1982-05-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Canadian Bar Association has testified to the Special Committee on Energy Legislation that the PIP measures and other provisions of the National Energy Program may contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights. In order to ensure that the government is respecting the Charter of Rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Government of Canada send the provisions of Bill C-104 on a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the government's energy legislation violates or respects the Canadian Charter of Rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVELOPMENT OF PEACE RIVER TAR SANDS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, the Alsands project has been shelved, the Canadian economy is desperately in need of economic stimulation, and Canadian workers are in need of jobs. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in co-operation with Alberta's minister of energy, extend the same offer to Shell Canada now as was made to it as part of the Alsands consortium, so that the Peace River tar sands can be developed immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RATE INCREASE GRANTED TO BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Earlier this week the CRTC granted BC Tel a 5 per cent rate increase for residential phone rates bringing to 18 per cent the total in residential rate increases given to BC Tel by the commission this year. This increase was granted even though the CRTC concluded in their decision that many areas of B.C. are receiving unsatisfactory service, and in spite of the fact that several exchanges in the Lower Mainland are already paying the highest residential rates in the country. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen):
That cabinet send this decision back to the CRTC with instructions to roll back this unearned rate increase, and further that the Minister of Communications immediately issue a policy directive to the CRTC that no further rate increases be granted to telephone companies within the commission's jurisdiction until such time as the companies provide acceptable levels of service to all of their residential customers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Vincent M. Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, whereas Data Resources estimates the federal deficit will exceed $15 billion during this year as compared to the budget estimate of $10.5 billion, and whereas the huge cash requirements to finance this deficit mean continued high and punitive interest rates and delayed economic recovery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 6, 1982
That the government wake up to our critical situation and act immediately to cut spending, show some real restraint, reduce the deficit, reduce interest rates and get off the backs of the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, this week General Motors closed its plant No. 3 in St. Catharines and permanently laid off an additional 375 auto workers in the process. More lay-offs are expected by reason of the government's economic process. Whereas that plant and those jobs could have been saved if Canada had a Canadian value added agreement with Japan, and whereas we need alternative sources of employment after the Alsands collapse, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of State (International Trade) recognize the immediacy of the crisis in Canada's automobile industry and intensify the present negotiations with a view toward obtaining a Canadian value added agreement at least before the end of this year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, given that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday attacked the honour of the institution of Parliament by stating:
Years from now, long after most of these people will have gone from this chamber, the senseless and vituperative criticism which has flowed from the benches opposite will be only so many lines in Hansard.
The minister's statement amply illustrates the arrogant attitude of the Liberals, who have no respect for the people's representatives, and therefore no respect for the people of Canada. In light of this, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this Flouse condemns the minister's statement and urges him to apologize forthwith to the members of the House and the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the decline recorded in the popularity of the Conservative party is clearly the result of the closeness of that party's position to that of the Liberal government, and in view of the Tory leader's statement on high interest rates made to La Presse this week that "We have looked for a solution other than the government's, but we couldn't come up with an alternative", and further, in view of the fact that Tories voted with the Liberals no less than 29 times this session, while the NDP voted with the Liberals only 14 times, I move, seconded by the member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House urge the Leader of the Opposition to abandon this supine subservience to the Liberal Party so as to represent better the feelings of Canadians, and that the Liberal Party Honorary Doctorate of Public Bullshooting be awarded to Joe for his 2 to 1 record of voting with the Liberals, while telling the public he is a Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the federal government's fiscal and economic policy cannot expect solely the private sector to cure the inflationary ills of the nation. The public sector must bear its share of the burden as it takes some 45 per cent of the GNP with little or no positive influence on productivity. Therefore I move:
That the government immediately adjust its economic strategy to:
(1)	allow the dollar to drop by at least 5 per cent of its value and then maintain a new level through the appropriate fiscal and monetary policy;
(2)	immediately call a federal, provincial and municipal conference to stabilize for at least two years the salaries and benefits of all public servants whose income is greater than $25,000 per year;
(3)	cut government expenses in a Draconian fashion and introduce a new budget incorporating the necessary incentives for growth;
(4)	restructure the National Energy Program immediately;
(5)	undertake with the provinces a massive public works program on a national basis to create jobs.
I feel certain that the Minister of Finance may wish to second this motion.
May 6, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, subtly, quietly, like a thief in the night, the Liberal government is centralizing power in Ottawa: through legislation, regulation, law, and the creation of more and more Crown corporations, free enterprise is being handcuffed and prevented from performing to its greatest potential in the marketplace, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this Flouse urges the government to take immediate steps to rescind laws and regulations and expunge corporations that are interfering with freedom in the marketplace.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas a proposal has been put forward by the United Nations which might resolve the Falkland Islands crisis, and whereas Canada formerly had considerable expertise in international peacekeeping, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That Canada offer its services to the United Nations to assist in any peaceful solution to the hostilities in the South Atlantic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FALKLAND ISLANDS-SUGGESTION MINISTER OF FINANCE VISIT ARGENTINA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada fully expect our government to demonstrate the strongest support possible for Great Britain in
Oral Questions
the present Falkland Islands crisis. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Prime Minister immediately dispatch the Minister of Finance to Argentina to advise them on their economic affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speader, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On July 22, 1980, the Liberal and Conservative parties jumped into bed together-in an unholy trinity with the oil and gas companies-to defeat by a vote of 153 to 28 an NDP emergency motion demanding U.S. government guarantees before construction of the Canadian-paid pre-build section of the pipeline to export Canadian gas. Now that it is clear that this Liberal-Conservative bad-bargain coalition has once again left Canadians holding the bag and standing to lose $40 billion to $60 billion, and some 12,000 person-years in Alaska highway pipeline work and jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House request the Canadian Labour Congress to host a grade one course in elementary bargaining for MPs, and that attendance be compulsory for all Liberals and Conservatives in order that they will never again betray Canada and the Yukon by giving away the store for absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Falklands crisis. The Prime Minister will know the British

May 6, 1982
Oral Questions
government has stated that the pre-condition for any ceasefire and negotiation talks is a total withdrawal of Argentinian forces from the Falkland Islands. Does the Prime Minister and his government agree with that pre-condition? In addition, does the Prime Minister's government agree with the NATO defence ministers' declaration today condemning the Argentinian invasion?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I fail to see the reason for such a question. I have made it quite clear many times that no change in territory, no crossing of boundaries, could be justified by force at any time. That is the position of the Charter of the United Nations. That is the position I have taken in this House on many occasions, going back many years.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, does the Government of Canada condemn the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands? Does the Government of Canada accept and agree with the pre-condition stated by the Government of Great Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do on this side of the House, Madam Speaker. But I wonder about the right hon. member's party. Since he asks this question, it must be that he has some doubt about the situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the doubt is about the position of the Government of Canada.


EXPORT OF URANIUM FUEL TO ARGENTINA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is Canada still sending nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina, or has the government stopped this trade with Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is hard to see that that is a supplementary question.


Mr. McGrath:: It certainly is. It is more relevant than you think.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know if we are still sending some now. I know that we have a contract with Argentina that we are respecting. But as to whether there are some shipments in the pipeline now, I would have to inquire.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the
policy of the Government of Canada to send nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina, Madam Speaker?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is our policy to respect that aspect of the contract
which was signed, I believe, in 1976 with Argentina, and which has not been rescinded by us.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


REQUEST THAT CANADA SUPPLY SHIP TO BRITISH NAVY
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister told the press that Great Britain could use the Canadian Armed Forces communications system on our east coast, if necessary. Would the minister also consider providing the British navy with the use of our Halifax-based fleet replenishment ship, HMCS Preserver, which I am assured is seaworthy?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom government has not made any requests of us which are unfulfilled. I say to the House that I think no one who has seen the British forces in action believes that they are in need of any further military assistance.


POSSIBLE USE OF AIRBORNE REGIMENT IN UNITED NATIONS ROLE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, one of the many tasks laid on our airborne regiment is that of being the United Nations ready force. Has there been any request or discussion between Canada and the Secretary General of the United Nations concerning the use of our airborne regiment in its allotted United Nation's role?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there have been no discussions of that kind between us and the Secretary General. We have communicated to the Secretary General again this morning our readiness to participate in any peace initiatives which have a chance of success. We have not had indicated to us from the Secretary General that any particular kind of support from Canada is required at this time. But, of course, we are in the hands of events in that respect.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE REQUEST FROM GREAT BRITAIN FOR ASSISTANCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House whether or not Canada has received any request for additional military help for Great Britain's operations in the south Atlantic? If such a request were to be made of Canada, would the minister see any necessity to clear such a request with NATO?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any additional request which has been made by the United Kingdom of
May 6, 1982

Canada, either military or political, which has not been satisfied. The hon. member's question is purely hypothetical. We have no reason to expect any such request. I might point out to the hon. member that this is not primarily a NATO question. Events in the south Atlantic are not within the normal purview of NATO, but of course if what is involved were in some way under the jurisdiction of NATO, we might indeed find it necessary to consult with our NATO allies on any such aspect.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. With the collapse or the long-term postponement of the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline, and the demise or long-range postponement of a half a dozen other related megaprojects in the resource sector, some $60 billion of planned investment, needed to create jobs, either will not be taking place now or will be taking place in the indefinite future. Since megaproject strategy was the central job-creating strategy of the Government of Canada, with more than a million unemployed does the Prime Minister have a specific counter-proposal today in order to produce the jobs which Canadians badly need?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is true that some of the megaprojects, as discussed by the government in certain varied circumstances, and indeed as put forward by the Carr-Blair task force which indicated some $200 billion, I believe, of expenditures in megaprojects over the next decade and a half, have been brought to a halt, suspended or delayed. But in terms of many other projects, of course they are proceeding. The Q & M PipeLine is proceeding; that is a megaproject. Many of the others mentioned in the Carr-Blair task force are proceeding, such as the hydro plant in British Columbia.


Mr. Pepin:: West Coast ports, western rail construction.


Mr. Lalonde:: And Hibernia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hibernia is proceeding. The thermal plant in Alberta is proceeding. There are many very important projects which are proceeding and, of course, there are the various other programs announced by the government which are proceeding and are creating jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister does some checking I think he will find out that the ones proceeding in terms of investment value amount to about 10 per cent of the total. Therefore, the policy of the government respecting job creation is surely in a shambles in terms of its reliance upon megaprojects.
Oral Questions STIMULATION OF DEMAND


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since yesterday the Conference Board of Canada produced its assessment of the Canadian economy and noted that consumer spending was down, and there was serious trouble in manufacturing, forestry, mining and construction, does the government now plan to shift its direction in terms of economic policy? Specifically, does it plan to do something about the manufacturing sector in Canada which is so crucial and, in relation to that, does it plan to do something to stimulate demand in the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the megaprojects about which the hon. member is showing concern today are encountering some difficulties in the examples he mentioned. But this should not be of great distress to the hon. member and his party because he will recall that he was very uncertain as to the kind of support he would give to any of these megaprojects. We have mainly heard criticism in that area as regards these megaprojects. Now it is surprising, when they are not proceeding, that in some sense those hon. members think this is disastrous. Their whole policy has been to suggest in the House new programs for spending practically every day of the week. I cannot remember any support in any of their proposals for any of these magaprojects. Therefore, they should not be distressed that a couple of them have stopped.
As far as other projects are concerned, as 1 said, we announce them sometimes every day and sometimes at a rhythm of one a week. I can begin reading a list of them until you stop me. Madam Speaker. There is an agreement struck under the Regional Development Incentives Program between November, 1981, and January, 1982, which would create 4,800 jobs. There is an addition of $132 million over four years for the space program, for a total expenditure of $476 million. That creates 1,000 high-tech jobs. We have a five-year, $350 million ILAP program which will create some 1,300 jobs and protect 190.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister would concede that those are sufficient examples. He might complete his answer otherwise than enumerating a long list of projects.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I agree that it would be tedious to read this. I will not proceed. However, I do want to remind members of the House, particularly the member of the NDP who asked the question, that megaprojects were one aspect in which we hoped there was a great source of jobs. Many are proceeding, some are not. There are many other projects that we have announced from time to time which are ongoing.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Prime Minister has expressed a new interest in facts, I point out to him that we supported the Alaska pipeline proposal but voted against the

May 6, 1982
Oral Questions
measure because this government got no guarantee at all from the Americans that the whole pipeline would be built.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We turned out to be right and he was wrong.


ROLE OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that Senator Olsen said as recently as last night on television that the central thrust of the government's policy in terms of job creation was indeed these megaprojects in the resource sector that had been cancelled, what does the Prime Minister plan to do about the manufacturing sector which is so crucial to job creation? More specifically, in light of that, considering that we have a $21 billion deficit in manufacturing trade accounting for some 200,000 losts jobs in Canada, would the Prime Minister duplicate what has been done by Australia, Mexico, and a number of other countries, and call in the heads of multinational corporations in Canada and obtain from them planning agreement commitments so that they will produce in dollar value in Canada equivalent to their sales in this country, to give Canadians the jobs they deserve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with regard to the assertion by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his support for the gas pipeline, I think he should be ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Once in a while you are right, Mr. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was combating this program at a time when we were receiving telegrams-


John Edward Broadbent: Read the briefing notes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -asking us to support this. His party did not want us to proceed. He is really not on very good ground in that respect.


John Edward Broadbent: Not the program.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One way or another, the hon. member did not want it to proceed because he did not trust the Americans. It is not proceeding, so he should be happy.


Pauline Jewett: We were proven right.


John Edward Broadbent: Talk your way out of that one.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Oshawa has asked his question. Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister can finish his answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am running into the same kind of difficulty you are. We were asked a question. We
attempt to answer it. Then the catcalls and interruptions Start-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which indicate, Madam Speaker, that the question was mainly rhetorical and the members did not really want to have an answer. They were only trying to make a point.


ACTION TO STOP LAY-OFFS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I can see that the testiness of the Prime Minister is getting to him today. The age of the man is showing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lawrence:: He looks pretty stooped.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Maybe I could direct my question to his younger seat mate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As everyone in this House knows, the economic development strategy of the 1980 election platform of the Liberals is in total disarray today, whether concerning the low interest rate policy, the low energy price policy, the energy policy itself, or the foreign investment policy. Nothing stands from what we heard two years ago. This has caused countless lay-offs in the country. Just recently we heard that 200,000 jobs have been lost since August.
Has the minister anything to put before this House today which will reverse that job lay-off picture in order to get some hope and some confidence into the economy today?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, if I had the time I would like to explain to the hon. member the number of steps which have been taken by the government in the last-


Some hon. Members:: Backwards or forwards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -several months in order to provide additional jobs in the Canadian economy. The minister responsible for housing has made several announcements of initiatives involving the expenditure of several hundreds of millions of dollars which are intended, in their implementation, to provide many thousands of additional jobs for Canadian workers. That is one specific example that I would like to give the hon. member by way of illustrating that the government is indeed taking action in order to meet as well as it can, within a period of restraint, the requirements of the Canadian worker.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The whole point is that these policies are not working.
May 6, 1982

In the last ten days, two studies have shown that the Canadian economy is still going straight down, while other economies are turning around. On Tuesday the minister told my colleague that the government's economic policy was to rely on the private sector, yet during this same period we have experienced increased taxes and increased government regulation. Is the minister preparing to put any new economic plans in place, or is the reason for his twitchy disposition today the fact that he hears the footsteps of Jim Coutts and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on their way to propose more interventionist policies for the government to put in place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I am not twitchy at all. I do not hear things like the hon. member sees visions, apparently.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT ON ATLANTIC COAST
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question concerning energy development that I would like the Prime Minister to answer. I remind him that in Prince Edward Island he said that the death of Alsands would help other energy projects like Atlantic offshore exploration and the Arctic pilot project. Perhaps the Prime Minister does not know that the $200 million exploration program sponsored by Shell has been delayed because of the interference of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and that British Petroleum has cancelled its program. I do not need to remind him how many jobs have been lost as a result.
Specifically, what will the Prime Minister do to accelerate activity in offshore development on the Atlantic coast? What did he have in mind when he said that this development would be aided by the cancellation of Alsands?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the fact is that, since the agreement with Nova Scotia, we have seen evidence of greater interest in the development of the Nova Scotia offshore. We received a number of applications, some of them before the agreement with Nova Scotia. These have been approved. There have been deals struck between the various companies, involving participation by Canadian companies. As the hon. member probably knows, in Nova Scotia two drill rigs will soon go offshore for further exploration. However, there is clear evidence that there has been action and more action will be taking place. There is greater interest than ever concerning the development off the east coast.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I was hoping that the Prime Minister would show some interest concerning the plight of
Oral Questions
Atlantic development, but I see we must deal with the arrogance and lack of concern of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


ARCTIC PILOT PROJECT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question concerning the Arctic Pilot Project which is now entangled with the National Energy Board procedures. That is a $2 billion project which could benefit Atlantic Canada, with a LNG terminal in the province of Nova Scotia. What are the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the government doing to expedite the process of the Atlantic Arctic Pilot Project? When will it commence? What are they doing to build the LNG tankers and to develop the technology necessary to bring this project to fruition?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think there is something even more profound than my well known arrogance. It is the abysmal ignorance of the hon. member concerning offshore issues. Indeed, there has been growing offshore activity. This is due, in part, to the law which has been passed by Parliament, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which ensures that Canadians will benefit more than ever from those developments, and it is also due to the agreement we have recently signed with Nova Scotia.
As far as the Arctic Pilot Project is concerned, my friend knows that hearings are being held before the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board is a quasi-judicial body and I cannot imagine that my friend would suggest that we should interfere with the process being carried out before the National Energy Board. I am sure that if I were to try to do anything of the sort, my friend would be the first one to condemn the government for doing so. I invite him to show a little more respect for the process which has been established by Parliament itself in arriving at those decisions-


Charles Joseph Clark: Go tear up a contract, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: -and I invite my friend to show a little more respect for the truth.


Mr. Epp:: Why do you not show more respect for freedom?


Madam Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member for St. John's East to ask one supplementary question.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA
James Aloysius McGrath: I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who knows that there can be no development of the Hibernia field until there is agreement reached with the province of Newfoundland. Last Monday he indicated that he had been in touch with the minister of energy in Newfoundland with respect to getting the negotiations back on the table. Can he tell the House if negotiations with Newfoundland will resume

May 6, 1982
Oral Questions
and if the very reasonable proposal of the government of Newfoundland will form the basis of the negotiations?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is indeed aware that I have invited my Newfoundland colleague to meet with me. Consultations are taking place at the present time. I remind the hon. member that we never left the negotiating table. We have always been there. It was the government of Newfoundland which walked away from the table around February 15 and decided to go to court and then to call an election. We have been at the table. We are still waiting for the government of Newfoundland to come back to the table. We are available at any time that is convenient to the government of Newfoundland. I am sure the government of Newfoundland will want to come back with the proposal that it has put forward. We have also put forward, as is evident in the agreement with Nova Scotia, very reasonable arrangements. 1 hope there will be the same willingness to compromise, as we have shown in our negotiations with Nova Scotia.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some time ago in this House we had discussions about the urea formaldehyde foam insulation program. Seemingly it is taking a long time to get any action. Has the minister taken any steps to streamline this procedure, which we could report to our constituents?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the program set up by my department's division is operating satisfactorily, and thousands of Canadian UFFI victims have applied for the financial assistance offered by the Canadian government, which may be as much as $5,000. However, to help Canadians gain a better understanding of this program and especially to achieve more effective involvement of UFFI victims in implementing the solutions to their problems, I have invited twelve presidents of associations of UFFI victims in Canada to sit on a national committee where they will be expected to advise and assist me in this area.
tEnglish]


PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I put the question with great respect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In 1980 we in the New Democratic Party warned the minister that he did not have the assurances and guarantees from the United States that were necessary for the whole Alaska pipeline to be built. I quote the minister's reply in the House of Commons on July 17, 1980:
Today the American administration provided us with the final necessary assurances to convince us of the United States commitment to complete the proposed Alaska gas pipeline by 1985.
Where are those assurances now, and what new assurances does the minister have, if any?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the respect he has shown is equal only to the respect I have for the hon. member.
As for the question, we received guarantees of support from the U.S. Congress and the United States Administration at the time to which the hon. member is referring. The guarantees and support still stand, and the minister responsible for the project, Senator Olson, mentioned this yesterday in the Senate. I would refer my hon. colleague to the senator's statement. Furthermore, while I was in Texas during the last two days, I was able to meet some of the project's promoters, who told me that as far as they were concerned, they remained committed to carrying out the project, even if, for the time being, they would have to expect a certain amount of delay, that is, postponement of the project for up to two years. Incidentally, and I think this shows their interest in, and commitment to, the project, the promoters indicated that they would be spending $70 million this year on moving the project ahead.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN LETTER TO UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. I could say that I checked in Washington and they say there is not the chance of a plugged nickel that the pipeline is going to be financed. My supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He tabled a letter that he wrote, a "Dear Al" letter, to Mr. Haig, the United States Secretary of State. This was a letter of
May 6, 1982

April 23, 1982. In the letter he used these words, "I am concerned that the various parties involved in the financing negotiations may fail to appreciate fully the implications of any significant delay on the willingness or ability of the Canadian government and the Canadian companies involved to proceed with it at some later date."
Can the minister explain to this House what he meant by that not very veiled threat? Since we do not have anything to bargain with, what did he mean by that threat? Can the minister confirm to the House that Mitchell Sharp, the pipeline commissioner, or another official of the Canadian government, asked the White House to have President Reagan give a reaffirmation on this project and the President turned down the Canadian government?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the letter which I sent to Secretary Haig was perfectly straightforward. There were no threats, veiled or otherwise, in the letter. We were speaking merely about the difficulty of holding the status quo in the situation that was rapidly changing. There was nothing in the letter beyond that. We made only that request to the Government of the United States, and we were indeed pleased with the response of the American government. The Secretary of State issued a letter of reply and a public statement which were most supportive.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On February 25 he issued a statement, which I have in my hand, announcing the appointment of Arthur Erickson to design the new embassy in Washington. This statement said Erickson was one of 11 finalists evaluated by a selection panel, expressed the Prime Minister's gratitude to the panel, and implied that Erickson was selected by the panel. The chairman of the panel has stated that, and I quote him, "it was their judgment that Erickson was unlikely to do as good a job as the four finalists". What was the Prime Minister grateful to the panel for, and why did he attempt to deceive the Canadian people with this shabby and mendacious release which twisted the truth out of all shape entirely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, maybe we could deal with the release, one part at a time. Will the hon. member read the part where it says that I twisted the truth? If he will read the part-he has the release in his hands-maybe I can answer the question. If he does not read it and convince the House, I will suggest that he is very shabbily trying to twist the truth himself.
Oral Questions COMPETING FIRMS


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is really in a weak spot when he has to resort to that kind of weak reply. In this release he called them 11 finalists. They were 11 semi-finalists. There were four finalists who were recommended to the government, not Mr. Erickson. That is one example of twisting the truth.
The president of the Royal Institute of Architects said, and I quote him, "it can't be party to this sort of thing again". It is the worst con job since "The Sting", the movie with Robert Redford. Fifty-eight architectural firms spent $10,000 each, the other finalists spent $35,000 each on time, travel and graphics. Therefore, this cost the architectural profession about $1 million to respond to this con job. Why did the Prime Minister adopt this kind of subterfuge with such financial penalties to Canadian architects? Does he dislike them all except Erickson? Will the government now reimburse the 70 Canadian architects who spent over $1 million replying to a false and mendacious invitation to participate in the competition? Will he reimburse those architects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to read the part of the communique, which he has in his hand, which says that I twisted the truth-


John Carnell Crosbie: I say you twisted the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and which, in the words of the hon. member, say in some way that implicitly I indicated that Erickson had been the first choice. Will he read the part of the communique where implicitly I said that Erickson was the first choice of the panel? Will he do that?


CONTENTS OF PRESS RELEASE
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the release says this:
The project has been the subject of a selection process which was open to all Canadian architectural firms. Mr. Erickson's firm was one of 11 finalists chosen from some 300 firms from across the country.. .The finalists presented submissions which were evaluated by a selection panel. The government wishes to express its gratitude to these firms as well as to the members of the selection panel and others who participated in the process.
The whole thing was designed to give the impression that this panel selected Mr. Erickson, who was not a finalist-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -who was not recommended by the panel-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a mendacious piece of trickery and a con job by the Prime Minister.


Madam Speaker:: Order.

May 6, 1982
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member read very clearly that Mr. Erickson was one of the 11 finalists.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point is that he was one of the 11 finalists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: A semi-finalist.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The members are now talking about semifinalists.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am talking about deception and lies. That is what I am talking about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there were four who were on the final list, what does the hon. member argue, that we would have had to choose any one of those four, or necessarily the first one?


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the recent National Energy Board decision to allow the Ontario Hydro generating plant at Nanticoke to export power to the United States without first upgrading its anti-pollution equipment will result in additional acid rain-producing emissions of 50,000 metric tons of sulphur dioxide in the start-up phase alone, is it the intention of the government to reverse the decision of the National Energy Board in this regard until satisfactory antipollution measures are taken by the Ontario Hydro plant at Nanticoke?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member is making a representation to the government.


George Harris Hees: No, I am asking a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member knows that the National Energy Board decision will come before the cabinet and that the cabinet will have to make a decision in one direction or another. That is why I am saying the hon. member's suggestion is a representation to the cabinet, and it will be considered along with other proposals.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister calls my question a representation; he can take it in whatever way he likes, but what I am saying is that the Canadian people feel very strongly that satisfactory anti-pollution measures must be adopted.


ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES
George Harris Hees: In preparing himself for the very important meeting of the cabinet dealing with this matter, does the Prime Minister not agree that the pleas to the United States government which the Canadian government has made through its minister and its ambassador to the United States, that the Americans go about reducing acid rain-producing emissions in a very important way, will continue to be ignored until we, Canada, demonstrate clearly that we are willing to adopt the same anti-pollution measures we are urging them to adopt?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is now speaking a language we understand; it is one the Minister of the Environment and the Government of Canada have been using.
In so far as what is being done by a Crown corporation of the Government of Ontario is concerned, the hon. member will understand that we must, with all due respect, examine the decision and hear both sides. The hon. member is surely expressing one view, and he is quite in line with our Minister of the Environment. However, when the hon. member says that the people of Canada think this is wrong, he is assuming that the Government of Ontario is not a good spokesman for people in Canada.


George Harris Hees: I think it is wrong in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is now suggesting that the Government of Ontario is wrong. I will keep that in mind when we examine the decision of the National Energy Board.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Last December the Prime Minister harshly criticized British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Thomas Berger for speaking out in opposition to the November constitutional accord, which betrayed aboriginal rights and removed Quebec's historic veto power. He said publicly, "I hope the judges will do something about it". Yesterday the Canadian Judicial Council received the report of its inquiry committee on this matter.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister was silent in 1970 when Mr. Justice Freedman spoke out publicly in support of the invocation of the War Measures Act, and the Prime Minister was again silent when Mr. Justice Berger himself strongly supported the constitutional accord before the Canadian Bar Association in September of 1981, why did the Prime Minister publicly urge Canada's senior judges to get involved in this judicial witch-hunt against a very respected British Columbia judge?
May 6, 1982


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the judge is as much of a cry baby as the hon. member, but when the judge in question attacked the government in the middle of a very important debate in this House, and indicated that the agreement which had been reached between nine provincial governments and the federal government should not be proceeded with, it seems to me that the judge should at least expect some politician to disagree with him and to say so, which 1 did.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, this kind of double standard is unacceptable because the Prime Minister urged the judiciary to get involved.


JUDICIAL COUNCIL INQUIRY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The formal complaint by Mr. Justice George Addy to the Judicial Council in this matter alleged, among other things, that the conduct of Mr. Justice Berger in speaking out on these important matters was worse than consorting with prostitutes and drunk driving. Since this is only the second formal inquiry in the history of the Judicial Council, and in view of the very serious nature of this inquiry, will the minister agree to use his powers under Section 40 of the Judges Act to order that the inquiry be held in public and that all documents connected with the inquiry, including Judge Addy's astonishing letter, will be made public?
[Translation}


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, this is not a public inquiry but an inquiry conducted by the Canadian Judicial Council. They have their own regulations and they will act according to what those regulations allow. I have no intention of intervening in this matter.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing, who is in charge of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A practice is developing at the corporation whereby senior officials are changing their status with the corporation by retiring from permanent employment, changing their status to that of consultation, and utilizing their maximum retirement benefits. In so doing they are receiving very generous indexed pensions and, of course, even more generous consultants' fees. Is the minister aware of this situation, and what is he going to do about it?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works reporting to Parliament for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation I
Oral Questions
would have appreciated notice of the question. I do not have any information regarding the representations made by the hon. member, but I can assure him that I will consider them, I will inquire, and I will report back to him.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is he, too, ignorant of these facts, and is this kind of practice developing in other areas of the public service as well? Certainly no one on this side of the House is a stranger to this practice, and since there is a demand from the private sector on the government to practise restraint, why is this kind of procedure whereby civil servants are getting two full salaries allowed to continue?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specific circumstances of this case, but I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


USE OF PROPANE AND NATURAL GAS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to my studies, Canada imports some one third of the oil it uses at an annual cost in excess of $3 billion, which drives down our dollar's value, contributes to inflation and pushes up interest rates. Since it takes agreement between Ottawa and the provinces to work out policing and conversion equipment standards for the use of propane and natural gas in Canadian vehicles, including cars, buses and trucks, what steps, if any, have been taken to discuss this matter in co-operation with the provinces so that we can convert our cars and utilize our own resources?
Incidentally, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are unemployed, we could provide some employment through those Canadians who would be carrying out conversions.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is indeed very important that we have full co-operation between the provinces and the federal government in order to speed up the use of alternative forms of energy. The Minister of Transport and I have been communicating on different occasions with our colleagues. I have written to my colleagues on this subject. I know several provinces have taken steps. Others are urged to take additional steps to make sure those standards are in operation. The hon. member is quite right that it is important that all the provinces accept the appropriate standards.

May 6, 1982
Business of the House


USE OF PROPANE TO FUEL AUTOMOBILES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that response. In my supplementary question I should like to point out that at the present time some 12,000 or more Canadian cars, buses and trucks are running on propane gas, out of a total in the nation of something like 15 million.
Since it is obvious that all Canadian vehicles could run on propane gas provided there was an adequate refuelling system established throughout the various provinces, what steps is the minister planning to take to bring this matter to the attention of automobile manufacturers in Canada so that Canadian industry can embark immediately on this worth-while project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my department has done a study on the use of gasoline and alternative fuels, natural gas and propane. I have in front of me a communique which is being issued now to indicate that these alternative fuels can be used with great safety in automobiles. Of course that will create the kind of atmosphere that is needed to encourage people to convert, or in future to buy automobiles using these fuels.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of Petitions has laid upon the Table the two hundred and thirty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on Tuesday, May 4, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleague on the other side. It seems that if you were to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion, such consent would be granted:
That the business under consideration when the House adjourned on May 5, 1982, be resumed this day when the House reaches orders of the day and that for all procedural purposes it be deemed that the said debate had not been interrupted or terminated; provided that the business to be considered on May 7, 1982,
shall be the motion pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) standing on this day's notice paper in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the government House leader can count on our wholehearted support of this House order.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm on behalf of the New Democratic Party that that is the understanding of the agreement and this party concurs.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore my only duty is to ask if the House gives consent to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Regarding the business of the House during the next few days-

*-I would like to confirm to hon. members, now that the order has been accepted by the House, that tomorrow will be an opposition day. In so far as next week is concerned-

[DOT]-I would like to confirm that Monday, we shall try to deal very quickly with third reading of Bill C-58 to amend the Canada Elections Act, and immediately afterwards, still on Monday, we shall proceed with second reading of Bill C-109 to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
In any case, next Tuesday will be an opposition day. Wednesday and Thursday, we shall continue debate on Bill C-93 and any bills resulting from this legislation, since we are now negotiating ways of completing the debate on Bill C-93 in an orderly fashion. Therefore, Wednesday and Thursday will be set aside for consideration of this bill or related bills, and that is substantially what the business of the House will be during the next few days, Madam Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. D. M. Collenette (York-East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first and second reports of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
May 6, 1982


PETITION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a petition signed by the merchants and businessmen from the town of Acton in my constituency of Halton. This petition relates to the elimination of the leather shoe import quotas and is of the utmost importance to the town as the majority of its residents depend on the local tannery which is in danger of collapsing. I should like to quote briefly from the petition as follows:
We, the undersigned, urge the government to reverse its decision and reinstate leather shoe quotas and further, ask that the government cease to treat the economic situation as an academic exercise and to understand that we are now in a depression and take the necessary steps to bring down interest rates and stop adding to the destruction of already shaky industries and other businesses.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSIONER
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, as a result of discussions between the parties I believe we will receive unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the year ending December 31, 1981 (Sessional Paper 321-1/301B) be referred to the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion, to be adopted without debate, in the following terms. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens):
That there be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods for dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution and including Section 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard, and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, could I have the undertaking of the parliamentary secretary that the motion
Order Paper Questions
which he just read and for which he seeks unanimous consent for adoption is in the precise wording as it was put twice before by the government and once before by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)? On all three occasions this party gave its consent but the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in his nitpicking way refused to give consent.
If I could have that undertaking we would be pleased to consent immediately to the adoption of the motion without debate.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is in the same precise words, Madam Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that I have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) that the motion in these terms will permit the hearing of witnesses on the question of soliciting in the last three weeks of May when Bill C-53 is not before the justice committee which is, of course, our major concern-that we not impede the passage of this important bill-we are prepared to consent to the motion in these terms.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, just so that there is no misunderstanding about this, we have always taken the position that the matter of how the committee conducts its affairs is up to that committee.
I have simply said, and I want the record to be very clear, that my interpretation of that motion is that it would not preclude the hearing of witnesses at that time. It would be up to the committee to decide its order of business. That is the proper parliamentary procedure, we believe.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, any less of a viewpoint would not be in keeping with the proper parliamentary process. It is up to the committee itself to determine how it deals with this matter once the reference is there.


Madam Speaker:: Is there then unanimous consent for the motion presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,992, 3,262, 3,503, 4,056 and 4,109.

May 6, 1982
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: Was a dinner held by the Secretary of State during the Summit Conference and, if so (a) what was the name and address of the restaurant where it was held (b) what was the cost to the taxpayer (c) how many persons attended and, in each case, what was his/her name and whom did he/she represent (d) how many bottles of wine were consumed and what was the breakdown of the wine by type, name of vintner and cost (e) were all wines served Canadian and, if not, what are all the reasons justifying the use of foreign products at a government function (f) was the entire restaurant rented by the minister (g) did concrete benefits accrue to the Canadian people from the holding of the banquet and, if so, what were they?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are there disputed claims presently outstanding against the Department of Public Works and, if so, how many?
2.	Was a committee set up to work out mediation procedures and, if so, who are the members of the committee?
3.	(a) Is mediation suggested as a means to arbitrate claims and, if so, are departmental officials or independent mediators appointed (b) can the department refuse to accept the recommendation of a mediator?
4.	Does the department pay interest on the amount, where settlement is made of all or part of a disputed claim, and, if so, in what way is the rate of interest determined?
5.	In each of the past five years, what was the total amount of legal costs incurred by the department?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.
There are presently 19 claims on construction contracts in respect of which the contractor is not prepared to accept the department's offer of settlement and has proceeded with litigation.
2.	A task force comprised of members from Defence Construction (1951) Limited, Public Works Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat and Transport Canada was set up by the Treasury Board Advisory Committee on Contracts to work with the Canadian Construction Association in order to develop recommendations for claims mediation procedures.
3.	(a) Mediation is identified in the contracting policy issued by Treasury Board as a means of resolving claims. The powers of the mediator are limited to persuasion. In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned, mediators acceptable to both the contractor and the department are appointed from knowledgeable experts in the private sector.
(b)	The mediator's recommendations can be accepted or rejected by either the contractor or the department.
4.	In cases where the department reaches a negotiated settlement with the contractor in respect of the claim, interest is not paid on the settlement. If the claim is referred to the courts, the decision on payment of interest is a matter for the courts.
5.	In cases where the department is unable to reach a negotiated settlement of a claim and the contractor chooses to refer the case to the courts, the defence of this type of action is
provided by government lawyers at no cost to Public Works Canada. Occasionally legal agents are engaged by the department for legal services required in a variety of situations, including land acquisitions, damage claims, etc.
The following amounts are total annual amounts expended on services provided by legal agents in the above noted situations, as reported in public accounts:
Year	Total Amount
1980-81	$261,355
1979-80	$179,444
1978-79	$405,981
1977-78	$379,640
1976-77	$245,100


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister visit New York City on government business on November 28, 1981 or thereabouts?
2.	Was any portion of the trip paid for by the taxpayer and, if so, in what amount and for what item in each case?
3.	(a) Was a government aircraft used as the means of transportation and, if so, what was the total cost (b) was a regular commercial flight used and, if so, was the fare paid or was the flight made on an airline pass permitting free transportation?
4.	What were the names and job designations of all those who accompanied the Prime Minister at public expense and what was the cost, including any RCMP protection?
5.	Did the Prime Minister or the government request or receive protection in the form of a guard provided by the United States Secret Service?
6.	Is it government policy to require until any late hour in the day or early morning protection for the Prime Minister whether government business is involved or not?


Yvon Pinard: I am
informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
1, 2 and 3. No. The trip was private and all expenses were paid for by the Prime Minister.
4.	Inspector J. W. M. Thivierge, acting as security liaison officer accompanied the Prime Minister. The cost was $957.37.
5.	The RCMP requested security and it was provided by the United States Secret Service.
6.	The Prime Minister, as the head of government, receives 24-hour protection, whether in Canada or abroad.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,728, what are the figures for the (a) National Capital Region (b) balance of the province of Quebec?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,728, data retrieved from Supply and Services Canada's personnel administrative and reporting system indicates that:
May 6, 1982

(a)	National capital Region: Out of 4,292 public servants employed in the National Capital Region in the province of Quebec by Supply and Services Canada for which linguistic data is known, 2,511 or 58.50 per cent indicate their first official language as being English.
(b)	Balance of the province of Quebec: Out of 776 public servants employed in the balance of the province of Quebec by Supply and Services Canada for which linguistic data is known, 31 or 3.99 per cent indicate their first official language as being English.
Note: The above mentioned figures reflect that only current information is available. Data concerning previous figures are no longer retrievable.


