulphur coal while suppressing gaseous emissions of pollutants that cause acid rain.
The major advantage of fluidized bed combustion is that a wide variety of fuels can be used in an environmentally-accept-able manner. If limestone is added as a granular material, it reacts with the sulphur dioxide normally given off by coal burning, resulting in a substantial reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions which, as I mentioned a moment ago, is a major source of acid rain. Because combustion in these new boilers occurs at much lower temperatures than in conventional boilers, nitrogen oxide emissions are also reduced, and this is another major source of acid rain.
Therefore, I think it is obvious to members opposite that the government is moving ahead and that the Canadian people are aware of the fact. Canadians realize the situation that their federal government finds itself in, and the polls indicate that they support us in our movement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: To listen to the rhetoric of the official opposition is to be lost in predictions and forecasts of gloom and doom. Far from their gloomy outlook, the realities of Canada today reflect a nation both strong and prosperous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: The opposition would have Canadians believe that the economy is stagnant and that Canadians are a sorry lot. Well, I do not buy it, and the figures do not prove it. I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate that all is not gloom and doom, that on the contrary, this year is but a pause before an even greater period of growth.
In particular, I would like to share some insights as to where one of Canada's strongest industrial sectors is going. I would like to talk about an industry which gave Canada its greatest boom period in this century, an industrial sector which makes Canada the envy of the industrialized world, an industrial sector which will give Canada secure economic growth in the 1980s. I am, of course, talking about the Canadian mining industry, the minerals and metals sector.
Resources in general have proven to be Canada's strength throughout its short history and it would appear that resources will continue to be this nation's trump card in the worldwide game of international economics. By resources, in this case, I mean not only minerals and metals, but energy minerals, agricultural products, forestry, forestry products and our fisheries. World demand for all these resources is high and is
June 8, 1981

expected to grow throughout the coming decade and well beyond.
The minerals and metals sector is a sector of this country's vibrant economy which is made up of more than 9,000 firms. It employs more than 400,000 people directly, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. In 1980 it produced more than $43 billion worth of goods and services. We are, I offer, a very healthy country with a very healthy economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister with some interest because I thought that in the last minute or two of her comments she would get to the east coast. We welcome and, indeed, give credit for the good sense the government had in carrying on projects which had, in fact, commenced a long time ago, ideas which have come with time, probably because of the explosion in world energy prices over the last seven or eight years.
Coal development is an interim measure for Nova Scotia. We had absolutely no choice. We consider it to be a good mid-term and long-term posture and investment for Nova Scotia and for the federal government, in terms of the economy of Atlantic Canada, to get on with the coal development in Nova Scotia.
In connection with that, though, it puzzles me somewhat to read and learn over the last four or five days that Dr. Read, of the oil substitution grouping within energy, mines and resources, has advised Mr. Dave Nantes, the president of the Tidal Power Corporation, the Crown agency of the province of Nova Scotia, that the federal government is, in fact, now seriously considering withdrawing funding from current and ongoing studies which will, in fact, terminate a little bit later on this year. The federal government had been directly involved in those studies through its position as a member of the co-ordinating committee with respect to Fundy tidal development. The government had said that it would terminate any further funding for that portion of the studies which could be related to any future export of electricity.
I indicated that coal had interim and short-term benefits, with some long-term employment and other benefits, for Nova Scotia. However, the long-term and mid-term benefits of Fundy tidal power lie in the fact that these resources are renewable. They are not finite; they are renewable. Therefore, it surprises me that as we near 1982, when there has been the final and major decision to go ahead with planning, engineering and other developmental studies with perhaps as much as $.5 billion in expenditure, the federal government has threatened to withdraw funding. Up until now, the federal government has virtually carried the ball and has been given all the credit in the world. It made sense when it started some years ago, continues to make sense today, and tomorrow I suppose it will make even more sense, so it surprises me that it would threaten to withdraw funding.
I cannot understand why, at a time in the development of Fundy tidal power when it is so critical to getting on with development so that we might realize the benefits from this
Energy
tremendous renewable source during the 1980s, that it would, in fact, threaten to withdraw funding. I hope this is not the view of the government but, rather, a bureaucratic reaction to what the money is being spent on. It is rather simple: the money is being spent on updating costs, identification of transmission costs and a marketing study. All these things are necessary because Fundy tidal power is, of course, an enormous project.
In order to make it economic for Atlantic Canadians and other Canadian as well, the markets must be commensurate with the size of the project. Large markets imply that we must go to the northeastern United States and, particularly, New England if we are to find the sales which will make construction of Fundy tidal power economically feasible. This would continue to make it of value not only to Atlantic Canadians but to all Canadians.
It puzzles me why the government would do this. It has never happened before. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) would probably be aware of this fact, and certainly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would also be aware, if he were in his seat. I am sorry that he is not. I also regret that there are not maritimers in the House now.
Never before, in the history of Fundy tidal power has there ever been such a high level of interest. The United States is passing legislation which will enable it to participate in this development, its acquisition and distribution. Investors in the United States are evidencing interest almost daily. Even the briefest of conversations with Mr. Nantes, the president of the Tidal Power Corporation, would lead one to a very clear understanding of the very high level of investor interest. That is why most of us are confused when we see the government back away from its commitment to the continuing preparatory studies which are necessary to any significant development of the Fundy tidal power, and it is only a significant development that will make it economically viable.
We have been talking about energy and home heating in all this kerfuffle. I wish my opponent in the last general election were within earshot today. He went with me from meeting to meeting, telling the people that the Liberals would never, never allow the price of gasoline to rise by the 18 cents per gallon that the Conservatives were "forcing down their throats". There have been 13 increases in the 16 months since the Liberals returned to office, Mr. Speaker. They were returned on the panic they instilled in Canadians about the question of the 18-cent increase in the excise tax. Yet the total increases this year alone will probably reach $10 per barrel. What we have seen today is just the beginning, not the end. The price of home heating oil has increased by 37 cents per gallon, without cushioning.
The minister spent his allocated time discussing the Crosbie budget without uttering a word about the intentions of the government on the direction in which it is leading Canadians. I should like to read into the record two points from the Crosbie budget as follows:

June 8, 1981
Energy
Third, we will be mounting a major effort to ease the burden of adjustment to higher prices in the Atlantic region. We will provide grants to compensate for the additional costs of electricity generation resulting from oil price increases in excess of $2 per barrel per year.
By the end of 1981 the increase will amount to $10. Under the Crosbie budget we would have had a cushion, and I would remind the hon. member opposite who is from the Atlantic provinces of this fact.
The next passage from the Crosbie budget that I want to put on record is as follows:
In addition, the refundable energy tax credit I announced tonight when in full effect will return about $1 billion to lower- and middle-income Canadians. The credit will commence with the 1980 tax year. It will be phased in to reflect the fact that the full impact of energy price increases is not felt until later next year. One half of the benefit will thus be claimable in 1980, with full benefits claimable in 1981 and subsequent years. Credit benefits will be reduced for families with incomes over a threshold amount. For 1980 the threshold is $21,380. For every $100 of income in excess of this threshold, benefits will be reduced by $5.
As has been indicated by other speakers today, when the plan was in effect the full benefit would have amounted to about $220 each year per family. I suggest that would be a significant change.
Just the other day an advertisement in the newspaper invited people to convert from oil to gas. If the minister were in the House I would suggest to him that we do not have any "bananas" in Atlantic Canada yet. What are people such as my parents and thousands of other Atlantic Canadians who are on fixed incomes, or incomes that are significantly lower than the Canadian average, supposed to do, Mr. Speaker? Their incomes are lower now, have historically been in the past, and because of the absence of effort or concern on the part of this government probably will continue to be in the future.
I should like to turn now to the matter of electrical energy. Prince Edward Island is probably the lowest user of domestic electricity in the country. The average use per family is about 6,000 kilowatt hours. Before the recent increases, the cost was $292.64 per 5,000 kwh; in British Columbia it cost $85.27. Northwest Territories was less than Prince Edward Island at $261 for 5,000 kwh; Newfoundland, $245; Nova Scotia, $221; Yukon, $201; New Brunswick, $171; Ontario, $145; Quebec, $160, Manitoba, $133, Alberta, $132 and Saskatchewan, $122. These are figures obtained from Statistics Canada, Mr. Speaker. Prince Edward Island uses roughly 6,000 kwh per year; Nova Scotia, 8,500 kwh; Ontario, 10,000 kwh, and so on across the country.
There is one significant point that gives us concern about the cost of energy and the need for cushioning, Mr. Speaker. The Nova Scotia Power Corporation urged Nova Scotians to convert from oil to electricity a few years ago and thousands of people did so. Today an all-electric home uses something in the order of 30,000 kwh on an annual basis. I should like to draw a couple of conclusions from that.
The cost of operating an all-electric home ranges between $1,400 and $1,500 per year in Nova Scotia; in Ontario it costs $870; British Columbia, $510, or about one third of the cost in
Prince Edward Island which is virtually totally dependent on oil for generating electricity and where the figure rises to about $1,800 per year. This is killing Atlantic Canada. Some way has to be found to cushion the cost of domestic electricity. It is not really a question of lowering demand on a volunteer basis. I suspect that Canadians everywhere, with just a slight effort, could reduce their annual demand to zero growth and with a greater effort could reduce it to minus 5 per cent or minus 6 per cent on an annual basis.
The pricing policies and energy policies of the government do not allow Atlantic Canadians to take that route voluntarily; it forces them to reduce consumption of electricity by 30 per cent, 40 per cent, or 50 per cent because they bloody well cannot afford it! They cannot pay two or three times the national rate for domestic electricity and live comfortably if they are on fixed incomes. That concept did not work yesterday and it will not work today.
There are two things that I think we must keep in mind as we debate this subject, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I should like to know when Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will have an opportunity to harness the tremendous electrical potential of the Midas Basin. They have done so much to help that area of the country, but now the government is backing away from the idea. 1 put the question to the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell), who is the only maritimer opposite, why is the government backing away from this? It is the one chance for energy security in the long term. It is renewable energy and it is clean. In 15 or 20 years coal may be clean, but it is not clean today. Yet our people are forced to turn to it because they cannot afford oil. The government withdraws the subsidies and forces people in the maritimes to find savings in the involuntary restriction of the amount of energy they use! That is true for fishermen, farmers as well as householders and all sectors of the economy that rely on energy.
Our excise tax was aimed at transportation users. Through their income tax, the fishermen could deduct legitimate expenses, as could the farmers and those in the forest operations to a certain degree. We exempted most heating fuels because we knew from experience, and we were concerned, that older Canadians on fixed or lower incomes could not bear the burden that a rise to world prices would cause.
Because of our dependence on oil in Atlantic Canada, we are very vulnerable to an unsympathetic, though I hope not uncaring, Ottawa bureaucracy, the Liberal government policy making process. As with everything, we are hit first hardest and the impact lasts the longest. It takes us longer to recover from this form of insidious taxation.
This is worse in one respect than the Boston tea party. At least some good came out of that. Some measure of progress can be noted from that incident. However, what is there for us? The government says it will not yield in its determination to not cushion exorbitant domestic electricity production costs. Users in Alantic Canada cannot afford that. Wages in Atlan-
June 8, 1981

