1982-05-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, the federal government is entertaining a suggestion by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers' President Jean Claude Parrot that men get nine months of fully paid maternity leave following the birth of a child. This policy is supported by the New Democratic Party. In light of the high cost that this would impose on taxpayers, and the absurd and costly precedent that it would set for both the public and private sectors, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the government refuse to negotiate an item that has the potential of enraging an already irate and overtaxed Canadian public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in view of the courageous Polish Solidarity movement which yesterday defied hoses, tear gas and billy clubs at the hands of the ruthless communist military government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House censures the Prime Minister of Canada for his approval of martial law in Poland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the most radical, unilateral and greedy national energy policy ever imposed by a minister of energy for Canada has now killed the Alsands project, as it did the Cold Lake project last year. The most destructive budget ever perpetrated on the people of Canada is destroying the very fabric of our country with massive loss of jobs, loss of homes, farms and small businesses, causing heartbreak and despair everywhere in our beautiful country, Canada. The Canadian people can no longer trust a government that lies, misleads and uses slick advertising to promote its blatant political ends. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That those gutless Liberal backbenchers show some spine, stand up for Canada and help us dismiss the incompetent front bench responsible for Canada's destruction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The Valleyfield area in Quebec has just been severely affected by factory shutdowns. Nearly 1,200 workers were laid off in the past few days at Dupont of Canada and Dominion Textiles.
In view of the abject failure of the federal government's industrial strategy, and the fact that so little attention is paid to victims of factory shutdowns, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That the House urge the government to establish immediately job creation programs and thus provide some relief in this area.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

May 4, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, the shipbuilding firm of Ferguson Industries Ltd. of Pictou, Nova Scotia, the major industry for the town, and upon which several hundred jobs depend, was forced to lay off most of its work force yesterday. This latest blow, coming at a time of extreme unemployment in the area, has caused great anxiety. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Supply and Services take immediate action upon this urgent matter, details of which I have already sent to them by hand today, and immediately arrange payment of the major portion, at least, of the $3.8 million owed to this company by the federal government, which will, in turn, trigger interim financing from the government of Nova Scotia to assist this company and to save the workforce. In addition, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce again urge his cabinet colleagues to change the economic development policies which are hurting the country so badly and, in this particular instance, the reduction in the shipbuilding subsidy and the lack of other forms of assistance to provide employment for shipbuilders in small shipyards across this entire country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the enormous increase in the numbers of bankruptcies and receiverships, the situation where this business is now Canada's number one growth industry by far, where new opportunities for employment appear hourly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House recommend to the Canadian Insolvency Association that the Minister of Finance be named Man of the Year for his enormous contribution and studied efforts in the promotion of bankruptcies and receiverships in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the decision of the United States courts to approve the agreement between the Hooker Chemical Company and U.S. governments to contain the Hyde Park chemical waste dump site, and since this agreement is a matter of great concern to Canadians and poses a serious threat to Lake Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House directs the Prime Minister to request a top level summit meeting with President Ronald Reagan to convey to that government Canada's grave concerns over the future of Lake Ontario and to use all the means at his disposal to ensure that the U.S. government will take the appropriate action to clean up the chemical dumps that line the banks of the U.S. side of the Niagara River.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, 167 employees of Jarvis Clark, a well-established mining equipment manufacturing firm in North Bay, face imminent lay-off because of poor economic conditions in the country. Adding anguish to the problems of Jarvis Clark and its employees is the possibility of a DREE grant being awarded to a consortium to establish a new, competing firm in neighbouring Sudbury. In light of the fact the awarding of this grant would undoubtedly sound the death knell for the existing company in North Bay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for DREE, use his position to ensure that, if federal tax dollars are to be spent, the money will be applied to assist those firms now in existence, and not be used to create new ones, especially ones planning to offer competitive goods and services.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 4, 1982


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas, in an interview in La Presse, given by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he admitted that his party "did look for a solution other than that of the government but we don't have an alternative" and that he does not "have a better solution". The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to indicate that he supports the policies of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Whereas Conservative spokesmen in this House have attempted to mislead the Canadian public by inferring that the Tories have an alternative approach to Canadian economic difficulties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That copies of this interview be circulated to all members of the Tory caucus in the hope that they will display the same candor, honesty and frankness as their leader in discussing economic policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, understanding that today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is visiting the United States, I wish to introduce the following motion. He is long and he is tall and he is lean, and as mendacious Marc strides into the streets of Texas straight from the showdown at the Alsands corral, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That the citizens of the Lone Star State be advised to cap their oil wells, lock up their gas pumps, and to get a job for J.R. as a Sunday school teacher.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of a resource-user policy being developed for the Primrose Lake bombing range which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, in light of the fact that there is inadequate compensation for people who suffer hardships around the range because of military activity, and in light of the fact that the UN special session on disarmament in June will discuss the disarmament situation in the world, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the government not allow the testing of the Cruise missile in Canadian territory so that we will be removed from the nuclear arms race and can act as a mediator between countries in the world which wish to work toward a freeze and abandonment of nuclear weapons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In reference to yesterday's interview in La Presse given by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in which he admitted he was not "a Tory", or in other words:
There once was a leader named Joe
Whose support had dropped very low
He said "I'm not a Tory
But just for the glory
Want the job for a decade or so."
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chap-leau (Mr. Chenier):
That the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition clarify to this House and in particular to the members of his own party. No. 1, exactly what his political affiliations are and. No. 2, which party he thinks he is leading.


Madam Speaker:: I think we are beginning to have quite a competition for poets. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Oral Questions.

May 4, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
1978 FORECAST OF DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
["Madam Speaker, I have evidence to show that on April 30, 1982, The Toronto Sun deliberately and maliciously printed falsehoods which reflect on my integrity. The evidence points to the incompetence and the appalling lack of professionalism on the part of The Toronto Sun and to reprehensible character assassination and innuendo in its attempts to intimidate me in the performance of my functions as a member of Parliament.\nTherefore, Madam Speaker, in accordance with Citation 312 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege on the first opportunity following the date on which the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates\nreports to this House or is deemed to have reported under Standing Order 58."]
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance. He will recall that in 1978 his former colleague, then the minister of energy, Alistair Gillespie, provided background material for the federal-provincial conference of first ministers. This material showed 16 individual forecasts of proposed oil and gas projects. These projects were to create 99,750 man-years of direct employment and 323,250 man-years of indirect employment. It was to this energy future that the economic future of the country was tied. Four years later, 11 out of those 16 projects have been cancelled or postponed, and out of the 99,750 man-years of direct employment-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. Really, even if this is the first question, the hon. member must go to the question. I admit a certain preamble but it is getting a bit long.


William Herbert Jarvis: How does the Minister of Finance justify the loss of 71 per cent of the proposed direct man-years of employment, and 80 per cent or over 250,000 jobs lost in indirect employment? What does the government propose to do with the expectation it created, publicly and deliberately, to replace these jobs and to give some hope to the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work today?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in the document published at budget time entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 80s", we attempted to set out the economic opportunities and possibilities for the country. In that document we stated our belief that the basic engine for growth in the economy was the private sector and that independent business decisions, based upon their assessment of market forces, would determine the decisionmaking of the future. It is clearly as a result of the application of these particular assumptions that Alsands, for example, has deferred, or cancelled for the moment, this particular project. I would think that the hon. member would understand that in the circumstances the decisions taken in the private sector ought to have some bearing on the realization of these important projects.



William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, what I understand is that the minister has presented two budgets, the first in October, 1980, which was basically an energy statement based on those 1978 estimates which are 70 to 80 per cent
wrong, and a second budget last November where again the assumptions upon which the budget was based have been proved to be totally false. I ask for the sake of the country, and particularly the citizens who are jobless, if the minister will now withdraw the budget of last November and, before the end of May, replace it with one which acknowledges the realities of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the interests of brevity I think I will just answer the question, and the answer is no.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister is to ask if he will consider taking Canadians off the emotional rollercoaster the government has created for them, where their hopes are raised by the Alsands, Cold Lake and Alaska gas pipeline projects-the list goes on and on-only to have those hopes dashed with postponement after postponement, cancellation after cancellation, and job loss after job loss? After two disastrous budgets, the presumptions and forecasts of which are now proven totally false, what more will it take for the minister to resign in the interests of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would hon. members please let the hon. minister answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have noticed that the favourite preoccupation of the Conservative party is resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When they are not considering a resignation within their own ranks, they occasionally turn to a minister on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has talked about an emotional rollercoaster which has been, as it were, fabricated or stimulated by the Government of Canada. I believe he ought to understand that the particular project which is the basis of his question was put together with a considerable number of private sector participants. Companies from the private sector came together believing that there was-


Mr. Clark:: A government they could trust.
May 4, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -an economic situation which would justify the huge investment of about $15 billion. The Governments of Canada and Alberta, working together, did their level best to support and facilitate this particular project. The decision to terminate the project came in two stages; first, by the withdrawal of a number of partners from the consortium, and just last weekend a decision by the remaining private sector parties not to proceed with the project despite very generous support from both the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta.


Jack Wendele Shields: They don't trust you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So I do not believe the hon. member is justified in describing the situation as an emotional rollercoaster devised by the Government of Canada. The situation is the result of a private business decision made as a result of factors which are operating in the world economy.


TAXATION OF INDUSTRIES IN ENERGY SECTOR OF ECONOMY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance as well. The minister knows that the most significant factor behind the death of the Alsands plant and, before it, the Cold Lake project, along with several other major energy projects, is the National Energy Program, particularly the onerous new taxes levied under that program. The Alberta government, concerned about the health of the industry, has reduced its royalties. However, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked whether the federal government would make a similar move, he replied that was a taxation problem and therefore the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
Now that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is allowing the Minister of Finance to share responsibility for the NEP-and 1 can understand why he wants someone else to share that responsibility-will the Minister of Finance in fact be reducing these onerous new taxes so we can restore some vigour to this industry which can be the engine of future economic growth in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks whether it is the intention of the Government of Canada to adjust taxes in order to increase the cash flow to the energy sector. The hon. member will know the reasons given by the president of Shell for the termination of this project have nothing to do with the current cash flow situation. It had to do with an assessment of medium and long-term rates of inflation, the demand for oil, and the uncertainty about the course of future oil prices.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nobody believes you, Allan.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that the prescription brought forward by the hon. member would suit the circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition says that nobody would believe me.


Mr. Nielsen:: Nobody trusts you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will believe the president of Shell who made that argument when he announced the termination of the project.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I wish the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would share responsibilities with somebody who knows something about the energy industry.


Mr. Chenier:: You don't.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXAMINE REDUCTION IN TAXATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister knows full well the onerous new taxes on oil and gas are the major public policy impact in terms of the cancellation of the Cold Lake project, the Syncrude expansion, the Alsands project and numerous others, including some petrochemical projects from which Shell withdrew because of reduced cash flow as a result of the National Energy Program. Billions of dollars of investment have been cancelled. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of the inability of this industry, which has been devastated by these taxes, to make these investments.
If the minister can be convinced-and we are willing to show him the data that a reduction in these taxes will not only not cost the government revenue but add to government revenue because taxes will be paid by the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be re-employed and fewer people will be receiving unemployment insurance-will he not examine that scenario, give some hope that he is looking at the possibility of reducing these taxes and restoring some vigour to this one sector of the economy which everybody agrees at least has the potential of leading the economy out of the doldrums which it is in now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 would make two points in reply to the hon. member's question.


Erik Nielsen: No and no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first one is that there have been a number of major energy projects in other countries, including the United States, France, and Venezuela, that have been terminated or postponed because of uncertainties in the world price and the inflation situation. It is not fair or accurate to attribute all the difficulties there are occurring in this industry to the National Energy Program, as if it had an impact in the United States, or France, or Venezuela.


Charles Joseph Clark: How much responsibility do you accept, Allan?

May 4, 1982
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that the hon. member is using every occasion to undermine the National Energy Program, which is supported by the majority of people in Canada.


Harvie Andre: You are wrong. It is doing it itself.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada want to know what the Government of Canada is going to do about the serious situation. They are not interested in listening to indefinite arguments about what brought us into the present circumstance. Since the three projects, Alsands, Cold Lake, and the Alaska gas pipeline-


Erik Nielsen: Which you voted against.


John Edward Broadbent: -have been either cancelled or put off for some time in the future and represent $77 billion in investment which could have created resource jobs and manufacturing jobs, according to government strategy, what does the government plan to do now to produce those manufacturing jobs which the people of Canada so desperately need?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You know, Madam Speaker, that it is always a source of great interest to follow the circuitous meanderings of members of the New Democratic Party. I was in the House the other day when the Leader of the New Democratic Party was denouncing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because the minister was making a generous offer to support the Alsands project. He was telling us we were selling out to the oil companies. That was his argument. Today, now that the project has collapsed, he is blaming us for not having succeeded in bringing it on stream.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, before I ask my second question I should like the minister to note that our objection was that the government was giving away millions of dollars to the multinationals, and if the project was to proceed we wanted the people of Canada to own it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


QUERY RESPECTING JOB CREATION IN WESTERN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the three resource projects were to provide jobs in western Canada, and now that they are down the drain or indefinitely postponed, what does the Government of Canada plan to do to create some manufacturing jobs in western Canada, given the need for employment in that part of the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member provides another illustration of inconsistency. I remember when 1 negotiated the pipeline agreement with the United States and brought the legislation into the House that the most vigorous, protracted criticism came from members of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They were all against the Alaska gas pipeline. Now they are shedding hypocritical tears over a two year postponement.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, once again the minister is lying and has misled the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Don't be sleazy!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I guess this is a good time to stop it. Perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa would like to rephrase his sentence.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be happy in this context to say that the bill to which the minister alluded was in fact opposed by us precisely because he did not obtain the ironclad guarantees which we said were necessary for jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We turned out to be right and he wrong. I will simply say that the minister misled the House; he simply misled the House.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Madam Speaker:: I distinctly heard the hon. member for Oshawa saying a word which is not considered to be parliamentary. Of course he is now substituting another word, but I think he will want to conform to parliamentary tradition and withdraw the word he used.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I do not hesitate at all to withdraw completely the word I used.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another NDP retreat.


John Edward Broadbent: I think the essence of my argument was understood by the minister.


An hon. Member:: It was accurate, though.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear an hon. member saying that it was accurate. I will not quibble.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE NEW MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will direct my last question to the Minister of Finance. Considering that the minister just told the House that he has no intention
May 4, 1982

of taking new economic action or of introducing a new budget until next fall, and since there are more than 350 Canadians looking for each and every available job, does the Government of Canada not care a little for the people of Canada? Will it not bring in something before we recess which will begin to turn the economy around?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member admitted that his party opposed the Alaska gas pipeline. At that time its members did not see the potential in it that we saw. But today, now that it is deferred, the hon. member is trying to reverse history. That is not possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was just done in Saskatchewan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member asked whether there were any other alternatives which the government had in mind. I refer to the very full answer given on this point yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which can be found at page 16818 of Hansard. I should like to read it, but perhaps it would be easier for the hon. member to read it.


RESULTS OF POLL TAKEN IN QUEBEC
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, lovers' quarrels like the one we have just witnessed are always a bit messy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: My question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In March the Minister of Justice refused to release to the House a copy of the secret poll commissioned by the Canadian Unity Information Office in Quebec in January. 1 now have a copy of the poll, and 1 want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of the poll's findings that, by a ratio of some three to one, Quebecers interviewed were dissatisfied with federal economic policies? Is he prepared to follow the recommendation made in the poll that the federal government should reassess its economic policies as a result of the high level of dissatisfaction among Quebecers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I am not aware of these particular results. I guess I take the view which was recently expressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that sometimes polls are very shallow and ought not to be taken very seriously.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF BUDGET AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEASURES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, seeing that it was the Government of Canada which commissioned the poll, does the minister also dismiss cavalierly the finding of the poll that, by a raito of some four to one, Quebecers feel that the government should be turning its highest priority into job creation and away from inflation?
Oral Questions
Could the minister tell the House whether in light of that finding in Quebec by this government-commissioned poll, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, the government is prepared to scrap the federal budget and bring in new measures designed to get Canadians back to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting, based upon a poll, that we ought to shift a so-called concern for inflation to a concern for unemployment, the basic concern of the government is for jobs, the basic concern is to provide more jobs, and the basic concern is to reduce unemployment. That is the main purpose of the economic policy of the Government of Canada. I assure him that there is no need to make a shift because the priority has always been there, namely, jobs and growth. We understand that it will be impossible to provide the number of jobs which are required in the country unless we get inflation under better control.


QUEBEC OPINION IN FAVOUR OF JOB-CREATION MEASURES- INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER HAS MADE RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I shall, if I may, direct my question to the Minister of Justice, since he is responsible for the Canadian Unity Information Office and recommended this poll be taken. Considering the fact that the poll clearly shows the dissatisfaction of Quebecers, and that Quebecers are, of course, demanding positive action to promote job creation instead of maintaining this anti-inflation philosophy, could the minister tell us whether he has made any recommendations and to whom, since the Minister of Finance just said he was not aware of the poll?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, polls have been used by the government in developing policy. And, as the Minister of Finance said earlier, the issue of inflation is very closely related to the question of job creation, especially since yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said, as reported in La Presse, that he entirely agreed with the fight against inflation and that he would support the policies of Governor Bouey even more strongly than the present Minister of Finance is doing.


GOVERNMENT REACTION TO POLL TAKEN IN QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I would rather not repeat the remarks made earlier by the Leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that the

May 4, 1982
Oral Questions
Conservative government was in favour of, and had proposed, a special interest rate. Since the minister responsible for the millions of dollars that are spent on polls did not answer my question at all just now and refused to say whether, subsequent to the results of the polls, he made recommendations to cabinet, my question is: why is the minister refusing to tell the House what happens after a poll of this kind, and considering the present results that reflect very negatively on the government, does the minister not feel that in view of the sums of money spent on this exercise it would stand to reason that relevant recommendations should be made based on the information contained in the poll?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I answered the question earlier. Obviously, polls have been taken. It is clear that Quebecers, and I do not need a poll to find that out, want us to do whatever is necessary to create jobs. However, one of the prerequisites for making Canada's position competitive, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in an interview in La Presse, is to control inflation. And in that respect, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and consequently, with the policy of the Minister of Finance.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On April 19, 1982, the Canadian government signed an agreement with TIC Inc. of Dallas, Texas, concerning the fate of White Farm Equipment of Canada Ltd. at Brantford, Ontario. Under this agreement, TIC agreed to continue to employ 1,200 full-time employees in the Brantford plant.
In view of the fact that market conditions for that company are very good at present, will the minister explain to the House why only 90 employees have been called back to work at White Farm, something which is in contravention of the agreement?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am having that looked into at the present time. However, I must say that there was not the commitment to start up the plant with that level of employees the very day after the deal closed. I am checking into this, and I hope that it will be possible to confirm that there will be a substantial recall of employment over the next several weeks.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I would remind the minister that the agreement set out that the company would begin recall within eight days.


CORPORATE ACTIVITIES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, can the same minister confirm or deny that the present delay in the recall is due either to the two principals, Linamar Machines and TIC, being too busy trying to rip one another off to be concerned about getting the Brantford plant back into full production, or that TIC of Dallas is unable to raise the necessary financial backing to restart the Brantford plant, or is it that Linamar or TIC are involved in a corporate manipulation which will leave the way clear for the German company, Deutz, to come into the picture and purchase White Farm Equipment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have heard some of these allegations and I am certainly having them all looked into.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, because of the continuing questionable practice of the Solicitor General of refusing to release documents required in criminal cases in Canada, under the guise of national security, will the Solicitor General tell the House if these documents are being denied on the grounds that, first, the documents would reveal the name of the foreign government that was encouraging complained-of activities in Canada, or second, that the documents would reveal other activities and policies which have not been made public, or third, that, as many of us suspect, the documents would reveal a chain of orders and directives leading to and proving knowledge at the political level?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, the McDonald commission was established to look into the possibility of senior authority, senior knowledge or senior direction outside the RCMP of improper or questionable activities committed by the RCMP. The findings of the McDonald Commission, after having access to all those documents to which the hon. member refers, were as we know. Therefore I feel confident that I can say, as is the fact, that the grounds on which these documents are being held by me are the grounds provided for in the Federal Court Act; that is, that they deal with matters of national security, with international relations, and that their disclosure would be damaging to the national interest.
May 4, 1982


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Surely the Solicitor General can appreciate that in denying the release of these documents, in effect he is denying a fair trial for accused people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, how can the Solicitor General certify that the release of these documents would endanger national security on the one hand when, on the other hand, both he and his departmental officials admit that they now cannot find the documents?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the affidavit that I gave refers to documents to which the withholding provided for in the statute applies. Those are the documents. They are in the possession of the RCMP and the government. I have reviewed them all and have formed the conclusion that their release would not be in the interests of national security.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. He will know that the policy of this government has been, in a number of instances, including the uranium cartel, to refuse disclosure of documents which will assist in the defence of accused persons-persons accused under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. Why has that policy been developed, and why will the minister not authorize a release to counsel for the accused, the RCMP in this instance, especially when the prosecutor is one Allan Lufty who used to work in the Prime Minister's office and knows precisely what kind of cover-up is happening?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that is the same question once again. Parliament has recognized and established that documents the disclosure of which is not in the national interest may be withheld on the affidavit of a minister. I reviewed all those documents and I reviewed them bearing in mind that they were being sought in a defence and, notwithstanding that, 1 came to the conclusion that their disclosure would not be in the national interest. It would be damaging to the effectiveness of the security service of the RCMP, it would be damaging to the international relations between Canada and other countries, and I therefore felt that the certificate and the affidavit which I put forward were well justified.


PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL COURT ACT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary on this topic to the Minister of Justice. He knows that the freedom of information legislation in this country is in deep trouble. He is also aware of the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, which is one of the most inequitous provisions that any civilized country has. In the absence of any tangible efforts to change the freedom of information bill, to bring it into the House or send
Oral Questions
it to committee for proper disposition, is he prepared to amend that section of the Federal Court Act to remove some of the crutches which allow his colleague, the Solicitor General, to use that section for the very regressive purpose for which everyone knows it is being used at the present time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there is a bill in the House providing for freedom of information. This question is being debated at this time. One of the problems is that there is a demand or request by the attorneys general of the provinces to attempt to come to terms with this very difficult problem concerning the limits of confidentiality of various cabinet minutes and documents of that nature. There is some discussion and communication on this subject taking place between the attorneys general and the federal government. The Prime Minister has said that he hoped the bill would be able to come back in front of the House some time in the fall and be disposed of then.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. No doubt he has been informed of my question last week concerning the milepost payments in the Canadian Patrol Frigate program. Can he tell the House if any of these payments are being held up, or is he considering holding any up because of insufficient progress by one of the consortia?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, quite to the contrary, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the frigate program is progressing very well. The contract definition stage is right on schedule. There is no question of withholding any payments and all milestones have been met in accordance with the prepared schedule.


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, in last year's estimates for the Department of National Defence, $29 million was set aside for the frigate program and contract definition phase, which is in the Minister's hands. Only $24 million was spent. Will the minister tell the House why the funds allotted were not spent?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, that question ought to be directed to the Minister of National Defence since it relates to the allocation of his own budgetary funds. As the hon. member knows, I enforce the contracts. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the contract which has been negotiated for the contract definition stage has been honoured in all its particulars.

May 4, 1982
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


CLOSURE OF LUMBER MILL IN CHEMAINUS, B.C.-PROTECTION FOR JOBS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week MacMillan Bloedel Limited announced the closure of its lumber mill in Chemainus, British Columbia, with the loss of over 600 jobs. The company has made several fortunes out of the Chemainus mill but has allowed it to become run down and inefficient. Will the minister investigate statements by the company that a promised new mill will not be built because all of MacMillan Bloedel's available capital is being invested in a new pulp mill in Alabama? Will he take immediate action to stop this irresponsible investment of Canadian funds outside Canada, and protect Canadian jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's representations.


INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL OUTSIDE CANADA
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I hope that the minister does more than take note of the representation. I hope he will take some action. The millworkers at Chemainus are only the latest group of victims of the government's do-nothing policy that allows the export of jobs by companies which take profits and run. When will the minister establish guidelines for multinational investment policies to ensure that companies which make their money in Canada will invest their profits in Canada and create jobs for Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the same reply has to be made to the hon. member's question. I understand his concern, but basically he is asking that the Government of Canada intervene to the point where it directs a company as to whether it makes an investment in Canada or in the United States. I believe that kind of policy would have implications far beyond the particular case to which the hon. member refers.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The order in council passed almost a year ago which establishes emergency planning orders empowers the minister of employment, "to establish a population register for the effective management of manpower and arrange any required international manpower transaction". Those are peacetime emergency provisions. What kind of
peacetime emergencies has the government planned for that it would need to empower the minister to transfer Canadians from Canada under international obligations to other countries?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I do not think that is the implication of that statement. We are simply pointing out that any time there is a major catastrophe that would affect this country, there are obviously international implications in terms of the movement of workers and movement of people across borders. It is simply our intention to ensure that that movement is orderly and proper and takes into account the effects of any of those hypothetical catastrophes on the population. As we have said in this House many times, these are precautionary measures that hopefully will never have to be used but must be in place in case there are some major disasters.


Benno Friesen: I wonder whether "hypothetical catastrophe" is a parliamentary term.


EFFECT ON UNIONS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour. That same order empowers the Minister of Employment and Immigration in collaboration with the Minister of Labour to regulate and control conditions of work, rates of remuneration, and occupational safety. I would like to ask the minister about the integrity of unions and union contracts which exist if, in so-called peacetime emergencies, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Employment and Immigration are empowered to disregard union contracts.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the question implies that there is the possibility of an emergency situation. Until that emergency situation appears on the horizon, the integrity of collective agreements will prevail.


CANADA POST
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. The minister will recall that on March 1 of this year 1 questioned him about the directive from Canada Post Corporation pertaining to the hiring of part-time letter carriers for the summer. It, in essence, said they must be hired from families of members of the letter carriers union. At that time the minister stated:
I would be pleased to discuss the matter with the president of Canada Post Corporation and obtain an answer for the hon. member.
Is the minister now prepared to give us his answer?
May 4, 1982


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I discussed this matter with the president of the corporation, and I thought he had sent his answer directly to the hon. member. I shall look into this, and if no answer was sent, I shall make sure the hon. member is given a reply as soon as possible.


QUERY RESPECTING DETAILS OF DECISION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, my question was not whether the minister thought that the president of Canada Post Corporation had sent me an answer. My question concerned what answer did he get from the president when he discussed the matter, as he promised on March 1. I again ask the minister whether a decision has been arrived at, and has a correcting directive been sent out?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, this is an internal management matter that concerns the new Canada Post Corporation. I shall look into it and give the hon. member an answer.


THE ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance who, along with the Minister of Justice, has now indicated they are going to be accepting my advice on economic policies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That being the case, will the minister tell us when he intends to introduce an energy tax credit, a mortgage tax credit, and when he plans to re-invigorate the small business development bond, and withdraw the November budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition misunderstood my reply. Far from giving an endorsation to his economic policies, 1 did express a certain amount of sympathy for a view which I understand he recently expressed to the effect that he found certain polls shallow. I just have a certain amount of sympathy for that view, but for his economic policies 1 would hesitate even to have any sympathy.


REQUEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION BE CALLED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance in his position as Acting
Oral Questions
Prime Minister give the people of Canada an opportunity to choose between his economic policies and mine?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we did create that opportunity for the Canadian people to choose between the right hon. gentleman's economic policies and our economic policies, and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition has ever forgiven us for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those that have been directed to the Solicitor General. The minister will know that a justice of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec has ordered a defence witness to bring a document to the court. Is he aware that in preventing that document from reaching that court he is defying the court, and denying justice to a Canadian before that court who is seeking evidence in his defence?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that it would be improper for me to comment on the evidence that is being asked for or being given before that trial that is now taking place in Montreal. I have been following the proceedings in the court. I know the document was searched for by the RCMP, and the witness from the RCMP went to give evidence about it.


Donald W. Munro: The minister will be aware that he is obstructing justice in this country, and from a Solicitor General it is almost as bad as if the Minister of Justice were obstructing justice.


REQUEST THAT JUDGE BE PERMITTED TO SEE DOCUMENT
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is whether the minister will consider allowing that document to be presented to the judge for the judge to decide whether that document and its contents are relative to the course of justice and fairness to a Canadian who is being tried in that court.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as I understand the law, when it is a question of a document which deals with national security or with international relations, the responsibility of the minister is to make his own assessment of the document and not to put it before the court. If the law were different I would follow that different law, but the law is as it is, and I followed it as I understand it.