Mr. Mazankowski: With reference to the $4 billion Western Canada Development Fund (a) what projects were funded and what amount did each project receive (b) for what and in what amount was money allocated but not yet spent (c) what is the disposition of the balance of the original $4 billion (d) what expenditures or deletions were made from the fund and for what reason (e) on what dates and by what amount was the fund increased by interest payments, grants or other means?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: (a)
Projects paid for out of the Western Development Fund amounted to $148 million in 1981-82. They included: $60 million for development of the Vancouver rapid transit system; $82 million for the Agri-Food Development Program; and, $6 million in the form of a special tax concession for railway investment.
(b)	The rest of the $4 billion, after deducting the $148 million spent in 1981-82, has not yet been allocated through the estimates process.
(c)	Cabinet has yet to announce specific projects for the remaining $3,852 billion. However, the government intends to dedicate a large proportion of the fund to solving problems of western railway capacity.
(d)	No deletions were made from the fund.
(e)	The fund is not increased by interest payments, grants or other means.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clarke:: Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that during the last two months I have received three answers to questions. Therefore, there remain 164 answers outstanding from the 212 questions I put on the Order Paper in July, 1981. 1 hope the parliamentary secretary can assure the House that those questions will very soon receive the attention they deserve.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 can assure the hon. member those answers are well under way and near to being completed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark:
That this House do now adjourn.
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) who decided to practise counting, what we are really concerned with here today is the impact of the loss of Alsands on Canada. Canada desperately needed the economic stimulus this project would have given. It would have provided about 4,800 permanent jobs, about 7,000 temporary construction jobs, and by "temporary" we mean anywhere from four to seven years. It would have provided 14,000 jobs indirectly. In total, including the spin-off effect, we could be looking at in the neighbourhood of 200,000 jobs. That becomes very significant when you consider we have roughly 1,200,000 unemployed. In other words, this project meant that one unemployed person in six may have had an opportunity for a job.
The irony of this situation is that a few short months ago we were worried about how to train all the skilled people we were going to need for these projects. We were worried about the 12,500 engineers that would have been needed. Today we do not have to worry about them or the welders, the carpenters or the pipefitters. That is really ironic in light of what has been happening in my own region where we have in Grande Prairie UIC offices a 64 per cent increase in unemployment insurance applications. Unemployment has tripled in less than a year. This project, had it gone ahead, would have created a great deal of spending in Canada, roughly 38 per cent of it in Alberta. Twenty-eight per cent of that money would have ended up in Ontario: $1.5 billion in iron and steel; $600 million in metalworking firms; $550 million in transportation. In total, this project would have injected roughly $450 billion into the Canadian economy, which it so desperately needs.
We all know investment in Canada has taken a beating recently because of things like the National Energy Program and the budget. In 1980, investment in Canada by non-Canadians was around $585 million. In 1981 we find it is a negative $5.3 billion. In 1980, investment by Canadians in foreign companies was $2.78 billion; it almost doubled to $4.9

May 6, 1982
billion in 1981. Money is leaving Canada at an unprecedented rate and that works against the Canadianization policies this government has talked so much about. Since the 1981 budget it has become no longer profitable to invest in Canada. Our last budget was anti-entrepreneur and anti-business. That, coupled with the NEP, has resulted in a double-whammy which has hurt our manufacturing and economic sectors. And now Alsands, which formed the cornerstone of the budget and the NEP, has been cancelled. What is going to happen now? Will the government consider rewriting the NEP and the budget? The NEP was designed to achieve these goals:
-provide Canadians with energy security, the opportunity to participate in energy development, and fairness in the manner in which the benefits of the nation's rich resources are shared.
We now have an NEP without an Alsands. We have no energy development and no energy security. The NEP has already succeeded in decreasing drilling activity by 25 per cent in 1981 over 1980; 226 drilling rigs have left Canada. Of the rigs still here, they were 33 per cent less active in 1981 over 1980. Seismic crews-without which there can be no exploration-are down 25 per cent in 1981 over 1980. The NEP went on to say that it:
-includes made-in-Canada prices which are designed to provide attractive returns to new sources when they come on-stream, and to provide new certainty to the industry.
The only thing we are left with now is uncertainty. This government, through its ignorance of the industry and the jobs that can be created, has destroyed Alsands. What now? What about the tar sands project in Peace River? Will the minister now try to get that project on-stream which, while it is roughly a third of the size of Alsands, is still worth $5 billion. It is a manageable size, and it can still create jobs and economic spinoffs throughout Canada. Will the minister approve that project? Will he give us some hope, something to look forward to? I challenge the minister to give that project the go-ahead and do all in his power to bring it into the mainstream of the Canadian economy.
I want to talk about the potential we have in this country. We have a lot of resources: oil, gas; we have tremendous potential in forestry, agriculture and manufacturing. A few short years ago a Dutch economist came to the Peace River region and said he had never before seen so many resources in such abundance in one place. He was overwhelmed by our potential. He was overwhelmed by our opportunity. He predicted that we would experience massive success. He predicted that we had a golden opportunity to create jobs. He predicted that we had a great opportunity to create Canadian and national wealth.
Let us stop a few years later and look at the same potential and see what we have now. If we look at the oil industry, we find the oil sands projects cancelled. We find that our rigs are moving to the United States. We find jobs which the oil industry should have created in Canada are now being created south of the border. We are importing oil into this country. All
the indications are that in the next decade and maybe the next one again we will still be importing oil into Canada. If we look at the natural gas situation, we find our gas is shut in the ground. Exploration has virtually ceased.
Let us take a look at the forest industry. All over Canada we have lumber mills shutting down. Our retail lumber outlets are closing. People are losing their jobs. Take a look at the housing construction industry. Construction of homes has virtually stopped.
What about the agricultural industry? Agriculture today is being slaughtered by high interest rates, and our high energy taxes have affected fertilizer costs as well as fuel costs.
What about the manufacturing sector? People are being laid off in that sector right across the country. Plants are being closed and there are production cutbacks.
If that Dutch economist were to come back to this country today, he would be met with a very grim picture, a picture that would show all that potential wasted. He would see all that opportunity gone and all that hope turned into despair. Why has that happened? Is it because of a lack of demand for our products? Is it because of a lack of initiative on the part of the Canadian people? I do not think so. I still say there is a demand for our products. There is still a demand for our oil. There has to be. Today we are importing about 400,000 barrels of oil per day. It would take at least three Alsands projects to provide us with that oil. There is still a demand for gas. Look at our unemployment situation. We are not creating any jobs. We are not creating any spin-offs in the manufacturing sector. We are not creating any spin-offs in housing construction. We are not creating any spin-offs in the forestry industry.
Our energy sector could be the trigger to prosperity. It could be the beginning. It could be the comeback to a strong economy. But instead of that, this government of 15 tax increases on fuel, this government of high interest rates, this government of the National Energy Program and this government of the 1981 budget just continues on blindly. It is blind at a time when there is no need to be, a time when there is still opportunity and, a time when everything is still possible.
I want to close by saying that all it takes is a change in the government's attitude. Failing that, all it takes is a dozen of those silent Liberal backbenchers to stand up for what is right, to stand up for the unemployed in their constituencies and to stand up for our country; because that is what we need.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was clearly identified, and I realize that you were not here, but a member from the New Democratic Party spoke out of sequence, and another member of the NDP was not to speak until after I had spoken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair has carefully observed the recent sequence
May 6, 1982

of speakers and has recognized the hon. member for Kam-loops-Shuswap. There will be conversations through appropriate channels.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for my colleague on my right, I will be very brief so that he can have the floor as quickly as possible.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak in what I think is a special emergency debate introduced by the New Democratic Party. When it was introduced by the New Democratic Party it was turned down, but when the Progressive Conservatives introduced essentially the same emergency topic it was accepted. Therefore, I am pleased to speak to this special emergency debate that was introduced by our party.
1 think it is a fair question to ask why we are having this emergency debate. Why is it that we have agreed now by unanimous consent in this House today that we should continue with this special debate? The reason is that we on this side of the House feel that it is appropriate to focus the country's attention on a particular topic. The topic is not the failure of a particular megaproject per se, but the failure of the government's economic strategy, the failure of this government's ability to introduce any program that will result in economic recovery in this country. It is the failure of an economic strategy, and one that is dependent upon megaprojects. I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said earlier that he did not necessarily agree with that, but the individual in the cabinet responsible for economic development, the senator from Alberta-


Mark Willson Rose: Nip him in the bud.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear my colleague say "Nip him in the bud"! The senator had a vision that the future of this country economically in the 1980s and 1990s would be the large megaprojects, primarily the energy megaprojects in western Canada. I suspect another motive might be that since these were high profile projects they were sexy projects, that they would capture the imagination of western voters so that western voters would fall over themselves to vote Liberal in the next federal election. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen at all. The reason is that this particular strategy has fallen flat on its face.
I want to comment briefly on the other disappointment, not Alsands but the pipeline, the pipeline that we in the New Democratic Party felt right from the beginning was somewhat of a fraud, that it was an effort by the oil companies in cooperation with American colleagues to encourage the Canadian government to approve the pre-build so that we could export natural gas from Canada at a relatively cheap rate, and some day in the future the northern pipeline would be built to provide Canadians with natural gas.
We wanted to have some ironclad guarantees that that would be taking place. We in the New Democratic Party said that we were not prepared to support that project unless those ironclad guarantees were in place. We were concerned about the jobs that this program would have created in Canada. Something like 11,783 jobs would have been created, and
80114 -21
something in the neighbourhood of $40 billion to $60 billion would have been generated by this project. We wanted to see that project go ahead. We asked for a guarantee. As a matter of fact, 1 would like to read the motion that we proposed on July 22, 1980. It reads:
That before the House adjourns for a summer recess, the House calls on the government to declare that it will not proceed with the construction of the prebuild portion of the northern gas pipeline until complete financial guarantees for the whole pipeline have been obtained and an agreement has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of the United States that the Canadian gas exported through the southern portion of the proposed pipeline will be replaced by Alaska gas at an equivalent price.
That was the motion we put forward in this House on July 22, 1980. It is interesting to note who did not support it. I know there is a member in this House who says he represents the Yukon. In common parlance he is often referred to as "Yukon Eric". He says he is interested in Yukon jobs and investment in the Yukon. I wonder why that particular individual, who is in the House for almost every motion and votes on every motion in this House, was obvious by his absence that day? He was obvious and conspicuous by his absence that day. I have the record before me. I just want to say that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did not vote in favour of or against that particular motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is contrary to the rules and practices of the House for a member to reflect upon the vote of another hon. member. I would ask the hon. member to cease and desist.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point raised. I was simply raising a question about an hon. member's whereabouts. I will refrain from referring to it any further.
I should like to refer to an article which was published in The Globe and Mail two days after the vote had taken place. On the issue of guaranteeing jobs for Canadians and investment in Canada, it indicated that the New Democratic Party stood alone, that only the New Democratic Party made a determined effort to defend Parliament, the law and the people. I wanted to read that comment into the record. I think it is important because of the accusations of a number of members regarding our positions on the natural gas pipeline and on the Alsands project.
It is well known that in cabinet the minister responsible for manufacturing development in Canada was overruled by his cabinet colleagues and was replaced by the visionary senator from Alberta. The megaprojects were to be the saviour of the Canadian economy. He wanted to continue with a policy which would make western Canada susceptible to the boom and bust syndrome, to the vagaries of the international marketplace-in this case the price of oil on the world market-and to the continuation of the western theme of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Essentially that is what the Alsands project and the megaprojects do. This is why we in the NDP feel that as well as the development of these projects, we must make significant effort to develop a long-term job-creation strategy

May 6, 1982
which would result in a sound economic base for western Canada. Of course, that is the manufacturing sector which must be developed alongside megaprojects in energy or resource development.
Why did the Alsands project collapse? We heard speakers earlier in the debate mention that it was because of the downturn in world markets. Others referred to the fact that interest rates were too high and too volatile. I think the real reason was the uncertainty and the lack of confidence which exists in Canada in terms of the political leadership of the country. Investors in the country are afraid of what is to come, of the uncertainty, and are hesitant to go ahead particularly with any long-term commitments. The two foreign oil companies involved in the Alsands project decided that enough was enough and that they would not continue within the atmosphere of uncertainty about interest rates and downturning oil prices. The Liberals saw this happening and panicked. They felt that more concessions should be made to the oil companies to keep them in the act, which would allow Alsands to proceed, because of its symbolism to the people of Canada.
I ask members of the Progressive Conservative Party what is their position. The impression one receives is that they want this project to proceed at almost any cost to Canadian taxpayers. We in the NDP looked at the offer where Canadians would put up 85 per cent of the financing and would receive a 50 per cent equity in the project. I do not know what businessman would consider that to be a reasonable deal. On top of it, we would provide royalty holidays and tax concessions to the two multinational oil companies. What kind of a deal was it? Even under those conditions the oil companies turned it down. This should be a clear signal to everyone in the House that the project is uneconomical and that at this point in time it must not proceed. If the time comes when the economics of the project become realistic and viable, then I say that if Canadians are to put up 85 per cent of the financing, let us go the other 15 per cent and obtain a 100 per cent equity, rather than only a 50 per cent equity. This would turn the project into a public utility in the best interests of Canadians.
It is too risky to proceed, so let us learn a lesson. Whether we agree on what we should do in the future in terms of Alsands, let us at least agree today that if the two multinational oil companies are not prepared to continue, it is an unwise decision at this point to proceed with the Alsands project.
Is all lost? Must we in the House perpetuate doom and gloom because of this failure? What is the silver lining in this particular cloud? We must look at whether or not a total reevaluation is required in terms of meeting Canada's goal of oil self-sufficiency by 1990. Perhaps we should turn our attention from the Gulfs and the Shells and direct it to small, independent Canadian oil companies which are not necessarily operating in frontier lands or particularly involved in the Alsands project. They are involved in western Canadian sedimentary basins in traditional recovery programs. They are the hundreds and hundreds of small Canadian companies which have been overlooked by the government. The government's attention has
been directed to the multinational companies, but what about small Canadian producers in western sedimentary basins?
If we were prepared as Canadians to place that amount of money in the Alsands project, it seems to me that we should now shift that investment into upstream projects and say to small independent Canadian oil companies that now is the time for a review of the potential for enhanced recovery. We know that 30 per cent of the oil is still sitting in western basins and that now is the time for new research and development of technology to draw up that 30 per cent. There would be no risk involved at all. All we require is the technology to move it to the surface.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It would give the small guy a chance.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, let us give the small guy a chance; let us give the small oil companies in western Canada a chance and stop being preoccupied with the multinationals.
These are examples of upstream projects which we could now begin to support. What about downstream projects such as heavy oil upgrading plants in Saskatchewan? This would be an opportunity to take the heavy oil, move it through the plants, and refine it in central and eastern Canadian refineries rather than American ones. Funds could be reallocated to this downstream project. Even within the oil industry itself the failure of the Alsands project will perhaps provide a challenge and opportunity for Canadian oil companies and Canadian refiners, two groups which have been incensed and overlooked by the National Energy Program and by the efforts to move ahead in frontier areas and on projects such as Alsands.
Another opportunity which perhaps has been provided by the cancellation of the Alsands project is to develop alternate forms of energy. We should take more initiative in developing alternate energy forms such as geothermal energy, particularly in western Canada, hydrogen, biomass, wind, solar, tidal, and non-conventional propulsion such as propane and alcohol. As well, we should develop heat pumps and coal technologies and so on.
These are alternate forms of energy which have had to take a back seat while so much attention and money from the private and public sector was being focused on the megaprojects. We should see this as an opportunity to move funds from the private and public sector into developing alternate forms of energy which could complement the recovery programs of our traditional energy fields.
Another opportunity which we should take advantage of is the development of conservation practices. It has been said that the cheapest barrel of oil is the one that you do not have to buy. Here is our opportunity to experiment with new forms of conservation. We now have an opportunity to conduct research and develop into such things as new building forms and new building designs. We should develop new conservation programs because I believe this is where the long-term job security opportunities will be. Canadian manufacturers will
May 6, 1982

have the opportunity to develop and build new types of windows and doors and other conservation related materials.
This brings me to my main concern, and that is, how can we as Canadians-especially in western Canada-move away from the "boom and bust"scenario and from our dependency on the vagaries on the international market? One step would be to develop the manufacturing sector which would provide long-term security for jobs and investment. The manufacturing sector is essential to any mature and sound economy. Our nation is presently experiencing a deficit in our manufacturing trade balance of $21 billion a year and this is increasing. It has cost Canadians 200,000 jobs. It seems that now is the time to introduce a manufacturing strategy for Canada and for western Canada particularly.
As a first step in developing this strategy we would ask foreign companies operating in Canada to build in Canada what they sell here. I ask hon. members, is that an unrealistic request? We would tell foreign manufacturers that if they have a particular market in Canada we would like them to source and assemble their products in Canada for that market. For example, if Japanese automakers were selling 185,000 Japanese vehicles in this country, we would ask them to source and assemble those vehicles in this country. In other words, we would say: "If you want to make profits in this country, you must at least create jobs in this country." In my opinion, that is not an unrealistic request. But it will take some courage and leadership from the government, and quite frankly, I do not think that those of us on this side of the House will hold our breath to wait for that action.
We have seen the collapse of the Alsands project and the northern gas pipeline shelved, at least temporarily. We have seen the economic strategy which has been espoused by the government collapse. Where is this country headed? May I suggest that we should not view this time as one for bitterness and depression. We must face the economic reality of these megaprojects. Let us seize this time as an opportunity and a new challenge for Canadians. It is a challenge to support for the first time in many years our independent Canadian-owned and controlled western oil companies. It is an opportunity to move into the research and development field in order to support the area of conservation. It is an opportunity to move into new areas where we can develop a manufacturing structure which will relieve us from the branch plant mentality that we find ourselves in today.
Why is there not more research and development? Why are Canadian entrepreneurs not aggressively seeking new markets? The answer is obvious. Why should they? Why should a small Canadian branch plant company actively compete with its parent companies or other branch plants? Why should a small branch plant operating in Canada have a sophisticated research and development program when there already is one in the head office in Germany, Britain or the United States? The continuation of our branch plant economy is one of the fundamental problems we face in this country. I am afraid that
we continue to have a branch plant mentality as well. It is time that we move ourselves from being renters in our own house to being masters of our own house.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I shall now take part in this debate, if only to counter the cries of alarm we are hearing from the members of the Official Opposition and, of course, their colleagues on the left. I am very much reminded of the story of Chicken Little, who told everyone the sky was falling, and the hon. members seem to be just as worried as Chicken Little. They do not know how to work this out, and they think that because the megaprojects have failed or cannot be carried out for the time being, there is no way out of our economic recession. Mr. Speaker, even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, in Montreal at the beginning of this week, that he had no solution to Canada's economic problems and that actually, he was merely following the government's lead.
I would like to quote an article which appeared in the Tuesday, May 4 edition of La Presse, in the business section, where reporter Alain Dubuc said that in an interview given to La Presse the day before, Monday of this week, to a group of reporters, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and I am quoting the reporter:
-made the most astounding and disarming statement ever made by an opposition leader, when he acknowledged that his party had not found an alternative to the Bank of Canada's economic policies. "We have looked for a solution different from the government's, but we have no alternative", he admitted. "Today, I cannot come up with a better solution."
So what are they doing about the temporary setback of the megaprojects? They are sounding the alarm and launching an emergency debate, but what kinds of solutions are they proposing? Do they have anything constructive to say?
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, actually a month ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had a proposal for the Canadian people, and I have yet to hear any comments on the subject by the Official Opposition.
In a speech to the founding meeting of the Canadian Federation of Labour on March 31, the Prime Minister stated that the unions would have to learn to negotiate and collaborate with the government, otherwise Canada would no longer be able to compete on world markets.
Mr. Trudeau stressed the need for all economic agents to take part in joint discussions, something that was already being done in the Federal Republic of Germany, in Japan and in Sweden, for instance, although he acknowledged that labour relations in those countries were-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), on a point of order.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister by name. In the proceedings of the House, he

May 6, 1982
must be referred to by his title as Prime Minister. This is very important. Please make a point of this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I trust the Parliamentary Secretary has taken note of what the hon. member just said.


David Berger: The hon. member's suggestion has been noted. It is an example of the quality and relevance of most of their suggestions. I was saying that Mr. Trudeau recalled the need-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Once more, I must draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the rules of the House.


David Berger: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stressed the need for all economic agents to have joint discussions, something which is already being done in the Federal Republic of Germany, in Japan and in Sweden, for instance, although he recognized the fact that labour relations in those countries were somewhat different. The Prime Minister pointed out that the difference between Canada and the countries mentioned was that in Canada, labour cannot really make a deal with the government and agree to do such and such if interest rates or inflation go down. So what does the opposition have to say about the Prime Minister's suggestion?
I would like to point out to the Canadian people, and those Canadians who are watching these proceedings on television, the importance of co-operation between governments, labour and management, in fact, between all economic agents, as Mr. Trudeau said, for the development of our economy. Ours is a very decentralized economy. In 1950, the Canadian government was responsible for 65 per cent of government expenditures, and today, in the I980's, the Canadian government is spending 35 per cent of total expenditures by governments. This means that 65 per cent is being spent by provincial and municipal governments. For the people of Quebec, it is very important to understand why greater co-operation is needed, especially when we see-


David Kilgour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona, on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is going beyond the subject of our debate today, and is also talking about federal expenditures. I think he should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Once again, I must draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the subject of this afternoon's emergency debate.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was dealing with that subject. If only the hon. member would understand! I am discussing the future of this country's economy and what should be done following the collapse of the megaprojects. I wish the hon. member would understand that the end of the world is not at hand, and that if all Canadians work together, we will be able to overcome our economic problems. I wish the
hon. member would understand that in a country where the economy is decentralized to the extent that it is in Canada, it will take the co-operation of all levels of government and all economic agents, and that the Canadian government alone cannot solve all these problems. I suppose all this is going over the hon. member's head.
As I said before, this element of co-operation is extremely important, and I would like to point out to the House that in our efforts to bring down inflation, the economic agents have a very important role to play. In September, I visited the Canada Employment Centres located in my riding. There, I found that in the past four or five years, the centres had lost their best counsellors. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they were able to earn at least $5,000 more for the same kind of work with the Quebec government.
So for some reason, probably based on political considerations, the Quebec government approved salary increases for its civil servants that were out of all proportion to those offered by the Canadian government or the private sector. This has had a disastrous effect on productivity in the federal public service and also in the private sector, where many companies were hard put to compete with the extremely high salaries being offered by the Parti Quebecois government. Another factor that is vital to economic recovery is the quality of the Canadian labour force. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the findings of the parliamentary task force on labour market development in the 1980s, which, in its report tabled last year, stressed that there was a shortage of skilled workers in Canada, both in blue and white collar jobs. These shortages were felt particularly in the metal industry; for instance, there were shortages of tool and dyemakers, welders and machinists, and also of electronic technicians who are responsible for maintenance and repairs of computers and automated equipment, and also shortages of programmers, engineers in various disciplines, nurses, and the rest.
The task force said that, generally, these shortages were due to a lack of training, negative attitudes and social barriers. In the longer run, shortages were also due to inadequate employment, training and industrial policies and the lack of coordination once again; the lack of co-ordination is pointed out by another committee of the House among all levels of government and between the private and public sectors. Mr. Speaker. My riding association discussed these issues last weekend, when it was preparing resolutions for a regional symposium of East-Central Montreal, to be held on May 16.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, read a few extracts from the resolution prepared by the Laurier Liberal Association:
Whereas many young people coming out of educational institutions do not have the basic training required to enter the labour market;
May 6, 1982

Whereas in Canada, there is a shortage of skilled workers and at the same time an unacceptable unemployment rate;
Whereas there is a lack of co-ordination among all levels of government and between the public and private sectors with respect to manpower training;
Whereas many young people in the riding of Laurier do not know how to look for employment and are not aware of the services offered by the various employment centres.
In concluding, the Association requested that the Canadian government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, unions and employer associations, promote compulsory training periods for students. The Association also requested that the government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, employer associations and unions, find new ways of meeting the urgent need for guidance and evaluation services. Finally, the Association censured the Parti Quebecois government for the poor quality of education.
It just goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, what I said at the beginning of my speech-the importance of concentrated efforts and co-operation by all economic agents-and it is clear that we cannot expect megaprojects alone to solve our economic problems. Solutions can be found only through intelligent and hard work. Anyone who does not believe that collaboration is essential, should read a study published by Labour Canada, by the Canadian Department of Labour, a few days ago, under the title: The Japanese Experience, Industrial Relations in Modern Japan, prepared for the department by Mr. Charles Connaghan, president of a Vancouver firm of industrial relations consultants. Mr. Connaghan-and of course I cannot give a detailed account of his conclusions-Mr. Connaghan gives a history of trade unionism in Japan, and he says that the main factor that brought about a change of attitude, which in turn accelerated or considerably improved labour-management relations, was a productivity agreement. This agreement was concluded towards the middle of the 1950's following a conference of representatives of the unions, management and universities. Mr. Speaker, the government was not even involved. This agreement or this conference showed-


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the parliamentary secretary accept a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North?


David Berger: Certainly.


David Orlikow: Does the hon. member agree that one of the main reasons there is relative peace in the Japanese economy is that the Japanese workers, certainly in the larger industries, are virtually guaranteed lifetime employment? They do not have to worry about computerization or mechanization doing them out of a job, as has happened to hundreds of thousands of
Canadian workers. Therefore, they are quite prepared to cooperate in improved productivity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the debate appears to be straying a bit from the motion of urgency before the House at the moment.


David Berger: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe this important question is at the heart of the economic prosperity of our country. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that such matters as job security are extremely important to the health of the economy. I was going to point out that matters such as this were discussed at that conference in Japan. I was going through the history of industrial relations in Japan-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect to the hon. member, there is a subject matter for debate. This is a debate under Standing Order 26. Urgent. Specific. I invite the hon. member to speak to the subject.


Mr. Paproski:: It has nothing to do with the Alouettes.


David Berger: A very perceptive member opposite, Mr. Speaker.
As I understand it, the subject of this debate is what happens to the Canadian economy now that these megaprojects are not going to be proceeded with. Do we, like Chicken Little and the members of the official opposition, cry "The Sky is falling, the sky is falling," sit back and do nothing?
It is evident from recent events that Canada is dependent on international trade. As I mentioned several weeks ago, there are 12,000 automobiles sitting on the dock at Halifax. The purchaser will not accept them because of their poor quality. Something will have to be done in Canada to enhance the quality of our work and make our products more competitive in world markets. These are very serious long-term problems that must be addressed by all intervenors in the economy, governments, labour representatives and, needless to say, the private sector.
In conclusion, I want to point out that this conference in Japan was held in 1955. A national productivity council was formed with a tripartite organization consisting of workers, university people and the private sector. The principal role of the productivity centre in Japan is public relations. It helps people in Japan to understand that the only way the economy can continue to grow and prosper is through increased productivity. The council tripartite group sent teams on to shop floors to talk to-


David Kilgour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour has tried to make the hon. member stick to the subject but he continues to talk about Japan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must call to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that the time allotted to him has expired.

May 6, 1982


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, you could almost have said "At last the hon. member for Ontario". When I saw Madam Speaker walk in, I was afraid I might be delayed a little further. Fortunately I will have my chance. Incidentally, if I stray from the subject as far as the previous speaker strayed, I hope you will pull me up on it.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) had some very good points. I point out to the hon. member that if the private sector had been permitted to proceed without government interference, at this point the plant would have been under construction for two years. I think the hon. member is right, but I am sick and tired of government intervention, government assistance and government help. Let the private sector make a fair buck, and let the private sector do it on its own, because it can do it. This whole thing is a national entrepreneurial disaster. The government is trying to destroy the private sector. It has touched and destroyed every segment of Canadian society.
We can pretend energy is not everything, but in this day and age the economy of the world is based on energy. We should face up to that. If we destroy the main segment of our economy, we destroy our society. Look at what has happened to jobs in Ontario. Ontario is in a disastrous state. It is in its worst state since the depression. The steel industry is working at 40 per cent of its capacity. Thousands of engineering jobs are being cancelled. I have talked about General Motors before. Another General Motors plant was closed down this week. How far do we have to go before the whole thing is destroyed? Firestone used to be in my riding. Firestone shut its doors because of the economy. But firestone was smart; it jumped the gun.
Let us look at what has happened to the drilling rig industry. Most drilling rigs were fabricated in Ontario. The steel came from Ontario. The pumps came from Ontario. The drill bits came from Ontario. What has happened? We have exported those drilling rigs, along with $14 billion Canadian converted to U.S. The National Energy Program has created a serious situation in this country.
We have very high interest rates. Everyone is now forecasting that to protect the dollar our interest rates will have to go up another 0.5 per cent. People in this country who are unemployed cannot afford the rates now, let alone another 0.5 per cent.
We are talking about Alsands, Cold Lake, Hibernia and the frontier. We are talking about the whole spectrum and about the National Energy Program. Let us talk about some people who are really being hurt. I refer to Canadians who own shares of Imperial Oil, Texaco and other large multinationals. Canadians have held shares of these large companies for generations. They have done well, but they are being discriminated against. Furthermore, the Canadian Bar Association states that what is happening is illegal under the Constitution. The whole thing might be thrown out.
After two weeks in committee I have concluded that geologists, drillers and blue collar workers will be hurt badly but that there will not be enough lawyers to deal with the National Energy Program. All we have to do is take some time to read the two documents I have in my hands. There have been different estimates from different corporations. Up to 50 man-years have been required to gather information. The National Energy Program has caused the cancellation of Alsands. That is another devastation for investors in Canada. People have lost faith in the Canadian oil industry. Prior to 1980 the oil industry was a fine and respectable industry. Many investors and entrepreneurs came from Ontario. Many took their savings and their hopes and invested in oil companies. Those people have been hurt. Their investments have been lost or their value substantially eroded, and that is to say nothing about increases consumers have had to pay.
Who is getting the oil money today? The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap mentioned that we could go ahead with Alsands, but let us remember how much money is taken out by governments not only through the PGRT, the IORT and other taxes but also through the Petro-Canada tax, the excise tax, the Ontario ad valorem tax, and so forth.


Mr. McDermid:: Ad nauseam tax.


Thomas Scott Fennell: There is no dough left. Consumers are really hurting. What about farmers? Why should farmers have to pay the three cents a litre or three cents a gallon or whatever it is for Petro-Canada to produce food to feed this country? Agricultural products are a major part of our exports.
In one of his recent speeches the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) pointed out that the government wants to build wealth and that its responsibility is to regulate and redistribute. Well, the government has redistributed so much that when it anticipates a deficit of $10.5 billion it turns out to be $15 billion. That is how this government redistributes our wealth. As a country we cannot afford the money the government offered to build Alsands. We do not have the money, and we cannot afford to go to Switzerland to borrow more Swiss francs at an interest rate of 20 per cent which, incidentally, would net out to more than 24 per cent.
We hear various Figures respecting unemployment in the country. We hear about a million here and a million there. The latest Statistics Canada figures I have seen, not adjusted, indicate that 1,252 million Canadians are registered as being without jobs. I would estimate that at least 50 per cent more are so discouraged that they have given up hope. They counted on these megaprojects, or at least one or two of them, to proceed, but what has happened? They are all gone.
With respect to Alsands and shareholdings and corporate responsibility, the federal government offered to take 25 per cent, Alberta offered to take 25 per cent and Petro-Canada already had 17 per cent. That is 67 per cent ultimate control. The minority shareholder would not even be able to have a dividend declared, even if money could be made from the project. I do not blame Shell, Gulf and the other people who
May 6, 1982

backed down. It was shown that they could make money, but they could never have been sure of getting their money. The whole thing was a hoax. The whole thing was a publicity scam.
1 would like to talk about the Alaska Highway pipeline. Last June I had a meeting with a gentleman from Walter Levy and Associates. Some people in this House condemn that company for never being accurate or to the point. Last June that gentleman said there would be an oil glut lasting from 12 to 18 months. That projection came true. We were also told there had been such a delay in the Canadian decision to allow the pipeline to proceed that it doubtful the Americans would ever build that pipeline. It is doubtful because the Americans have a large surplus of gas in Alaska. Their production of oil is dropping off. It is cheaper for them to convert that gas to methane, put it in a small-diameter pipeline which does not require pressure and take it from Prudhoe Bay to Anchorage. The cost of such a pipeline would be only a fraction of a gas pipeline. Then they could transport it by ship down to California where there will be a large demand for that product.
The reason the Americans must do this is that there is an immense surplus of gas and a shortage of oil. The decline of oil from Alaska has become dramatic. They need to get the money out because the private sector in the United States has brought the oil business to life. They must generate enough cash flow to drill further wells. When they drill in that area they are never sure of getting gas or oil so they must drill more wells for more oil and they must consume the gas so that they can move toward oil self-sufficiency.
The Americans believe in free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, but this government does not, even though the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) kept on yelling "We are private entrepreneurs". The government has put private entrepreneurs out of business.
The Alaska pipeline will never be built, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe it was just delayed for two years; it will never be built. The Americans will put it over their own soil. With the attitude that we show toward the Americans, how do we know that they will not say: "We don't want anything more to do with Canada; they have hurt enough of our corporate citizens and investors, and we want to get away from that?"
Representatives of the Consumers' Association of Canada appeared before the committee and I was shocked by what they said. I think they wrote the National Energy Program. I think they got Ed Clark in a corner and wrote the National Energy Program with him. Their only comment was to the effect that private enterprise cannot do it and the state must do it. Mr. Speaker, the state does not do very much in the private sector very well. A couple of recent examples are Canadair which got $1,350,000 to bail them out and Eldorado which got $400 million to bail them out.
How much more do we have to give for state ownership to pacify the red rump and then keep bailing them out? All they can do is talk and yell and get upset. Why do they not believe in what built this country, namely private enterprise?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario has the floor. I invite hon. members to extend him the courtesy of listening.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: He's all buts and no guts.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Members of the Canadian Bar Association also appeared before the committee and stated that Bill C-104 had 50 regulations that could be manipulated by the minister. Among the statements they made were the following:
The bill allowing Ottawa to assign billions of dollars in exploration incentive grants to Canadian-owned companies, gives cabinet so much discretion and regulatory power it will "significantly impair" the rule of law, the Canadian Bar Association said.
The legislation also contradicts the new Charter of Rights and likely will be challenged in court if it goes ahead unchanged.
Mr. Binavince, a lawyer with the association, stated that he would be delighted to take on the case against the state. He said it is going to be taken on and will be dragged through the courts and he knows that he could win it. The example he gave us was that of a Canadian citizen who owns shares in a Canadian corporation who happens to be domiciled in the United States because of his employment. He is discriminated against because as far as this bill is concerned he is not a Canadian citizen.
I asked Mr. Binavince if he was sure that a Canadian corporate citizen could not be considered in the same context and he said that he believed that would be challenged in the courts.
We are discriminating against oil companies. We are not being fair to the people who found oil in this country. We had no oil production until the 1920s and 1930s when the multinational companies came in. I acknowledge that they should not be allowed to send money out of the country holus-bolus, but let us not export their expertise. We do not have the experience that Shell and Imperial have.
Let us turn now to the matter of the frontier. A drilling fund cannot be set up unless the companies have their own expertise. Home Oil is an example; it does not have the required expertise. Members on the other side will say that Dome has the expertise. I wonder if Dome will be here for long-it is broke and has admitted that. That is the point it made to us in the committee. It is frantic to get the $130 million that it has already spent. It has had to borrow that $130 million and now is approaching the government to see if it can get interest on the money. They may not be here in the future so who is going to go to the frontier?
Let us deal with the east coast now. If Mobil is put in the same position it will not be able to farm out any Canadian ownership except for the expropriation part of Bill C-48 that allows Petro-Canada to come in for 25 per cent after the original company has spent all the money on exploration.
Bills C-101 to C-108 of the National Energy Program have so many loopholes and so much regulation that they will be troublesome. They call for a company with $10 million in assets and $10 million in revenue, and then the minister has a

May 6, 1982
complete omnibus clause. The five previous paragraphs could have been forgotten.
One of the delegations that appeared before the committee stated very succinctly that Parliament is delegating its legislative authority to those persons whose responsibility should be administrative only. That is what we did with Alsands and that is what we are doing with the entire oil industry. It is time it was stopped. We must get this country back on track and give Canadians a chance at jobs. We must get people working again because they cannot take any more.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate but since 1 am in the House this afternoon and have listened to the arguments of the opposition I thought that I would throw in my reflections on the subject.
The opposition is talking about two particular aspects of the economy; one is energy security and the other is economic stimulus which will lead to more jobs. I would like to take a look at those two topics this afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is this a test?


Norman Kelly: There will be a test on this Monday morning at nine o'clock.


Mr. Manly:: You have already failed.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to enhance the energy security of the state. One is to produce more energy; the other is to conserve energy or convert to other energy sources. I point out to members opposite that the conservation aspect of the National Energy Program has been highly successful. We have in the last year and a half conserved the equivalent of the output of one tarsands plant. That should encourage us to realize that with a more strenuous effort we could save the equivalent of two or more tar sands plants. If members of this House accept that argument and understand the contribution which conservation can make to the energy security of the state, then the inability of governments and the private sector to build a tar sands plant is not that catastrophic in its impact on the energy security of Canada.
What does it matter, from the perspective of energy security, whether you build a tar sands plant to produce 150,000 barrels a day or you create conservation policies which save the same amount? The end result is absolutely the same. Therefore, the inability of the three partners to sign an agreement on Alsands does not spell the imminent collapse of our dream of energy security because there are other ways we can achieve that security.
I am sure there has not been a member with an interest in energy who has not been lobbied by the companies which are now moving into the conversion field. I am thinking of those companies who are eager to convert our transportation fleets from gasoline to natural gas. One of the members of the previous Liberal administration is now working in that area
and he has often visited the Hill and talked to members on all sides. It is his belief, shared by others in the field, that if we converted our transportation fleets from gasoline to natural gas we could over a two or three-year period save the equivalent of five Alsands plants. If conversion is the equivalent of five Alsands plants, then why do we not do it? We can convert far faster and more cheaply than we can build the plants. If that is the option, why is there so much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in this House because we were unable to get the second tar sands plant off the ground?


Mr. Blaikie:: You are the guys who made such a big deal out of it before.


Norman Kelly: If there were no option to the tar sands plants, then I would agree with you. But there are options, and they are cheaper. That makes eminent sense to me and I would hope it does to members opposite.


David Kilgour: Stop making cars and there would be no problem.


Norman Kelly: That is not true. There would be no sacrifice of our lifestyle or standart of living if we conserve and convert, none whatever. I think the hon. member understands that.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Why were you willing to throw away 80 per cent of the cost, then?


Norman Kelly: It was not me, Mr. Speaker. I hope I have proven to the satisfaction of members of this House that through a vigorous program of conservation and conversion we can more than make up for the loss of the Alsands plant. I hope this government has the insight and courage to move in that direction.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Don't hold your breath.


Norman Kelly: The other way to promote and protect energy security is to produce more oil. If you look at the industry assessments of the NEP you will see, sitting alongside the very obvious and bitter denouncements of that policy, a grudging admission that the NEP, with its world price for new oil, gives producers a more than adequate return on their investment. In fact, with the money we are prepared to pay producers for new oil, they will receive a higher return on their investment in Canada than they will in the United States.


David Kilgour: That is poppycock.


Norman Kelly: It is not. I ask the hon. member to read some of the latest articles in the Alberta report and he will find that Greenshields-and you cannot find any company more critical of the NEP than Greenshields-have concluded that companies which discover and produce new oil will obtain a higher return than they would in the United States.
Given the nature of the source, that conclusion satisfies me that there is sufficient motivation in the NEP to discover the roughly six billion barrels of oil which are believed to lie buried in the sedimentary basin in western Canada. I defy any
May 6, 1982

member opposite to quarrel with those figures or that conclusion. There is no doubt in my mind that the world oil price in the NEP will stimulate production of new oil. No question whatsoever. The real bite is on those producers with old oil because they want to convert known reserves into big money.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I do not want to interrupt his train of thought but it might help clarify the point he is trying to make.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly accept and answer the hon. member's question at the end of my remarks, if that is convenient to him.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, my time is rapidly coming to a close. I will leave the argument I have been pursuing and simply conclude by saying that the national energy policy with its world oil prices will lead to the discovery of more oil in the western provinces. I have no doubt of that whatsoever and neither do any of the industry's analysts.
If I may, I would like to take a look at the second aspect of this debate, which is the stimulation of the economy with the anticipation of higher employment.
The two governments were prepared to spend $7 billion over the next few years to create jobs through the Alsands plant. I suggest that if members in this House were interested in job creation, the Alsands plant is perhaps the least efficient way governments have of producing jobs. If we were to spend $7 billion over the next three or four years with the intent of creating jobs, I suggest that money would be more wisely spent if we pumped it into the housing industry or into the high technology area. The number of jobs that you would create in those two areas in terms of money spent per job is considerably higher in housing and high technology than it is in Alsands.


David Orlikow: You had better come over here because you sound like one of our people.


Norman Kelly: It dismays me to hear members opposite arguing that because the Alsands plant has failed we are going to pay a considerable price in lost employment. I would point out to them that if employment is the key to their thoughts and the goal to which we should all be marching, then that money would be better spent in housing and in high technology.
I would also argue that not only would there be more jobs in high technology, but those jobs would be more evenly spread throughout the country. They would not be concentrating money in one industry and in two parts of the country, Alberta and Ontario; we would be creating jobs all across the country. Therefore, the benefits from that money would be shared proportionately among Canadians everywhere.
In conclusion, I would like to leave the House with my observation that in a very general way the national energy policy has not endangered the energy security of the state but,
in fact, has enhanced it or at least possesses the potential for enhancement.
Second, if we are going to be spending considerable amounts of money for job creation, then we have the potential and the duty to spend that money in more profitable areas. I suggest those areas are housing and high technology.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for entertaining my question. If the National Energy Program and the taxation regime is so attractive to the oil companies, would the hon. member explain to the House why we have seen a decline in exploration and drilling activity in the conventional sector by more than 40 per cent since the National Energy Program was brought into being?


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not deny the scale of the industry's initial reaction to the national energy policy. 1 regret very much it had that impact on the industry, but I think I could argue that the industry is responding more favourably this year than it did last year-


Mr. Dinsdale:: Where?


Norman Kelly: -that starts are up and that over time, as the industry makes its accommodation to the national energy policy, we will see the industry move out of its recessional posture. It will, I would argue, in the future regain the lustre that characterized it in the late 1970s. It may be that this government will have to make modifications to the taxing system.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: About time.