tic Canada are one third of those in the Yukon, yet Prince Edward Island has the highest costs. Wages in Atlantic Canada are 30 to 40 per cent behind those in Vancouver, B.C., yet our cost of domestic electricity is over three times as much. That applies to almost everything.
What does the government want us to do? Go back to burning lamps? Is that what is expected of us? Our pensioners are being forced to buy lamps. The government can smile or laugh, but it must listen and pay attention because that is what is happening. These people cannot afford the burden being placed on their backs.
I welcome the initiatives coming forward in the alternate energy programs, but that is all they are. They are proposals and research. We must find alternate sources. I am talking about what has to be done tomorrow, next year and the year after. Some way must be found to cushion the unacceptably high prices for domestic electricity and home heating through generation of electricity by oil.
That is what is being asked for and that is what is needed. I hope this afternoon someone will respond to why the government is considering cutting off funding for ongoing studies for the tidal power corporation because of the significance of that in the development of renewable energy for those in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this afternoon's debate there have been a variety of comments on certain aspects of the National Energy Program. It is my intention to follow that procedure but to offer some facts, based on an analysis of where we are in the National Energy Program some six or seven months after its introduction.
Members will recall that during the last election campaign and more recently, we on this side of the House have set forward the principles which underline the National Energy Program. From the beginning we have emphasized the need for a made-in-Canada oil pricing policy. We have rejected the idea that the OPEC countries should in concert determine the price of oil to be paid by the Canadian consumer. Canadians enjoy an advantage as a result of having within our boundaries not only large reserves of oil but enormous energy resources.
We on this side of the house prefer a predictable and gradual increase in oil prices, not the sudden and unknown shocks that would result from the acceptance of oil price increases being dictated to us by other countries. We rejected the 18-cent excise tax on gasoline in the Conservative budget. We have kept prices in Canada below those which would have resulted from that budget.
When we look at oil price increases in Canada, the real question is who benefits from them? Under the Conservative budget, there is no question who would have benefited. The beneficiaries would have been the oil companies-at that time in large measure foreign controlled-and the producing provinces. We know the split of revenue that obtained in the past was such as to channel most of the revenue to the producing
Energy
provinces and to the producing companies. Under the National Energy Program we are implementing a new system that will be fair to both consuming and producing provinces. We are looking at a system that will ensure that revenue netbacks in the industry serve to increase rather than to diminish Canadian participation in our own energy future.
I would note in passing that recent price increases have been the subject of critical comment from one part of the Conservative party. The other part apparently thinks they are not enough. Part of the oil price increases arise from a levy being imposed to pay for the acquisition of a foreign-controlled oil company. In that sense when we speak of higher oil prices, we are really speaking of moving money from one pocket to the other. We are acquiring assets by that decision, a decision that brings benefit to all Canadians. I shall return to that point in a moment.
A second feature of our energy program, as elaborated during the course of the last election campaign and more recently, has been to provide Canadians with energy security through the accelerated development of our domestic supply and through assured foreign supply as long as that is required. We in Canada are in the fortunate position of being energy self-sufficient in every form of energy except oil, and in that one segment of our total energy picture, we produce almost 80 per cent of our requirements. Through enhanced supply and increased conservation, we are committed to a policy of selfsufficiency in all forms of energy, including oil by 1990. Natural gas is already in abundance along with uranium, hydroelectricity and coal. We are seeking new forms of renewable energy as well as ensuring that Canadians enjoy self-sufficiency in oil by the end of this decade.
To ensure that we utilize to our advantage our abundant energy resources and move away from our excessive dependency on oil, we have instituted under the National Energy Program an off-oil project, a conversion plan, which offers the consumer a cash grant to convert from oil to other more plentiful forms of energy in household heating. That program, announced in detail late last month, is now on the way to implementation across Canada, with some variations to take into account local requirements. Despite its very recent introduction, it is a program which has already had an enormous impact on the imagination of Canadians.
Equally, paralleling our Canada oil substitution program in the domestic use of oil is a program to encourage the conversion from oil in the industrial and commercial sector. There our goal is to reduce the use of oil to only 10 per cent of total energy requirements from the approximate 20 per cent which was in place only last year. That program, I am happy to note, is already proving highly successful through a co-operative arrangement with industry. Joint industry-government committees have identified a range of conservation measures which are not only bringing benefit in terms of restraining Canada's need for imported oil but, in addition, have already resulted in major savings for the industry sectors involved. In total, some
10372

June 8, 1981
Energy
$1.6 billion is being allocated for the oil conversion program which includes an improved distribution system for natural gas to ensure that Canadians across our country, whether they live in Quebec, the maritimes or on Vancouver Island, have the opportunity to utilize natural gas in their home heating so that we can further reduce our demand for imported oil.
Substitution of natural gas will also be encouraged by the fact that we are committed to a policy whereby natural gas will be held in price at two thirds of the oil energy equivalent. Canadians will have access to natural gas at 66% per cent of the equivalent oil price, including those in eastern Canada where prices are being equalized to encourage households and businesses to switch to natural gas. As a percentage of oil prices, recent gas prices have been about 80 per cent of the oil equivalent. We are determined to bring them down to 66% per cent by 1983.
Obviously producers of natural gas will benefit from this enlarged domestic market in Canada for their natural gas. They have experienced for some years, especially during 1980, the impact of a glut in natural gas. This has in turn brought about a reduction in exploration activities and in gas sales. We are eager to ensure partly through the expansion of the domestic market that their cash flow problems are further reduced.
In our energy policy the expanded role for Petro-Canada received special emphasis. Since coming to office we have taken measures to ensure that Petro-Canada, the national oil company, does play a greater role in the total energy picture. Since April, 1980, new funding of approximately $80 million has been made available to Petro-Canada, and a capital spending program of $900 million for 1981 is envisaged, compared with $435 million in 1980. That expanded program of capital spending has been approved to ensure that Petro-Canada can accelerate its resource development activities throughout our country.
Additionally, as I have already noted, Petro-Canada has acquired the assets of Petrofina to provide further service to Canadians, to provide further opportunity for our state oil company to participate in the energy future which is so promising for our country. We look to that acquisition to parallel the earlier acquisitions of the Canadian assets of Atlantic Richfield and Pacific Petroleums to provide Canadians with a national oil company that will be visible and active in all aspects of the industry.
At the same time that we have sought the further expansion of our supply, we have emphasized in our program conservation and the promotion of alternate energy. Existing programs are being expanded, with the amount of $1.2 billion being allocated for conservation and renewable energy initiatives. In particular, the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, which has now become so familiar to all Canadians, will be further increased to ensure that 70 per cent of Canadian homes are more adequately insulated by 1987.
In terms of renewable energy, in addition to the promotion of solar demonstration and biomass programs which were well under way prior to the National Energy Program, a new
alternate energy agency has been established in Winnipeg under the name of Canertech to accelerate the development and use of renewable energy. Our aim is that the contribution of such forms of energy to total energy demand will be doubled to 6 per cent by 1990.
I regret that the hon. member who immediately preceded me has since left the House, because in the course of his remarks he made reference not only to renewable energy generally but specifically to the question of federal support for tidal power research in Nova Scotia. I want the hon. member opposite to understand that the information he provided the House is not in accord with the facts. We remain willing to consider supporting an update of the Fundy tidal power study to the extent that that work meets the primary objective of oil conservation and substitution. We do not look for federal funding to be expended for extensive consideration of export opportunities, if that is what the hon. member had in mind. However, the export of surplus Fundy tidal output would certainly not be discouraged, provided it meets the normal criteria for export approval by the National Energy Board. With that brief digression I hope the hon. member opposite will rest assured that his fears are unwarranted.
We estimate that conservation and oil substitution measures will enable total domestic oil demand to be reduced, so that by 1990 we should be looking at a domestic supply situation of about 1.5 million barrels a day. In that connection hon. members would want to know that in the first four months of this year domestic oil demand was significantly lower in Canada-especially in eastern Canada-than it was last year. We are in fact consuming less oil today than we were a year ago.
It is my belief that the benefits of the measures I have touched upon in terms of conservation and substitution are beginning to appear. Indeed, that demand for oil had decreased substantially more than we had originally anticipated.
With regard to another major facet of the National Energy Program, that of Canadian ownership and control, we have set a target, which I think is now familiar to most Canadians, of 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. That policy has consistently been supported in all provinces. It is one of the most popular aspects of the total National Energy Program. That fundamental change of direction in our petroleum sector is reflected in newspaper articles every day. I do not need to enumerate many examples, but an obvious one is the acquisition of Petrofina, to which I have already referred. Another is the creation of Dome Canada. Those are two examples which must now be well known to those who follow developments in the industry.
In addition, 1 draw the attention of hon. members to the substantial acquisitions involved in recent moves, such as the the purchase by Canadians of CanDel, and of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. This has helped us to move forward in a dramatic
June 8, 1981

way toward the achievement of our goal of Canadianization of the petroleum sector.
However, that is not the only way in which the move toward greater Canadian participation is happening. On every side we see Canadian companies reaching agreements with foreign-controlled companies which have land rights to pursue jointly exploration on those lands in new and imaginative ways. This has not been a feature of the Canadian petroleum industry in the past.
1 might note in this context too that in our elaboration of the National Energy Program and in the development of requirements for the participation of Canadian-owned companies, we have modified requirements. We have done so to ensure that a maximum number of companies meet a minimum of requirements. They will become eligible for incentive grants this government is providing to ensure that Canadian companies participate in a way in which they have not in the past had an opportunity to do.
Finally, we promised to make energy part of our larger industrial and regional strategy. I do not doubt that members of this House, as well as the public generally, will increasingly see the National Energy Program acting as a catalyst in furthering our economic prospects. The program has been criticized for somehow stultifying such development. I submit that anyone who views the program fairly, taking into account all its aspects, must judge it as a major stimulus of total economic development in the years ahead.


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


William Henry (Bill) Domm: With the permission of the Chair, may I call it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House arose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) had the floor.

Energy


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bussieres:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. the Minister of State for Finance on a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing orders, I wish to inform the House that, in spite of consultations between party spokesmen, it was impossible to agree on the application of Standing Order 75a or 75b at the report and third reading stages of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. Therefore, I have the honour to advise the House that at the next sitting of the House I will move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75c for the purpose of allotting two sitting days for the report stage and one sitting day for third reading of Bill C-57.
*
* *


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald:
That this House condemns the government for again unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consumers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to adjust.
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner adjournment there were a few statements made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren), whom I notice has taken his seat in the House, which I do not wish to allow to pass without some comment.
During the last federal election, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was one thing that annoyed me more than to hear time after time the present Liberal government stating that what we needed in Canada was made-in-Canada energy pricing. There was nothing, it felt, that would serve the people better to keep down the costs of energy than if we had a made-in-Canada energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The then opposition could show the people of Canada how they could get the prices down at the gas pumps, how they could supply low cost heating fuels, how the taxi drivers and the truck drivers and the people driving to and from work would save all these millions of dollars, if they could just get their clutches on some major oil company or

June 8, 1981
Energy
some free enterprise business. So the people bought it, and they were misled, they were misinformed, they were poorly directed and hoodwinked by the then opposition into believing that their increase would be much less than the 18 cents a gallon increase that the Clark government was going to bring out.
What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), then leader of the opposition, say in January of 1980? He said that he would make sure that the people of Canada would not feel the tax of 18 cents, that he would take it upon himself to see that the price of gas would not rise by way of taxes more than 14 cents, to use his words.
What in reality has happened to gas prices since then? Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government fooled the people of Canada again, as it did on wage and price controls. It literally conned them into believing that it was the saviour sent to govern this country, to bring the price of gasoline down, to hold energy prices at a level that the people could afford, to create jobs, to control the growth in government, to have government live within the means at its disposal, namely its revenues.
What went wrong? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources failed to admit in the House today that they cannot produce a tax system of revenue to feed their insatiable quest for dollars. What government in the world can continue to promise the people that it will control expenses, bring down the cost of government, and then continue to mislead, misrepresent and spend on a daily basis 25 per cent more than it takes in each year?
How has the government controlled the growth of energy cost to the consumers of Canada? It has not done it, it cannot do it, and it will not admit it. For example, the government is implementing an energy policy for one ulterior motive, that is, to seize wealth for public ownership and thus socialize the country under a strong unitary central government. It will turn the country into a republic run by the Liberal democratic party which has only one ulterior motive in mind. No matter how it is accomplished, it wishes to seize control of the free enterprise system and drive independent businessmen out of business.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) was in opposition a few months ago, he said that if he were in power when interest rates rose to the level they were when the Conservatives were in power, he would resign. Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce now? He did not resign; he did not hold interest rates to our 10 per cent, 10.5 per cent or 11 per cent. What are the interest rates today? How are they affecting people in the energy business across the country?
I should like to refer to a letter dated May 14, 1981, which I received from Canadian Energy Systems. It was addressed to me and reads as follows:
As our MP, would you kindly put the following question to the finance minister of the opposition? Do you have a mortgage on your home that is due in the near future?
The author of the letter was referring to the government of the day. He was asking me to ask the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) whether he had a mortgage on his home which is now due.
This man from Canadian Energy Systems went on to indicate:
Unfortunately, I am in the position of having to renew my mortgage in October of this year. Presently I am paying interest at the rate of 12 per cent. It appears that I will be faced with an increase of 6 per cent or more!
He continued:
I'm sure that the average "blue-collar" worker will be seeking larger than ever wage settlements in order to cope with interest rates also.
As a small businessman owning Canadian Energy Systems in Peterborough, he said:
-the only way I can afford these exorbitant interest rates is to raise the price of the goods 1 sell. Is this not considered by the minister to be inflationary?
Where are the priorities of the government at a time when people on low and fixed incomes are losing their businesses, homes and farms? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is on record as having some degree of sympathy for farmers. What is he doing about it? What is the Minister of Finance doing to hold down interest? What is the minister responsible for housing doing to fight and lobby to keep down the interest rates on homes on behalf of people who are losing their homes? What is the Minister of Finance doing for farmers in his province who are losing their farms at a rate higher than ever in the history of the country? What do they say in the government? They say that if a small business is incorporated, the government will give some relief through the government bond issue which can be lent out at a lower rate. But what is the government doing for unincorporated small businessmen? Is that privilege being extended to them? The government does not care. Is it being extended to independent farmers, the salt of the earth? They are the people who first settled in the country; they are the people who feed us and a great deal of the world today. What is the government doing for small farmers? Is it extending the bond program so that the farmers faced with high energy costs can obtain money at a low interest rate? The government does not care about the farm community. If the farm is big, or if it is a German investor or an investor from some other foreign country who comes here to buy a block of land and incorporates, the government will help. But, what does the government do for independent farmers who are losing their farms at a rate unsurpassed at any other time in history? The government does not care.
What did members of the government say during the last election campaign about the rising cost of energy under the Clark government? What would they do if they were elected? They said that they could not afford to cause prices to rise to world levels and that it was too much for Canadian industry to pay for oil and gas. What do they say today with the present facts which we have to consider? Are they prepared to lower the price of gasoline as the price drops on the world market?
June 8, 1981