May 4, 1982
Privilege-Mrs. Appolloni


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the advantages it would give to the Canadian manufacturing industry, and especially the steel industry, of an extension of the Canadian customs area offshore, to extend it from the 12-mile limit to the continental shelf, as Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom have already done, and the massive drilling and exploration program planned on the east coast offshore, is the government planning to extend our customs regulations to include the east coast offshore to the continental shelf?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the proposal implicit in the hon. member's question is extremely interesting, and could, in fact, help certain Canadian companies to gain a competitive edge. However, the hon. member will agree that the question is very serious, and that it will require very careful study on the part of the government.
* *
*


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Monday, May 3, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I have evidence to show that on April 30, 1982, The Toronto Sun deliberately and maliciously printed falsehoods which reflect on my integrity. The evidence points to the incompetence and the appalling lack of professionalism on the part of The Toronto Sun and to reprehensible character assassination and innuendo in its attempts to intimidate me in the performance of my functions as a member of Parliament.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, in accordance with Citation 312 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege on the first opportunity following the date on which the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates
reports to this House or is deemed to have reported under Standing Order 58.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 260 residents of the city of Toronto requesting Parliament to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to refuse to allow the testing of Cruise missiles on Canadian soil.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today Nos. 3,298, 3,299, 3,562, 3,704, 4,045 and 4,118.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works recently state in connection with assisting persons who were in danger of losing their homes by mortgage foreclosure "For that reason, we telephoned all members of Parliament at their Ottawa and constituency offices and to my knowledge we did not come up with one more case of hardship" and, if so, what were the names of all members actually called and the dates on which they were called?
2.	Were all members called and, if not, what were the names of the members not called and for what reason were they not called?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Quote inaccurate. 2. N/A.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works recently state in connection with assisting persons who were in danger of losing their homes by mortgage foreclosure "For that reason, we telephoned all members of Parliament at their Ottawa and constituency offices and to my knowledge we did not come up with one more case of hardship"?
2.	Was the hon. member for Lceds-Grenville telephoned for this purpose at his (a) House of Commons (b) constituency office and (i) if so, on what date and at what time (ii) if not, for what reason?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.
Quote inaccurate.
2.	(a) Yes, on October 24, 1981, between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m. (b) Yes, on October 24, 1981, between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration commission a study on the possibility of establishing a new Aerospace Training Centre?
May 4, 1982

2.	Does the government have criteria on which it is basing its deliberations as to the site of the proposed centre and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Was a recommendation made by the Mackenzie Advisory Group to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that a new centre be located in Winnipeg?
4.	Was the recommendation overruled and (a) if so, by whom (b) if not, on what date does the government plan to make public its decision on the site for the centre?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Yes.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The centre proposed by the Mackenzie Advisory Group was to be established and operated by the private sector.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did former RCMP security officer, Mr. Leslie James Bennett, on a visit to Canada from Australia to testify in a civil court action, comment that he had fears for his life from what he termed an "RCMP hit squad"?
2.	Did the government investigate the statement by Mr. Bennett and (a) if so, what was the result (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the RCMP ever maintained such a squad and, if not, did any Canadian security agency make use of similar services provided by the security service of (a) the United States (b) any other foreign power?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Mr. Leslie James Bennett's allegation that he had been warned that an RCMP "death squad" would assassinate him, was made to an Australian Broadcast Commission interviewer in June, 1981. Subsequently, this was reported in the Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 1981.
2.	(a) No. (b) No substantiation for any such allegation was ever provided.
3.	No. (a) Not to the knowledge of the RCMP. (b) Not to the knowledge of the RCMP.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, was or is there a group known commonly as the CAP squad and, if so (a) do the letters stand for Corporate and Political squad (b) under whose jurisdiction is it (c) what is its purpose (d) who authorized it (e) on what date was it set up (f) what are the full details of its activities, including the members who served on it?
2.	Did or do their duties involve, among other things, compiling information on Members of Parliament and Senators, particularly with regard to their personal lives, and, if so, what is the purpose of compiling such information?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. There is not now, nor has there been a component of the RCMP known by the term CAP Squad.
2. See reply to part 1.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	With reference to the Department of Supply and Services file No. 15MJ E0231-9-0192, F.C. Project 39868/17-2A, contract serial No. OMJ 79-00535 (a) on what date will the November 6, 1981 letter to Ms. N. O'Brien be answered (b) how much time was spent on the equipment provided by Airquin Systems Inc. after the date it was received by DSS/DPW?
2.	Was the equipment to be inspected by Mr. C. Kukulka and, if so, on what date was the inspection made?
3.	Were deficiencies reported to Airquin and, if so (a) what were they (b) on what date were they reported?
4.	After the date of receipt of the equipment, were requests made to Airquin for work, advice and assistance in correcting improper installation of the equipment and, if so, what were such requests?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
information requested concerns transactions with Airquin Systems Inc. On February 23, 1982, the legal counsel for Airquin submitted a claim to the Department of Supply and Services Contract Settlement Board. Any disclosure of information at the present time could be detrimental to the ongoing proceedings associated with this claim.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,703 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 3,703 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,152 which stated that 6,375 public servants are receiving more in annual salaries than annual indemnities, exclusive of expense allowances, received by Members of Parliament but that this did not include heads of Crown agencies or governor in council appointments, how many heads of Crown agencies or governor in council appointments are receiving such salaries and, in each case, what is his/her name and job designation?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed
to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 4, 1982


S.O. 26 PRIVILEGE MR. MACKASEY-S.O. 43 MOTION OF MR. TOWERS
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, some may think that this is not a very serious point of privilege, but it is serious in many respects. Yesterday the hon. member who might be called the poet laureate of the House of Commons advanced a proposal in which he stated that I seconded his motion. That could give the impression to anyone who reads Hansard that I was present in the House of Commons yesterday. I was many, many miles away.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Since this took place yesterday, the hon. member would need to give me notice of his question of privilege. I do not believe there is substance to his question of privilege; I can tell him forthwith that he does not have one. Unless the question of privilege flows from the deliberations of today, I cannot hear it today.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM CANCELLATION OF PROPOSED ALSANDS MEGAPROJECT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the cancellation of the Alsands megaproject and the further delay of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline.
Canada has been relying on the prospect of energy megaprojects to guarantee energy self-sufficiency, to give employment to almost 100,000 Canadians, and to stimulate the economy in both the resource and industrial sectors. On Friday, April 30, it was announced that the Alsands megaproject has finally collapsed and that the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline has been postponed for at least two years.

This monumental and unprecedented catastrophe for the Canadian economy is a direct consequence of the National Energy Program. The government has been unable to provide any reasonable explanation for the collapse of these projects nor has it been able to give us any real hope of resurrecting or replacing them. It is therefore a matter of national interest that the House should hold an emergency debate on this economic catastrophe, on its immediate and long-term impact on the Canadian economy, and consider any solutions for putting these projects back on stream.

If you accept this application for an emergency debate, I am ready to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Waddell:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, when I raised exactly this matter with you yesterday, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) opposed me. I want to put it on the record that we are prepared to have this debate but the Conservatives should get their act together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: That is not really a point of order; it is debate on the motion proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I think I have a question of privilege now because of the misleading statement that was made by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He said that the motion which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) proposes to move is exactly the same as his was. Had he been listening, which he usually does not, he would have realized it is not exactly the same. What is more, if he and the other members of his party were not so hypocritical and posturing all the time-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. Hon. members are obviously debating. The Chair is prepared to deal with the matter which was raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
What I have to say now does deal with what has been brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). The House will recall that yesterday he proposed to discuss a related matter under the terms of this same Standing Order. Having had the benefit of hearing both those presentations, 1 have come to the conclusion that the application now before the House is more specific and also of a different character, in the sense that something has taken place that members are asking to have discussed. The matter brought forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would offer the possibility of a wider debate. It appears to the Chair that the matter raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is in the nature of a situation contemplated by the provisions of Standing Order 26, and therefore I am prepared to accept this proposal for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It is now my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 26(8), to ask if the right hon. member has the leave of the House to move the motion. Has the right hon. member leave to discuss the proposed motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Accordingly, leave having been granted, the motion shall stand over until eight o'clock this evening.


Mr. Pinard:: The hon. member sought consent, and we certainly think that it is a major subject. We do not object
May 4, 1982

tothe matter being debated, and Your Honour has so decided under paragraph (8) of Standing Order 26. Under paragraph (9) of the same Standing Order, Your Honour has discretion as to when the debate should take place, whether tonight or tomorrow night or any other time.


Some hon. Members:: Starting now.


Mr. Huntington:: Tonight.


Yvon Pinard: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), as Your Honour well knows, is outside of this country in the exercise of his duties and will be back tomorrow. Therefore, I would humbly suggest that this debate be held tomorrow night at eight o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Under that discretionary power, I have just said that the debate should take place this evening at eight o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: It is urgent.


Madam Speaker:: I understand that the hon. minister will not be present at that time. However, I asked leave for this debate to take place because I felt that the matter-


Erik Nielsen: Is urgent.


Madam Speaker:: -should be discussed in an urgent way. I am in the hands of the House. If the House wants to delay the debate until three o'clock tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Madam Speaker:: -I could follow the disposition of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Chair has already found that the subject matter is of such urgency that it requires immediate attention. That was the purpose of designing the rule in the first place. I would point out that it would be impossible to debate the matter under Standing Order 26(9) tomorrow, because it specifically refers to the time of eight o'clock. Of course, tomorrow the House rises well before eight o'clock. By acceding to the suggestion of the government House leader, we would be giving implied consent to sit tomorrow night at eight o'clock. We believe that the matter is of such urgency that it requires debate today. I am sure the minister is not that far away that he cannot get the next plane back.


Walter David Baker: Send a jet.


Erik Nielsen: Send a government jet.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, clearly, the Official Opposition is refusing to agree to have you change your ruling, because, in fact, you made the ruling before I could make my suggestion, and I cannot hold that against you. However, you are aware that under Standing Order 26(9), the Chair has the discretion to order the debate to be held the next day. With
___________________________16883
Taxation
unanimous consent, there is no reason why the debate should not be held at eight o'clock tomorrow evening, even if it is Wednesday, although to the members on this side of the House it seems clear that the Official Opposition would rather not see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) take part in the debate.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I used my discretion to determine the time of the debate, and the reason I ruled in favour of a debate was that I felt it was warranted owing to the important nature of the subject. Consequently, I thought the debate should take place at the earliest convenience of the House, which seems to be eight o'clock this evening. 1 agree that the House can, by unanimous consent, proceed with its business as it sees fit, but, since there is no unanimous consent, I maintain that the debate will start this evening at eight o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I am continuing the debate today on the borrowing bill put forth by the government. I would like to refer to the petroleum and gas revenue tax where we saw, along with the national energy policy and the budget, two instruments which required a strong, healthy and viable industry. I refer to the oil industry which was operating in western Canada, seeking stability, security and energy self-sufficiency for this country. We heard from the so-called New Democratic Party, "Liberal West", the hypocrites, when the national energy policy was introduced. What did we hear from the "Liberal Party West", the New Democratic Party? We heard: "Good, let us have more. Get those multinationals. Get those Yankees. Send them home. We will take over the oil companies in western Canada." That is what we heard from the western members of the "Liberal Party West".
We saw the present government go out into the world market to borrow money to purchase Petrofina. It did not borrow money to go out and start up Petro-Canada so that company could do its own exploring for oil in order to contribute to the security of our country, to the energy survival, the

May 4, 1982
Taxation
oil supply, of our country. The government did not find one drop of oil with all the money that it borrowed to purchase Petrofina. What did we hear from the so-called New Democrats? What did we hear from those in the "Liberal Party West"? We heard, "Good, that is what we should be doing. Go out and buy more, borrow more money, and let us buy up these companies. But do not stop with Petrofina; let us go after the big ones. Let us nail Esso." That is what we heard from the "New Democratic Party West".
We have seen the result of the tax grab of the national energy policy, the petroleum and gas revenue tax referred to in this bill. We have seen the destruction of a viable, healthy industry which has been universally recognized as the one industry which could lead Canada out of the economic mess we are in today. I ask hon. members opposite to think about it for a minute. We have seen the result of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. The Alsands and Cold Lake projects are dead, with the accompanying loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of savings, loss of small business and bankruptcies. We have seen the results and we will see more of the results. We have seen all of the eight megaprojects, or the Alsands and tar sands projects proposed and outlined in the task force on projects in this decade to the 1990s. Every last one of them has been put on hold or killed.
Billions of dollars of investment are down the tube while Canada is facing an economic situation unparalleled in our industry. Why? It is because this government can no longer be trusted. Industry no longer trusts this present government. Industry has very clearly stated, "We cannot trust the government to enter into an agreement with us today. We cannot believe that an agreement will remain in place for five years." Those in industry do not even know if an agreement with the government can be trusted to remain in place for two years, let alone five years. The Government of Canada, the government of my country, can no longer be trusted in the international community to keep its word.
In closing, I can only say most sincerely that I hope all hon. members will think about it. As long as the Liberal government remains in power, there will be no more economic development in this country and no more megaprojects-and that is a fact-because the government is not trusted.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-93 as it relates to granting the government fiscal borrowing authority. Members of the House will realize that Bill C-93 seeks to authorize the government to borrow some $6.6 billion. All unused borrowing authority obtained under the Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82, to the extent that it exceeds $3 billion, was cancelled on March 31 this year. Without new borrowing powers the government will not be able to obtain the necessary funds to meet its financial requirements for 1982-83. The $6.6 billion being requested represents the estimated budgetary and non-budgetary financial requirements for 1982-83.
When he spoke during debate on this bill last week my colleague the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) referred to the strains put on society at this time in Canadian history. He recalled the strains of the depression years, the "hungry thirties". I remember those years as a young boy, but unlike my colleague from Lincoln who I believe said he was not directly affected by those years, I was.
If I may be permitted a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I remember my father pulling me on a sled during the winter to the relief store which was the equivalent of being on welfare today-but not with all the welfare benefits we now have-to get some groceries and a pair of shoes. My father was out of work. It was not that he did not try to find employment; there was no work available. I remember in later years, when I was a bit older, my father telling me how degrading and humiliating it was to go through that process of having to go to the relief store in order to provide for his family.
It was a crisis time for my family and thousands of other Canadian families, a crisis which many people are facing today. But there is a difference. Through social concern for Canadian families, Liberal governments over the years have provided many assistance programs and social benefits which were certainly not available during the thirties.
In the Chinese language the word for crisis is composed of two characters meaning danger and opportunity. In that sense, I suggest to you, we are going through one of the major crises of Canadian history. Certainly recent events have been matters of extreme concern for Canada but it has equally been a time of tremendous opportunities. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, Canadians on many fronts are facing a greater concentration of unsolved problems than ever before. And yet, this sternest challenge of Canadian history may become our greatest hour.
If I may be permitted another personal comment, Mr. Speaker, my father took ill when I was 13 and he died shortly after. I had to go out to work and I have been working ever since. Whatever I have, which is not very much, I acquired through my own initiative. I strongly believe in the work ethic. I believe in the free enterprise system. Because of my personal experiences, I strongly believe as well in social concern, and that in fact I am my brother's keeper. That is why I am a Liberal and why I ran as a member of the Liberal party, a little more than a year ago, in the by-election in London West.
Our Canadian way of life over the years has seen a coming together of the free enterprise system and a social system where, through government direction and involvement, some of the benefits of free enterprise have been shared with the less fortunate.
Unfortunately of late, it seems to me that our view of Canada, our view of this great country, has sunk into a swamp of competing angers, of shabby "me first" recriminations. Loyalty to, and interest in, Canada as a nation has frequently been secondary to regional concerns. We have lost much of that mix, that compromise of free enterprise and social concern.
May 4, 1982

Of late, some people's legitimate regional concerns have degenerated into forms of provincial patriotism which increasingly violate the need for national justice and equality. For example, some provincial political leaders have emphasized, at the expense of nearly everything else, the urgent need for a strong mandate to protect what they call either a unique heritage or tremendous wealth from what they perceive to be threatening outside forces. Inspired by self-interest and discontent, this kind of attitude can turn the provinces into islands unto themselves, increasingly unconcerned about the legitimate needs and fundamental rights of dissenting Canadians within and beyond their provincial borders.
The crisis today is fuelled in many areas by this rise of narrow provincialism that deepens the rift between the federal government and the provinces. The ideology of confrontation instead of the spirit of co-operation has gained the upper hand, resulting in rigidity instead of flexibility.
The public debate therefore, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, should concentrate on how to secure justice and equality for all Canadians, and not on the power struggle between provincial and federal governments-justice that would allow for principled differences and accommodate regional diversities.
History has shown that for a nation to retain its vitality and maintain its progress, it must foster a continuing dialogue among its citizens. Furthermore, only when this dialogue is communicated to its citizenry can a nation hope to profit, via the democratic mandate, from such discussion and debate.
If we Canadians are not sensitive to the dynamics of our environment, we will forfeit the opportunity to fashion our political and economic future.
What is required, Mr. Speaker, is a clear understanding by Canadians of what our directions and choices should be in a period when the economy is growing slowly or not at all, and the assets from previous rapid economic growth are not available to deal with the problems.
We know there are serious social and economic problems that must be dealt with in our country today. We also know that Liberal governments have presided over the greatest economic expansion this country has seen and also put in place a social security system for individual Canadians which is the envy of many other countries.
With governments seriously constrained to keep, or even reduce, over-all spending, do we abandon our compassion, or do we find ways to meet those social and economic problems with the resources we have available? Can we abandon our commitment to a compassionate social policy in favour of the new fads of conservatism?
After 30 years of achieving historic levels of economic growth, the industrial countries of the world are all sharing substantial slowdowns and suffering similar problems of inflation, high interest rates and unemployment. Is our choice, as a Canadian people, to abandon the system of government incentives and private initiatives on which Canada has grown for a concept of a totally free marketplace which was disprov-en by the Great Depression? On is it for a socialist program of
Taxation
state control of the means of production and the strangulation of the entrepreneurial spirit?
The worst of solutions is to run to one extreme or the other. We should continue to be committee to a mixed enterprises system which has been a strong foundation on which to build our economic strength over the years. Canadians should be neither dominated by the public sector nor the private sector. We should strive for a harmonious balance between private power and public power in our society. This is what sometimes causes political life to be frustrating-trying to achieve that harmonious balance that will satisfy all our needs, not just those of a particular interest group. There are no easy or simple solutions because there are no easy or simple problems.
As we continue this debate on Bill C-93, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are some Canadians who would like to see all government spending done away with. As a member of Parliament, I have received pleas from some segments of my constituency for this to take place, but I have also received pleas from other segments not to touch the programs which affect them. Let us cut, they say, but do not cut industrial incentives programs which are fundamental to economic recovery. Do not cut transfer payments, which they say will put added burdens on the provinces. Do not cut subsidies to cultural organizations such as theatres, museums, symphony orchestras and the like. Do not cut the social programs. And on it goes.
We hear as well from other segments crying for more government spending to stimulate the economy. We hear that every day from across the aisle. One minute they say spend the money; the next minute they say cut the money. This is where we must strive for that harmonious balance of which I spoke earlier.
We do live in a world filled with fear and anxiety, a world which focuses more and more on individual and group possessions and territory. We are concerned in many ways about the changes taking place around us which we sometimes barely understand. At such times there is a great temptation to go where the strength seems to be, whatever the substance that may be offered, rather than to accept our responsibilities as citizens to try to understand and wrestle with the change in a way which preserves the greatest freedom and well-being for us all.
Our democratic system was born at a time when most people were living in authoritarian societies. The people who settled in our country had had their share of government repression. They were individualists and they structured their new society so as to preserve the rights of the individual. Their assumption was that given freedom and protection of individual rights, a society could depend upon personal initiatives for its economic development. Thus, as the free entreprise system assumed the responsibility for economic growth, a caring philosophy through a free government expressed man's humanity to man, representing the social process of democracy.

May 4, 1982
Taxation
This process, I suggest, must continue today. The free enterprise system and the social system are interwoven; they support each other. We cannot live in company without some mutually agreed upon adjustment to others. We have enough forces at work in our day-to-day encounter with life just waiting to destroy relationships and conditions which work for the common good of our country.
If there is anything which should make a person despise himself or herself, in my mind at least, it would be to live a little mean existence in a time like this. Sure, we have many of the problems commonly found in western democracies today. We have inflation, unemployment and high interest rates. We are faced with the task of reconciling economic development and environmental protection. We have regional economic disparity and poverty, and we recognize those things. We also have the feeling among the middle class that they are sometimes being imposed upon, and we sometimes have the feeling of alienation between citizen and government. I would not suggest at all that we have handled these and other common problems with consummate wisdom, but we cannot evade the hardships and problems of life which we have to face by drawing into ourselves, by simply saying "me first" and being self-indulgent. This is the time to strive for a more harmonious balance of free enterprise and social programs, encouraged by a democratic and caring government.
It has been said that each generation must re-create its own democracy. This means both the economic free enterprise system and the free social system. The re-creation must be all inclusive. To develop a sound economic system a democratic society must provide the motivation and opportunity for people to help themselves. To develop a sound social system-that same society must provide motivation and programs for people to help others. Only with both can our democracy survive.
In debating this bill, Mr. Speaker, I realize it is only part of an over-all financial challenge facing us today. But we must realize that government must be free to create the social programs society needs and, in many cases, demands. At the same time the private sector must be free to create the material wealth which in part allows society to prosper. Ultimately the government ledger, the balance between revenues and expenditures, will reflect the extent to which this freedom has been granted.
I suggest that we should not be pessimistic, for we are the product of a proud heritage and our record is not one achieved through compulsion. Those who built this nation were architects of freedom who dared to dream big dreams. They drafted laws for the protection of freedom as well as blueprints for new machinery. We must do likewise if we are determined to make of the whole of our nation everything it has the capacity to be.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we represent many prejudices, hopes, wounds, and many mistakes. Perhaps we find ourselves all too often taking for granted a host of things which other nations, at other times, could not take for granted. But I suggest to you, Sir, that if we are careless and wasteful, if we underestimate the complexity of the things we must do, if we are self-confident and self-indulgent, if we try to deceive others with a
double standard which involves half-truths for ourselves and insists on whole truths for them, if we fail to read well the lessons of history-and I refer to the days of the depression- concerning the geography of our country and the total spirit of Canadians, we can and will spoil probably the greatest opportunity which God has given to any people.
The fundamental change we have to make, Mr. Speaker, is in ourselves, our attitudes as Canadians, and we have to make that change in support of a government which, by its legislation, by asking for the borrowing authority in this particular bill, is a government which shows it does care because it has that mix of free enterprise entrepreneurial spirit, along with the philosophy of looking after those who really need help. Tell me what other country in the world today has the social programs we have for the benefit of its people? The problems to which I alluded earlier are great, no question about it, but they would be even greater if Liberal governments of the past had not put in place the social benefits which many people are using now to sustain them in their daily life and occupation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, in a country like ours today there is a big market for people who not only tell it like it is, but who try to show how it ought to be. That is not always an easy road to follow; there are many potholes which one sometimes finds oneself in. But if we have the spirit, determination and will, then we can and will survive. Therefore, as we consider this bill to establish additional borrowing authority, I suggest we must reflect upon the role of the creators and distributors of wealth, and we must attempt to secure a harmonious balance between the two.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds. Basically, this is a bill to gouge more revenue out of Canadian taxpayers so the government can pay off its incompetence in the economy.
The last speaker, the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), must have been speaking about some other government than the one in power in Canada at the moment. If he thinks his government is compassionate and if he has compassion, I would like him to come to my riding and talk to some of the people who have been writing to me and lobbying the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to make changes in the budget. They have also been seeking help to find jobs in this country. I found no solace in the comments of the Minister of Finance in question period both yesterday and today. He was asked what new economic plans this government was going to implement as a result of the cancellation of major megaprojects which would have provided jobs for Canadians. These jobs are no longer in place because of economic conditions in the world, high interest rate policies and the government's National Energy Program, which has come under a great deal of criticism over the last year.
May 4, 1982

I am sure many of the backbenchers on the government side feel the same kind of frustration that we in this party and those in the Conservative party feel when we go to our ridings to talk to people, people who have worked in communities and built up businesses and reputations, according to the work ethic to which the hon. member for London West adheres.
I want to talk about a few of the businesses in my community that are no longer doing as well as they anticipated. I want to describe what impact this is having on the people. First I want to talk about a company that has been very successful in the forest industry worldwide. It supplies heavy logging equipment. The name of this company is S. Madill Ltd. It is a private company, established in Nanaimo. Initially, it developed mobile spars which caught on in British Columbia. From that start the company shipped its product to areas of logging throughout the world. S. Madill Ltd. enjoys a solid reputation in the community of Nanaimo. At one time it had up to 140 people employed in that industry supplying spar trees and other heavy equipment for the logging industry. This company now has only about 30 employees, mostly in administration. It has had to lay off its machinists, engineers, architects and many of its technicians, who have now gone who knows where. Perhaps they are in other parts of British Columbia, Canada or perhaps throughout the rest of the world. Those people are now lost to that community and to that company even if there is a turnaround in the economy. There were many long-time employees in that company who had served 20 and 25 years and never anticipated being out of work. But they did find themselves out of work because of the economic conditions in Canada and the United States.
My next example concerns a consulting firm. I know of an individual who has worked most of his life developing a consulting firm with well-trained engineers and technicians. He had a very profitable business going until there was a downturn in the economy. This individual is faced with the prospect of laying off his employees who had worked for him for years and years. They were dedicated employees and indeed they developed a friendship with their employer. He is faced with the task now, or soon will be, of laying off those friends and workers. This individual has requested me to ask the Minister of Finance to write the letter informing his workers that they will be laid off. He wants the Minister of Finance to write the letter to explain why these people are losing their jobs and why his business will no longer be in existence. I think it would be constructive for the Minister of Finance to sit down and write some of those letters, letters which many employers in this nation have had to write as a result of the economic conditions supported and implemented by the Minister of Finance and his government. I hereby request the minister to perform this task.
The lumber industry in British Columbia is a key to economic growth. At the moment in British Columbia thousands and thousands of woodworkers have been laid off permanently. Others are suffering from shutdowns of varying periods from now until at least the end of September. In my riding there are approximately 10,000 people on unemployment insurance.
Taxation
This is 10,000 people who are no longer working in the woods industry or in businesses within the community. Of course, they are no longer contributing income tax to the federal government.
In this bill we are asked to approve a borrowing authority of $6.6 billion. Much of that money will have to go to pay unemployment insurance benefits or associated costs of government because of economic conditions, none of which brings money into the economy. This is a government handing out money through social programs of which the hon. member for London West is so proud and on which Canadians have become dependent. Certainly we are not saying here in the House of Commons that the unemployment insurance program is supposed to be there so we can put 1.3 million or 1.5 million people on that roll instead of giving them full employment. But the situation the British Columbia loggers are facing is that of collecting unemployment insurance for a certain period of time and then they will have to go on to the welfare roll.
Major pulp mills in Nanaimo and Port Alberni are facing lay-offs over the summer months which will cause a further economic downturn and problems within the community. This will certainly affect the small business community, which is already hard hit by economic conditions and high interest rates.
The building association in my riding is suffering from bankruptcies within its organization. More and more people have been thrown out of work. On Vancouver Island, the estimates from the carpenters' union in mid-March revealed a 28.5 per cent unemployment rate in its membership in British Columbia. On Vancouver Island 38 per cent are unemployed. In parts of Vancouver, up to 60 per cent or 65 per cent of people in the carpentry industry are out of work.
The economic conditions in Canada are starting to trickle through the system and affect young people. We have seen recently the Established Programs Financing Act cutbacks and cutbacks imposed by the federal government in cost-sharing of health care and education.
The implications of unemployment, high interest rates and the cutbacks in program cost-sharing between provinces and the federal government will mean more and more of our young people will be unable to go to university. First, our young people will have to pay higher fees if they can go to university. Provinces and the federal government are cutting back their contributions to universities. Young people will be faced with higher fees, but now they are faced with the prospect of not getting jobs this summer. In British Columbia, the main employer of young people in summer months is the woods industry. At present, we have 15,000 permanently unemployed in that industry. There is no hope of people coming out of high schools, colleges or universities this summer finding jobs in the forest industry to finance their education next year. We are losing skilled workers not only in our business but in our industries. We are not allowing the young people to get the employment and the education they need to become technicians, engineers, scientists and trades people.

May 4, 1982
Taxation
We have a federal government that talks about a billion dollar job program, but the problem with that is that there are no jobs for those people when they get their training. In the lumber industry companies are laying off permanent workers but they are also now laying off apprentices. Apprentices are unable to get their training at the trade schools in British Columbia because they do not have the appropriate number of hours of employment to qualify. Both the federal government and the provincial governments are preventing young people from getting training. These are the people we so desperately need in Canada if we are going to meet the economic conditions which we hope for, with progress and growth in energy sectors, in the microelectronics industry, in shipbuilding and others industries that we as Canadians need for our future growth. The young people of Canada are particularly hurt this year because of the economic conditions that are being imposed on them by the federal government and some of the provincial governments which support the federal programs.
Health care services in British Columbia are feeling the effects of the present economic condition. We find that more and more nurses and hospital workers will be out of work, thus reducing the health care available to the population of British Columbia.
I want to talk about why these conditions exist. The message that indeed we are in a crisis situation has not reached the Government of Canada, despite the protests of the business community over the budget, the objections to the high interest rate policy by the Canadian Labour Congress and the 70,000 to 100,000 people who paraded outside the Parliament Buildings on November 21, and the hundreds of thousands of letters which were sent to the minister objecting to the provisions of the budget.
When they talk about compassion, do they ever think about what it means to a home owner who has worked all his life to build his home, only to find that his mortgage rate rises from 11 per cent or 12 per cent to 20 per cent, 23 per cent or 24 per cent and that he has to forfeit his home? Do they ever think about the feelings of that individual or the feelings of individuals who built up consulting firms or businesses of any nature and suddenly find that, because of the high interest rate policy, their businesses are foreclosed, put into bankruptcy or into receivership? 1 do not think the government really considers the feelings of these people or what it is presently doing to the economic and social health of the country.
We repeatedly hear that the reason for the high interest rate policy in Canada is to bring down inflation. Over and over again the government has been reminded in the House that the inflation rate is not abating. In fact, the inflation rate is still around 12 per cent, despite the high interest rate policy, bankruptcies and the loss of farms, homes and fishing vessels. What are we gaining in the country? We are losing our skilled workers to the unemployment rolls and we are losing income from people who could be working and contributing as Canadian taxpayers to the social programs of which we are so proud.
The high interest rate policy is being adopted because President Ronald Reagan adopted that program in the United States. It is not only the Liberal Party of Canada which supports that policy; it is also supported by the Tories. When President Reagan addressed the House and gave us an economic lecture, the Tories rose en masse with a standing ovation and a thunderous applause for the economic policies which he wanted Canada to implement in support of economic conditions in the United States. There are ten million people out of work in the United States. There are 1.5 million people out of work in Canada. The Conservative government of Britain is putting it to the British people, where there are three million people out of work. All these governments follow the same policy as the government across the way. What is Canada gaining from it? We are not gaining anything from it, and we know that we will not get anywhere with the present government. It is encouraging that people in the United States are finally awakening to the fact that the monetarist policy supported by hon. members of the Conservative and Liberal parties is not working there. It will not work here either.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward Allan Miller: The Tories do not like to be reminded of their policies. They like to fool the Canadian public into thinking that they are progressive. They are not. They are conservative and supportive of the republican government in the United
States.
What about the job-creation policies of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)? Perhaps he should be referred to as the minister of unemployment. He offered 10,000 jobs to the province of British Columbia through a job-sharing agreement with that province in the woodworking industry. This would almost employ the people who are out of work in my riding. It is not a permanent job creation program; it will supposedly enhance our future forest industry. We support the concept that we should maintain and look after the forests in British Columbia.
At the same time as the minister put $24 million into that program, we have MacMillan Bloedel in Nanaimo laying off woodland services people. These are the people who conduct experiments to ensure that we have growth in the future; they do the spacing and the fitting to ensure a healthy forest. Companies are laying off the people who do that work, and people are put back to work through government subsidies to do the same job. The government should respond to those layoffs by private companies and ensure that they maintain woodland services and contribute equally to the forest silviculture program.
What could the government be doing? It could sit on its rear end, as it has, and ignore the pleas of the business community, of workers, of home owners, of farmers, of fishermen and of the House of Commons. Or it could do something. It could move to bring down interest rates, the major cause of problems in my riding and I suspect the major cause of problems in the
May 4, 1982

ridings of every hon. member. Everyone who writes to their member of Parliament indicates that interest rates are killing them, whether they are workers in the construction industry or home owners. People in the forest industry know that the downturn in housing construction in the United States is because of its high interest rate policy.
Why can we not develop some initiative, some drive and some enthusiasm in Canada for the economy? Why can we not have a government in Ottawa which supports sourcing of manufacturing related to the Canadian resource industry? Dome Petroleum estimates that it will need 140 vessels by the year 2000 for Beaufort Sea exploration and development. Does the government have a policy of building ships for offshore oil and gas exploration in Canada? No, it does not. It will go anywhere in the world to buy ships; it will not provide shipbuilding jobs for Canadians.


Mr. Paproski:: It will even buy from socialist countries like Russia.