Norman Kelly: And I would not argue that those modifications might not have to be made. But the point of my argument is that the national energy policy is not the complete and total evil which members opposite project in their debates. In fact, there is considerable merit in that policy. I think that merit will produce results in the near future.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify a point which the hon. member made. The impression he left was that the Greenshields group to which he referred had given the impression that things worked fairly well under the present taxation regime. We now know that that was simply his own opinion.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the hon. member's last point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a limit to the number of exchanges back and forth, but the Chair will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, in rebuttal to the hon. member's observation, I did not tie in Greenshields with the comment that he made. I tied in Greenshields with the world price and

May 6, 1982
the potential for exploration and development of new oil in the years ahead.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the beginning of my remarks that I am genuinely pleased this debate is being resumed. I think it is appropriate to say that common sense, tradition and good judgment have prevailed, and I am very pleased about that.
This is a very necessary and timely energy debate. It is of the utmost importance to all of my constituents and to myself as their member of Parliament that I participate. Indeed, it is my duty and my responsibility to participate today and I am eager and privileged to do so on behalf of my Medicine Hat constituents.
This emergency debate was triggered by last weekend's double whammy of the collapse or demise of the two giant megaprojects, one being Alsands in the Alberta northern oil sands, and the other project, the northern natural gas pipeline, particularly the financing of it by the United States. This is an appropriate occasion to discuss some of the serious consequences of the National Energy Program on the oil and natural gas industry in southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. I am reasonably well acquainted and familiar with both of those areas.
I propose to direct my remarks to this aspect of the energy debate. I deliberately used the slang expression "double whammy" to emphasize last week's disastrous announcement. However, a third major megaproject should properly be added to the list. I am speaking of the Cold Lake heavy crude megaproposal of Imperial Oil. It is of the same magnitude in its implications. It is perhaps understandable but most regrettable that Imperial's technical resource team for Cold Lake has been quietly disabanded and dispersed. That entire project is at least unofficially dead.
The tragedy of this triple whammy and these final failures is the enormous negative impact on our total Canadian struggle to live with and overcome the present serious economic recession. That negative impact translates quickly and directly to lost jobs by the thousands and lost opportunities by the billions of dollars for two regions in Canada. First, the three western provinces are affected, especially Alberta, with respect to energy exploration, production and the value added industries. Second, the huge industrial potential opportunities of Ontario, and to a lesser degree of Quebec, are now gone. This triple energy collapse will delay for years the possible reality of Canadian energy self-sufficiency. The tragedy is that Canadian self-sufficiency is possible; I do not think anyone would argue that.
With respect to the eleventh hour attempts of federal energy officials and Alberta to save the project, there was a joint 50 per cent offer by the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. It seemed like a reasonable and responsible offer, but surely the entire episode begs the question: Why
could this proposal not have been advanced and proceeded with at least two years ago?
Turning to the northern natural gas pipeline setback or even demise, because two years which have been suggested at the setback on that particular project are as good as the kiss of death, I remind the House of the specific admonition of President Reagan when he spoke to our Canadian Parliament on March 11, 1981. He specifically warned us that while the United States government supported the giant pipeline project, financial responsibility for the American portions must be with the private sector, and that private sector responsibility has now failed. Of course, this is another example of lost jobs by the thousands and lost opportunities by the billions for all Canadians. The negative implications suggest that Canada has a moral responsibility to urge the United States to live up to the terms of the formal pipeline treaty between Canada and the United States, dated September 20, 1977.
All southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan are vitally affected by the megapipeline hold-up amounting to a demise. In southeastern Alberta there are thousands of capped gas wells awaiting-some of them for many years-an opportunity to produce and contribute to the eastern leg of the pre-built section of the northern gas pipeline. The eastern leg crosses the Alberta-Saskatchewan border in my riding, continues southeasterly across the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan, and enters the United States at a point called Monchy on the Saskatchewan-Montana border. This portion of the eastern leg is now completed and capable of transporting natural gas to Montana in the United States. The western leg of the main line is now completed and is transporting gas across the southeastern corner of British Columbia and into the United States.
Turning to my own constituency, I suggest that if there is a single identifiable commodity which could be associated with the city of Medicine Hat, it would be natural gas; it has been so for 99 years. We will celebrate our centenary throughout next year. Natural gas has been our lifeline from the very begining; the first gas well in western Canada was drilled at or near Medicine Hat 100 years ago. For many years visiting dignitaries were treated to a special gas-well flare at the CPR station in Medicine Hat as a special indication of our underground resource. Rudyard Kipling, on a visit to my home city, was moved to suggest that Medicine Hat must surely have "all hell for a basement". The city of Medicine Hat has always owned, produced and distributed its own utilities, including electrical power generated by natural gas.
The new taxation on natural gas in the National Energy Program has now resulted in substantial increases to all home owner utility bills. Most of them have been increased by over 100 per cent in the last one and a half years. Commercial users have seen their costs increase by as much as 400 per cent due to natural gas taxes. This 400 per cent figure applies to the greenhouse industry, one of our earliest and most important industries which depends almost entirely upon natural gas. This industry has shipped cut flowers across western Canada
May 6, 1982

for many years, and it may very well not survive this punitive federal tax.
Some people will remind me that we have always enjoyed cheap natural gas in our corner of Alberta. This was true until now. However, the percentage increase in utility taxes is much higher than it is in any other location across Canada. These gas tax costs translate immediately into much higher total costs for retired people and all industrial users of natural gas. A great number of retired farmers, especially from Saskatchewan, have for years enjoyed coming to Medicine Hat to retire and enjoy the benefits of natural gas.
On April 19, 1982, it was my pleasure and duty to present a formal petition to Parliament on behalf of 12,689 concerned citizens of Medicine Hat and adjoining Redcliff who were justifiably outraged over the hardships and illegality of the gas taxes. It was a carefully prepared petition which emerged rather quickly, mostly as a result of spontaneous effort on the part of housewives to demonstrate their desperation and sense of urgency over this tax provision of the National Energy Program. It should be noted that all signators to the petition were at least 18 years of age or over.
The petition also fully supported the legal action of the Medicine Hat city council against the federal government which is now underway. It questions the legal and constitutional right of the federal government to tax another government, as provided for in the BNA Act, on the assumption that city-owned and distributed utilities are in reality an extension of provincial government authority. This legal action is presently before the Alberta courts in the city of Calgary.
On another somewhat related legal issue involving natural gas in southeastern Alberta, it is appropriate to mention the status of the Smith-Coulee natural gas case. Briefly this case involves three gas wells drilled by the government of Alberta on Crown land in the extreme southern part of my constituency near the United States border. These wells are presently connected by pipeline to export natural gas to the United States, and the Alberta government is prepared to do just that. Last year the Alberta government asked the Alberta appeal court to rule on the question of the constitutional right and legality of the export of gas by Alberta from Alberta land to the United States. Five judges of the Alberta appeal court ruled unanimously in favour of Alberta. Now the decision has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Government of Canada. The Supreme Court referral has been argued by Alberta, and a decision is still to be announced. I mentioned the Smith-Coulee case because there may well be a direct relationship in the final court decisions of both the city of Medicine Hat and the government of Alberta.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to make a brief comment on the heavy crude production situation in southwestern Saskatchewan. This is a small but worthwhile energy development of extremely heavy oil. It has been completely shut in for some time now, at least up until about a week ago. It has been shut in due to the negative and discriminatory aspects of the National Energy Program. It was simply uneconomic to continue producing these wells. They were losing money on every well because of the low price and the
fact that the heavy crude had to be moved to the United States to be refined. Of course, this made it very expensive.
Very recently, perhaps only a week ago, some of these wells had been allowed a 57 per cent production quota, which may help somewhat. An added negative factor is that the heavy oil upgrading plant which was scheduled for Saskatchewan-I do not know if the location was actually made public-had either been cancelled or set back indefinitely, again as a direct result of the National Energy Program.
Finally, I want to make a concluding comment about the entire energy program and its negative implications for the gas and oil well servicing industry. Brooks is a town in the northwest corner of my constituency. It had a population of 9,000 until the tragedy of the National Energy Program hit them. I am sure that many people have moved away. This town had become a hub of activity for the gas well, and some oil well, servicing industries. Almost without exception they were privately owned by small entrepreneurs who were Canadian. It was a joy to visit Brooks to see this activity which flourished for three or four years until the tragedy of the NEP and the current budget hit that town. These businesses were extremely hurt. I am sure there are other areas in Alberta and the Edmonton area in particular where this situation has happened. However, I single out Brooks because it has been dealt a crippling blow. A good many of these small Canadian entrepreneurs have either moved or gone into receivership.
I conclude with that comment because I think it exemplifies how critical the situation is in my province and my constituency. I am sure it is even worse in other areas. I appreciate the privilege to be able to talk about the implications of the National Energy Program for my constituency.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, before addressing the issue of this debate under Standing Order 26, I would like to say how pleased I am to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and to commend the House leader for the government on the motion he put on floor this afternoon. I think that all of us on this side feel that this place is the better for his gesture. I believe he has restored a great deal more faith in the parliamentary democracy process which should take place here.
On Friday, April 30, 1982 it was announced in two separate statements that the Alsands megaproject had collapsed and that the Alaska pipeline had been postponed for two years. The House will know that this represents an unprecedented disaster for the Canadian economy. This disaster can be directly traced to the National Energy Program.
Canada has been relying on the megaprojects to accomplish two goals; to guarantee energy self-sufficiency, and to provide employment and stimulation to the Canadian economy. In short, it would provide jobs.
As a result of the collapse of these projects, our party requested this emergency debate in an attempt to focus the

May 6, 1982
attention of this House on the necessity for jobs in the Canadian economy and the need for energy self-sufficiency. I suggest that in all of our speeches we wish to trace what we feel this meant to the Canadian economy and to suggest some solutions.
There is no question that these megaprojects were important to the Canadian economy since they created 4,800 permanent jobs, 7,000 jobs for construction workers during the construction peak and 14,000 indirect jobs. Many of those jobs were in Ontario steel mills and manufacturing plants. The plan was considered important to our overall goal of self-sufficiency, one which members on all sides of the House believe in.
It was estimated that in 1990 the Alsands plant would produce 11 per cent of this country's estimated oil production. As well, there were spin-off effects in all sectors of the Canadian economy. These effects would have ranged as far as the east coast. Oshawa was particularly affected because that is where pick-up trucks were manufactured to supply the workers in the oil fields. I have visited Alberta and I can appreciate that jobs were created out there but as a member from Ontario I think in terms of the jobs it would have meant for the iron and steel companies of Ontario. It would have meant a $600 million injection for the iron and steel companies, $550 million into the transportation sector and $1.1 billion into other sectors of the manufacturing economy of Ontario.
What promise did we have? Why are these megaprojects so important? They were the magic, the engine of the Canadian economy, as was suggested by the Liberal party. They were going to reduce unemployment, provide more satisfying job opportunities for Canadians and increase our participation in the work force. It would mean growth in Canada at a time when we are either in a recession or depression-depending upon which economist you talk to.
Lest my remarks be totally partisan, I refer to job estimates put out by various government bodies. The suggestion is that there would be created in the pipeline projects 19,000 direct employment jobs and some 71,000 indirect employment jobs.
There are other projects which have been cancelled or deferred as a result of the National Energy Program. For example, there is the Polar gas project, the Kitimat project, the tar sands III project, the Syncrude expansion and many more which have been cancelled or postponed because of the National Energy Program.
Why has the industry lost confidence in the Canadian government? I think there are several reasons and I would like to point them out to the House today. First, there is the grab for federal revenue. It is an effort, through the massive legislation which we have seen, to view energy and our natural resources as simply a tax producer rather than a job producer. I believe that is the essence of how it is regarded on the other side of the House. In our party, we view the megaprojects and the pipelines not as an investment opportunity for some multinational, not as an investment for someone who does not live in Canada, but as an opportunity to put Canadians to work. I suggest that the other side of the House looks at it as
an opportunity for revenue. We cannot have the revenue unless we create the jobs. The jobs must come first.
I will not get into a great debate as to whether the oil companies are foreign-owned, Canadian-owned, half-owned or quarter-owned. That does not interest me. What interests me are jobs in Canada, jobs that cannot be taken away once they are created. I do not care who creates them.
I do not like the discrimination in this energy legislation against the foreign companies. We find the national energy policy confiscates petroleum rights. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that during the debate on the Constitution, our party put forward our feelings about property rights because we were worried about property rights. We felt that they should not be confiscated. We felt they should not be taken away from the people of Canada, nor from companies which are owned by Canadians.
Basically, it breaks down to this: Canadians feel that the government broke its word to the oil companies concerning tarsands oil prices. It is basically a matter of trust. Frankly, the people of Canada no longer trust the Liberal party.
We voted for the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. If we ever bring it back, I think we should shorten the name of it so that I can remember the order. We voted for it because of the representations of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who said this:
In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline. Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan and the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
Then we have the expert from the other place. It is rather unfortunate that we find ourselves dealing with people from the other place once we get west of the Manitoba border, but that seems to be the only way in which the government can show any sort of understanding as to what happens to the other half of the country. The Hon. Senator Olson said:
We are satisfied that the United States is committed to build their portion of the line by 1985-
Given the nature of U.S. assurances, the government has decided there is minimal risk of non-completion or long delay in the construction of the entire Alaska Highway gas pipeline system.
Well, on Friday it collapsed. I want to emphasize the fact that we voted for it because we could foresee jobs on the pipeline. We could foresee jobs created to make the steel and everything which would go into the construction of that pipeline. We make no apologies for that vote. I know that reference has been made today by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to the fact that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was not present during the vote on the pipeline. Since that hon. member wished to bring up voting records, I would like to state for the record that during votes 122 to 169, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap was absent 23 times. He was present for exactly one half of those votes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
May 6, 1982


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sure that everyone would want that on the record so that it could be considered.
What has the Liberal party told the people of Canada? In 1979 and 1980, it campaigned on the theory that it would not raise the price of gasoline by 18 cents a gallon. However, it has raised it 17 times, to 28 cents a gallon in tax and some 78 cents a gallon in total. By September 1, barring something we do not know about, which is always a possibility with this government, the seventeenth increase will bring the price of gasoline to well over $2 a gallon in most Canadian cities.
The people of Canada know they were told a lie. The people of Ontario know they were told a lie. The people of Simcoe-North, in my riding, know they were told a lie. What has this National Energy Program done for Canada? Drilling activity was down 25 per cent in 1981 over 1980 in contrast to the fact that it went up by 25 per cent in the United States during the same period. Well completions are down 25 per cent in Canada. Exploratory drilling, which employs people from right across the country, is down 19 per cent. Development drilling is down 28 per cent. Since the introduction of the National Energy Program, 226 drilling rigs have left Canada.
I had the opportunity to go out west to Alberta to find out, as an Ontarian, just exactly what is involved in moving a rig. I saw some of those trucks, as I understand it, it takes between 20 and 40 trucks loaded with steel to take a drilling rig across the border.


An hon. Member:: That's just one rig.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is just one rig. And it is quite obvious that once you set one of those rigs down, you do not move it back too quickly. So that is what we have lost as a result of the National Energy Program.
Lest one thinks it was just steel that we lost when we lost that rig, let me read into the record a letter from one of my constituents:
Dear Mr. Lewis:
1 never thought I would be writing to my federal representative but unfortunately 1 feel that I must express my extreme displeasure with the current energy policy. I feel that being a voter I should let you know how it is effecting us.
I am a third year undergraduate enrolled in geology at McMaster University and I am extremely interested in petroleum exploration and as such 1 am looking for summer employment in the industry. My search for employment has involved sending out hundreds of resumes along with interviews with the major oil companies. To this day I have received nothing encouraging.
You might say that I am not qualified to get an offer but I disagree with that. 1 am enrolled in the honours program and my marks are good, and on top of that I have a summers experience in mapping Cenozoic and Tertiary elastics in the Yukon and Alberta with Gulf Minerals. I do not think it is entirely my qualifications because everyone in my program has been experiencing the same problem.
I feel that the problems I am having with employment are due to one thing and it is summarized quite nicely by Union Oil and I quote:
No doubt you are aware of the restraints of the new federal budget. The effects of these restraints have substantially reduced our staffing requirements.
Not only does this predicament effect my summer employment but it effects my Bachelors thesis. I want to become a petroleum geologist but if can not do my thesis in Alberta this summer my chances for a full-time job next year will be even more severely limited.
It is pathetic that a country like ours which is gifted with copious amounts of fossil fuels can not develop these resources which could make us energy self sufficient. You would think that the government would want to help the economy.
Hopefully people will see how detrimental the present government is to the economy and will give sensible people like yourself a chance to run the country before it is too late.
That is not political rhetoric, that was not a letter invited from a constituent so that he could say exactly what I wanted him to say. That letter came into my office on January 29, 1982. There are firms in my riding which supply the petroleum industry. The people of Simcoe-North want jobs in that industry, whether by going out to Alberta or by making what we make very well in Ontario and sending it to Alberta. I am referring to Fahramet Limited which produces the reformer tube assemblies which are sent to Alberta for the petroleum industry.
I would like to finish my remarks by suggesting what can be done. I suggest that what is needed is a change in attitude. What is needed from the Liberal party is a decision to cooperate with industry rather than to coerce it. What we need to do is expand the Canadian energy industry, not contract it. We should end the confrontation that exists in Canada with the energy industry and get this country back to work.
The government and the Liberal party should realize that a business deal must be good for both sides. A business deal that sticks it to one side is no good. Both sides must be happy with the deal and have an opportunity under that deal to go forward. If it sticks it to one side, it will break down. I do not care how many signatures are on it-and I have seen this time and again in business-it has to be good for both sides. I suggest we look at the petroleum industry as an opportunity for jobs, not revenue. That is what should be important.
The government should focus in that way on the industry. It should listen to my colleagues, who are more knowledgeable in the industry than I, in the committee. I suggest, as I have often done in this House, that the budget be withdrawn so that we have some incentives for Canadians to invest in their economy.
I say all of this in a spirit of entering into a debate under Standing Order 26 which is not granted very often. Madam Speaker felt this subject was important enough that we take this time to address it. I ask the government, and I plead with the Liberal party, to put the country ahead of their interests and do everything possible to get this country back to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: There they go, Mr. Speaker, before I even start! My friends on the other side are obviously getting ready to go.
I listened with interest from time to time to members opposite in this debate, including the hon. member for Simcoe

May 6, 1982
North (Mr. Lewis) who just spoke, on the collapse of the Alsands project and the delay of the Alaska Highway pipeline.
There is a question we have to assess honestly. Members opposite have said that the entire difficulty with these projects was caused solely by the National Energy Program. They say that is the only reason, that if it had not been for that program, the projects would have gone ahead without any doubt. That is not factually true. Major projects in the energy field are being cancelled in countries all around the world, no matter what government is in place or what kind of energy program they have.
We heard from the hon. member for Simcoe North and other members opposite about how exploration and development is booming in the United States. However, the oil shales project in the U.S. was cancelled; it was set aside by Exxon.
The Alsands project was certainly a major megaproject. Last night members were talking about the cost, saying that the project had gone from an estimated cost of $5 billion in 1980 to $14 billion. I have talked with people in the industry who have indicated that was probably a low estimate and that it would go much higher. I am sure that was one of the motivating factors which caused the private oil companies to decide not to go ahead with the Alsands project.
There is the historic experience with the Syncrude project. That project was supposed to do certain things, such as produce a certain volume of oil. It is not producing it and in fact never has produced it since its inception. It has been plagued with problems, not necessarily technological, with the way things were being done or the type of thinking and engineering that went into it, but because the equipment produced to work the oil sands depreciates very quickly. An individual at the head of Syncrude indicated in conversation last week that the oil sands eats the equipment alive. The replacement cost of the equipment is enormous. Therefore, it is much more expensive to extract oil from the sands than had been thought.
Shell, Gulf and the other companies involved in the Alsands consortium went to school on Syncrude. They looked at the Syncrude experience and the accuracy of the cost estimates. Indications from those in the industry they talked with were always: "No, the estimates were not right; yes, the estimates were too low and were escalating very rapidly".
Syncrude indicated that its costs were increasing by at least 20 per cent per year. When inflation was increasing between 10 and 12 per cent in the worst situation, which was last year, their costs were increasing at nearly double the rate of inflation. Certainly the companies involved in that consortium were looking at what was happening to Syncrude. They wanted to know the experience, how long it took to come on stream, how much oil was being produced and how much the costs were escalating. That was factored into the decision.
The other major factor which caused the demise of many megaprojects in countries around the world was the fact that world prices of oil have fallen dramatically. Educated opinion
in the field indicates that the world price of oil will fall substantially from the point it is at now. Estimates I have heard indicate that under the Alsands cost structure, a barrel of oil coming out of that project would be in the range of $40 to $45. If world prices were going up as they were, on average about 2 per cent per year, by the time Alsands came on stream, even with escalating costs, the price that could be obtained for a barrel of oil from the Alsands project would be greater than the cost of producing it.
All of a sudden the market turned itself on its ear. Instead of going up, the world price of oil dropped. In the past six months it has dropped by 25 per cent or 30 per cent. That changes the economics of all major energy projects. I am sure that is the second major factor that entered into the calculations of the oil companies in deciding not to proceed. They were not going to put their shareholders' money at extreme risk.
There is no indication that this would be a profitable venture given the economic conditions that face us today, the cost of the project and the price of paying for the product at the other end. The people involved in the Alsands project had to look not only at those factors but at the alternatives coming on stream. What are the alternatives? The oil industry estimates that Hibernia can probably produce at between $25 and $30 a barrel and the Beaufort in the range of $25 and $30 a barrel as well. It was felt that Alsands could produce oil at $40 to $45 per barrel. That is a substantial cost difference. Faced with that, I am sure people in the oil industry were saying that not only could they not be guaranteed a price sufficient to cover their costs, but that they would also be facing competition from a substitute which costs much less to produce. The Alsands people felt they would not be able to compete. Those factors had to be going through their minds.
I would not suggest for a minute that the National Energy Program did not create a situation of uncertainty for the industry. The government has been working very diligently to reduce that uncertainty and to put in place the incentives necessary to get exploration and development back on track. The government has been working to reduce that uncertainty, but we cannot fight economic facts. Economic facts indicate that there were some very real economic uncertainties having nothing to do with the National Energy Program which led to the demise of the Alsands project.
An hon. member opposite spoke about the Alaska gas pipeline. It is beyond my ability to understand, but somehow the two-year delay in that pipeline project is also the fault of this government. I do not understand that. Hon. members on both sides of the House voted in favour of the pre-build. We did everything we possibly could to see that it would go ahead.


James Douglas Manly: Not over here, John.


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members in the corner are against almost anything.


James Douglas Manly: That is not true.
May 6, 1982


John Leslie Evans: With respect to the pre-build we received assurances as good as could possibly be received in an uncertain economic environment. We received an assurance from the Americans that their portion would go ahead expeditiously. Now the Americans have delayed for two years. Why have they delayed for two years? They have delayed for two years because of changing realities in the energy business. I have heard it estimated that the cost of completing the project has gone up from $50 billion to $60 billion. What would be the cost of gas coming out of that line? That is an economic fact of life.
On top of the costs of the Alsands project and the gas pipeline there are present world economic conditions to consider. Apart from the cost of the Alsands project, apart from the price for the product which could logically be received and apart from the cost of producing the product- and the quite substantial negative differential-we are faced with another crunch, and that is general world economic conditions. There is declining demand. Very high interest rates would drive the financing costs of the project to astronomical levels. All these factors were involved in the decision by the private oil companies not to go ahead.
Hon. members opposite would say this government did nothing to try to preserve the jobs and the wealth creation which would result from proceeding with the Alsands project. That is just not true. The last offer put on the table by the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada was to tell the private sector participants in the project that the taxpayers would absorb virtually all the risk and guarantee an extremely high rate of return. The rate of return would have been about 20 per cent. To all intents and purposes, Shell Canada would not have paid any taxes for years and years. The offer put forward was extremely generous, but Shell looked at the situation and said that even with that generous offer the project would hinge on whether it would be economic to extract oil and whether Shell could get a price for oil which would come close to covering its costs. If you lose money, you lose money. It is not a matter of taxation or no taxation. If it is a losing proposition economically, one does not go ahead no matter how attractive the tax package or the guarantee. The package offered by the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada was extremely attractive, but a decision was made not to go ahead with Alsands on the basis of very sound and rational economic facts of life. The reason was not government policy and not the National Energy Program. The decision was based on the economic facts of life.
If it is true that the National Energy Program is the sole culprit, then why in the world are other countries finding that their major projects of a similar kind are being cancelled? I ask hon. members to consider the fact that this is also happening in France, in the United States and in Germany as well as here. Certain economic realities must be faced, and the realities I have outlined are very high interest rates-


David Kilgour: Whose fault is that?


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is saying that high interest rates in the western world are the fault of the Canadian National Energy Program.


David Kilgour: They are a lot higher here than they are in Germany, Japan and Switzerland.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member is saying interest rates are high here because of the National Energy Program. If that is true, the energy program in the United States must have caused the high interest rates there. The rates there are at the same level as they are here.


David Kilgour: Your bank sets the interest rates.


John Horton McDermid: Why don't you move back to the states?


John Leslie Evans: I suppose the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) has his thing going again.
We have to look at all the facts involved. I know it is popular for the opposition-and in provinces where there are Conservative governments, for the Liberal oppositions or NDP oppositions-to try to blame everything that is unfortunate on government. It is always the fault of the government. Hon. members opposite are not doing anything unusual, but I think it is intellectually dishonest not to consider all the factors.
I have indicated that uncertainty was created by the National Energy Program. I do not deny that, and I do not think anyone on my side of the House does. However, there was much more involved in the Alsands cancellation than the National Energy Program. There were many other factors much more important than the National Energy Program.


David Kilgour: Like the budget?


John Leslie Evans: I have stated what those factors were.


David Kilgour: Tell us about the budget and how that helped.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member is ranting on about the budget, but the fact is that the incentives provided in the package offered to Alsands were independent of the budget. The budget did not affect that project. How can tax changes in a budget affect a company which is not taxed? It cannot. A company must first be taxable. This project would have been vitually non-taxable in perpetuity.
I will close by dealing with another subject I think all hon. members should look at and think about. I think it was the hon. member for Simcoe North who said the people no longer trust the Liberals. He contends that the people are losing faith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: I am glad I received applause from hon. members opposite for something, although I do not know what it was. I would like hon. members at least to try to listen, even though what I am saying does not penetrate.


David Kilgour: Say something then.

May 6, 1982


John Leslie Evans: There is a serious problem in this country, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels. There is also a problem in the United States and other countries. This very serious problem is in relation to the credibility of all governments, not just in relation to Liberal or Conservative governments. In Saskatchewan the people threw out an NDP government and put in a Conservative government. The people of Manitoba did precisely the opposite: they threw out a Conservative government and put in an NDP government. As politicians we face volatile times.


Thomas Scott Fennell: What about Nova Scotia?


John Leslie Evans: If hon. members opposite would keep their partisan cackling down for just a minute, I would really like to say something. It is important that we deal generally with the question of government credibility and what we as politicians are going to do because Conservatives are being tarred as well as Liberals and New Democrats. People are concerned about politicians. We should think about the kinds of name calling and debate that in some cases we hear in this House and the kinds of things that are put in householders and wonder whether it does not have a negative impact on the public perception of politicians, regardless of their political stripe.
I think it is important that we try to lay all the facts of the situation before the people, not only the facts that make a partisan point of view. We are not getting the facts in this debate. How many times have we heard hon. members opposite talk about the economics of the Alsands project? I do not think we have heard that once. They blame everything on the NEP and say it is the government's fault. If it should happen-and I do not think it will-that one day hon. members opposite form a government, they will find themselves tarred with the same brush. If they think they do not have to be concerned about the credibility of public representatives, then they are sadly mistaken.
We should try to bring out the facts in a non-partisan way, debate the issues, come to a resolution that everyone can support and then put the issues to the people in a rational and effective way.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit one question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 have to point out to the hon. member that the time of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre expired at 5:43. If he is prepared to answer a question and if there is unanimous consent for him to do so, then he may proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


An hon. Member:: Evans said no.


Some hon. Members:: Chicken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My apologies. The Chair had earlier expected to recognize the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I turned my head inadvertently. I should recognize him now.


Mr. Cousineau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that unanimous consent was not given by me, not by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter this emergency debate. I would preface my remarks by quoting Charles Dickens' opening line of "A Tale of Two Cities": "It was the best of times and it was the worst of times".
As usual, under the present administration it is the best of times if you are rich and have no worries; but most Canadians, not just the very poor who have always been badly off but middle-income Canadians, are finding it has become the worst of times.
I do not know how much longer Canadians will be able to tolerate the setback the country is suffering. We have very high inflation, very high interest rates, very high unemployment and lowering personal expectations. Our young people find it increasingly difficult to get work. High school and postsecondary students are advised that for the most part they will not be able to find full-time jobs this summer to help pay for their education. We have widespread uncertainty in the business community; we have widespread frustration in the labour force; we have widespread insecurity in the workplace and we have growing anger in the community.
The Liberals may say that this is a negative approach, but it is reality. In a country rich with resources, with a skilled work force and an abundance of capital, the Liberal government has brought us to the point of despair and stagnation. It has gone from one crisis to an other since coming into office two years ago.
This emergency debate is about the collapse of the Alsands Project, but what we are really talking about is the collapse of the main thrust of the government's economic policy. Alsands was just a part of it. For a long time my party has argued against making resource-based industries the major thrust of an economic policy. That is traditional Liberal policy-a quick-fix, easy policy. It does not require many brains to import talent and money that will rape our resources.
We have been doing that since at least the 1920s and it was done again in the 1950s and 1960s. In order to pay for our imports we allow foreigners to come in and develop our resources, ship them out of the country unfinished or partly finished and then we pay for manufactured imports. That worked in the 1920s, in the 1950s and until the late 1960s and it contributed to a rapid rise in our standard of living.
Because of the economic times in which we find ourselves now, the harsh reality of the weakness of this megaproject
May 6, 1982

based policy-in this case energy, but it could have been mines or any other area of our natural resource bases-and because of the financial realities, we suddenly realise that the main pillar of the Liberals' economic thrust in the eighties has been pulled out from under the government and indeed, the entire country.
We have seen the death of the $14 billion Alsands project and the end, we assume, of the $30 billion Alaska gas pipeline. Hibernia and Venture off the east coast, while viable in the technological sense, will cost $6 billion and $3 billion respectively. We are talking $43 billion, the big eggs the Liberals have put in one basket.
At the same time what has the Liberal government allowed? Inflation soaring at 11.6 per cent with no indication whatever that it is going to come down substantially. High interest rates of 16 per cent or 17 per cent for the bank's safest customers, 19 per cent or 20 per cent for consumers. In addition, the government has been putting all its economic thrust into capital-intensive resource megaprojects, we have soaring interest rates and a constriction on economic development. In other words, a tight money policy-Reaganomics-which incidentally is supported by the Conservatives. The Conservative financial spokesman has said this outside the House. Their leader, just the other day, indicated very strongly that there was no approach to our problems other than continued high interest rates. The irony of this debate is that it was the Conservatives who demanded it, and there is no difference between Conservative monetary policy and Liberal monetary policy. The people of Canada know it.
It is not nice to say "I told you so" because it sort of puts that halo around your own head, but two years ago my party was very concerned that the Alaska gas project was going to be yet another giveaway, because we had no guarantee that the Americans would or could live up to their end of the bargain. So we voted against the pre-build section. We did so not because we were against the whole project; indeed, had it gone ahead Canada would have been a net beneficiary because there would have been the swap later on of American natural gas from Alaska at comparative prices.
But what are we left with? Alsands is dead and we are left with the pre-build, which takes inexpensive Canadian gas to the United States. Only fools in the U.S. would now try to raise the horrendous amount of money required to go ahead and build the American portion of the line to bring out their own gas. The Americans have always worked on the principle that if you can get a non-renewable resource offshore, that is where you go first. You bleed another country until there is nothing left and then use your own resources. From their point of view it is a good and wise policy. They do not have to reduce their own natural resources on which their entire industrial complex is based.
Why can't we be just as intelligent? When you have a hot item to sell and a tremendous world demand for it, why do you have to act with such indecent haste in trying to get rid of it?
Why not be smart and make the best deal? Is it because the Liberals are so inexperienced; they have not been in office very long, they do not have many contacts in Washington, they do not know the name of the game? Hardly the case, Mr. Speaker, for a political party which has been in office almost continuously since 1935.
Therefore, there is something wrong across the aisle and I do not think it is just a lack of intelligence or savvy. I think what has happened is that they have lost the will, on the one hand, to protect our national heritage of resources, and on the other hand they have lost the will to find innovative and dynamic new approaches to a sagging economy. There are muchmore eager to say it is world stagnation or recession and we are just a small part of it. It is much easier to blame somebody else. But if the American economy should come back in three to five years, as U.S. congressmen are now predicting, and if there should be some spin-off north of the border, then of course the Liberals will be the first to jump on the U.S. bandwagon and say: "We told you so; we pulled our nation through."
There is really not one creative idea anywhere on the opposite side that I can see. There does not seem to be any kind of dynamism left in that haggard and worn-out cabinet. What do they do when there is unemployment? The answer of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is: "Share the misery by sharing the unemployment, by going to a three or four-day week". I think it is disgraceful that workers have to behave in 1982 the same as they did in the 1930s by outbidding each other for the lowest paying job in the community. The Liberals have taken us back 50 years because their creativity is impotent. They just lack the will, Mr. Speaker.
The latest reports coming out of Rutgers University and the OECD just last week indicate very strongly that there is the beginning of a turnaround in France and Japan, and to a lesser degree in the U.K. The rest of the major industrialized nations have bottomed out and will commence a recovery within the next six to eight months. Canada is the only industrial nation today which is still sinking deeper and deeper into depression. This is because of the lack of will and the loss of direction in the Liberal government.
We have heard the Conservatives lambaste the government, Mr. Speaker, in a rather narrow way by stressing the collapse of Alsands, by saying it was not profitable and that the private sector could foresee financial disaster if they continued. All of which is no doubt true. But I would like to remind my Conservative friends, as has been alluded to already, that we have a situation in Colorado where the $6 billion or $7 billion shale operation of Exxon was shut down the other day, again the victim of falling world oil prices resulting from an oil glut and high interest rates. I remind them that there is no NEP in the U.S. In fact, the Americans are bragging, in their right-wing bravado, that they are rapidly deregulating the oil industry. Yet here is a major energy enterprise which has, I will not say collapsed, but been terminated at least for the foreseeable

May 6, 1982
future. So it is not really the NEP, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is the cause; it is high interest rates and an oil glut which has caused the decline in oil prices.
There is a very interesting point here. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who has just finished speaking-I believe it was he, but I stand to be corrected-implied that two years ago we could not foresee this oil glut. We could not anticipate a decline in oil prices. I am quite sure that if he and his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had followed the discussions of the OPEC ministers in Vienna and in Caracas, Venezuela and if they had been listening to Sheik Yamani's speeches that he made throughout Europe and the Middle East beginning as far back as 1979, they would have realized that the thrust as early as 1979 on the part of OPEC was to stem research and development in the western industrial world in areas of alternate sources of energy. They would have realised the fact that conservation would have an impact on oil prices and they would have heard Sheik Yamani say to his colleagues in OPEC: "Look, fellows, we cannot keep flooding the market with oil because there will be a decline in demand, traditional customs in Europe and the western world." Anybody who read the headlines of a newspaper two and a half years ago could foretell with a considerable degree of accuracy that there would be a deliberately planned world oil glut and a consequent decline in prices. There is no excuse whatever, Mr. Speaker, for the Liberal government not to have been aware that the price of world oil would decline as a result of a glut on the market.
The problem here, and I alluded to it at the beginning of my remarks, is that the government has got everything the wrong way. We are not opposed to the rational development of our natural resources, even for export. We are not opposed to the Alaska natural gas pipeline. We are not opposed to Hibernia or Venture on the east coast. But we in the NDP have maintained for many years, long before this crisis and certainly long before this emergency debate, that the only way to get this country back on the track in the long term-and for any longterm solution you have to start yesterday-is to make sure the major thrust of economic development is in the industrial areas of our economy. That does not mean Ontario and Quebec only; it means right across the country from the east coast to the west coast.
We should be putting a greater emphasis on manufacturing. We should be creating jobs in the machinery industry, in all facets of transportation and in housing. Without creating a strong industrial and manufacturing base in this country, we will be constantly at the mercy of offshore prices of natural resources. That is a major problem and it is the major weakness of the Liberal position. We would not be in this mess today if the Liberal government had forced the multinationals in the industrial sector, most of which are foreign-owned, to manufacture up to sales in our country. We would not have that tremendous net deficit in trade and manufactured goods which has gone from $2.4 billion in 1970 to $21 billion in 1981. That means a loss of 200,000 jobs in those industries.
I know my time is up, but I wish to sum up by simply saying that I hope this government opposite, before it drives the entire country into a quagmire of economic depression, not only finds some new ideas, which have been positively put forward by the NDP, but regains its sense of direction and its will to govern, something which it has lost.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) in closing his speech said, "before this government drives the country into the quagmire of economic depression". Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it already has.
Last Friday was a black Friday. On that day the Alsands project was declared finally dead. On that day we at the same time lost any benefit, certainly for some considerable period of time, that we might receive from a new pipeline project running to Alaska. It was a black Friday, not because one industrial project was declared by the owners of that project as no longer viable but because Alsands was symbolic of the disasters that have befallen our country, starting with the election of the government in February, 1980, strengthened by a budget of disaster on October 28, 1980, strengthened further toward disaster by the activities fomented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and our minister of lack of energy, throughout 1980 and almost right through to September, 1981. Through that period the government made sure that the golden ring that Canada had available to it in energy was lost.
When the Liberals took power, by misrepresentation and fraud in February, 1980, there was opportunity and hope in Canada that we could be energy self-sufficient-indeed, that if we could capitalize on our energy wealth, that energy, the oil and gas business, the hydro business and the coal that we have in Canada would propel us through the 1980s and give opportunity for our young people, develop our manufacturing, our expertise and the chemical industry. It would make Canada grow, it would give Canadians employment, hope and opportunity. It was there.
The world was looking everywhere for new and better opportunities to develop energy in opposition to what OPEC had created. We had the chance at the golden ring, and this government threw it away. It threw it away in policies of confrontation with the provinces. It threw it away with an attempt to grab, steal and expropriate the private property of people who would develop. This government would not let people do their own thing and use their entrepreneurship to make and create the country.
This government threw away our hopes and aspirations regarding how to pay off financial debt, almost in one year, by new and destructive forms of taxation. We have a government that promised this country oil prices would be forever lower in Canada than anywhere else, that 18 cents was extortionist. But we now find that 78 cents is not even enough. It is not even enough for its greed. We threw away the golden ring that was there. We threw away the opportunities for the 1980s. We ensured that a recession in this country and in the world would
May 6, 1982

not remain a recession but in this country might well work into a deeper depression.
The government says that Alsands is gone but there are possibilities on the east coast. Only a few months ago a supposedly unsinkable oil rig sank like the Titanic off the east coast. Also the government says that there is oil in the Beaufort Sea, but there is every conceivable regulation and every conceivable ecological problem associated with getting that oil to market. The government says that we should not feel too badly because we have the Norman Wells pipeline, but it has been held up for two years with regulations and red tape. Then it says we have the Q&M pipeline, but as someone said during this debate, the pipe gets smaller as it goes to a market; in any event, it is tied up with labour problems in the province of Quebec and is not proceeding.
Every alleged megaproject or mini-megaproject, every potential development which could have taken place, from the development of the Cold Lake project by Esso to the tertiary recovery in the Judy Creek field, has gone by the boards. Some people wonder why, but I do not. When the government was first sworn into office I was asked to comment upon the persons who were appointed to various cabinet positions. When I found out that the present minister was to be Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I said, "Goodbye energy in Canada; too bad Canada, you've had it!"
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) cannot obtain co-operation from anywhere. He has only one purpose in mind; it is his whole being and his whole approach. I spent an entire afternoon in a committee meeting with him, so I know well his approach. It is to control, to regulate, to tax, and to try to centralize all decision-making in any department of government with which he has had anything to do. This is probably because of his philosophy which is the philosophy of the four key people in cabinet-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They want to change the nature of Canada from an enterprise society to a state-controlled society.
Their philosophy suggests that we should get rid of incentive and entrepreneurship in Canada, except to the extent that it can be controlled by people in an ivory tower in Ottawa. Of course they can be controlled by making businessmen crawl to Ottawa for grants of assistance, by regulations so horrendous that even a fleet of Philadelphia lawyers cannot get through them, and by bills such as the ones introduced in the House which allow the minister to tax one company in one way and another in another way, to change and treat things retroactively or retrospectively as he may desire.
Is it any wonder businessmen and entrepreneurs no longer trust the government, why billions and billions of Canadian capital has left Canada, with more following every day as the lifeblood of the country leaks away, why Canadians must pay high rates of interest on their home mortgages, why farmers go bankrupt and people are out of work?
The philosophy of government ownership, of government control and of government direction of our lives-the way we build and create-as is propounded in the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and in communist countries.
It has ensured that those countries cannot feed themselves and that their people live in poverty and desperation. It is a philosophy which causes Canadians to realize that some day in the not too distant future they will be part of the Soviet of Canada.
I should like to refer to some of the things the minister has done over the period of time he has been in office. I should like to shed some fresh light on the minister. I looked up some correspondence I had with him in connection with Suncor.
The first oil sands plant in the country was built by a subsidiary of Suncor, GCOS. This company had some Canadian shareholdings but it was largely held by the Sun Oil Company of the United States. Suncor went into the tar sands area of northern Alberta near Fort McMurray. It experimented and spent a lot of its hard-earned money to develop oil sands technology; it very nearly bit the bullet. It worked hard, but it lost money in every year from 1963 to 1978. In 1979 it started making money for the first time. These pioneers gambled with their own money. If they had known what was to happen with world prices, with technological problems, with fires burning up compressors, with frost, and with equipment breaking down, I suppose they would not have become involved. They gambled and developed tar sands technology which Alsands would have and Syncrude is using.
Suncor started making money. It was doing very well because it entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada whereby it would always obtain world prices for its oil. Then the vicious, greedy minister came along in October, 1980, and said, "Ha, we've got them now! They are making money, so we will only give Suncor the same payment for oil we give anyone who happens to drill in a good field; we will give them $16.75 per barrel for their oil and treat them as if they were someone using ordinary Texas technology to drill a hole and pump oil." Suncor was financially ruined.
With respect to the agreement with Suncor concerning world prices, the minister said that he could avoid it and did not have to live up to it because it was too rich, in his opinion. The minister wonders why the Shell Oil Company and Mr. Daniels and the people involved in Gulf Canada do not want to trust the financial offer which he made at the last moment. Why do they not trust him? Would you trust someone who made a promise in writing to give you certain concessions and then, when he felt in his opinion that the price was better than it should be, he would unilaterally break the deal? That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has done. How any company could trust him is beyond belief.
The New Democratic Party said that the offer was exceptionally rich. The New Democratic Party is part of the Liberal party. They certianly have the same philosophy. They were upset over the alleged offer that the Minister of Energy, Mines

May 6, 1982
and Resources made to Alsands. They said that if the government were to put up any guaranteees or money it should expropriate the whole project. They want it all in their pocket. They want socialism absolutely. This minister does not want absolute socialism. He justs wants absolute control. Eventually, by eating away at the companies, he will own everything. But the NDP want it all right away.
As we said before, the NDP are really the Liberal Party West. They prefer to call themselves the New Democratic Party but sometimes even they call themselves liberals in a hurry. They are part of the same party. Properly, they should be called the "Liberal New Democratic Party", or the "New Democratic Liberal Party" or perhaps just "Liberal Party West". That way they can differentiate themselves and pretend to take a western stance on issues. There is no real difference between the NDP and the Liberals-they are certainly the same as those who control, and manage and direct the Liberal party.
We need to build this country and we cannot accomplish that until we change the attitude of the government. The government must encourage entrepreneurs.
While preparing for my speech, I was reviewing some material. To conclude my remarks I thought I would relate to the House a statement made by the leader of this party in 1978 at an industrial strategy conference. I am pleased that the minister in charge of industrial strategy is here. I want to quote to you what the leader of our party said at that time. He was referring to the Hudson's Bay Company. He said:
(The) Company (that opened up Western Canada) was not just called the Hudson's Bay Company; it was called the Company Of Adventurers Trading Into Hudson's Bay. i think that there is a lesson about our history in that phrase. When we are at our best as a country, it is when we are a country of adventurers. What we have suffered in the last decade, when there has been such an emphasis upon the re-distribution of existing income rather than the generation of new growth and new income in this country, has been an undervaluing, a disrespect for that sense of adventure which is at the very centre of our success as a country. We clearly have to begin the process of rewarding success in this country and encouraging initiative.
It is time that we began to turn this country around. It can only be turned around if we throw out the concept of state ownership, state intervention and state economy. Those concepts have been demonstrated time and again not to work.


Mr. Corbett:: Throw out the Liberals.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My colleague says to throw out the Liberals. If they were a liberal party they might be alright. But they are not. They are a socialist party, at the very least. They must go. This policy must go. Until it does go, our country will do nothing but suffer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Canadian economy is in a severe economic crisis. It is appropriate that this emergency debate has provided us with the opportunity to examine the situation in depth.
While it focuses on the immediate crisis which has been precipitated by the disappearance of the Alsands project and the Alaska pipeline project, I think we have to admit that the
economic crisis in the Canadian economy has been a long time developing. It is all the more tragic because Canada, with its rich heritage of resources, should be one of the most prosperous countries today.
Just to demonstrate that it is not a figment of opposition imagination, that the depth of our economic crisis has been dreamed up by it, there are reports which can be quoted from many sources which indicate that while there might be other economic downturns in other countries, the recession is worse in Canada. Results from a survey done by the Centre for International Business Cycle Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey, for example, have said that the indices:
-show restrictive monetary and fiscal policies are now taking more of a toll in Canada than elsewhere.
It goes on further to say:
"In Canada, the Government is basically waiting for things to happen elsewhere."
This is the state of affairs which has brought about the necessity for this emergency debate. The government has become completely out of touch with the reality in our constituencies. In the short time that I have, I will spend some time relating just how difficult the situation is out there in the constituencies. I can read a few excerpts from local western newspapers to cite some examples. In the western Manitoba area which I represent, a businessman was interviewed. An article in the Brandon Sun on May 3 began:
Strong, dry, prairie winds buffeted A1 Cormier's hardware stone as he talked about closing up shop this July.
"I'm not going to stay here and lose money every day," Cormier said. "People have much less money, much less than four, five, six years ago."
The article says that this merchant is:
-among many rural businessmen in southwestern Manitoba caught in a declining agricultural economy.
It is not only a crisis in energy or in the resource industry, it is a crisis in our basic industry of agriculture. The article went on to say:
Low commodity prices, rising production costs and high interest rates all have taken their toll, forcing farmers to hold off on spending, sometimes putting seeding plans off altogether.
Because of the state of the economy, there have even been instances of cattle farmers allowing their cattle to starve to death. When we get to that point in the western agricultural economy, it is high time that the government, rather than just sitting back and waiting for something to happen, takes the initiative and changes its disastrous economic policies, which in the space of 14 years have reduced Canada from a buoyant, prosperous economy to a disastrous economic situation where all the indices are downward.
I know it is true that even ministers have made their complaints. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) have even written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in an attempt to impress the
May 6, 1982

disastrous state of the economy upon them. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has burst into bold print, trying to get the message through to the powers that be in the government; but nothing seems to penetrate the thick skulls of these people who have the responsibility of running the economic affairs of the nation. Hopefully, this debate and the growing protest of the people might be able to do what even ministers of the Crown, breaking cabinet solidarity and suffering no consequences for breaking solidarity, have attempted to do.
This situation did not develop overnight. When the government came into power in 1968, Canada was a prosperous country, with a strong dollar, with no inflation, with low debt and with little unemployment; yet, in the short space of 14 years a country which should be riding high on a crest of the wave of prosperity has been reduced to a situation where leading international economic authorities have described our recession as the worst of any industrialized country in the western economy.
The crisis that we are focusing on today, to bring it all into focus, is the crisis in energy which has been precipitated by the loss of the Alsands and the Alaska pipeline. I would think that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who is in the House this evening, would be particularly distressed and disturbed over what has happened with the petroleum industry under the misdirected guidance of the Trudeau government because we all know that prosperity in the automobile industry is directly related to prosperity in the energy industry. One of our most critically depressed industries has been the automobile manufacturing industry which is primarily based in the constituency and City of Windsor, represented by no less than three ministers. One would think that with three ministers in the cabinet raising their voices, we should be able to get some action out of a government which seems to be totally indifferent, almost oblivious to the damage it is doing to the Canadian economy.