They do not care about taxi drivers, truck drivers, farmers or independent businessmen. I have not seen the price of gas coming down, but this weekend in Britain a major producer of North Sea oil said:
The government reduced their oil prices by $2 per barrel and there are indications that further reductions of up to $5 per barrel are anticipated.
Has the government dropped the price of oil because Britain has been able to drop its price? They did not wish to raise the price when world prices went up. What are they doing to lower the price when world prices go down?
In Mexico, the director of Pemex, the national oil company, reduced the price of Mexican crude by $4 to $30.60 per barrel this past weekend. What has the government done, wherever it is, to lower the price of oil because it is being lowered in Mexico?
Also this past weekend in Malaysia, the state oil company, Petronas, cut its crude prices for the second month in a row. The government raises prices when world prices are going down. When they campaign for an election, they think they fool the people of Canada who gave them a mandate to hold prices down or to hold the gas tax to no more than 14 cents, according to the Prime Minister.
In his speech today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that they were implementing a new system, that that was their election promise. Sure, they are implementing a new system, they can tack on 9 cents overnight. The people of Canada are not being fooled; the government will not get away with it.
Also in his speech today the same parliamentary secretary said that the government would acquire oil companies for the benefit of Canadians. What is the benefit of acquiring Petrofina at $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money? It is not putting one drop of oil into the country. It is not creating any new jobs and, to add insult to injury, the government is paying for the company almost twice what it is worth. That is what happens when the country allows the liberal democratic party, the socialist party, to be in power. The only thing Liberals can envisage is everything in public ownership. What will this mean for Ontario?
If the government has no reservations or guilty feelings about public ownership and continuing to lose money, what will Canadians think when they drive up to service stations, produce their Government of Canada credit cards to buy gasoline, and pay exactly the same for that gasoline, whether it is Gulf, Shell, Imperial Oil or the Government of Canada? What did this government do with its big rip-off on that wellhead tax?
I rose in this House not four weeks ago and told the government that it was criticizing the oil companies for ripping off the public and making excessive profits on products on which they were not even entitled to make profits. At that time I asked the government how much it was going to refund the people of Canada for the illegal wellhead tax rip-off which Petrofina, and now Petro-Canada through its subsidiaries right
Energy
across this country, are making. I also phoned members of the executive of Petro-Canada and asked how much they would be refunding the people of Canada out of the rip-off tax they were collecting? They said said that their prices were determined by the marketplace. That is the policy of Petro-Canada. They will get the top dollar for every gallon of gas they sell to eastern Canada. They will get the top price for oil, which has gone up 50 per cent in price since this government came into office.
I say to the people of Canada that they can look forward to a glorious day when the Government of Canada, the bureaucracy and the civil servants shove the nozzle of the gas hose into the tanks of their cars. And they will do this, not to give Canadians cheaper energy and not to hold the price of oil down, but to gouge Canadians for every cent they can get to feed the government's insatiable appetite-a government which spends 25 per cent more than it takes in every year. This is a government which has no thought about where the money will come from.
Do you know who will own Canada, Mr. Speaker? Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina and countries such as those will own us. If we sold every nickel's worth of stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange tomorrow, we could not pay off our national debt of $100 billion. The government cannot even afford to pay the annual interest on the debt. It budgeted for a $14 billion loss this year-and this is the government which was going to hold the deficit down. This is the government which was going to keep expenses down to within its revenue. This government betrayed and befuddled the people of Canada. It conned them into believing that it has some answers when, in reality, all it has is more problems and a $100 billion deficit.
I would like to give two examples of how little this government cares about the people of Canada today through the policies it has in place. First, there is UFFI, urea formaldehyde foam insultation. The government knew back in 1977 that this product was no good. The report concerning this product is with the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is also aware of it. What did the government do? It approved grants under CHIP for the installation of a dangerous substance into the homes of Canadians. What is the government doing now to solve the problem to which it contributed in large part? Absolutely nothing. It is studying the study which was just completed, which study studied the study which was done in 1978, which verified that in 1977 this was considered to be a dangerous commodity.
The members of this House have a moral obligation to the people of Canada to pay for the testing of their homes. This government does not care. It does not care about oil prices, gas prices, energy prices, insultation costs or government expenditures. All it cares about it getting elected to office. The members of the government party will do it with the aid of the socialist party to my left every time there is a division in this House. Every time there is a vote in this House they all bow down to Allah. They all hold up their hands and go marching down the aisle to a republican Canada, a socialist country.
June 8, 1981

Energy
If this government can take over the oil companies-members opposite look astounded when I say that this government is placing into public ownership private corporations. They have no reason to be surprised. I have no doubt in my mind that this government is capable of nationalizing-I call it putting into public ownership-all the nickel, gold, iron ore and uranium which we have in Ontario. If this government gets its mitts on the wealth of Alberta, Newfoundland, British Columbia and Saskatchewan with the help of the fellows to my left, by placing the wealth into public ownership and by removing the possibility for provincial royalties, it will take control of everything on which it can get its hands.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that once the government has an interest in these companies they no longer pay royalties, it is illegal? This government has no intention of cutting the costs of government. Until this country elects a party which cares about living within its means, a party which has the guts to reduce the size of the bureaucracy around here, we will have a republican country. Everything will be in public ownership. There are people in this building who make $80,000 and $90,000 a year. The top paid civil servant who works for the Prime Minister makes more than he does. There is staff on this Hill working in the bureaucracy who make more than members of Parliament. There is no excuse at all for the way this government allows the bureaucracy to run our country. I will give members opposite credit for one thing, they know how to get votes. They get votes by misleading and misrepresenting the people of Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the second point I wish to make is this: on January 1 this government can find $564 million with which to purchase foreign-made metric weigh scales. That is inexcusable. The urea formaldehyde problem could be solved with that sum of money. We would be allowed to stay with our Canadian form of measurement, known as the imperial standard. This government does not care about the people, nor does it care about energy prices. This government will drive free enterprise right out of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to speak on the Conservative opposition motion. In its motion it asks that this House condemn the government for again unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consumers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to adjust. I find it strange for the Conservatives to introduce such a motion when they were not very sympathetic at the time they were in a position to do something about this problem.
Our lead-off speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), did an excellent job of showing how the increase in prices actually hurt consumers. He also did an excellent job showing that the policies of Liberals and Conservatives alike are very much the same when it comes to
dealing with the energy problem, or the energy crisis, as it is referred to by some people here in Canada.
I would like to take a few minutes to address a few groups which I think are being hurt, particularly those whom I have the honour to represent. They are the people who live in remote northern communities and those involved in the agricultural sector.
Before I address these groups I would like to say a few words about Petro-Canada. During the last election campaign I was very active in supporting Petro-Canada. I thought it was a great agency. I saw it as a way for Canadians to gain some control of the petroleum industry. First, I thought we could gain some substantial control, Canadian control, of the petroleum industry through Petro-Canada. Then I thought Petro-Canada would be a different type of oil company which would sell oil through exploration development at a cost determined by the people who owned it. We could then find out what margin of profit would have to be taxed. In this way we could establish a realistic price to the consumer for a resource which he owned, not some inflated price imposed on us by the oil companies. We, as a party, and myself as an individual, thought that Petro-Canada would be able to provide us with some kind of information about the oil industry. We thought Petro-Canada could tell us how much hydrocarbons there were left in the ground, what it cost to actually develop them and what a realistic price for them would be. There would be a lot of research information that should come back into the federal government and to the people of Canada so we could be more informed and more articulate about the problems which we encounter in the oil industry, because up until now we have had a real problem, as a government and as Canadian people, in acquiring information about the oil industry.
However, I think that at this time, I am not as enthusiastic about Petro-Canada as I was during the last election campaign. The reason I am not as enthusiastic about Petro-Canada is that I am afraid this government will not do anything different with Petro-Canada. Ail it will try to do is to develop a larger oil company which is a little more efficient. It will still do some of the things which are distasteful to Canadian people. There is a lot of secrecy involved around Petro-Canada. Its policies go astray from time to time, for example when it spends a substantial amount of dollars, not for the benefit of Canadian people but to the benefit of people in other countries when it has its logo developed in other areas of the world instead of in Canada. It has also overlooked the rights of northern territories where some of the oil companies and Petro-Canada have been given lease rights, rights to go into exploration, before the land claims in the north are settled. Therefore, Petro-Canada is turning into something which is no different from any other large oil company, and that distresses me.
I think that if we are looking at something which will just grow larger and try to operate more efficiently, we will be
June 8, 1981

caught in the same trap in which we have been for years in Canada. Petro-Canada is a corporation which should be run for the people of the country, a company they would own in terms of their own resources. Instead of changing the direction, looking at alternatives, finding better ways of delivery, we are just trying to run it more efficiently, as do some of the large multinational oil companies in the free enterprise system. That really distresses me about Petro-Canada.
I would like to go back now to addressing some of the problems I have mentioned earlier, especially as they affect those people who have had the seven or so consecutive price increases in petroleum products. I think that in the northern areas we have some very unique problems. The cost of hauling fuel to some of these areas is prohibitive. According to the figures from the 1976 census, which are the most recent, until we have the figures from the latest census, in 1976, over 40 per cent of the homes in remote areas were heated by oil, and another 20 per cent were heated by oil with possibly wood to substitute for some of the oil and heating fuel consumption.
It should be pointed out that to put in natural gas in many of these remote and northern communities is simply uneconomical and unviable. Therefore, when people have to pay the high cost of transportation to cover the cost of the fuel as well as the increases which are coming, it becomes exceedingly difficult for them to fit this into their family budgets on top of the cost of heating their homes. Also it becomes increasingly difficult for small business people to operate their businesses because of the high energy costs which are being laid upon them.
I would like to acknowledge some of the advantages of the oil compensation program of the federal government. I am very pleased to see that this has been settled between the provinces and the federal government so that people in the provinces can take advantage of the oil compensation program which has been instituted by the federal government. In many of the northern communities, about 85 per cent of the homes are heated by oil. Oil prices there, even last winter, were prohibitive. I know that in some areas in my constituency heating fuel itself was up to about $1.29 a gallon, and the cost of automobile gas or boat gas for the fishermen was even higher than that. What will all these increases come to by the end of this year? Will fuel be $2 a gallon more? Will it be $2.50 more? I do share one concern that the Conservatives have with the Liberal government, that is, when will the government come clean with us and tell us at what point those increases will stop? Are we going to meet the world price? Are we going to meet 85 per cent of the world price? Are we going to go beyond world price before this is over?
I think we are caught in a ridiculous situation of fighting over oil pricing between central Canada in the east and central Canada in the west and, at the same time, the government is not willing to meet the reduced prices of the western provinces, or, to be more accurate, the producing provinces. At the same time, we are spending large sums of money for compensating for the price of oil from other countries, for bringing in
Energy
offshore oil, from Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world. I think it is a ridiculous situation in which we are caught.
I know that in Manitoba, at Red Sucker Lake last year, the cost of oil was $1.85, which is even higher than the $1.29 a gallon for heating fuel in many places in my constituency. In some places in northern Ontario, it is as high as $3 a gallon. 1 think that this is very, very hard on the people in the outlying, remote northern areas. This would cover the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It would also cover most of the northern area of the provinces in Canada.
I would now like to turn to another area, one relating to the farmers whom I have mentioned. I think the farmers are hit exceedingly hard with the high energy costs. The facts show us that farmers use about 8.9 million barrels of diesel fuel every year, and another 15.1 million barrels of gasoline. Years ago a farmer used to be able to feed about 10 people on an average farm. Today in Canada, the average farm feeds about 50 people. Therefore, over the years, although the agricultural industry has started to use a lot more hydrocarbons and a lot more petroleum products, it has become much more efficient; in fact, vastly more efficient than any other sector of the economy. However, at the same time, farmers are hard hit by the high fuel costs because it is necessary for them to have that energy to be as efficient as they are; and they are very efficient.
I would like to see the government put more effort into finding energy alternatives to be used on farms. I know that right now, on a farm just outside of Unity, Saskatchewan, there are a few people who are doing some exploratory work into the use of hydrous ammonia to run vehicles. In fact, I have seen these vehicles which run on hydrous ammonia. They are presently converting diesel tractors in that area to run on hydrous ammonia, and an acetylene catalyst is used to make it sufficiently combustible and to prevent energy loss in the use of this fuel. This is just one idea that I would like to see the government pursuing more vigorously so that the farming sector can have some choices and so the agricultural sector can have a secure energy supply in the future. Farmers need fuel which is reasonably priced, because of all the sectors of our economy, they are hit the hardest because they cannot pass the cost on to the consumer.
Although, most small business people are being hit right now by high interest rates and inflation, in most cases they can at least pass on their increased costs to the consumer. I suppose they may be cutting back a bit on their inventories, and their sales might be somewhat reduced, but most of their costs are passed on. In the agricultural sector, very few of the increased costs of production can actually be passed on to the consumer. This really puts the farming population at a disadvantage. I think that if we do not do something about the increased costs of production on the farms, either by reducing their costs of production, or else by increasing the revenue for the products farmers sell, we will find ourselves in a disastrous situation in terms of producing food in Canada.
It distresses me to find that at certain times of the year we import about 90 per cent of our vegetables into this country,