Edward Allan Miller: Yes, it will buy from Russia, Taiwan, the United States, Japan or Germany, but it will not provide jobs in Canada. It will not provide jobs for skilled workers and the spin-offs from the shipbuilding industry.
The government should develop a policy whereby the equipment used in megaprojects, if any ever get going, in coal development and in mining in general is sourced in Canada. Why can this not be done? We have a government which does not believe in and does not want to involve itself in such programs.
There could be a steel mill in British Columbia, for example. The federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia could take the initiative to establish an auto manufacturing or parts plant for Japanese cars in British Columbia. The government should be committed to jobs for Canadians and from those jobs to access to universities for students and access to social programs through balanced budgets, rather than to deficit financing. We will not be able to support the social programs in Canada to which we have become accustomed if the government continues to borrow at high interest rates and to pay foreign banks on these loans. We must develop an industrial strategy so that we know what kinds of jobs will be needed in the future, and we must plan a strategy so that young people obtain jobs and the necessary training.
Borrowing authority will not solve the underlying problems. The problem with continuing to borrow is that we simply spend more of our budget on financing the national debt. That is a blind end or a dead end; that is something which Canadians will not and cannot tolerate any longer. We need a government which really believes in the initiative and self-reliance of Canadians. I believe the government can begin doing that by bringing in a new budget and some new economic policies to give Canadians job opportunities and education for our young people.
Taxation


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting listening to the remarks of the last speaker. I think it would only be proper to remind him that it is not so long ago that provincial members of this party were imposing unheard of royalty burdens on natural resources.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Eight per cent growth.


Fred Alward McCain: Those burdens have had a major impact upon the viability of the natural resource industry, whether it be fishing, forestry or mining.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It produced 8 per cent growth while you stagnated.


Fred Alward McCain: It is not so long ago that the NDP, in cooperation with the government of the day, tried to make profit a dirty word.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Only when you sell nukes to the Nazis.


Fred Alward McCain: Not only has the hon. member's financial capability proven questionable, but his manners are deplorable.
I did not inject a word of complaint about anything he had to say, regardless of how much I disagreed with it. I am now commenting on his remarks and if he would care to comment on my remarks at some later time and in proper form, 1 welcome that and challenge him to do it.
It has been proven beyond any question of doubt that prosperity and profit go hand in hand with employment.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is my people you are laying off. That is why I am angry.


Fred Alward McCain: When prosperity and profit do not exist, employment declines to a point which is as much concern to me as it is to the hon. member in the NDP. Our hearts are in the same place; our philosophies are totally different. Our philosophy seeks employment and opportunity. Our philosophy seeks those opportunities which the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) described as existing in his youth and which enabled his success. I believe his success can quite properly be measured by the respect he has earned from the people who placed him in this House. The opportunity was there in the 1930s, as hard as it was to come by. We now find that opportunity declining. It has declined since the Government of Canada adopted NDP philosophies.
In co-operation with the NDP, the government has attacked profit. It has not encouraged productivity or investment, and, as a matter of fact, has discouraged it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You only know how to shovel out money.


Fred Alward McCain: Just as the NDP member, I am standing in the House today imploring this government to look at what it has done to employment opportunity for Canadians of all ages, from the student up to the more mature people of our society.

May 4, 1982
Taxation


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The audience has a right to react to the bad actor.


Fred Alward McCain: I wonder why the loquacious individual on my left has not made a somewhat more in-depth analysis of Canada's economic structure. Has he read the analyses, not only of the precarious financial structure of Canada, but the very precarious structure of the free enterprise system? I suggest that reading a newspaper report of our financial situation is like reading an obituary. The number of bankruptcies in fishing, farming, forestry and small and large business is increasing day by day. Yet the government continues to attack the profit system which creates the jobs.
I suggest to this House that until such time as we start to balance our thoughts and philosophies with the economic reality of development and employment, this nation is in for a very hard time.
The hon. member for London West suggested that there is room to blend free enterprise and the public sector. The fact that we have done this has proven that there is room to blend. There was room for some Crown corporations to operate in Canada in particular areas such as the nuclear energy program, transportation and public utilities. Evidently, the public could be served better by a Crown corporation in those endeavours. We have adopted that philosophy and until the government arrived at the point where it attacked, regulated and taxed the property structure and the free enterprise system in Canada, there were jobs. There were jobs in Oshawa, Grande Prairie and in Carleton-Charlotte. Now that it has refused to blend and recognize the structure which has provided so much employment, those jobs exist no longer. People are unemployed and the taxpayers who are paying the cost are the ones who are suffering.
The proper blend between the private and public sector is what is needed and we must understand how to achieve this blend in order to restore this structure. First, we must examine some of the consequences of a declining economy in Canada on a local basis. I would like to use my own constituency of Carleton-Charlotte as an example. There have been several shutdowns by major employers in my constituency. As was mentioned by the hon. member in the NDP, the forest industry has experienced lay-offs and this has happened from one end of my constituency to the other. These lay-offs range from temporary to permanent. The closing of the veneer plant in McAdam is permanent, affecting roughly 250 or 300 jobs directly through that plant. That number rises to well over 300 when the supply spin-offs from the forest industry are added. This closure was caused by the fact that the government would not recognize under any circumstances the importance of the housing industry. There was no viable market for veneer produced in that town. Therefore, the economy, regulated and slowed down by design through the co-operation of the NDP and Liberal philosophies, has put those 300 people out of work.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Ronald Reagan.


Fred Alward McCain: When you cannot find some subject to throw a rock at at home, you pitch it on an international trajectory. I have not mentioned Ronald Reagan. Nor is it his fault that we are in the position we are. We must look to home.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is the same play.


Fred Alward McCain: We are interested in what happens in the European community, in South America and in North America as well. All economic effects of the world economy impact themselves on our country and every other country in the world, but we should do for ourselves what we can. There are many things we can do.
We do not need a budget in Canada which requires us to pass a borrowing act which will add to the burden of the taxpayer next year and indefinitely. It is a non-productive piece of paper which enables the government to operate but does not produce anything.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Where are you getting the $6.6 billion?


Fred Alward McCain: You will probably have to borrow it abroad now because the Canadian people have been stripped by your policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, I am sure the hon. member knows that he should address his remarks to the Chair.


Mr. Oberle:: Borrow it from the international union. They have lots of money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte has the floor.


Fred Alward McCain: We must come back to reality. We have to determine how that co-operation between Crown corporations and private enterprise can survive. It cannot survive through taxation and regulation to such an extent as to make the operation neither profitable nor desirable.
These have been the constraints placed upon us. We can go further. There is a forging plant which had great promise, not only of production at the level which was initially undertaken, but a promise of major expansion. As the farming industry, construction in the railroad industry and construction in the heavy machinery industry declined, there was no longer a market for that production. That plant closed, taking with it another 250 to 300 jobs, something which would not have happened had there been an element of incentive in the budgets of this government or an element of encouragement or expression of interest in small business in Canada. But no, they are being taxed harder.
When we get down to the smaller business structure, I get more calls from small business in a month than I received in total in the first nine years I was in the House of Commons. Those calls range all the way from tearjerkers, such as the father who has been in business for quite some time, pleading
May 4, 1982

whether there is something I can do to get his son a job. He cannot help him finish college and get his degree. He will join the ranks of the unemployed. The father can neither employ and pay him nor assist him with college. That is the result of a declining economy and its impact on what was a prosperous business.
I can cite another retailer who gave me the message that in order to survive he had to dismiss an employee who had been in the family business which he now manages for 26 years. He said they have reached the point where they have to cut to the bone. Otherwise, they will not be able to sustain themselves or employ anyone in the future. They must therefore take measures which are most unpalatable. Dismissing an employee with 26 years seniority was very unpalatable.
That in part was caused by government policy. First, there was a change in the taxation structure. His profit picture no longer looked as good as the bank would have liked, so it lowered the boom. Second, there was an attack on profit by the government, supported by the NDP. There go the jobs. There is a difference between the practicalities of society, whether it be economic or social, and a particular and specific philosophy applied to the letter. This is what is happening here.
We have a philosophy that profit is a bad word, but we are not prepared to assess the consequences of the total application of the policy, whether it be in the oil industry, the farming industry, the forest industry, the fishing industry, or small business. They must have profit if they are to stay in business. They cannot under any circumstances expand without it. Profit has become a dirty word and this government has attacked it, supported by the NDP.
I now want to discuss a problem New Brunswick has had and the competence of people in this House to do something about it. The Department of National Defence has chosen to close down the Chatham air base. They have chosen to close down a plant which by reputation has perhaps the best weather of any eastern air base in Canada. That is number one. It is rather ironic that one would pick the best weather location and close it down. Second, it has closed one of the most tactfully and tactically located defence bases in Canada as it relates to the defence of eastern Canada. Once again we find ourselves in a contradictory situation. No matter what may be said by government officials trying to justify this closure, that is the appraisal of that base by experts in the field of defence. Therefore, that is not an excuse.
Their third reason, and I suppose it relates to the tactical location of the place, is that it is within the range of the flyway of Russian planes coming across Canada, and from the point of view of defence that is a very significant factor. In spite of those three major plusses of the location of a particular air base, it is being wiped out.
The fourth item which should be taken into consideration is the impact it made upon that beautiful community lying in the estuary of the Miramichi and the way it has been assessed by the people of New Brunswick. The people of New Brunswick do not write a lot of letters to their members of Parliament, but they do write some. I have a thicker file from the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte on that particular subject matter
Taxation
than on virtually any other such matter in my time in this House. I have received letters from mayors of villages, towns and cities as well as from individuals objecting to the hardship that is being unnecessarily imposed upon the town of Chatham.
I wish to read some parts of an editorial in the April 24 edition of the Saint John Telegraph-Journal'.
It is not often that the government and the opposition in the New Brunswick legislature agree on something. But the two parties joined unanimously this week in endorsing a strongly worded motion which calls on the federal government to ensure the future of Canadian Forces Base Chatham-
The economic facts as cited in the legislature, speak for themselves: The Chatham base payroll amounts to $30 million and there is an economic spin-off estimated at $17 million; the base provides 1,550 jobs; and the base personnel, along with their families, account for half the population of the town.
The Miramichi is already hurting badly because of the economic slump, with unemployment reported running at 44 per cent-probably closer to 50 per cent when those on welfare and those who have dropped out of the work force are counted, according to the Chatham MLA.
The Canadian Mental Health Association of New Brunswick has also warned of the social impact if more people are thrown out of work by the closing of the base. Association president Dr. Leandre Desjardins had this to say: "I don't believe anyone can challenge that job loss will mean more social, health and welfare costs along with a great deal of human suffering".
I come to the power of the backbench in an opposition or government party. I want to mention it in association with Chatham and relate it to one other instance which will indicate that the members of Atlantic Canada who serve on the backbenches of the government of this day had their chance to resist. We watched them vote on the VIA Rail issue en masse, except one absentee from New Brunswick, in support of the cancellation of VIA Rail. If they had made a strong case in their caucus, that VIA Rail service would still be operating from Halifax, through Moncton, Saint John, Sherbrooke and into Montreal. Here we have a complete departure from responsibility when we talk about throwing 1,550 people out of work in an area which, according to the local MLA, already has 40 per cent to 50 per cent unemployment.
Now, the member for London West was saying that we should not complain about government efforts to cut back cost. We do not complain about government efforts to cut back cost in a rational way, but this does not exercise a saving in a rising budget, scheduled to rise on an annual basis; and now we are not going to save that money, we are simply going to spend it elsewhere. 1 understand the bulk of it is going to go to Bagot-ville, Quebec. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker that this is a gross and negligent act of bad faith with the voters from Atlantic Canada.
My constituency happens to consist of a fishing, farming, forest community and all of the little businesses that are associated with it. Some of them are not directly associated with the fish, farm and forest industry; some of them are producers of goods and services required outside the constituency. I have already mentioned the lay-offs in the forest industry; 1 have mentioned the difficulties with small business. I have not mentioned the difficulties the farming community is

May 4, 1982
Taxation
experiencing, but here as in all the others the high interest rates are having an impact on the farming community which it cannot bear. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that a young man today can take over a farm in Carleton-Charlotte at its proper value and pay the interest on the money and ever hope to accommodate his mortgage and his interest charges. The economy will not support it in the sphere of agriculture. Not only is the national net income to farmers declining, but in the community of Carleton-Charlotte it has declined even more because that community is primarily dependent on a single commodity which in this particular year has been overproduced on this continent as well as in this nation.
We must have a recognition of the need of these people. I was alarmed when I read in the Montreal press on or about the first of January of this year that the Government of Canada was undertaking negotiations with Russia to lend that nation a billion dollars for the construction of a pipeline. If the press were correct, the interest to be charged on that billion dollars was 10 per cent. I reflected back to the budget of November last, where we set aside 50 million measly dollars, relative to the Russian billion, for agriculture in Canada and we ear-tagged $5 million of that to subsidize the interest on the S45 million that we were going to lend to farmers.
Where is any sense of value in the frontbenches? Why the docile backbenches? I see a cabinet minister shaking his head. There is still some interest in Canada in continuing to try to negotiate that loan for the foreign power. I have no quarrel with that, if that is in the best interest of this nation, and it could well be. What 1 quarrel with is the neglect of the farming industry and the failure to recognize the crisis through which it is passing at this particular time. That recognition is not there, nor is it there for small business. The small business community is suffering bitterly. And with respect to the forest industry, historically, in the last ten years, we have been withdrawing assistance from that industry. We have withdrawn from general research, from forest research, from product research and from insect research. We do have some special research items in respect to the bud worm, for example, but the total effort on general research, product research, forest research and regeneration research has declined. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is in very serious difficulty.
Why do we not take a look at the long-term best interests of Canada? Why do we not suggest that some of the unemployment insurance payments should be deflected into a reforestation program which is so badly needed, in eastern Quebec in particular, and in Atlantic Canada? These are vital programs and they would pick up a lot of people who are presently out of work and would put together a package which would be productive down the road.
The fishing industry is no exception. The fishing industry is a heavy consumer of petroleum products, relative to its income. The cost of that particular requirement for the fishing industry from coast to coast in Canada has virtually trebled. The cost of the items that the fishermen have to buy, has gone up as much as sevenfold in some cases in the last ten years.
Coupled with that, the interest on loans, whether it be for capital equipment or operating expenses, has gone up, as we all know, to levels which are virtually intolerable. Again, as in farming, these interest rates are putting an unjust load, an unjust burden, on the fishermen because their income is declining, since the world markets are not there.
We must adjust ourselves to the problems of our economy, from the primary sector clear through to the major manufacturing sector. How are we doing? We are depriving the provinces of money we are going to save, $5.7 billion over the next five years. The Secretary of State for Canada (Mr. Regan) has said that we are giving the provinces more money than they got last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a true statement if we take it only in the literal sense of the word. If we count the dollars they got last year and count the dollars they get this year, yes, they will get more. But once again, like the application of a philosophy, it must be analysed to see the truth and the reality of it. The reality is that we are giving them fewer real dollars. We are by no means keeping up with the inflationary structures which exist in this nation today.
As a result of this, the University of New Brunswick has made an unusual and exceptional increment in its cost of admission. It is an increase of roughly $200 per annum, something like 17 per cent. This has been necessary even though the provinces have contributed more to the universities for this coming year than the inflationary increment would ordinarily demand. The provincial donation to the university is up by something over 13 per cent, but that is not enough to keep up with the inflationary pressures and the lack of research projects which universities would ordinarily expect to receive and which would help to sustain them. So the students are not only not going to get a chance to work, as was mentioned by the gentleman on my left, but they will find that they have to pay more. This is happening at a time when young people are realizing that if they had more education they might get more work. Therefore, the trend of a declining student population in universities is being reversed. In the last two years applications for admissions have been up. But it is questionable whether or not they will be able to stay there, because of the cost.
The public is deceived, Mr. Speaker, when a government spokesman says that the provinces are getting more dollars but fails to say that they are not getting enough dollars to help the provinces keep up with inflationary impact. It means that hospitals, schools, colleges, social services, all aspects of the provincial expenditure will have to be reconsidered if they are to be kept to the present standard. There is no choice. It is deplorable to me that a former premier of an Atlantic province would stand in this House and in any way excuse this government for a reduction in real dollars, when he knows, because he has sat in the cabinet, that the objective of the Government of Canada is to save $5.7 billion over the next five years in payments to the provinces. To any reasonable man, the consequence is obvious.
May 4, 1982

In the city of Saint John, we have the shipbuilding industry and we have similar potential in other parts of Atlantic Canada. In this case, I agree with the hon. member to our left. We need a policy in Canada whereby we can serve our own needs. If Dome wants 140 ships, how many do the other offshore companies require, the companies which are presently exploring for hydrocarbon products or which may, at some other point in time, explore for them? How many ships are really needed? Certainly, we are speaking of hundreds.
The policy in this country is that we will subsidize some of this exploration through a PIP grant or some other type of grant. I forget what it is, but it does not make any difference. We will tax the people and give it away. However, that policy does not ensure that the offshore rigs, the supply vessels and the transportation requirement will be supplied by Canadian ships. As a result, our Canadian shipyards are experiencing declining employment. We have reduced our basic subsidy to the shipbuilding industry to an unrealistically low level. We have allowed those companies which we are subsidizing to rent or buy or order ships from offshore while our people in the shipbuilding industry of Canada are not employed in the numbers which are possible and our expertise is not utilized. However, we will borrow for further non-productive purposes.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said a funny thing. He spoke in New Brunswick and in Charlottetown and he said, "We would like to recommend that we freeze salaries for civil servants making more than $50,000 a year. We would like the Premiers of Canada to accept the idea of wage and price controls, and we criticize them because they do not. They do not co-operate."
Let me quote directly from the article in The Citizen dated May 4, 1982. In reference to the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister stated:
"It has to be governed from both levels and it is governed best when both can co-operate." Mocking the premiers-
The Prime Minister mocked the Premiers, the article states:
-for their response to his idea of wage controls in February, Trudeau said "it seemed like a simple enough idea to me".
I suppose that one would have to remember that he said this, as reported on May 4, 1982, after he had increased the salaries of Pitfield and his own staff around him, his own PMO, by 23 per cent. So are we to agree to a proposal of wage and price control with that fact in front of us? There is no example more blatantly contradictory to the proposed objectives of the Prime Minister and this government than to raise the high level salaries of the Prime Minister's own office by 23 per cent while asking the rest of Canada to give serious thought to wage and price controls.
I think it is time that we read a few of the quotes which refer to this government and its Prime Minister, and they reflect on every hon. member of that government, whether backbencher or frontbencher. Richard Jackson, in The Telegraph-Journal of April 24, stated:
Taxation
Trudeau is preaching restraint and spending $400 million on a new art gallery and museum. He's throwing around so much money on staffing new agencies that the Ottawa bureaucracy is the biggest growth area in Ontario.
The article continues:
"Big TO", as Torontonians like to call their self-designed Centre-of-Every-thing, is down 5.4 per cent, Ottawa is up 14 per cent, with its eastern suburb, Gloucester, ahead 29 per cent and its western extension, Nepean, 50 per cent.
With the federal government intervening more and more in business, industry, agriculture and just about any sector of private enterprise that catches its eye, the bureaucracy has become an all-pervasive growth industry.
It might be interesting to quote Charles Lynch again from The Telegraph-Journal of April 26, 1982. In reference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his budget, he stated:
Allan MacEachen, the last of the cockeyed optimists, has finally chucked it in and admitted things were terrible.
Everybody else in Canada had known that for months, but there was something faintly reassuring about poor old MacEachen, threshing about in the ruins of his misconceived budget, insisting that there was light at the end of the tunnel.
The article continues:
"The recession, or the downturn," he said, "is deeper than we expected. I am not in a position to confirm whether they arc correct in saying that it is the worst since 1947. It is bad enough the way it is."
The finance minister said he did not believe the Conference Board forecasters were in any way overstating the gravity of the unemployment situation in Canada. And he admitted that the American performance on the price and wage fronts "is certainly better than Canada's"-
The Minister of Finance said it is certainly better than Canada's performance. The article continues:
As will be seen, MacEachen sounds like a man who has run out of steam, and out of ideas, and out of the faith necessary to sound confident even when the sands are shifting under his feet.
That was the press comment. Let us take a look at another article. On April 26, 1982, a gentleman addressed a group of people interested in housing and according to an article in The Telegraph-Journal, he stated:
Saint John area apartment dwellers who have been sighing with relief as they watch home owners trying to cope with skyrocketing mortgage rates could soon feel the effects of those high rates themselves, according to the manager of the local Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. office.
"I think our feeling on rents is, in the same way that a mortgage rollover situation has hit the home owners, it's hitting apartment owners," said Larry Holman. "And for that reason, rents are going up.
"Many apartment buildings in Saint John have, in fact, been operating in deficit positions, probably for the past few years, because of the high vacancy rates that have existed over part of that period."
The article continues:
"Rents in Saint John are relatively low, compared to other cities of comparable size," said Mr. Holman. "And they're certainly low when you compare them to the cost of home ownership in this market. It is certainly a lot cheaper to rent than it is to own in this particular market, at this particular time. It hasn't always been that way."
"So, I think you're going to see rental increases," Mr. Holman said-
That should be of interest to those hon. members to our left. The article refers to home owners. Of course, a home owner can get a small additional loan if a much higher interest is added on to his mortgage. The article states:
The deferral is, in effect, a loan, which results in an increase in the mortgage debt and requires repayment at the end of the deferral period.
SOI 14	15

May 4, 1982
Taxation
The article states further:
Mr. Holman said the just-passed legislation covers only a one-year period and new legislation will be required if the assistance program is to be extended.
I have in my hand another article which I guess time will not permit me to read. The title of that article asks, "Is Home Ownership becoming a Myth?" When the hon. gentleman from London West was born and as he grew up, home ownership was considered to be as near a right of a citizen of this country as any right that we recognized. There was the right to have the ambition and opportunity to buy a home within a reasonable period of time. Now this article in The Telegraph-Journal asks, "Is it a Myth?" I am afraid that is exactly what it is becoming. We must get the interest rate down.
When we see an hon. member and a former premier such as the Secretary of State for Canada criticizing provincial governments anywhere in this nation of Canada for whatever budget they may bring down, after he was responsible for the rendering of medical, social, welfare, hospital and other services which government must provide, when he is fully aware that the real dollars going to the provinces are lower than they were the year before, and when he is fully aware that the government's objective is to save $5.7 billion in reduction of these provincial payments from the federal structure, then that can be called whatever an honest man would like to call it. My definition of that would not be parliamentary at all.
I have to wonder when the obituaries will stop coming in. Is the obituary of small business in Canada to continue being written? Is the economic obituary of the farmer in Canada to continue being written? Have we had an obituary to Alsands and all the other megaprojects? Does this extend to Atlantic Canada? Do we have a miscarriage, perhaps, because those megaprojects that could bring energy from the seabed will never mature?
This budget, this tax structure, this government's management, this expansion of government while pleading for productivity, is absolutely contradictory and can only be referred to as an obituary for the things we have cherished in the past and which are gradually getting out of reach. The auto, the home, the apartment, the farm, the fishing boat, the forest woodlot- are these completely beyond our reach today? At the moment it would appear that with the policies of the government and their impact upon interest rates, these things are either beyond our reach now or are becoming beyond our reach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) take on the impossible task of defending the unworthy policies for which he and his colleagues are responsible. I heard him recite the Liberal rote-that our national economic problems are simply related to what is going on all over the world. What a demonstration of blind political loyalty! It is totally unbecoming of any member of the House. I thought that this particular member would not accept so unthinkingly the
standard line of argument established by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Who but the Liberal government is responsible for the Alsands and the pipeline fiasco? There are 1.5 million people unemployed in Canada and projects have been lost through the Liberals' careless exercise of power in search of political rather than national goals which would have given employment to one third of the people presently unemployed. Some 500,000 people who are unemployed today can point directly to the failure of the Government of Canada as the cause of their unemployment. These unemployed do not shrug off their circumstance as an inevitable consequence of international economics. They know better and so do hon. members opposite.
The calls made in this House today for the resignation of the Minister of Finance voiced the deepest sentiment of the people of Canada from coast to coast, from city and farm, from young and aged and, very significantly, from thousands of Canadians who formerly held membership in the Liberal Party of Canada. This disastrous government and all the docile, obedient members who disgrace responsible elected office should resign and give Canada the break it deserves.
Today we are dealing with Bill C-93 which combines the more conventional borrowing authority bill with a number of amendments to the Excise Tax Act. This is an omnibus bill in every sense. It is an omnibus bill which provokes many of the very same objections which were so clearly enunciated and understood by the people of Canada during the bell-ringing episode of a few weeks ago.
The average Canadian on the street, on the farm, in the factories, in the homes of our nation grasped the abuses inherent in Bill C-94. They understood the issue then and I think they will resent the fact that an arrogant government is proceeding with a bill in almost duplicate circumstances, as if the lesson had not been learned.
The situation with this bill is the same as with Bill C-94, namely, that standing committee examination will be denied because of the ways and means taxing authority inclusion. It is almost a repeat of the circumstances which, in more exaggerated form, brought about the ringing of the bells and the jelling of public opinion in opposition to the tactics of the government and, finally, to the capitulation of the government as a result of the pressure of public opinion.
Of interest and significance to all people across Canada who care about democracy and who can now see the concrete results of the actions of Her Majesty's loyal opposition regarding Bill C-94 is an advertisement which appeared in newspapers across Canada on Thursday, April 22. Under the heading of "Standing Committee on Energy Legislation" the advertisement reads as follows:
The Standing Committee on Energy Legislation of the House of Commons will be holding hearings on the following pieces of legislation:
May 4, 1982

It then lists Bills C-101 to C-108 and goes on to say:
Individuals and organizations wishing to make written submissions to the Committee relating to the subject matter of these Bills may do so-
Vindication and satisfaction has been experienced. This type of examination in committee of the component parts of Bill C-94 became possible after the taxing provisions of the original bill were removed. This allowed the other split-off portions of the bill to move to the standing committee where expert witnesses can be heard. This advertisement is evidence that the position we took at the time was correct. The public must know that the same circumstances pertain to the bill before us, and because it contains taxing measures, standing committee examination may be prevented. In each of the four recent experiences with borrowing authority bills which were separate entities, the bill was referred to the standing committee for detailed discussion. This enabled the House to call witnesses to discuss the government's borrowing and debt financing policies. The composition of this borrowing authority bill sets a poor precedent and, as such, is to be regretted.
In the Lambert Royal Commission Report on Financial Management and Accountability the following statement appears:
In the United States the level of the deficit is regarded as a matter of grave concern. Arthur Burns, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recently addressed this issue in a lecture at Georgetown University-
"-the persistence of substantial deficits in our federal finances is mainly responsible for the serious inflation that got under way in our country in the midSixties."
The persistence of substantial deficits is mainly responsible for our serious inflation. Compare this stated anxiety about expanding government deficit spending with the reaction of our own Prime Minister, who evidently really does consider that the deficit is nothing more than a bookkeeping entry. Small wonder the economy of this country is in tatters under the careless leadership of one man who has never had the delight and exhilaration of working and achieving out there in the real world. Every farmer, every owner/operator of a country store such as we have in my home town of Kaleden, every plumber and mechanic, every one of Canada's millions of harried housewives, is trying to fit the staggering price increases for food, shelter and clothing into the family budget.
The common, ordinary working people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, the backbone of our economy and the salt of the earth, could have told the prime Minister that spending vastly more than your revenue gets you into trouble sooner or later. Even Canada, rich though it be in resources and talented people, cannot put off forever the day when accounts must be settled. The bland assumption of the Prime Minister that the world will unfold as it should does not shelter our citizens from the realities of life and the economy. Canadians are now feeling the effect of an almost criminal neglect of economic principles by the Prime Minister and his faithful coterie of followers so beguiled by the vision of power and influence, or perhaps just in earning an approving nod from their leader,
Taxation
that in these circumstances they are apparently prepared to put the nation in jeopardy.


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misunderstood what the hon. member was saying, but it sounded to me as though he was attributing motives to members and I believe that is considered unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will take note of the remarks made by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), and will listen to the remarks made by the hon. member for Qkanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King); but perhaps the hon. member can take note of those remarks and guide himself accordingly.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to say anything to offend anyone's sensibilities, because I notice that just does not happen in this House.
It is the philosophy of "the nation be damned" which shows up in the inevitable and damaging statistics of inflation, unemployment, bankruptcies, and the hundreds of thousands of personal tragedies encountered by Canadians from coast to coast. It is Liberal government policy, past and present, which is responsible for Canadians losing their homes because they cannot meet interest rates demanded by the lending institutions as a direct result of this government's sins, with a capital "S". It is Liberal government policy sins, past and present, which are responsible for Canadians losing their farms and small business enterprises. It is Liberal government policy failures and neglect, past and present, which are responsible for something like 1.5 million unemployed. What a legacy of failure, tragic failure, this government has provided citizens of Canada who deserve so much better.
The importance of the bottom line may still be obscure to the Prime Minister of Canada, but Canadians know who is to blame for their unhappy predicament. In case members opposite have not understood, let me repeat with double emphasis: the people of Canada know that the cause of the economic disasters which face them is the failure of Liberal party backbenchers to stand up for the things they know to be proper, decent, and imperative to a just and honourable society. The members opposite should look themselves squarely in the eye and say, as did Pogo: "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
In an attempt to divert public anger and attention, the Minister of Finance makes much of his alleged war on inflation. The way to bring down usurious interest rates, he claims, is to wrestle inflation to the ground, and we agree. This is a campaign to which he would like Canadians to believe he is deeply committed. Yet when we consider the nature and cause of inflation, as Arthur Burns defined it when he said that "the persistence of substantial deficits in our federal finances is mainly responsible for the serious inflation under way in our country", we can see that the minister cannot expect Canadians to take him seriously at all because the very inflation he says he wants to control is being fuelled by the government borrowing and spending which he so enthusiastically endorses.