Mark Willson Rose: Three cabinet ministers from there, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is just the point I made. There are no less than three ministers, three blind mice, perhaps, or the three musketeers. Certainly, no three-


Mark Willson Rose: A troika.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A troika. Certainly, no three wise men. The irony is that Canadian prosperity should be based on our rich resources. If we hope to come out of the depression in which we find ourselves today, it will have to be based on the wise management of these resources. They have been very badly and unwisely managed. If one looks back over the recent history of the management of our resources, there is no reason the goal of self-sufficiency was not reached a couple of decades ago.
We have heard references to frontier oil from the government side of the House during the course of this debate, yet frontier oil was under exploration 20 years ago. I remember being in the Department of Northern Affairs when the search was taking place for frontier oil back in 1960 and early 1961.
Interestingly enough, it was Dome Petroleum which was leading the search for frontier oil and resources. Back in those early days we had a slogan printed on interdepartmental memos circulating within the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources which went something like this: "Woe unto them who sit on their frozen assets." For all of the 20 years since the government of John Diefenbaker in 1963, succeeding governments have been sitting on their frozen assets, with the result that we are still talking about the potential of frontier oil, rather than realizing the benefits of frontier oil brought to market and being a part of the whole self-sufficiency scheme of the Government of Canada.
In those days when there was visionary talk about what could be accomplished by developing oil on the frontier, the response of the Liberal party was that development beyond the sixtieth parallel, or constructing roads to resources, was nothing more or less than building roads which would go from igloo to igloo. Where there is no vision, the people perish. It was at that period that Syncrude came into production. Syncrude has been on stream ever since. Alsands was to be another long-delayed source of attaining self-sufficiency. Tragically, it has gone down the drain.
There is another aspect of the development of the economic tragedy which has now emerged in a critical state as a result of the megaproject disaster that we are debating here these days. If we are to bring resources into production and if we are to develop resources to the benefit of the whole Canadian economy, we must work on a co-operative basis. Unfortunately, the whole story of energy under the national energy policy and under the leadership, or lack of leadership, of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), has been one of confrontation. In 1962, realizing that was to become one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of federal-provincial co-operation, a "Resources for Tomorrow" conference was held in the City of Montreal. The City of Montreal was chosen because one of the most sensitive areas of realizing co-operation in the resource field lies in the province of Quebec. It was particularly difficult at that time because the minister of resources was none other than our friend who is the present premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Rene Levesque.
In October, 1961, all the resource ministers of Canada sat down to work out a plan with regard to the fabulously rich resources, most of them in western Canada as far as energy is concerned, oil, gas, potash, and the resources that we now know are in the northern frontier area. They sat down with the federal government to work out a program of co-operative development through co-operative federalism that was called "Resources for Tomorrow."
Out of that "Resources for Tomorrow" conference came a resource ministers' council. It was established in the City of Montreal because it was understood that, if you were going to work out a national program and policy, a really effective

May 6, 1982
national energy policy, we must have the co-operation of the province of Quebec. Remarkably the first general chairman of the resource ministers' council was the same Hon. Rene Levesque. It shows what can be done to achieve co-operation if the spirit of co-operation prevails in the deliberations and discussions.
One of the first actions the Trudeau government took when it took office in 1968 in a great wave of emotionalism and hysteria known as Trudeaumania was to disband the resource ministers' council and throw the whole process of intergovernment, interprovincial co-operation back into confrontationist disarray.
I did not understand it at the time. It remains incomprehensible to me at the present time. Of course it does not make economic sense. This is one of the main reasons why we are wrestling with this economic tragedy. Today if there is going to be any buoyancy in the Canadian economy, it has to come from a buoyant petroleum industry. From the moment this government took power in 1968, it was confrontation, until we reached the ultimate just a month ago when the Prime Minister went so far as to say that co-operative federalism is dead.
I listened to many speakers from the government side talk about the wonderful projects and programs that are still in the mill. I think it is fair to say that the government which deliberately destroys, through an ill-conceived National Energy Program, the prosperity in the oil industry of western Canada, does not have the interests of national development and national unity at heart.
We know what happened in Saskatchewan a week ago. The premier there got caught in a hopeless situation. It was the typical western protest. The national energy policy in all aspects is confrontationist tactics which have gone on since 1980. It is an attempt to grab a greater share of the revenue, almost an attempt to pay off the national debt through the revenues being generated by a prosperous petroleum industry in the west. One would almost think the government deliberately tried to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
If this country is to survive, the only way is through cooperation at all levels, certainly at the level of resource development. The premier of Saskatchewan was caught in a posture of close relationship with the Government of Canada. He himself said that. When westerners protest, they protest in no uncertain way. It was a massive protest. It was like the Progressives of the twenties, the Social Credits of '35, and the CCF of '44. It shows hopeful development in this regard which demonstrates a growing political maturity in western Canada. Instead of biting off our nose to spite our face and starting another protest movement, such as joining the WCC, it was a massive protest in support of the Conservative candidates in Saskatchewan. In other words, the people decided to join the mainline party so that they would be in the mainstream of economic development. It is an indication that they want Canada to work. They realize the potential of this country even though they are frustrated beyond endurance.
Every time the minister responsible for resources goes to the west, he insults the west. Every time the Prime Minister goes to the west, he does the same. In spite of that, the people of
Saskatchewan had the wisdom to support a party which has the only chance of bringing the economy back into a state of prosperity. More important, it can get rid of confrontationist federalism and return to co-operative federalism. We will remove the divisiveness that has tended to shatter this country in recent years.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it was a pleasure to take part in this debate, but this is a sad period for Canada, particularly for the younger people of this nation. The much-touted energy self-sufficiency goal we were hoping to attain did not self-destruct, it "Liberal-destructed".
The Alsands megaproject, which was to be the saviour of our energy situation in Canada, has been cancelled. The Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline has been delayed by at least two years. In fact, it is in essence as dead as the dodo bird. It is conservatively estimated by some people that approximately 100,000 people will be added to the well over one and a quarter million people now unemployed in this nation. If the figure were more realistically calculated, it would be in the vicinity of 150,000 to 200,000.
The real tragedy of the unemployment situation is that the youth of the nation is being adversely affected. I refer to young people coming out of schools this year and graduating from universities. I refer to skilled workers and unskilled workers looking for opportunities to gain skills. They will now be denied those opportunities. We all noticed what our youth have been doing. They have been going west to gain skills. The party opposite is controlled predominantly by hon. members from Quebec. I point out to them that the automobiles with yellow licence plates they used to see in their province did not belong to tourists. They belonged to young people who had come back from the west either to enjoy vacations or to gather up their belongings so they could go back out west again for employment. Those people had a vision of future opportunities in Canada, but now those cars will not be returning to the west because of the policies of this government. I suggest hon. members opposite take a long, hard look at those policies and a long, hard look at the difficulties they are inflicting on the youth of this nation. Hon. members opposite should take a long, hard look at their own future because of their stubbornness.
We have heard much rhetoric over the last several years about what this government intends to do and how it intends to make things great for everyone. We heard about how the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would wrestle inflation to the ground, how new energy programs would create employment and what a great future we have here in Canada. During the 1980 election campaign we heard about how the Canadian public could not afford to pay an extra 18 cents a gallon for gasoline. If this were not so tragic, it would be a joke. But it is tragic. To this date the price of gasoline has increased 77 cents a gallon. How can hon. members opposite face themselves, let

May 6, 1982
alone their constituents? They knew full well their programs could not possibly be implemented without an increase in the price of gasoline, yet they told the Canadian people they could not afford an extra 18 cents a gallon.
During that campaign hon. members opposite put out various pieces of propaganda. The one 1 have in my hand says: "Vote Liberal and the price will stay down". The price will stay down to what? The Canadian public has had to get used to this kind of thing. Why were hon. members opposite not frank with the people of Canada? Why did they not say they would increase the price of gasoline? Why did they not say they would also increase the price of home heating fuel? That was one thing we on this side of the Elouse were not going to do.
This is a cold country. There are many elderly pensioners who enjoy the warmth and security of their homes, or they did until now. Those people like to stay warm. I receive a lot of correspondence in my office, and I invite hon. members to come and look at some of it. People ask: "How am 1 supposed to heat my home?" "How am I supposed to keep warm?" "How am I supposed to feed my family?" "How am I supposed to take care of my wife?"
Why did hon. members opposite not say in the last election campaign that they would eliminate 20 per cent of the VIA Rail services in this country? Rail is one of the most efficient modes of travel. Why did hon. members opposite not tell the people down east they were going to take away the Atlantic Limited? That was one of the most popular trains in Canada. Let me read from a letter I received from a young university student about VIA Rail cuts. He said:
As a Canadian I cannot see how the Liberal government could justify the deleting and cutting back of the VIA Rail routes across Canada ... As a university student here at Mount Allison, 1 had the opportunity to travel home ... on this train a few times and I always found it to be very crowded ... Let Mr. Pepin, in his eternal wisdom, decide this route is not being used enough-or making money-so it has to be deleted so we, the ever-shafted Maritimes, can support new trains in the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor.
The perception of maritimers and, I suspect, Canadians all across the nation is that yes, we have been shafted by this government.
Why did hon. members opposite not tell us during the last election campaign that they would introduce a budget which would effectively strangle us in our economic beds? Why did they not tell us during that election campaign that they would introduce an energy omnibus bill which would raise taxes on a gallon of gas without their ever having to come to Parliament for its approval? Why did they not tell us they would introduce in that same bill a measure which would allow them to expropriate land in this country without ever coming and seeking approval from Parliament? Why did they not tell us they would create Crown corporations, if they were able to get away with it, without ever coming to Parliament?
Why did hon. members opposite not tell us they would introduce an emergency measures order which would give the government the power to build virtual concentration camps across the nation and put any Canadian it chose into those
camps without ever making the matter public? Why did they not tell us that under that order the government could effectively muzzle the press so that no one-not a neighbour, a brother, a sister or a cousin-would know what happened to detainees at such camps?
Why did hon. members opposite not tell us it was their intention to leave the right of an individual to own property-a basic fundamental right in this country-out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? People have fought, shed blood and died for that right. Why did hon. members opposite not tell us they would not include that? They did not tell us because they knew that if they were truthful with the people, they would be so far back in the boonies that they would be sharing the same fate as all their provincial counterparts. They would become a party of extinction.
Why did they not tell the people in Chatham, New Brunswick, that they would close CFB Chatham down and add another 3,500 people to the unemployment rolls? Already some 40 per cent of the employable people in that region are unemployed. Why did hon. members opposite not tell us that the minister responsible for New Brunswick would not even show the people of the towns of the area the courtesy of meeting with them? Those people were kept sitting cooling their heels for months before the minister finally relented. He is an uncaring minister, a callous minister, a minister who should be dealt with effectively, and I trust he will be dealt with effectively in the next election.
Why did hon. members opposite not tell us they would ram and jam metric conversion down our throats through order in council? Why did they not tell us it would not be voluntary, which is what this House agreed to a few years ago? Why did they not tell the fishermen of Atlantic Canada that their energy costs would be doubled? Why did they not tell the farmers of that region that their energy costs would be doubled? Why did they not tell the older people of the nation that the cost of heating their homes would be doubled?
Coming from Atlantic Canada, what I find disturbing is that a number of members on the other side of the House from that part of the country must have had input into the budget, into the decision to close CFB Chatham and into the 20 per cent cut in VIA Rail, yet they were silent on these important and critical issues. These things were happening in their own constituencies.
Every motion of non-confidence put forward by this side of the House to censure the government was voted against by members opposite. They should hide their heads in shame and should never have the privilege of representing people in this House again. By voting against these non-confidence motions they have approved in principle every move taken by this government since the election of 1980. We do not intend to let them forget it, nor will their constituents. They have supported a rise in the cost of gasoline almost three times that proposed in the Crosbie budget.

May 6, 1982
Let us go back to 1980 and see what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to say. In an address to the Halifax Board of Trade on January 25, 1980, he said:
Energy security is the second issue, and here the Tory record is a disgrace. They have hurt exploration efforts at home and imperiled supplies abroad.
Then he talked about the 18-cent tax, saying:
That tax wasn't brought in for energy security or energy conservation.
He went on:
So if that tax had been implemented ... every time every Canadian bought gasoline he would be helping to pay for a policy that benefits only one segment of the population. That tax is particularly onerous on Nova Scotians because many in this province have to use their cars to get to work.
What a magnanimous statement-people use cars to get to work! The inference is: "We won't do it because people have to use their cars". Then he goes on:
What is the result? Under the Clark energy plan the average Nova Scotian household would be paying over $200 more in gas and fuel costs this year, rising to over $600 in 1982.
I should like to hear the Prime Minister refer to these comments now. Then he said:
The Liberal plan seeks to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians.
What a laugh that is. Among the things he said the Liberals would start doing at once were these:
Achieve energy security through the accelerated development of Canada's domestic potential and the ensuring of Canada's off-shore supply.
Then he talked about the "made in Canada price":
The made-in-Canada price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed for the next four years in the Clark budget.
That is an untruth, Mr. Speaker. He goes on:
It will be a lower price because we will not impose an 18-cent excise tax on gas and diesel;
He was winding up when he said:
-a Liberal Government will take immediate action to ensure the full cooperation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the Maritimes. The pipeline will have reversible capacity so that Maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use Western natural gas now and to send off-shore gas to Central Canada later.
I should like to know how you can reverse a pipeline that is two feet in diameter in western Canada, goes through Quebec and narrows to six inches in the maritimes. If you were to put a sleeve on it from the other end and try to reverse it, you would have the biggest jet engine in the world! The thing would blow sky high, just like the energy policy.
Time and time again we have seen broken promises, scattered dreams. We have seen a country torn and fragmented. There has never been a more arrogant, uncaring administration in the history of this nation. No government in the past would have had the brass or the gall to stay in circumstances such as these.
This government should be thrown out of office, Mr. Speaker. Its ministers should resign because of the disaster they have perpetrated on the Canadian people. They should have the courage to call an election based on their record. Let the record show what they have done. An hon. member opposite shakes his head-nods his head in agreement. Let us see him
use his influence to make it happen. I hope he will have enjoyed his stay in Pariiament because he will not last.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is not a pleasure to speak in this debate but I feel obliged to do so. Perhaps I should start by stating that this party has been informed by what we believe to be accurate sources in Calgary today that the CanStar project, which was a $14 billion project to go down beside the Alsands project on an adjoining lease- it is a joint project of Nova and PetroCan-was going to announce today that it was not going to proceed. For some reason that I do not know they will not be making that announcement.
According to yesterday's Globe and Mail the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said that the government felt Canada and Alberta did their level best to support and facilitate this particular project but that the situation has resulted from private business decisions made as a result of factors operating in the world's economy. In other words, private industry killed the project. In my respectful submission, you can only say that private industry killed this project as you can, in a similar sense, say that the fellow who was condemned by Robespierre's reign of terror, in declining to put his head under the guillotine, killed the executioner's killing, so to speak. The killing of the Alsands project was, in large measure, at the hands of the National Energy Program.
1 should like to speak about how the situation affects real people in my part of the country and, doubteless, in other parts as well. Recently I sent a questionnaire out in my riding asking what the effect of the National Energy Program was on the citizens of southeast Edmonton. Fully 57 per cent of the respondents indicated that their jobs or business had suffered as a result of the NEP or that they knew directly of someone who had. One example is a person in the business of supplying electrical parts to the oil trucking industry who came to see me a few weeks ago and told me that last year he earned roughly $3,000 gross per month. In the two weeks before he came to see me as his representative, he had earned $15.35.
At least four or five substantial trucking firms involved in the oil patch in Edmonton have gone out of business recently. There was a young man in his twenties who came to see me not long ago to say he had recently lost his job in the oil service industry in Alberta; he blamed the National Energy Program for that.
On the plane last Friday from Winnipeg to Edmonton, there were 15 people for 102 seats. The stewardess told me that in 13 years with Air Canada she had never seen flights throughout western Canada so empty. I am told that the population of Swan Hills was 3,500 two years ago and everyone was doing well. The population is now down to 2,300 and I am told that virtually everyone in the community is doing badly now. You will appreciate that Swan Hills lives by the oil industry.
May 6, 1982

April 30 has been referred to as black Friday, but in my view it will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the Liberal party as the party of moderate voters across Canada. The 5 per cent of the rate which they obtained in the Saskatchewan election I predict will be the range they will receive federally throughout the west in future, and it will go further east than Ontario. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has given up its historical role as a moderate party of the centre which favoured a mixed economy and helping people in need. It is now not a social democratic party in the sense some in the NDP are social democrats, it is now simply a socialist party. That is sad for Canada because when the Liberal party disappears-I believe not very long from now-we will be left without a party which has offered a great deal to this country in the past and for which some of us have had immense respect over many generations.
Time is awfully short so let me relate what some people in the west have said about Alsands. The Edmonton Journal said in its lead editorial on May 1:
"Alsands dies
Thanks, Mr. Trudeau. Thanks, Mr. Lalonde. In January, 1980, Alsands was under way. In February, 1980, the Liberals won re-election from their base in Central Canada. In March, 1980, the Liberals headed down the tragic road to their so-called "National" Energy Program. Alsands caught a chill. Alberta headed for cover. And yesterday Alsands finally died."
Or a quote from a recent Alberta publication. I might say that I do not always agree with the publisher of Alberta Report, but I think Mr. Ted Byfield spoke for a lot of people in western Canada when he said on March 15:
We know that little more than two years ago, before Mr. Trudeau and his-
I will leave the next word out. It goes on:
-menage were revisited upon us, our province verged on its finest era. Two gigantic heavy oil projects were all but ready to begin. We were embarked upon the greatest search for self-sufficiency in energy that our technology could devise. Our cities hummed with vigour, industry and prosperity that had drawn the attention of the world. Our artists flourished, and our farmers produced more food than they had ever produced before. Agreements were being worked out by all levels of government that would have launched us into a shining decade. All this is scarcely a memory. One heavy oil plant lies in ruins; the other seems all but doomed.
Of course, it was doomed on April 30. It goes on:
Our drillers desert the country, our rigworkers line up for the dole, bankruptcy haunts our truckers, our developers fold, our cattlemen face foreclosure, scores of houses stand empty because no one can afford to buy them, and a pall of loss and uncertainty hangs over the very decade which held such promise. For all of this, we can thank that repulsive-
I do not know whether that is a parliamentary word. It goes on:
-clutch at Ottawa in general, and the bungling insanity of their National Energy Program in particular.
It is absolutely beyond belief that they can kill this project. I represent a riding which is named after Lord Strathcona who was very much connected with the building of the CPR. That was a project so vast that it acted as a tide which lifted all economic boats in Canada. Unemployment ended in Ontario and Quebec. The spin-offs were enormous. Your parents, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parents of many of us, came to the west because of that project.
I believe that every western and central Canadian believes the Alsands project had a lot of the CPR project within it. How the government could garrot Alsands, as it has done, is something it will answer for, not just in the next election but for decades to come.
Alsands would have produced 137,000 barrels of oil a day and provided an estimated 50,000 jobs across Canada, half of them in construction in western Canada, half in central Canada manufacturing, and 7,500 permanent positions. Members opposite say there was only $13 billion involved. Some of them have suggested that is not so much. But what about the estimated $450 billion the project would have put into our national economy over its 20-year lifetime?
Why did it collapse? Members opposite say it was because of world conditions. Here is what the president of Alsands Ed Czaja, said in announcing its death:
An atmosphere of confidence and trust in government must be restored before projects such as Alsands can proceed.
With respect, I think the person who pinned down the real reason was John Stoik of Gulf Canada, who said in March, 1980:
"Over the years the government has so strained its credibility with retroactive rule changes that those of us in the industry must now ask ourselves, 'how can we undertake to make huge investments in long-term megaprojects when we have good reason to fear that the government will come along again and pull the rug
on us?' "
One example of so many rug-pullings is the fact that the Liberal government reneged on a signed contract it had with Suncor to give it the world price for its expensively expanded facility at Fort McMurray, and forced it to sell its product for some time at $16.75 a barrel. I am not talking about sanctity of contract, Mr. Speaker; I am talking about a government which cannot be trusted to honour signed contracts in matters of oil sands production.
What is said about the project by those who are looking at it reasonably objectively? Mr. William Empey, vice-president and director of economics at Data Resources of Canada, stated a few days ago:
The Alsands failure will reduce business investment spending in Canada by $360 million this year and set the stage for a steady loss of real output, employment, and foreign investor confidence.
He went on to say:
The investment spending loss will rise to $2.7 billion in 1985.
What did Mr. Empey, whom I have just quoted, say about the effect, for instance, on the dollar? Mr. Speaker, I think you know that the Alsands collapse has already caused a drop of one-fifth of a United States cent in the value of the Canadian dollar. He said:
The project's failure might be widely interpreted as a business-government relation that would temporarily reduce the value of the Canadian dollar.
He sees the dollar going down to 81 cents U.S. quickly.
What does Michael McCracken, president of Informetrica Ltd. an Ottawa consulting firm, have to say? He spoke about

May 6, 1982
the psychological impact. "1 think it's going to be a watershed year or two for the Canadian economy."
Mr. Speaker, it is the psychological impact on Canadians right across the country that is so serious. I mentioned CAN-STAR and the possibility of that project being cancelled. Other projects have been referred to by many speakers. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) told us the other night not to worry about the Alsands or the Alaska pipeline because, she said, there are lots of other projects going ahead. One of these she named was the Trans-Quebec & Maritimes Pipeline. My understanding is that that project may go ahead. I very much hope that it will, but that pipeline is having troubles at the moment in the provinces which you represent, Mr. Speaker, and there is a possibility that that pipeline may not proceed.
She also named the Beaufort Sea project as one that is going ahead. I understand that that project is so expensive to the taxpayer that every dollar invested there costs the investor about 7 cents under the PIP plan. It is hugely expensive. Also, how are we to get all those products down to market? The cost of the pipeline is vast and the native claims are unsettled and the Beaufort Sea project is not that simple at all.
How about Hibernia? The Minister of State for Mines mentioned that as one project still going ahead. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that that project is not so certain, because instead of co-operative federalism we have two governments fighting over it. Newfoundland was a dominion at one time when it came into confederation. I believe that it brought all of its offshore resources with it. Unless we can get those problems solved between the two levels of government, that will be a big uncertainty also. There will also be a problem getting the oil from the sea to the markets. Whether it is by a pipeline or by tanker, which seems more sensible, I do not think that project is exactly an early bird in the hand either.
The Norman Wells project was named by the minister as one that is still going ahead. We know that there will be at least a two-year delay with respect to Indian land claims there. "At least two" I am told by the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).
In regard to the Montreal heavy oil upgrader, she cites that one but I understand there is some doubt whether that will go ahead, or how quickly it will go ahead.
So psychologically, the loss of this project will gnaw at the soul of every Canadian who believes in economic growth, in jobs for young people, in decent pensions for old people, and, of course, in energy self-sufficiency. Those of us who are affected directly, as we all are in the west, are made so mad that it is very hard to be calm about it.
Mr. Roy Phillips, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, said of the cancellation that it is "a real blow to manufacturers". His colleague went on to say that "the rate of bankruptcy among the members will increase". It will hit the men and women of Ontario and Quebec as well. Of course, the other problem is that if the dollar goes down, as Mr. McCracken points out, the interest rates will have to go up even more.
I can only put it that it is a disaster. It is a disaster akin to the loss we would have had, if the CPR rail line had been cancelled back in the 1880s when some people said we were building a rail line that would never pay even for the axle grease. These cancellations are a disaster for this country.
I would like to end on a positive note, Mr. Speaker. Everything could be so different. This project could be underway if we did not have a government more committed to ideology, to blind government control for government control's sake. As so many people have urged, I, too, urge, that some of the members on the opposite side come across. I say: "There are places for you here, your voters will re-elect you as members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I am certain of it, if only some of you would have the courage to vote, as quickly as you can, against the worst government in Canadian history. We will have an election, we will have a new government, and you can join us in building the best and the most blessed country on the face of the earth."


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all express concern about the lack of planning and organization in the present government of the country. I can sense that the people are frustrated and disappointed about the lack of leadership and lack of vision. The country could be in such a high state of progress if we only put our imagination and resources to assist in that progress.
We live in a country with resources of unlimited potential, with people who are well experienced and well equipped to make the country prosper. We all know that our country has almost everything we could possibly want. However, unfortunately we have a tremendously high unemployment rate, we have an inflation rate which is much higher than that in the United States, we have an interest rate that is literally driving thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy and driving people out of their homes and farmers off their land.
Across the way on the government benches we have ministers who are relying on immense megaprojects as the engine or the motor to get the economy moving. They have not succeeded. The Alsands project has been canned. There is a delay now in the pipeline and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that that pipeline is not just delayed but we will never see it in existence.
Other megaprojects have been cancelled. It is worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, for us to pause for a few moments and reflect on the number of dollars that the government across the way wants to spend on megaprojects. These megaprojects-there are about 234 of them-were planned to operate over the next eight or nine years, up to the year 1990. They were to be worth over $100 million apiece between now and 1990. That totals some $440 billion worth of megaprojects up to the year 2000. That is a lot of money.
The Alsands project was worth about $13.5 billion to $14 billion. It would in the construction stage have provided for 35,000 person-years and would have meant 4,800 operating jobs after it became operational. That project is gone.
May 6. 1982

The Cold Lake project has been suspended indefinitely. It would have been worth some $14 billion, provided some 28,500 construction jobs and some 3,300 permanent jobs once it was operational.
The Alaska gas pipeline has also been suspended and will probably be cancelled. It would have been worth $40 billion and provided about 12,000 construction jobs and about 400 permanent jobs once it was operational.
If we total these projects, we find that the master plan of the government cancels or postpones megaprojects which would have been worth some $78 billion and provided some 70,000 construction jobs and about 8,500 permanent jobs.
These are not the only projects which are unlikely to continue. Other projects were planned which were dependent upon the Alsands project. For example, there were projects in the Peace River area and others in Alberta which would have been worth billions of dollars if the Alsands project was onstream and underway.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is saying that we should not worry because we have other immense megaprojects underway. If we look at his list of other megaprojects, we realize that they are not big and only total about $94 billion. This is way below the projections, the hopes and the aspirations of the minister of energy and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) when they announced the megaproject strategy a few years ago.
In my few moments remaining I want to express a fundamental concern about putting all our eggs in one basket in the first place. It is a very dangerous philosophy to rely upon a few megaprojects, with current high interest rates and the tremendous investment required, for a few jobs in order to stimulate the economy of Canada. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, if we look at megaprojects in terms of jobs, we find that it takes about 40 times as much investment per job in the megaprojects to create one job than it takes in the ordinary manufacturing sector. I wonder from that point of view whether or not it is worthwhile spending so much money on megaprojects. I ask government economists to take a close look at the situation before planning or rebeginning more megaprojects in the years ahead.
My second concern is the philosphy which has existed in Canada since the days of Cartier back in the 1600s. It has been a philosophy of exporting our raw materials to be processed in other parts of the world and of importing manufactured goods. Back in the days of Cartier it was the export of beaver pelts and the pelts of other animals in terms of the fur trade to Europe. In more recent days it has been the exporting mineral resources, non-renewable resources and many renewable resources in an unfinished state to such countries as the United States, Europe and Japan, and in return importing finished goods. This means the exportation of jobs in the highly labour-intensive manufacturing sector. Once again I question putting all our eggs in the same basket in terms of huge resource megaprojects.
Another of my concerns is the whole question of Canadian content. As I look at these megaprojects and talk with people regarding the trade issue, such as General Electric and other companies in the country, I find that there are no guarantees of Canadian content or Canadian jobs in most of the projects and that many of the industrial spin-offs will not benefit Canada but will benefit countries such as the United States, Japan and western Europe. All of us in the House should be concerned about the lack of ironclad guarantees of Canadian content in terms of jobs in these megaprojects.
I should like to raise another point which was mentioned by Peter Loughced, or as they call him on the prairies, "Peter Moneybags", "Peter the Red", or whatever. He is one of the guys who hops into bed with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) time and time again, or with the Prime Minister and the Tories.


An hon. Member:: They drink champagne with Lalonde.


Mr. Dick:: Tell us about Allan Blakeney.


Mr. Gustafson:: Yes, tell us about Allan Blakeney.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Allan Blakeney, myself and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) have never drunk champagne with the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: But the Tories have.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, the Tories have.


An hon. Member:: What about the infamous photograph?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure the photograph will make interesting campaign fodder in the next Alberta election.
In any event, the other day Mr. Lougheed was talking about small being beautiful. I am not sure that absolutely everything should be small, but I think we would be much better off if we spent billions and billions of dollars on smaller projects helping people become energy self-sufficient in their own communities. We could have conservation programs which would result in the saving of a barrel of oil and we could spend the money saved from that barrel of oil on creating jobs in the small business sector or expanding co-operatives. We could spend some of those billions of dollars building houses, on the national transportation system, and on upgrading our raw materials and resources.
Now that some of these projects have been cancelled or postponed, we will have the time to look at the possibility of planning a real industrial and economic strategy, so that we will have a more decentralized economy and equal and uniform development from coast to coast, rather than relying upon large megaprojects in a few parts of our great country.
These are a few of my concerns. Now that we have had a chance to conduct this debate, I hope we can sit down as parliamentarians and try to persuade the government opposite to use its imagination to provide the country with some leadership and vision. I hope we will be able to convince it that it must have courage to get out there and use our resources,
May 6, 1982

process them at home, provide jobs for Canadians and work toward the future. Also we should put more money into research and development.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Whose money?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: More public funds, more private funds. We are putting less money per capita into research and development than the United States of America, France, Great Britain and Germany. It is about time that we spent more on research and development so that our industries can be more competitive.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The government has taken away competition.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know some of my "Liberal" friends from Toronto, such as the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), does not really care whether industries are more competitive. I think it is very important for industries to be competitive and to create jobs for Canadians. It is also important to be competitive in the world marketplace so that we can export our commodities to other countries. Unless we start doing some of these things, more and more Canadians will be thrown out of work.
We are moving into the era of high technology. It is time to start enrolling more of our young people in technical schools and in computer science courses so that they will be trained and prepared for jobs in the future and these jobs do not go to Europeans, Japanese and Americans because they have had more foresight than us. I do not see that kind of planning across the way; I do not see imagination from the dead and defunct Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am amazed whenever I attempt to criticize the Liberal government that the Tories, particularly those from Ontario, become very upset and try to defend the Liberal government; it is "Trudeau and the Tories".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You belong to the Liberal party and don't forget it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not apologize for attacking the Liberal government across the way. I know the "Liberal" member from Mississauga South becomes upset when I attack his friends on the other side, but we will continue to do it because we stand up for ordinary citizens. We feel ordinary citizens deserve a fair share of the national pie. It is very strange whenever we get into the area of serious economic questions that suddenly we are not only fighting the Liberal evils across the way but we are fighting their friends and Conservative mistresses sitting on this side of the House of Commons.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in an emergency debate tonight which began approximately 28 hours ago. I have been impressed by the attendance in the House. Since the people who watch us on television see only one speaker at a time, they may not be impressed but the
handful of people in the galleries and others who are here may be impressed.
We are engaged in a debate which has been approved by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The representations made by our leader were such that the Speaker felt that the collapse of Alsands was a serious enough problem to grant us this emergency debate. However, the response to this emergency by government members has been rather bizarre. At the moment there are three Liberals sitting in their places, which represents about 1 per cent of their membership in the House.
I sat through about eight hours of debate when we were sitting all night and it was much the same then. There were only two or three members in their places at that time. This tells me that the government members either feel there is not a serious problem in the country with respect to Alsands and the National Energy Program or they are so naive that they do not realise that there is a problem in the country. That surely cannot be true because two of those members sitting on the other side come from my area of southwestern Ontario and I know they have been receiving representations from their constituents indicating their concern about the National Energy Program and the economy in general.
There is a third possibility why there are so very few Liberals in attendance. It may be that they are so disrespectful to our Speaker that they are unwilling to be in the House for this debate and are refusing to recognize the fact that this is indeed an emergency which should be taken seriously. I hope that is not the case.
I would like to begin by giving the reaction of people in my constituency of Oxford to these unenlightened economic policies of the government which have culminated in the National Energy Program. I will illustrate some of the ways it has affected my constituents. I will subsequently touch on a few reasons why I think this emergency debate was required.
I can reflect the views of the constituency of Oxford by referring to three sectors in Oxford. Since my constituency is about half urban and half rural, there are many farmers who are greatly concerned about what is happening to them. I would venture to say that there is probably no other sector in the Canadian economy that is worse off than the agricultural sector. While farmers in Oxford may not be in as much difficulty as those in the Bruce-Grey area, they are still having a real problem. In fact, Ontario farmers are so concerned that they came here just yesterday to see government members and members of our party in order to discuss the problems they are experiencing. While discussing the small business bond, which was to have been one of the economic answers to the problems of the farmers, it was pointed out in an article written by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, referring to the small business bond, that it was a "cruel deception on farmers who greeted the policy with hope only to find it a delusion".
I believe that is very true. Canadian farmers have been very disillusioned by this economic policy which has played havoc
May 6, 1982

with them and certainly no less so in the constituency of Oxford.
With respect to unemployment, the largest city in Oxford- Woodstock-normally has a fairly high employment rate and a not too serious unemployment rate. However, unemployment is at a record level and I do not believe it has been worse since the days of the Great Depression. Unemployment in Woodstock is now 14 per cent. That situation gives me cause for concern. These economic policies being pursued by the government, such as the NEP, will obviously have an effect on employment in Oxford. Since people in Ontario tend to forget, it is fortunate that some hon. members remind us that in Ontario and Quebec-where you come from, Mr. Speaker- there is a real impact from programs such as the NEP when they come into effect, causing disastrous results for the country.
Let me cite some industries which are suffering and will suffer from these disastrous economic policies. For example, FMC is a significant company in Woodstock where it manufactures heavy equipment known by the trade name of Link Belt. I dare say that had Alsands and the pipeline projects gone ahead, they would have had a significant impact on that company since it could have provided equipment for those projects.
Another company in my constituency is Standard Tube which is probably the largest employer in Woodstock. That company has laid off many employees and is working significantly below capacity. Incidentally, FMC is only working with a skeleton staff.
Holland Hitch is another company in my area which produces heavy equipment. It is working at greatly reduced capacity as well.
Finally, Kelsey Hayes is a foundry in Woodstock which produces the basic raw materials for many of our steel companies. Again, they are having great difficulty trying to obtain sufficient orders. Those were just some references to the industrial and farming community in my constituency.
When the industrial sector in my constituency learned of the survey being conducted by the official opposition, led by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) last January, they came to me with the proposition that they would be glad to report to the travelling panel on the situation in Oxford. They presented a brief to that panel which illustrated how the economy was affecting Oxford. I would like to quote from this brief dated January 11, 1982:
Drops in the housing market in Canada, caused by record high mortgage rates, have had a drastic effect on local industry in Woodstock.
It goes on to say:
In Oxford County workers with up to twenty (20) years seniority in large, well established firms are finding themselves laid off and without a job. Even though our area is directly related to the automotive and housing market, industries producing high cost capital goods are also facing reduced markets and further lay-offs.
They give further evidence of the economic woes we are facing in Oxford because of these very inappropriate economic policies of this government.
It is evident that the average constituent of Oxford county is feeling the pinch as well. He is suffering because the government has refused to introduce any kind of mortgage interest deductability scheme such as we offered when we were in government. As well, there is no energy tax credit such as we offered. In fact, the government has added an increased tax on heating fuels that we as a government felt was absolutely unnecessary. This government has felt that they had to draw extra money from Canadians in order to fulfil some of its programs which it wants to pursue.
We now have the background to the situation in a typical southwestern Ontario constituency and I suggest it is not too atypical for all of Ontario.
I would like to talk a little about the causes which I think lie behind the collapse of Alsands and the various other projects we have seen going down the drain. I think it can best be explained by relating it to an interesting quote which has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), I believe. It has also been referred to by others during this debate but it warrants repeating. I refer to some comments made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back in the spring of 1969. I think he set the backdrop for what we have seen happen in the last 10, 12 or 14 years. At that time the Prime Minister was speaking about the ship of state. That was the simile to which he was referring. I think this bears very close attention because his words were very carefully chosen and had much impact. Retrospectively, what he had to say then was very true and I do not believe it has come to its full fruition yet. Back in the spring of 1969, the Prime Minister said:
One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know that we have spun the wheel and I know that the rudder is beginning to press against the waves and the sea ... but perhaps the observer, who is on the deck and smoking his pipe, or drinking his tea, sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn't realize it, but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different island than the one he thought he was sailing for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: That is exactly what the people of Canada have found. They are now disembarking from a ship and are beginning to wake up and realize that the ship of state has indeed landed. However, Canadians are at a place they did not expect to land. Who do we have to thank but, mainly, the Prime Minister of this country who predicted what would happen 12 years ago? His prediction has indeed come true.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: A rudder disaster.


Bruce Halliday: That was very well put by my colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz).
What has happened since 1968 against the backdrop of the Prime Minister's promises? I want to touch upon something which has escaped most of us in this debate, although my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) alluded to it just a moment ago, as did two or three other hon. members earlier in the debate. It is something that I

May 6, 1982
want to call the rape of Parliament. This should be of serious concern to all hon. members of the House, whether on the government or the opposition side. When I refer to the rape of Parliament, I am referring to what has happened to the ordinary backbenchers on both sides of the House who make up the bulk of the elected members of Parliament. When I refer to government, I am not referring to all government members. I am referring to the executive branch of the government on the other side, not to the supporters of the government. In my view, the government has been guilty of raping the backbenchers in terms of their ability to function the way they should in order adequately to represent their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: This is not going unnoticed by people on the government side and on our side; there is no question about it. But we are having difficulty in getting this view across to the people in the frontbenches who count. When the Prime Minister says that when we, as elected people, leave this House of Commons and are 75 yards-or whatever he said-away from this chamber we are "nobodies", he is not fooling. That is exactly what has happened to us. Again, his prediction has come true.
There are people on the government side on the backbenches-there have been a couple in the House in the last hour or so-


David Kilgour: There is one there now.