June 8, 1981
Energy
when we could be even more productive than we are in the food and agricultural industry in this country. As I have mentioned, the farmers and the people involved in agriculture have improved their productivity much more than has any other sector of the economy; but it could be even better if the government would help by giving direction. I thank our lucky stars that the farmers have been so devoted to the work which they do in producing food for this country. I fear that very soon we will see beef producers and grain producers going on strike and withholding their products from the market. They might do so in an effort to get some kind of reasonable return for the produce which they are turning out to feed Canadian people and to sell abroad to help reduce our trade deficit. This is one of the few sectors of the economy that is more than pulling its weight. I think the government is a bit hard on that sector of the economy with the increased prices for petroleum products and taxes it has imposed. The situation has become very sad indeed.
Since the Liberals came back to power there have been seven increases in the price of oil. During the election campaign they claimed their increases would be less than those proposed by the Conservatives, and I am sure that promise helped them get elected. The people of Canada relied on that promise. I think I accepted it at one time, but I have learned a great deal about the Liberals in the few months I have been a member of this House of Commons. I know that you cannot rely on the word of political parties at election time.
It is time that the federal government indicated to the people where all this is going to end or when we can expect an agreement on an energy policy in Canada. I do not know of any such agreement at the present time.
Although the National Energy Program is a good idea, it has been bogged down for quite some time. I think we should be gaining more control over the petroleum industry in Canada and, indeed, that was the intent of the National Energy Program. But the federal government's approach has turned it into a disaster. We will not reach energy self-sufficiency in the next decade; indeed, at the rate we are going, we will not reach energy self-sufficiency within the next century, unless something is done to turn things around and give an opportunity to oil companies, provincial governments and members of this House to have consultations with the government. Indeed, in the debates in this House, members have offered good advice on how we could design a more effective policy for Canada.
These problems will plague us for years to come unless this arrogant Liberal government begins to listen to the people. Unless something is done now, we will not have a realistic energy policy for self-sufficiency in the next decade or, indeed, the next century.
The government committed itself to keeping prices under control but it has not succeeded. Increase has followed increase. High interest rates are fuelling inflation and the costs being tacked on to petroleum products are aggravating the situation. I have great sympathy for people living in remote
northern communities and for people engaged in agriculture who have to absorb these costs. They cannot pass them on to anyone. A member of the Conservative party who spoke previously said that the rate of bankruptcies amongst farmers is the highest it has been in the history of the country. That certainly indicates the problems that exist at the grassroots. The government should be paying attention to this and not just take whatever advice sounds palatable to it.
I realize it is confusing for the government when even the economists cannot agree. If we had ten economists in a room and asked for their professional advice, we would quite likely get seven, eight or even ten different opinions on how to solve the problems that face us. Fuel prices are not the only problem; there are many others, such as high interest rates. I do not hold the government totally at fault but I should like to see it take some new directions instead of just trying to run the old systems more efficiently. Perhaps some of the systems that are already in place could be changed, or some of the alternatives that have been recommended could be adopted.
Our committee worked long and hard through last summer and into this year on the new alternative energy report. I hope the government will seriously consider this attractive report and its recommendations for research and development so that alternatives to the hydrocarbons and nuclear power systems on which we are so dependent can be developed. I am sure we could have a wide range of alternatives. At this point we should be trying to establish the infrastructure so that we can make use of such things as hydrous ammonia in some farm machinery and in agriculture and so that we could build more solar efficient homes.
Until this comes about, we remain at the mercy of the large oil companies such as Imperial Oil, Shell, Gulf and Texaco. We have to pay homage to these companies and pamper them because we are at their mercy. We do not have anything else to fall back on. As I said, earlier, I had hoped that Petro-Canada would provide us with an alternative, but that is not happening.
I know that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, and I will wrap up my remarks now. I had other things to say about the increasing price of petroleum products. Whether this is necessary is not the question-I think all Canadians accept that some increase in the price of oil is necessary, but we would like to know how high they will go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I rise to participate in the debate tonight on the opposition motion that deals with a condemnation of the government for "unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consumers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to cope."
June 8, 1981

This motion, put forward by the Conservative opposition, effectively says two things, Mr. Speaker. It is a condemnation not only of the government's policy with regard to energy, but a condemnation of the government for not protecting those who are supposedly, and in fact are, being hit by the rising price of oil and, by implication, high interest rates, and other things as well.
I should like to try to deal with those issues-the condemnation, the reasonableness of the condemnation of oil prices, the condemnation implied now, as it has been many times in the past in this House, of the other parts of the government's economic policy and the condemnation of the government for not assisting those who are being hard hit by rising prices across the board, and by high interest rates.
In the budget of October 28, the government promised essentially three things, Mr. Speaker. First, it promised to restrain spending and bring it within the trend line of the growth of the gross national product over a period of four years. Second, it promised to reorder government spending priorities toward a greater emphasis on economic development, industrial adjustment and manpower retraining. These programs have been introduced in order to try to help the people make the adjustments that all hon. members agree will be necessary in our daily working lives over the next several years. Finally, the government promised to follow a monetary policy consistent with the fight against inflation.
Let me deal first with the argument pertaining to oil prices. Today we heard members of the opposition claim that they would not have increased the price of oil nearly as fast as this government has done. This is a surprising statement because, basically, it just is not true.
In the past, as I probably will in the future, I have relied on the words of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was minister of finance. I think he understood the realities of economic policy that face any minister of Finance, this country and the government. In his sombre moods, he is not swept away with the kind of rhetoric that some of the members of the opposition-and I hasten to point to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-are swept away. The hon. member for St. John's West can be very rational. I have listened to what the hon. member has to say. I believe he follows me in this debate, at which time he will have something to say in response.
The hon. member for St. John's West appeared on the program "Question Period" yesterday. He was asked some penetrating questions and gave some honest and straightforward answers. I would like to relate some of the hon. member's responses that are very pertinent to today's debate. It says something about what the Conservative policy is, or what a responsible segment of that party believes the Conservative policy should be, and what their assessment of this government's policy is. In many cases, it is a very realistic and fair assessment.
Energy
The hon. member for St. John's West was asked what would happen to oil price increases and what the situation would have been under a Conservative government. He replied as follows:
Had we been there, we wouldn't be spending $5 billion on the oil imports subsidy. The price to the primary producer of a barrel of oil would have been higher and the oil imports subsidy considerably lower and the deficit considerably lower and then even with a mortgage interest and an energy tax credit we wouldn't have the deficit that we have today.
The implication, if I read that properly, is that if the oil import compensation payments are less, then oil prices have to be higher because the oil imports compensation payment is based on the differential between the domestic price and the foreign price. If the compensation payments are less, that means that either the world price is lower, which is not conceivable because it is outside of our control, or the domestic price would have to be higher, which is very conceivable. Not only that, but the price to the primary producer of a barrel of oil would have been much higher than under this government.
These are quotes from statements by the hon. member in "Question Period". He was asked how fast energy prices should rise in this country and whether it is necessary for energy prices to rise in this country. I think all members agree that it is necessary. The question was asked:
-how quickly do you think that we should move the price of domestic oil close to the world level? How fast should we move?
The hon. member replied:
Well, I think that we should-at least as fast as we were proposing a couple of years ago, certainly to 75 per cent over the next several years ... I don't think we should delay too long. We're babying ourselves too long now-
The hon. member was then asked:
Do you think we should move as fast as, say, three years to get our own oil prices on to a realistic, lasting level or should we spread it out over five, six, seven years.
The hon. member replied:
I think that three or four years should be plenty.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member agrees with the statement. Well, they are his statements. The point is that the hon. member is putting forward here what he considers to be a reasonable responsible policy, that is, to go to 75 per cent of the world price on oil over the next three or four years. That is a position in which he firmly believes. However, it runs right in the face of the kind of statements his colleagues have been making all day, saying that this government is following an irresponsible oil pricing policy by doing less than that.
The hon. member for St. John's West is not the most aggressive in the oil pricing debate. Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), I believe speaking in the west, indicated that he feels the price of Canadian domestic oil should be taken to $35 a barrel very quickly.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are paying Mexico more.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member says that we are paying more to Mexico. We heard today that Canadian consumers are

June 8, 1981
Energy
being badly hurt by this government's energy pricing policy. If we were to raise our prices by 50 per cent to 75 per cent over what they are today, it would hurt them even more. You cannot have it both ways.
If hon. members opposite think consumers are being damaged by the way oil prices are rising under this government's policy, how can they believe the consumers would be better off if prices rose faster? That is inconsistent. We need some consistency of policy, consistency of opposition criticism of this government if the debate is going to mean anything. Members opposite ask us to listen to their criticism and respond to it. When the criticism is so contradictory, how in the world can the government respond in a way that will satisfy any reasonable faction of members opposite? It cannot.
We heard additional criticisms about the government's interest rate policy. This is an area where the hon. member for St. John's West can supply some great insights into the validity of this government's current economic policy in the area of monetary policy. I wish to quote another response given by the hon. member yesterday. With regard to questions about the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the governor of the Bank of Canada and the interest rate policy, he said:
-I think the only way-to bring down these interest rates is you've got to convince the public that you intend to really battle inflation and that you're really going to, the government is going to restrain its own spending, that (it) is putting in a program that over the next number of years will mean government restrains itself.
That clearly means the government should not introduce additional major spending programs. That would not be restraint. When the Minister of Finance indicates that he does not intend to introduce major new spending programs for the next two to three years, members opposite condemn him for being unfeeling, for not responding to the needs of Canadians. Yet the hon. member for St. John's West indicates that is one of the prime policies this government should undertake to convince Canadians it is serious about getting inflation under control and that only by getting inflation under control will interest rates come down, which is what all members want. I agree with the hon. member for St. John's West absolutely and totally. The questioner went on:
Are you convinced that the policy of the Bank of Canada is correct? If you were in power, would you back Mr. Bouey and his policy?
The hon. member replied:
Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey-
Later he was asked:
-what actions would you take to reinforce Mr. Bouey's monetary policy through an appropriate approach on the fiscal side?
The hon. member had some comments to make on that. I agree with a great many of the statements he makes. He said:
Well, I think that you'd have to be very convincing that you're tightening expenditure-
Not introducing major new programs.
-you know, that you're really getting it under control. Now on that side I don't think that you can control spending more-if you could have spending so there's no real increase, you know, because of inflation there's going to be an increase, you'd be doing mighty battle there and it would be tough to do-
The hon. member is saying they are not going to solve the problem of government expenditures by cutting spending because cutting spending is very difficult to do, regardless of the comments of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who would like to see spending cut dramatically and the size of government cut dramatically. The hon. member for St. John's West has taken a realistic point of view. He said that, given the nature of government spending-the nature of transfers to the provinces, transfers to people and the provision of services by the government-cutting spending is not the way to get the deficit down. Then he came out with the other statement that the way to do that would be to look for additional revenue. I agree with the hon. member for St. John's West completely, but you cannot keep spending under control or hold it in line and at the same time increase spending for other programs unless you increase taxes, and the hon. member for St. John's West has indicated we would have to increase revenues just to get the present deficit down without increasing spending and with no new programs whatsoever.
Finally, I think we have to come to grips with another issue on which we have been attacked, and that is that our policy is a made-in-United States interest rate policy, for example. I think on this point the hon. member for St. John's West is totally and completely in line with the government's policy. Let me quote him. He says:
But accepting things as they are, I agree that our interest rates have to keep track of those in the United States, unfortunately, until we can strengthen our own economy and strengthen the Canadian dollar.
I think that is where the hon. member will have some points to raise because he feels there are positive economic policies to strengthen our economy which should be undertaken. He thinks those policies will strengthen these things and give us some flexibility. But, given the situation we are in now, and that is what he was referring to, he says:
I think it would be too risky to allow American interest rates to go up and ours not to follow pretty closely behind because of what might happen to the Canadian dollar. Every time it goes down a cent our cost of living goes up three-point four-tenths of one per cent is a generally accepted figure-and if the slide started, who knows how far down that might go, and I think that that would be very risky for us. In that sense I defend the policy.
That policy is this government's policy, and the defence is coming from the finance critic of the opposition party. I think the hon. member was being honest in giving a fair assessment of government policy. I respect the hon. member's intelligence, I respect his analytical ability, and I respect the fact that he respects the government's policy.
With regard to policies to help those who are being hurt by current economic conditions, not only here but all over the world, we have heard condemnation that the government has no policy in place and does not care about the people, but that is not true.