May 4, 1982
Taxation
According to the November, 1981, budget, spending, taxes and the deficit will all be considerably higher this year than they would have been under the Conservative budget. In fiscal 1982-83, on a public accounts basis, the government will spend $75.4 billion, or $8.2 billion more than the spending projected in the Crosbie budget. On a national accounts basis the Liberals will spend $86.9 billion, or $14.3 billion more than was planned by the Conservative government.
The Liberals have broken their promise to hold spending growth below the GNP. In fiscal 1980-81, spending on a national accounts basis grew by 15.2 per cent compared to a growth in the GNP of 10.6 per cent. In fiscal 1981-82, spending rose by 22.1 per cent, compared to a nominal GNP growth of 13.3 per cent. Between fiscal 1980-81 and fiscal 1983-84, the Liberals will spend $26.6 billion more on a public accounts basis than the Conservative government had planned to spend. On a national accounts basis they will spend $44.4 billion more. The borrowing requirements over this period of time will be over $6 billion more. Interest on the public debt will be $16.6 billion this year, the equivalent of $680 per capita, or $1,750 per taxpayer. The government's gross debt and total liabilities was $119 billion last year, and has probably exceeded $135 billion by now. These statistics are reflected in the borrowing authority aspect of this bill and in the requirement to seize every opportunity to sock it to the Canadian taxpayer by adding tax upon tax upon tax.
But the implications go far beyond these facts. The most damaging implications are to be found in the rate of inflation in Canada and its impacting upon people measured through the cost of living index. This is where it hurts.
I want to read a short definition of inflation which is a pertinent commentary on Liberal government economic actions as specifically related to the need to borrow and the need to tax. Inflation, according to both conventional wisdom and the economics text books, means increasing and high prices. This definition is in error.
The price of anything which is bought or sold is determined by the interplay of three factors: first, the demand; second, the supply; third, the amount of money in existence. When a price increases because of a change in the relationship of supply and demand, the price of only a single good or service is affected. When a price changes because of an increase in money supply, prices of all goods and services increase proportionately. When prices increase because of a change in the relationship of supply and demand, the value of money is not changed. When prices increase because of an increase in money supply, the value of money is reduced.
Thus the definition of inflation as an increase in price is incomplete and confusing. It is proposed that inflation be defined as a decrease in the value of money. This decrease in the value of money then causes a general increase in all prices. The purpose of controlling inflation is to retain the value of
money. Inflation is often thought of as a disease of the economy. This is not true; inflation is the symptom of a disease. Inflation is a symptom, a symptom of an increase in money supply.
Most treatments of inflation are aimed at treating the effect of inflation. Artificial measures to change supply or demand are dangerous. Monetarism, the controlled growth of the money supply, is theoretically a better treatment. However, there may be an unfortunate side effect of monetarism. This is pertinent now to the bill. This occurs if the government does not stop its excess spending and instead shifts its financing mechanism from money creation to borrowing. The competition for the limited amount of money drives up interest rates to the point where they adversely affect supply and demand. That is exactly the situation that we in Canada suffer as a result of the actions of the Government of Canada.
There is an interesting article in The Citizen of Ottawa which is usually known as a pro-government newspaper. I wonder if anyone on the other side reads The Citizen?


Mr. Cousineau:: Yes, every day.


Frederick John King: In the April 27 edition of this newspaper, there is an article headed "Do-nothing policy fuels inflation". In part the article reads:
-the evidence suggests that the government had decided not to take any new economic initiatives-demonstrating once again its lack of foresight and its intellectual paralysis.
The official version of the decision to do nothing is that the government intends to pursue its policy of fighting inflation. Once inflation is suppressed, the argument goes, interest rates will fall and job creation will increase.
That would be fine-except for one thing. The government has no antiinflation policy. What it has is a high unemployment policy.
The article continues:
High unemployment, brought about by the interest-rate induced recession, penalizes the most defenceless members of the work force, and that is blatantly unjust and cruel. It also won't cure inflation.
The majority of Canadians, who retain their jobs, will still demand parity with the inflation rate. Those who lose their jobs will have to be supported by government spending. The recession . .. will erode government revenues.
That means the government will have to borrow more, and inflation will persist.
That is an article written for The Citizen on April 27, 1982.
I suggest members opposite read that article and take note of it.
Ronald Anderson wrote an article for The Globe and Mail which appeared on April 27, 1982. His article had the heading:
Having wiener roasts with wolf at the door.
Ronald Anderson writes this:
While the Canadian economy spirals downward in its steepest dive in two generations, the federal Cabinet met during the weekend at Meach Lake, its favourite holiday retreat, to ponder the country's most urgent problems.
The crisis agenda includes discussion of the next stage of constitutional reform, social policy and parliamentary reform.
How is that for having your priorities straight, Mr. Speaker? The article continues:
In between their searching analyses of what the Cabinet regards as the really crucial issues facing Canada, the ministers did find time for a passing reference to economic policy: They agreed to leave it alone.
May 4, 1982

That is, they decided to continue leaving the fight against inflation to the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Anderson quotes from the Business Council on National Issues as follows:
Mr. MacEachen's assurances that the fiscal objective is to reduce deficits and borrowing requirements over the next two or three years-
As sincere as this commitment may be, we would prefer to see quicker and tougher action on this front. We ask you to re-examine your expenditures-
We ask that in the House every day. Mr. Anderson's quote of the business council continues:
-particularly as they apply to supporting the further growth of programs, infrastructure and public service employment. We believe that in some areas there must be room for actually reducing expenditure through rationalization of services.
I think we on this side would agree completely with the Business Council on National Issues as quoted by Mr. Anderson. He goes on to quote the business council as follows:
We plead with you to dispel once and for all the notion that your government is philosophically committed to interventionism.
I ask government members, will you? I hope so. Mr. Anderson's article continues:
The council carries its arguments to even greater lengths when it criticizes the National Energy Program-
Further in the paragraph we find this:
"We ask," said the council, "that the rigidity of the program be eased, that the Canadianization rules be relaxed, that curbs on foreign-owned companies be softened, and that incentives for all energy companies be improved."
Mr. Anderson concludes his article with his own analysis of what the business council stated, as follows:
The fallacy in the argument is that the council assumes Canadians care about such mundane matters as rising incomes, job creation and security of oil supplies. Ottawa knows better.
So says Mr. Anderson. His final sentence in his article reads:
Most of all, as the Cabinet sees it, Canadians are far more interested in the Constitution than in economic growth.
That is Mr. Anderson's analysis. There are other areas to which we might turn in order to see the financial atrocities being committed by the government. Indeed, we would require hours and possibly days to give an account which would begin to do justice to the horror story. Then we would only be scratching the surface because a furtive government and a secretive bureaucracy managed to keep most of the skeletons in the closet.
I should like to refer to the April 26 edition of the Toronto Sun. Why does the government seek authority to borrow $6.6 billion? That question is partly answered by the subject matter of an article entitled "Adding up Liberal ads" by Tom Kennedy. 1 think this writer voiced an opinion which would be reflected in the opinions of Canadians from coast to coast. Mr. Kennedy wrote:
-1 hate seeing my money used to sustain the present federal government in office. Hate is putting it mildly, but finding a word that defines the emotion I feel is impossible.
Taxation
You probably have seen, heard or read advertising messages from Ottawa, telling us about all the wonderful things our government does for us or why it's important to have a powerful federal government ... it's propaganda, no matter how you cut it-
In the year '80-81, Ottawa spent $51 million on advertising-
But by '81-82, federal advertising dollars had risen to $62 million. This year, the estimate for advertising is $70 million-
There's another figure worth noting. In this year, '82-83, the total information budget of the federal government will be $250 million. That does not include advertising, which is listed separately.
He went on to write:
The United States, with a population ten times larger than ours, doesn't spend as much.
And the messages paid for by the American government are true public services, not shady manipulation of citizens' partriotism-
Up here, the messages insist on telling us that without a federal government, we wouldn't have any services.
Those were the words of Mr. Kennedy. They were not mine, but 1 am glad to repeat them for the record.
Another major culprit on the road to economic havoc has been the reckless methodology which the government employed in its Canadianization program. Although Canadianization has some positive aspects in theory and is an attractive political argument, in practice we see the government's strategy increasing the national economic misery and the need for the government to raise revenues or borrow money. As reported in the April 7 edition of The Globe and Mail, Mr. Ronald Anderson wrote:
When the federal government introduced its National Energy Program in 1980, government spokesmen were loud in trumpeting the benefits the program would bring to Canadians.
He went on to write:
The shift was to be accomplished by "Canadianizing" at least one half of the industry by 1990.
This objective turned out to be popular with most Canadians. But the prospective economic costs of the NEP were given little thought ... the NEP was designed primarily to serve political rather than economic objectives.
Then he went on to write:
-it is virtually impossible to quantify the costs and benefits of Canadianization: The costs will be determined by the way in which capital outflows are financed and the spillover effects in other economic sectors.
"The costs, however, are not trivial and under certain circumstances may exceed the benefits obtained."
We are living today under the circumstances about which Mr. Anderson wrote. Foreign direct investment in Canada turned in 1981 from a traditional positive inflow of funds to a large withdrawal of capital, while direct investment in other countries by Canada assumed tidal proportions. These two factors combined resulted in a net direct investment drain of $10.2 billion in 1981. Mr. Anderson also wrote:
Whatever the lofty ideals which underlie Ottawa's nationalistic bias, the economy is being forced to pay a price which is most acutely reflected in our balance of external payments for 1981 and in the external value of the Canadian dollar.
To finance its current account deficit, together with the outflow of direct investment capital and unidentified outflows of funds, Canadians in 1981 had to borrow $13.6 billion through new security issues outside the country and required an additional $14.9 billion in short-term capital imports.

May 4, 1982
Taxation
"These outflows ... thereby add over $4 billion to Canada's annual external interest bill. It is clear from this that the external value of the Canadian dollar will remain vulnerable until Ottawa conveys a less discriminatory attitude toward the foreign investor."
The sharp rise in interest charges on the foreign debt is one of the more visible legacies of the National Energy Program. The crippled dollar is another. The high level of interest rates in Canada also is related to the energy program-
High interest rates, for which the NEP is at least partly responsible, were largely instrumental in pushing the economy into a recession. Now, when lower interest rates are needed to encourage an economic recovery ... Canada likely will be unable to share fully in any interest rates decline that may take place in the United States because of the weak dollar.
That is the tragedy which Canadians face. That is the tragedy which the Government of Canada prompted through its own action.
What grief is all this irresponsible action by the Government of Canada imposing upon the Canadian business community? Jack McArthur of Montreal in the April 27 edition of The Gazette commented upon this under the headline "Company profits go into free-fall". He wrote:
"I've never known a time when businessmen were gloomier," says a veteran of the boardroom.
The Business Council on National Issues says profits as a percentage of Canada's economic action "are now almost certainly at a post-war low."
Of course, this reflects upon the revenues which the government obtains from private activity in Canada and upon the amount of money the government must borrow when industrial activity and economic activity in the country decline drastically. Mr. McArthur continued:
If profits had dropped more moderately ... there'd be less executive gloom .. . The lay-offs ... would have been less severe and the delays in spending for new construction and equipment not as ruinous for jobs and incomes.
Who is responsible? Mr. McArthur wrote:
Blamed in varying degree are the general effects of recession in Canada and abroad; high interest rates that devour the profits of companies unfortunate enough to be debt-heavy; "excessive" taxes and government intervention in corporate decision-making; wage and salary increases averaging around 13 per cent annually.
Government intervention is the chief cause of our economic woes. This government, which is the root cause of the problems faced by large and small businesses across the nation, now comes to the House to ask through Bill C-93 for the authority to borrow as much as $6.6 billion so that, as Liberals, they can maintain at full pace the damaging policy they have pursued for 14 years under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. Such inattention to basic facts of economic life! It is such a waste of our Canadian substance. It is nothing but waste. Waste is the mark of excellence of this Liberal government.
We have to look no further than the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see this waste. It is a pit of fiscal unaccountability to this House and to the country. Worst of all, in my experience no one in the system seems to care. All they are interested in is protecting their backsides and their futures. Saddest of all is that ministers absolutely
refuse to get involved in rectifying situations which are damaging Canadians.
We need leadership. I have an article from the Montreal Gazette dated Thursday, April 29, headed, "Liberals losing control of government, study says." The article says:
The government can no longer control the political conflicts and divisions created by its policies, says a study of federal spending by Carleton University School of Public Administration.
Further, energy spending is out of control and plans to reduce the federal deficit are doomed to failure, says the highly critical report made public this week.
The article goes on to say:
-"they face potentially unmanageable problems" as they try to carry out the rest of their political strategy, writes the studies editor. Professor Bruce Doern, in the opening chapter of "How Ottawa Spends Your Tax Dollars".
It states further:
-Ottawa's battle to restrain its spending to fight inflation "is flawed", says the study.
I think it could be stated in much more dramatic and emphatic terms than "flawed".
The article goes on:
The report also says that energy spending is out of control because the National Energy Program made numerous public commitments that energy decision-makers know cannot be met.
In the face of this, what do we have happening out west? Well, it is sad to see the Liberal token efforts to give recognition to the legitimate needs to western Canada. On May 1, Charles Lynch wrote in his article:
The Government of Canada has just announced the upgrading of its embassy in that far-off land of which it knows so little, Alberta.
He writes further:
The "ambassador" in this case, Bruce Rawson, ceases to be known as Senior Advisor-Western Affairs to the Privy Council Office. He becomes Federal Economic Development Co-ordinator in Edmonton.
The article stated further:
"The right people in Ottawa will get his message", says Senator Olson, "up to the top deputy ministerial level. This ensures the clarity and rapid delivery of the signals and their appropriate targeting.
What a barrel of tripe! The west does not want recognition by the top bureaucrats. It wants some recognition in the political system of this country. This will take major reforms and it is to this that the House should be addressing its creative abilities in the next few weeks and months.
There is much more that one could say and I have much more material prepared, but I hope the tone of my comments have left little doubt about where I stand in reaction to this government's delivery of programs and policies of benefit to Canadians.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it was just a little over a year ago that I stood and talked about a similar bill. It was similar to the extent that they are both borrowing authority bills. A year ago I said that I was impressed with the simplicity of the bill and that it was smaller than most which we get a chance to debate. There was only one clause other than the title. That one clause of the bill was seeking to borrow $14 billion.
May 4, 1982

Today we have a bill with a different number-C-93- which has 34 pages, and perhaps 34 clauses as well. I think the House should first ask itself why the government could borrow $14 billion on the strength of a one-clause bill when it needs a 34-page bill this year to borrow $6.6 billion.
The answer is that the Liberals are at it again. This bill combines the more conventional borrowing authority bill with a number of amendments to the Excise Tax Act as well which arise out of the November 12 budget, and amendments to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act which implements the ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act which was tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on January 27, 1982.
I know that we had some discussions about omnibus bills and we had a couple of noisy weeks when the bells rang over this question, but we clearly have one again with this bill. That is why it takes up 34 pages. It is not just a bill to authorize the borrowing of $6.6 billion. This is the aspect of the bill to which I want to address most of my remarks, however. That, along with the fact that this has become an annual event. Why must the government come back to the House year after year to borrow billions of dollars? I suppose there is a simple one-word answer and that is "deficits".
If we had a government which paid some attention to balancing its revenues with its expenditures, we would not have the kind of problems which this bill is presenting us with in this debate. While saying that, however, we are relieved that the government is forced to come back to the House with this bill. If it were not, with this government we would be in a position as members of the opposition and as individual Canadians of never knowing where we stood or how detrimental our position was.
What about deficits? I suggest that this bill results from the deficits caused by the budgetary problems brought upon us by the government. We can discuss the revenue side first. Obviously, it is easy for a government to spend money, but first it should figure out where it will obtain the money from. Of course, the major source of revenue has always been the individual Canadian taxpayer, worker and businessman. At this moment the government has done everything in its power to discourage individual initiative, enterprise and work.
I have often said they probably destroyed the work ethic of a whole generation of Canadians with their policies over the last 15 years. It should be clear to anyone, and it is certainly clear to an accountant, that you cannot hope to increase revenues through taxation by putting people out of work or out of business. It is a very simple axiom. If you have no business, you have no tax revenue. If you have no profits, there are no tax revenues. If there are no jobs, there will be no tax revenues. Later this week we will be debating the problem of hundreds of thousands of jobs not being created in the west. I realize that is another debate. However, we have hundreds and probably thousands of examples of jobs which have disappeared. They have dried up and gone away or were never created because of
Taxation
the policies contained in budgets such as the one tabled in this House last November by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
People still do not know where they stand with the famous or infamous budget of last November. Just this week I received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Finance by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, signed by the president of that body, Mr. T. A. Cook. He makes references to the fact that he has already written to the minister once expressing the members' concern about the uncertainty and frustration that the federal budget process is causing Canadian taxpayers. He said he had been requested to write the minister on specific problems that chartered accountants, their clients and British Columbia businesses are facing during this period of uncertainty about the new legislation.
It is now six months since that budget was introduced and the government has not yet seen fit to take the uncertainty out of the provisions in that budget. We have not yet had the legislation before the House, six months later, and the date for filing personal income tax returns has come and gone. Individuals engaged in certain kinds of transactions during the last taxation year do not know what to do. They do not know how to file their income tax returns. Everyone is in a terrible state of confusion.
The minister referred to a special committee he would be setting up to consider five special areas, such as life insurance, which were dealt with in the budget. He does not know when that committee will be set up. He hopes that some of the problem areas will be settled before he has to send that topic to committee. That is the problem on the revenue side. The government has not done anything to encourage Canadians to invest, earn or produce more goods, housing, or whatever.
One of the reasons more housing is not being produced is that policies have been introduced by this government which have discouraged the construction of housing. Dozens of large corporations which have been expert in the field of providing housing for Canadians-I hope the minister responsible for housing is listening-have said, "No more, thank you very much". They have withdrawn from the creation of housing in this country.
The old tax policies of the Liberal government had driven individual investors out of the rental housing market a decade or more ago and they are no longer producing rental housing. That is one problem. Now we have the withdrawal of housing contractors from providing single family and other kinds of individually-owned housing from the market.
We might ask why. It is obvious. It is more attractive for these investors and mortgage investors to invest their money in other types of investment where they can get a secure return that is higher than they would get in mortgages for housing.
Would you believe that the very government which wants to encourage activity in the housing and economic fields has taken the wind out of the sails of the housing mortgage market by issuing billions of dollars worth of Canada Savings Bonds

May 4, 1982
Taxation
last November at an initial rate of 19'/2 per cent? Naturally when deposits with trust companies and banks are paying in the range of 14 per cent to 16 per cent and people are lending money at 16 to 18 per cent or perhaps 17 to 20 per cent in house mortgages, investors would rather put their money somewhere for a medium term. They invest in Canada Savings Bonds which have the liquidity and the security of the country behind them and which bring as well 19*/i per cent on the money.
All of the borrowing which the government does creates a tremendous pressure, and in some cases a shortage, in the borrowing activity in the normal money markets. It should be no surprise that when the government dips into the market and takes all of the money that is sitting around waiting to be invested there will not be anything left for the entrepreneurs who want to provide housing or create a project or business, or whatever they want to do in our economy.
It is difficult to look at the government's record on the economic side of things and judge whether or not it is doing things in a proper fashion without looking at an area which is not always as open to examination by members of the House as it would be if it were not hidden behind the cloak of Crown corporations. I want to say a few words about some of our more well-known Crown corporations.
A good one to start with would be Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That corporation is run by people appointed by this government. There have been quite a few of them in and out of the front door of Atomic Energy over the past decade. Chairmen and presidents have come and gone like members in the House from certain constituencies.
The first prominence that Atomic Energy had was when that corporation paid a $20 million fee to a foreign national for arranging the sale of a Candu reactor to South Korea. We had hours and hours and days and days of debate about that, particularly in the Public Accounts Committee, where I spent a lot of time.
I think that corporation has sold six Candu reactors altogether, unless a couple of sales have fallen through. With the possible exception of two, it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars on these activities. The current order book of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited shows sales to Roumania. Although the contracts are signed with Roumania, there is some question as to whether the financing will be completed so that the sales will actually go through.
We have not had the total story yet, but it appears that the money for the sales to Roumania will be provided by none other than those generous taxpayers of Canada. Isn't that strange? Here we are selling Candu reactors for the generation of electrical power to Roumania, but there is an agency between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Government of Roumania, The Export Development Corporation of Canada. It will use Canadian taxpayers' dollars to finance the sale to Roumania. Of course, the terms are such that Roumania will probably never pay back the money. In fact, EDC and its bankers are now putting a freeze on the payment of
moneys to Roumania because they are worried about the financial situation of that country.
Since that Crown corporation has had so much trouble selling Candu reactors, the Public Accounts Committee was moved, in one of its recent reports, to recommend to the government that the government should either expand its effort and decide that it is going to sell Candu reactors, or decide that it cannot sell Candu reactors and close down. It hardly seems fair to the taxpayers of Canada to be subsidizing, to be funding, to be covering the massive debts and deficits of a Crown corporation that shows no signs of ever breaking even, let alone making a profit on its investment. I do not know what Atomic Energy's initial investment was because that corporation in its present form grew out of certain amalgamations and it is hard to trace it back.
The government has had to bail out Atomic Energy of Canada Limited more than once. It was a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee last year that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited should not be allowed to get itself into a position where its debts were so overpowering that it would once again have to come to the government and say: "We are insolvent, we cannot carry on, we need a further injection of funds." I guess that they listened to the Public Accounts Committee a little bit, because when Atomic Energy came before us in recent weeks we found that the build-up of inventory of heavy water-and that, of course, is the ingredient which makes the Candu reactor work-was so great that there were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of heavy water in stock in Canada. There was no prospect as to when these millions of barrels of heavy water would ever be used. The total production of the two heavy water plants that now operate in Canada will fill one Candu reactor. We have two years' inventory on hand now, that is enough for two reactors. In October of this year we will have three years' inventory in stock and that is enough for three reactors.
If none of these reactors come through, Mr. Speaker, we will have all this heavy water on hand with no takers, because there are no other customers for heavy water except for the Candu reactors that Canada sells. Roumania has let us know that unless we get the reactors operating before they get their own heavy water plants up, they will provide their own heavy water.
Why does that affect the deficit, you might ask? Here is the reason. The company and the government agreed sufficiently that Atomic Energy should not be allowed to go into debt so deeply that it could not dig itself out. What happened? A sum of $133 million was voted through the estimates of this House and it went straight into the pockets of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to finance the current inventory of heavy water and also to wipe out the deficit, because it does not look good to have $147 million deficit on the books of a Crown corporation. Then, because there was another adjustment, for whatever reason, they also reduced the invested capital of the government as shown on the books of Atomic Energy of
May 4, 1982

Canada Limited. Any group of politicians who can foul up the operation of a fairly tidy Crown corporation, as they have with that one, Mr. Speaker, probably should have reason to go and borrow the $6.6 billion that we are being asked to authorize in this bill.
Atomic Energy is not the only fiasco in the Crown corporations. Another one that has been in the news a lot recently is Eldorado Nuclear. They were on a fixed plan of expansion which spread over the period of more than a year; they were expanding their capacities in Uranium City for the Beaver Lodge mine. They were bringing workers into the mine site from all over the country. Right up to the day they announced they were going to close the Beaver Lodge mine, effective June 30, 1982, right up to that, they were on an expansion program. Here was a situation where one arm of the company obviously did not know what the other arm of the company was doing. It is curious, Mr. Speaker, that this is the same company that objected so strenuously to a comprehensive audit by the Auditor General, who was then the auditor of Eldorado Nuclear Limited. The company objected so strenuously to a comprehensive audit of their records that they actually fired the Auditor General. They persuaded the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who, as a shareholder, was the sole representative of the taxpayers-I think he was embarrassed about it, and he should have been-to dismiss the Auditor General of Canada and substitute for him a private firm of auditors.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is anything wrong with a private firm of auditors. I am sure they do a good job and I am sure they are competent. But I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that that Crown corporation was very worried that the Auditor General, if he got himself in there with his troops and did a comprehensive audit, would come out later with his troops and would tell the House, probably in a special report, that the company was on a collision course, with an expansion plan on the one hand and a shut-down plan on the other hand.
That shut-down of the Beaver Lodge mine would have made Eldorado Nuclear insolvent, if not in fact bankrupt. Well, Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal government does not like to go around with insolvent or bankrupt Crown corporations. So what did they do? This was done before the closure was announced, so there was no apparent relationship. We will see, when we study the history of it. The Government of Canada had a stockpile of uranium. The value of that uranium was something like $300 million. What did the Government of Canada do? It decided to recapitalize Eldorado Nuclear Limited. It transferred to that Crown corporation its total stockpile of uranium and took back in payment therefor $300 million worth of capital stock in Eldorado Nuclear Limited. All of a sudden, we find a very strong Crown corporation that can easily withstand the loss of $130 million because, when you take $130 million away from $300 million you still have $170 million left, and that is pretty good capitalization in anyone's books.
Eldorado Nuclear was then left with the question, "What are we going to do? We have all this money now, we have a mine that is shut down, what shall we do?" Lo and behold,
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, they traded recently-we have not got all the details yet-their uranium stockpile for all the shares in Gulf Minerals Limited which they bought from Gulf Oil of Pittsburgh. I do not know if that is Canadianization of the mining industry in Saskatchewan or what their reasoning was, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be to consolidate the operations, because the new property of Gulf Minerals Limited is 100 miles away from Beaver Lodge. It is not going to help the people in Beaver Lodge who have been put out of jobs. It is not going to help the people in Uranium City who did not work in Beaver Lodge but who nevertheless have seen the value of their businesses and of their homes plunge.
That can only be described, Mr. Speaker, as another example of pretty awful management. Again, what can you expect from a government which took our fairly well functioning petroleum industry and injected into it a Crown corporation called Petro-Canada to finance which the government used $1 billion of the taxpayers' money? The taxpayers did not need to invest that much to get their oil. They were getting their petroleum products as cheaply as they are now, and they did not have to invest $1 billion in straight capital to get them. What the intervention of Petro-Canada into the petroleum industry in Canada has done is anyone's guess and would probably be the subject of another debate. But then it was not sufficient to have Petro-Canada standing there with $1 billion in taxpayers' money in the till. The government had to go out and borrow another $1.46 billion to expand and buy the share of Aquitaine. Canadianization is fine, but where does the government get the money, the $1.46 billion? We suspect that much of it came from foreign lenders. That just meant that the Canadian government had to come back to Parliament with a bill, just as it is today, to borrow another $1.46 billion, which it would not have been necessary to borrow had the government just kept the status quo, which was not so bad after all, was it?
I have touched upon Petro-Canada and those matters. I do not want to get into a debate on that now, but I think it is worth mentioning the National Energy Program because we are discussing borrowing. In the past several years the National Energy Program has required payment under the oil import compensation program amounting to approximately $4 billion every year in subsidies to Canadians for imported oil. In 1980, during its campaign, the Liberal party told Canadians that 18 cents a gallon was far too much to pay in increased taxes on petroleum products and that all they had to do was to elect a Liberal government and, by golly, there would be cheaper gasoline. I am sure that Canadians have had their dreams shattered concerning that promise. However, the fact is that $4 billion a year has been going toward that subsidy program. Where has the money been going? It has not been going to other Canadians, as it does through many government subsidy programs. It has been going straight out of the country and into the hands of the foreign oil producers. It is interesting, and I made this comparison in the House a few weeks ago, that the amount paid out by this subsidy program which goes

May 4, 1982
Taxation
right out of the country is the same amount that 11 million individual taxpayers in Canada paid to the federal government in income taxes in 1978, the last year in which the figures were available from Revenue Canada. In other words the total amount of taxes paid by every taxpayer who earned $17,000 or less, which, by the way, amounted to 78 per cent of all individuals who filed income tax returns that year, or 11 million taxpayers, went straight out of this country to support the National Energy Program. As well, there were complications within the world market and the government opposite is now learning that it cannot really control world markets. As a result, along with the confusion and falling prices in the world market, we experienced the situation where Canadians were subsidizing imports of foreign oil while 300,000 barrels of oil a day produced by Canadian companies were shut in the ground. Your Honour can be sure that none of those oil companies which had their oil shut in are paying any income tax to help the government balance its budget. Furthermore, they are not creating any jobs for Canadians in further exploration of petroleum resources in Canada or in the production or transportation of petroleum products from Canadian wells.
I suspect we will hear more about national energy in another debate. Let me touch on another Crown corporation which might give an example of the managerial abilities of the government. I am referring to the Canada Post Corporation. When we had the Post Office Act before us, we on this side pleaded with the government to allow the Auditor General to report to Parliament. After all, he is Parliament's servant. He is not a hired gun who reports to someone else. He is employed by the government for the service of Parliament. He reports only to Parliament. He does not report to the shareholders. He does not report to the Public Accounts Committee or to anyone else. The Auditor General of Canada reports to Parliament and, in that way, he is unique. Other corporations may have other auditors who report to the minister, and then it is up to the minister to decide when Parliament should be allowed to look at that auditor's report. That is a change that we could see if we could ever get the government to agree to introduce a bill concerning Crown corporations and amendments to the Auditor General Act. We could obtain special reports from the Auditor General. The House might even have direct reports from other auditors. However, at the moment, in the way it stands, and we cannot get this government to move on this matter, the Auditor General is the only one who can report to Parliament directly.
The office of the Auditor General has had 113 years of experience in auditing the Canada Post Corporation. However, what does the government do? It says it will not name the Auditor General in the legislation as the auditor of the Canada Post Corporation. We do not know why. The government would not tell us why. However, two joint auditors were to be appointed. I do not know whether it was pressure or luck but, in any event, the Auditor General was named as one of those
auditors, and he will be one of the joint auditors for the first two years of the existence of the Canada Post Corporation. It has since been revealed by the Auditor General, before the Public Accounts Committee, that he has recevied a personal letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicating that at the end of his two year appointment, his services as auditor of the Canada Post Corporation will no longer be required. It is totally unnecessary to throw out that kind of expertise or even to have joint auditors for something like the Canada Post Corporation. This duplicate effort is a waste of the taxpayers' money. Anyone in the auditing profession will say that joint audits are not efficient. It costs more to have joint auditors than it does to have a single auditor. However, we could clarify that situation if the government would only show some good management and bring in legislation dealing with Crown corporations so that we would know who was in charge. One cannot get an answer from anyone around here concerning Crown corporations. No one knows who is in charge of any particular Crown corporation. Of course, the audits are spread all over the map. We need this kind of legislation and we also need some changes to the Auditor General Act.
All of this simply adds up to the fact that this government is out of touch with what is going on in the country. It is out of touch with the people. I think that is exemplified by a couple of events which I have recently observed in committee. Last week the Minister of Finance indicated that exemptions for individual taxpayers who registered pension plans or retirement savings plans, which exemptions have remained unchanged for five years, had not received his consideration. Deducations for child care expenses, which have been set at $1,000 per child to a maximum of $4,000 per working mother, have not changed for five years. However, the Minister of Finance knows very well, as he has been told by working parents and by all members on this side, that costs of child care have dramatically increased during this period, while the exemption remains at $1,000 per child. One cannot possibly care for a child for $1,000. It is an unjust situation when working parents are unable to deduct normal business expenses, and child care expenses are normal business expenses.
I see that it is six o'clock and perhaps I will continue my speech on another day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening when the House will consider, under the terms of the Speaker's ruling earlier today, the motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
May 4, 1982

Madam Speaker:: Leave has been granted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the collapse of the Alsands megaproject and the postponement for at least two years of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline.