Bruce Halliday: There is one there now, a neighbour of mine down in southwestern Ontario, there are a number of backbenchers in the House who are fine gentlemen and I have a lot of respect for them, but they have one defect. Their one defect is their unwillingness to stand up in public, namely in this chamber, and speak out against their government. They are prepared to say things back in their ridings in the hope that what they say will not be heard here and get into public view. They are basically unwilling to come out clean and, when the chips are down, they refuse to be absent when some of these abhorrent policies of the government are put to a vote before the House of Commons. It is this coercion of the backbenchers, particularly on the government side, to which I referred as the rape of Parliament. It has been part of the problem leading up to the disaster with the Alsands project.
Therefore, I believe hon. members on both sides of the House will want to take a serious look at this in the months ahead to see if we cannot make some reforms in Parliament which will give meaningful opportunity to backbenchers to become more involved in the policies which the government finally puts before Parliament. Let us allow Parliament to decide whether or not government policies are good. Let us not leave it entirely up to the executive branch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: The other big component underlying the present economic situation is the loss of business confidence to which many hon. members have previously alluded. We must only acknowledge the fact that the National Energy Program
is a very good example of why the business community has lost confidence in our government, indeed in the elected people of Canada. We must provide them with the confidence they need in order to invest in the future. I would like to speak at length on this problem but because of the shortage of time I will be brief.
The second matter to which I wish to refer which also causes a lack of confidence in the business community is our tax policy. For a number of years I have been convinced that we are in the midst of a very antiquated tax system which is becoming more complicated. My hon. friend, the member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), gave a speech in this House to which I have previously referred. It is difficult to get the financial experts in the House to see any wisdom in it. However, if one keeps track of the writings in the press and in the journals, one finds more and more reference to the need for some changes in our antiquated tax system. We should be giving more serious consideration to changing our tax policy from one based on the ability to pay to one based on the value received. Of course, this subject must be expanded and discussed at another time. However, this is a great opportunity for giving our business community a sense of security in the future. It would certainly simplify many of the problems we as taxpayers face at the present time.
Another problem which lowers the confidence of the business community is government intervention in the private sector, which is growing by leaps and bounds. Again, it was anticipated by the Prime Minister back in 1976, at a time when he was "musing" that there would have to be more permanent controls on big business. However, in his typical way of vacillating back and forth, his view had changed by 1978 when he then promised to:
-remove the intrusions of many government policies and regulations from individuals and businesses; in some cases this will mean returning functions to the private sector, in others it will mean removing the heavy hand of government and its drag on personal initiatives.
That did not last very long. It lasted until 1980, when the election campaign came along and he played a different tune. At that time he said government was going to be "an active player, not a passive bystander". In other words, he was saying the government would become an investor. Sure enough, in the last two years that is exactly what has happened. The government has become one of the big investors in the country. Again, this government intervention is causing a great deal of difficulty for our private sector and for industry in general.
I think Your Honour is about ready to say that my allotted time has expired. I just want to conclude by saying that one must acknowledge the fact that there is much distrust in the business community and in the private sector. In my view, the one solution to this problem is to promote policies which will ensure some cash flow to our business community so that we can get our economy going again. Hopefully, we will then have a more prosperous country.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa's oil strategy is in a shambles. In the 1980 federal
May 6, 1982

election, the Liberals made some great promises concerning what they would do for this country and they managed to take the people in on those promises. But to date they have come through with absolutely nothing with regard to their promises. Just one example of the ridiculous statements they were making is that they would hold increases in government spending under the GNP growth rate, they would have an industrial strategy to create jobs, and they would increase Canadian ownership.
No jobs were created. We have seen record unemployment. The government said we would achieve energy security at a fair price. This has not been achieved. Gasoline prices have increased by approximately 80 cents a gallon whereas the government claimed it would hold these increases down to 14 cents. There has been a mass exodus of funds with the Petrofina purchase which has not assisted this country in any way.
The government claimed it would ensure prosperity and economic growth in every region. The only place we have seen any growth is in the federal public service. It claimed it would help first those who need assistance. The people who have been helped the most have done very well under these policies, the OPEC countries, Venezuela and Mexico. They have really benefited. Senior public servants have benefited as well.
The federal government's ambitious plan of achieving Canadian oil self-sufficiency by 1990 appears in shambles today following the collapse of the giant Alsands project. The plan, unveiled in the controversial National Energy Program 18 months ago, banked heavily on production from new oil sands projects, particularly the $15 billion Alsands scheme that died Friday and the $13 billion Cold Lake plant shelved late last year.
With the death of those two energy megaprojects, Canada now will likely still be importing nearly 300,000 barrels a day of crude oil by the end of this decade, a bleak scenario that would result in billions of dollars in imported oil costs being drained annually from the besieged Canadian economy and adding to our massive federal deficit. That is what they call energy security.
We were informed yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that he would stick with his National Energy Program regardless of how disastrous the effects are on this country. It is plain stubbornness.
For consumers, Canada's failure to attain self-sufficiency may mean extremely high gasoline and heating oil prices as the cost for what may well be ever-costlier foreign oil imports. In addition, federal energy planners are now praying consumers will conserve energy at possibly unrealistic rates for the rest of the decade.
Hans Maciej, technical director of the Canadian Petroleum Association, says the cancellation of Alsands means Canada will have to replace the lost production with expensive imports, which will hurt the Canadian economy and further erode the
country's balance of payments, already saddled with expensive foreign oil costs.
I now wish to quote from the CPA Review. This is a group of Canadian oil firms, not multinationals. 1 will read some of their comments into the record:
In many ways, the great strategic flaw in the National Energy Program was that it failed to consider the international marketplace. By providing totally inadequate netbacks to Canadian oil and gas producers, it effectively forced those companies to leave Canada for international markets.
The flight of drilling rigs to the United States is the best documented example: with the market for rigs strong in the U.S. and weak in Canada, there was an absolute inevitability about the movement of rigs to that market. It could easily have been predicted. But the government either failed to do so or just didn't care.
Had the program been any good from the start, the rigs would have stayed in this country. It is very costly to move an oil rig. I again quote:
This is happening because the National Energy Program failed to look at the international marketplace. This was brought home to me most dramatically by an analysis prepared by a company with operations in Canada, Indonesia and Australia.
According to this report, if a company were to spend the same number of dollars to find the same amount of oil in Alberta, Indonesia and Australia, it would receive a 10.4 per cent return on its investment in this country. It would receive a 21 per cent of return in Indonesia. And it would receive a 38.6 per cent rate of return in Australia.
From a strictly economic standpoint, Australia's program-unlike the NEP

is clearly the kind that will generate investment and exploration.
The National Energy Program in this country has done the exact opposite.
In fact, this was borne out several weeks ago, when it was announced that Australia's 1982 exploratory drilling would include nearly twice as many wells as were drilled in 1981.
But that is only one part of the international marketplace which the National Energy Program ignores. There is another international aspect-reciprocity- which is just as important. Over time, international trade and economic arrangements depend on reciprocity and, more particularly, equal treatment which does not create different classes of corporate citizens. However appealing the policy of economic nationalism may be in the short run, it eventually carries a heavy price for those who have to do business outside their national borders and in terms of foreign investor confidence. Canada's reputation for a responsibly managed regulatory framework has suffered heavily in international investment circles as a result of the National Energy Program and that, too, holds consequences for our capacity to finance our internal department.
To sum it up, we are on a disaster course. I do not know what is next for our energy minister. It is no secret he is becoming tired of the energy portfolio. The glory days of grand planning are over. Now it is down to the nuts and bolts work of haggling over dollars and cents and minor projects, a prospect that minister must shudder at.
Insiders say the minister will not seek re-election. I guess all the news is not bad. He will either return to law practice, where he will starve to death or make money, or be appointed a judge. If he resigns before the next election, he will probably be appointed a judge. I certainly hope it will not be in my province. For now, the minister must struggle with a bruised reputation and a battered energy policy.
This party presented sound policies when we were in government. I see the chairman of the veterans affairs committee in the chamber. He does a good job there and should stick to it. I do not think energy is his field.

May 6, 1982
Our government promised energy self-sufficiency and we would have been on the road to it had our policies been allowed to be implemented. We would have gradually Canadi-anized the industry without forcing foreign-owned companies to suddenly leave the country en masse, taking with them huge amounts of technology, expertise and potential employment. Our policy would have created employment by giving incentives for further exploration and research. The way to tell a good program is whether it attracts investment and keeps what you already have in the country, such as drilling rigs, expertise and so on.
Our policy would have made Canada self-sufficient in oil and gas by 1990. The National Energy Program has obliterated that. Our policy would not have increased taxes on heating oil. It would not have cost Canadians 60,000 jobs as the National Energy Program has done. Most of those jobs are in the Ontario and Quebec region. It would not create a situation in which over $20 billion in potential investment has left the country since the October, 1980 inception of the National Energy Program. That is a clear indication it is a complete and total failure. It would have kept drilling rigs working in Canada instead of forcing hundreds of rigs to greener fields in the United States.
The National Energy Program is nationalizing, not Canadi-anizing, the energy industry. More and more government involvement in the private sector is not good for industry but, more importantly, it is not good for consumers. Let us always remember the Conservative energy policy of Canadianization.
Actually, the industry itself was working toward more Canadian ownership and, if it had been left alone, eventually we would have achieved 50 per cent or 80 per cent Candian ownership.
I want to explain the great exodus of capital. We will never recover from $20 billion having left the country. That is impossible. The National Energy Program has stimulated a great exodus of Canadian capital and manpower to the United States. It no longer pays to stay in Canada. Reports from Alberta state that the oil patch brain drain, or so it is called, is seeing hundreds of the best technical people in the oil industry leaving Canada for greener fields in the United States. They are leaving because the National Energy Program is forcing small, independent oil firms to cut costs by laying off their technical staff.
In another report, the Liberal government was even congratulated for having assured Canadians the same success in the energy field as we have experienced with other government monopolized sectors such as the post office, the CBC, the CNR and Mirabel Airport.
The oil industry, as many riggers themselves will say, is being chased out of Canada. The industry that is staying in Canada has a very skeptical outlook on the country's energy future. The Canadian Petroleum Association recently stated:
The National Energy Program of October, 1980 was a disaster for the petroleum industry and made oil self-sufficiency for Canada by 1990 impossible. The C.P.A. does not believe that the recently concluded Alberta-Ottawa pricing
agreement will materially improve industry's ability to make the country selfsufficient in oil within a decade.
These are the people we should be listening to because they know the industry. They are the type of people the Liberal government should have drafting its policies. The man who drafted the National Energy Program is referred to by the industry as a communist. His scholastic background and the types of subjects on which he wrote when he was in school clearly indicate that. I also understand he is a personal friend of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). They probably worked this disaster out together.
All these developments and statements fly in the face of the government's declaration that the National Energy Program promotes opportunity, security and fairness. Is opportunity enhanced when the oil industry migrates to the United States, taking with it hundreds of jobs Canadians could be holding? Is security ensured when self-sufficiency in oil and gas may never be realized? Is it fair when Canadians are forced to sit idly by while billions of potential investment dollars are sent out of the country? I hardly think so.
I have here a list of firms which have been affected by the National Energy Program. I will refer to it in a moment.
I have listened with great interest to the contributions to this debate by members of the New Democratic Party. They have made it quite clear they have the answer for everything; they would just wave a magic wand and we would be well on the road to energy self-sufficiency. We would have full employment and so forth. However, the disaster we have under the Liberals would be ten times worse under members of the NDP, if that were possible, because they cannot communicate with the private sector. There is no way the group down there to my left could meet with the private sector eyeball to eyeball to work anything out because the NDP is against business. It is against profit. It is against the free enterprise system. Members of the New Democratic Party like to go around kidding the Canadian public that if the government looks after everything, somehow we will be on the road to glory. That is not correct.
The NDP has tipped its hand. The federal Leader of the NDP and the leader of the NDP in Manitoba, who is now the Premier, have both called for exchange controls. That is a clear indication they do not have an answer for anything. The only time the introduction of exchange controls is necessary is when a country has no policies to attract business or investors. If Canada had the right policies, we could keep money here and attract investment. The two leaders of the NDP to whom I have referred are not contributing to energy self-sufficiency or getting the energy industry-or any industry in the country- back on its feet when they call for exchange controls. They are throwing up their hands. They really do not know what to do. They have no answers.
I would like to comment on the multiplier effect of the National Energy Program. A recent survey prepared by the Nisku Businessmen's Association demonstrates in a practical way how the National Energy Program is affecting companies
May 6, 1982

across Canada. It clearly shows how the slowdown in the energy field is bringing hundreds of other companies to a grinding halt. I will read a list of some companies from Alberta, Ontario and other eastern areas which have suffered cutbacks or outright contract cancellations because of the National Energy Program. Let us remember that this is only a partial list. It is growing almost too quickly to maintain an up-to-date count of the companies hurting as a result of the National Energy Program. 1 will list just some of the firms affected by the National Energy Program as follows: Algoma, Allen Bradly Canada Ltd., A.M.P. of Canada Ltd., Arnie's Trailer Sales, Atlas Chemicals, Atlas Steel, Border Brokers, Brown Boveri (Canada) Ltd., Browning Manufacturing, B & W Heating Treating, Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd., Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Canadian Industries Ltd., Canadian Liquid Air Ltd., Canadian National Railways, Canadian Timken, Cessco Ltd., Cooper Energy, Dacro Industries Ltd.
I hope all the Liberals are listening, especially the ones from Ontario. Some of these businesses are in their ridings. There are many of them in the Hamilton area. The list continues: FAG Bearings, Federal Mogul, F.M.C. Linkbelt, Ford Motor Company, Gates Rubber, GMC, Hays Truck, I.H.C. Truck Assemblers, Ken worth Trucks, King Tractor Manufacturing, Nelson Building Components, Penn Dome, R.H.P. Canada, Roadmaster Trailers, Safety Supply Company, Steelco Steel, Stelco Canada Ltd. I spoke with a gentleman from that firm just today, and he says he has never seen business so bad. That is in the Hamilton area. I told him he had better get used to it. The list continues: Steldoor, S.K.F. Canada, Timkin Ltd., Tarrington Inc., Volcano Boilers, Westinghouse Canada Ltd.
The following are some general industries in eastern Canada: electrical suppliers, fittings manufacturers, hose and fittings companies, lumber firms, oilfield equipment and supply companies. The Hamilton area in particular is in dire straits because Hamilton is a major steel-producing city. The people of the city of Hamilton are very, very concerned.
It looks like my time is up.


Mr. Fisher:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: As hon. members can see, the list goes on and on. 1 hear a Liberal applauding. He is happy there are layoffs in his riding in Ontario.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I am glad your time is up.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate-I have had privilege, but also the misfortune to be in the House during the all-night debate from Tuesday evening until early Wednesday morning-I have heard a number of speeches, both good and bad. To me, a good speech is not necessarily a speech of substance or arguments. To me, a good speech is when an hon. member rises and speaks
17117
from the heart, frankly and honestly, to a motion by his leader, and believes in what he is saying . I think a speech is bad when a member rises to spread hate. I have said before that hate has no place in the House of Commons.
Comparisons are being made with communists and dictators and it was even said that the Liberals hated the Canadian people. I am sorry to say this, but the member in question was the member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), a champion skater. Maybe he was a champion on ice but he is certainly not a champion politician. The energy program is being criticized, and it is the opposition's duty to do so. Some facts have been brought forward, but not necessarily all the facts. Did they mention Petro-Canada's positive role? Did they mention the price of gas in other countries? Did they mention the position of the Progressive Conservative Party when they were in power in 1979? Mr. Speaker, what did the Conservative Party want to do in 1979?
[English ]
My government has initiated action to reduce the size of the federal public service and to offer for private purchase and ownership Crown corporations operating in areas where direct government intervention is no longer necessary-
Our government will be an example for Canadians to follow. It will not be a case of substituting "Do as I say" for "Do as I do". A promise was made to privatize certain Crown corporations-
The government itself is proposing action which questions certain long-held assumptions concerning, for example, the notion that Crown corporations, once established, must stay in the public domain forever.
A question was posed to the prime minister of the time, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), as follows:
As I indicated earlier today, there will be no significant action with regard to Petro-Canada without the approval of Parliament.
A question was asked by another member:
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that whatever course of action the government does propose with regard to Petro-Canada, it will not accept the principle that the private sector should be given that which is profitable, or potentially profitable, and that the people of Canada should be saddled with long-range public debts?
The prime minister of the day replied:
The hon. member is asking me to rule out the possibility of the people of Canada taking a direct ownership role in the direction of a major corporation. I will not, of course, rule out that principle.

On October 15, 1979, the then prime minister tabled a report by the task force on the privatization of Petro-Canada. At page 225 of Hansard, November 16, 1979, it is reported and I quote:

In relation to Petro-Canada generally, we are very much attracted by the proposal put forward by the task force which would allow individual citizens to participate directly in a significant Canadian oil company with the capacity to operate in a very major way here and perhaps beyond here. We are very much attracted by that idea.

May 6, 1982

That, Mr. Speaker, was the final collapse, the end of Petro-Canada. In 1979, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the then Minister of Finance-

-can the Minister of Finance tell us whether we will be advised of the future of Petro-Canada prior to the budget speech on December 11 -
The Minister of Finance replied:
Mr. Speaker, the world and Petro-Canada will unfold as they should, and there will be an announcement on Petro-Canada.
On the same day this question was posed to the then minister of energy:
-does the government remain committed to dismantling Petro-Canada and thus tossing away our best chance at long-term security of energy supply and independence from petroleum multinationals?
The then minister of energy, mines and resources replied:
If in his statement there is reference to any dismantling of Petro-Canada, it is misleading. The fact is that we intend to strengthen this corporation to make it more viable.
No wonder the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is not the energy critic any more, nor is he the critic on finance. They could not get their act together. The then minister of finance continued:
When we return PetroCan to the private fold, it will be paying taxes and will not be a Crown corporation sheltered from paying taxes in the future.
That was the position of the Tory party when it was in power.
[ Translation]
And what did we, the Liberals, say during the 1979 election campaign and in the 1980 Speech from the Throne? We promised that we would keep and strengthen Petro Canada, and increase its powers. That is what we promised and that is what we have done! Mr. Speaker, let us deal with prices now. During this debate, many hon. members of the Official Opposition criticized the government about the 18 cents tax which the Progressive Conservative Party meant to levy on Canadians through its budget. I should like to refer to a question which was asked by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as reported in Hansard for November 16, 1979.

-the more the Prime Minister speaks about energy policy, the more confused the Canadian public becomes.
I can understand that. He continued:
He said this morning that the policy was toward self-sufficiency. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government's policy is still to achieve selfsufficiency by 1990. Secondly, he said that his target was not the Chicago price or the international price.
Will he confirm at least that the price is going to be what he said in his opening statement at the conference, that this preference has been brought down from a $6 annual increase in the price of a barrel of oil to bring us quickly to 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Chicago price which, as the Prime Minister knows, may very well be higher and is actually higher than the international price?
The answer from the prime minister of the day was:
The proposal we put forward, which the hon. member has accurately read, is 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Chicago price. There has not been a final decision taken as to whether it would be 90 per cent or 95 per cent.
Whichever is higher.
Mr. Speaker, we often hear about the price of gasoline in the United States, but we never hear about the prices of gasoline in Europe: in the United Kingdom, 82 cents a litre; in France, 81 cents a litre; in Italy, 94 cents a litre; in Germany, 71 cents a litre.
Let us talk about gasoline prices in the United States. It is true that it costs $1.15 a gallon and even $1.00 in some areas, but we must not forget, as certain members on the other side realize that the American gallon is only 4/5 of an Imperial gallon. By using the rule of three, it is very simple to figure out that this means $1.44 an Imperial gallon in U.S. dollars, which converted in Canadian dollars, amounts to $1.75 a gallon or about 38 or 39 cents a litre. Hon. members opposite should listen closely to this. The American states now charge a tax up to 4 cents a litre while the provincial tax in Canada varies unfortunately between zero and 14 cents. If we subtract 9 cents from the price charged in my province on the other side of the river, for instance, which is really shocking, we get 42 minus 9 equals 33 cents, the same price as in Alberta where there is no tax. I congratulate the members from Alberta. They are lucky, they have gasoline, they have oil. We have none in Quebec, but we have tax fiends. We have tax fiends in abundance. However, hon. members opposite are way out when comparing Canadian with the American prices. First, they forget the difference between the Imperial gallon and the American gallon, and then the value of the American currency.
Mr. Speaker, this bothers them, I can hear them mutter across the way, and I admire them because I believe that I can see one member opposite who is sincere. I did not intend to take my whole 20 minutes, but there is one thing that I want to repeat, and I said it at the very beginning and in an earlier speech. For heaven's sake, for the sake of politics, we have to set an example for our youth and stop spreading hate in this House. Those who watch us on television are people who will eventually come to this place, and they will say: If this was allowed in 1982, why should it not be allowed in 1997 or in 2005? I shall close with this comment, Mr. Speaker. I beg hon. members opposite to stop acting this way and to fulfil their role as opposition members. If they are not satisfied with what we do, they can criticize. We can accept criticism, but we do not need anti-French or anti-Quebec comments in this place. We do not need discrimination or racism in this place, and it is with these words that I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker. Let us leave hate and muck for the muckrackers, for those who thrive
May 6, 1982

in it. 1 may not always be very happy myself, but some politicians would rather play with muck than make speeches. That is all 1 wanted to say, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: I wonder if the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) would accept a question. The hon. member talked about oil pricing and honesty and truth in what was going on. 1 wonder if he would explain why the Cape Breton Highlands-Canso Liberal Association said in the Scotia Sun on January 23, 1980:
Vote Liberal and the price will stay down.
That was referring to gasoline price. Can he explain that?


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I never expressed myself by mentioning honesty-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And we know why.


René Cousineau: If I can conclude, the remark of the hon. member-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Is honesty an unparliamentary word?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am glad there has been a reversal of tactics and strategy on the part of the government to permit this debate to continue because I really felt deprived last night intending, if not quite ready, to make a speech on this subject. You will be glad to know I do not intend to be very long.
Far from being just a western problem, far from being a matter which can be laid at the door of international forces by any means, far from being a problem which just concerns people involved in the resource or energy industries, this is a problem which affects everyone. My constituents live in a mainly rural area with a mixed economy in southern Ontario, and this affects them as much as anyone. As their elected representative, I attempt to put forward points of view which will not only be in the national interest but in their interest as well. Therefore, 1 have a duty and responsibility to enter into this debate, and that is why I am standing before you tonight.
I have had, Mr. Speaker, more than a passing interest in what has happened and is going to happen in the energy field in this country. In 1977 and 1978 I was very privileged to be the energy critic and spokesman for the Official Opposition. I spent a good year and a half of effort, travel and consultation not only across Canada, but into other countries where expertise and technology was available regarding the development of petroleum and other energy resources. After a great deal of effort, work and consultation 1 eventually put before my caucus the proposition that if this country-at a time when everything was doom and gloom in the energy field because of problems emanating from outside Canada-followed the proper policy and programs it could be self-sufficient in energy and petroleum products by the year 1990.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: At that time, Mr. Speaker, I must admit I had some doubters within my own party. A small group of us, some researchers and others within our party, worked very hard to convince other party members in this House that we could and should do it. Eventually we succeeded and that policy was adopted by the federal Progressive Conservative Party when we went into the 1979 election. I can well remember making speeches in the House of Commons about it as well. They were almost repetitions of the speeches I had to use among some of my own colleagues here to convince them of its worth as a national objective.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: That will not go over well with Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It will.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It did not go over in the House too well. There were doubting Thomases. If there were doubting Thomases in my own party, we convinced them. There were doubting Thomases on the government side as well as we entered into the election. I am not going to embarrass the minister from Hamilton, who is the only Liberal in the House at the moment, by reminding him of some of the speeches made by his colleagues. As a matter of fact, I think I remember a little barracking that went on in the House in some of the energy debates leading up to the 1979 election, and some of that barracking emanated from the hon. minister from Hamilton as well with respect to this matter because the heat was on us. We were convinced that by following the proper programs and policies it could be done. We entered into the 1979 election with that as a major policy plan.
We happened to win that 1979 election. I am not saying by any means that the winning of the election was directly or exclusively attributable to that policy. By no means. But it was a factor. It was a policy that was positive. It was a policy that was needed. It was a policy that was achievable, and very shortly after taking office I must say that the then minister of energy, mines and resources in the Clark administration worked, and worked hard, to convince not only people within the government but also people outside the government that the policy of energy self-sufficiency was achievable and that it was good for the people and the future of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We did a tremendous job when one looks back because we convinced even the Liberal opposition that it was a worthy policy and objective for the Government of Canada. The Liberals adopted it. They adopted it in opposition and they adopted it in the next election that came along when they were successful and back in the driver's seat. It was a borrowed policy maybe, but at least they said then, and they are still saying today, that energy and petroleum self-sufficiency in this country is the main objective and is what they are after.

May 6, 1982
S'. <9. 26
Self-sufficiency was the objective of the so-called national energy policy of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). But I want to give you a little background with regard to our research and work in developing that policy.
We scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up with every conceivable project so that we could match the petroleum and energy demands of this country with what we thought could be achieved. It was a potential that could be achieved and we really scraped the bottom of the barrel to do it. We were looking at every conceivable project, program and policy of government. We were looking for assistance, help, co-ordination and co-operation from other governments here in Canada. We were also looking for assistance, of course, from the industry itself. We produced the figures and we produced the objective that this was a potential that could be achieved. I will not bore the House tonight with the actual numbers or names of all the projects that we thought could be achieved. But I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as we entered into the 1979 election and as we entered into government in this country in 1979 we were really flying. We were really flying with very little margin for error as far as what could be done for this country.
In our view, oil and energy self-sufficiency by 1990 could be achieved just by the skin of Canada's teeth. There was very little margin for error. There was very little margin for cancellation.
I suspect we were so successful in putting forward that objective of self-sufficiency by 1990 that it was adopted holus-bolus by the present administration, which did not really know what it was adopting. I cannot conceive of any group of people who were obviously more determined to wreck that policy and frustrate that objective than the present administration by what they have done.
I just want to remind you again of my phrase "by the skin of Canada's teeth" as far as the margin for error was concerned. Since then some of the major projects that we thought were achievable and which would be added to that potential in order to achieve petroleum and energy self-sufficiency by 1990 have gone out of the window.
What has happened since then? Cold Lake has been cancelled. The Judy Creek program has been cancelled. The Kitimat pipeline has been cancelled. The Syncrude project has been cancelled. The Dempster pipeline has been put on hold. Alsands has been cancelled and the Alaska highway pipeline has been postponed. There are many, many others. In total they amount to millions of dollars of potential investment in this country. They amount literally directly and indirectly to hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is why I am concerned tonight. I do not know what is the experience of my friends on the government side when they go home on the weekends. I suspect that some of them do not do that now because they cannot face the music.
I can tell you that after almost 25 years of public life in this country I have never witnessed a more dispirited attitude in the people than right now. I do not know how Liberal members
can stand to go home on a Friday night and find, as I do, anywhere between half a dozen and two dozen telephone calls waiting for me from my constituents who are facing a very real financial tragedy of one type or another. These tragedies are usually attribuable to government policy or lack of government policy in this country. I have never seen or heard anything like it. It affects everyone. It affects farmers, small businessmen, large businesses, people in the towns, cities and in the country. Many of these do not show up in statistics.
For the first time since the 1930s depression I find farmers abandoning their farms and walking out in the middle of the night.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: The same thing is happening in Hamilton-Wentworth.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There are small businesses that are not declaring bankruptcy. There are small businesses which do not show up in the statistics. They are just quietly paying off their debts, paying off their employees and going out of business. These things do not show up in the statistics. This is why I wanted to speak tonight.
The absolute collapse of the entire national energy policy is directly attribuable to the arrogance, the stubbornness and the unrealistic atmosphere which exists in the seats of the mighty in government in Ottawa. It is unbelievable how these people can be so insular and not realize the harm they are doing to the people of the country. The collapse of the national energy policy-and it is a collapse-is part and parcel of what has been going on over the last 18 months. Obviously it will get worse.
Quite frankly I was hoping that I would be able to goad the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) into asking, "How can you say the national energy policy is falling apart because of government policies?" Obviously it is their policy and it is something they want to see strengthened and protected, so I do not know; that is the illogical part of the whole thing. The cash flow problems facing resource companies are enough to destroy some of the projects, as are high interest rates, the cost of money and the cost of investment in the country. High interest rates are controllable by government, but its announced and determined policy is to keep them high. Another thing is that the tax bite in regard to resource projects, which we definitely need if we are to fulfil our dream of self-sufficiency, is simply too great. When we couple the enormous tax bites of greedy governments with the cost of investment, cash flow problems, FIRA problems and, above all, the great bogey of Canadianization-which is a fancy word for nationalization-obviously very few international investors in the country will turn to Canadian resource industries for investment. I am as much an economic nationalist as anyone in the House, but there is a time and place for everything. When our future, as far as the great dream of being selfsufficient is at stake, I suggest that each one of these burdens, heaped one on top of the other, means that anyone with
May 6, 1982

international investment funds in the world today would be crazy to invest his money in the Canadian petroleum and energy industry. It is a sad state of affairs and a sad fact.
On top of this, when people look at Canada and its petroleum industry, they see a great uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the personalities of some of the people who are running government today. They must face this, as well as the great unpredictability due to the discretionary decisions built into present Canadian legislation. Obviously it discourages oil development and petroleum development in the country and results in discrimination. We just heard a speech in which a government member criticized discrimination as it exists. Another great deterrent for people who would like to invest in the Canadian energy industry today is the fact that present Liberal energy policies discriminate against foreign-owned firms. Also exploration incentive grants in frontier areas discriminate today against foreigners.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. Lie may continue only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I will not presume too much on the patience of the House. I will conclude my remarks shortly, but before doing so I want to say that at a time when, unfortunately, Canada must attract foreign investment into the petroleum and energy industries, it is the height of folly to come before the investment community with policies which discriminate against foreign investment.
In the long run perhaps that policy will have to be embraced by us all. At the moment timing is everything, but the timing of the moves over the last 18 months has been absolutely wrong. The higher taxes paid by foreign companies in the Canadian resource industry obviously equal a lowering of value of foreign-owned oil assets in Canada. Therefore, they are forced to sell them off at lower values. This is economic discrimination at a time when perhaps the very reversal should be true.
I have one challenge to the government benches. I return to their dream and our dream of oil and energy self-sufficiency by 1990. I have followed this debate closely and I have yet to hear the answer to this challenge. I put it out to any member of the government benches who want to answer it for me. 1 do not believe I am the only one who is asking this question. The challenge is simple. If the policy of the present administration is still energy and petroleum self-sufficiency by 1990, if in the formulation of that policy we were hard-pressed to match production with demand by 1990, and now that we have had the cancellation of large and small projects directly due to the arrogance, stubborness and unrealistic viewpoint of government members, I would like to hear them explain, either tonight, tomorrow or over the next few days, how they mean to meet that objective of self-sufficiency. Where are the projects which will take the place of Alsands, just as one example? Where are the projects which will take the place of Cold Lake, just as another example? Where are the projects which will
take the place of the others I have mentioned and of the many others which my colleagues have mentioned? It is not a terribly complicated challenge. If they still believe in selfsufficiency by 1990, I should like to hear which projects they are now relying upon to meet that objective. I firmly believe that that dream of self-sufficiency by 1990 has gone out the window with the cancellation of these projects and with the so-called National Energy Program which tumbled like a deck of cards around their ears. I challenge them. I should like to hear, chapter and verse, which projects will produce energy and oil self-sufficiency by 1990.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise during this very timely debate which was asked for by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in light of the emergency situation which exists with the National Energy Program with respect to the Alsands project and the Alaska pipeline project.
I am particularly interested in the debate because the National Energy Program has seriously affected my constituency. More particularly, I think it is a sad commentary on the government of this country because the National Energy Program could have been the number one plank in turning around our economy.
If we review the history of the last two years-which seems like 20 years because of the failure of the National Energy Program under the leadership of the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-we realize that there was a boom in Canada's industry. When the minister in charge of energy made decisions, they have had a devastating effect in western Canada. Before he assumed his position, there was a boom in my riding. In the Estevan Weyburn area and in Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as in all of Canada, the almost complete collapse of the oil industry in Canada has created serious difficulties.
I would like to read into the record some of the facts which were laid out in a document entitled, "Conditions in the Canadian Oil and Gas Industry". It states:
Petroleum Information Corporation of Denver recently released comparative 1981 statistics on oil and gas activity in Canada and the U.S. The contrast is startling. It is hard evidence on the damage wreaked on the Canadian Oil and Gas Industry over the last year ..."
Here are some of the facts as stated in this document:
-drilling activity in Canada down 25 per cent in 1981 over 1980 in contrast to an increase of 25 per cent for the same period in the U.S.;
-well completions in Canada in 1981 were 7,183 compared to 9,481 in 1980, a 25 per cent drop;
-exploratory drilling in Canada declined 19 percent, from 3,925 to 3,179;
-development drilling in Canada was down 28 per cent from 5,556 to 4,007.
The next statistic is in metres due to the Metric Commission:
-measured in metres drilled, the decline was from 10.27 million in 1980 to 7.64 million in 1981.
-the number of active rigs in Canada has declined 33 per cent in 1981 over 1980:

May 6, 1982
-the number of seismic crews, a leading indicator of future exploration activity, also declined 25 per cent in 1981 compared to 1980.
This has been very evident in the small towns and communities in western Canada where exploration, drilling and production activities are so important. It has had the effect of bankrupting small businesses and people involved in the service and supply industry and it has driven out hundreds of oil rigs; 226, I believe, to be exact. It has taken jobs from our young people and in its place it has brought stagnation to economy.
I would like to read an article from the Financial Times. The headline reads, "Banks bail out oil firms." The article states:
As many as 100 western resource companies of all sizes might now be insolvent if financial institutions had not come up with loan extensions and deferred payment plans.
A little further on the article states:
One Calgary energy analyst estimates 100 western resource companies of all sizes would be insolvent today if banks had not allowed them to defer interest payments.
All this has happened within a couple of years and it is as a result of a misguided energy policy. In addition, we are hearing comments during this debate about the failure of the Alsands project. It is estimated in the two projects, the Alsands and the Alaska pipeline project, that the loss of jobs to Canada is in the area of 250,000. This will have a very serious effect on our country.
I will now turn to the question of energy security. I believe that the long-term goal of the government was to have security of supply for Canada. This was a commendable objective to have, but what has happened to that energy supply and security for Canada? We know the story, Mr. Speaker. We have been importing from foreign sources while paying compensation to refineries in eastern Canada for that imported oil. I believe the figure is 400,000 barrels per day. However, in my area of Saskatchewan, 80 per cent of the production was shut in in the Swift Current area, and in the west Estevan-Weyburn area 45 per cent of the heavy oil was shut in during the month of April. This has been happening for the past two years.
The actions of this government are almost unforgivable. It is astounding to realize that we have not been using our own production capability, yet at the same time we have been importing oil from abroad and paying compensation of up to $17 on every barrel. In addition to this, we have an artificially high price for our petroleum in Canada. This is causing some major problems for our country, which I will elaborate on further.
With respect to security of oil supplies, I would like to refer to a very good article written by the Canadian Petroleum Association which was given to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation on April 29. They said that the objectives of the National Energy Program at the outset are security, opportunity and fairness, and I agree with that. However, they go on to say that although the most secure position is to be self-sufficient it is, nevertheless, their opinion that self-sufficiency cannot be achieved by the end of this decade under the present circumstances, and that unless major revisions are introduced to the framework under which the oil industry
operates, oil security may even slip completely from Canada's grasp.
That is a sad commentary on a country such as Canada whose opportunities are so great. If you recall, one of the major objectives of our government-when we were in government-was self-sufficiency. As I stated earlier, the industry in western Canada was in a minor boom. Thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, our government was defeated, which caused some very serious repercussions in Saskatchewan, which are now history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is interesting that the NDP is seeking to put a great deal of distance between itself and the Liberal government. But let the NDP not forget that on major issues of the national energy policy, it supported the government. Concerning the major issue of Canadianization, which is a Trojan horse in disguise drawn into the camp, which is really the nationalization of the oil industry, which has resulted in driving capital out of the country, the NDP supported the government, not only in committee but also in the House. Concerning the national energy policy, 1 sat for three years in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. The NDP supported the Liberals every time on most of the issues relating to government take-over of the oil industry. I think that without a doubt, that is the number one reason there is a major problem in the oil industry in Canada today, and I will refer to it a little later.
In terms of oil security for Canada, the opportunity in this country is very great. First of all, we do have the blessing of rich natural resources and the opportunity to provide security of supply to the people of Canada. But somehow it seems that we do not have a government which has the will to make that possible for the people of this great country. If we are to achieve security of supply and make up for the 400,000 barrels a day which this country needs, we must make some very drastic changes to the national energy policy. We must positively address it and completely turn the direction around. Concerning the Canadianization program, we in the Conservative Party completely agree that Canadians should control their industry and receive the benefits of our great resource. However, the direction in which the government is going has caused foreign investors to lose confidence in the country.
The other day in committee I asked Mr. Hopper, president of Petro-Canada, a question concerning the direction of the energy policy, particularly the pricing policy. He answered:
Now, Mr. Gustafson, I am in a position of having some sympathy for my colleagues in this business in trying to make certain people understand as to how prices get to be where they are. You are certainly right about gasoline taxes. All governments at every level have jumped on gasoline as a never-ending source of revenue. We in Canada are a little more greedy in that respect than is the United States-
Those were the words of the president of Petro-Canada-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Supported by taxes.
May 6, 1982


Leonard J. Gustafson: -which is supported by tax money. There is no question about that.
What are the alternatives? First of all, in Canada we have an artificially low price for oil and we have an artificially high price for gasoline. I would like to draw these comparisons. It will be noted that in the last year, the price of gasoline in the United States of America has dropped by 27 per cent. I realize that prices vary in different places in the United States. The lowest price I have heard from truckers coming through from Houston, Texas, is 89 cents a gallon, which is an extremely low price, but the over-all average price of gasoline in the U.S. has dropped 27 per cent, while in Canada there has been an 80 per cent increase. We have an artificially high price for gasoline because, as Mr. Hopper of Petro-Canada stated, the governments have been a little too greedy. In the province of Saskatchewan, that situation will be changed shortly, I understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: We are glad to hear that. In the province of Saskatchewan, out of $2 per gallon of gasoline today, $1.36 is tax collected by the two levels of government. This is having a major effect in several areas. First, it is hurting our consumers. When I look back to the day when we were defeated, gasoline was $1 a gallon, and we were basically defeated because the Crosbie budget said that we would increase the price of gasoline by 18 cents, not to rip off the consumer, not to pay all the taxes of the country and load them on one industry, but, rather, to ensure self-sufficiency of oil for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I am confident that had that budget been followed, the direction would be better today. However, the opposite is quite true. We have had an increase, not one of 18 cents, but rather an increase bringing the price of gasoline to $2 a gallon. It is not $1.18 now. Even with that tremendous increase, we are further away from self-sufficiency than we were two years ago. That is a sad commentary on the management and business arrangements of the government on that side. We have an artificially low price for oil, and I will give a comparison. At Williston, North Dakota the price of oil is $34 a barrel, which would be roughly equivalent to $40 in Canadian funds. The price at Estevan, Saskatchewan is $24.75. In other words, we are getting a good deal on oil. Western Canadians do not resent people in the rest of Canada because of that, but they do resent the high gas prices. Even while we have an artificially low price in oil at the producer level, we have an artificially high price for gasoline because of government taxation. We are taking considerable time to point this out.
I would like to deal with some of the positive aspects of turning this around. I see that Mr. Speaker is looking at me. I have just started and I would like to say much more. However, if Your Honour will give me an extra minute or two-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I would like to thank all hon. members for that consent. I will not take unfair advantage. I would just like to deal with some of the positive directions which could turn this situation around.
First, because of the loss of confidence in Canada directly relating to the national energy policy, our foremost objective must be to restore that confidence. Rather than a continued outflow of the Canadian dollar, we need confidence to invest in this country. We have a sad commentary in the national energy policy.
Second, there must be a fair price to the consumer, the working man holding the job, so that he can compete in the international marketplaces of the world. If we have artificially high prices, we cannot compete. I strongly believe that Canada should view the American market as a great opportunity. With our natural resources, we should be able to compete in every way with our American neighbours. Competition is healthy. With our artificially high price of gasoline, in some cases differing by as much as a dollar a gallon, it is impossible for the consumer, the job holder of Canada, to compete with the American products. That is a very serious factor. I am concerned about the outflow of capital and the strength of the Canadian dollar, a subject which I do not have time to go into this evening.
If the national energy policy were put in the proper perspective, the number of jobs available to the Canadian people would be astounding, and it would be shocking in terms of turning this country around. The job of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) would be much easier. He has created a difficult situation for himself with the budget he brought forward. The number one problem that minister faces is the national energy policy. That should be the number one plank in building this country.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this very interesting debate. I know it is thanks to the good offices of the Canadian government and the Liberals that this debate can be pursued. Had it not been for the generosity of the government, it would have ended at seven o'clock last night. I am delighted the government has made this possible. There was unanimous consent in the Liberal Party that it be pursued so that we could air this problem.
From listening to and reading some of the speeches since the beginning of the debate, especially some of those delivered Tuesday night, I am disappointed at the lack of substance in the comment of hon. members. I thought we were going to try

May 6, 1982
to find a solution to the difficulties which brought about the interruption of the Alsands project. To my great surprise I see members of Parliament, usually good fellows and good friends of mine, using all sorts of excessive language to decry everything that Canadians try to do for this country.
It being 1982, I thought that most members-who on the average have less service than I being of the younger generation, and I saw most of them enter politics-would be more generous and speak with greater fervour about this country and their fellow Canadians. I did not see that in some of the speeches I read today. I am very disappointed. I can understand my colleague from Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) having to talk about some of the language that was used. It is unfortunate that Canadians cannot deal with domestic problems without having to demolish this country.


Donald W. Munro: The country is fine.


Maurice Dupras: I think I have the right to talk about this country, having fought alongside some of those in front of me during the war of 1939, World War II.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupras: I know it is most sincere. I thank hon. members for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, in any case, I am very happy to have the opportunity to analyse what happened last Friday. Of course, I may be repeating information given by hon. members earlier in this debate, though of course not by the members opposite, because in reading their speeches, Mr. Speaker, I see very little constructive information that might help to find a solution to this problem, which is not a Canadian problem. First of all, everyone is wondering what happened to the Alsands project and why it is being dropped. If the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries had kept their commitments, and if prices that were increasing in 1977 and 1978-in any case had been increasing since 1973-of course, there might have been a possibility to go ahead with the project. On the other hand, maybe the fact that our energy conservation program was too successful caused the project's temporary suspension. I think some of the previous speakers may have given some figures, but in any case, let me tell you that between 1980 and 1981, oil consumption in Canada dropped by 8.7 per cent. If we look at the reasons for this fairly substantial drop, it is probably due to the success of the energy conservation programs launched by the government in 1974 and the home insulation projects in which 170,000 Canadians participated. Just think of the energy savings that represents, and the jobs created by these projects through which modern techniques were used to better insulate Canadian homes. 1 am also thinking of the savings to Canadians who upgraded their home insulation. There are also one million Canadians who converted from oil to coal, wood or natural gas. Here again, Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous advantages and benefits.
First of all, the drop in consumption of oil, a non-renewable resource that is, once it has been used, that is it. So I feel that the oil we keep in the ground here in Canada, the oil we conserve, is more precious to us than the oil we are burning and consuming. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 1,200,000 Canadians have succeeded in reducing their oil consumption. This shows that Canadians were right in following the program or programs launched by the Canadian government in order to reduce consumption of gasoline. Many Canadians are now driving smaller cars with smaller engines, compared with the cars they used to drive.
Our energy policy, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) pointed out once more, has three main goals, including security of energy supply, especially as far as oil is concerned, and I think we have vastly improved the ability of domestic producers to meet domestic demand.
Second, Canadians would be given an opportunity to get involved in the program. I have given some examples where Canadians have participated in the program on a large scale, and, Mr. Speaker, it must be said that Canadians have done their share with a lot of enthusiasm and have made their modest contribution towards saving energy.
Finally, goal number three was to set fair prices. The program had three objectives, the last one being to set fair prices, and this means, Mr. Speaker, that Petro-Canada was created by the government for Canadians, to ensure that we would not be at the mercy of multinationals. To hear some of the speeches made a few minutes ago, canadianization sounds like a horrible disease. I, for one, prefer canadianization to multinationalization. That is what was happening in Canada, and I think that Canadians have a reason to be proud that now, Canadian participation has risen to 50 per cent in our oil industry. We should be proud that Canadians have achieved this degree of Canadianization in an industry that is strategically so important to this country.
1 find it astonishing and quite absurd that my colleagues opposite are outraged by this canadianization campaign. What is wrong with Canada? Are we paralyzed or what? Can't we develop our own industry to meet the needs of Canadians?


David Kilgour: What about unemployment?


Maurice Dupras: Let me . . . I must ask you not to interrupt, since I did not interrupt your speech.
We have seen what happened to the aviation industry under a Progressive Conservative government. Your former leader tried to kill the aviation industry with the Arrow affair.
And look at what the Liberals have done. We developed a Canadian aviation industry. Look at de Havilland in Toronto. Look at Longueuil and the success of the Challenger. Aren't those good examples? What is so awful about Canadians
May 6, 1982

developing a Canadian industry and exporting the resulting expertise? Am I the only person to be proud of this country?


David Kilgour: Do you want to nationalize every industry in Canada?