An hon. Member:: Who says so?


John Leslie Evans: they bring forward the energy tax credit as an alternative, but, at its best, the energy tax credit means $80 a year. The guaranteed income supplement increase for the people who are being hurt the most and are least able to help themselves, as was admitted by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, means something in the range of $480, and it is indexed so it will go up every year with the cost of living. It keeps its real protecting power.
In addition, hon. members seem to forget that this government and previous governments have brought in policies over time to ensure that Canadians who are least able to protect themselves from the ravages of inflation, are protected, and are protected in a very real way. There are indexed programs which have been brought in by governments, including our government, particularly previous Liberal governments. There is the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, veterans' allowances and pensions, family allowances, a child tax credit, Canada Pension Plan benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, federal contributions to the Canada Assistance Plan, as well as the personal income tax itself and the tax brackets within that system, all of which are indexed. It means that Canadians who receive these benefits, who happen to be the Canadians who are least able to help and protect themselves from the ravages of inflation, are protected, and they are protected as a matter of government policy. The Minister of Finance in his statement on Friday indicated there will be no pulling back from that protection which is provided to Canadians in those policies. He also said there will be no increase in government expenditure programs and no new expenditure programs. Like the hon. member for St. John's West, he believes the deficit should be brought down. He believes the only real way of protecting Canadians over the long run is to get inflation under control. This will bring interest rates down, it will put productivity back on track, it will increase savings and investment, and that is the way to get a country on track.
It seems to me that if hon. members opposite would concentrate on positive approaches to achieve those kinds of goals, helping the government by putting forward positive alternatives, rather than by putting forward a motion such as this, which really says nothing and is in fact contradictory within the policy of the party opposite, this House would be far better off and these debates would be more meaningful, not only to ourselves but to those Canadians who watch to see how their government is working. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is that he believes in nothing but whatever kind of subterfuge will get him and his party in power and keep them there. That is what this resolution today is about. It is about a betrayal of the Canadian people, the Canadian public. We condemn the government for unnecessarily burdening the consumer with high energy costs. Why does it do that? It does so because the high energy costs are not to help Canada's situation or help us to develop our oil and gas reserves or anything else. The high energy costs are government taxation. Of the 12 increases in the price of oil and gas since March, 1980, nine have been
Energy
increases in federal taxation only. We are condemning the government, not because it is increasing the price of oil in Canada so the producers, the provinces and those who own the resources can get the cash flow to go to the frontiers, the offshore, the heavy oils and the tar sands and develop them, since it is not doing that, but because of the 12 increases, despite what it promised in the election campaign, nine have been to fill federal tax coffers. That is what we condemn the government for.
What else do we condemn it for? We condemn the government because it has forgotten the consumer, particularly with respect to home heating oil prices without any relief for those least able to pay. Every one of those 12 increases is an increase in the price of heating oil which is particularly hard on the people of eastern Canada who buy heating oil to heat their homes using an oil furnace or an oil stove. Twelve times they have been crucified by the Minister of Finance who is from Cape Breton and promised them in the election campaign "vote Liberal and the price will stay down". That is what we condemn, the brazen cynicism that makes a solemn pledge to the people of the country and the minister's own region, "vote Liberal and the price will stay down" and then raise the price 12 times, every time raising the price of heating oil which hurts the lower income people of this country most.
We compare this with our own budget on which we were defeated. It proposed an 18-cent excise tax which did not apply at all to heating oil. It applied to transportation fuels and to transportation fuels only. We look at our own budget on which the government and the NDP together defeated us, and we see there an energy tax credit to help the Canadian consumer meet these increasing energy costs. Our increases in energy costs were not just all in the form of taxation to the federal government. They also included increases to the producers. We proposed these increases in stages over the next three or four years.
We also proposed an energy tax credit that this year would give the lower income people of Canada $500 million, and $1 billion next year. This would go to every family which earned up to $21,380 a year. They would get the full energy tax credit. A family of four this year would get $ 110 to help meet these costs, and $220 next year, and so on ad infinitum.
In addition, we had a mortgage interest and property tax program that would have paid Canadian home owners this year $1,245 billion and next year $2,015 billion. This is what we mean by being concerned about the Canadian consumer, and that is what we would have done for them, but the hypocrites opposite and the hypocrites to our left in this House voted against that. They said that we were crucifying the Canadian people. They could not vote to support such a harsh regime as we had proposed in the budget, and then they get into office here based on those false promises, and they crucify Canadians with 12 increases, and they do not give one cent in mortgage interest or property tax support to the home owners of Canada despite the fantastic interest rates, 5 per cent higher than they were when we were in office, and they do not give one cent in assistance through an energy tax credit to lower

June 8, 1981
Energy
income Canadians. That is what we condemn them for, the great betrayal.
The man who on January 23, 1980, said, "Vote Liberal, and the price will stay down" is back in office now. He is back in his safe cocoon. He is now the Big Minister of Finance. He is a big man, he is going to fight inflation, he will be tough, he is going to be strong and he is going to be holding out against giving anybody any assistance. He is not going to help the poor, the lower income, anyone. No, he is big, tough Allan MacEachen now for the next three years until the election gets close, he is the big, tough Cape Bretoner battling inflation. Well, what did he say now that he is safe-he has another four years in office-on page 4 of his speech of May 6, 1981?
I have earlier identified energy as a source of two thirds of the rise in consumer inflation that we have experienced in the last five months, and I have argued that higher energy prices cannot be avoided.
Did that advertisement say higher energy prices cannot be avoided? No, this lying advertisement said, "Vote Liberal, and the price will stay down". But now we hear the truth from the gentleman when he is back in office. He says in the earlier part of his speech that the cost of living has gone up 13.9 per cent in the last five months. He then says that two thirds of that is due to higher energy prices. He neglects to say that those higher energy prices are all caused by increased federal taxation-by him, in other words. He caused that increase. And what do we see when we look at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said before the last election? The Prime Minister said this:
Our made-in-Canada oil price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed for the next four years in the Clark budget.
That is falsehood number two. Then he said at Memorial University on January 31, 1980:
Our price will not be $6 a barrel; it will be under $4 per barrel.
A $4 per barrel price of oil at the wellhead is a 12 cents to 16 cents increase at the gasoline pump each year. Well, we know what has happened, but before I get to that, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) also said, and I quote now from The Globe and Mail of March 22:
-he expects to hold down gasoline-price increases at the pumps to about 16 cents a gallon annually for the next four years.
That was March 22, 1980. "We would not have increases in excess of 16 cents a gallon annually for the next four years": That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said. That is what this gentleman here said. The advertisement said: "Do you believe this man?" There is not a person in the country, except perhaps for the Liberal caucus, who believes this man. No, we do not believe that man. We do not believe a word that man says.


Mr. McKenzie:: I will hold it up so everyone across the country can see it. Lalonde the liar.


John Carnell Crosbie: What increases have we actually had? I will give my own city of St. John's, Newfoundland. I am comparing now March, 1980, to June 4, 1981. If we take heating oil,
we have heating oil, February, 1980, in St. John's, Newfoundland at 79 cents a gallon. We have heating oil today, June 4, at $1.22 a gallon, 44 cents more, an increase of 55.7 per cent to the poor people of St. John's, Newfoundland, who use oil to fuel their heating requirements, a 55 per cent increase. This is the gentleman who said: "Vote Liberal, and we will hold the price down; they will not go up". Then we have the gasoline prices in St. John's Newfoundland: regular, $1.28 a gallon but on June 4, $1.89 a gallon, up 61 cents a gallon in the last year and a half, an increase of 47 per cent.
Then we have premium unleaded, January, 1980, $1.39 a gallon. Today, $2.03 a gallon, up 63 cents a gallon, a 45 per cent increase. And on and on it goes. These are the facts. This is betrayal. These facts cannot be gainsaid.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He should be kicked out of the country.


John Carnell Crosbie: By the way, we have the minister admitting this. He did not admit it today when he was giving his speech, but to The Globe and Mail on June 4 he admitted this. He said:
However, outside the Commons, he conceded-
This was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
-that the current oil prices Canadians are paying are "about even" with those projected in that Conservative budget.
I do not care if they are even or more for the purposes of my argument. The minister admits they are even. In fact, they are more. The tragedy is that these prices are all in federal tax increases. We have no energy agreement with Alberta that we would have had a year and a half ago had we been left in office. We have no agreement with them because they are being screwed to the wall and all the producers are because the increases are going to the federal treasury, nothing to the oil producers, nothing to the people who explore and who develop and who refine. All to the federal government.
1 have impartial evidence here, the Winnipeg Free Press from an editorial of April 25, which reads:
Unlike the Conservative tax, they fall equally on users of gasoline and of home-heating fuel and they do nothing, as the Conservative proposals would have, to help people on lower incomes cope with higher fuel costs.
The same with an article in The Vancouver Sun.
So even, if Trudeau's promise was merely to keep gasoline price hikes below the Tories' 18-cent mark each year, he has already broken his word in 1981.
And so on.


Walter David Baker: So what is new?


John Carnell Crosbie: "So what is new", as my hon. friend here says. The tragedy of this is that we have a complete betrayal of the Canadian people, and we are further away from an energy price agreement than we ever were. Who would negotiate with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whom we saw a few days ago raise gasoline prices nine cents a gallon unnecessarily and blame it on Alberta's cutback in production, when actually consumption has dropped in Canada and he does not need to do that whatsoever? I would just as soon negotiate with a greased cobra as negotiate with the Minister of Energy,
June 8, 1981

Mines and Resources, and if the Government of Canada wants an agreement with the producing provinces, it has to do away with the greased cobra who gets up in this House and gets on with that kind of nonsense and exacerbates the airways and arouses anger wherever he looks or turns.
With respect to our excise tax, by the way, there was a discount of ten cents a gallon for farmers, a discount of ten cents a gallon for fishermen and for urban transit workers. There is nothing like that for farmers or fishermen or urban transit workers in these 12 increases of the last year. There certainly is not. There is no help for the consumers whatsoever except for the senior citizens, who should have had the help* anyway and should not have all those federal tax increases on them. Eighty per cent of the total amount of these increases of the last year and three months goes to federal taxation and does not go to solve our oil situation here in Canada at all.


Walter David Baker: They do not produce another drop of oil.


John Carnell Crosbie: Heavy oil development has stopped. Tar sands development has stopped. We have high interest rates and poor economic prospects, all because of this fantastic energy betrayal of the Canadian people and of the Canadian industry by gentlemen opposite. In my hand I have the supplementary estimates, and they show that this government is going to tax Canadian consumers this year $4,808,000,000 in the petroleum compensation charge alone; hon. gentlemen opposite are removing $4,808,000,000 from the pockets of the Canadian consumer to pay out to the Saudi Arabians, to pay out to the Venezuelans, to pay out to the Mexicans, to pay out to foreigners all around the world; to enrich foreigners.
They will do nothing to help develop our own oil and gas resources here in Canada except fight to the death to give them $17.75 a barrel while they pay the rest of these people $43 a barrel. The oil import subsidy will cost over $5 billion this year. The hon. gentleman talks about deficit spending; that is where the money is that could help the lower income Canadians. That could finance the mortgage interest and property tax credit. That would finance the energy tax credit, and that would still reduce the deficit very considerably if they had a sensible oil pricing policy, a price for the oil, not a price for federal taxation coffers, not a price for the Lalonde-MacEachen series of fantastic tax increases. That is where there would be more than sufficient room to pay for those and reduce the deficit as well.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance are crucifying Canadians on the cross of Saudi oil. They are soaking Canadians to enrich foreign oil producers. That is all they are doing. They are sinking this country because of the stupid series of callous promises they made during the election, and they are now trying to fool the Canadian people into thinking they are keeping them.
The Canadian people know they have betrayed them utterly, and what they want them to do is to adopt a sensible oil policy, reach an agreement with Alberta and the producing provinces, get this behind, get Canada on the right track to energy
Energy
self-sufficiency, stop going on with this criminal subterfuge they entered into in the fall of 1979 and in the election campaign of 1980. The Canadian people know hon. gentlemen opposite betrayed them. The Canadian people want them to stop that betrayal and come on with a sensible policy. That is what we ask them to do.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance are the George III of Canada. They are the greatest taxation raisers in our country's history. They are doing nothing to help resolve this energy crisis. According to Mr. Slater of the Economic Council of Canada:
The first step to a stronger Canadian economy has to be a speedy resolution of the energy pricing and revenue-sharing dispute between Ottawa and the oil-producing provinces-
He gave his evidence before the Senate and said the same. That is from February 17, 1981.
Mr. Bouey goes before the Senate and what does he say? Mr. Bouey's high interest rates are the government's high interest rates. You have left him dangling there without any assistance to fight the battle of inflation. He says:
-a settlement of energy disputes probably ought to be given the highest priority in economic policy these days... the settlement might very well help us on the exchange rate and might improve the investment climate.
There is a plea from governor Bouey on May 26 before the Senate. The deputy minister of finance says much the same kind of thing.