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Madam Speaker, we are meeting tonight to discuss not simply a crisis in the life of the country but a crisis of a kind and of a cause that this country has not seen before. It is a crisis which, in a time of economic recession around the world and acute economic hardship at home, is caused by the fact that instead of taking action which could create jobs and create growth, the Government of Canada has taken consecutive actions which are destroying jobs, which are destroying growth and which are destroying opportunity for the country to become secure in the one area, energy, where our security is most possible and where our security is most important.
What we have seen with the Liberal government's energy policy, starting in March, 1980, has been the step by step destruction of the energy jobs, of the energy growth, of the energy industry and the energy potential of this country.
Tonight in this debate-and we will be here late into tomorrow morning and perhaps we will be here longer than that-we are here not simply to lament or to condemn what the government has been doing but to try to call upon the care for Canada that I hope exists in Liberal backbench ranks, to try to call upon them to urge their government to stop this terrible damage, this terrible and unnecessary damage which it is doing to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think it is important that we review what has happened and why it has happened.
First of all we have to put in perspective what the Liberal policy has been doing. We have recently seen the loss of the Alsands project. It was not just Alsands that was lost; we have also seen Cold Lake lost, we saw the Judy Creek tertiary recovery project lost, we saw the Syncrude expansion lost, we saw the heavy oil upgrading project in Saskatchewan lost, we have seen 270 drilling rigs and service rigs driven out of this country. These were drilling rigs and service rigs that were, by and large, owned, directed and controlled by Canadians and were turning the energy industry into a Canadian-controlled industry. Now they have picked up and moved, at great cost- not just cost in dollars but cost to our future. They are investing Canadian money, they are investing Canadian incentive
and intelligence not to create growth and jobs in this country but to create growth and jobs elsewhere.
It is not just energy that is at stake here; it is the very economic recovery of this country. Every expert you consult will agree that the energy potential of Canada is not simply a guarantee of our future but that it is the best way to lift this nation out of recession and the best way to guarantee the kind of economic strength and economic future that we all owe to our children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: While I regret having to say this, I want to say it and I want to put it in the context of the national problem that exists: this is not just a problem for the west or for the north, although the Alsands project and the Alaska highway project touch those regions most directly-this is a problem for all of Canada. If you need proof of that you need only look at the government's own estimates of the jobs that would be involved.
All across Canada there would have been 255,050 potential jobs. These are not my figures, Mr. Speaker; they are the figures of the Government of Canada issued in 1978. There would have been 71,000 direct jobs in energy projects that the government boasted would be built. These energy projects have now been abandoned because of the step by step disintegration of the energy industry in this country by the Liberal government opposite.
We are, finally, not just speaking about the impact that will be felt today, but we are speaking also very dramatically about the impact that will be felt tomorrow in this country. Energy is one of the major keys to the future of this country. We have in Canada a potential that other nations do not have. We have in Canada the capacity to become self-sufficient in energy.
Let me review for a moment what this goal of self-sufficiency in energy can mean to this nation. It is, first of all, an achievable goal for Canada.
Let me say in passing that this is a nation which has always needed goals to lead it forward-not a list of failures but a list of challenges. The challenge of energy self-sufficiency was clearly an achievable goal for this country. Indeed, the government which my colleagues and I had the honour to serve had established the year of 1990 as the year of energy self-sufficiency in this country. That meant that by that year, with the policies we had firmly in place, the maritime provinces could have expected to be supplied with Canadian oil by 1990. What has happened is the reverse. As things now stand with this Liberal wrecking policy, there is a very good chance that by 1990 Toronto will be dependent on foreign imported oil.


An hon. Member:: Shameful.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a shame. The word "shameful" is used by my colleague. That is the accurate word because that is a betrayal of this country, a betrayal of our promise, and it is something that no honest or courageous member of this Parliament should be prepared to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 4, 1982


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to find the list-and perhaps my colleague could help me-


Mr. Harquail:: You had better get help!


Charles Joseph Clark: -the list prepared by the government in 1978. 1 have one here.
The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) says "help him". He is a member who speaks forever from his seat. I will look forward to seeing the hon. member for Restigouche-

-perhaps in French, if he speaks French-

-taking his place in this House tonight to defend a policy which is costing the citizens of the north shore of New Brunswick jobs today, which is costing the citizens of the north shore of New Brunswick growth today, which is costing the citizens of the north shore of New Brunswick security today and tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This crisis has been caused in Canada. It is a direct result of federal government policies, and I say, sir, that it is the policy of the whole government.
The Minister of Energy chose not to come home tonight, chose not to use that Jetstar of his to come home at government expense to debate the issues before the country-he is hiding out in Texas. Well, that is not hideout enough because he is not the only minister responsible for the destructive energy policies of this government. His whole government is responsible for a policy which is accounting step by step for the destruction of energy jobs in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is like a kamikaze pilot, except that it is the country he is going to destroy, not just himself.
The Alsands project, Mr. Speaker, which was cancelled last week, was ready to start in 1980. The construction teams were on the site, an energy agreement had been negotiated which would have let the project proceed. But then there was a new government. It brought in an energy policy which has accomplished the systematic destruction of the energy industry in Canada.


An hon. Member:: What industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear from the NDP, "What industry?" I will be very interested to know what the policy of the NDP is tonight. I will be very interested to know whether they believe Alsands should go forward, or whether they will be back in bed with the Liberals on this question.


Walter David Baker: It is Tuesday; no telling what their policy will be.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister pretends that the blame lies with the companies because they refused to accept a last minute offer-an offer which might have been accepted had it been made even four months earlier. In fact, what happened last week was just the final step in a process which began in March, 1980, barely weeks after the Liberal party had been elected to office by promising to keep the increase in the price of gasoline below 14 cents a gallon.
Their first step was to declare that the world price would no longer be paid for oil sands production. Their second step was the National Energy Program. Their third step was the energy agreement of September, 1981. Together those steps destroyed the climate which would have made Alsands possible.
Back in 1978 the then energy minister, Mr. Gillespie, boasted about energy projects which the federal government would encourage as the basis of Canada's future. The hon. member for Restigouche was asking for the list, and it is worth reading that list today. That list included the Dempster pipeline, which is on indefinite hold. It would have created
6.000	jobs directly, and 26,000 jobs indirectly. That is now on hold and probably gone. The Alaska highway gas pipeline which would have created 13,000 jobs directly and 55,000 jobs indirectly, has been postponed for at least two years. The Polar Gas project, which would have created 15,000 jobs directly, and 45,000 jobs indirectly, is gone. The Tenneco LNG projects is cancelled. The Kitimat pipeline to the Alaska highway oil pipeline-they proposed one or the other-is cancelled. The Alsands project is cancelled. The Syncrude project expansion is cancelled. The heavy oil upgrading in Saskatchewan is postponed. The Cold Lake project is cancelled. The oil storage project at Wabanex is cancelled. Cancelled! Cancelled!
What is the total? The projects which have been cancelled, according to the government's own figures, would have created
71.000	jobs directly in the oil and gas industry, and 255,050 indirectly. That means jobs in Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada. That means jobs across the country lost because the Liberal government has followed the direction of a bunch of theorists who know nothing about the energy business except how to drive it out of Canada and how to drive people out of jobs!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: In 1978, the Liberal government made much of the jobs that would be created by oil and natural gas development projects in Canada. At a federal-provincial conference, the government announced a series of energy projects that were supposed to create nearly 100,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and 320,000 jobs in related industries. And now, four years later, most of these projects have been abandoned. Why? Because of the Liberal government's policy. Most of these jobs in Canada will never materialize. The Liberal government has lost the Alsands project. It lost Cold Lake, the Syncrude
May 4, 1982

expansion, the Alaska pipeline project, and it lost the Arctic gas project. According to their own figures, the Liberals have lost 71,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and 225,000 Canadian jobs in related industries. A large number of the latter would have been created in Quebec and Ontario.
Moreover, if the Alsands, Cold Lake and other projects were in operation, Quebecers could go and work on site and bring their families or send money back home which would help the economy in Quebec. All these projects have been lost as a result of Liberal policies. Instead of creating jobs, the Liberal government is creating unemployment.
Of course, the government will try to put the blame elsewhere. It will blame the provincial governments. It will blame the Americans. It will blame the oil companies. It will blame the world economy. I am sure they will also blame Rene Levesque. But who is governing Canada? The Liberal government. The Liberal government has taken Canada's potential and destroyed it.
The majority of Canadian families have been affected by the failures of the Liberals. Most communities in Canada are going to lose jobs and opportunities for growth, because Liberal policies have stifled energy projects. This evening, we demand that the government change its policy and stop destroying Canada.
I would invite the Liberal members to take part in this debate. They remained silent during the debate on the Constitution and during the debate on the budget. Are they going to remain silent while Liberal policies keep destroying projects and eliminating jobs?

They will try to blame everyone they can find: the provinces, the oil companies, the United States, the opposition, the international economy.


Walter David Baker: The weather.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot always blame everyone else for everything. They have to accept responsibility as the first step toward changing the policy, because what is most tragic about this situation now is that if this government will not accept responsibility for the damage it has done, it will not change its policy. It may be that there are ministers who are that blind to the damage they are doing to this country, but I hope and pray that individual Liberal members of the House of Commons will not put up with that betrayal of the potential of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let us ask: what right has this government to proceed with this destruction of the country? Did anyone on the Liberal side in the 1980 election campaign promise a price increase of 77 cents a gallon for gasoline here in the city of Ottawa?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone in the Liberal party tell Canadians in the 1980 election campaign that they intended to increase the price of heating oil and gasoline 15 times?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone on the Liberal side in that election campaign tell Canadians that they proposed to go out and purchase Petrofina at inflated prices, and then make the taxpayer pay for it retroactively?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone in the Liberal party tell the average Canadian that he or she would be paying at least $900 more for energy than he or she was paying two years ago?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone warn Canadians about the delay of the Alaska highway gas pipeline? Did anyone warn Canadians about the policy to shut down Cold Lake?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone in the Liberal party warn Canadians about their proposal to stop the expansion of Syncrude?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did anyone in the Liberal party warn about the policies which inevitably led to the loss of the Alsands project?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Quite apart from these policies being so dangerous for this country, they are policies being pursued by this government without any mandate at all. If this government is going to continue the policies, it has one option. It should have the courage to go to the people of Canada and ask for the judgment of the people of Canada on these policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are things that can be done to restore growth and jobs to this country Mr. Speaker. If the government cares about creating jobs in Canada, it can withdraw the MacEachen budget and bring in a budget which would encourage growth and incentive in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the government believes in encouraging an energy policy that will let us build the Alsands development, let us get on with developing the energy potential of the country. Let us get on with creating the jobs, the growth and security that energy provides for this country. If the government wants to do it, it can pull back the National Energy Program before it drives yet one more major source of jobs out of this country.

May 4, 1982


Walter David Baker: Let's withdraw Marc Lalonde.


Charles Joseph Clark: If this government wants to have jobs for Canadians; if it wants to have energy self-sufficiency for Canadians rather than extending the grip of OPEC across this country, this country which uniquely in the world has the capacity to be free of OPEC's grip, which uniquely in the world has the capacity to use our energy strengths to build a secure future for ourselves; if it wants to free us from OPEC and free us for the future, then all the government needs to do is to create an investment climate that will provide the kind of certainty to cause investors to come here instead of causing investors to flee, which has been the policy and the consequence of this Liberal government.
What is at issue here is not simply a wrong-headed policy. What is at issue here is the fundamental question of trust.

I heard another member from New Brunswick, who had something to add. I hope he will find the courage this evening to speak in defence of his own constituents and not abandon them as he did with the financing program.

What is at issue here tonight is whether or not we will allow the Government of Canada to squander the future of Canada, whether or not we will allow the Government of Canada to continue a policy called Canadianization that has the consequence of driving active Canadians in Canada either out of the country or causing people who want to work, find jobs and build a future here, instead only to find hopelessness.
The question is whether or not this government is so bound to an ideology that already has a casualty list of unbelievable proportions, that it will not put the country ahead of the advice it is getting from "fonctionnaires", from public servants in the senior levels of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; that it will not jettison the Minister of Energy in the interests of saving the country.
What we need to do in this country is to establish a climate of trust. We have operated without that climate. The consequences are all before us; project after project has been lost and job after job has been lost. Canadians are losing a sense of hope and they are losing a sense of the future. That is a betrayal of this country.
This debate offers the opportunity to this government to say, "All right, we accepted advice that was wrong. We see the evidence. We will change it." If the government refuses to do that, it is guilty not simply of blindness but of the worst kind of bad faith-it is guilty of the betrayal of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to put a specific question to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned my riding this evening. He said that nothing had been done in my riding. However, three mills which, with a federal subsidy-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) should realize that a point of order is an appeal to the regulations and the Standing Orders of the House. It is customary, if a member rises on a point of order, that he refer to the particular Standing Order to which he wishes to make reference as quickly as possible.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the fact that there needs to be a procedural question. Usually at the end of a speech, an hon. member will entertain a question. Do members of the Progressive Conservative Party have the intestinal fortitude to follow the normal tradition they expect other members to follow, that is, when a question is put, would they have the courage to accept it? Does the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition have the courage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I could draw to the attention of the hon. member for Restigouche that the matter of asking a question is not an appeal to the regulations but is a courtesy that is sometimes accorded. I should also point out that the time allotted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had already expired. It would now require the unanimous consent of the House to allow a question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition, while he had the floor, was prepared to comment about my riding and to talk about the economy of my riding. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of the fact that we have invested $10 million at the mill at Dalhousie; $14 million at the pulp mill at Atholville, $19 million at Bathurst Consolidated and $21 million at the zinc plant? This totals over $70 million. Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to admit tonight that he is not aware of the investment of over $70 million of federal incentive money, resulting in over $700 million of capital investment? Is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition prepared to tell me tonight that he could stand in his place and make the statements he made and that he is prepared to deny the existence of the developments taking place in northern New Brunswick, that he is prepared to deny that the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester (Mr. Coates) had attacked him in the last federal election saying that he had not done enough for Atlantic Canada and he did not deserve to be returned as Prime Minister of Canada? Will he answer those questions, Mr. Speaker?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as it happens, I had occasion on the weekend to speak to the best friend northern New Brunswick ever had. I am referring to Premier Richard Hatfield. I
May 4, 1982

spoke to him about the economic development programs of his government, some of which he has been able to persuade the federal Liberal government to accept, but not all of them. For example, the Premier of New Brunswick and I would like to have the decision reversed on the Canada Forces Base Chatham. Where is the hon. member for Restigouche on that question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The premier of New Brunswick and I would like to have maritime Canada protected by having energy selfsufficiency in 1990. That is the position we would like to achieve, instead of having the grip of OPEC tightened around the necks of the citizens of northern New Brunswick and all other citizens of that province. What we would like to know is what the hon. member for Restigouche would do.
As to the question raised by the hon. member for Restigouche, yes, I knew about the projects and the investments there. Also I know about the share held by the citizens of Restigouche, the unemployment caused by the energy policies which we are discussing tonight, and the hopelessness which has also been caused by the energy policies we are discussing tonight.


Maurice James Harquail: That is not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are many citizens of that community, that county and that riding-

-who are looking for jobs in our part of the country, but when they cannot find jobs at home, they are prepared to travel across Canada to work in the megaprojects in the West and the Far North, to earn money and invest it at home in New Brunswick. Now this is no longer possible, because the Liberal government has given up the Alsands project, thus wiping out jobs that would have been available to the people of New Brunswick and also diminishing future opportunities for all Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would have been very impressed with the comments of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had it not been for the fact that he and his party had voted for the pre-build pipeline measure. That vote as much as anything is responsible for the mess we are in tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: You voted against the whole thing.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is a little sensitive in this session of Parliament because the Tories have voted with the Liberals twice as often as members of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Are you voting for that socialistic drivel?


John Edward Broadbent: I listened with care and sometimes even with interest to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I hope his colleagues show us the same courtesy now.
I should like to read to the House a quotation which I think will be of interest to many in this debate. It is as follows:
It is the policy of this government that we will insist upon a guarantee that the total line be built, that the financial arrangements for the building of the entire line be in place before we give the green light for going ahead with the pre-build.
That was uttered by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who was then chief negotiator for the Government of Canada leading up to the disastrous pre-build decision. It was uttered in the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines on March 20, 1979. The sentiments expressed in that quotation concerning the pipeline, concerning indirectly the jobs connected with it, and particularly concerning the need for unequivocal guarantees, are matters which my party supported 100 per cent then and support now in principle. In fact, we followed this up on July 22.


Jack Wendele Shields: What about Alsands?


John Edward Broadbent: I hear a gentle voice in the right wing of the Tory party calling out. I will deal with that comment in a minute.
On July 22 a motion was moved for debate in the House by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). No member has fought for the energy interests and job interests on this important question more vigorously and intelligently than the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: All of you voted against the pipeline.


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal with the comments of my Tory friends in a minute. On July 22 he moved on behalf of my colleagues a motion in the House which made clear our support for the pipeline and also indicated that what was absolutely essential was what the Deputy Prime Minister talked about in the negotiating process, the assurance that the people of Canada would obtain ironclad guarantees. It was included in the motion and we spoke in favour of it because we believed very strongly that when dealing with the United States in important bilateral negotiations and in billions of dollars we will affect not only the energy future but the industrial future of the country. Indeed we must go after ironclad guarantees because the Americans, to understate it somewhat, are pretty tough bargainers. What happened when we debated that motion before the House? I ask my Tory friends, who were all excited a few minutes ago in their castigation of the government, what happened when that motion was before the House?


Erik Nielsen: You voted against the pipeline.

May 4, 1982


John Edward Broadbent: First of all, the Liberal government of the day hypocritically reversed what it had said. It said that it would produce guarantees. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) came out with the notorious phrase that we would have ironclad guarantees, but members of the Liberal government of the day voted against the motion which would have enabled them to implement what they talked about. Not only did they vote against it, but the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, which so righteously and in great indignation referred to the collapse of this project today, also voted against the motion calling for guarantees on the project. In fact, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) said on July 22 that he did not talk about ironclad guarantees because it was absolutely impossible. That was a comment of a member of the Conservative party.
The New Democratic Party has the long-range interests of the country at stake and at heart all the time. We believe that we ought to have obtained ironclad guarantees and that if the Tories had not supported the Liberals we may have had them today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: You are hurting, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: As a result of this Liberal decision-


Roch La Salle: You do not remember 1974 and 1979.


John Edward Broadbent: I have hit a sensitive chord in the Tory party. I listened to its leader with a lot of interest. Perhaps Tory members would just listen to the debate. I would love to hear their reply afterwards, but I should like to get on with my argument because time is limited. What happened as a result of that vote? The results were as follows: first, the Americans have a pipeline. They have the southern pipeline which is busy exporting low cost Canadian gas to the United States market. The Americans obtained what they wanted, which was gas cheaper than the cost of gas brought down from Alaska. Thanks to the Liberal and Tory vote, the Americans did all right on that occasion. If one were a betting man, one would be foolish at this point to bet that the pipeline will be completed.


Erik Nielsen: The NDP never bets.


John Edward Broadbent: Just a few minutes ago the Tories were virtuous. Because of the attitude they took on the pipeline, which was the same position as that taken by the government, we will not have access to our Arctic gas. The Americans have access to Canadian gas from southern Alberta, but the northern pipeline has not been built because of the Liberal-Tory vote. We want access to our northern gas in the Arctic; that is the reality.
Even some Tories at the time, and certainly some Liberals in addition to members of the New Democratic Party, said that it was a disgrace in terms of our long-range energy interests to sell off low cost gas from southern Alberta to the Americans, unless there was the possibility of negotiating swaps later on when gas came down from Alaska. Many of us in the country, not only those of us in the House of Commons, were saying
that it was a fundamental obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to be in a position to engage in trade, if the northern pipeline were built and American gas started to come down. We said that the only conditions under which they should get that low cost gas from Alberta now would be if we could get gas at equivalent or comparative prices from the United States when that pipeline was built. If it is not built, where are the tradeoffs? The reality is that they will not take place. The Americans have the gas and we will get the empty holes in the ground. That is the reality.
In short, with this project which was initiated by the federal government, for which they have to assume primary responsibility,-but aided and abbetted by the Tory party-Canadians were defrauded of cheap gas and in the process we have been defrauded of low-cost gas in the future. Canadians will not get it now under this kind of agreement, an agreement which was supported by the two old-line parties.
I was asked about the Alsands project. I believe that any dispassionate analysis would lead one to conclude at this point, frankly, that what happened is that the Alsands project collapsed under its own weight. When the government realized that Shell and Gulf were no longer interested in the project- these great multinationals which were defended so vigorously but in unstated terms by the Tory party now, because I would remind all Canadians that they wanted the project to go ahead by giving more concessions to the oil companies-and when it saw last week that the Alsands project was failing because Shell, in its financial analysis of world price in oil and long range interest expectations and so on, saw that it was not financially viable, what did the Liberals do? Did they indicate that it was all right because those resources will not disappear? Did they indicate that the resources will remain for future Canadians and those resources can be brought under the public auspices with Petro-Canada? After all, Petro-Canada was created initially so that we would not be held for blackmail by the multinationals. However, the Liberals did not say that. Instead, they raised the ante for the multinationals by presenting a new package which would have given billions of dollars to Shell and Gulf. Of course, this was done with the support of the Tory Party.
However, for business reasons which were substantially related to prices in oil, the business community, the multinationals even, turned down that offer.
As I have indicated, we say that those resources will not go away. As long as these two old-line parties do not have anything to do with it, these resources will remain part of our country. In the future, when those resources become economically viable we hope we will be able to develop those resources jointly with the government of Alberta, totally under public Canadian control.
I also want to say to my Tory friends, both figuratively and literally on my right, that every Gallup poll done of Canadians
May 4, 1982

indicates that not only are they interested in Canadian ownership of those oil resources, they support public ownership. The Tories should learn that.
While discussing the collapse of these two projects, it would in some manner be comforting to think that the only failure involved was these two resource projects themselves, which is very significant. I regret to say that what is really involved, of course, is that the whole economic thrust of the Liberal government as announced in its budget last fall has been completely undermined by the collapse of these two projects. In this context I would like to say that the thrust of that budget was not an accident. The House knows, as does the whole country, that many of the particular details of that budget were economically foolish and unjust, or both.
One of the important aspects of the budget which has not received national debates was the industrial strategy, which had its general framework outlined in the budget. That strategy was not an accident. There has been a debate raging in the Liberal party-and had been over the summer months leading up to the production of the budget-which had on one side that very earnest but totally ineffective Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in terms of what he has produced in the country. He wanted a serious industrial strategy. He talked as if he were a Japanese finance spokesperson, trade spokesperson or someone from any industrial country in western Europe. At least he did talk about the need for a manufacturing strategy. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was on one side of the debate which related to what the Liberals had promised in the 1980 election-a serious manufacturing strategy. On the other side of the debate was Senator Olson whose arguments were very different. His arguments were what emerged in the budget. Senator Olson said that what the country really needed was another traditional Liberal quick-fix. What Senator Olson argued for, which is what ultimately triumphed in the cabinet, was that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the decades ahead for megaprojects, which is simply a new and updated term for resource sellout. That was the side of the argument which won out in cabinet.
Now these projects are dying. With them go the manufacturing jobs which were supposed to be the spin-off benefits of these megaprojects. That was the manufacturing strategy, to have megaprojects for the resource sellout on the one hand which would produce manufacturing spin-offs. The government decided on that strategy rather than following the strategies of other industrial nations which concentrated on developing a first-rate manufacturing nation. The Liberals had intended this to occur simply as a byproduct of resource production.
With the collapse of these two megaprojects we have seen the end of the hopes of getting the manufacturing spin-offs which might have occurred. What is particularly infuriating for anyone who has seriously looked at the performance of the Canadian economy in the past year but, more important, beyond our borders to see what is happening in the world economy, is to find that this occurrence could have been envisaged. The weakening of OPEC and the decline of the
world price of petroleum has made marginal and high cost energy projects uneconomical all over the world, not just in Canada. The Government of Canada, in signing its agreement with Alberta, was projecting its income from oil prices that were based on what was already-I want to stress-an unrealistic projection of future world oil prices.
Since last spring, not just in the past few weeks or months, before the budget, economic analysts have been noting that the decline of OPEC was well under way. 1 say, not only for the benefit of the Liberals but for the benefit of the official opposition as well, that analysts were discussing the effects on all megaprojects in energy in any country in the world, including Canada. Instead of noting that OPEC was in fact on the skids, the Liberal government gambled. That is the only way to describe it. They gambled on a steady increase in world oil prices as being the virtual cornerstone of their manufacturing policy.
Three months ago, on behalf of my colleagues, 1 warned the government about the folly of the course on which it embarked. I quote very briefly what I said at that time:
Pierre Trudeau's economic strategy, besides all the tortuous twists and turns it has taken, has always been based on resource exports. Over the years he has continually assured Canadians that Canada's strength lies in its oil and gas and its metal minerals. Exports of resources have always been Pierre Trudeau's idea of how to provide the good life for Canadians.
I said then, and I repeat now, that this Liberal approach, continuing as it does, to see Canada as some sort of resource hinterland for the rest of the world, is perilous. This Liberal approach to the economic development of Canada must be challenged, and must be fundamentally changed, if this country is to grow in any secure way in the future.
For years the Liberals had a strategy which was, on the one hand, the selling off of resources as a permanent source of wealth and on the other, the manufacturing strategy which saw the establishment of rather inefficient branch plants here. It created the economic mess in which we have found ourselves in the last year or so in terms of the budget-making process of the government. That is what they had to consider.
What did they do to get us out of the mess? Once you get beyond all the hype and rhetoric of the budget and what has taken place since the budget, you find that all they presented was simply a rehash of their old strategy. Having used the resource hinterland model of the past and having created the mess, they have been trying to persuade Canadians, ever since the budget, to continue with this old model as a means of getting us out of the difficulty.
I want to say that this vision is faulty. In particular I want to say tonight for western Canada that these resource projects-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -the Tories want to perpetuate them. They have about the same intellectual vigour as the comic book editorials written in support of their party. This resource

May 4, 1982
sellout strategy is particularly harmful for western Canada Mr. Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule because it leaves that region in the precarious position of	is that if you grant an extension of time, you are not restricted
always being dependent on world commodity markets.	to 20 or 30 seconds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If there is anything Tories dislike about truth in general, it is truth about themselves. Both the old-line parties in this country have seen resource projects as the key to the future. I repeat, it is particularly harmful to western Canada to leave that part of our land in such a precarious state of development and so vulnerable to world markets. If the Tories and Liberals do not understand it, I want to say that we understand it and we want to change it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: All that one can say about Liberal policy in this regard is that they undercut manufacturing years ago in eastern and central Canada. They do not have the guts and the imagination to establish a manufacturing base in western Canada now when it ought to be done.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is coming to a close. Unlike certain parties in this House, we believe that in the final analysis it is more important not simply to show what a terrible job the Liberals are doing, because any six-year-old can do that, but to have the view that what is necessary is to put something in its place.
I want to conclude with the following two points. We do not agree with the strategy of the Liberals. If you look behind what was said on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, they offer no different vision at all. When you get behind the rhetoric, all they claim is that they would have given Shell and Gulf everything they asked for a long time ago. That is what the Tories are saying.
We are saying in this point in our history with the million and a half unemployed that when there is insecurity all across the nation, it is time to develop a first-rate manufacturing base in this country. In this context, we say that if the Tories and Liberals do not recognize it, we recognize that a $21 billion annual deficit in manufacturing trade is the place we have to begin.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is somewhat over the time allotted for him to speak. Perhaps I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to continue. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa for 30 seconds.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Someone is saying no. That is the typical courtesy of the Conservative party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As a courtesy to the leader of the party, I am prepared to let him continue for an additional two minutes in the hope that he will complete his remarks. The Leader saw me indicate several times to him that his time had expired. I sought the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to continue. That consent was refused. I then declared that the hon. member for Oshawa might have 30 seconds to wind up his remarks, which I thought was a fair solution to the problem. 1 take it the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a good deal of hubbub in the House when you were seeking that unanimous consent. The normal courtesy is to extend to the leader consent if he wishes to exceed the normal time limit. We on this side are only too pleased to give that consent to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, the Chair will put the question again. Is there unanimous consent for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the consideration of the House. I will not abuse that consideration. I will wind up very quickly.
I want to make two points and two points only. First we have to start developing in a serious way a manufacturing strategy in this country. The place to begin is by recognizing that we have a $21 billion deficit in manufacturing trade each year, which represents a net loss to this country of 200,000 jobs if only we replace those imports by goods produced in this country.
We in this party have said that we should learn from what has been done in western Europe, what is being applied now down in Australia and what is being done by the Mexicans.


Erik Nielsen: Don't forget Sweden.


John Edward Broadbent: And Sweden. If you watch the upcoming election in Sweden you will see Olof Palme back in office. Watch that one. The place to begin is by learning from the experience of these other industrialized countries. Canada, with 52 per cent of our manufacturing sector foreign-owned should insist that any foreign-owned company in this country has to start working just a little bit on behalf of Canadians.
We would say that if a company is making $20 million of sales in this country, they must, as they have learned to do in
May 4, 1982

other countries, adapt themselves and start producing in Canada by Canadians $20 million worth of products. That is the kind of approach we would take.
Second, in order to overcome the deficit that is so crucial and fundamental to a serious job and employment strategy, we must go after export markets. We must adapt our financial institutions in the way that western European countries and the Japanese have done so that when we send exporters around the world they are not undermined by inadequate financing.
We have to change our banking system to ensure that when we have a product, as I learned in the past seven months in no fewer than three countries, we can capture the markets elsewhere in the world. Now when we have such an export product, we find it is inadequately financed at home. This party would take steps to ensure that the pursuit of export markets is done as vigorously as is capturing our own market.
In conclusion, we in this party at this point in the twentieth century no longer believe that Canada should remain a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water. My generation of Canadians believes that we can produce in an imaginative and vigorous way like other modern nations. The NDP says, let us put the old Liberal-Conservative resource sellout behind us and become a first-rate manufacturing nation in a modern world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-who, despite what you have heard from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), was about the business of Canada tonight and unfortunately could not get here in time, but he will return in time to participate in a good deal of this debate-it is my pleasure to rise not only to defend but to take the responsibility for the success of the national energy policy.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) with his usual style pretended to debate the Alsands issue this evening but brought in all of the old chestnuts, including the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. He brought in election predictions from foreign lands, banking and foreign ownership but did not deal with the issue at hand, which 1 intend to do.
The Leader of the Opposition would have you believe that the failure of the Alsands project is the total collapse of the national energy policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the companies said no to the Alsands offer. But I would like to point out, and I want to make it very clear, that
1,200,000	Canadians have said yes to the national energy policy and have said it in a very positive manner. They have said yes to the CHIP program; over one million homes have been insulated. Over 200,000 oil conversions have taken place. What is the net result of that? It is a 7 per cent reduction in the consumption of crude oil this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! Bravo!


Judith A. Erola: For your interest, leaders of the opposition, members of the House and Canadians, that 7 per cent reduction represents roughly the equivalent of the production from one oil sands project a year.


Some hon. Members:: Bravo!


Judith A. Erola: I repeat that. In terms of self-sufficiency, this is definitely a set-back, we agree that the termination of the Alsands project is a set-back, but it does not affect our determination to be self-sufficient by the year 1990. I want to make that absolutely clear. I think any other indication is not fair and is misleading Canadians to believe that the government has been drastically affected in our goal to achieve selfsufficiency.
I want to point out that that 7 per cent reduction in consumption, which was a very firm thrust of the national energy policy, has resulted in a 17 per cent reduction in the consumption of heating oil alone this year. That is significant.


Mr. Taylor:: They could not afford any more.