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague, my friend opposite, fails to understand that if Canadians are so proud of Petro-Canada, that sales have increased, then-so he is smiling, well let me tell you that companies competing with Petro-Canada have suffered a drop in sales from 8 to 10 per cent. Petro-Canada's sales have increased by 15 per cent. So how do we explain this substantial increase? I think there is only one explanation, Mr. Speaker, and that is that Canadians stop at Petro-Canada stations because they are proud of the fact it belongs to them. If there are any profits-

I know it is difficult for the hon. member to understand and accept this.

And those profits are pocketed by Canadians, Mr. Speaker. They are for Canadians, but the people opposite do not understand that. However, I think that the fate met by that party at the last election, Mr. Speaker, was due to the fact that it failed to convince the Canadian people that it was truly Canadian and that it was going to develop a Canadian oil industry.


David Kilgour: What about VIA Rail?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) has the floor. I invite hon. members to listen and to let him speak.


Maurice Dupras: I must be making points and scoring and hurting my hon. friend. I do not mind very much if he wants to pursue this.

However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Canadians can develop an industry of which they can be proud will also help to fire their enthusiasm, and that endemic dependence on all kinds of things will disappear from Canada. This is why we applaud the success of Canadair, Bombardier and MLW, because they are exporting the best product available.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Dur-ham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), who was the energy critic a few years ago when Alistair Gillespie was the minister of energy. He said that he had been involved with the energy industry in Canada. He was certainly involved since he is one of those who are mostly responsible for the problems with CANDU at the present time, because following one or two sales which the Canadian government or AECL had succeeded in making, the Canadians had earned quite a reputation in Europe for going after people who were supposed to have made millions of dollars from the sale to Argentina. That certainly
gave us quite a name on the international market and among our competitors who were wondering whether Canadians wanted to moralize the rest of the world and show everyone else how to do business.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to come back to the canadi-anization of our industry. I find it marvelous for a country like Canada with vast natural resources and enormous potential and human resources to develop a new pride, to develop an industry. This is why Canadians are feeling proud and this is why Petro-Canada shows a 15 per cent increase in sales rather than a decrease like other companies.
I do not want to dwell on the failures of the Conservative government. I spoke earlier about the Arrow aircraft venture. I find it quite unfortunate that the Canadian aeronautics industry was set back by about 20 years because of the decision not to pursue this program. Now, 25 years later, the more advanced aircraft in international aeronautics are no more modern than the Arrow of the 50s.
Mr. Speaker, all sorts of figures have been mentioned. I heard a member say earlier that the American industry had a better record than the Canadian industry. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at the situation of American companies with branches in Canada. I would like to speak about Gulf, Shell and Texaco. The Canadian subsidiaries of these companies are much more successful and profitable than the American parent companies, according to a report published yesterday in Oil Week, the national magazine of the energy industry in the United States. For the benefit of those who would still be interested in knowing the potential and the results of the oil industry in Canada, I would like to say that among the best known companies in the United States-I believe that these figures have already been quoted in the last few days-Occidental Petroleum shows a decrease of 76 per cent, Marathon, a decrease of 71 per cent-this is in the United States-Standard Oil of California, a decrease of 65 per cent, Mobil Oil, a decrease of 49 per cent, and Texaco a decrease of 44 per cent, as everyone knows. All this happened in a country where there is no energy program.
Why is it so difficult for the members opposite to accept the fact that the project has been temporarily postponed, since oil exporters are most anxious to sell their products $10 less a barrel than they were asking about 20 months ago? The problem comes from the erosion of the market as a whole, because of the economic difficulties now facing not only the United States and Canada, but a great many other countries.
I also heard some of the members opposite deplore oil price fixing in Canada. At least the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has succeeded in coming to an agreement with the governments of the oil-producing provinces, while the Crosbie budget was brought down last December before the members opposite had been able to agree

May 6, 1982
with the provincial government, which was then a Progressive Conservative one. As we say, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me that these people do not accept the fact that we in Canada, as we have succeeded in demonstrating to the rest of the world, have the resources, the talent and the fervent wish to make this country independent in energy. I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe they do but 1 do not.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing difficult times. There are 1.5 million people unemployed, and inflation stands at 11.5 per cent, more than in 1975 when the Liberal government imposed wage and price controls. Farmers are facing increasing costs of production; at the same time they are getting lower prices for their products. Farm and business bankruptcies are at an all-time high. This is the case in a country as rich in resources and with the highly educated labour force we have here.
How does the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition propose to deal with this disastrous situation? Both parties believe that the way to put people back to work is by the rapid development of energy megaprojects regardless of the price and the concessions to Canadian and multinational energy corporations that would be needed to persuade them to participate in the megaprojects.
The only difference between the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition is that the Conservatives would give more and larger concessions to the multinationals and Canadian corporations in the private sector in order to persuade them to go ahead.
The Conservatives claim that the megaprojects which have been cancelled recently, both the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline project, were cancelled because the government was demanding too much from the companies and because of the National Energy Program.
The truth is that the projects were cancelled because the private corporations, which are in business to make a profit- one cannot blame them for that-have realized that these and other projects were only feasible if there was a steadily-increasing price for oil every year. That has not happened. The world price of oil, which was going up by 10 or 15 per cent each year until this year, is actually going down, with the result that energy projects everywhere in the world have been cancelled.
Just a week ago in the United States, a country which has the most supportive free enterprise president in the world, a Republican who is wiping out virtually every social program ever developed in that country in the last 50 years, Exxon announced it was closing down its oil shale project in Colorado.


David Kilgour: Go and sit with the Liberals. That is their line.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) has obviously forgotten all the rules of ordinary common sense and decency about listening to other people which he learned when he lived in Winnipeg. We gave him plenty of opportunities to speak. I would be very happy to answer any questions the hon. member wants to ask, if he would only have the courtesy to stand up and ask instead of sitting in his seat grumbling.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on his usual point of order.


David Kilgour: The hon. member said he would accept a question. Will he take the question now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member accept a question from the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona?


David Orlikow: Yes.


David Kilgour: Does the hon. member appreciate that the point he is making has been made by about 15 Liberals in the last two days? Will he consider going over and sitting with them?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the speech the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona made has been repeated probably 50 times by Conservative members in the last few days. As far as my relationship with the Liberal Party is concerned, the hon. member, who used to live in Winnipeg, should know that in my constituency in the last 50 years one Liberal was elected for one term and one Conservative was elected for one term. I am sure that record will be continued.
The United States has de-regulated energy prices and has taken off all the restrictions the Conservatives claim have been put on corporations in Canada. Despite their free enterprise system and de-regulation, Exxon has cancelled its billion dollar oil shale project in Colorado. There is no national energy program in the United States, so why did Exxon do that? Exxon did it because it knows that the price of producing a barrel of oil from shale is so much higher than the price of conventional oil is likely to be in the next 10 or 15 years that it simply could not afford to go ahead. It is for the same reason that the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline have been cancelled.
What happens when that kind of project closes down in the United States is similar to what happens in Canada. On May 4, the New York Times carried a news story about the closing of the oil shale project in Colorado. It ran as follows:
Like most of the others who moved here to work on the nearby Colony Oil Shale Project, Jerry Ferguson Figured he was making a solid investment when he sank most of his life savings last February into a new $72,000 home.
In Calgary you could not buy a house for $72,000. The article goes on to say that he was surprised by the decision of the Exxon Corporation to close down the project. The story estimates that nearly 4,000 workers who worked in the Parachute area when laid off will cause a loss in the payroll of more
May 6, 1982

than $1 million a week. That is on a project which is not in Canada.
That is what is happening in many places because the price of oil, which was going up by 10 or 15 per cent each year for the last six or eight years, has now gone down, although that decrease may be temporary.
It has been suggested by Conservatives that we are not being fair to the oil companies and that we are mistreating the private sector. We know that until recently the Canadian taxpayer was paying 93 cents of every dollar invested in exploration in the Beaufort Sea in the form of tax benefits. How much more should this country be prepared to give the energy companies before they will invest in Canada? The energy companies are doing very well by us.
I have no time to put the figures on the record, but Great Britain does not deal so generously with the oil companies in the North Sea, and the Conservative government in Norway is so much tougher on their companies that we are not in the same league. They get so much more from their companies that we are not even in the same league, yet we hear from the Conservative Party that we are being too tough. The British government has been half-owner of BP since the 1920s. That was not done by some Labour socialist government, it was done by Winston Churchill. If the hon. member wants to criticize that, let him do it.
We have been accused again and again-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did it in question period today-of being opposed to megaprojects. Nothing can be further from the truth. We believe and have said repeatedly that where the resource megaprojects can be demonstrated to be necessary to achieve benefits for Canadians, we should proceed with them. But they should proceed with a minimum of public subsidy and a maximum of public equity. When the Alaska highway gas pipeline was first proposed, it was described as a means of getting Alaska gas to the United States by way of the Canadian corridor. We were told it would give thousands of Canadians jobs and we would be able to connect the Dempster spur line to bring gas to southern Canada from our Northwest Territories. The NDP warned that the companies and the U.S. government had not firmly committed themselves to the entire project. We warned that the cost would destroy the project, and that has happened. The cost has ballooned from an estimated $8 billion to $25 billion or more. But the government and the Conservatives brushed aside these reservations. The record will show that we were the only ones who voted against it because we predicted it would not fly. We are now told there will be another two-year delay, and I predict it will be much more than that, if ever.
Later it was suggested that we could get the project started if only Canada would permit the pre-build. Again we warned the pipeline would not be built. We said we should not go ahead with the pre-build. We wanted the whole line built so that the cheap Alberta gas we exported now would be replaced with Alaska gas when the project came on stream. Well, who
was right? We built the pre-build, and where is the pipeline? It is gone. We are exporting cheap gas now, and some time in the future Canadian customers will be paying through the nose for expensive gas from the high Arctic. That is what the Liberals and Conservatives have wished on the Canadian people. We told them it would happen, and it has.
What about the Alsands project? When it was first proposed, it was supposed to cost $13 billion to $15 billion and produce 137,000 barrels of oil a day. It was going to produce thousands of jobs and much in the way of economic spin-offs. However, it was only economically feasible if the price of oil rose to somewhere between $80 and $90 a barrel. Of course, it is nowhere near that. In fact, it is now under $30 a barrel. Who can blame the companies, who are in business to make a profit, as they should be, and who, unfortunately, are much smarter than our government? Who can blame the companies if they say no matter what concessions and no matter what tax write-offs, they will not be able to make a profit from oil which will cost us $80 to $90 a barrel to produce? I think I am being quite conservative in that estimate.


Frank Oberle: Please do not be Conservative.


David Orlikow: I have seen estimates that oil from Alsands will cost as much as $120 a barrel. Who can blame the companies if they say they are not going ahead with a project to produce oil at that price when it is now selling for $30 a barrel and there is a surplus? For the first time in more than a generation less than 50 per cent of the oil sold comes from OPEC countries. Production from the North Sea, Mexico and other places has escalated, and OPEC have not been able to increase their prices.
The government put much faith in getting Canada moving because of these megaprojects, but I want to remind my Conservative friends that it was not just the Liberal government which made this proposal to the companies in its desire to keep the projects going. The Conservative Government of Alberta was a partner. Both made very generous concessions- I would say too generous-to try and persuade the companies to continue with Alsands. But, Mr. Speaker, just like Exxon in the United States, the companies said this thing will not make a profit no matter what they are given, so they will not go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: But, Mr. Speaker, despite everything that has happened, we are told by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), "Well, it is not so serious because, after all, we still have projects going."
The projects that were cancelled-the Alsands project, the Alaska gas pipeline project, the Cold Lake project-total in value, estimated, over $75 billion. But the projects which the

May 6, 1982
minister listed as still being viable, which are still going ahead-the Beaufort Sea development, the Norman Wells Pipeline, the B.C. coal fields, the Revelstoke hydro project, the Quebec and Maritimes pipeline-altogether total just over $4 billion-a far cry from the $75 billion vision of a year or two ago.
And yet, as late as December, 1980, the minister was still promising these miracles. He said, and I quote from a speech he made on December 3, 1980:
Our intention is to ensure that these projects go ahead. Whether they are developed by a company owned by Canadians, such as Petro-Canada, or by other companies which have their own technology, what is important is that all those projects proceed in the next few years. That is what we are going to work on.
Well, the minister has worked on them, but he has proved to be a complete failure.
As I said earlier, we are not opposed to megaprojects if they meet the needs of the Canadian people. But we said then, and we say now, that what we need to do is not to concentrate on a few giant megaprojects which are economically unsound; what we need to do-and I find it stranger that it is I, a member from western Canada, a member from Winnipeg, who should be saying what I am about to say and not my Liberal friends from Quebec and my Conservative friends from Ontario, where the manufacturing industry in Canada exists-what we need to do is to stop the destruction of our manufacturing sector.
In the last year more than 200,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector have disappeared. Whether you look at the automotive industry, or steel, or farm machinery, or textiles, every day there are announcements of lay-offs, of plant closures, of bankruptcies.
My Liberal and Conservative friends who come from Ontario and Quebec, where the manufacturing industry is almost completely concentrated, are quiet. They are so mesmerized by megaprojects, they are ignoring the needs of their own people.
We say that what we need to do in this country is to begin to think about meeting the needs of this country. We need to think about meeting the housing requirements. We are building 150,000 homes a year, when we should be building over
200,000.	We are committed to tremendous increases in the exports of wheat, of coal, of potash, to mention just three examples. Our transportation system will not be able to handle the increased movements of those products.
Are we rebuilding the transportation system? No. We are seeing people laid off by the railway companies, the CNR and the CPR. We are seeing people laid off by the firms which build hopper cars, railway engines and so forth.
So, Mr. Speaker, we say, for God's sake, let us stop thinking about megaprojects and get down to thinking about meeting the needs of the Canadian people for jobs, for homes and for better lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, in this speech marathon it is difficult to avoid repeating what was said by previous speakers. I will try to do what Canadian folklore has done and set new words to traditional tunes. We deplore the situation and sympathize with those people who are directly affected by the, I assume, temporary abandonment of the Alsands project. However, there is some question as to how this problem is being approached. Among the megaprojects developed by Canada and by its leaders, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) pointed out, we might do well to recall the story of Sir John A. Macdonald, whose political party was at that time called the Liberal Conservative Party. The Liberal part has been dropped since then. We may have forgotten the lesson to be drawn from Sir John A.'s story, and this evening we should perhaps remember that when Macdonald was struggling to get the railroad built from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it was not because he wanted to fill the pockets of certain corporations. When he got involved in this kind of financing, heaven knows it caused a lot of problems and scandals and even cost him his government. Nevertheless, his ideal was to build a railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which was a way to unite this country.
1 wish that in this debate we could rise above political partisanship and look for an ideal that we can pursue together. Laurier said that the 20th Century would belong to Canada. No one can deny that the next years will be constantly focussed on energy. Perhaps the best way to unite this country is to stress energy development. I am pretty upset, especially at the hon. members on the Conservative benches many of whom are from Alberta and must have some influence on their provincial government, which accepted the same proposal made by the Minister of Energy who added that he wanted the private sector to be involved. And I want to ask the hon. members, why could Alberta not carry out the same project, through a Crown corporation? When Premier Bennett took over the hydroelectric companies and ferry services in British Columbia, was he accused of being a communist or a socialist? Did it ever occur to Quebecers to accuse Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec, of being a socialist when he developed the James Bay project?
Yet, the James Bay project was just as important as Alsands. In the final analysis, we must be guided by the common good of all Canadians. Of course, some members opposite are accusing us of harbouring socialist tendencies and others of being conservative and backward, but we are not dogmatic. If we do have a philosophy, it consists in helping the ordinary citizen, in providing security for the workers, in finding jobs for the unemployed and in guaranteeing a bright future to our young people. I am sorry to say that because of the way the rules of this House are used and even abused, we lose a great deal of time delaying the implementation of
May 6, 1982

projects which are extremely important for the future of our country, which is even now envied by the rest of the world. It was Father Lepire who said: "We are always drawing attention to the 5 per cent that divide us and ignoring the 95 per cent that unite us."
Our country is tremendously rich in resources and assets; yet some would create an environment of pessimism by futile dissensions which make us look ridiculous in the eyes of foreign investors, an environment of pessimism which discourages the unemployed and makes our young people skeptical about our future, while we have everything we need if we want to work together because Providence has blessed us with resources so abundant that Canada is looked upon as the Eden of the world. The fact is that foreigners see this image of Canada for if we were to open wide our doors to immigration, everyone would want to come here. What do we have to do? We have to call attention to what can unite us. In this regard, since we are always talking about our energy policy, I would like to see a member rise in this House and say: "I am against energy self-sufficiency for Canada." No member of this House would say such a thing. Is there one single member in this House who could rise and say that he is against the sharing of our resources and our energy? Once again, no one would rise to make such a statement. I ask the question once more: Do the members of this House want us to be masters in our own country instead of being governed by policies developed abroad either in the Middle East or in other parts of the world? Do we want to let foreign interests dictate our policies in our own country? Let the member who has the courage to say that we must not aim at self-sufficiency, at the canadianization of our energy sector, at sharing with those provinces whose subsoil does not contain energy resources, let that member rise and express his views, if really he is against Canadians forming a single nation.
I referred to John A. Macdonald who with the railway, despite all those mishaps, delays and scandals, pursued until his death his ideal of uniting this country from sea to sea. I suggest that today, with our energy resources, we can have the same ideal, but only to the extent where we are willing to share and stop being hypocritical in that respect. Because in the final analysis, as well as self-centered egotists, there are group-centered egotists who would like to keep everything for themselves rather than sharing with others. This country never will stay together unless we are willing to use those resources for the benefit of ail Canadians. And to those who are concerned that foreign capital will not come here under these conditions, I say they are near-sighted. Because from the moment we will have a common desire in Canada to put our resources in common, to accept a policy of sharing, security, participation and, fairness, private capital will come here because it will feel that in this country we have social order, consideration for private enterprise.
Let us not forget that this country was born, because we had people, pioneers who bowed to no difficulty and, although means of communications were almost non-existent, they discovered the Rockies, Louisiana and opened a huge territory full of promises and resources. I therefore submit that if we really want to give security to our workers, give a chance to the unemployed who ask for nothing more than the opportunity to use their abilities, to our young people who would like to share an ideal made possible by our unlimited potential. Who would have thought that some day, in the Arctic itself, we could go and look for resources capable of developing this country? Let us turn now for a moment to the Arctic pilot project, near the North Pole, where we will be able to get not only the natural gas that is already known to exist in unlimited quantities, and of such quality that the president of Polar Gas told me that the oil we are extracting here, without any processing at all, could be used directly in our engines, because that is how good it is, and through that megaproject we could not only I would say establish Canadian sovereignty on that northern continent near the Arctic but also develop our shipyards, develop a whole new technology, a whole new science and in addition get a resource that is now dormant in the North and could be used to the benefit of the whole of Eastern Canada, of Quebec. Again, since I started from that premise, it could contribute to Canadian unity.
I would ask my colleagues opposite whether they will not recognize the writing on the wall that was apparent during the last election. Mene, Tebel, Peres. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. If they would not remain wanting but make their mark as an opposition, they will have to renounce such a pessimistic policy, those switches and parliamentary gimmicks, they will have to show to the people that they are a united front, not because of contempt for profit, but because of respect for private enterprise. We admire their technology, we want to use it, but when the public interest is at stake, the government must take its responsibilities. This is not being socialist or communist, to do as Bourassa did for James Bay. This is merely using funds, taking the necessary measures and asking private interests to join with us in attaining our ideals. No government would be elected unless it was ready to implement the energy program put forward by this government, because Canadians will never be satisfied with being anything less than the masters in their own country and will disapprove of collective selfishness where each and everyone wants to keep everything for himself and refuses to share with others who have no resources.
Canadians will never accept any ideal other than selfsufficiency and will refuse to be tied to foreign policies and pressures imposed by countries that have no other ambition but their own self-interest. Those Canadian ideals and objectives are widely shared by our people and if you have public opinion polls taken, you will realize that such is the case. A

May 6, 1982
government which would fail to implement such a program would be a doomed government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. If he wants to proceed, he will have to seek the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on!


Rosaire Gendron: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I have stated the ideal which we should attain and if the hon. members have any questions, I will be pleased to answer them.


David Kilgour: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of nationalizing the larger corporations such as Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. That is a serious question.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona seems to be preoccupied with the nationalization issue. The moment I rose to take part in this debate, I took care to say that there are no fanatics among us and that our only concern is to look after ordinary Canadians, find jobs for the unemployed and prepare for our youth a better future. We accept the common good as being the basis for our action, and if the private sector for whatever reason refused to take chances, then the State should intervene. More specifically, you would like to know what our approach would be concerning larger corporations such as Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. When private corporations are in financial trouble because of a world recession, I feel it would be quite appropriate for the government to intervene and support them, so that they may continue their operations and ensure the progress and development of many Canadian communities, as well as create jobs, something they have been doing for many years.
France nationalized one of its two auto corporations; the two corporations are competing and, as far as I know, they are doing fine; this was done many years ago by a government which could not be considered a socialist government, by any stretch of the imagination, so that we are making too much fuss, in my opinion, about such categories as socialism, communism and private enterprise; our purpose should be to help the unemployed, the man in the street, and to seek the common good, and when the private sector fails to act the State should step in. I am not worried as long as a climate of trust is created within the Canadian government, instead of fostering endless pessimism for the purpose of running an election for mean political gains. So I am saying now: "Do not worry, for all the businessmen in the world are anxious to come and invest their money in this country, because Canada will offer them the best security and best return".


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that I should have remained seated when the hon. member who just spoke challenged us to rise if we did not
agree to the sharing of resources across Canada. The question is, sharing on what condition? That was the only question of dispute that threatened to divide this nation. That is the one that you should be addressing. Somehow I hope I can have the opportunity to discuss that very issue with you because you distorted that issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member remembers he should address his remarks to the Chair.


Frederick John King: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It has been my experience on those few occasions when I have spoken in this House that matters of great import are scheduled so as to have an impact at the very end and create a grand finale, so to speak. Time runs out and important elements of the speech may be left unstated. This is particularly so when one enters a debate absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of legitimate bombast that could be aimed at the deplorable and unworthy performance of this government and of those in this House whose support underwrites its endeavours. They support the government without judging the quality of government initiatives.
The consequences of this loyalty are demonstrated by the collapse of Alsands and the failure of national energy policy. In order to avoid this pitfall, I want to begin my brief comments by dwelling on the positive alternatives which can be offered Canadians in place of the chaos which we observe in the nation today.
I am largely going to ignore the NDP in their role because their Saskatchewan experience has forecast their destiny in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, let me state the following as positive alternatives to this government's unproductive policies, alternatives offered to Canadians by Progressive Conservative members of Parliament.
How about a return to a philosophy that recognizes the worth of the individual and of his efforts as an important aspect of Canadian society? How about a return to policies and actions on the part of the government that encourage productive activity as opposed to government activity? That would get the government out of the pocketbook of Canadians and stop penalizing Canadians whose ambition is to build a personal stake in their nation, whether in the form of home ownership, a business, a farm or simply by investing capital in projects that build the nation. How about an alternative that reverses this government's philosophy which is hostile to risk, hostile to incentives, hostile to private ingenuity and effort? How about reversing the philosophy that sees successful business and individual initiatives as enemies of the state and believes that any wealth created is fair game for government confiscation?
May 6, 1982

How about a return to a philosophy of government that will assist Canadians in the realization of their goals and dreams rather than placing in the way of individual Canadians and their goals and dreams a big government that plans to get bigger and bureaucrats who intend to become increasingly bureaucratic?
How would it be if we put in its place the elitist theory that only government acts in the national interest? The fallacy of that theory is the subject of our debate today. Putting that elitist theory to rest is the positive alternative we offer. We offer a philosophy which, when put in place, will give ordinary Canadians a chance to realize dreams that are impossible under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and under this government, a government whose whole ideology seems intent on destroying the spirit of the only productive element of our economic society.
When the spirit of enterprise and achievement is destroyed by the increasing intervention of government, the spirit of the new philosophy espoused by this government acts as a vaccu-um in which to work its destructive role.
The Liberal government places more emphasis upon the redistribution of wealth than upon its creation. The Progressive Conservative government will recognize that if governments wish to distribute more wealth, they must first encourage the creation of more wealth. We believe, unlike the government opposite, that wealth creation will be accomplished most efficiently through the private sector. It will be accomplished through a private sector supported by legislation and by actions of government which produce a climate of opportunity rather than a roadbed of obstacles.
The economic spirit of my party was summed up in a speech given by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) at the 1978 National Industrial Stategy Conference. He said that the company which opened up western Canada was not just called the Hudson's Bay Company; it was called the Company of Adventurers Trading into Hudson's Bay. Also he indicated that he thought there was a lesson about our history in that phrase and that when we are at our best as a country, when we are a country of adventurers.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering whether there is a problem in making a point to the government when there are no Liberal members present in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have spoken to empty seats opposite. To continue, my leader then went on to indicate that what we have suffered in the last decade, during which there was an emphasis upon the redistribution of income rather than upon the generation of new growth and new income in the country, has been an under valuing and a disrespect for the sense of adventure which is at the very centre of our success as a country. Also he indicated that we must
clearly begin the process of rewarding success in the country and encouraging initiative.
It is the philosophy of the government and its intervention which damned the Alsands project, the northern pipeline project, the Judy Creek project, and so on. Alsands was destroyed by greed and the ideology of the Government of Canada which put that project on hold two years ago. A different administration following a different philosophy would have seen this important element in Canada's energy supply nearly half completed, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians now unemployed would be working. That is the measure of the emergency. The Government of Canada is the emergency; Alsands is the evidence.
This important and timely emergency debate has been propelled into the House by the announced failures of important elements of the so called National Energy Program of the Liberal government. What a program! The dictionary definition of program is:
A descriptive notice of a series of events; a definite plan of intended proceedings.
God help Canada if this is the best energy plan the government can come up with. What a plan! What a genius of planning demonstrated in the National Energy Program of the Liberal government! The national program of the Liberal government! This particular program was doomed from its inception by its authors, the minister of disaster and the government of failures. The National Energy Program was doomed by its primary motivation to collect revenue for government, doomed by the purpose in the minds of its creators to benefit one group of electors at the expense of another, doomed by the socialist-dominated philosophy which shaped it, doomed by a lack of understanding of what makes Canada tick, and doomed by a lack of appreciation of the basic values which built our nation-the qualities of thrift, initiative and individual effort, which the government rejected. Also it was doomed by a government with a style of morality which includes deceitful and artful appeals to the electorate, which are totally unworthy of a society based upon democratic principles, principles which must be respected if democracy is to survive.
The survival of responsible democracy in Canada does not appear to be a matter of priority with hon. members opposite. The Liberal administration, under the dubious leadership of the particularly ill-suited Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) doomed its own National Energy Program by choosing the course of confrontation rather than the course of co-operation, by raising tempers rather than reason, by pitting region against region, by pitting government against government and by putting the interests of the big government before the interests of little Canadians. The national energy policy was doomed by the revenue-grabbing nature of its policies, doomed by government interventionism which is alarming reasoned Canadians, and doomed by the disgust which the government has earned for itself in the minds and reactions of individual Canadians who ask only for an opportunity to work and to achieve.

May 6, 1982
The government consistently demeans the efforts of individuals to be creative and productive for themselves and for the nation. That is the damning implication of the actions of the Liberal government and its docile aye-saying members. The damaging philosophy of the Prime Minister is the root cause of the unhappiness in the west which has its latest manifestation in the emergence of the Western Canada Concept and the election of its first member to a Canadian legislature.
My impression of the Western Canada Concept and its motivations is that its growing membership is saying to the Prime Minister of Canada and to those who so blindly follow his ideological lead: "Mr. Prime Minister, for too long you and your colleagues have been building a wall between central and western Canada all by yourselves; Mr. Prime Minister, we are not going to help you." This is the spectre the Prime Minister has created in my part of the country.
I should like to speak for a few minutes on the impact of the government's economic program on the area of Canada which I represent. We are focusing our attention and that of the nation upon the collapse of Alsands, the failure of the Alaska pipeline and all other multitudinous evidence which exists that government intervention is the problem, not the solution. None of these examples of failure focus specifically on Okanagan-Similkameen, but the implications affect us very much. The government has as its preoccupation the expansion of its empire. It is big government determined to get bigger despite the consequences to Canadians. The detrimental impact is felt everywhere, including the area I represent. In advancing its philosophies based upon government, government, government, it has lost sight of those positive things which it could be accomplishing for the people of Canada. It is wasting its effort and our financial resources on its own objectives and excusing failure to respond to real needs by saying, "We have no money." What total hypocrisy, what cynicism, what lack of respect for the intelligence of the electorate to discriminate between truth and deceit!
The electorate will not soon forget the government's deceit in objecting to an 18 cent excise tax on gasoline. The electorate will not forget the campaign promise, "Vote Liberal and the price of gasoline will stay down." The present price of gasoline is simply a measure of the credibility and the honesty of the two-faced Liberal administration. While the government wastes taxpayer-generated revenue in advertised chest-thumping, in Constitution-celebration bashes exclusive to Liberal party followers, in appointing royal commissions the recommendations of which are ignored, in a Canadian Unity Information Office designed to extend the talons of government into more and more aspects of our life; while the Liberal government, under its brilliantly-devious leader, continues to pursue its wasteful habits and at the same time spouts platitudes about restraint, the legitimate aspirations of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen remain unattended.
Today I received a letter from the President of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association saying in effect: "Fred, please tell those people in government back there how very important the continuation of the ARDSA Program is to our area". I will tell the government, and it is important. The fruit farmers in Okanagan have a great interest in the maintenance of the cold storage construction assistance program. I talked to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) about this and he indicated there might be some tie-ins with the creation of yet another Crown corporation, namely Canagrex, in making this possible. There is always another agency and bureaucracy created by this government to spread its tentacles.
What about the mines which are closing, the sawmill operations in jeopardy in Merritt, Midway, Princeton, Okanagan Falls and Westbank? They are all in jeopardy simply because this government has its priorities all screwed up. It is concentrating its efforts on expanding government rather than expanding opportunities. What is it that keeps mines and mills in operation? For sure it is not government grants or emergency programs to help the unemployed. It is not taxpayer paid advertising campaigns designed to promote the government. What keeps the mines and mills operating is an economy which enjoys vitality, the very quality this government is attacking. What, may I ask, about the grant to the proposed new art gallery in Penticton, which had the implied support of this government since its conception? It has been abandoned by this government this year-next year, who knows? Why? Because of restraint. What restraint?
The people of western Canada, Mr. Speaker are honest, industrious, ambitious, hard-working and thrifty. I could go on and on in praise of their qualities. Above all, they are Canadian. Their qualities are not much different from those of citizens in other areas of Canada. We are blessed with people of quality. What then is different about western Canadians which gives us a distinction?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick John King: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our protestations are simply that in the political structures we are irrelevant. We do not like it and we will not accept if for long. That is the message we have been carrying to this House for longer than I have been here. That is the message which has been met with derision by members opposite who chose to bury their heads. They are far away from reality, and the Alsands fiasco demonstrates that fact. This Liberal government may, through an electoral majority gained elsewhere, scoff at elected members from the west, but if they scoff at the other voices coming from the west, they do so not at their peril but at the peril of the nation. Members opposite, by their attitude, are building walls of separation rather than walls of community; the saddest commentary I can think of in describing government.
May 6, 1982

In closing I would like to refer hon. members, and anyone else, to the first part of my speech when I spoke of the positive alternatives we as a government would offer this great nation of Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, since this emergency debate has continued for three days let me begin my remarks by reviewing the process which has been followed. The motion relates to the cancellation of the Alsands project and postponement of the Alaska highway gas pipeline. It was brought before this House by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and 1 want to put on record that he is in the House this evening and he has had throughout this debate the full support of his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus. As a member from Alberta, it must be very gratifying to him to know that we from the east, indeed from all parts of Canada, support him and his colleagues from Alberta in this enterprise, because it must be brought to the attention of the Canadian people that we are all affected by these government errors and mistakes in judgment. These vicious acts lead to these harmful results, not only for people from Alberta but from right across the country.
We are here tonight in great numbers to support our leader in the action he is taking, and we will continue to support him in this and other actions. He recognized the grave economic damage resulting from these decision for all Canadians and the cumulative harm which will be inflicted on the economies of all regions of Canada. It is in that role that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition sought an emergency debate so that all aspects of this economic and industrial disaster could be exposed and be carefully considered and, hopefully, resolved.
It is a matter of record that our presiding officer agreed that this matter required urgent consideration. It cannot be disputed by any member of the House that the cancellation of the Alsands project and the delay and possible termination of the Alaska highway pipeline project constitute a genuine emergency requiring immediate and urgent consideration. So when the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) and other members opposite claim there is no emergency or economic catastrophe, they violate both the substance and spirit of Madam Speaker's ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: More important, they seek to cover up and conceal from public view the errors of fact and judgment which are part and parcel of the National Energy Program.
In order to expose to public light the policy errors which have resulted in the cancellation or postponement of these megaprojects, thereby jeopardizing billions of dollars in employment and manufacturing, it is necessary to examine the energy policies of the government institutionalized in the document called the National Energy Program. That document was presented to this House on November 12, 1980 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and it bears the imprimatur of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). It is time that the government and the Liberal
caucus answered for the mistakes of those two ministers contained in those documents.
What were those documents, Mr. Speaker? They carried three promises made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He said NEP would bring about energy selfsufficiency and Canadian control of the industry. He said there would be fair pricing. Let me dispose, first of all, of his promise on fair pricing. Over the period of time which has elapsed since the introduction of NEP we have seen taxes on taxes, and the price of gas at the pump and oil in the home has doubled and tripled. We are paying higher prices than anyone in North America, while our American neighbours through their policies, concentrated as they are on the private sector, have seen their prices drop. That is the fair pricing set out by the minister: prices escalating beyond anything else charged in North America. He calls that fair pricing.
What is going to be the price of Canadian participation? Experts indicate that in order to reach the level of 50 per cent Canadian ownership, as indicated in NEP, we will have to spend $56 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money.
It cost us, Mr. Speaker, $1.4 billion to buy a share in Petrofina so we could have PetroCan signs across the country. But who is paying for it? The consumers of gasoline are paying for it at the rate of three or four cents a gallon of gas. That was done just to satisfy the minister's desire to own an oil company! What does that company do? The president of PetroCan testifying before the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation said, "Sometimes you make a bundle of money, and sometimes you just go broke." How do you like that, Mr. Speaker? You spend $1.4 billion buying a private oil company for PetroCan and the president of the company says, "Sometimes you make a bundle of money and sometimes you just go broke." Does the president of PetroCan, or anyone else, have the right to do that with taxpayers' money? Do they have the right to go for the long jump to make a barrel of money or just go broke? Do you want your taxes to go for that kind of risk? If you want to take those kinds of risks, there are lots of stocks you can invest in and go broke on. But that would be your decision, Mr. Speaker, not a decision of the government's. That is your risk to take if you want to, but it should not be put in the hands of an organization which says it might make a bundle of money or it might go broke.
If you read on in his testimony, you find he does not consider himself any different from any other petroleum executive in Canada. He says they are a little worried about 1982 and what their profit picture might look like. He says they are working hard on that. Well, when you talk about achieving a Canadian content of 50 per cent, you are talking about risking the taxpayer's money, and I do not think taxpayers necessarily want to put that kind of faith in the minister, considering what happened to his fair pricing policy. I think it is important that we in this House give the message to everyone that the minister's Canadianization program has a price we may not be willing to pay. That is the problem with all the policies of this Liberal government. They mask them in mist, shroud them in a national spirit, and hide them under the flag. They are good,

May 6, 1982
and do not object to it because if you do, you will be against the national purpose of Canada and you will be blocking the future of Canadians. Well, that is not true, Mr. Speaker, but you have to stand up once in a while and be counted on matters like that. You have to decide whether you support the free enterprise system and the good judgment of Canadians to do what they want with their own money, or whether you think their funds should be channelled into a bureaucracy to be used in any way they please. When that bureaucracy supports the likes of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the president of PetroCan, I do not want them taking my money and doing what they want with it. I do not know what my friends on the other side want to do with their money. Maybe they siphon it off into some tax dodge which they claim to have eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, the goal of the National Energy Program, as stated in the documents, is to achieve energy self-sufficiency in Canada. If you read the documents, you will find that the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands was very much a part of that goal of energy self-sufficiency. In fact, the documents themselves detail the proposals for the development of the Alberta tar sands. They make it very clear that that played a big role in the future of energy development in Canada. And so there was great concern expressed as this project, this huge Alsands project, which I personally visited, appeared to be in jeopardy. Questions were asked in the House, Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1982, by our energy critic-and do you know what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources answered on February 25, 1982, when concern was expressed about the future of the Alsands project? He simply said:
Those fiscal arrangements seem satisfactory to some of the partners. They do not seem satisfactory to some other partners. The remaining partners in the consortium are at the present time consulting with other potential partners. I myself have had discussions with such other potential partners, and in the next few days and weeks we will see how these negotiations will be concluded.
On February 25, 1982, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knew that that project was in danger. Yet he did nothing. He allowed those people to slip out of his grasp, and the project was cancelled.
Do you know what I suspect him of, Mr. Speaker? I suspect that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wanted the project cancelled. I suspect that he let it go down the drain. He wants to destroy the energy industry in Canada and then come back and build it up. And why would he want to do that? He wants control. The Government of Canada wants control of the energy industry because it is the source of wealth in Canada, and if the government can control that source of wealth, it can tighten its stranglehold on the Canadian economy and enable it to keep Canada under its own thumb. It will destroy that valuable segment of the private sector forever.
Mr. Speaker, the question is, are Canadians going to allow that to happen? And what kind of help are they going to get from the New Democratic Party? On that very same day, the member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) stood in this
House of Commons and warned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not to give any help to the Alsands partners, not to take any special steps to help them preserve this project. And do you know what he said, Mr. Speaker? he said:
-will the Minister give serious consideration either to running this project as a public utility, as has been suggested, or rechannelling a lot of the funds that were intended for this project into enhanced recovery programs for old oil and heavy oil-
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, a representative of the New Democratic Party, made it very clear that he did not care whether or not the Alsands project was cancelled. In fact, he would rather have it cancelled. And they sit here, along with us, in this emergency debate and complain about the cancellation of the Alsands project!
Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder lightening does not come right into this chamber and strike them all down. They do not seem to realize that they were opposed to the Alsands project; they opposed the measures that had to be taken to keep it operative. And now they have the nerve, the gall, to stand up in this chamber and say that it should not have been cancelled. They cannot live with the result. They cannot live with the result, Mr. Speaker. They want to have it both ways. They want to criticize the project and have the jobs and the expenditure of funds and the stimulus to the economy that would have gone with that project. But they were found out. Their words are on the record. They cannot deny it. They warned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not to give any special assistance to the parties, assistance that might have preserved this project. So now they are trapped in their own words-as they always are, Mr. Speaker. They are always speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They always want to have their cake and eat it too.
Well, the jig is up. They cannot get away with that. Everybody knows. Everybody heard them say "Don't help the Alsands project." And so now they have to live with that. The next speaker can get up and explain, if he will, the remarks of the member for Mission-Port Moody when he stood up in this House on February 25 of this year when that Alsands project was in danger.


An hon. Member:: Be patient.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, what we really have to talk about and be concerned about in terms of the cancellation of the Alsands project and the delay of the Alaska pipeline project, is the failure to create the jobs that would have resulted from the implementation of those projects. That is what we on this side of the House are talking about. I am not here to support the petroleum industry. They do not need my help, they are big boys. What I am here to do is to ask the government to reconsider its decision in the light of the jobs that these projects would create-and no one, and certainly no one on the government side, can contend that we do not need jobs in Canada.
Tomorrow a new unemployment rate will be announced; and I am sure it is going to be even higher than it is now at over 9 per cent. I am sure there will be more people unemployed than the 1.2 million persons now admitted to be unemployed. That
May 6, 1982

figure can be greatly escalated, because in addition there are 250,000 Canadians who have given up looking for work. They know they cannot get a job, so they do not bother trying. Also, there are 250,000 Canadians who are employed at jobs well below their qualifications. We have school teachers working as waitresses. There are thousands of examples like that. That gets the whole rate of employment up another 500,000. Then one has to consider the people working part time. We have 1.5 million people in Canada who have only part time jobs-and most of them, if not all of them, would like to be working full time.
So when we talk about an unemployment problem, when we talk about unemployment in Canada, we are not talking about 1.2 million people; we are talking about that number plus another 500,000 who have stopped looking for work or who are working at jobs below their level of qualification, and another 1.5 million Canadians who are working only part time. The figure is well over three million, Mr. Speaker-and that is in a work force of 11 million. So you know what the concern of Canadians is in terms of job creation, and you know what great harm is done when projects that would produce jobs are cancelled, and are cancelled by actions of people like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I think you have to get personal in a debate like this. You have to point a finger at who is causing this problem. I have no qualms about pointing a finger at the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because not only is his theory wrong, his whole approach to problem solving in Canada is wrong. It is a terrible thing that we Canadians must suffer because of his arrogance, because of his stupidity, and because of his lack of knowledge of the realities of Canadian life. Mr. Speaker, you do not only have to look to Alberta to see that arrogance and that ignorance on his part. Come to Nova Scotia, come to the Atlantic coast, talk to companies like Shell that want to explore offshore and develop the great resources of the seabed off Nova Scotia and off Newfoundland and listen to what they say about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They know their projects are being held up because of his unwillingness to assist and his unwillingness to work on the problems.
Mr. Speaker, that attitude goes right down through his department, because that kind of attitude at the top encourages the same kind of thinking right down through the ranks. We do not have to look too far to solve our energy problem in Canada. If we get rid of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we will go a long way to solving it. I can assure you of that. I can assure you that anyone who wants to work in the energy industry in Canada knows of his arrogance and his ignorance. He is the biggest stumbling block to progress.
Mr. Speaker, that same minister on that same program stood up in this House and said that we will have natural gas in Nova Scotia by 1983. Mr. Speaker, the best estimates in terms of having natural gas available in Nova Scotia are 1985 and later. That is the value of his promises; that is the value of his projections when it comes to solving energy problems in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do to solve this problem? What are we going to do? If we have to put up with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am not sure the problem can be solved. But I can give you a few solutions. One is to help the private sector petroleum industry to get out into the Atlantic and explore for oil and to find and prove up the reserves that we know are there-and we can do that simply by taking a realistic approach to the legislation that exists, the requirements that must be met and the financial assistance that is available.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, if the government were to get working on projects like the Arctic pilot project, if it would get working and resolve the technical problems that are associated with carrying gas out of the Arctic region, we might have a solution in that area. But before we take that step, we have to examine very closely what is being said by Dome Petroleum and the other promoters of Arctic exploration, because one might mistake them on occasion for snake oil salesmen; one might mistake their motives and question whether they are really telling the truth and whether or not they know all about the development they are proposing.
Some people in Canada-and I know some of them, and I think they are very sensible people-view some of those developments with a concerned eye. But the fact is, the reserves do exist in the Beaufort, and if we get together, given the reserves that exist offshore, in the Beaufort and in the Arctic, we can solve the energy problem. And that has to be the challenge of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-to get to work and get the job done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). I want to say to the silent hordes across the way that what my distinguished colleague has said, I endorse. I endorse it 100 per cent. What he has said about our friends to the left in this chamber is very true. His comments about the activities of the present government with respect to jobs and job creation, with respect to openness and frankness with the Canadian people and with respect to the price of energy in this country deserve support, and I am very pleased to endorse them.
There is one particular area I want to get into tonight. I want to trace for the benefit of members of the House the events leading up to the decision by this government to go ahead with a gas pipeline across Quebec and into the mari-times. Before I do that, I want to underscore one other point the hon. member for Halifax West made tonight and which has been made by other Atlantic members on this side of the House, who have participated in this debate, and that is the point that centers around the squeeze that provincial governments-Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick particularly-are beginning to experience as a direct result of the economic policies of this government.
Nova Scotia has been not singularly fortunate but among the three or four provinces of this country which have been

May 6, 1982
able to sustain an acceptable rate of growth. It is not what we would like it to be, but it is an acceptable rate of growth, given national circumstances. Elowever, in each of the last five months we have been going downhill. How much longer Nova Scotia can continue to sustain real growth is a matter of serious question. Most observers feel-and I think it is demonstrated by the most recent budget brought down by the Government of Nova Scotia-that perhaps our period of real growth is at an end.