An hon. Member:: Years ago.


John Carnell Crosbie: They have been saying it, yes, year after year. But this government goes on and has its Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources carry on last week with a scurvy attempt to score a point on Alberta, which is really only a revenue grab of 9 cents a gallon that the Canadian consumers are paying to put more revenue into the Minister of Finance's coffers. It is not going to help resolve this dispute because anybody who saw that devious, scheming minister speaking in and outside of this House, it would raise their hackles. They will say, "by God, that fellow is never going to put it over on us". That is what they will say in Alberta and the other producing provinces. We will never have an agreement while that coiled cobra is in charge of negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I heard a member of the New Democratic Party say here tonight that he did not realize what the Liberals were like. The innocents abroad are now back in Canada. The NDP do not know what the Liberals are like. Then why are they jumping into bed with the Liberals on the Constitution? Now that they have learned what the Liberals are really like, why are they cosying up to them and assisting them in their policy to nationalize the oil and gas industry in Canada? Why are they helping the Liberals centralize power in Ottawa through their constitutional proposals? If the NDP have finally learned how devious, deficient, denatured and denaturalized

June 8, 1981
Energy
the Liberal party is, then I suggest that they stop their constant support for them, support which has been constant for the last ten years at least in this House, and get on to supporting some more reasonable approaches to these matters.
That is what this resolution is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about betrayal, because all of these 12 increases are hitting the Canadian consumer who has been left to sink or float without any help from this government, all of those increases are not helping to resolve the energy situation at all; they are only helping the government's own finances. Here is the member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) in this House on December 13, 1979-talk about hypocrisy! He said:
How do you conserve fuel in a fishing boat? Do you go half way to the fishing grounds? It is very good to have a car pool in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, but can you imagine a boat pool?
He was protesting the 18-cent excise tax and his heart was bleeding, he pretended, for fishermen when they were getting a 10-cent discount over everyone else, together with the farmers. But since then that same member has put a 64-cent a gallon burden on the fishermen of Newfoundland and he is not worrying any longer about conserving fuel in a fishing boat or whether they can go only half way and cannot go any farther. If they could only go half way on 18 cents a gallon excise tax, how far are they going to go on a 64 cents increase that the hon. member for Burin-St. George's and his government have imposed on them in the last year and a half?


Walter David Baker: They gaffed them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not very far. That is the kind of sanctimonious hyprocrisy we heard in this House on December 13, 1979, when a real attempt to deal with the problems of this country was sabotaged, stuck in the back by the very gentleman opposite who was quoting me with approval tonight from my interview on "Question Period" yesterday. Well, whether in the opposition or the government, I am going to say what I think is right and best for the government and people of Canada. Anyone who reads that interview will see a lot of good sense in it, not the selected malarkey brought up here tonight. And he is never going to find me carrying on with that kind of sanctimonious hyprocrisy, to put the best face on it, and then come right back into this House as the government and wheel around 180 degrees and impose increases on gasoline and heating oil prices not even dreamed of in December, 1979, without one cent of assistance to the ordinary people of this country, the farmers, fishermen, the small storekeeper or the ordinary man and woman in Newfoundland who believed him, who sent back five Liberal members here. They will not be sending five Liberal members next time. Not a one will be coming back from Newfoundland-


Walter David Baker: They will not forget this one.


John Carnell Crosbie: -after the betrayal they have suffered.
So, Mr. Speaker, what is to be done? This government has far worse in store for the Canadian people because at some time the government will have to start raising the price of oil at the wellhead to get an energy pricing agreement, to satisfy
the industry, to give them a cash flow in order to feed the frontier exploration and the offshore. And is the government going to do that on top of all the tax increases that we have had? Nine of the 12 increases in the last year? What are they going to do then? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says he will reduce these taxes by 7.5 cents a gallon if Alberta resumes its production. Will he reduce his own tax? It is costing motorists in my district of St. John's West today eighty per cent of this 64 cents a gallon more than a year ago. Will he reduce that 80 per cent tax and give them a break? Will he drop the tax of about 50 cents if Alberta resumes production? He did not answer that the other day.
When is this government going to start being honest? When is this government going to get an energy agreement? When is it going to get interest rates down by doing something that will support and strengthen the Canadian dollar which is weak because of the policies of this government for the last ten years, because of the National Energy Program? It is weak because you are anti-foreign investment, it is weak because of your anti-private sector tactics. That is why the Canadian dollar is weak and interest rates are now 20 per cent. Twenty per cent, and you were so shocked and dumbfounded and amazed and horrified when they were 14 per cent in the fall of 1979.
When are you going to get the show on the road so that we can help Canada? If you do the right things, we will say you are doing the right things, although we are going to blame you still for the way that you lied to the Canadian public. We are never going to forgive you for that. But if you start doing the right things now, we will support you. We are not going to praise you for the way you got back into power. You snuck back into power on your bellies, you slithered back into power with deception; now stand on your feet and govern like men and women. If you adopt policies that help this country and solve that problem, then we will support you on that.
However, there is no sign of you doing it so far, not one sign that you are repenting or that you are prepared to do the proper thing even though you have another four safe years in power. What is the matter with you? For Heaven's sake, start acting like a government and start doing something that will help Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) because he always puts on a great show with a lot of bombast and bluster and what we back on the farm call just plain bull. I hope to spend a little bit of time talking about that because he spent a lot of time talking about the great deal they had with Alberta when they were in government, and it is interesting that he talks a lot about that but nobody ever actually comes up with the piece of paper showing the deal that they actually made.
Supposedly the Conservative government from Ottawa and the Conservative government in Alberta can get together and sign a deal very easily. And of course, if we look at the
June 8, 1981

circumstances at that time, the price of oil in Canada was something like $15 or $16 a barrel, and world prices were around $26 or $27 a barrel. We did not have the great disparity there is today, and naturally Alberta and the other producing provinces look at the world price and the Canadian price, and the difference between them. However, in spite of that, in spite of the political advantage they had of both governments being Conservative, they were not able to make that kind of deal. I think that if we look at where that money was going, that special excise tax which we talk about as 18 cents a gallon, which really turns out to be about $6.35 a barrel, we find that after the first year, the vast majority of that was going to pay for the mortgage interest and property tax deductibility, an important issue in the Conservative platform in 1979. Then we have to think: well, if those revenues were essentially to cover that mortgage interest and property tax deductibility, where was the money to come from for the compensation account, and so on? If we look through the figures, we see that there would have to be dramatic increases in the compensation program, the excise tax, or whatever mechanism the government employed to raise additional revenues. The 18-cent excise tax was pretty well fully committed after the first year to the mortgage interest deductibility plank which they promised. If we look at the projections in the Conservative budget, they used a figure of $32 per barrel for the world oil price by January, 1981. In actual fact, the world price was $43 per barrel. The amount of excise tax they would have to impose would have been something like $2.15 per barrel. This would have been an additional cost imposed upon consumers.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) talked about a 10-cent per gallon reduction for farmers, fishermen and municipalities for their equipment or urban transit. He did not point out that a 15-cent per gallon excise tax would have been imposed on farmers and fishermen. For the first time in our history, a 15-cent excise tax would have been imposed on the production of food.
I think all these matters should be pointed out. An important factor which developed this year, in the absence of a signed agreement between the federal government and the government of Alberta, is that the federal government had to impose a $1.85 per barrel special levy to cover the cutback of 120,000 barrels per day.
Everyone talks glibly about a pricing agreement with Alberta. 1 have already pointed out that in the fall of 1979, the Premier of Alberta talked about cutbacks. He was not talking to a Liberal government in Ottawa; he was talking to a newly-elected Conservative government. So far it has taken six or eight months, and unfortunately we have not reached an agreement yet. I wish we had reached an agreement.
One of the objectives of the National Energy Program is to increase the revenues of the federal government from 10 per cent of the revenues of oil production to 24 per cent. If the federal government achieves this-and I hope it will-the revenues to producing provinces will drop from 45 per cent to 43 per cent.
Energy
At the same time, the percentage of the oil companies will drop from 45 per cent to 33 per cent.
Can one imagine a more difficult scenario to achieve? Surely the oil companies, such as Exxon and the Seven Sisters, will fight day in and day out with their massive public relations departments, press releases and everything possible. Likewise, the producing provinces will fight; they want every nickel they can get.
I do not think there are many people in the House, certainly not on this side, who would deny the federal government a reasonable share of the revenues from oil production. Surely 24 per cent is reasonable. If the government achieves this, certainly the producing provinces will fight by cutting off oil. The Seven Sisters and the other multinational companies will pull out every stop with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and every other group in the country with which they have influence in an attempt to beat the federal government's share back down to 10 per cent. It is not surprising if there is a strike of capital or Alberta cuts off its oil. When one is fighting over revenue with the strongest and fastest growing industry in the country, one will be faced with such confrontation. Oil rigs will pull out and go to the United States; producing provinces will cut off supplies. Historically, producing provinces never give up anything to the federal government. It has been a case of the federal government always giving larger and larger transfer payments and tax points in any negotiation. It is a difficult time, but it is important for the federal government to move to see its reasonable share of revenues from this vital industry coming to the federal government.
Another point the hon. member for St. John's West did not mention in talking about the rapid price increases over the past few months, aside from the cutbacks by Alberta, the increases in the world price of oil and the exchange on the value of money, was that in the December 11, 1979, budget he put in place a price regime of $4 per barrel increase in 1980 and then $4.50 in 1981, 1982 and 1983. He did not point out that on January 1, 1983, the price in Canada would move to 75 per cent of the world price. This would have given a tremendous jolt to the price of energy in 1983. Likewise, on January 1, 1984, the domestic price in Canada would have jumped to 85 per cent of the world price.
We rejected that philosophy and said that we should put in place a blended price regime, combining a fair domestic price from the traditional conventional western basin production, a reference price for the tar sands and heavy oil of $38 per barrel indexed to the CPI or the world price, whichever is less, with another price for enhanced recovery and higher prices for oil coming from the frontier, the east coast and offshore. We did not propose that it be tied to world price, because few countries in the world have 85 per cent of their production tied directly to world price.
In the Conservative pricing regime, essentially there was a pricing of oil and an excise tax. In the National Energy Program there is clearly a blended pricing regime for oil but, just as important in my view, after the dust settles from the