Judith A. Erola: This is part of the national energy policy. Selfsufficiency in oil has increased from 79.5 per cent to 80.9 per cent. Do not forget that we made three promises when we delivered the national energy policy-self-sufficiency, opportunity, and fairness. I might suggest to you that those goals are being met and that they are receiving the overwhelming support of Canadians across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Let us look at our goals and let us look at them fairly. It is important that we put all of this in perspective and in balance. Let us look at oil self-sufficiency. We have decreased consumption. That is proved. We have new projects coming on. The fact of the matter is-and we will get into the Alsands offer-that I would like to put that offer out on the table so that all can understand what that offer was, just how fair it was and why it was turned down. I will get into that in just a moment.
We have agreed to energy revenue sharing in this country. We agree that it was a very arduous process. None of this happened during that brief tenure of office enjoyed by the other party. I would like to add that the opportunity of ownership, which was a very real thrust of the national energy policy, has resulted in a 6 per cent increase in Canadian ownership.
We have a number of projects as well that indicate to you what is happening on the Canadian scene in terms of energy self-sufficiency and the kind of projects that this government is committed to and will continue to see through.
Let us look at the TQM Pipeline; $2.4 billion; Norman Wells development, $600 million; Quintette coal development, $700 million; Ridley Island coal and grain terminals in British Columbia, an investment of $600 million. As well, there are upgrading projects under way in Montreal and Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: What about oil self-suffiency?

May 4, 1982


Judith A. Erola: I am talking about self-sufficiency. If the hon. member would return to his seat, I could remember where he came from. I would like to remind him of this. Let us look at Hibernia. Cheaper oil is coming on stream and Hibernia is a perfect example. We have proven that there is one and a half billion barrels of oil in Hibernia. That is one of the reasons why we can look forward to oil self-sufficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that members of the opposition are not interested in the facts. What are the facts? We are speaking to Canadians. Fortunately, Canadians are providing us with the kind of proof that the national energy policy is indeed a policy that they support. We have just given you the figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: The consumption is down. I can say to those opposite that they will have time to participate in this debate. I would like to say here and now that it is Canadians across the country who know that we must cut back on consumption, Canadians who agreed with the thrust of the national energy policy. It is they who have made this work, and they will continue to make it work.
Let us get back to Alsands offer. On April 26 the Governments of Canada and Alberta made a joint offer to the Alsands consortium. I would like to make something perfectly clear here. The Leader of the Opposition said that we would stand here and try to lay the blame on the provinces and on people across the country. We have no intention of doing so. I would like to pay tribute to the province of Alberta for the kind of co-operation that existed in the entire work of the Alsands project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: The Governments of Canada and Alberta did make a joint offer which included a major new financial arrangement designed to make the project substantially more attractive to the participants. Here are the major elements.
It was agreed that the two governments would provide a 50 per cent equity share in the total project. The two governments would provide loan guarantees of 68 per cent of private expenditures in lieu of normal tax write-offs. That is only part of it. The loan repayments would be limited to 58 per cent of net revenue from the project. Except for a minimum gross royalty, the project would pay no taxes federal or provincial until the loan was repaid. The normal taxes and royalties would apply after the guaranteed loan was repaid, but only after that. Output from the project would receive a new oil reference price or its equivalent.
The private sponsors of this project considered the offer through the course of the previous week, and on Friday last, October 30, they announced that the project was being suspended indefinitely. Why? I will get to the main reasons for
the suspension in a moment, and this is absolutely true and it was responsible for the failure of a number of other oil projects worldwide. These main reasons were falling international oil prices and increasing project costs. All of these factors combined to generate too much risk and uncertainty for the private sector. There was an apparent difficulty in attracting new private sponsors.
Significantly, however, and I think this is worth repeating, the Alsands consortium did not find any fault with the government's latest offer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Indeed, it would have been very difficult for them to have done so. This last offer represents one of the most generous packages of commercial terms that has been made available to any private energy project in Canada.
Let us look at what they would have received. The offer would have provided a rate of return on the project in excess of 20 per cent, even based on an oil price forecast lower than that which was assumed last fall. There would have been an ROR in excess of 20 per cent, considering the reality of current costs of production. The offer would have provided more security from future price fluctuations by stretching out that period of non-taxability which gave them a real cushion, would have financed 68 per cent of the private sector expenditures under extremely attractive commercial terms, and would have provided up to 84 per cent of the total project financing requirements.
I think every hon. member of the House and all Canadians would agree that this offer represented the realistic limit to which any government could go in providing the right commercial terms.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Two years too late.


Judith A. Erola: Beyond this point, both governments felt that all of the potential benefits from Alsands, financial, economic and psychological, would be exceeded by the costs and risks to society. I heard a comment, "Two years too late".


Gordon Edward Taylor: It was two years too late.


Judith A. Erola: It is a fact that that agreement which was so elusive to the opposition should have taken place at that time and perhaps it also would have come to that much earlier. But the fact is, the opposition did not.
Canada and Alberta went more than half way on this offer. Both the federal government and the government of Alberta went as close to a balancing point as possible. However, the fact is that governments cannot and should not create a set of conditions which eliminate all risks to a private sector project. But we came mighty close to that in this particular one.


Mr. Kilgour:: How far away?


Judith A. Erola: We all know, despite the government's offer to assume the vast majority of the up front capital risks through
May 4, 1982

direct equity participation and loan guarantee, and despite the rhetoric from the oil industry about the virtues of risk taking and free enterprise, who was taking the real risk. Who was taking the real risk? In the final analysis, the private sector was not willing to accept even a vastly more reduced level of risk than they said they were prepared to accept as little as six months ago.


Erik Nielsen: Because they didn't trust you.


Judith A. Erola: So let us dispel this business of too little, too late.


Erik Nielsen: No confidence!


Judith A. Erola: The Alsands companies were concerned about their projected rates of return, despite the guarantees, and about their cash flow position as the project went ahead. The governments responded. I say "governments" because I want to accentuate the fact once again that the government of Alberta was a very real, active and co-operative player. The governments proposed an offer which provided a good rate of return and maintained that rate even with lower expected rates of growth in world oil prices. That offer was out there on the table. It substantially reduced the risk by taking a direct share in half the project. We, and by "we" I mean the Governments of Canada and of Alberta, addressed cash flow concerns by guaranteeing loans and taking the companies out of the tax system until those loans were repaid. Was it not a generous offer?


Some hon. Members:: Absolutely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Your socialists think so.


Judith A. Erola: Well, the hon. members cannot have it both ways. At one point they say we are not generous enough, and then they call us socialists. "Hypocrisy" was a word very freely expressed on the other side of the House just a moment ago, but I see it practised with monotonous regularity from both ends of the House.
The rationale for the extremely generous degree of support offered was to ensure that the project would receive benefits equivalent to those implicit in Alberta's earlier promise of a 20 per cent loan guarantee and the ability of a fully taxable firm to use conventional tax write-offs on a current basis. These were the problems. With our guaranteed loan offer and the special features for repayment which were incorporated in it, we directly addressed the concerns which the project sponsors had earlier expressed to us. One such concern, and it was a real one, was their inability to use tax write-offs on a current basis. Our offer guaranteed them an equivalent basis. The second was their cash flow problem and risk, and our offer addressed this with a guaranteed loan and 50 per cent joint participation. Finally, the companies were concerned about the risk of low rates of the oil price increase, and this we addressed
by designing loan repayment terms which, in the case of the lower than anticipated oil price growth, would have delayed the time when the project would become taxable. Of course, if oil prices rapidly escalated, the loan would be repaid more quickly and would advance the date on which the project would be subject to full taxation. Therefore, the governments jointly created a package which did not provide excessive rates of return but which was extremely generous in terms of reducing the risk for the participants.
It should be clear from the scope of these terms that the two governments not only addressed the specific concerns of the companies, but also put forward an attractive total proposal under which the Alsands project could have gone forward. Unfortunately, it did not. However, I would like to assure Canadians that the door is still open and that that oil is still in the sand. It has not disappeared off into the night. It is there.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Too late.


Judith A. Erola: For Canadians it is still oil in the bank.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are still buying it from Mexico.


Judith A. Erola: The fact is that we had cheaper oil, and those companies which turned this down have asked, "Should we look at this project somewhere down the road when the national oil prices escalate, or should we look at some of the projects which will bring us the oil that we need at a far lower cost?"


David Kilgour: When?


Judith A. Erola: Now.


David Kilgour: Hibernia?


Judith A. Erola: Hibernia.


David Kilgour: Beaufort Sea?


Judith A. Erola: I mentioned just a moment ago that Hibernia is a very real possibility, with proven reserves. We have proven a flow of 1.5 billion barrels a day. There is a number of other ways in which we will achieve our self-sufficiency goal by 1990. We have enhanced oil recovery projects, upgrading projects-


David Kilgour: Cold Lake?


Judith A. Erola: -and the offshore exploration and development to which this government has devoted millions and millions of dollars and which we will continue to do. I want to emphasize that developments in these sources of oil will make us selfsufficient by 1990.


David Kilgour: Want to bet?


Judith A. Erola: It is absolutely true that over the last year we have become increasingly optimistic about the prospects of oil, as we mentioned, from Hibernia, from the east coast, from the Beaufort, and we expect, with a good degree of certainty, that these supplies will more than offset the output that we might have obtained from the Alsands project.

May 4, 1982


David Kilgour: Poppycock.


Judith A. Erola: No, it is not poppycock. It is absolute truth. If the hon. member were not hung up on the Alsands project alone, he would not continue to delude Canadians that the collapse of the Alsands project is the collapse of the NEP. We admit that it is a setback. I repeat, and I want to make sure that all Canadians know, that the failure of the Alsands project to go ahead at this moment does not mean the collapse of the NEP. I want to again assure hon. members that we in Canada and this government will continue to pursue those objectives set out so clearly in the National Energy Program, those objectives which are supported by Canadians. We will be self-sufficient by the year 1990.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House some of the projects which we are continuing to support. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition had quite a lengthy list of those projects which he said were not going forward. I would like to add my list of those projects which are going forward, and it is quite a lengthy one. Perhaps it would be better to table the document.


Erik Nielsen: Find your notes?


Judith A. Erola: Yes, it is here. These are energy projects. We have the Carmont heavy fuel oil upgrader-


David Kilgour: When?


Judith A. Erola: -at a cost of $2,600,000.


David Kilgour: What year?


Judith A. Erola: We have Sable Island offshore gas, Norman Wells, as I mentioned, La Grande Phase II at James Bay, and Hibernia Oil development. All of these projects are now under active consideration and a good deal of money has already been put into them.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the loss of Alsands is regrettable, but in the face of similar decisions being made in other countries at this time-


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


Judith A. Erola: It is not a cop-out, it is reality and it is time hon. members on that side faced up to reality. I am sure hon. members read the report in The Globe and Mail this morning of Exxon's decision to shut down its oil shale project in the United States after investing some $400 million, due to the decline of international oil prices.
I want to state unequivocally at this time that although the Alsands project failure is a setback, it will not-and I say it again-it will not undermine the basic objectives of the National Energy Program nor our ability to achieve them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a couple of comments on the remarks of the Minister of
State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). It is obvious that the minister lives within the confines of Ottawa and is briefed daily by the upper echelon of the civil service. She sure as hell does not live in northeastern Alberta where those plants are supposed to be developed or she would not talk the rot she talked tonight.
She holds out the CHIP program as the bastion of the National Energy Program and as evidence of its success. It was the very first thing she mentioned. Mr. Speaker, it was a money giveaway to the people of Canada so that they could insulate their homes and conserve energy. I should like to suggest another program-the BAPP program-buy a parka program. That could be implemented and it would be a wonderful success. The people who now cannot afford fuel oil for their homes because of the price and people who cannot afford to live in this country in the wintertime, will buy parkas.
The goals of the energy program are oil sufficiency, opportunity and fairness. I should like to deal with the matter of self-sufficiency. Clearly the Hibernia fields are not to be developed. Clearly the technology is not there. Is this government so unilateral in decision-making that it is going to steamroll over Newfoundland and not discuss the ownership of the off-shore with that province? That matter has yet to be settled. Taking into account the Newfoundland election, it does not appear to me that the government is going to be able to pull any strings in Newfoundland. That province is going to hold the line, and the federal government will have to deal with it properly, in fairness and in co-operation. Co-operative federalism is not dead.
Now 1 should like to deal with the matter of opportunities, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of State for Mines what kind of opportunity there is for the people who went up to northeastern Alberta. The minister is now leaving. She is afraid to listen to what can be said about some of her statements.


Erik Nielsen: Bye, bye!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Good-bye, minister.


Some hon. Members:: Bye, bye!


Jack Wendele Shields: What kind of opportunity is there for people up there?
The next item is fairness. Where is the fairness for the farmer who is now paying double for his fertilizer because of the National Energy Program which was brought in by this government? Where is the fairness to the trucker who is now paying $2 per gallon for gasoline when he can go across the border and buy it for $1.10? That is the result of the National Energy Program. That is how fair the government is.
We do not even have the technology for Hibernia. What is going to happen about the Beaufort Sea? Is the government going to steamroll over the Indian claims, the native claims, the Dene claims? All those land claims have yet to be settled



May 4, 1982
and they are not being addressed. A pipeline is needed, but how will it be built if the land claims are not settled first?
We saw what happened when the government would not face the political problems and develop a program with Alberta that was fair and equitable for all.
I am not going to say any more about that, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has gone. She is not about to listen anyway. Her statements are all rot and we hear it all the time.
From his reference to "hewers of wood and drawers of water" it is obvious that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has never visited the oil sands to see the technology being developed in Canada by Canadians. This technology will be needed all over the world in every oil sands project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: We are leaders in that technology but we are throwing it down the drain. The Cold Lake project was a giant research project. The government says day after day that we need research and development, and the NDP says that we need to do it at home. Mr. Speaker, we were doing it at home. We were developing a plan for research and development. The first technology was in situ process to develop oil from the ground has gone. Those people who developed the technology have gone with it, the petroleum engineers, the civil engineers. All that is being done in Montreal and in Toronto, Mr. Speaker. Members of that party do not know what they are talking about, Mr. Speaker.
The national energy policy was put forward under the guise of a budget. What did the New Democratic Party-the "Liberal party west" say about it? It said, "Borrow more money. Buy Petrofina. Borrow more money and go after the big guys, Imperial Oil-get those multinational Americans the hell out of here." That is what they were saying. That is what they are going to have to live with. It is on the record and the NDP, the Liberal party west, will have to live with it when the next election comes around. It is a matter of "go get the Americans".
The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) is not here, Mr. Speaker. He was upset earlier tonight because his riding was mentioned by my leader. He should sit over here and listen to the garbage that comes from the Liberal benches and from the NDP benches about my riding. It is my riding that is damn well being destroyed and it is making me sick, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House, we are witnessing the destruction of Canada-the Canada that I love and love dearly-the Canada of my children, the Canada of my father, the Canada of my grandfather and my great-grandfather. That is what we are witnessing and I must ask why.
This is the country that my family loved. This is the country that some members of my family died to protect. Now I ask why-why are Canadians allowing the destruction of the
country to take place before their eyes? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because we are a country without a vision. You cannot have vision in the country unless you have leadership with vision. Since the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power we have lost our vision. Where is the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier who had vision and said, "We have to build a railroad from coast to coast, from sea to sea". Where has that vision gone? It certainly is not in this House today and it has not been here for 12 years.
Where is the vision of Louis St. Laurent and John Diefen-baker who said, "We are going to build the St. Lawrence Seaway." They had a vision of bringing deep sea vessels right into the Great Lakes. Where has that vision gone? It is not in this House.
Where is the vision that brought us Expo? Canadians could then talk around and say "I am proud to be a Canadian". They did not claim to be Alberta Canadians, French Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, New Brunswick Canadians, or Newfoundland Canadians-they did not say that. They said "I am a Canadian"-unhyphenated.
The Prime Minister has a vision but he will not share it with the Canadian people because he knows they would ram it down his throat-his vision is hidden so that people cannot see it. That is the kind of government we have today, Mr. Speaker. It has no vision that it wants to share with the Canadian people because it knows it would be rejected.
We had the vision that gave us the railroads. It did not matter whether it was a Liberal prime minister or a Conservative prime minister. We had the vision which gave us the railroads. It did not matter whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative Prime Minister, the vision carried forward and it was shared with the Canadian people. What is the vision we have here with this prime minister? A vision of unilateralism; it is going to be done from the centre. We are not going to have co-operative federalism any more. We are going to have unilateral government from the centre and that is it, like it or lump it. The Prime Minister himself says co-operative federalism is dead. I want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, that it is not dead. It will survive that Prime Minister. But he is dead come the next election, and it should be soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: It did not matter whether it was a Conservative or Liberal government, the leaders had vision, and that is what we lack today.
The Minister of State for Mines said that the companies refused to build Alsands and the Cold Lake project because they were not economically viable. Hogwash! It was economically viable, but the companies, the people you depend on to do the building in this country, do not trust this government. Think about it for a minute. If you represent a company and its shareholders and you are asked to almost totally mortgage

May 4, 1982
your company to build the oil sands project, ask yourself if you would take a chance on a government which came in and retroactively stole from those companies their property by way of a back-in provision of the National Energy Program. These companies were good corporate citizens, they moved here and developed the industry, and then this government had the audacity, the gall, to move in on those companies and say, "We gave you certain tax breaks, gentlemen, we really paid for it, therefore we are going to take ownership for Petro-Can."
This is the same government which, when Syncrude was being built, invoked the force majeure clause which says they can renegotiate the price for oil which Syncrude produced. This is the government which made a deal with Suncor and said, "We will let you expand your plant to produce more oil which we need in Canada and you can have the world price", but after the plant was under construction this same government went to that oil company and said, "We only meant that you can have world prices for the portion of oil which comes from the expansion". This is a government which wants to be trusted, which thinks it is being trusted. It is a government which listens, and then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stands up and goes through all that garbage.
I never thought I would stand up in this august hall as a member representing northeastern Alberta from the great riding of Athabasca and say that 1 am ashamed today to be a Canadian. I am ashamed because we are now known in the international investment community as people who cannot keep their word, who cannot be trusted. They dare not invest in Canada because if they do, the government can change the rules.
I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, another scenario as to why the Alsands project is not going ahead. Two months ago Alsands told the government they were not going ahead, they did not like what the government was doing. We need a new agreement, costs have escalated. We have heard the arguments. Shell said they would hold on for another month "but let's sit down and reach an agreement." They did not get one call from this government to sit down. Not one! Why? Because the senior bureaucrats, the socialists of the NEP, were sitting down and working out various scenarios which they could present to the Alsands consortium. At the end of the one-month Alsands were going to pack it in. This government bought them. It said "No, wait another month and we will pay all your costs, $8 million. Stay there, we are working up an agreement". They waited for three weeks to sit down with the government. Less than a week from the deadline which had been announced two months previously they were handed a very intricate document by the government which said, "This is our proposal to you".
I talked to some of the members of that consortium, Mr. Speaker, and it became clear to me that they did not trust the motives of the federal government. I ask Canadians everywhere: can you imagine, they did not trust the motives or the integrity of this government. As it was explained to me, the companies would have had to mortgage themselves and they would then be too vulnerable because the government could
come in after a year and a half and shaft them right out of business. Was the government's motivation that of nationalization under the guise of Canadianization? I wonder.
I would like to suggest to the backbenchers over there that it will go down in history that you voted to support this government in its national energy policy. It will go down in history that you did not have the vision to stand up and stop your frontbenchers whom you follow like sheep. Do you realize that ten good members with spine can stop this foolishness and this government, and they can bring vision back into Canada? I guarantee that if ten men were to do that, they would go down in history, and they would win their seat in the next election, too. But they will not win their seat the next time because they are selling out their own constituents. They are totally and absolutely incompetent. They are not representing their constituents. They are more concerned about keeping their seats and staying in favour with a Prime Minister who has gone stark, raving mad. They support a Minister of Energy who has gone stark raving mad. They support a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who has gone stark raving mad, mad to the point of absurdity, and they are allowing this to happen. Ten backbenchers could go down in history as saving this country.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we do not develop the oil sands projects we will be putting the security of our country at peril. All we have to do is to get some sense, think for a minute, and look what is happening in the Middle East; it could blow up any time. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. Are the Russians satisfied with Afghanistan, or are they going to move into Iran? Nobody here knows. And I say to you that I do not feel very secure when I look at what is happening there. The security of my country, my children, my family and your family, is of prime concern, or should be, to every member of the House. If you only had the vision, the guts, to stand up, ten of you, and force this government into an election we would see a vision of building take hold right across Canada. We do not have to look at the bottom line; it is there. We just have to have a climate in this country which would allow people to move forward and develop the resources we have.
Instead of a country or a government with vision, we have a government of slick advertising, advertising to the point of nausea. This government advertises across the country that the country is ours and that the future belongs to us. But today it belongs to one man, the Prime Minister. It does not belong to Canadians in general. But I tell government members to go to northeastern Alberta, to Cold Lake, to Grand Centre and to Bonnyville. Go to Fort McMurray and talk to men and women who have moved there from other parts of Canada. Talk to those people and ask them why they have moved there. Their answer invariably is, "Because I saw a future and because I could do better for my family. Because I have always wanted to try business. I sold everything I have so I could get enough money and capital to build a business". I tell hon. members on the other side to go and talk to those people today and see
May 4, 1982

what they have to say about this government and the national energy policy. See what they have to say about fairness. Find out what they think about equity. 1 tell hon. member opposite to go and talk to the farmers. They do not have to travel very far. They only have to drive a little way from the atmosphere in Ottawa. Government members ought to hear what the farmers have to say. They should find out how costs have escalated because of the national energy policy. It is an absolute crime. But I see one thing, and maybe it explains it all. We all know that the civil service is out of control. We all know the senior civil servants are the ones who are advising the ministers, setting policy and running the government. They are the same people who live isolated here in Ottawa. They are the same people who have indexed salaries and when inflation goes up, their salaries go up correspondingly. I say to them, "Get the hell out of Ottawa. Go and see what is happening in the rest of the country. Do not sit in isolation and draft policies that are affecting the daily lives of Canadians right across this country and are killing Canada."


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions we have had recently about the state of the petroleum industry and indeed during the debate this evening, we have had the impression that there are those who are convinced that the reasons the Alsands project did not go forward, and indeed that the circumstances in the petroleum industry today, are entirely ascribable to the National Energy Program. That would seem a gross oversimplification in any terms. It is, of course, obvious that the petroleum industry in Canada is not immune from world economic conditions. That industry in Canada is no more immune from high interest rates or the impact of inflation than any other industrial sector in our country. Indeed, the industry does not exist in a vacuum, and interest rates, inflation and the declining international price for oil and the declining demand here in Canada for all types of petroleum products are proving to be crucial factors in influencing the course of our petroleum industry-at least as much as they influence the course of our other industrial sectors.
If that proposition were not true, I believe we would find a substantially different situation in the United States. But what we do find in the United States is a situation that in many respects parallels that in the energy industry in Canada today.


David Kilgour: You are nuts.


Roy MacLaren: For the benefit of the House, let me point out that the Wall Street Journal reported a fortnight ago that falling crude oil prices and tight money are "putting lots of producers on the ropes these days". Drilling is lagging and exploration budgets are being slashed. Even the value of reserves is coming down, with some producing properties selling for up to 25 per cent discount.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question now or at the end of his speech?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to proceed with what I am saying. We have also heard a number of allegations that drilling rigs have been leaving Canada, going to the United States and flourishing in what has been portrayed as a more hospitable climate, one in which those drilling rigs can prosper. In fact, during recent months in the United States, as the Wall Street Journal has noted, the '81 boom is turning into the '82 bust. Drilling is down substantially in the United States. The current estimates for the first months of 1982 over the comparable period for 1981 show a reduction of some 20 per cent. From a peak of 4,530 rigs active at the end of December in the United States, the count has fallen to about 3,600 at the end of March.
I make that point, Mr. Speaker, because it does indicate the degree to which the petroleum industry, both in the United States and Canada, and indeed in many parts of the world, is subjected to the adverse economic factors that are so prevalent in the industrialized nations today.


David Kilgour: That is the worst piece of logic we have ever heard.


Roy MacLaren: I should also like to cite the situation confronting a number of petroleum corporations. We have had reference to the fact that Canadian oil corporations have not been experiencing the same very high levels of profitability which characterized the industry over a number of years, but this is not a situation limited to Canada. In the United States, for example, the first quarter results for Texaco show a drop of 44 per cent in profits; Occidental Petroleum shows a drop in profit of 76 per cent and Ashland Oil showed a decline of some 30 per cent.


Mr. Wright:: Why don't you talk about people's jobs or the unemployed?


Roy MacLaren: The situation in many parts of the world with regard to the petroleum industry is substantially the same. It is affected by high interest rates, the decline in demand for petroleum products, the impact of inflation, which have all had a part in the state of the petroleum industry today. Against that background, it is clearly absurd to assume Canada is somehow immune from the adverse factors which are affecting all other industrialized nations.
Currently a number of major oil-related projects throughout the world are either being delayed or cancelled. The reasons given relate to the current world oil surplus, rising costs, the high cost of money and the general uncertainties about financing feasibility.
Some members in the House may be aware from comments made earlier this evening that in the United States projects have been shelved, projects on the leading edge of technology in a comparable way to that of the Alsands technology. But in addition to those that have been cited in the United States, in Venezuela a major upgrading oil project has been shelved. In the North Sea, the Netherlands is withdrawing from some of the major projects which have been contemplated. That

May 4, 1982
country is looking instead at smaller projects requiring minimum financial commitment. British Petroleum in the North Sea is backing off various costly projects to concentrate on alternatives of a less costly character. All these are also indications of the general situation facing a petroleum industry in a world where oil surpluses have developed, where world price has been dropping and where inflation and interest costs have been increasing.
Against that background, the Alsands project has been temporarily set aside, despite a very generous offer from both the federal and Alberta governments in terms of the tax regime and other financial incentives. Despite those very attractive offers, the two remaining private sector members of the Alsands consortium decided that to proceed with the project at this time was not in their best interests. There is a limit to which any government can go on making conditions right for any project. There is a point at which the expected benefits of the project are exceeded by the costs and the risks involved. The Alsands companies were concerned about their projected rates of return and their cash flow positions as the project developed. The government of Alberta and the Government of Canada proposed an offer which, in my view, provided a good rate of return and maintained that rate even with lower expected rates of growth in world oil prices. The two governments together substantially reduced the risks facing private sector partners by taking a direct share in half the project. The two governments addressed cash flow concerns by guaranteeing loans and taking the companies completely out of the tax system until both loans were repaid. In other words, the participants in the project were being offered world price and no taxes until they had recovered their total investment.
I would not want to try to emulate the colourful language of The Edmonton Sun in connection with the offer made by the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada, but I should like to quote for the record the comment of The Edmonton Sun on the offer. It indicated that "not for 100 years ... has there been anything to match the hauteur and disdain with which Shell and Gulf spurn the offer of public largesse ... If anything could turn a dedicated capitalist into a socialist, a believer in Petro-Canada and a fan of Marc Lalonde, this must be it . . . Since when is a guaranteed return on an investment of at least 20 per cent not enough?" The Edmonton Sun was certainly clear in its opinion that the offer made was a most generous one which, in other global circumstances, would have meant that the project would have gone forward.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) noted, it is important to consider the Alsands project in the perspective of the wide range of petroleum possibilities in the country. There is a variety of encouraging projects in which to invest in our search for oil during the current decade. Oil sands projects must compete with other investment opportunities for available capital. Unquestionably the promising exploration results in the Beaufort and Hibernia areas offer
tremendous investment opportunities, as the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) indicated in her earlier statement. But generally in Canada there are strong incentives to invest in oil exploration. For example, the netbacks to the petroleum industry have grown dramatically in recent years. Under the agreements with Alberta and the other producing provinces flowing out of the National Energy Program, the netbacks for oil discovered prior to 1974 have risen from S4.95 per barrel in 1979 to $5.82 in 1982, an increase of some 18 per cent, and for new oil the value has increased from $6.56 per barrel to $16.58 per barrel in 1982, an increase of some 107 per cent.
Against the background of these numbers, it is not surprising that there are investors who recognize the great opportunities which await those who want to participate in the petroleum industry, especially Canadians who for the first time have a major opportunity to join in the petroleum play. Solomon Brothers, a respected New York investment house, as early as October last year noted that first year netbacks on new oil in Canada will be up to 80 per cent higher than in the United States. Greenshields, a major Canadian investment house, indicated a few months ago that exploration for new conventional oil will surge ahead because the price of new oil has almost doubled since December, 1981. Also Greenshields added that with higher netbacks, small or poor quality reserves which were previously passed by will merit development. The relative netback to new oil discoveries is 2.5 times higher than it was in 1979, even after adjustment for interest rates.
With world price for new oil and with the petroleum incentives program available, it is obvious that Canada offers investors great new opportunities. Those opportunities are being recognized not only by Canadian but by American investors. Recently the United States department of commerce issued a report on the basis of a survey of United States petroleum companies with subsidiaries in Canada. The report dealt with projected capital expenditures abroad by foreign affiliates of United States companies. A notable feature of the forecast was the estimate of the United States department of commerce, drawing on material provided by United States petroleum companies, that Canadian affiliates of United States petroleum companies plan a 28 per cent increase in expenditures in Canada in 1982 compared with the 1981 level.
Also the report of the United States department of commerce noted that the Canadian National Energy Program, designed to promote Canadianization of the domestic oil and gas industry, does not seem to have dampened the capital spending plans of affiliates operating in Canada. Indeed, the United States department of commerce forecasted that there will be a 28 per cent increase in Canadian investment compared with a worldwide increase of United States affiliates of only 18 per cent.
I suggest that the Canadian petroleum industry has a wealth of opportunities ahead of it which will contribute substantially to the realization of self-sufficiency in oil, self-sufficiency which we already enjoy in all other energy sectors. Of course, conservation is also playing a key role in achieving self-
May 4, 1982

sufficiency. In line with the goal of the National Energy Program of reducing demand for oil in Canada throughout this decade, we now estimate a total demand of approximately 1.4 million barrels per day by 1990, down from 1.7 million barrels per day last year. Part of the decline in demand is the direct result of government incentive programs to encourage Canadians to move away from costly oil to less expensive and more plentiful forms of energy and, of course, to encourage Canadian industry to develop alternative fuels.
In 1981, the demand for all petroleum products in Canada dropped by some 8.7 per cent. The expectation for 1982 is that there will be a further decrease of 5.6 per cent. The combination of the Hibernia sources, the Beaufort sources, oil from conventional lands and upgrading projects which are now under way, coupled with a sharp reduction in oil consumption in Canada, will certainly place Canada in a situation where we can be certain that our supply and demand will once more be in balance. That balance of oil supply and demand which we seek by 1990 will also be paralleled by greater Canadianiza-tion of our petroleum industry. I have no doubt that during the years ahead we shall undertake a major overhaul of our manufacturing industry to make it more competitive in world markets. Our best prospects to achieve that sort of competitive stance will be as a result of greater Canadianization of our own enterprises. Canadian research and development will benefit and grow, and worldwide marketing as well as entrepreneurial challenge will flow from a greater Canadianization of our industry, including the petroleum industry.
Recently, a report by Touche-Ross and partners, a major Canadian consulting group, noted that people may disagree on details or methods in the National Energy Program, but the report stresses that there can be little quarrel with the intent of the program from any reasonable person, Canadian or American, who believes in the existence of an independent selfgoverning nation on the northern part of the North American continent.
Now that we have our own Constitution at home, we should be redoubling our efforts to own and control more of our economy for good economic, social and political reasons.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity offered by this emergency debate to make a few comments. Mr. Speaker, we have emergency debates when things go wrong and I think the House should remember that the reason we are having this debate today is that all is far from well in Canada. I was shocked when I heard the previous speaker, who seemed to find this state of affairs entirely acceptable, while referring to the tremendous loss represented by the Alsands project. He thinks it is perfectly normal that these things should happen and that his government has not abdicated its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, we are having an emergency debate on the present government's disastrous, unspeakable and almost obscene performance with respect to the economy. In fact, the nature of this debate would not be as serious if all were well in other areas. Especially during the past two years, since February, 1980, this government has betrayed and deceived the Canadian people on almost all counts. Considering what the government has said and what it has done during those two years, it could be charged with misleading advertising. This evening's subject is extremely important, because the decision to abandon a project so earnestly desired by all Canadians has added a substantial note of discouragement and has raised general consternation with respect to recent events. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to show Canadians how the government's sorry performance in the economic sector today contrasts with its forecasts, promises and commitments in the energy field where, as in other economic sectors, government forecasts have been patently false. Members on this side of the House have called for a debate this evening, in order to try to raise the conscience of this government and to force it to listen to reason. At the very least, we might expect some hon. members to act according to their consciences and force their own government to prepare forecasts that provide a more realistic and honest view of what Canadians can expect.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to congratulate this government. The opportunity afforded by this debate will be used to make the Canadian people aware of this disastrous performance, the government's lack of initiative and the monumental failure for which the members of this government are largely responsible. The Canadian people are concerned, the country is concerned and millions of Canadians are suffering at a time when, once more we are trying to persuade the government to make proposals that are more acceptable and effective than they have been able to produce up to now. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) was a pitiful sight just now when she had to read a speech prepared by a couple of senior officials and had to try to justify the government's action, just as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and so many ministers on the opposite side of this House have done, by blaming the provinces and the oil companies for turning down the government's generous offer. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, why the government had to show such generosity to companies that did not even bother to accept this generous offer, because of their previous experience with the same government. Should this not be seen as evidence of a loss of confidence in government on the part of the private sector? For two years, Mr. Speaker, this government has tried in every possible way to encroach on areas that were formerly the domain of the private sector. The time will come when this government will have to deal honestly with the private sector. Perhaps we should remind Canadians-because some may have forgotten-that the Prime Minister of this country was in bed with the New Democratic Party not so long ago. Should