An hon. Member:: What does this have to do with Alsands?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am asked what this has to do with Alsands. One comment and one observation: the hopes of sustaining the system, in no small way and not indirectly, were pinned, to a large degree, on these two projects' going ahead, simply because they would have placed demands on the central steel producers that might very well have resulted in urgently needed contracts. The future of SYSCO is in some serious doubt.
So much for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his concern for Atlantic Canada.
On May 15, 1980, just a few short days before the referendum in Quebec-and I am aware that much was done, and perhaps much was needed to be done to ensure a proper outcome of that vote-the government okayed a gas pipeline extension from Ontario into Quebec as far as Quebec City, but not beyond. Many of us felt perhaps there was some justification in making that announcement to the people of the province of Quebec before the referendum, and that was fine. That was in May of 1980.
Throughout the balance of 1980 and through 1981 up until December 12, pressure was brought to bear by members on this side of the House as well as the premiers of the three maritime provinces, separately and acting as the Council of Maritime Premiers, on this government to bring down its ruling with respect to the extension of that pipeline beyond Quebec, through New Brunswick and into Nova Scotia.
One of the reasons given at the time was that the line could not go further, and this flowed from National Energy Board hearings, because of the absence of environmental impact studies. The most likely reason was to allow a period of time for the expenditure of some $75 million or $80 million to finish the development at Gros Cacouna. That is a fact. Once the money had been spent, the government then found it convenient to allow the National Energy Board to make a decision about the extension.
On December 12 or 13, we saw in the newspapers the headline "Federal cabinet approves gas pipeline to Halifax". It was all right then. I suspect Gros Cacouna will be the terminal in the south for the Arctic gas pilot project. It will be the receiving centre, or defrosting centre, or whatever is done with this enormously pressurized, very cold commodity.
The gas pipeline extension through the province of Quebec that was approved was a single size, the same size in Quebec City as when it came across the Ontario border. Now what do we learn? We have the December 15, 1981, decision by the
government to extend it to Halifax. We now find that the end of the pipeline which will be in Nova Scotia will be half the size of that in Quebec. We had continuous assurances from the government that this would be a reversible pipeline.


Howard Edward Crosby: That means you turn it inside out.


J. Michael Forrestall: We know what a megaphone is like; it produces noise. If Sable Island gas were placed into the small end of this reversible pipeline and we tried to sent it to Ontario, you would hear the rumble beyond the Rockies. There would be no snow left in the Rockies. With the pressure required to put it in the little end, when it came out the other end there would be one hell of a noise. However, that is all we have had, noise and rhetoric from the government side.
The Arctic pilot project is necessary. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) referred to the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. They and this government together cannot ruin this country. It is too big, too good and too individualistic. We are still pioneers, prepared to risk and be innovative. They will fail. They can do indescribable damage. They can upset us, disappoint us and mislead us, but they will not kill us and they will not kill useful, good projects. There are too many good people in this country.
I now come back to Gros Cacouna, which is the central point I am trying to make. Let us look at the financial history of this country. Atlantic Canada financing was the start of central Canada. The financing came from our wood, fish, early deposits of coal, our trading north-south and, in fact, literally all over the world. Funds found their way into central Canada for its development. That was the right course.
For the last 50, 60 or 70 years, we have not been able to contribute to national development. We have not had the means to develop wealth. With the discovery of gas and oil off the east coast, there is a dim glimmer of hope. It is possible that out of this we might find a way that will allow us to be more than just hewers of wood and drawers of water. Possibly we can use this gas and oil to develop a petrochemical industrial base that would not look inward to compete with existing Canadian capacity in that sphere but, rather, look offshore for sales.
For the last 30 or 40 years Atlantic Canada has asked central Canada for some form of technology that would be exportable, something we could use to develop an export market. Did that technology come? It was never offered. We still have no offer of it. What we have is the guarantee of a feed of western natural gas to Gros Cacouna, probably three to five years ahead of us, unless Sable Island comes ashore first, or any potential work in Nova Scotia or anywhere else in the maritimes. This will permit Gros Cacouna to take an insurmountable lead in capturing what could very well prove over the next several decades to be a real source of new capital for the province of Quebec.
That is Fine. It has to be done somewhere and will be done somewhere. The plants will be put in place, and the technology
May 6, 1982

will be employed. I suggest to the government that what is done in Gros Cacouna will find its markets in the central part of Canada and in the United States. Were that plant to be located on tidewater in Nova Scotia, its natural markets would be south and east. They would be South America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East, not in the already saturated central Canadian markets.
We were told the pipeline through Quebec into the mari-times would be fully reversible. It is not reversible. It is twice the size in Quebec City and Gros Cacouna as it will be at the Strait of Canso, and it cannot be reversed. The cost of reversing the pumps would be millions and millions of dollars.
Premier Buchanan of the province of Nova Scotia told Nova Scotians the other day that we were very close to a viable economic threshold of natural gas reserves on the Sable shelf. He indicated it would be up to industry and those doing the exporting to demonstrate and indicate to Nova Scotians, and indeed all Canadians, when we have arrived at that viable economic threshhold. We are close to it. The gas is there. The drilling that will take place off Sable Island this summer will clearly demonstrate that.
We have the gas and we have it ashore. Now what do we do with it? We have a pipeline that we cannot reverse. We will draw gas from Alberta-God love them-about 3,000 miles to Gros Cacouna when 275 or 280 miles away there is an enormous supply and no place to send it. Is that fair? Does that make sense?
The government wants some positive suggestions. It has heard many in the debate in this House in the last two or three days. We have made useful suggestions about what can be done to help this country achieve self-sufficiency in energy by 1990. Perhaps 1995 would be more realistic. If we have many more breakdowns like this, we will be closer to the turn of the century, but we will achieve it. We will achieve it quicker if the government will redirect some of the funds saved with the collapse of the Alsands and the delay of the Alaska pipeline and make the Q & M pipeline truly reversible.
The Minister of Finance spoke in Mabou. He knew when he spoke there that the pipeline was not reversible and never would be reversible. The government should make it reversible. Give us an opportunity to do something with our gas.
Give us some technologies so that gas that comes from offshore can free up western gas, perhaps for export. Let us build a technological base to build a petrochemical industrial base near the site of the gas. We in turn will use that industrial base to attract offshore dollars, which everyone in this chamber knows are sorely and badly needed. The importance of this was clearly demonstrated in the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as well as the 45 or 50 other speakers on this side. If it is not clear, I doubt very much if anybody will ever persuade the government away from its destined course.
Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) suggested in this chamber that the National Energy Program was succeeding. It may be succeeding, but it
is succeeding as all megaprojects. It is not succeeding in revitalizing us and raising our hopes. It is doing quite the opposite. It has resulted in devastating and dashing hopes and prolonged dreams and has unduly delayed economic recovery. It has killed the hopes and ambitions of thousands of people from one end of this country to the other. This has been done without the slightest indication of shame or embarrassment.
Reverse the pipeline. Do whatever has to be done. Do not let these projects die. They are too important to the Canadian economy and the people of this country who have been relying on them and looking forward to them as a means of rebuilding the great economic spirit of which this country is capable.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline. It should not be too much of a surprise for us to see that the large corporations have backed out when interest rates are running as high as they are as the result of this government's high interest rate policy. It is understandable that large corporations will not become involved. They can invest their money elsewhere and obtain the interest rates for which they are looking.
Not many people understand that there is a Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey. Not many people understand that there is a board of directors of the Bank of Canada. Many people from the oil companies serve on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada and on the boards of various banks across Canada. Canadians should be told that these banks give donations to the Conservative Party and to the Liberal Party.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Not the directors of the Bank of Canada.


Sidney James Parker: Yes, these directors represent companies which give money to the Liberal Party of Canada and to the Conservative Party.
The leader of the Conservative Party goes to western Canada to tell people-


John Horton McDermid: What do you mean by that? It is his home.


Sidney James Parker: He goes there to tell Canadians one thing, but when he returns to Ottawa he and his party vote with the Liberals.


Mr. Kempling:: That is not correct.


Sidney James Parker: Yes, they do. The projects which are being turned down are being turned down by the corporations which are represented by the Conservative and the Liberal parties. For us to stand in the House of Commons and think that energy producing corporations will help us attain self-sufficiency by a certain date is wishful thinking. The Government of Canada must set programs which serve the needs of the people. When it commences such projects, it will begin to serve the people of Canada. Returning to the area of directorships-


Leonard J. Gustafson: Tell us about Tommy Douglas.

May 6, 1982


Sidney James Parker: He is serving as a director of one of those corporations but he does not serve as a director in a bank and he does not serve on the directorship of the Bank of Canada.
I should like to refer to the projects which are not going ahead-the Alsands project at $13.55 billion, Cold Lake at $14 billion and the Alaska gas pipeline at $40 billion. Those projects are not going ahead. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that one small project would be going ahead. I should like to refer to this project because it will be going on in my riding. I am referring to the Revelstoke hydro British Columbia project because which will involve $1,000 million.


David Kilgour: It is $1 billion.


Sidney James Parker: Yes, $1 billion. I sat in at the hearings concerning that project and heard about the kinds of jobs being offered to Canadians in my community. Every day they are arguing in an attempt to get on with the project, but what is even worse is that when the project is completed in five years' time, those workers will leave. But will the government recognize that thousands of acres of low valley land will have been flooded? At this point in time, that land is prime forestry land. There has been no provision to plant seedlings in the area in an attempt to replace some of this lost acreage. The government must start looking at projects such as this in a more viable and sensible manner. They must ensure that replanting occurs in areas to replace what has been lost. At this time there are very experienced IWA workers in my constituency, who are walking the streets and collecting unemployment insurance cheques. They could be planting trees in order to replace the losses which will occur as a result of the expropriation of these prime lands. When the economy slows down we should do something productive for the future. Those workers want jobs; they do not want unemployment. Instead, the government brings in programs to offset its unemployment insurance program.
I should like to talk a bit about the Progressive Conservative party. Time after time members of that party talk about members of the New Democratic Party voting with Liberals. The record of the House of Commons will show that the Conservative Party has voted twice as many times with the Liberal government on very, very important issues.
In the province of British Columbia we have a party known as the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. It came about because the Conservatives and the Liberals joined forces to stop the New Democrats from forming the government. This is the type of thing which is taking place in the House of Commons. The Conservatives and the Liberals represent the same multinational corporations. They do not look after the individual Canadians who sent them here. They do not represent individual voters. They represent multinational corporations, the very ones which put small businessmen out of work.
Before my time runs out I should like to talk about the Alaska gas pipeline. On February 10, 1981, there was an expropriation of land in my riding, under the Railway Act, 1919. The Conservatives distributed papers across the province
indicating that the New Democratic Party was against people owning their own land. I rose in the House and fought for the people who were having their land expropriated, but the Conservative party did not lift a finger to help protect those people. What happened with the hydro project in British Columbia when land in the valleys were being expropriated? The Conservatives and the Liberals joined forces so that the property could be expropriated, and the New Democrats fought for the rights of the individuals there.
A bill was introduced supposedly to protect the lands of some of these people and to provide them with a method of fighting back. On March 6, 1981, Bill C-60 received second reading. It came back from the Senate on April, 1981, but the problem was that it had been amended by the Senate. It sat in the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources while the lands were expropriated because the project was so important that it had to go ahead. It sat in his hands until December 11, 1981, at which time the Conservative Party and the New Democractic Party realized the importance of it. We each put up one speaker, it passed the House of Commons, and it was returned to the Senate.


Mr. Prud'homme:: The other place.


Sidney James Parker: Yes, the other place. It passed in the Senate, but until today the bill has not been proclaimed in law. Bill C-60 cannot be used until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Government of Canada proclaims it, which has not been done to date. My constituents are awaiting the bill so that they will have the procedure to protect them because of problems created by the Northern Foothills Pipeline Agency which crossed their property.
It is no mystery to me why members of the Conservative party are not saying much about it. The agency happens to be from Alberta, and it happens to be Alberta natural gas which is going through the properties. Those individuals who have had their lifestyles and properties disrupted are the ones who are hurt, not the large oil companies who are the friends of the Conservative Party.
I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to proclaim the bill so that these people will be provided with an opportunity to be heard and so that a settlement will be finally reached. It is a disgrace to the House of Commons and to members of the public who have had their privacy disrupted; it is a disgrace to Canada. An agency such as this should not be allowed to trespass on private property, to disrupt it and leave it in a disorderly state so as to provide energy for the Americans. This was its sole purpose. It was a pre-built pipeline to provide cheap energy from Alberta to the Americans. My constituents deserve better treatment than that.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, I respect the obvious sincerity of the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) as displayed in his speech tonight. I have been in the House somewhat longer than the hon. member and 1 want to tell him that I am sick and tired of listening to members of the New
May 6, 1982

Democratic Party joining in a holy row against the Liberal government. In the ten years I have been in the House, the NDP has propped up the Liberal Party every time it has been in trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I should like to return to 1972 when an eminent member of the New Democratic Party sat often on government treasury benches. He was there so often that the NDP practically put another person in his seat. We saw it every day. Then, after the election in 1974, the Liberal government was returned and the jeers started. Then members of the NDP were saying how terrible the Liberals were. Then there was the election of 1979 and the Conservative Party formed the government. At the first opportunity, over 18 cents or something else, the New Democratic Party took the initiative to bring down our party. Within days following that, the NDP financial critic, who is now the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, said, "Yes, we voted the Tories out, but goodness gracious, they are a lot better than the Liberals".
I do not mind receiving a few whacks from a member from British Columbia about my party. But I am really losing my patience with this game the NDP is constantly playing. Take the Constitution as an example. Those members with seats in British Columbia, along with myself, what did they do about the Constitution? They jumped right in to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) bed, they did not fight for the interests of British Columbia or the western provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: They did not even join the four members of their party who had the guts and the brains to realize that if the first draft of the amending formula which the Prime Minister was trying to foist on us was allowed to happen, you would not have just one separatist being elected in western Canada, you would have the seeds of disunity for decades. These things have to be said because they are true, and the hon. members who now seem to be getting a little agitated, can all take their turn and make a speech because we are prepared to be here for a long time.
1 want to say to my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke that there was not very much in his speech which had anything to do with why we are here tonight. Perhaps he is not to be blamed for that; obviously, if he addressed with accuracy the NDP position on the NEP he could hardly sit in apparent opposition to the Liberal government. Let us be realistic about this. The NDP has consistently supported the state intervention aspect of the NEP. If any member of the NDP wants to deny that, I ask them to get up and tell us where you have differed in any way from the government thrust in that direction. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal government and a crowd of shadowy fellow travellers are absolutely not to create a social democratic state-social democrats still believe in Parliament. They are
going to try to create a centralist state. And those of the NDP who can still remember that they once had a certain glory in fighting for the rights of Parliament and democracy had better look very long and carefully before they bundle off down that comfortable little hallway to the Liberal bed in the Chamber.
I want to remind the NDP of something else. The problem with the NDP and this government that they appear to get worked up about but always seem to end up supporting, is that in the last election the Liberals campaigned on a basic mis-truth, but the NDP went along with it. I was all over the country campaigning in 1979 and I did not hear any NDP members saying, "You are not going to get cheaper gas under Mr. Trudeau." All they said was, "If you vote for the Tories, you are going to get expensive gas". They were not very much better than the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who was running around the country trying to get the Tories defeated. He was aided and abetted by the NDP who could not or would not see that what he was peddling was not the truth. Here is the ad from the Scotia Sun of January 23, 1980. There is his picture with a maple leaf. It says, "December 11, 1979, Tories gas prices go up". Then he asks:
Would you let the Tories raise the price of gasoline?
That is the way the campaigned with the help of the New Democratic Party. On the other page it says:
Because Allan J. MacEachen spoke up for you, vote Liberal and the price will stay down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: That was the basis upon which the NDP, boldly and courageously, campaigned to bring this government back.
I have to say that at least your financial critic, who was respected in this House-and we all share great affection for him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: -and wish him many happy days in the service of the public-at least he said that when it came down to it, the Liberals were a lot worse than the Conservatives. But he was the only one who said it.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would of course like to listen to the speech of the hon. member and most probably give consent to-this is my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order, with all due respect.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, as usual, every time I have a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has a point of order, will he please state it?


George Albert Proud: If we are going to sit much longer tonight I just want to ask consent of the House to perhaps dispense with the pages and we can go on as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order. The hon. member for Vancouver South.

May 7, 1982


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I of course appreciate your ruling but I want the hon. member to know I appreciate his point and I may call on him in a moment for some assistance.
In any event, the basic campaign in 1980 was a lot less than accurate. You have seen the kind of propaganda that the Minister of Finance puts out, but there is a disturbing continuance of that practice. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), speaking in Houston to the Offshore Technology Conference on May 4, had this to say about the NEP.
He said:
Let me provide an example of the kind of wildly misleading statement that helps create a false perception of the petroleum industry's position in Canada.
He was speaking to an American audience. He said:
The following appeared in an article in the March 29 issue of Forbes Magazine, and I quote "Over 70 per cent of the revenue from the sale of conventionally-produced oil discovered before January 1, 1981, now goes to the Canadian government. Virtual expropriation."
The minister is complaining about that having appeared in an American magazine. Then he said to this American audience:
Virtual expropriation? Pure fantasy.
That is what it is, says the minister. He says, "I will tell you how much of the revenue from this category is received by the Government of Canada in a typical case of a company with an average rate of reinvestment in 1982". He said:
-about 26 per cent of the revenues, not 70 per cent.
Remember that this was an American audience, and I am not at all sure they would get the subtle distinction between the words "Government of Canada" and "government". Nowhere in the paper does the minister tell them how much revenue is going to all governments, and he leaves them with the impression-no doubt deliberately, which I say is so dangerous because it is not true-that 26 per cent of the revenues go to the government.
In British Columbia, 65 per cent of the gas price at the pumps to governments at both levels. In Alberta it is 62 per cent; in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario it is 68 per cent; Quebec, 72 per cent; New Brunswick, 64 per cent; Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland, 65 per cent. There is something very wrong when a Canadian minister goes to the United States and so misleads an American audience, while at the same time practically begging them to invest here because he finally decided to admit that maybe we do not have the resources to do it entirely on our own.
I am a little sick and tired of listening to government apologists and fellow travellers from the NDP telling me what a great success these PetroCan signs are at gas stations. Why does the NDP and some government members not go out and tell the Canadian public that they are paying at the pump the $1.5 billion spent to acquire Petrofina? The money went to a foreign corporation in Belgium which took their profit at an over-inflated price. One can argue whether there should have
been PetroCan in the first place, or what kind of PetroCan we should have, but I can tell you that if you are going to have PetroCan, you cannot have a government playing dishonest games with you about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: There is no point in the NDP and some of my Liberal friends running around all the time shrieking about multinationals. I have spent some time in the United States-


An hon. Member:: Go back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: -in the last six months doing something which even my impudent friend over there would probably agree with if he lets me finish telling him what it was about. I have been going down there working on behalf of this country, along with other members of Parliament, on the acid rain problem. Let me tell him that some aspects of our National Energy Program have so angered the Americans that in many cases we cannot get a sympathetic hearing on that issue. That is mainly because they think the policies pursued by the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, are anti-American and confiscatory. Whether you agree with that or not, it is souring relations between our countries.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources goes down to the United States, as he did the other day, and deliberately says something which is far less than accurate, then we are going to have more trouble getting along with our American friends.
[DOT] (Midnight)
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Program is basically wrong because it is built on a distortion of the truth that goes back to the point where the Liberal Party was prepared to try to con the Canadian people into thinking that they could have, forever, cheap fuel, cheap oil. The Liberal party, when saying this, knew perfectly well that the price of petroleum would have to increase. But the incredible thing now is that we are locked into an arrangement whereby the price to the consumer may very well be greater than it needs to be- again, because, as other speakers have said, of the greed of the Liberal government in literally going in and raping the resources of our petroleum and gas industries.
The truth of the matter is that most of the cost of these products to the consumer is there because primarily governments at both levels are taking a vast chunk of it. There is no use blaming private corporations, whether they are Canadian-owned or partly Canadian-owned, or wholly-owned subsidiaries of foreign companies, and say that they are the villains in the piece. We know who the villains are.


An hon. Member:: And so do the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on one other thing, and I appreciate my colleagues-
May 7, 1982


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, he will need the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: 1 am of course impressed with the courtesy shown by my friends. 1 realize that, as I do not have their absolute agreement, I must persuade them further.
Mr. Speaker, 1 want to end on this note-and it is not a happy note: I listened with interest to the speeches made by some of the ministers on the government side, and the line that is now being peddled is suddenly that Alsands and Cold Lake and the pipeline do not matter because there are all kinds of other things to do; that we can go ahead anyway.
Well, that was not the literature in 1978. That has not been the rhetoric in all of these years. Even a couple of months ago, when members of our party were asking ministers what was going to happen, those ministers were frantically trying to avoid having to say what they must have then known, that being that these megaprojects were in trouble. But they still continue to say, "It does not matter-we can reach selfsufficiency by 1990."
When we first came up and said-and our party was the first to do so-that Canada's goal should be self-sufficiency by 1990, that was in 1978 or 1977. The years are going by. We no longer have a decade to reach it; we have only a few years. The alarming thing is that, in the face of the evidence put before the government and members of Parliament by people who are knowledgeable of the petroleum industry, the government continues right through this debate to say, "It is okay; don't worry about it. It is just a little thing. We can still have energy self-sufficiency."
But listen to what the Petroleum Association of Canada said-and this is just recently:
Although the most secure position is to be self-sufficient, it is nevertheless our considered opinion that self-sufficiency cannot be achieved by the end of this decade under the present circumstances.
Well, my friends, this is an emergency debate. Let me assure all hon. members, and anyone who is listening, that we are facing an emergency. If we cannot achieve self-sufficiency, we are going to have a huge and increasing cost to make-up the deficit. Have honourable members forgotten that conventional oil sources are drying up; that the cost of offshore exploration is going to be very high? There is every indication that we will be importing at least 300,000 barrels per day, at prices that may well be very much higher than they are today, if we do not achieve oil self-sufficiency.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I make the suggestion that, first, the Government of Canada has to stop operating behind a veil of deceit on fundamental matters. Second, the Government of Canada has to start to realize, and to say that it realizes, that simply moving in and taking over is not going to solve the problem; it is not going to find barrels of oil. It certainly creates a terrible drain of Canadian capital-$7
billion and more has gone out, affecting everything that we are trying to do.
The last thing I leave as a suggestion to all hon. members is this: leave this debate with a sense of urgency, because what we are facing, if we do not smarten up, is going to be a very serious price in anguish and cost down the road-and that is not going to be very long from now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, during this emergency debate-a debate that has been brought to this House of Commons by our leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the Opposition-it is important to keep in mind why it is we are having this emergency debate, as well as the vision of our leader. If one takes a look at the issues in this House during this Parliament, one will realize that it has been, without question, his vision, his leadership, his ability to determine the issues that are important to Canadians that have made this Parliament meaningful.
There is no question in my mind that the emergency that we have today and that this House is debating is reflected in the emergency that is in the minds of Canadians. The obvious evidence is the death of Alsands and the postponement of the Alaska gas pipeline, but I believe that that visible emergency is reflected in the emergency in the minds of Canadians. And as I speak to Canadians, there is another emergency, and that is the emergency that Canadians have of the spirit. They do not know what is happening to their country, and they are deeply concerned about their country. They are deeply concerned that this government is destroying what was a good country. That is the emergency.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Some members on the opposite side might say that we have made all the points; that we do not have to make any more points. I happen to be, Mr. Speaker, I understand, the fiftieth member from our party to enter this debate; but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that members rise in this House and address the issues that are affecting their constituents; address the emergency that they are facing in their businesses, that they are facing on their farms, that they are facing in their homes. People are out of work, they are out of jobs, not because there is no work, but because of government policies-policies supported by the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: They are running out of oil, too.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the issue and that is the reality. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we have spent too much time on the Constitution. If that is the case, here is an emergency debate on the economy, on energy self-sufficiency, on the future of the country. Where are the Liberals?


An hon. Member:: One, two, three.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Where are they? Why do they not speak? Do the citizens of Quebec not have the same problems? All one has to

May 7, 1982
do is to take a look at what is happening in Quebec in terms of the deficit in that province and the increase in energy costs and provincial increases in taxation. Where are they? Where are the Liberal members from Quebec?


An hon. Member:: I am here.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Where are they?


An hon. Member:: Where were the PCs last night?
Mr. Epp Well, had you taken your shoes off, you would have got to twenty.


An hon. Member:: Clearly, we were here last night. Too bad you were not.


An hon. Member:: You cannot count.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The point, Mr. Speaker, is that Canadians today are hurting. Canadians are concerned and, at least in the part of the country that I come from, Canadians are angry. Canadians are angry, and that anger, though it is turned toward this government, that anger could also be translated, if it were allowed to continue, into an anger against the country. And that is the other emergency that this government has brought to the forefront of Canadian life.
They said that there was going to be energy self-sufficiency. The member for Durham-Northumberland today pointed out the manner in which our party had approached the question of energy self-sufficency, and it became part of our platform. It was adopted by the government. We do not mind that. In fact, when we take a look at their budget and their policies, we wish that they would adopt everything that we did-at least we would not be in the disastrous situation we are in.
Self-sufficiency was a dream. But, unlike many dreams, it was a realistic dream; it was an attainable dream. The goal could have been reached. The goal will not be reached by 1990. Every member of this House knows that. With the debacle that has been foisted on the Canadian people through the National Energy Program, through the last budget, we will not have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. I guess the only way we could reach it, Mr. Speaker, would be to have the economy go so flat that no one could afford to buy energy. In that scenario, I guess one could argue that we would get to energy self-sufficiency at some stage.
But energy self-sufficiency by 1990 was a realistic objective.
I have not been as long in this House as some, but I want to remind members of a federal-provincial conference under a former minister of energy, mines and resources. Some members here will remember Mr. Alistair Gillespie. At one stage he presented to the federal-provincial conference the projections for this government before the 1979 election on the megaprojects, on energy. Some members will remember that. I can remember the television lights, the drama, the production, the graphics, the flow charts. He had everything. Where are the results? Where are the results? Another myth.
For a long time, Canadians, had at least the understanding that the Liberal government, whatever good or bad it might have, knew how to manage, that it knew how to manage the economy.
Well, take a look, Mr. Speaker, at the managers opposite. Take a look at the managers. What managers! What mismanagement! What an economic disaster! They are just walking examples of mismanagement-and they know it.
The member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) said tonight that we should not spread hatred. I agree with him on that; but I want to tell him that there is a difference between hatred and anger. There is a difference where the Canadian people feel so deeply betrayed by the hon. member's party that they are legitimately angry with the government that he supports. There is a difference, I agree, to be angry because of a person's background or the region from which he or she might come; but they are legitimately angry in respect of what that party promised and the reality of what that party did once they had the security of the majority of this House again.


An hon. Member:: True, true; 100 per cent true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there was a certain person in the Soviet Union at one time who brought in NEP as well; it was known as the five-year plan, and it has been disastrous. When one looks at the Liberal Party, one finds fairly quickly that when they bring in a policy, they always have a carrot. It is the carrot-and-stick approach constantly. The carrot was what?-Canadianization. And everybody said, "Yes, we are in favour of Canadianization to buy back our economy". Yes, people are in favour of that, no matter what political party they support. But is it Canadianization, or is it nationalization?


An hon. Member:: Nationalization.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Government intervention. This is not Canadianization.


An hon. Member:: Stealing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If it were Canadianization, why did we not see in the last two budgets a process by which Canadians, ordinary Canadians, could invest yearly into the oil and gas industry and get some tax benefits therefrom? That is Canadianization. No, no. They want control, Mr. Speaker, and nationalization works with control. Canadianization where Canadians own does not give governments the ability to control. That is why they opted for nationalization, not Canadianization.
And consequently now, Mr. Speaker, they have killed the goose that was going to lay the golden egg. They have laid the egg now. But the fact remains that the objective of energy selfsufficiency has now been replaced by energy being seen as a major revenue source for the federal government. And now, as energy usage goes down, as the price of energy drops on world markets, the government cannot respond, because if they respond, they will see their revenues dropping still further.
May 7, 1982

They projected a $51 billion revenue increase for the federal government over the five year plan. Economists now, observers of the scene, will vary this but they will argue that that $51 billion could be ambitious by about $20 billion over the next five years. What happens to the deficit? What happens to the ability to invite investment in this country with those kinds of projections?
What is the investment climate like today? Do I really have to tell hon. members? Where is the confidence? We have discretionary decisions by government.
One thing the industry, which has to have a ten-year plan, cannot afford is for the rules to change periodically at the whim of government. They cannot afford to have investment. That is why we have Canadian investment in the Williston based in North Dakota. They say to Canadians, "Keep on having the National Energy Program, it is the best policy you can have for the United States". We have literally driven Canadian investment into the United States. That is what they are saying to us.
We talk about rule changes. That is why there is no investment confidence. We then come to constraint shares. The old energy supply bill, which has now been split into so many pieces no one knows anymore how many pieces are left on the floor of the House, talks about constraint shares.
I did not know what a constraint share was. I found out. A constraint share is a share owned by a non-Canadian in a company operating in oil and gas or having a share in a company that might invest in oil and gas in Canada. That share would be placed in a constraint share category. It could be sold without the individual exercising his or her rights and get the net proceeds. Why would anyone out of Canada want to invest in that kind of climate? Why should they? Why would they? That is the policy.
What is the cost? What is the cost in jobs? There are members in this House from every part of the country. When they go back to their constituencies, they find that jobs have been lost in the automobile industry and in the supply industry. The multiplier effect cannot be determined by anyone in this House. Jobs have been lost. Why? Because that party was so doctrinaire, following a doctrinaire principle, nationalization.


Mr. Gimaiei:: Which one?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Remember your speech.


Mr.   Gimai@: Are you afraid to work with the Americans?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think I have touched a raw nerve. I just advise that gentleman to read his own words which he expressed in the House.
The jobs that were there are gone. The lay-offs are a reality. What do we say to young Canadians looking for their first job? What happens to a young Canadian coming out of a university, trade school or high school who is looking for his or her first job and it is not there? What do we do for that young
person in terms of the country and his view of his own value and contribution to the country?
What happened to energy self-sufficiency? It is gone. What happened to the financial cost? I will give just one quick fact. My colleague from Edmonton quoted Mr. Lamont. A speech by Mr. Lamont, the managing partner, Richardson Securities of Canada, to the Winnipeg Society of Financial Analysts was reported in the Edmonton Journal of May 3. Mr. Lamont said:
We have been subsidizing the import of foreign oil out of the public purse to the extent of billions of dollars annually. One might as well pursue temperance by subsidizing the price of booze.
The cumulative cost is estimated at $14 billion U.S. or $17 billion Canadian- $17 billion is more than 20 per cent of our national debt-incurred to subsidize gasoline and fuel oil-indeed, the interest on the money we have borrowed to subsidize oil prices at 15 per cent is $2.5 billion annually, which was more than the entire budget of the province of Manitoba in 1981.
That is the financial cost. What about the cost to the oil industry?
I do not come from an area where there is oil and gas, but I had an opportunity to be in Saskatchewan for certain reasons over the last weeks during the recent campaign. I have been through the oil fields before. All of us have marvelled at the ability of Canadians to find oil in a place where you would think that all that is growing there is forests or wheat fields.
It is an eerie feeling to go outside of Swift Current to the little towns and see the oil wells shut down. They are not pumping. That is the cost.
Maybe members opposite do not come from those areas, but the cost is theirs as well. As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, we hide our head in the sand and say, "Let us import another 400,000 barrels today, again tomorrow and the day after." I want to speak on that.
The Liberal government and the Liberal Party, if you go through the historical record, have never placed a priority on western Canadian oil to be used across the country. Two conditions had to prevail. It was then they started waking up to the potential of western Canadian oil and frontier oil.
Let us go back to 1961. Albertans came here. Their knees were literally raw. They came on their hands and knees, trying to get the federal government to use western Canadian oil. They would not do it. Finally in 1961 there was an agreement that up to the Ottawa Valley line they would use western Canadian crude.
Today one of the Liberal members said we should share. Yes, we should share. I heard one of the NDP ministers in Manitoba the other day say that the problem in Canada today is that the blue suits should not own the resources. Should we all go cap in hand to this government and ask for a future from them? Hardly.
When offshore oil was threatened, this Liberal Party and government woke up to the reality of self-sufficiency for Canada. That was only when security of supply was threatened. They only woke up to that reality when the price of offshore oil was escalating so rapidly that they suddenly

May 7, 1982
thought they would be able to use western Canadian oil and save some money at home.
It has been interesting to watch. As the price of oil is dropping internationally, they are quite willing to continue going to Venezuela, Mexico and the Middle East to buy oil. However, they would not buy it from Alberta. They would not buy it from Saskatchewan. They will buy, but they talk of buying at certain prices.
Now they talk about sharing. Where were they sharing earlier? Where were they in 1905 when Saskatchewan and Alberta became provinces but were not deemed worthy to have their resources? Where were they then? Western Canadians were not considered mature enough or not good enough managers to have the same resources as the other provinces. That is the legacy of those opposite, and they have to live with it.
Then there is the NDP. My goodness, the NDP. Every time there is a proposal, what do they do? Roadblocks, fanned in the gears. They want to be forward looking, yes they do, but always in retrospect, always, "I told you so", always up front.
Let me tell you about the Mackenzie valley. The Mackenzie valley people lost jobs. Natives lost jobs. Why? Go into the Mackenzie valley. On the day Berger closed down the Mackenzie valley, natives had barges full of supplies in the hope that the pipeline would go down the Mackenzie. That is what the NDP supported.
Canada can have a great future, but it will not have a future and cannot have a future with this Liberal government's National Energy Program and its economic leadership, aided and abetted by its socialist friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see so many members in the House. I do not know how they knew I was about to speak. However, I am delighted they are in the House because maybe they might learn something. There have not been enough who have been listening to the brilliant speeches tonight and yesterday and the day before to learn something about what is happening to this country because the Alsands, Cold Lake and Judy Creek projects represent the disaster that this national energy policy is. It is an unmitigated disaster.
Yesterday the member from the Lone Star State came here telling us what was good about the energy policy. Not once in that speech did he mention the fact that the Alsands project had collapsed. He is running around, stumbling over the wreckage of his energy policy, not knowing what he should do and ignoring the fact that drilling activity has dropped 25 per cent, 40 per cent of the rigs have left the country, people have left the country.


An hon. Member:: They will come back.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says they will come back. Where has that member been? Take your head out of the sand and look at what happened in 1973. At that time it took four
years for the drilling activity to reach the same level as in 1973 when the disastrous policies of Donald Macdonald came in.
At that time drilling activity went down 10 per cent, not 25 per cent. The number of rigs went down 8 per cent, not the 40 per cent it has gone down this time. He should take his head out of the sand and try to learn what is happening.
Let me give another example of the head in the sand. This is very interesting to me. Tonight we had the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) before our committee. I asked him to tell us his perception and understanding of the effect of the collapse of Alsands.
He scratched his head, wiggled his jowls and said 200 jobs will be lost because 200 people will be laid off who are now on the project. He said there will be no balance of payments impact because the project will not be completed for eight years. He said there will be no effect on research and development activity because it is all a state of the art research, state of the art technology.
The man does not understand the impact of this project and the other projects that have gone before which have collapsed as a result of the program that his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) brought in a year and half ago.
I do not think hon. members opposite understand because the many speeches to which 1 have listened tonight and during the past few days have totally ignored the impact of this on the country.


An hon. Member:: I understand.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear an hon. member opposite indicating that he understands. That is a total admission of defeat. There is nothing we can do with these men. It was as a result of the stupidity, the bullheadedness and shortsightedness of one minister.
Let me turn to the reasons for the project being stopped. Hon. members of the Liberal Party have indicated that it was because of the oil glut, international economic problems and high interest rates. Supposedly these are the only reasons the Alsands project collapsed. They totally ignored the real reasons for the project collapsing. It was because private sector operators had no trust or confidence in the federal government. They were worried that the rug would be pulled out from under them later on and that the rules of the game would change again. These statements were made directly by private sector operators. They feared that the government did not trust the private sector and that it would change the rules again. They were worried about the future of the country. There were two other reasons. One was the fact that cash flows, the moneys going to finance the project, had been siphoned off over the past 1.5 years by the same government to satisfy its greed and need for money, money, money, because of its wild
May 7, 1982

spending over the past ten years. Another reason was the lack of confidence which is necessary on the part of someone moving into a project of this magnitude; it was just not present. I think it was the president of Shell who said that the time for this project was lost. It was lost about two years ago; that is the tragedy of the situation.
The real tragedy is that the Canadian public hear these reasons being given and they know that they are not true. This undermines the level of confidence and trust all Canadians have in their government.
I should like to refer to another illustration of deception of the Liberal government. I refer to the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that Arthur Erickson Associates would be the architects for the new embassy in Washington. The government is a master at deception. When we look at the press release of February 25, we get a good idea of what I am talking about. It indicated that 11 semi-finalists were chosen from some 300 finalists from across the country. From the 11 semi-finalists, four finalists were chosen. The Erickson firm was established as one of the 11 semi-finalists, but it was not named as one of the four finalists; it did not make the final round. The release from the office of the Prime Minister, the most senior political leader in the country, the man to whom people should look with trust and confidence for integrity-but there is no integrity or moral leadership there-indicated the following:
Mr. Erickson's firm was one of eleven finalists chosen from some 300 firms from across the country-
It was total deceit. There was no statement of who the finalists were, but we know from the panel of architects that Erickson was not one of the finalists. There was no mention that Mr. Erickson is a very good friend and strong supporter of the Prime Minister. There was no suggestion that that man was one of the finalists, which is another example of why people are losing trust in the political leaders of the country. This is one of the most serious things with which we must deal in our lives as politicians.
The loss of the Alsands project is a tragedy for many Canadians across the country. Two years ago we talked about the importance of getting this project moving because of its tremendous size and its impact in many, many communities such as Hamilton, Mississauga, Toronto and in a number of communities in Quebec which will be affected by the industrial spin-offs. We were concerned, if the project did not move ahead soon, that we would lose it. We said so on many occasions. I looked back at some of the speeches I made as energy critic. I was amazed by the concerns expressed to me, which I reflected in my speeches. At that time people felt that if the project did not go ahead, a project of this magnitude could be lost, and it has been lost. We should not be deceived for a minute by the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his colleagues in the Liberal Party who said that the reason the project was lost was what was happening today.
The project was lost two years ago, and that is the message which must go out to Canadian people. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said, people looked to members of the Liberal Party because they were good managers. This is
probably the best example of disastrous management of the country from which all Canadians are suffering.
We have talked about the importance of self-sufficiency for all communities in the country. We said, going back as far as 1977, that that should be a primary objective of any energy policy in the country. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources finally saw the light at the end of 1980 and included it as an objective in his energy policy. I should like to turn to some of the provisions of the National Energy Program which bear directly upon the tragedy of the loss of the Alsands project. It was pointed out in the National Energy Program that, currently, about 15 per cent of our oil requirements were satisfied from non-conventional sources, but that looked ahead ten years to 1990, the requirement from non-conventional sources will rise to 50 per cent. A full 50 per cent of our oil requirements will have to be met from projects like Alsands, Cold Lake and Judy Creek, the three major non-conventional projects which have been lost in the last few years. It will be almost impossible for us to come within 20 per cent of oil selfsufficiency by 1990. We hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say that they will bring on Beaufort and Hibernia and that they will get more conventional oil out of the ground in western Canada and that we will be self-sufficient by 1990. That man has his head in the sand. He does not understand the portfolio which he has been holding for the last two years, which is another tragedy we have to bear as Canadians. We will be importing 30 per cent, 40 per cent or possibly 50 per cent of our oil requirements by 1990. We will be exposed to the instability of the Far East and the problems there.
About two years ago, there was a debate in the House of Commons before the National Energy Program was brought in, drawing the attention of the government to the concern of many Canadians caused by over-reliance on imports. The loss of the Alsands project is throwing us more and more into the laps of the people who will sell us oil from offshore. The government has not learned from the past; it has not learned from the mistakes of others.
In 1970, Canadians were 100 per cent self-sufficient in oil and the Americans were 75 per cent self-sufficient. In 1980 we dropped to 75 per cent and the Americans dropped to 50 per cent. Suddenly the light went on down in the United States and the Americans realized that they had a crisis on their hands. They realized that they had to take enormously expensive and disruptive steps to move themselves back to a more secure position. What has the government learned from this? It has not learned from the mistakes of the Americans over the past few years. The minister talks about it and points to the fact that he does not want to have it happen in this country, but he leads us right down the road toward the same thing happening. In 1990 we will have lost about 65 per cent of the non-conventional oil upon which the minister had counted in his energy policy a short 18 months ago. That is another tragedy which we are facing today. It is another reason for all Canadians to be very, very concerned.