June 8, 1981
Energy
present issue which captures all the headlines, there will be the other aspects of the National Energy Program. The Oil and Gas Act is before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works. It will put in place a regime for the high Arctic, the Beaufort, the Mackenzie River Delta and the east coast offshore. Ultimately the regime will give Canadians a better share of their own country. Likewise, there is a regime which would see pipelines in this country extended to Quebec, the maritimes, the west coast and to the underserved areas of eastern Canada and the central part of our country. I place a very high priority on that program, especially in my own constituency. The Canadian oil substitution program, which was announced by the minister a couple of weeks ago, will be providing incentives of up to $800 per home to convert from oil to natural gas. This is an essential program. We must put in place the natural gas pipelines to the underserviced areas of our country. When we look at the program of the substitution of oil with natural gas, electricity, renewable energies and solar power, coupled with the improved insulation program, we see a program which can probably save us something in the order of 300,000 barrels of oil a day, when the program is fully implemented over the next few years. We are ensuring that natural gas distribution companies are able to improve their supply. People are being encouraged to insulate their homes and to convert from oil, thus reducing demand for that fuel. Upgrading facilities will be put in place in Sarnia, Montreal, Quebec City and other refining areas in our country to ensure that the residual oils-much of which is exported to the United States at present and used less efficiently than it could be-are upgraded to gasoline and other heating fuels, thereby saving on imports. Clearly, the potential of the western base is dropping, which is why we are putting in place a regime for the high Arctic and the Canada lands in order that we may increase production in those areas.
We see that there will be special incentives under the petroleum incentives program. For 28 cents of expenditure, any oil company will be able to make a dollar investment in those areas. For a 7-cent net expenditure, Canadian companies will be able to spend a dollar on exploration. Over the next four years it is foreseen that some $2.5 billion of incentives will be provided in this area, along with a higher pricing regime. We envision a program designed to not only reduce demand, which the Clark budget did not do, but as well one which will increase production from the Canada lands at the same time. We have a program which is a comprehensive one, one which has saved Canadians a considerable amount of money. From December, 1979, to the present time I am told the savings amount to some $2.2 billion. This works out to some $93 per capita, or $370 per family.
The National Energy Program does foresee that although there will be increases at a more moderate rate during the first half of the decade, in the last half of the decade the increase would be more rapid. At the same time, our price of oil would be a blended price, made in Canada, and not automatically tied to the world price. We see a program which would provide
increased revenues to the federal government, to the producing provinces and to the oil and gas exploration companies, while at the same time reducing our demand because of the reduction in production in the traditional areas of western Canada.
These are just a few of the points I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker. One point that has not been made is that this program of the federal government is designed to allow a greater percentage of our Canadian petroleum industry to be owned by Canadians. All we have to do is look at the period from 1975 to 1979. We see that the capital outflow from this country, from the oil and gas industry, was some $2.1 billion. That figure does not take into account dividends and interest. But the National Energy Program is designed to see a greater percentage-up to 50 per cent-of Canadian-owned industry by the end of this decade and, thus, the loss of these revenues and dividends from Canada from this vital industry would be reduced thereby giving us an industry with greater Canadian ownership.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate tonight in the debate on the motion which asks this House to condemn the government for again unnecessarily burdening the consumer with high energy costs, particularly consumers of heating oil, without relief for those least able to adjust their incomes. The import of the motion is the high energy costs for the consumer, largely because of federally-imposed taxes. But the truth is that the motion deals more with deceit and deception-indeed, immorality-than with consumer prices per se. I say "immorality" with some caution, Mr. Speaker, but, nevertheless, with certainty. I apply the word to the party on the other side which defeated a government, the Clark government, in December of 1979 mostly because of its efforts to introduce an 18-cent per gallon increase in the price of gasoline. The party which defeated the Clark government then campaigned on a promise to keep energy prices down. Now, a little more than a year later, having won the election, it has increased both gasoline and home heating fuel prices-not just gasoline prices but also home heating fuel prices-well beyond the prices which that party attacked while in opposition. The same people have imposed energy price increases several times higher than those they promised in the election.
I look across the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I ask myself how many members over there owe their seats to this deceit. I venture to say quite a few, many of whom are the very ones who, like trained seals, applaud every inane justification for yet more energy taxes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
Let us make no mistake about what was promised by the Liberal party in the election of February, 1980. The present Minister of Finance, who was then one of the principal financial critics of the Clark government, said: "If you vote Liberal, the price will stay down." The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), then the leader of the opposition, speaking before Italian
June 8, 1981

community leaders in Toronto, said this: "Clark has been asking of us Liberals that we make a clear statement on gasoline pricing. I believe many Canadians have been asking that. Well, let me make it. Ours will be less than 14 cents a gallon."
In my own province, in Summerside, the present Prime Minister stated, on February 9, 1980, fewer than ten days before the date of the election: "I can tell you that Liberals will do things differently from the PCs. That 18-cent tax on gasoline which is needed to pay for that Tory election promise, we won't have that tax, It's out. It's gone."
Later a full page Liberal ad appeared. It appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian on Saturday, February 16, 1980, two days before the election, but it also appeared in every other newspaper right across the country. The Liberal ad said: "This is the time for Liberal programs, not more Clark Conservative promises." In particular, it said: "Liberals flatly reject the 18-cent a gallon increase in the excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuels. Under the Tory budget, consumers would have faced a 32-cent a gallon increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline in 1980. Under a Liberal administration, the increase will be less than 14 cents. The Liberal price will be less than half of what the Conservatives plan to impose on Canadians."
The interesting thing here is not just that the Liberals proposed never to introduce an 18-cent a gallon gasoline excise tax, nor, that if they did do so, it would be less than 18 cents; but they also said that, whereas the total of all the energy price increases that the Crosbie budget proposed would be 32 cents, if the Liberals won the election, the total of all energy price increases would be less than 14 cents. We know what the truth is.
We know what has happened since the Liberals took office, and certainly since they defeated the Crosbie budget and the Clark government on December 13, 1979. In my riding in Charlottetown, in December 1979, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.26. This is just an example, but the same situation applies right across this great land. In June of 1981, the price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is now $1.95-an increase of 69 cents.
In December of 1979, when the Liberals defeated the Crosbie budget and the Clark government, the price of a gallon of home heating oil was 74.2 cents in the city of Charlottetown. Today, in June, 1981, the price for the same product in Charlottetown is $1.25, an increase of 50.8 cents.


Walter David Baker: Some promise!


Thomas Michael McMillan: That is some promise! Indeed, it is some promise! There has been an increase of 69 cents in the price of gasoline, and 50.8 cents in the price of home heating oil. Where will it all stop? There is another increase scheduled for this coming July, next month, and there will probably be yet another increase in September. In each case the increase will be at least $1 per barrel for oil at the wellhead, which together translates into approximately six cents a gallon more at the pump for gasoline. The important thing is that such increases have not just been on gasoline, though that is odious enough,
Energy
but also on home heating oil. Those increases therefore affect the senior citizen trying to cope with the ever-escalating cost of heating a home, the fisherman trying to make a living in an industry already suffering difficulties-


Walter David Baker: The farm.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, it affects the farmer. It affects every single Canadian. The Crosbie increases, to the extent that they would have affected anyone, would have touched the person who has discretion in the use of his motor vehicle; and many Canadians would have qualified for an energy tax credit and other benefits to cushion the effects of those increases.
My speech has to be truncated tonight because of the hour; but I want to stress, as a maritimer, how appalled I am that this government, which depends on seats from central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, to keep itself in office, is trying to force upon the western provinces-at a time when they finally have a chance to pick their economies up by the bootstraps-an energy price scheme which will drive their economies into the ground. It will deny them the one opportunity they have to become to some extent economically self-sufficient, on an equal footing with other provinces.
I cannot understand for the life of me, why it is that the government insists on stubbornly sticking to those measures in the National Energy Program which will drive the oil and gas industries into the ground, which will discriminate wildly against the oil-producing provinces, which will do nothing to bring Canada closer to the goal of energy self-sufficiency. Yet it abandons the very few elements in the same National Energy Program which have anything positive to offer to the Canadian people. I am referring in particular to those provisions in the National Energy Program which were to benefit my own province of Prince Edward Island. On page 85 in the NEP, there is a most welcome proposal that reads: "In addition to expanded national renewables programs, extensions of the P.E.I. Conservation a Renewable Energy Agreement will be undertaken at a four-year cost of over $9 million." But that one proposal, among very few others which would have benefited some parts of this country, is now going to be abandoned.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced to his counterpart in Prince Edward Island, the hon. Barry Clark, the minister of energy in P.E.I. that this renewable energy agreement promised on page 85 in the National Energy Program is to be abandoned. That agreement has been serving Prince Edward Island very well indeed; the province of Prince Edward Island has been relying heavily on it and was looking forward to its renewal. But the agreement is going to be scrapped, despite a firm commitment to the contrary. In its place will be put absolutely nothing to help Prince Edward Island, nor any other province in the Atlantic region, to develop a degree of self-reliance in energy.
In my concluding remarks, I want to stress that there is a firm difference between the Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative party in their respective approaches to energy. When the Clark government was in power, it came clean with the Canadian people about the energy goals that it had and the

June 8, 1981
Adjournment Debate
price tag required to achieve those goals. In contrast, the Liberal party promised the public low energy prices and delivered exactly the opposite. It has made deceit and deception the pathway to political power in Canada. However successful such a strategy may be, Canadians will pay the price for that deceit and for that deception for a very long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please, it being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.



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

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 this year I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence asking if he was considering any new legislation or amendments to existing legislation that would guarantee members of the reserve force time off from their full-time employment in order that they may participate in training and educational activities provided by the Canadian Armed Forces.
The reserves are an integral and an imperative part of the Canadian Armed Forces. According to a recent publication by the Department of National Defence, the role of the reserve force is said to be twofold: first, to enhance the war deterrence capability of the Canadian Armed Forces; and second, to support the regular force in ongoing peacetime tasks and activities. Simply put, in the words of the retired Chief of the Reserve Forces, Major General Richard H. Rohmer, the role of the reserve force is to augment the regular force in times of peace, emergency or war.
Hence, the reserve force has great importance to Canada. This fact is brought to light quickly when one considers that out of the total number of personnel in the Armed Forces, which now numbers just over 100,000, the reservists comprise just over 22,000.
But the importance of the reserve force is more than just a national issue if one views this matter in a wider context. For instance, in assessing the true military strength of the NATO nations, heavy emphasis is placed upon the number of trained, properly equipped reserve personnel immediately available.
Furthermore, the importance of the reserves within the Armed Forces itself is also clear. Brigadier General Cowan, when testifying before the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, revealed the extent of their role within the Armed Forces. He stated that it is the policy of the Department of National Defence that the regular forces and the reserve forces be partners in the Canadian Armed Forces total force concept, although one component is full time and the other is part time.
With these considerations in mind, it is submitted that this government should put forth a coherent policy to ensure and encourage the continuance of a stable and strong reserve force. There are a number of ways this could be achieved. For example, by providing and committing sufficient resources and funds so that the reserves may train with the same quality of equipment as the regular force; by aiding in programs to improve their public image; and by providing salaries that are fair and equitable. All these ways would contribute to ensure the continuance and longevity of the reserves.
Another means by which this government may aid the reservists which is worthy of discussion is by negotiating a better deal with private employers to allow the reservists to take time off work in order that they may participate in training and educational activities provided by the Armed Forces.
The ability for a reservist to be relieved from his full-time employment in order to be properly trained must be assured. To guarantee a strong reserve force, there must not only be facilities available to train upon, but members of the force must be given an opportunity to train without prejudice to their full-time employment. Reservists must be given this opportunity without fear of reprisal from their employers, without sacrificing their regular vacation time and without sacrificing seniority.
It is my understanding that many employers already voluntarily reply to requests for leave for reservist training, and of course, this practice should be encouraged and the employers congratulated. However, there still seem to be some employers who do not wish to follow this practice. In my constituency of Hamilton West, where there exists a notable reserves force, a common complaint which has been voiced in the past by a number of reservists, is their inability to be relieved from work in order to participate in Armed Forces training.
It is my understanding that the time required to be off work is not long, about 14 days. At present, there is no statutory or regulatory provision commanding employers to grant leaves of absence to reservists.
It is submitted that it is about time that this was investigated formally and in some depth, considering the great importance of the reserves force and the insignificant financial cost this proposal would have on society.
Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider taking this problem under serious advisement with a view to establishing mechanisms to guarantee that
June 8, 1981

reservists have the opportunity to train properly and without prejudice to their full-time occupations.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, for some years the Department of National Defence has recognized the need to assist some of our reservists in securing time off from their regular employment to participate in reserve training activities.
In attempting to assist reservists in this way, the department has encouraged employers and employees through a voluntary approach short of the legislative process. In many cases this approach has proven itself quite productive.
In 1978, the then minister of national defence, Mr. Danson, set up a committee known as the national employers support committee, NESC, for the express purpose of assisting reservist employees in obtaining time off to meet their military training commitment without loss of job progression or vacation time. This would take the form of up to a maximum of 14 calendar days off during the summer.
This national employers support committee consists of a national chairperson and an executive officer plus a chairperson and as many members in provincial committees as deemed necessary to provide effective liaison between reserve units and employers. The chairpersons are all very prominent members of the community who have volunteered to serve on the national employers support committee. These people give willingly of their time to intercede with employers, if necessary, to allow reservists to meet their training commitments. Their dedication and effort is well appreciated by our forces. Indeed, the program is working well and many companies have included references to reserve training as part of their manuals on conditions of employment.
Naturally some employers-particularly those with small staffs-have difficulty in allowing time off for reserve training. This can be particularly difficult when seniority comes into play or when certain production requirements, such as assembly line production, creates undue hardship for the employer. There are not a large number of firms in this position and the department endeavours to provide alternate schedules of training for their reservist employees.
In conclusion, the national employers support committee has done commendable work in assisting reservists with their problems regarding time off the job and the members of this committee deserve a great deal of thanks for giving time from their busy schedules and for their devotion in support of the reserves.
It is more than passing interest, of course, that this House has approved an order of reference for one of its standing committees to study the reserves. This report is due December 15 and will, no doubt, include significant recommendations on conditions of service for the reserves.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his interest in the reserves and I would like to prevail upon him and other
Adjournment Debate
members of this House to provide support and encouragement to reserve units in their ridings and to employers of reservists.
I would also like to add that I would be glad to provide the hon. member with a list of the members of the national employers support committee, any one of whom, I am sure, would be happy to discuss the current situation in any area of the country.