May 4, 1982
we be surprised at the government's desire to socialize just about everything, and why not the energy sector? This government, this political party, is led by a Prime Minister who believes in socialization, and we can see the results today. People are concerned and are asking why the private sector is reacting negatively to the government's policies and objectives. 1 do not think there is any reason to be surprised.
I was also listening to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who went so far as to accuse the Progressive Conservative Party of having hurt this project, when it is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians will surely remember, that it is the New Democratic Party which has kept the people opposite in power since 1974, and that Canadians have the New Democratic Party to thank for being subject to the inadequate legislation under which Canadians are now suffering.
1 wish to congratulate the leader of my party on the comments he made in the House this evening, because thousands of Canadians would love to have a chance to say what he said this evening to the face of the minister responsible for the economic catastrophe and failure perpetrated by this government today. I believe it is important that Canadians should be reminded of the disastrous performance of this government. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we were dreaming, as all Canadians dreamt, about this particular project. When $13 billion are involved in a project such as the one at Cold Lake-in fact it was $12 billion-it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that if instead of being obstinate and insisting on challenging the provincial governments two years ago, the government had taken action to settle these issues with a view to self-sufficiency in energy supplies, the projects would have come on stream two years ago, Mr. Speaker. It is also clear that if the government had been prepared to let the private sector do what it does better than the government, we would have attained these impressive goals and, today, we would be able to speak confidently about self-sufficiency by 1990, which unfortunately is not the case. It is a matter of grave concern, and it is regrettable, that the lack of necessary investment will cost us thousands and thousands of jobs. My own province, which also has a substantial unemployment rate, would have benefited from these major investments as well. Why did the government fail? Procrastination, obstinacy, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself, who orchestrated the daily confrontation with the provinces, that is where we should lay the blame for the loss of billions of dollars of investment in this country. We all know it would have been nice to see this money invested in Canada. For two years, twenty-five or twenty-eight months, it would have helped us to strengthen the Canadian dollar on foreign markets. It would have created badly needed jobs. And I repeat, my province and the other provinces would have benefited from these very desirable and necessary investments. However, after trying to blame the provinces and the opposition leaders for its disastrous failure with respect to this particular project, the government, and I think it is important
that Canadians should realize this, the government is going to try to put the blame on the oil companies.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment, Canada is losing an opportunity to create 100,000 jobs as a result of the disastrous performance of this government. At this very moment, when
1,500,000	unemployed workers are looking for jobs, and because of the government's failure to meet its objectives and the commitment made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we are going to lose 320,000 jobs in related industries, an opportunity that was open to all the provinces of this country because, as we all know, all the provinces would have benefited from these major investments and these immensely lucrative projects.
There is no doubt that this government will go down in history and that the Right Hon. Prime Minister himself will go down in history on the basis of this pitiful performance, Mr. Speaker.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of my party said yesterday, that there is an element of confidence in such things. Now that the government has lost the confidence of businessmen, it will be more difficult for the government to carry out necessary projects. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone the government's attitude in trying to blame just about everyone and in trying to justify its actions on the basis of the performance of other countries when it is criticized for its lack of competence, or rather when its incompetence is demonstrated as it is today. Mr. Speaker, you cannot lie to the public all the time. You can lie to the public some of the time but you cannot lie all the time. This is the moment of truth. The government is realizing daily that it is no longer able to govern this country and can no longer rely on the confidence of the majority of the people of this country. I think that in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, if, as members of this House, we have a sense of responsibility and an earnest desire to serve the majority that elected us, I think that our sense of responsibility would oblige us all to force the government to change its course of action or to resign if it is unable to demonstrate that it can lead the country down a road that will not take us straight into bankruptcy. I think this is a question we can ask the members opposite, these government members who endorse every day the incredible failure of the government, who support blindly and unconditionnally the attitude of this government which causes unacceptable hardships to thousands of Canadians. We cannot repeat this too often.
It is obvious that this country is on the edge of disaster. It is also obvious that this government is mostly responsible for the economic situation, even though it tries to justify itself by saying that since the situation is not too good in the United States or in Europe, it is quite normal for Canada to experience the same problems. Mr. Speaker, this government has
May 4, 1982

shown its inability to make wise decisions, and it is very important to make the right decisions in politics. The government has not done so. Its attitude is such that the energy industry no longer trusts it. Businessmen in general no longer have any confidence in the government either and the programs which are announced every day are simply disguised welfare and unemployment insurance programs. Is this the way to build a prosperous country? This government is no longer able to take new initiatives, and this has been obvious for a long time. One only has to hear the Prime Minister contradict himself nearly every day.
Faced with all these problems, and naturally disappointed because of the all-around terrible performance of his ministers every day, the Prime Minister said yesterday, "I believe the time has come to co-operate with the provinces." Yet, he has ignored them and treated them as strangers since he has been prime minister. He is now making amends. He needs the provinces to solve the problems and correct the mistakes of his own government. Is it possible to have any confidence in a prime minister who behaves in this way? Is it possible to have confidence in ministers and a cabinet who have failed so completely? It is too late, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of State for Mines, who spoke earlier, tried to indicate that there is still some hope. For thousands of Canadians it is too late to have any confidence in this government. It refuses to listen to its own members when they dare from time to time, not too often and never the same ones, because it would be dangerous for them, to make a constructive recommendation to the government, whether on housing or on other issues, and most recently on interest rates. If a member opposite does so, he can do it only once because he is warned solemnly by the prime minister that he will have to resign if it happens again. We then have the whole flock of Liberal sheep who follow their shepherd, if I may use such terms. This is a pitiful sight, for a Canadian, for a Quebecer coming from a province with an unemployment problem. Seventy-four Quebec members out of 75 endorse and support the dictatorship of this man who will go down in history as having caused such harm to a nation that had put its confidence in him. This is the type of Canada in which we now live. And they spend millions on advertising to make the Canadian people believe that things are not really that bad.
After the patriation of our Constitution I was very upset, Mr. Speaker, because there were references to one Constitution, one country and one future, which is pure hypocrisy. The Constitution is incomplete, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, the country is torn and on the brink of bankruptcy, and the aged and over one and a half million unemployed are facing an uncertain, dangerous and difficult future-that is the kind of country the government is building for us today. There are hon. members who go along with that and who applaud such actions, Mr. Speaker, and I deplore this. These things must be said this evening and must be repeated tomorrow, and I hope there will be people with a moral sense who will be able to
meet the aspirations of all Canadians, and I hope that this debate will force the government to listen to reason or at least to resign, if it is sincere in its desire to serve the Canadian people.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this is as goodlooking an audience as 1 had this morning at the banking committee. I think it would be doing an injustice to the House if I or anyone else were to try to minimize the negative impact of the perhaps indefinite postponment of the Alsands project. All of us, whatever party we represent, looked forward to this megaproject with anticipation as one of the cornerstones of our economic recovery.
I sat here tonight as someone who has been out of the House for six years, hoping to learn something about Alsands that I did not know. I was hoping to listen to some objective assessment of the impact. What I have heard is impassioned speeches. There was one from the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who made his traditional request that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) resign, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) resign, ignoring the fact that if there are 74 or 75 members of Parliament as he suggested in this House, it is precisely because the Quebec people want it that way. If they wanted it another way, then democracy would speak out.


An hon. Member:: You need exposure.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not get overexcited at the rhetoric of the hon. member for Joliette. He is one of my favourite members. I can understand his frustration as the only member of the Conservative party from Quebec. It must be frustrating at times. I am trying not to be partisan. I got to my feet really to recognize the hour and in the hope that I may be able to talk rather objectively about the Alsands project.
This rule is used infrequently, Mr. Speaker. It is a very useful rule. It is there so that we can discuss emergencies, issues of great urgency. Perhaps we may have been able to give unanimous consent today to make it possible for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be here. We all know that he is in Texas on government business. It might have been common courtesy to have given an extra day in order to allow him to return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It seems to me it would be logical for the minister to be on the griddle and listen to some of the impassioned pleas of members opposite. I think that is common sense.
I am not too upset about it. It is only an observation. I am only suggesting it. It might have been courtesy. It might have been useful. Some have different views about the minister of energy. I think that most people in this country, regardless of

May 4, 1982
their political persuasion, consider him an extremely able, competent and knowledgeable person in charge of his department. 1 read this in editorials in newspapers that under normal circumstances have little to say in support of the Liberal party or the Minister of Energy. So it might have been useful to hear his views in this important debate. I am pleased to know that he is on his way back in order to participate in this debate which I hope will go on for several days, as perhaps it will.
I was quite impressed by the contribution of the member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), one of my favourites. He spoke with passionate conviction about the impact on his community of the postponement of this particular project. 1 can visualize the negative impact it must have, a project of this size and dimension in that part of the country and in that particular riding. I would hope that even he would not look for such simplistic solutions as getting rid of the Prime Minister or getting rid of the Minister of Energy. These are not the answers to our problems. 1 do share his love of this country and I think that he would be the first to agree that he is not uniquely concerned in that respect. We all love this country, we all want to see it go ahead, we all have a concept and a vision. I might get around to my concept, if I am permitted.
The fact is that Liberals should not try to minimize the impact of the Alsands project. I do think we owe the subject, which is an important one, some objectivity. Why has the Alsands project been shelved or postponed? Some of you will say-and I do not argue with you, 1 listen, 1 may not agree- that there was procrastination or delay on the part of the federal governement or the Alberta government, that had it got started two years ago it would have been in place and it would have been moving along. 1 do not know that, I have no way of knowing it. People who have that view are entitled to it. I do not quarrel with anybody in debate, I never did, and I am not going to begin.
I looked around to see about other megaprojects in the world. One cannot blame Canada's Minister of Energy for their fate. You cannot blame the present Prime Minister for their future. You cannot blame Canada's energy policy for the future of megaprojects in other parts of the world. Is what has happened in this delay of Alsands, or in the shelving of Alsands, totally unique to the world, coupled with our energy policy? Or is it because we were unable to persuade private industry to go ahead, uniquely on their own. I asked today, and 1 found it. The reason is given, and we will come back to it.
It was ascertained in France that it shelved its program to buy 40,000 barrels a day of heavy crude from Venezuela. They shelved their program of building an upgrading plant in France at a cost of over $1 billion. When they were questioned as to the delay, they talked about the world oil surplus, soft prices, difficult financing problems and other less important reasons for the delay, the postponement of this huge megaproject, not in Canada and not affected by our policy.


Mr. Lambert:: One billion dollars.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: One billion dollars. Now, I would not insult the hon. gentleman who delivered his figures in the banking
committee in billions. It has already been mentioned in this House tonight that in the United States Exxon has postponed the shale oil project in Colorado for precisely the same reason. That project had a budget of $5 billion, a pretty hefty sum of money. The same company announced that the gasification project in Texas, has also been deferred for the reasons that we have already stated. The hon. gentleman is an expert in gas- hot gas, natural gas, gas from the sea. He would know more about it than I would. The fact remains that it is a form of energy closely linked to oil. The important thing is that Exxon has deferred that $4 billion project, not because of the Canadian energy program, not because of the Prime Minister, not because of the Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is because economic conditions are such that those in free enterprise simply say, as is their right, that to embark on projects of this magnitude at this time just does not make any sense. We might want to get into coal gasification, which is another form of badly needed energy in some parts of the United States. In Wyoming that project has been scrapped. Mexico has postponed its nuclear energy program, a $30 billion project. The liquefied natural gas programs in Nigeria amounting to $14 billion have been postponed. Why? I think all of us who are mature know that we are in a world of recession and that at this very moment in history the pool of capital available to government and private enterprise is not all that large that competition will not drive up interest rates and frighten people.
I do not try to minimize the Alsands project, but I think it is fair to point out that similar programs around the world are being cancelled or postponed for exactly the same reason that private industry backs out of this particular project at this particular moment. As one who believes in the free enterprise system, in all probability the right decision was made, if made from the boardrooms of Shell or other companies. If we want, we could come back to discuss the offer of Alberta and the federal government which some people are already suggesting was over generous, involving 50 per cent partnership and only 32 cents on every dollar coming out of their pockets and 68 cents coming out of the taxpayers' pockets.
There are other projects which are active at the moment, megaprojects, if one wants to call them that. Look at the long list. There is not only Dome Beaufort, amounting to $500 million, which is active at the moment. There is also the drilling in the Beaufort Sea by Esso, amounting to another $130 million, the investment by Gulf in the Beaufort amounting to $700 million, and Norman Wells, which is behind schedule but nevertheless proceeding, amounting to $600 million. The Trans Quebec & Maritimes Pipelines is very important. The hon. member, who is an expert in alternatives to oil, will appreciate the importance of the Trans Quebec Maritimes Pipeline. It will help that wonderful part of the country lower its fuel bill and lower its dependency on coal. It
May 4, 1982

amounts to $861 million. The Revelstoke Hydro project in British Columbia, generating an important form of energy, amounts to $1,115,000,000. The Pickering projects in Ontario, amount to $1.8 billion-


Mr. Kempling:: Pickering! That's Ontario Hydro.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and the Bruce generating station amounts to $2.2 billion. I could go on and on. There is the Ridley Island Coal and Grain Terminals project in B.C. amounting to $400 million, and a $300 million expansion of the Algoma Seamless Tube Mill. All of these projects are actually in place, being developed, the economic spin-off which we will feel in this country in a relatively short period of time.
I think that the Alsands project warrants this emergency debate tonight. I think it warrants a certain amount of objectivity, even taking into consideration the partisan nature of this House. I get very little satisfaction out of knowing that the same problem or dilemma faces the Governments of France or Mexico or of other countries which have had to postpone their projects. However, I ask hon. members opposite, and people who may be listening, whether the postponement, for instance, of the Aquitaine purchase of heavy oil from Venezuela and the building of the plants needed for processing can be blamed on the Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Prime Minister of Canada or the national energy policy. Tonight one would think that the world had come to an end because the Alsands project had been dropped. If one listens to the hon. member for Joliette, one would think that Canada has come apart.
It is amazing how important Alberta is to certain people in Quebec at particular times in history while it is relatively independent and unimportant at other times. I do not pretend to speak for Quebec, but I am a Quebecer. I am a Canadian. I am not a hyphenated Canadian. I do not even use the term "Quebecois". I use the term "Canadian" rather than "Quebecer", if you like. I know what goes on, but I get a certain amount of satisfaction when I hear the hon. member for Joliette speak with such passion about products in Alberta and the spin-off effect they would have in Quebec because that is precisely the message the Prime Minister and my Canadian friends have given for the last 20 years in this House. These are federalists who have said to Quebecers, "Remain within Canada, and these types of programs benefit all of us, all of Canada, including Quebec."
Just how important is Alsands? To the hon. member for Athabasca it is all important. What has been the impact out west? I like to read what people out west think of these great tragedies. The president of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, and I do not want to be selective, a former provincial cabinet minister, predicted that the demise of Alsands would be a disaster for the provincial economy. He is entitled to his view. If he is entitled to his view, then so is Melville McMillan, a well-known professor of economics at the University of Alberta, who said that in his view Alsands was a bad investment because its oil production techniques were too costly. He was honest enough to say, "My views are not typical, I realize, but I think that this requires the governments to look at more
responsible energy alternatives", such as providing further incentives to the conventional oil industry for recovery of heavy oil and oil from older wells. This is perhaps the answer in the meantime. That may have to be the way we must go.
In fact, even Mr. Lougheed-not the Prime Minister of Canada, not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources- said while speaking with reporters that there was far too much pessimism amongst Albertans after the Friday announcement and that Alsands did not play a part in provincial economic strategy for this year or next. Mr. Lougheed went on to say that the road to recovery for the petroleum industry is to find new markets for natural gas, a goal which the provincial government has set as a high priority for the summer months. I agree with Mr. Lougheed, because we have an energy surplus in this country, even if we are short of oil. However, when we add up all of our other sources of energy, it becomes not only a question of conservation but also one of conversion. The more people we convert to natural gas, the better it will be for the economy of Alberta, for the economy of central Canada and the maritimes because, as a rule, natural gas is cheaper than conventional oil.
I have read the Edmonton Journal, and I will not pay too much attention to the view of Jim Russell, a New Democratic Party candidate, who said, "If Alsands cannot stand by itself, it should be allowed to die." I think that is a rather rough statement. However, I must look at the views of the member of another party out there who said, "The trouble with Alsands is that it keeps the province off the main issue-looking after the junior oil companies in Alberta. Alsands has become an albatross." Independent Tom Sindlinger said Alberta does not need Alsands even if Canada does. Liberal leader Nick Taylor said Alsands is only useful as insurance, in case other projects do not proceed.
I am not for one moment minimizing the impact of Alsands. 1 know the spin-offs which Alsands would have for my riding which has a badly depressed steel industry, and for Secondary manufacturing in Ontario and in Quebec. I am not unaware of the spin-offs and I am not trying to minimize them. However, I just do not think the world has come to an end. Maybe I can be forgiven for saying that, but the Montreal Gazette says that.


An hon. Member:: Measure it in jobs.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I always like to speak at a quarter to eleven at night when one finds that the more intelligent hon. members are prepared to listen even if they do not agree.
I listened to the speech of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and it was a very predictable speech-the same one that he has made many times in the 15 years that I have been in the House. Sooner or later, whether the issue is the Constitution, unity, the sex life of the tse-tse fly, or whatever, the hon. member will drag in Sweden, Mexico-Australia is the new one that he had tonight-all the other countries that he

May 4, 1982
has visited and which impress him as being better than this country.


David Kilgour: He is your friend.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member should go back to his French lessons for a little while and leave those of us who are unilingual to take advantage of the simultaneous translation. The hon. member reminds me of Alexander Pope's famous saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He had better go back to writing letters to the editor and getting his French verbs right. He will go far-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased to hear the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) close with the remark about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. I would challenge him to drink much deeper of the Pierian cup. On the basis of his remarks tonight there is much left to be said and much more knowledge to be accumulated.
He referred to the collapse of the shale program in the western United States. If we have drunk of the Pierian cup we know that the cost of oil from the shales of Colorado runs at roughly three times world price and that it is not the policy of the United States government, and has not been its policy in the past, to subsidize that production or blend it into any blended cost. Therefore, there was no way that that particular program could get off the ground.
He mentioned that Exxon was withdrawing from its coal gasification program. Let us compare the program of the United States over the last ten years with that of Canada today. We find that the exploration incentives provided to the oil and gas industry are such that it will be some time before the United States requirement will bear the cost of coal gasification. That is quite a contrast to the policy under which we operate today. When we compare the two policies, ours does not come up equal.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) issued an invitation to the government backbenchers to look at what the executive branch of that party is doing to the nation. It is high time that they took careful notice of public opinion and its reaction to what is going on.
It is not long since it was virtually impossible for a member of the opposition to pick up a newspaper and find something that indicated that perhaps the government was going the wrong way and that perhaps the opposition had some ideas which should be accepted by the government.
I should like to quote from "Canadian Business" of May, 1982, an article entitled "The Economy" by Charles Davies. He had this to say:
In one sense, Alsands presents a real conundrum. It's important to Ottawa's commitment to national energy self-sufficiency (depending on what happens in the Beaufort Sea and offshore Newfoundland), as well as being a linchpin project in the government's industrial strategy for the 1980s. But with the outlook for international oil prices now as foggy as that for interest rates, Alsands' economics are becoming more dubious with each passing day.
The article continues as follows:
What's also striking about Alsands though, is the degree to which it demonstrates that Canada has become an investment ghetto. When Lalonde talks about using the public purse to support projects that have lost their sex appeal for the private sector, he may just be making a virtue of necessity. Given the rate at which we've managed to discourage foreign investors in recent years-not to mention a goodly number of large domestic ones-this could be the first of many incidents where we have to bail ourselves out.
That is certainly not complimentary to the results of the oil sands negotiations and the National Energy Program.
The article later discusses the balance of investment in Canada. There was a point when that balance created a cash flow which Canada needed. In the 1980s the cash flow became negative by $2 billion. In 1981 it escalated, but I have not seen the final figure.
Although we may talk about the dissatisfaction of Canadian investors in foreign jurisdictions, I have not seen any mention in the press of a single Canadian investment being returned to Canada because of a less favourable climate elsewhere. That speaks ill of the policies of the government.
We heard a few remarks from the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). It is rather interesting that she referred to the Hibernia field and other offshore resources, and stated that the resource in Hibernia has proven to be 1.1 billion barrels. I presume that must be recoverable, and since the figure comes from a cabinet minister we must accept it as accurate. But what does it mean to Canada's requirements? If it were all drawn out in a three-year period it would not satisfy the national requirements of this nation under the present policy.
The oil that would come from Hibernia is a decade away, Mr. Speaker, and that did not have to be the case. Our policies have discouraged offshore investigation to such a degree that Newfoundland and all of Atlantic Canada are suffering from the stagnation of exploration prior to any possible development. The 1.1 billion barrels represents less than a three-year national requirement if it were drawn off in that time. If it were drawn off in a 12-year period it would represent approximately our import requirements. But that is in the future, Mr. Speaker. Alsands could have done much better had it come into production-and it would have come into production much more quickly than is apt to be the case with Hibernia. That reflects on the policy of the government and emphasises the need for Alsands.
We have found it virtually impossible to establish an economic environment in which anybody can be sure of anything if they are investing in the oil industry. We have gone so far in
May 4, 1982

that much hailed agreement with Nova Scotia that the government insisted that it retain a veto on the board which was to be established for the control of the offshore resources as it applied to Nova Scotia. I am sure the premier of Nova Scotia obtained the very best deal he possibly could.
The minister also referred to falling crude oil prices. I do not believe she has done any reading or has listened to the electronic media, because in the last 72 hours the emphasis has been, first, that the petroleum cartel of the world plans and can achieve a two million barrel per day cutback in production and, second, that those who hold supplies of oil, the international corporations, are now drawing down on the surplus that exists by two million barrels per day. If this is extended for a six-month period it becomes very obvious that there will no longer be a free market in which we are going to get bargain prices for oil, that is if the cartel can put its act together, and it is trying its best. We cannot go on drawing from our purchased reserves at the rate of two million barrels a day for very much longer either. So everything indicates that world prices, as of the last 72 hours, are very apt to turn around.
Among those reports one should pay very strict attention to the one which says that the United States anticipates a 3-cent to 4-cent per gallon increase in the price of gasoline at the pump in the very near future, and it could happen next week. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is the obligation of the Minister of State for Mines to protect her government. But I submit that her argument was frail and not what one would want to present on the hustings to an informed audience.
One of the items mentioned was the TQ & M pipeline. I may be all alone in what I am going to say, but I am concerned about the construction of that pipeline, for two reasons. First, because the energy policy of the government has retarded exploration on the east coast offshore as it has everywhere else. We do not know how much gas has been found, but using a figure which apparently emanates from cabinet, we are talking about three trillion cubic feet of proven reserves. We are also advised by the press that further exploration may increase that reserve immensely. If that be the case, a proper energy policy would be directed toward every possible incentive to explore and develop the gas fields off Sable Island, the property of Nova Scotia. That should be policy. Should we in fact be bragging about the construction of a pipeline with a reduced diameter as it goes eastward, and is it in fact going to be something like eight inches to a foot when it reaches Canso?
Then we talk lightly of reversing that pipeline. Mr. Speaker, if that is done we then have to do two things. We replace it from Canso to Montreal with a larger bore, or we parallel the line we have already built and reverse the pumping stations at a massive cost to the taxpayers.
Why don't we visualize the importance of development of the resource assets of these provinces? Why are we a stumbling block? What kind of pure greed and narrow mentality stands in the way of resource development in provinces which have been so disfavoured in the economic structure of Canada that surely they should have priority? Like the hon. member
5.0. 26
for Athabasca and the hon. member for Joliette, I appeal to the government backbenchers to please inject an element of intelligence into the policies of the executive structure of the government.
This Liberal government has been deteriorating for all those years it has been my privilege to be in this House. I watched the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) knuckle under to the NDP and the socialist tendencies of his own party. I saw him plead and argue, I am sure against his conscience, to put through the first budget which indicated the socialist trend the government is now following. We have seen the total and complete erosion of the principles of social responsibility, coupled with private investment and the free enterprise system, which used to be the trademark of the Liberal party. That has gone by the boards, but only because backbenchers do not care how much the fuel costs to run the pulp mill in Campbellton. They do not care how much it costs to run a fishing boat off Newfoundland, or a farm tractor anywhere in Canada. They have swallowed their pride and taken this gobbledegook of economic nonsense which has been passed to them by the executive structure of the Liberal party. And they have supported it.
Like the hon. member for Athabasca, I claim several generations of ancestry in this nation and I do not look at it as New Brunswick alone, or Quebec alone, or the prairie provinces alone, or British Columbia alone. I look at Canada as being a co-operative effort by people to govern themselves to the benefit of all Canadians and all regions of Canada. Perhaps there are some in Atlantic Canada who would criticize me because I support a party which opposes a negative energy policy which has defeated the Alsands project. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot serve Canada and my region by supporting any policy which has a negative effect on economic development anywhere in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the narrow and contracted minds of backbenchers in the Liberal party from Atlantic Canada have contributed to the plight of that area for too, too long. They have contributed to the consternation of western Canada over a policy which is going to turn it from an affluent society into a dependent society if something is not done to replace the greed and ideological philosophy we have seen with reality and practicality. It may be the west which suffers today, but it will be Ontario tomorrow and Quebec the day after. If ever there was a time in this nation when backbenchers should rise to the cause of the Canadian economy, it is now. Failing that, it is high time that the government put its policy, of which it is so proud, on the line in the hustings.
It may be early for an opposition to suggest an election should take place, Mr. Speaker, but when we find the CBC, that loyal proselytizer of the Liberal party, in some of its programs criticizing the policies of the Liberal party and depicting Grande Prairie as going from prosperity to a dependent society with 30 per cent or 40 per cent unemployed, it is


SOI 14-16 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 4. 1982
high time that the backbenchers on your right take note of the developing catastrophe.
Alsands would have been a fait accompli by 1979 had there been a rational energy policy. Cold Lake would have been with us and, as I said earlier this afternoon, that presented a problem for Canada. Our resources, both financial and manpower, might well have been strained. That was the problem which existed when the Liberal party found it wise to call an election in 1979. They have found one roadblock after another to place in the way of development across Canada. They found one way after another to tax farmers, fishermen, foresters and home owners to the point where they should now submit their program to the electorate of Canada. It may be fine for the Liberal party to criticize its leader, and that criticism has become open and public. However, I want to point out to the people of Canada there is no way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet can put into practice policies which are detrimental to a nation if at any time the backbenchers object in caucus in a meaningful way. For instance, just a few members from Montreal to Megantic and from New Brunswick could have retained the VIA Rail service. The vote was that close. That is the example to the Canadian public. That is the onus of responsibility on the Liberal backbench, particularly as it relates to Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Those members are failing their constituencies one by one.
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1 am pleased to be taking part in this debate because, like the members opposite, I believe this is an extremely serious matter. Indeed, 1 congratulate the Official Opposition for having presented this motion and giving us an opportunity to have this debate. 1 also wish to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), for the manner in which he answered questions in the House on Friday, after the announcements were made, and the way he explained exactly what the situation was and why the Alsands project had been dropped and the Alaska pipeline project postponed. 1 also wish to congratulate the press because it demonstrated that it understood the reasons behind the decision or rather the decisions that were made. First I would like to quote from an editorial in Le Droit which appeared on May 1, 1982, and reads as follows:
Shell's decision to pick up its marbles was based on a series of factors, and could not possibly have been changed by a last-ditch attempt by Ottawa and Edmonton to save the project. There was, of course, the whole issue of private sector participation, which was intended to make up 50 per cent or more of the project. Furthermore, there is a certain risk involved in this kind of technology, and although Syncrude has been operating for nearly three years, all has not been smooth sailing, and incidents have been many and costly.
That is a fairly accurate analysis of the situation, and this morning, there was an article in the Globe and Mail which I would also like to quote. It shows that there is a fairly basic understanding of the problems we are facing.