May 7, 1982
When I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question concerning this matter, he did not even reflect upon the fact that the Canadian manufacturing industry would be more and more exposed to offshore supplies of crude oil.
I have a letter in my file from a manufacturer who said that within reason he could handle any cost for oil because he knew that we were competing with the United States, our main competitor. He indicated that if we could keep somewhere within reason of the price of oil which Americans had to pay- and we are satisfied with 85 per cent-that it was all right, but what he could not live without or operate without was oil. He indicated that he must have oil, that he had to have that energy. He also said that the government should put its priority on security of supply, and that price should come second. Those were the opinions of a manufacturer from the Toronto area who owns a company which has operations in Quebec and in other part of Ontario. Security of supply was the number one problem which he was facing. He was concerned about the viability of his company and the possibility of his company providing jobs for people.
Now I should like to comment upon the document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s".


René Cousineau: You had better speak louder.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would not want to wake up the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson).


Mr. Ferguson:: I am listening.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the hon. member should rise on a point of order and apologize for snoring during my speech.
Turning to the document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s" and the section entitled "Looking Forward-The Development Opportunities" the key opportunities which the document identified was the development of our natural resources, in particular energy and energy-based industries. It referred to the massive investment required and the cost over which the Prime Minister stumbled today. He thought it was $200 billion, but it is $440 billion according to this document. These costs are predominantly in the energy and resource areas. That is the fundamental keystone of the economic development of the government. The document also pointed out, quite rightly, the important link between resource development-I hope my colleagues on the left are listening- and the development of our manufacturing industry. The ability to supply these important projects is what has built our manufacturing industry, and it will continue to be an important source of jobs and technology. Those are the two key elements of the economic development plan put forward by the government, and we have lost the core with the cancellation of these projects.
The hon. member for Perth referred to a document put out two or three years ago by the government, listing some 25 or 26 projects, all but seven of which have been cancelled. That is
the tragedy of this government's policies which we will be struggling to recover from for a number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but since the time allotted to him has expired he will need unanimous consent to continue. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just have a few closing comments.
I have tried to listen carefully to the members opposite to see if they had a strategy to revive some of these projects or turn in other directions to develop our economy. I was wondering whether they felt it was too late to revive some of these projects-not the Cold Lake project, I know that is dead- which are in a long-term hold position. Are they considering alternatives? What plans have they to revive the economy? That is critically important when we have close to 1.5 million people out of work. When you look at the state of the economy today you see those people have been effectively excommunicated from our economic life because it is hard to find a job. We have all heard that many times over from people who come into our offices or call us up asking for help. That is the importance of moving ahead and restoring economic growth.
I was looking for some flexibility on the part of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to make some changes in the NEP to show us he recognized the folly of his ways, and that he understood he made some enormous mistakes in October, 1980. He talks about frontier oil and conventional sources, but they will not be developed unless there is some cash flow. He has to reduce his tax take. If not, we will not see those projects develop. That is the challenge, and the government has to make those changes. We in the Conservative Party are prepared to meet those challenges. We would make the changes to bring the industry back on-stream to the point of being an important source of economic growth. We understand the problems and we know there has to be flexibility. We are prepared also to look at some of the other changes in the energy program which have undermined confidence and trust in government.
I say to the government that it is far more important for the people of this country to bite the bullet now, recognize the mistakes, make the changes, and if it requires the resignation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), so be it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of the debate I would like to respond to some of the remarks made, in particular by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), about my party and its approach to the government and his party. I hope the hon. member is present to take in what I have to say. The first thing concerns the defeat of the Progressive-Conservative government on December 13, 1979. One of the first things we learn about maturity is that we take responsibility for our actions and for what happens to us. If the hon. member is sick
May 7, 1982

and tired of hearing the NDP saying things he finds unpleasant to hear, then I must say to him I am sick and tired of hearing the Progressive-Conservative Party trying to blame their defeat on everyone but themselves.
They were not defeated on December 13, 1979; they were defeated on February 18, 1980. They had a chance to go to the people and make their case. I do not take sides between the Liberals and Conservatives on this; all 1 say is, "For God's sake, grow up and realize you contributed to your own defeat in as many ways as anyone else did. I think you sound childish when you go about the country blaming your defeat on the NDP, or anyone else for that matter." 1 think the promises made by the Liberal Party in that election were false, misleading, and 1 regret those tactics.


John Allen Fraser: You were prepared to let them be misleading.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You can search through my campaign literature and you will not find any reference to the 18 cents because I did not think that was the kind of thing an election should be fought over. 1 see the members are not responding to my invitation to maturity; they still want to dump the responsibility for their defeat on the shoulders of the NDP. It does not do you any good. You are just doing a disservice to yourself when you try and pin your defeat on us.


David Kilgour: What about the Constitution? Second-class citizens from the west.


John Allen Fraser: What about the amending formula?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South when he spoke about the bad relations between Canada and the U.S. as a result of the NEP. I want to respond to the implication that whatever caused bad relations between the U.S. and Canada is somehow to be deplored on principle. This confirms what I have thought for some time to be the case, that the Conservative Party, as presently constituted, has drifted a long way from the days of John Diefenbaker when he was not unwilling to suffer the wrath of the United States on matters of principle. But we now see the defeat of that admirable element in the Conservative Party and the triumph of the continentalists and the neo-conservatives, who would do anything to please the United States because they have this ideological affinity with Ronald Reagan and others. That is a shame because I think that was an honourable political tradition in that party. That tradition has been sold out, and George Grant's "Lament for a Nation" turns out to be justified after all, at least if we take the Conservative Party as representative of that political tradition in Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A socialist with a watch fob. I do not believe it. I never saw a socialist with a watch fob.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The hon. member for Vancouver South also mentioned the opposition-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Do you have a money clip too?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -of the Progressive Conservative Party to big government, and I would like to remind hon. members that when it comes in particular to the Alaska gas pipeline-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Have you got cufflinks?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I see I have managed to so irritate the members on my right-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I notice that the members of the Conservative Party have had to resort to ad hominum arguments which you learn in first-year philosophy are fallacious arguments.


Mr. Bosley:: In this case they are very timely.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are making remarks about my $99 suit which I got-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That much? You were robbed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, if hon. members would permit, I would like to go on. I am trying to talk about the Alaska gas pipeline and relate that to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South about his party's opposition to big government and government by decree. Let me remind hon. members of the Conservative Party that it was the New Democratic Party which forced the government to bring the issue of the prebuild before Parliament. It is a New Democrat member of Parliament who is fighting the legality of that order in council in the courts of this land, not the Conservative party. They only fight orders in council which they do not happen to like. And they go around the country trying to give the impression that these orders in council are something quite out of the ordinary. I happen to agree with many members that the government is far too secretive-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -and lacks respect for democracy. We were as opposed as hon. members on my right to the VIA rail cuts. We tried our best to stop them. There are things that we have in common. I think that we could in this country develop an intelligent, coherent criticism of the way in which these guys over here are abusing democracy, if hon. members on my right would stop trying to use something which deserves a lot of public attention for sheer political purposes. That is what is going on. Because you lump that issue in with a whole bunch of others and go about western Canada in particular stirring up a kind of hysteria about these things, you do a disservice to the very issues that you want to get at. That is all I am saying. If you want to debate with me about that, that is fine, but do not just shout.

May 7, 1982
What happened with the Alaska gas pipeline? Well, what happened was that the Liberals trusted the Americans and the Tories trusted the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Never. Never.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is what happened with the Alaska gas pipeline.


An hon. Member:: You voted with them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They voted with them. The Tories should at least have the decency to say that at this point it looks as if they may have made a bad judgment. As to us in the NDP, it looks as if we may have made a good judgment. But we may yet be wrong. We hope to be wrong, because we want that pipeline to be built.
But the Tories could at least have the intellectual honesty to say, "Hey, you know, we thought that these guarantees were strong enough, that we were willing to vote for the prebuild, and now it seems they weren't." But they do not have the honesty to get up and do that.


An hon. Member:: They won't.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Alsands project-


An hon. Member:: Are you for it or against?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When it comes to the Alsands project, 1 think it may well be the case that had it proceeded some time ago, either as a private enterprise or a public enterprise, it would have had a better chance of being economically viable. I do not think anyone would argue with that. Part of the problem, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, is that the Liberal government is trying to play both sides of the fence in the public versus private debate in this country when it comes to energy.


An hon. Member:: That is your game.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What it does, Madam Speaker, is that it ends up doing neither very well. It ends up postponing things because it cannot find out just how to play both sides of the fence all at once. 1 think that has been a very harmful strategy. It has done harm to these two megaprojects, whether one likes them or does not like them, and it has done a lot of other harm.
I say, Madam Speaker, that at the point at which the private corporations were unable or unwilling to do it, even given the concessions provided to them by the governments involved, it would be wise to re-evaluate the economic viability of these projects. That seems to me to be the first order of business once you notice that corporations like this are unwilling to go ahead, given the provisions which were provided for them by the various governments. I do not think there is anything that hon. members would contest in that particular observation.
I think this is an opportunity, however unfortunate, to rethink the expectations that we all put into megaprojects and into the development of our resources as the singular way in which we wish to bring health back to the Canadian economy.
We in the NDP have been criticized for not really caring about megaprojects-and we make no apologies, Madam Speaker, for not having a dogmatic position on megaprojects. I think the Progressive Conservatives have a dogmatic position when it comes to megaprojects, and that position is that they will have megaprojects at any cost.


Some hon. Members:: That is not right.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is what we hear coming forward from the Progressive Conservative Party, and 1 think that is a form of dogmatism.


An hon. Member:: With a Conservative government, they would have been financially viable.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Our position is quite clear, it seems to me, Madam Speaker. We thought that if Alsands was to go ahead, with substantial public money involved, then such support should have meant equivalent equity in the project for the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: It did.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is all. But we do not think that the collapse of Alsands is the end of the world, and I do not think anybody here really thinks that either. It is not the end of the world, but it should be the end of the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is what the collapse of the megaprojects should be. It should be the end of the Liberals, because it is they who have put all of their eggs in that one basket, and it is they who have led the Canadian people to believe that these projects were the answer to all of our problems. And they are not.
I remember as well as anyone else, even though I was not a member of the House at the time, Alastair Gillespie on the National News pointing out all of the megaprojects as if Nirvana was just around the corner once we laid some pipe in the Mackenzie Valley. Canadians have come to know that that just is not the case. It is about time the Liberals caught up with them.
These projects, Madam Speaker, would have created many jobs-and it is a sad thing for all of those Canadians who have lost job opportunities because of the collapse of these projects. But unemployment in this country is not just related to the collapse of these projects; it is related to the fact that we do not have an economic strategy which tries to develop our manufacturing sector; we do not have an economic strategy which tries to negotiate with multinationals jobs for markets; and it is related to the fact that we do not have an economic strategy which looks beyond the "quick-fix" of megaprojects for job creation.


May 7, 1982

We need in this country, Madam Speaker, to develop an economy in which people have long-term sustainable employment, and in terms of energy development, this means looking beyond the ideology of megaprojects-which I think in some respects all political parties in this country share-looking beyond the ideology of megaprojects to the long-term sustainable development of renewable energy sources, alternative and appropriate technologies, and conservation.
That, Madam Speaker, is where the future lies, whether we are willing to admit it or not at this point in time. I heard a Liberal member this afternoon say, "Just think what we could do with all of the money that the government was willing to spend on Alsands if we put it into conservation." He said that the money that the government was willing to spend on Alsands would be better spent on the development of jobs that will not disappear but which will continue into a meaningful future. I wish that that were the kind of thing that this government would actually consider doing. But 1 think the member this afternoon was just being frivolous.
As I said in a speech I made on energy in this House just a couple of weeks ago, I think that the fight between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this is a family fight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sidney James Parker: They represent the same people.


An hon. Member:: Be original. We have heard that before.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Let me finish. It is a family fight within a certain energy model. I have already admitted that-and I think hon. members have to acknowledge this-that, to a certain extent, all of us are bound by a certain energy model, a model that has preoccupied our vision for some time now. But I like to think that we in the NDP are moving ahead of this model and thinking about alternatives. All of us, Madam Speaker, have to rethink our approach to mega projects. We have to think of the harm that so many of them in the past- and so many of them in the future, if we do not rethink our way of doing them-the harm that they have done to the environment, the harm that they have done to our future, and the harm that they have done to our view of human life, for that matter. By this I mean that too often the debate in this House about energy centers exclusively on how we can look after ourselves. We do not-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am your twin. You should know Edmonton-Strathcona, with respect, because you are twinned to my riding.


An hon. Member:: I bet she has never been there.


An hon. Member:: What is your point of order?


David Kilgour: How long does the member intend to speak if we give him an extension?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: There is no unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: We did not ask those who preceded him how long they would be in the event of an extension. Go ahead.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I think I have unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was about to say that we do not think enough in a global context-or, for that matter, in the context of the future. We think only of ourselves, and we encourage the Canadian people to think only of themselves and of their shortterm interests as far as energy is concerned.
I know this is a difficult thing for all politicians to do, because we all have to face an election every four years-or sometimes more often than that. It is difficult to go to the Canadian people and say, "Listen, we have some very difficult and also ethical problems when it comes to the development of energy in this country and in the world." But 1 think it is something that we have to do. Nevertheless, if there is to be a transition to a different energy future, people will have to be protected, especially those who can least afford whatever the expenses of the transition are to be. Higher prices-


An hon. Member:: That was a Tory policy. It was defeated by you, fellows.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am getting to that. Higher prices right now represent the only transition. The Liberals have done nothing to shelter those who are hit the hardest. In this respect, conceptually, the Tory energy tax credit was a good thing.


An hon. Member:: But you voted against it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I give you that. I do not think that it would have been enough by itself, but it was not a bad idea. It was not a bad idea, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What about 18 cents-it was not a bad thing. It would have been better than 78 cents.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, we have to move beyond an energy strategy centred on trying to squeeze out the last bit of non-renewable energy before we get serious about renewable energy and conservation. It is self-defeating and irresponsible to continue in this way. I think Canadians are way ahead of all
17150

May 7, 1982
of us on this, and I think it is about time that we started to tell them some of the difficult truths. I think they are prepared to listen.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam
Speaker, I am happy that I am able to participate in a small way in this debate, but it is rather saddening that we even have to have this debate. It seems to me that-I am very pleased to see that we now have four Liberals in the House. For most of this evening we had none and then we had one, and now there are three. Unfortunately, there has not been a cabinet minister here all evening.
1 think it is sad that we have to have this debate. The governing party has put all of its eggs in one basket. As they have dribbled away parts of our economy left, right and center, they have always said, "But wait, here come the megaprojects. That will pick up the slack."
And now, with a flush, down the toilet go the megaprojects.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) had some interesting comments to make. They might have been valid. 1 particularly liked the one in which he indicated that Progressive Conservative Party members only fight against orders in council which they do not like. 1 have never heard of anyone fighting against orders in council which they like, even in his party.
The hon. member has said that our party is convinced on megaprojects whereas his party-granted not the NDP in Alberta-is dead against megaprojects. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) spoke in the negative about megaprojects.
I do not think it can be said that the Conservative Party is in favour of megaprojects just for the sake of megaprojects. They have to be profitable megaprojects. They must have a return.
One thing that has to be taken into consideration is the number of jobs they provide, the energy that will be provided to the country so that we do not have to depend upon foreign sources. Some of these megaprojects would have been nice had they gone ahead rather than just depended on hope and prayer, as we must now.
It is interesting to note that the megaprojects were outlined so well by Mr. Robert Blair of Nova Corporation and Shirley Carr, vice-president of the CLC, in their documented paper of the 40 megaprojects that will take place in Canada.
At the time it was said that it was a classic example of how the labour movement and the capitalist entrepreneurs could work together to define what the projects would be. There was a lot of hope pinned on those. It is sad now to see that the first, second, third and fourth of those projects are going down the tube. The reason is government greed on taxation, wanting more money to try to fill its depleted coffers because it has spent so much money foolishly in this country.
We should point out the history of Canada and the way we have treated our oil industry over the years. It has really been pathetic.
Let us talk about Imperial Oil. My friends of the Liberal party west, the little pink rump of the big red machine, always knock Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil started out as a Canadian company. It drilled its first well in Petrolia back in 1888. It was a Canadian company. Under the Liberals, it was sold to the Americans in 1937.
British American Oil Company was another integrated Canadian-owned oil company. It was sold under the Liberals in 1947. It subsequently changed its name to Gulf in 1964, again under the Liberals.
The third integrated Canadian oil company, White Rose, Canadian Oil Company, was sold under the Liberals in 1965 to Shell. Subsequent to that, they allowed Supertest to go to BP in 1970. The list goes on.
We had a Canadian oil company. The reason Standard New Jersey picked up Imperial is that they then marketed the name "Imperial" in all the Commonwealth countries around the world. It is still using that word. They took that name from a Canadian oil company which the Liberals allowed to be sold to foreigners.
In 1979, Alastair Gillespie, the previous energy minister, was so anxious that he ran to Venezuela through the Canadian Commercial Corporation to buy more oil for PetroCan. He went to Mexico and signed contracts for heavy oil, not the light isthmus crude which the eastern refineries need.
The Canadian refineries in eastern Canada cannot use this oil. It has to be converted. Now there is talk of $100 million just to convert this oil which, unfortunately, we are contracted into by the Liberal administration of the time. The list of Mr. Gillespie indicates that megaprojects were going to supply some 70,000 direct jobs in Canada and 255,000 indirect jobs in Canada, over 320,000 jobs. At a time when we have 1.5 million unemployed under a similar Liberal administration, would it not be nice to have some of those 320,000 jobs?
Those jobs were to include the Dempster pipeline, 6,000 direct jobs and 26,000 indirect jobs. It was cancelled. The Alaska highway gas pipeline, 13,000 direct jobs and 55,000 indirect jobs, is delayed. The Polar gas project was cancelled. Tennaco LNG project was cancelled. The Alsands project was cancelled. The Syncrude expansion was cancelled. The Cold Lake project was cancelled. The oil storage project in Waba-nex was cancelled.
The megaprojects, which were so important to previous Liberal governments, raised the hopes of Canadians. There was to be something for us in the way of jobs and energy selfsufficiency. That has all been lost through the mismanagement of the economy by the present government and by the lack of respect for people with initiative, Canadians who want to invest. We find small Canadian companies formed in Alberta and British Columbia, some on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Their major investment is in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas.
May 7, 1982

That is where they are going to search for oil. They are taking Canadian rigs with them.
The Canadian government fooled the Canadian people deceitfully in the election of 1979-80. They said they would have budgetary restraint. We have had $14 billion deficits every year since. They said they would lower interest rates. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) pledged that he would quit his job if they did not lower interest rates. Interest rates have gone up and he has not quit his job.
They said they would have lower prices than the 18 cents that the NDP voted for. We now have increases of 78 cents in taxes, not 18 cents. They said they would renew employment, encourage Canadians to expand job opportunities in this country. Instead of having six months of declining unemployment, as we had with the Clark administration, we have had unemployment go up. We now have almost 1.5 million unemployed in this country. They said we would have oil selfsufficiency. Now we are told we are not going to have oil selfsufficiency unless, through hope and prayer, they can bring in Hibernia, Beaufort and a number of other projects which we do not have the technological skills to bring onstream.
This government has failed this country and the people of this country with their interest rate policy, their employment policy. All they have done is to create unemployment. They have failed this country and the people of this country with their program of restraint. They have failed at reducing the deficits and they have failed in bringing us oil self-sufficiency. We have been waiting. Now we find everything has gone, all the hope we had with the announcement that Alsands and the Alaska pipeline are cancelled, delayed or postponed.
It is unfortunate that we are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs. It is important to note that it is not just jobs in Alberta and the Yukon, British Columbia or Saskatchewan. Fifty per cent of those jobs will be in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) are supporting a government which will cost thousands of jobs to the underemployed steel companies in Hamilton such as Stelco and Dofasco. They sit quiet. They do not participate. Yet they will vote in support of something that will cost their area thousands of jobs.
We have had a debate which has gone on very long. It has been important for the Canadian public to try to understand how much they have been deceived. We in Canada have been deceived. The present administration has deceived us with regard to interest rates, unemployment, restraint, reduced deficits and oil self-sufficiency. They have deceived us on megaprojects. They have not negotiated in good faith.
They have not left anything for the private sector in the way of return until, perhaps, far too late. They have killed the projects. In a sort of macabre way, it is like an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Picture a scene in which members of the cabinet come in darkness because there is no light in the cabinet. They are standing around like zombies, staring at the cadavre on the
operating table. The pathologist is dissecting the cadaver, which is the National Energy Program. Behind the zombies are those who are even more dead. They are the skeletons, the backbenchers, who just sit there silently as the operation goes on.
The death of Alsands and the postponement of the Alaska highway gas pipeline have indeed been a sad blow. I hope the people of Canada come to realize they have been deceived. I hope they come to understand that we have lost thousands of job opportunities. Indeed, it has been unfortunate that this debate has been necessary. It really is sad that Canada has lost all these opportunities.
This is a country which has every reason to have every hope. We have all the potential in the world. Properly managed, we would not have to cancel the megaprojects. We would have those thousands of jobs. That would mean fewer people on unemployment insurance and fewer people on welfare. There would be more Canadians with a sense of self-satisfaction because they were working to enhance our country.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We could sure use some rest.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might think differently after he hears what I have to say. I have an offer to make to members which I think will be difficult if not impossible to refuse. We have now been debating for 38 and a half hours an urgent situation. I believe it is time, and we might find general disposition, that the debate be concluded.
If the members on the government side and in the New Democratic Party are disposed to agree unanimously that I wind up the debate, we are prepared to do that. In other words, I will be the last speaker in the debate. If there is a disposition in the House and if the House were accordingly to make such an order, I would be prepared to speak now.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Cousineau: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member needs unanimous consent. If he is the last speaker, he is the last speaker as far as the orders of the day are concerned.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, let me point out on my point of order that Standing Order 26 provides that so long as a member rises to speak in the debate, he must be heard. There is no limit to the debate. 1 am suggesting to the House that if there is a disposition to wind up the debate now, if consent is given that I be the last speaker and that there be no further speakers, and if that is made an order of the House, we are prepared to stop the debate at this point.


George Albert Proud: I do not want to speak for my colleagues who may or may not come into the Chamber, but I doubt that

May 7, 1982
there will be other speakers from this side. I cannot speak for the other party, but I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) needs unanimous consent. The Standing Orders indicate that as long as an hon. member is seeking the floor, he may be heard. I do not think my colleagues will make me lose face if I say that I do not think there will be any speakers on this side of the House. I do not know why the hon. member is seeking the unanimous consent of the Elouse, but I will listen to the comments he makes.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite might wish to discuss it among themselves, but I am making an offer to wind up the debate. I am attaching the suggestion to the offer that if the House is agreeable that I be the last speaker in the debate, we are prepared to stop it. If there is not unanimous consent, the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) will carry on the debate. We have other speakers on this side who are prepared to do the same thing.


Mr. Dingwall:: Would the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) indicate to the House how long he wishes to speak for?


Erik Nielsen: I will speak for 20 minutes and then I am in the hands of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to wind up the debate and that there will be no further speakers. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Albert Proud: No.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: There is no unanimous consent?


George Albert Proud: I distinctly said "no". I am sure there will be no further speakers from this side.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Be reasonable.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have no notes prepared for my speech, but I have some very, very deep feelings with regard to this matter. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) presented to my colleagues across the House and on my left a very reasonable proposition. I assure the House that there are many hon. members behind me who are willing to participate in the debate. This is just about the same time I came into the House two nights ago and sat through until morning. Thus, 1 have an early start tonight and, if my voice holds out, I am quite prepared to stay a lot longer.
The majority of the speakers we have heard so far have driven home with great clarity the problems the National Energy Program has caused in this great land of ours.
I wish I had the eloquence to deliver with the same passion and the same emotion the points made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) when, at about 5.30 in the morning two days ago, he rose in his place and in a voice charged with emotion told everyone listening exactly what was
wrong with the National Energy Program. I do not have his eloquence; I will not try to repeat his words. I recall shortly thereafter how the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) pointed out to hon. members in the House at that time that it was not just Alberta which was being hurt by the machinations of government. Rather, he listed a number of firms in his riding and clearly gave indication of the harm which was being done to them.
Were I to take a moment, I could give an equal number of firms in Prince Edward-Hastings which are also being hurt, simply because this stubborn block-headed government does not want to deal honestly with Canadians. I could deal with firms throughout the entire province of Ontario. I have the singular honour of representing the caucus of Ontario when we meet, and I can say that every hon. member from Ontario on the Conservative side of the House could refer to instances wherein firms have been hurt by the actions of the government.
I should like to refer to one example. Earlier this year the uncaring government gave away to a firm in Japan something in the order of 380,000 to 400,000 man-days of work which could have been performed by a firm in the city of Belleville, which is in my riding and has been my home for the past 30-odd years. Over the last three or four days, in meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport, I have placed upon the table irrefutable evidence, which was not once properly refuted by the chairman of the National Harbours Board who was a witness before the committee. He did not refute the fact that technically, competitively and promptly a Canadian firm could have provided the necessary equipment for the Ridley Coal handling facility. I proved, to the satisfaction of all who sat on the committee-but perhaps not to the satisfaction of the chairman of the National Harbours Board-that this Canadian company could have built these units. This firm has built 20 to 25 of these units throughout the world. It is presently completing one slightly south of the Ridley terminals in British Columbia. It is completing four in South Africa and is bidding competitively on others in South America. Recently it provided a similar piece of equipment to Korea, in competition with its cheap labour and its policies. In fact, I proved that its bid was technically and in other ways superior, yet the callous, uncaring government opposite awarded the contract to a firm from Japan, taking away jobs from Canadians.
I should like to relate a few facts. Had the job been allotted to the Canadian company, it would have been 96.5 per cent Canadian in production and 100 per cent Canadian in engineering. The Japanese company indicated that it will provide 52.8 per cent Canadian content, but that same Japanese company promised two years ago to provide something over 60 per cent Canadian content in the Burrard floating dry dock which was supplied to Vancouver harbour. This firm has not spent a single red cent or even a yen in Canada on that project. I do not know why we should believe that it will at this time. In fact, I suspect that there is not a snowball's chance that it will
May 7, 1982

spend that amount of money in Canada this time. I would like to go into a little more detail on that particular project, but I do not think it is necessary.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is a reasonable individual. I think he has been completely misled by his staff and his public servants, because he stood in the House and said that the whole project would be some 85 per cent Canadian, and the remaining bid on that project went overseas to Europe. Less than a week ago another part of the same project, a contract worth over $7 million in steel pipe, was given to Japan. I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would agree that the Steel Company of Canada could manufacture steel pipe of a nature which will carry the highest pressures in gas and oil. I am sure he will agree that it should have had a chance to bid on this, but the specifications for the pipe were purposely made in such a way that no Canadian company could bid on it. Is it not surprising that the specifications for the pipe just happened to be exactly the same specifications as that which could be provided by the firm in Japan?
As a result another $7-odd million worth of work, which could have gone to Canadians, went to this Japanese firm. This work will be paid for by Canadians. It will be paid for by the taxes of Madam Speaker, by my taxes and, more importantly, the taxes of millions of Canadians. I have nothing against the Japanese. They are a fine and industrious people, but had the project been in Japan, no Canadian would have been given an opportunity to bid on it, never mind supply it or supply it at a higher price. This is what is happening with our uncaring government. The government cares little about Canadians. It takes the taxes of Canadians and spends them in a prolific, wanton and cavalier manner.
As I was entering the chamber this evening, I heard the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) very completely covering the subject concerning the architect from Vancouver who, not on the choice of those who were put in the position of choosing the architect for the new Canadian embassy in Washington, but because he was a friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was chosen for the job. I suppose I must say, "Thank God, at least he was not Japanese; at least he is a Canadian." Perhaps that is some consolation, but it gives an idea of the way in which the government treats Canadians with disregard.
1 am sure a number of my colleagues wish to speak in this debate tonight. I have used up just about all my time, but before returning to my seat, I suggest to hon. members opposite that there are many, many more members who want to participate. After all, it is only 1.45 in the morning. We could continue through the remainder of the night until dawn tomorrow. A number of my colleagues and I sat through the night and saw the sun rise Wednesday morning; I suppose we could sit through until the sun rises on Friday morning. Perhaps in so doing we might get across a message to the unfeeling government that we are no longer prepared to be walked over, stomped on or to have our Canada, this Canada
we love so much, trampled into the ground by a government which has lost all sense of care, of dignity and of reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I participated this afternoon in a seminar on parliamentary reform, and one subject discussed at length was why this institution does not work in representing Canadians. It is a subject which can be discussed for hours, but if I needed an example I could not have provided a better one than that which occurred approximately 15 minutes ago. That is the kind of tragedy which sees members opposite assuming that the issue of an emergency debate on the economic future of our people is one with which you play parliamentary games.
Last night and again tonight the members opposite have shown that it does not matter if $50 billion of investment goes down the drain. It does not matter if an energy program destroys the economic future of an entire region. It does not matter if my province loses every day because of programs which led to the collapse of Alsands. It does not matter to members opposite if that causes lay-offs numbering in the thousands. I suppose if you sit here all the time under the bright lights where you do not feel an energy shortage, where you just cannot have any feeling for the problem in a place as insulated as this environment, you can and do lose a sense of what is happening on the streets. I think perhaps this has happened to a number of members opposite.
The collapse of these projects is important because they represented what the government said was a way out of the economic malaise confronting Canada. In good times we could afford the loss of a project, even one as big as this one, but in bad times we cannot afford the loss of any projects. What do you say to a young student who comes in to your office, having been laid off from a company which closed because it makes products related to oil development, and now has no work? This student spent the last six months educating himself to become a computer programmer in a school which has the greatest single track record for placing students in jobs after graduation. How do you respond when he says he was laid off because of the collapse of these energy projects? He went to the best school he could go to and he cannot find work after being on the streets for eight weeks. There is no work, even for those who have taken the time and trouble to help themselves and Canada. All this because we have a government which plays parliamentary games during what has been the longest emergency debate in this House.
Madam Speaker, I am advised by way of a note that there has been an agreement in this matter. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to contribute for even a few minutes.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions which will enable the Chair to consider the provisions of Standing Order 26(13) when I have concluded my remarks.

May 7, 1982


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, since I do not have the book-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please state his point of order briefly?


George Albert Proud: Exactly. The hon. member for Yukon stated that at the end of his remarks you may read Standing Order 26(13). Unfortunately I do not have my book here, and knowing how able the gentleman is-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: That is not a point of order. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would resume his seat.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, on the point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: I do not recognize the hon. member on a point of order. I would appreciate it if he took his seat. If the hon. member wishes to consult the rule book, I am sure the Table would be pleased to accommodate him.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I am on a point of order!


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: If I recognize the hon. member on a point of order, I would be happy if he would state it briefly.


George Albert Proud: I say again that the hon. member for Yukon is asking you to put to the House Standing Order 26(13) once he finishes his remarks. I do not have the book here, and if I go to the Table, he will already have started his speech. You understand what I am trying to say? The hon. member asked for unanimous consent a moment ago, and I want to know-


William James Kempling: You have it upside down, Marcel.


George Albert Proud: I therefore agree that he can speak, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I think perhaps we are all getting a little bit weary, Madam Speaker.
As I started to say, the tragic truth is that no matter what motion comes before the House from this side, regardless of the terms in which it is couched, they all add up to one single sentiment expressing the deepest feelings of Canadians from coast to coast. That feeling can be summed up in the words: this government must go!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is what Canadians are saying from coast to coast, and that is a summation of every motion which will be forthcoming from this side of the House until that event, which Canadians from all walks of life are longing for, takes place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Canadians want the removal of the most incompetent, arrogant, isolated, and the most power-hungry
government in modern history. The latest example is Alsands, a $15 billion project which would have provided some 50,000 jobs. The shelving of the Alaska highway gas pipeline deprives the economy of a further $40 billion.
I want to stop here for a moment because all but one of the NDP members sitting here today were not in this House when that measure wended its way through the committee and House process.


Mark Willson Rose: All of them.


Erik Nielsen: No, all of them were not. The member who just interjected was here, but the others were not. The NDP position in committee and all stages in the House was one of ferocious opposition to that pipeline. I am going back not to the prebuild, but back to the very inception of the pipeline itself. They ferociously opposed that bill in all its stages, accusing the Liberal government of the day of a huge sell-out, likening it to the 1956 pipeline and accusing the government of selling out to the Texas barons and so on. So they cannot change their position now. They cannot say they were for the original pipeline concept, because they were not. Well, there was one, the executive assistant to the leader of the NDP at that time. He is now the leader of the Opposition in Yukon, Mr. Penikett. He is for the pipeline, always has been, a position diametrically opposed to his federal colleagues.


Mark Willson Rose: So are we, with guarantees.


Erik Nielsen: The gentleman says he is for it now.


Mark Willson Rose: With guarantees.


Erik Nielsen: But not when it was going through the committee and through the House. His party's position at the federal level is diametrically opposed to that of the NDP Leader in Yukon, who happens to be the national president of the hon. member's party. It seems to me you fellows should get your act together.
Last Tuesday the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in an unwanted burst of frankness, used the word "collapsed" with respect to these projects. That was exactly the right word. It was not the project alone which collapsed, but confidence in the government, which in turn brought about a collapse of the project. It was not the decision of the private sector. The uncertain and erratic financial policy of the government brought about internationally and in Canada a climate of uneasiness in which investors were unwilling to continue. The bottom line was that trust and confidence in the government and its policies was found wanting, and it is the government which must bear the responsibility for those disastrous policies which have created that disastrous and deteriorating economic climate and for failing to produce alternative policies when their hopes in the megaprojects came tottering down.
While the major responsibility is that of the government, that does not detract from the nauseating and hypocritical
May 7, 1982

performance put on this week by the NDP. From the beginning their attitude has brought opposition to Alsands on the grounds that it was a giveaway to private industry. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has not observed what we fliers call doing a 180 as the NDP tactics changed here last week. Purely coincidentally, of course, it followed immediately upon the results of the Saskatchewan election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: What about the Manitoba election?


Erik Nielsen: It is interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that what was previously in their words a corporate giveaway has now become a matter of life and death to the Canadian economy simply because the leader of the NDP-who coincidentally happens to be the vice-chairman of the Socialist International-sees some political mileage to be gained. The NDP energy critic, the hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has fought these projects throughout his career, from the time he has been in this House until today. He even has a suit pending in court in the province of British Columbia to stop the pipeline from going ahead.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The prebuild.


An hon. Member:: Shame on you!


Erik Nielsen: Stop the prebuild. If you stop the prebuild, you stop the pipeline. And then he gets up and cries his crocodile tears about the poor pipeline not going ahead. What utter hypocrisy!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us something new.


Erik Nielsen: I have no complaint against his opposing the project, nor against any member of his party opposing those projects. But what we have a right to complain about, now that the projects have been wiped out because of the procrastination and ineptness of the government, is members of that party rising in this House and claiming that they were for the projects all along. They cannot do that and still retain any credibility whatsoever.
On November 26, at page 5109 of Hansard, the energy critic of the NDP, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway criticized the government for what he called "overbuilding pipelines". That may have been justified or it may not have been, but it is the height of hypocrisy, for those who charged two years ago that pipelines were being overbuilt, to now claim that those same pipelines are so vitally necessary.
We have sat here and listened for a week now to this 180-degree turn in the tactical direction of the NDP, and I think it is about time to expose some of this hypocrisy, and hopefully force the members over there to display some honesty in this House when looking at the history of these projects.
What did the member for Vancouver-Kingsway say in that debate on November 21, 1980? At page 4955 of the Hansard, he said this:
We would get even more money by developing the tar sands under public ownership. The large multinational companies want a 15 to 20 per cent profit out of the tar sands, and the minister is prepared to allow them to receive that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is true.


Erik Nielsen: Certainly. That is what he said. That is true. That is what he said. But he was not saying it with any approval; he was saying it because he opposed the government's actions at that time. As an alternative, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested setting up energy alternative programs at the local level.
Well, perhaps now the minister, if he ever comes back, will be more receptive to that proposal. Nevertheless, the truth is, Madam Speaker, that the NDP has been against these projects from the start, and they cannot now have it both ways and act as though they were supporting them all along. To do so would be the height-the pure height-of socialist hypocrisy. Mind you, I must say that it is in keeping with socialist tactics.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Erik Nielsen: I have no objection to the NDP attacking the government, Madam Speaker. That is what opposition parties are for. But at least let it be on grounds that are open and honest. Let the NDP not take credit or political gain out of the collapse of projects to which they have been opposed from the start.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are sounding more like Marc Lalonde all the time.


Erik Nielsen: They are the real tar babies in this whole scenario, and they expect to come out smelling like roses. But I can tell you-


Mark Willson Rose: I will. I cannot avoid it.


Erik Nielsen: I can tell you, notwithstanding the name "Rose", that is not what they will come out smelling like. A rose by any other name is as sweet.
The member was asking me to get to our position. Our position is quite different. We maintained, on both the tar sands development and the pipeline development, that they were necessary in order to bring about self-sufficiency. And that is still our position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The abrupt deterioration of the situation with the announcement of the backing off of the oil companies means that self-sufficiency is a long way off and we are once again, because of the blundering of this action-prone government, entirely subject to the mercy of OPEC.
Our position now is that the government must go back and do everything it possibly can to bring these projects back onstream-and with respect to the pipeline, that is possible, given proper diplomatic discussions with the United States.

May 7, 1982
This government must seek the best engineering advice, and they must co-operate with the Government of Alberta and the private oil companies. They must work to bring about a situation where Alsands oil can come onstream within a few years at prices that are competitive in the world market. That was our policy, as outlined in the Crosbie budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is exactly what we have done, and by now both the Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline projects, as well as Cold Lake and Judy Creek, would have been well down the road. That they are not so is because no one trusts the economic or fiscal logic of this government-


An hon. Member:: Except the NDP.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, except the NDP, recently. That they are not is because no one trusts the economic or fiscal logic of this government-a government which is now so isolated from events that its economic policy is in ruins and tatters at its feet. They are reduced to something like the Chinese five-year plan for making iron ingots in the backyard.
The tragedy of this government is that it is destitute of ideas, devoid of principles, incapable of dealing with problems on their merits, or proposing solutions that will be acceptable to those involved. There will be no such thing as a co-operative atmosphere between the government and the private sector while these rascals are over there.
The seriousness of the Alsands cancellation to the economy cannot be overestimated. If investor confidence was at a low ebb, it has now dropped completely out of sight. This project would have given Canada access to over 100 billion barrels of oil-one third of the proven reserves of the Middle East. It would have brought self-sufficiency within our reach, and provided thousands upon thousands of jobs.
It was killed by the budget, killed by high interest rates, killed by the iniquitous nationalization policies of this government, supported by the NDP.
The architects of these tragedies, of these disasters, are the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Make no mistake-


An hon. Member:: The three Canadian destroyers.


Erik Nielsen: "The three Canadian destroyers." Make no mistake: it is a disaster of a magnitude from which Canada will not soon recover.
If there is to be a recovery, it cannot be achieved by a government that is so moribund it is not even aware that its time has run out. The cancellation of Alsands is all the more serious since the latest figures show a deliberate drop in OPEC production in the first quarter of this year. Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, has reduced production by 1.5 million barrels a day.
Alsands was to be the linchpin of economic recovery in this country. It still could be-but not under this government. Now
that the linchpin has gone and the Alaska pipeline has been virtually shelved for the foreseeable future, where do we go? What happens to the great paper program put together by the Meach Lake mugs-the minister from the other place, the former minister of FIRA, who has had his powers removed, the travelling minister, salesman Sam from Cornwall? They put together a program to usher in a new heaven and a new earth. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turns out to be a crock-


An hon. Member:: Don't say it.


Erik Nielsen: It turns out to be a crock of broken promises, shades of broken promises from the last election, Madam Speaker.
I will not weary sensitive ears-ears already wearied by this lengthy debate-by recalling all of those promises, now broken. They would fill many crocks. The list is almost endless. But on the energy question there was one about cheap oil, and I want members to listen to this statement by the Prime Minister, as quoted in a Globe and Mail questionnaire during the last election campaign:
As far as non-conventional oils are concerned-that's the tar sands, the frontier oils and the enhanced production wells-we would have an incentive pricing scheme which would make sure that it is profitable to private and public enterprise to look for and exploit that oil.
That is what he said. Well, that has not materialized, and they are not prepared to look for it and to exploit it. Somewhere along the line, the Prime Minister got sidetracked on other matters-


An hon. Member:: Double track.


Erik Nielsen: Double track. He forgot that promise, along with a lot of others. The Minister of Finance was one of the architects of this great economic program, one that never got off the runway. This was going to make up for all of the defects of the budget. People would be so lost in admiration of Phase I and Phase II of the megaprojects that they would forget the budget disaster. Now that Phase I has gone down the drain, what about Phase II? If Phase II was built on Phase I and if Phase I has evaporated, where does Phase II come in?
We are now entering the pie-in-the-sky phase of Liberal self-delusion.
The minister of employment is going around saying-in spite of the budget, in spite of Alsands, in spite of the postponement of the pipeline, in spite of Cold Lake, interest rates, and all of the rest of the Liberal house of horrors-that he is still in the business of creating jobs. How ridiculous! The only jobs that he or his moribund colleagues in the cabinet have created are the jobs they opened up for their friends in government-and there are plenty more of those. Here is the minister of unemployment-pardon the slip-under whose administration the rate of unemployment has gone up by 50 per cent, saying repeatedly in the House that he is creating jobs.
May 7, 1982

I challenge that minister to show us where his policies have created a single permanent long-term job that would not have existed in any case without the government's intervention.


An hon. Member:: In the U1C offices.


Erik Nielsen: While they have not created any jobs, they have been instrumental in wiping out virtually thousands of jobs, the loss of Alsands-50,000 jobs immediately, and more later; the postponement of the pipeline-the loss of an equal number, and more later. Both of these reversals are the direct result of the crisis of confidence in the government's economic policies, brought about by the flight of capital from this country. Surely even this government must realize that the National Energy Program has been the most destructive force in Canada's economic life. It has utterly destroyed investor confidence. It is the product of theorists removed from the realities of the marketplace. Its genesis was ideological and destructive-capacity unlimited.
We are going through a crisis of confidence that can only be solved by the removal of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Election. Election.


Erik Nielsen: That crisis was brought about by the mismanagement of the economy inherent in the budget and by the minister's evasive and surreptitious tinkering since that time. Several months after the budget the minister has still not called his budget resolutions for consideration and discussion by this House.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: That failure represents, Madam Speaker, a vote of non-confidence by the minister in his own budget.
___________________________17157


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Finance has been flying trial balloons, suggesting that he is dallying with the possibility of bringing in wage and price controls. This is, of course, an admission that the government has failed dismally to overcome inflation. In fact, the one consistent and unvarying policy of this government has been failure, and that is-


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Nicholson):: There is no unanimous consent.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26(13), I am satisfied that debate has now been concluded.
I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 2:15 a.m., the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, May 7, 1982