METRIC CONVERSION-OPPOSITION BY GROCERS AND SMALL BUSINESSMEN
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, for two months I have been asking questions in the House of Commons in an endeavour to find out why this government is persisting in forcing metric in the retail food stores across Canada on January 1, 1982, making Canadian measurement illegal. I have reinforced the argument in the House of Commons on several occasions.
As late as April 23, 1981, the Canadian Federation of Retail Stores, some 4,000 strong, were 85 per cent opposed to metric at this time with the United States backing off. The Canadian Organization of Small Business sent letters to the ministers responsible for the implementation of metric in Canada, saying they do not wish to proceed with metric. The Retail Council of Canada sent a strong letter of opposition to force metric in the retail food sector to all the ministers involved. The retail food sector itself has sent a communique to the minister responsible indicating it does not wish to proceed with metric. I have not found anybody who supports the implementation of metric in the food sector except the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
I have here the communique which was released or sent to these ministers by the food sector of scale conversion advising them that:
The retail food industry members of the Working Group wish to recommend strongly to the government that the scheduling of food scale conversion to metric units in Canada, which appeared in The Canada Gazette, Part 1 of 28 February, 1981, be delayed so that the conversion will take place at a time closer to when retail food scales will be converted in the United States.
After two and a half years, since Peterborough and Kamloops were pilot centres in 1978-and, by the way, Peterborough is totally back to imperial at this time-I have found no support, none whatsoever, for forced metric in the retail food sector. By the way, metric was supposed to be voluntary when it was first conceived by this ill-fated government.
I finally discovered the reason for this. I requested this debate tonight with the ministers or the ministers' parliamentary secretaries in order that I could document in Hansard why Canada is going metric. There are 45 voting members in the scale conversion group of the Metric Commission. Who are those 45 voters? I have them here, and I would like to advise this House and have it well documented in Hansard. This is in response to the minister's statement in the House of Commons

June 8, 1981
Adjournment Debate
on April 23 when he said everybody wants to go metric. Of those 45 people 13 voters are from foreign countries representing foreign manufacturers of metric weigh scales which they cannot sell in their own countries. The United States of America is represented, Japanese products are represented and other foreign manufacturers are represented.
Let me give you an example of some of these who say, "Aye, we want metric in Canada on January 1." Let me break down the 45 voters. Thirteen voters are representatives of foreign manufacturers of metric weigh scales. Why would they not want metric in Canada? They cannot sell these darn scales in the United States, Japan or in Holland. They might as well dump them here in Canada. We are the guinea pigs for the metric conversion programs of all these foreign internationals. There are 11 government votes by paid civil servants. They vote "aye, we want metric on January 1". Of those 11 government voters, six are from the Metric Commission, all drawing salaries because of their mandate to force metric on the people of Canada. Four of these 11 government voters are from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I could read their names into Hansard. I will turn them over to Hansard. Can you imagine, there is even a man from the Post Office who is voting us metric in the retail food sector. If you add them up, you have 13 foreign companies manufacturing weigh scales in other countries wanting to dump them here in Canada, and 11 votes by government civil servants, making a total of 24.
How many retail grocers are there who vote for metric on that special group called the working group on scales in the retail food industry? There are 21 retail grocers in that group who are not happy. How did those 21 retail grocers vote, Mr. Speaker? They sent a directive to all three of those ministers opposite telling them they do not wish to proceed with metric on January 1 in the retail food sector. I have copies of the communiques. They have been relayed to the ministers by Mr. Boire, the executive director of the Metric Commission. He has advised the minister that the retail food sector does not want to go metric on January 1.
This government and all three ministries responsible, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Ministry of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, are forcing metric on the people of Canada. They are forcing the French Systems International metric. Bolts from Japan will not fit nuts from Germany, and here we have Systems International. There are ten forms of metric, and we picked the dog of the works. We do not want metric; the government does. Even the Metric Commission has recommended to the government that it not proceed.
I will read the following one-sentence communique from the "Metric Minutes" of the Metric Commission dated May 7, 1981:
The retail food industry members of the Working Group wish to recommend strongly to the government that the scheduling of retail food scale conversion to metric units in Canada, which appeared in The Canada Gazette Part I of
February 28, 1981, be delayed so that conversion will take place at a time closer to when retail food scales will be converted in the United States.
What does the government say in answer to that? What does the parliamentary secretary say? I do not want to hear the hogwash we heard on April 23 that everyone wants metric. Who wants metric? Is it the French who want metric, or is it the Canadian grocers who want metric? I defy the government to name one organization, one corporation, one independent businessman, one consumer group, one retail council or one anything which wants metric in Canada forced on it and Canadian imperial measurement made illegal on January 1.
What Canadians want fines, lockups, imprisonment or confiscation of equipment on January 1, all done by order in council or regulation? No legislation has been fully debated in this House. There has been no legislation forcing metric on the Canadian people. This is being done dictatorially by this Liberal government, which is bound and determined to force on the Canadian people a French system of metric which is only one of ten systems being used. Foreign multinationals including McDonnell Douglas, the manufacturer of the CF-18A, have given up. That firm has gone totally imperial. The CF-16 was a disaster in metric. They could not even order parts. No one supports Systems International except France. Why are we going to SI metric in the weigh scale business in Canada? Why are we buying foreign multinational weigh scales to the tune of $564 million worth of industry created in another country?
Who does this satisfy? Does it satisfy the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Does it satisfy the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, or whom? The question has never been answered. I am sick and tired of asking it. Will someone stand up in this House and say who wants metric in the retail food sector?


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the hon. member has just accused the Canadian government of following the French government, the Japanese government or some other foreign power which wants us to go metric, but we are doing it on our own, we are Canadians. On the other hand, the hon. member wants us to wait until the Americans have caught up with us. We do not have to catch up with or follow any other country. We are on our own. We shall remain so with respect to metric as with other things.
In the House on April 23, 1981, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) noted that the president of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers and the president of the Canadian Organization of Small Business simply asked that, together with them, the minister look into the possibility of setting another time schedule for scales conversion.
The government has examined the implications of further delay not only upon the scales conversion program itself but also the adverse impact it would have upon the implementation of other sector conversion programs, which are well advanced.
June 8, 1981

To delay is to prolong the period of indecision and uncertainty, for which the hon. member's government was well noted, facing these companies. It would result in the creation of unwarranted costs in terms of loss of interest on capital investment and in the postponement of the benefits to be derived from production and marketing. The longer the uncertainty-of which the Tories are past masters-lasts, the more difficult it is to implement sound business decisions.
It is for these major reasons that the government intends to proceed as planned with the retail food scale conversion which is to commence in January, 1982, and be completed by December, 1983. Here again I differ with the hon. member, as we often do, with respect to figures.
Also on April 23, 1981, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) commented on the structure of the food sector of scales conversion. Actually, the correct name is the working group on scales in the retail food industry. Having correctly identified the subject under discussion, I would like to point out that food industry organizations represented in the working group account for more than twice the number of any other group and more than those from all other groups combined.


An hon. Member:: No, they do not.


Ursula Appolloni: There are 33 food industry organizations compared to only 14 scale industry organizations represented on this metric conversion committee, Mr. Speaker.


WESTERN SEPARATISM-CALL FOR REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION AND ENERGY POLICIES
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on November 21, 1980, I urged the government to modify its Constitution and energy policies so that the flame of separatism in the west can be stamped out quickly before it becomes a roaring prairie fire. Since that time the rigidity of the government in maintaining policies detrimental to the west has been blatant. Without a doubt they are damaging national unity.
The Canada West Foundation poll, released a few days ago, shows a significant rise in western alienation. The poll, taken in March, shows that 36 per cent of westerners agree with the statement:
Western Canadians get so few benefits from being part of Canada that they might as well go it on their own.
When the same question was asked last October, 28 per cent agreed. The increased alienation is most pronounced in Alberta, particularly because of the detrimental effects of the National Energy Program. In Alberta, 49 per cent of those surveyed now agree with the statement compared with 30 per cent last October.
The fact that virtually half of Alberta is inclining toward separatism ought to galvanize the government to action-first of all to stop the policies that are producing this spirit, and
Adjournment Debate
secondly to institute policies clearly aimed at protecting provincial rights in both the Constitution and energy areas. It is true that hard-core separatists in Alberta amount to only 11 per cent, but this figure too is growing. And it would be irresponsible for any federal representative from Alberta to soft-pedal the seriousness of the present situation. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his speech in Winnipeg, June 3, did not seem anxious or concerned. He preferred to talk about medicare and pension benefits to prove the large heartedness of the Liberal government-without going on to admit that that same government's energy policies have driven 139 oil rigs out of Canada, and have cut drilling activity in half. The service sector in Alberta faces a 30 per cent drop in business, and bankruptcies are up 300 per cent over last year. When these figures are set against the backdrop of federal government spending of $5.5 billion to $6 billion this year for offshore oil at world prices, the government's policies emerge as some sort of ridiculous joke.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Albertans have forgone some $30 billion in revenue that could have been obtained had we sold oil at even 75 per cent of world prices to our fellow Canadians. We have done that willingly in the interests of consuming provinces and the need to keep our industries competitive. But when federal intransigence-I call it the "Lalonde follies"-are continued, we must expect a rising sense of anger in the west.
Yet what does the Prime Minister do? After mentioning that the figure of 36 per cent disenchanted respondents is a matter of no concern to him, he states that it could be because he has not been able to get his side of the story across. He blames the Tories and the New Democrats for nursing the western grievances along. He persuades himself that the only reason why the westerners are concerned these days is that they have hardly any Liberals to represent them. That is not the westerners' fault. The reason why the Liberals have so little support in the west is that they have done so little to deserve it.
Westerners feel ignored in national policy matters. The new energy program, for example, has had no policy input from the west. It is seen in the west as a policy that is heavily oriented to the east. On February 25, the Alberta minister of energy and natural resources accused the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) of presenting the National Energy Program in the full knowledge that not one of the producing provinces would accept it. But economic policy is one thing. It is the attitude it breeds among the people it affects which I regard as infinitely more dangerous in the long run. When the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government cannot tax natural gas from provincially-owned wells, and when the federal government now persists in doing what has been declared illegal and asks me to stand and vote for it, there is a loss of respect for law. There is a feeling of being discriminated against, and there is growing anger in the hearts of the people.

June 8, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Interpreting the latest poll, Doctor David Elton, the President of the Canada West Foundation said:
Such a shift in so short a period of time reflects serious dissatisfaction with national policy.
I urge the government to review its policies before it is too late. I do not want separatism to become a viable political force. But a great collision of forces is coming unless a new spirit of accommodation is injected into policies and ongoing negotiations. It is time for the government to wake up to its responsibility to all people of Canada. That is the only way the country will be held together.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that from 1960 to 1973 when we in northern Ontario were paying 25 per cent more than the world price because we had to take Alberta crude, we did not cry about it; we did not say that we would separate. If we thought about it at all, we said, "Well, that is the price of being Canadian; one region helping the other."
Also I remind the hon. member that prior to 1930, those resources were all federal. Within the last ten years multinational oil companies, most of which are foreign, made a 400 per cent increase in profits; a 50 per cent increase last year and a 50 per cent increase the year before.
When the hon. member brought this matter up on November 21, 1980, it was in support of an extension to the Joint Committee on the Constitution, and that was given. At that time he talked about the Constitution and the energy policies alienating Alberta. Now he talks about flames of separatism and roaring prairie fires.
Let us see what was in the Constitution which inflamed separatism. It was basically three things: a formula which
indicated that in Canada we will amend in the future and no longer have to go to England cap in hand; a charter of rights which indicates basically that there will be human dignity which no government can change; sections 57 and 58 which give more provincial control of provincial resources.
If we have alienated the west, how have we done it? Was it by questioning the powers of the premiers, by daring to say to the oil companies, "Hey, you are making too much", by suggesting that we are one country and not ten balkanized states? If we have, that is the way a national party should act.
The truth is that at worst no Liberal during the Quebec referendum, went into Quebec and inflamed separatism. At best, what the Tories are thriving on, nourishing on and living on is western separatism.


Walter David Baker: What a shameful accusation!


Ron Irwin: It is true, it is true. At the worst, no Liberal went into Quebec and inflamed separatism and, at best, the Tories are living on it.
I have one consolation. History will record this in the same way as it recorded the flag debate because history has a way of sorting out truth. History will also indicate that there is a reason the Tories are in opposition and the Liberals are in power; it is that they have no national scope.


Douglas Roche: Shocking!


Walter David Baker: Just dreadful!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

o
Tuesday, June 9, 1981