The article is written by Peter Cook. In part it reads:
However, despite the general dismay that greeted news of the demise of one megaproject and the postponement of another, economists point out the decisions were not unexpected, and that the loss in growth need not necessarily occur.
Expansion in the economy will almost certainly be set back in the short term. And the cancellations represents a blow for the federal government's economic strategy. But growth could still take place at a similar rate through 1985, and may not be diminished at all.
Indeed, some economists look to a revived international economy-spurred by the lower oil prices that torpedoed Alsands-and contend this could provide fresh momentum for Canadian exports, and the economy, in the next few years.
The opposition members have failed to recognize this, and I do not blame them, because they do have a function in this House, and that is to oppose systematically. They must advance the most negative arguments they can muster. They do that quite liberally, 1 might say, and sometimes it tends to distort the public's perception of the truth. I might point out that I was very pleased with the attitude of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). His attitude was much more reasonable because, in effect, he knows what the situation is.


Mr. Lewis:: He is back in bed with you.


Mr. Blais:: On the other hand, the Tories feel that by ranting and raving somehow the decision will be changed, as though it were in the hands of the government to change the decision on the Alsands.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You don't know how silly you are.


Jean-Jacques Blais: If you look at the press release issued by Shell Oil Company at the time of its decision, you will see quite readily that the decision was Shell's decision. Shell Oil recognized there was an effort on the part of both the Alberta government and the Canadian government, hand in hand co-operatively, to attempt to maintain the Alsands project.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, during the month of March the federal government paid for the operating expenses of Alsands because we wanted to have that extra month to permit some additional negotiations to take place. Shell stated as follows:
We respect the efforts governments put into developing the most recent proposal. In some respects it is an improvement over the previous offer. Shell has given careful consideration to the proposal but has decided that in the current and foreseeable economic and industry environments we cannot proceed.
A high level of debt is envisaged in the government's proposal. During the six-year-long construction period, major uncertainties over inflation, interest rates, capital availability and oil prices will prevail. In these circumstances, we believe it would be unwise to burden a project of this magnitude and operational risk with an extremely heavy debt load, even with government loan guarantees. Were Alsands to proceed on this basis, a very high proportion of the project's revenue would be required simply to cover operating and debt servicing costs.
Those are the reasons for the cancellation of the Alsands plant. The only solution there could have been would have been for the federal government to have undertaken the Alsands project and financed the whole thing itself. Could you imagine the opposition's opinion of that particular initiative? There is absolutely no way that they could recognize any right on this side of the House. Their basic philosophy is that
May 4, 1982

government ought not to interfere in the marketplace. The marketplace has made a decision. Shell Oil said the risk is too high, and those babes on the other side, in complete innocence and completely blinded by their own partisan interests, advanced certain principles that are completely contrary to the basic tenets of their particular philosophy. I could understand the position of the NDP.


David Kilgour: It is like yours.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The Leader of the NDP said in Vancouver, referring to the Alsands project:
Given that the Shell people made the decision-
Because he recognizes that it was the Shell people who made the decision.
-based on the current price of oil and the supply and their predictions about what the future holds, it doesn't make me question the decision not to proceed.
That is the hon. member for Oshawa speaking. He continued with the following:
The resources are going to stay where they are;-
That is evidently so. He continued:
-they aren't going away. So when it becomes economically viable to develop the oil sands then PetroCan or some combination of the federal and Alberta governments should go ahead.
That is a very commendable attitude to take, and it is the proper attitude to take. I can see quite well why the hon. member for Oshawa did that. On Friday, while the Tories thought that we were not doing enough, the NDP were thinking that we were doing too much. In fact, in the question posed by the Leader of the NDP to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, he said that we were bribing the private sector participants. Evidently we are in a difficult position being on the one side buffeted by the reactionaries and on the other by the radicals. I believe the decision that we made was the proper decision to make.
Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the House is that oil sands programs and projects have had a hard time. The tar sands were discovered more than 100 years ago. Everyone attempted over that period of time to try to extract very valuable oil from the sands. They did not have to explore for it because it was there. There was a recognition that there were more than 600 billion barrels of potential oil resource.
We recognize that the first attempt was made by the GCOS group. They did not make any money until such time as international prices were somewhere in the vicinity of $8 to $10. Before that time they could not make money because the entire operation was a very expensive one. When Syncrude came forward Atlantic Richfield pulled out because in effect the proposition was too risky. At that time the federal government put in $300 million and talked the Ontario government into becoming involved as well, and we rescued the Syncrude plant. Although that plant was aimed at 125,000 barrels per day, it is now producing at the level of roughly 80,000 barrels per day because of difficulties in technology.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources admitted quite candidly, it is not possible to get all wrinkles out of the tar sands technology as yet. We are doing immensely well, but we do not have all the wrinkles out. With high interest rates, high inflation, and difficulties in terms of international prices-up one day and down the next-a very risky environment is created. In that context we cannot blame Shell for pulling out, even though the federal government and its agent, Petro-Canada, were ready to stay in. I do not think it would have been a wise decision for the government to have gone ahead by itself, or in conjunction with the province of Alberta, with that particular project.
The Tories are so inconsistent that they are looking avidly for diversion or for some distraction in order to draw the attention of the public away from their own internal squabbling. The hon. member from Calgary, who is allegedly the Tory critic for the environment, is a loyalist of the first order. In effect he is attempting in any way he knows how to try to keep his leader in place.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the relevancy rule to be applied, or will this jackass be allowed to continue?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) has the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I suggest that Beauchesne would not allow that term. I ask the hon. member to take a look at his own attitude. We here are parliamentarians. If the hon. member's fuse is so short that he cannot stand the heat, he should remove himself from the kitchen. This is not the first time he has shown vitriolic temper and an inability to control himself. It is unfortunate for a young man of his age with such a glowing future. At least that is what his voters thought.


Mr. Rose:: Behind him.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, behind him. When we look at the situation involving government participation, and at the Tories in terms of their own tactics, we realize that they are attempting to keep their leader in power. We heard the clanging of the bells, and now they are attempting to keep us in the House all night to debate this particular issue. They are trying to draw attention away from the lacklustre leadership of the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). The fact is that they are having a convention soon. I do not exactly remember what date. They will not have a vote at their convention because they do not want their own members to advise them democratically as to what they want them to do with their leader.
They have a fund raiser travelling around the country allegedly raising funds, while he is organizing himself for the next leadership convention. That is the type of situation at which the Tory party is looking. The only way it can get its members into the House of Commons is by raising this type of issue with various spurious arguments which are absolutely untenable and absolutely unfounded. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is one of the first ones to

May 4, 1982
walk around with a blindfold over his eyes. Ele is so partisan in his attitude that he cannot see the truth when it stares him in the face.
The Gallup poll coming out tomorrow morning-or is it out now-will show that the Tories went down three points, when the government faced economic difficulties. We know that we are facing economic difficulties, but we went up three and they went down three. This is as a result of the so-called sterling quality which heads their party and shows the way.


An hon. Member:: And the bells!


Jean-Jacques Blais: And the bells, of course. The ringing of the bells indicated the decision-making and judgment of that party. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Tory party.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I understood that we were conducting an emergency debate. 1 would ask that Your Honour rule on a point of relevance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been extremely difficult for the Chair in regard to relevance on both sides of the House. This is a difficult debate. The Minister of Supply and Services has the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, 1 am right on point because in effect what I am saying motivated this debate. It was surely not the argument advanced by the opposition; its arguments were full of holes. Members of the opposition completely skirted the issue. I have indicated the reasons for the Alsands project being cancelled. They know the reasons full well. They know that Alberta co-operated with the federal government and recognized that it was impossible to go further than we went co-operatively. Hon. members opposite should recognize those facts. There must be another reason which caused them to disrupt the House and its proceedings since we resumed this session. Of course I am referring to the leadership difficulties within their own party and their inability to maintain SolidarityReturning to the question of the oil industry, there was an argument that the industry cancelled this project because of a difficulty- with cash flow. There has been a reduction in its profits this year over last year, but the profit in the industry in 1981 was $8.5 billion. "That ain't hay!" There are other figures which are of interest. Between 1970 and 1979, the last year for which I have figures, the industry spent $20 billion on exploration and development of resources. Of that, Canadian taxpayers paid $10 billion, or over 50 per cent of the expenditures for exploration and development.
Let us take the latest year, 1979. The profits in that year for the industry were $4.7 billion. Its expenditures for exploration and development were $5.4 billion. The cost to Canadian taxpayers for that exploration and development was close to $3 billion. When we consider the cost to taxpayers, we must remember that 61.7 per cent of the profits of that industry in 1979 were represented by tax expenditures generated as a result of its exploration activities. In effect, as Canadian taxpayers we put up 61.7 cents of every dollar which went into
oil companies in the form of profits in 1979. As the hon. members from the NDP admit, it is a result of government policy. We wanted to generate the kind of activity which has been generated in the oil and gas patch.
In 1981 their before tax profits were $8.5 million. Although there was a reduction, and there was a reduction in their percentage of profits, they managed to export from Canada over $956 million in dividends and interest payments. Nine hundred and fifty-six million dollars left the country from the profits of those companies.
At the same time, when you calculate that the number of proven reserves in the sedimentary basins of Saskatchewan and Alberta is close to 5 billion barrels, and that is multiplied by the value of today's barrel of oil at $25.75, you figure that the value of the oil in the ground is over $123 billion. That is a lot of money, and when I hear members opposite talking about financial difficulties 1 do not see where they are coming from when I consider that particular analysis. Also, that amount does not include Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea, nor does it include the heavy oil. It only includes conventional crude.
I merely say that the decision was made by the private sector. It was the proper decision under the circumstances. The hon. members opposite who support the private sector's wisdom shoud recognize that there was nothing that the government could have done besides what it did, which was to try to offer some way of keeping that project alive.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone can be jubilant about the collapse of the Alsands project or the Alaska highway gas pipeline. It is an extremely serious situation for our country and no one can make light of it. I do not know how much partisan gain there is in it for anyone.
While I agree that these matters are serious, what is even more serious to me is that these projects, and a number of others which have collapsed or will collapse in the near future, due to the world economic condition, are based on the view that by launching enough megaprojects-approximately $400 billion worth by the year 2,000-the spin-offs will somehow solve all our problems. This is a band-aid approach to a very serious problem.
I am not saying that megaprojects are not necessary but that it is absolute lunacy to base one's country's whole industrial strategy on that approach. What disturbs me to a greater extent is that, while I criticize the policies of the Liberal government on these matters, I do not see any alternatives being proposed by those members to my right.
On the one hand we are told that the marketplace should determine what has happened, and in the case of Shell that is what occurred.
May 4, 1982

The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) says that, after all, the world oil prices will come down.


Fred Alward McCain: Up.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte has said during the past two days that there are indications that there may be an increase in the world oil price and an invigoration of the OPEC oil cartel. I am sure that I did not betray what he said. I would like to know how that hon. member knew that, while Shell Oil does not. That company is an internationally huge giant which has pulled out of Alsands at the same time that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte somehow knows that oil prices will rise and everyone will be happy again.
If you heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, it proves that both the Liberals and Tories have based their whole economic strategy on megaproject developments and their economic spin-offs as the key to industrial and manufacturing recovery.
It is our view that that confidence is misplaced for a number of reasons. 1 will try to outline a number of themes which have been heard before. It seems to me that this approach continues the export of resources at the expense of job creation in our manufacturing sector, something which has existed in Canada for around 50 years. What happens is that we export all the resources possible while exporting the jobs as well. The government adopts the band-aid approach philosophy which is to start the magaprojects as soon as possible in order to create many construction jobs. Many construction jobs are created, perhaps up to 40,000 on some jobs.


David Kilgour: Is that bad?


Mark Willson Rose: Not a bit. What I am saying, though, is that there is not a proper balance. Once those jobs are finished, what is left?


David Kilgour: Seven thousand five hundred permanent jobs.


Mark Willson Rose: There is nothing wrong with that either, but at what cost per job?
The other alternative is that if the same money is put into manufacturing-$4 million per job on a megaproject compared to $100,000 a job in manufacturing-it would be more beneficial. It would seem to me that the money used to create jobs in megaprojects is misplaced. I do not say that there is no need for magaprojects, or oil security, or protecting ourselves from vulnerability to supply cutoffs in international situation. What I am saying is that we are headed in the wrong direction when we go full bore for one project, the huge, centralized, capital intensive energy project.
We opposed the pre-build on the pipeline, and I will tell you why. There was no guarantee that the United States would ever fulfil its obligation. We saw what happened in the last number of days with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and his ironclad agreements. The Tories supported it, but Canadians got nothing out of it.
We had no guarantees in the Alsands project whatsoever, or for the Alaska highway pipeline that there would be Canadian
jobs or that the Americans would build their part of it or that we would even have Canadian content exclusive of import content. This same situation is happening in the Beaufort Sea and in the construction of drilling rigs and tankers. It is the same inane strategy which does not protect Canadian jobs. All it does is continue the complete dependency we have on exporting our raw resources.
We have called for an alternative stragtegy which at least should be considered. The government should not blindly and stubbornly carry on a policy which has resulted in the problems we now have. We know that the economic viability of many of the major projects is doubtful. The price of energy did not rise as was anticipated in the Alberta oil agreement. Within that agreement there was the anticipation of certain price structures rising in certain stages in world oil prices. We now have extreme interest rates, and difficult financing problems, combined with lower demand. Lower demand may be a result of high prices which would result in conservation. Obviously, if prices are high enough people will use less energy. That is one factor.
Megaprojects are collapsing around the heads of the Liberal government. The large coal plants in northern British Columbia are on the verge of collapse, but probably will not collapse because the current provincial government cannot afford to let them fail. They will not continue because of economic viability. No one is happy about this situation, but it is the reality.
The Conservatives ask us to look at the economic realities, but when we do address the realities we are called doomsayers or pessimists. If your whole strategy is based on megaprojects for the development of jobs and an industrial strategy for Canada, and that collapses, what do you have left? You do not have an alternative. We should be developing the alternatives far more. We should be putting far more effort into developing conservation and renewables. We are not doing that. We have a single-minded megaproject purpose that is capital intensive and, up until now, has been a flop.
The third point is that the Liberal government, and I do not think the Conservatives would be any different, has gone to extraordinary lengths to give incentives to private industry. Even those have failed. I do not have to remind hon. members of the speech by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) about 65 per cent of the profits of the oil industry, almost a billion dollars last year, which was provided by the public.
Look at the PIP program, 93-cent dollars for poking holes in the Beaufort Sea and off Hibernia. I hope they find something there. It is a tremendous risk. We do not know what will happen to Dome Petroleum either. It sold a subsidiary the other day. That was to help the old cash flow.
We should be looking at the old cash flow all right. We have all kinds of money to give to the oil companies to provide jobs

May 4, 1982
and for them to find oil and that sort of thing. However, there is no money to lower interest rates on mortgages.
We do not intend to gloat about this business of the collapse of Alsands or the Alaska pipeline, all that fiasco. It is nice for us to stand here and say, "we told you so; you did not have the ironclad guarantees; you got what was bound to come." If North Slope gas is too expensive to ship to the Californias or the Californias do not want the stuff, why would any private consortium that is market-wise-they are not stupid or like socialists but are bright people-build a pipeline to carry that North Slope gas down the Mackenzie Valley if it is not economically viable? One cannot argue with that. They will not do that as long as they can get our gas nice and cheap.
We know the song about Canadian Hunter. What we do is say that we have all these gas rigs running around so we need some incentives for drilling. They say that if they are given a few incentives, they will get the industry going, but they have a cash flow problem. They go to government to get the incentive. They drill, and they poke a lot of holes, and find some gas. Then they find they have a little problem. They have all that gas and they have it capped.
The only way they can get anything out of the gas with their cash flow problem is to export it. After they export it, they need a little more incentive for drilling. They have exported all they had and again have a cash flow problem. What was done with oil will de done with gas. What was done with oil at a million barrels a day in the early seventies will be done with gas.
It is time that the government reordered some of its priorities. We are not opposed to Alsands per se, Syncrude per se, or Cold Lake per se. We are opposed to the lack of guarantees in megaprojects for Canadian workers, sourcing and content, when Canadians are putting up the bucks. That is all we ask.
The government should not be Santa Claus. It should get value for its money. We should have an equity return on our investment if we are going to poke the money in and not give it away. That is only sensible. Even those sitting to my right should agree with that, but they do not believe us. Maybe the shelving of these things is a blessing in disguise. Maybe the government will abandon this single-minded approach and look for other ways. Maybe it will seek other ways to create jobs for Canadians and not depend on the big ticket item.
Maybe the government will have learned something. I doubt it, but maybe it will have. Maybe we will give it equal opportunity now to lowering the demand side instead of always worrying about increasing the supply. Maybe we will put some money into the renewable fuels. We hear all the time, including from the minister's own department, how important it is that we have conservation. The cheapest barrel of oil is a barrel of oil conserved. That is what the government says, but it does not follow that. It does not put any money into that compared to what it puts into PIP. I will tell you what the government is going to put in. It may put in $5 million, SI25 million, $400 million a year or something like that, compared to $6 billion in the PIP program over four years. Give some of our energy-efficient manufacturers, the insulating people or
double window people, that kind of incentive, the 93-cent dollar in the PIP program, and watch them go.
We have the most energy-efficient housing industry in the world. Give that kind of incentive to those people and they will provide jobs that are environmentally benign. There will be jobs in Windsor, Vancouver, Ottawa and other such places. We would not then have to send welders and other workers up into the God forsaken north, off those islands or onto the extremely dangerous oil rigs. Think about that for a change. Let us have a little more balance in this.
Earlier this evening the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) tried to convince the House that the government has an admirable record of supporting conservation renewables. I cannot accept that. Let us look at the figures.
Here is the government's dedication to total conservation, $460 million per year. That is pretty good compared to what it was. The PIP program will spend at least ten times that much a year. We know where the priority is. Alsands is estimated to cost $13 billion. The Alaska pipeline, and maybe it should be called the Alaska pipedream, will cost $50 billion, the PIP program $6.5 billion, and the nuclear industry has already spent $4 billion developing the Candu which nobody wants. They cannot even sell it to Roumania. The Mexicans do not want it even though we will give them $6 billion along with each reactor.
What does the government offer? The free enterprise government of Alberta has offered 25 per cent ownership in Alsands, a bit socialistic I would say. A government like that buys Pacific Western Airlines. They would start things similar to the CNR and the CBC. Imagine that, 25 per cent ownership, and the feds put up 25 per cent. That is 50 per cent ownership for Shell and Gulf and PetroCan, and it was not enough. 1 can go into the details of the long-term financing and the other part of the offer, but it is obviously not enough. It is economically not viable in spite of that kind of generosity.
I do not blame the companies if they want to go on strike, but I do object to this. They went on strike in the case of Syncrude. They would not go ahead with it. I could give the details on that. I know they would fascinate you, Mr. Speaker. However, I will spare you of that. However, when it was all over in Syncrude, that 80,000-barrel-a-day wonder, the people of Canada put up 70 per cent of the money. In return they got 30 per cent of the equity. We want no more of that stuff. We have had enough of that. The government put up 70 per cent of the money and in return got 30 per cent of the equity. That is not enough. That is poor business.
I have heard a lot of catcalls from the romper room in the corner asking whether we are in favour of Alsands-is it necessary or not? I am not an energy expert, but we are committed to lay government. We have a lot of energy experts from Alberta. Virtually every member from Alberta is an energy expert. I do not know why that is. I suppose they are going to fight for their industry. I do not blame them for that. However, they are all experts. Everyone is an energy expert and a job expert. I am old enough to recall the Diefenbaker
May 4, 1982

depression. My father tells me about the R. B. Bennett depression.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Les Benjamin about the Blakeney depression.


Mark Willson Rose: Perhaps the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is a little depressed; I do not know.
We do not have many experts in the House of Commons on many topics. We are not supposed to be experts. We have even fewer visionaries. There are certainly no visionaries on the government side. There certainly were no visionaries in the Economic Council when it advised the alternate energy committee last winter that by 1990 the low price scenario for oil would be $85 per barrel and the high price scenario would be $155 per barrel. If the government bases its decisions on that kind of vision, it is bound to get into trouble with respect to Alsands. Shell Oil Company will not get into trouble, but the government and the minister have been dead wrong on their estimates.
With respect to whether the Alsands project should or should not go ahead, if private entrepreneurs will not take the risk-even the minimal risk, in view of the latest offer by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada-then perhaps it should be shelved. 1 am not in a position to make that decision, but perhaps we should scrap it. Perhaps we should spend the money on enhanced recovery from existing wells. Perhaps we would be better to spend the money on the development of heavy oil, alternatives, renewables, or a thousand other things. However, let us not try to have it both ways. Let us decide whether the thing is worth it. If it is worth it, let us go ahead and, if Shell will not do it, we can operate it as a public utility. If it is not worth it, let us scrap it.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very sad indeed to be taking part in this emergency debate this evening on the demise of Alsands. I have been familiar with the Cold Lake project and the Alsands project for some time.
The Alsands project consortium applied to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board for approval back on December 14, 1978, and the final approval for the project was given by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board on December 21, 1979. 1 also remember that the application for the Cold Lake project was made in the fall of 1977. Why was the Alsands project not proceeded with within days after the approval by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board on December 21, 1979? Why did the project not go ahead then? It was a very economic project at the estimated cost at that time. It did not go ahead because there was no agreement on oil pricing, and I will touch on that point a little later.
With respect to the Alaska gas pipeline, back in 1974 and 1975 I visited along the Arctic gas route to examine all the environmental installations which were being tested. It was the Berger commission which killed or sank the Alaska gas pipeline, and I will touch on that also a little later.
In the last 35 years the oil and gas industry in Alberta has grown by leaps and bounds, and both the provincial government and the federal government allowed the industry to grow and prosper. Indeed, both governments were very protective of the industry. The federal government was an ally of the industry back in those years. I was on the energy committee of the Alberta cabinet from 1971 to 1978, when I resigned. I was the only member continuously on the energy committee of the cabinet in Alberta, and I remember well how hard we fought to save Syncrude. We did save it because all governments cooperated.
However, we all know that the OPEC cartel started to set the price of oil and gas in the world in the middle 1970s. The establishment of the price structure in the world was transferred from the marketplace to political price setting. Indeed, the same thing happened in Canada. Our arguments as to how high the price of oil could be raised politically were many. I remember well the early arguments in the middle 1950s. Don Getty in particular said very clearly that the oil price would rise, then stabilize, and then drop. Most of us did not believe him, but I want to confirm today that he was right. Some thought that the price structure would just keep going on forever, and agreements were made based on price structures which were unrealistic.
As the price was going up, the Canadian government decided on two policies. I was a supporter of the government in 1979. The first policy was that the Canadian people would be protected from the world price. We all had different schemes and ideas as to how the price should rise and at what rate. I released a report. The Progressive Conservative government at that time had a remarkably good energy committee of caucus under the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) which put out a remarkably good report. As far as I know, that report was not even examined.
The second policy back in 1979 was that the federal government would get its share of price increases. The government simply said that the provinces and the industry could not handle all the extra money and that the federal government had to get its share. The government of those days decided that we would tax in the normal way, 18 cents a gallon at the pump, and we paid dearly for that. However, we said something else. As a government we said we would take 50 per cent of all the price increases above $2 a barrel.
What did that do to provincial thinking? The provinces felt that the federal government was coming in with a front-end royalty on oil and gas. The provinces got their dander up. Their hair was standing on its end, and they were prepared to fight tooth and nail. I remember sitting with the premier of Alberta, his cabinet, and some of the Alberta caucus. The tension was quite heavy because, for the first time, a federal government was introducing a royalty on a provincial resource. It was introducing taxation on crude oil at the wellhead. That happened in 1979. Many things have happened since.
If we had come to an agreement with the Government of Alberta back in 1979-and we could have-and if there had been some decent analysis on the part of ministers of the

May 4, 1982
federal government of the day and some of the members of that caucus, Alsands would be moving full steam ahead today, and so would Cold Lake.
But what happened? We were defeated on an energy policy of 18 cents a gallon tax at the pump. Some of us wrote to the people in charge saying that the tax should at least be split at nine cents a gallon per year for two years. Some of us said that the tax should be increased six cents a gallon per year for three years. However, we went forward with an 18 cents per gallon tax.
What really caused the difficulty was that 50 per cent tax on all increases above $2 per barrel because, as far as we in Alberta were concerned, that was a royalty. The PGRT is a royalty today, and that is the tax which has caused all the federal-provincial difficulty over the last several years. Certainly my provincial colleagues got their dander up, as I indicated earlier. They were adamant that they would get rid of such a tax.
Then when the new government came in and introduced its National Energy Program, what was its objective? Massively, it was to take money at the wellhead from the industry and recycle it in accordance with its policies, primarily to shift the activity from provincial lands to federal lands. Massive sums of money were to be shifted.
It was interesting that today in committee we spoke to Norcen. I asked Norcen how much of the PIP grants they would receive in the next 30 months, and they said some $130 million. How much were they to pay through the PGRT? They said that they would pay $20 million to $25 million over 15 months. However, they thought that their profits would be at least $40 million in 30 months. This is a massive transfer of money from some companies to other companies. That is the nature of the policy we have under the National Energy Program which we call Canadianization. When I look back to some of the letters I have written to prime ministers and to premiers concerning the energy matter since I came to this Parliament, I particularly like to refer to a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premier of Alberta on August 14, 1980, in connection with the Cold Lake plant. I wrote:
Your failure to evolve an acceptable long term energy pricing package and energy strategy for Canada prompts me to write this letter. The primary emphasis of your current negotiations has been on evolving a continuing oil and gas pricing formula as well as an appropriate split between governments and industry of the revenues so generated. Many Canadians are concerned that the negotiations have reached an impasse. The possible effects of the present impasse on the assurance of future energy supply for Canadians is of concern to every Canadian elected to office.
What particularly concerns me is the possible effect of the negotiating impasse on the approval and timing of the Cold Lake Heavy Oil project. It is critical that this project receive governmental approval, coupled with acceptable royalty and commercial terms, so that it may proceed. In my opinion, this project is, at this period of time, perhaps pivotal in assuring energy self-sufficiency for Canada beyond the year 2000. As you know, surface mining oil sands technology has been commercially established by virtue of the success of the Suncor and Syncrude projects. Subsequent surface mining plants are primarily based upon these two commercial successes. However, in situ extraction processes have not been proven commercially. Some 19 piloting proposals are in various stages of progress under the direction of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research
Authority but the Imperial Oil Cold Lake project is the first attempt at commercialization.
The time frame on any commercial project is about 20 years-
How many people know that is from inception to its final production? My letter continues:
-from inception to completion and the second in situ commercial heavy oil plant is not expected until the mid or late 1990s. Therefore, the Cold Lake Heavy Oil project is the first of a kind. It is a critical technology that must be commercialized now. Recovery efficiencies, production costs, environmental implications are critical factors that must be commercially established before this vast resource can be adequately tapped.
That heavy oil resource amounts to approximately 50 billion barrels of oil.
The National Energy Program is a child which was eventually christened through the Alberta-Ottawa agreement. However, it was hatched and weaned, and in my estimation, by political ideology, by political greed, by political arrogance, by political ignorance and even stupidity. Let me just go through each of these briefly, if I have the time.
Political ideology; nationalization and Canadianization over such a short time frame are just unworkable. Certainly we can nationalize on Canadian lands and even Canadianize on Canadian lands because we are beginning and moving forward. However, when we stop to Canadianize the industry on provincial lands, that creates nothing but chaos.
I was in the oil fields in 1947 at Leduc when it started. I saw Atlantic No. 3 gush and then go up in flames. It is a very complex industry, and one does not turn it around overnight. There is no reason, like Norway or Australia, to require Canadianization requirements on Canada Lands. However, it is utter foolishness to try to convert an industry which has grown over 35 years and reorganize it structurally to Canadianize it in a very short time. Political greed, taxation and royalty levels are simply confiscatory and rob the industry of most of its cash flow. The industry in Canada simply decided to mark time, to hold its own, until some stabilization came to the energy policy in Canada.
Without self-generation of capital, and having to borrow capital to the extent of $13.5 billion for Alsands, the requirements for cash under today's economic policies are such that one needs $40 to $50 a barrel just to pay the interest on the money. How could a project of this nature go ahead in this economic and fiscal climate? It is no wonder it collapsed. However, it was extremely viable when indeed it was dreamed up, and when it came before the cabinet and the energy resources conservation board in Alberta. It was viable in its time, but politics killed it. It was the politics, not of one government but, rather, of several governments, which killed it.
I do not have much time left in which to speak, so I will not go into some of the others, such as political arrogance, political stupidity and so forth, because I want to say something about the Alaska gas pipeline.
The Arctic gas proposal was a very fine proposal to take both American and Canadian gas across Prudhoe Bay and
May 5, 1982

down into the Mackenzie River Valley. That project was studied over several years. Environmental requirements were gauged and tested every step of the way. Then the government-appointed Berger commission looked at this project. A selfmade messiah who was unsuccessful in politics decided that he would create a name for himself in history and he would kill the Arctic gas project. That was a project that was totally studied and 1 know because 1 visited most of the environmental study projects.
However, this Judge Berger, with the assistance of some self-professed technological experts, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), decided to hold hearings up and down the Valley and killed it. Bob Blair, the opportunist that he is, and 1 know him so well, knew exactly when it was dying. This smart fellow, an engineer, said, "Oh, 1 will toss in a proposal at the very last minute", and he did, a proposal which was at least three times as expensive as the Arctic gas line. He tossed it in at the right time. Do hon. members know what happened? Without a single environmental or technological study, the federal government accepted that proposal. Down the Alaska highway, a complicated route of unbelievable proportion, with a Canadian spur line called the Dempster lateral, crossing three mountain ranges.


Erik Nielsen: Baloney.


William J. Yurko: How many, four?


Erik Nielsen: Baloney, one.


William J. Yurko: Okay, one mountain range.


Erik Nielsen: 1 am sorry, two.


William J. Yurko: The expert said two. Maybe he can bring it up to three-two mountain ranges and a set of foothills.


Mr. Prud'homme:: How is it that you are talking to each other now?


William J. Yurko: Without a single environmental study the federal government approved a project of three times the cost, and yet people wonder why the United States hesitates. It is because the project never was economical. There is a much better route and I believe it is time, regardless of what the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says, that the government took a look at the original route again. If the government simply took 10 per cent of the difference in the cost of the two lines, it could settle every land claim in the Northwest Territories; it would really be in the order of billions of dollars. It could set up a fund so that all the native people whould be particularly pleased-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin).


George Albert Proud: There is a speaker here.


Some hon. Members:: Let him continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) to continue with his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has asked for unanimous consent to proceed. We are, of course, very willing to give it to the only independent member in the House. However, 1 wonder if he would explain whether he realizes that the route of the Dempster in traversing the Richardson Mountains goes through Rat Pass?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is wrong.


Maurice James Harquail: That is not the first time.


George Albert Proud: No, it is not the first time.


William J. Yurko: 1 understood it went through gopher tunnel! My difficulty is that if 1 get warmed up again 1 could go on for a long time on this issue.
I should like to say that this House has to make some changes to the National Energy Program and they have to be made in accordance with the motion I proposed under Standing Order 43 on April 29. When 1 put that motion I said;
I feel certain that, on reflection, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will be pleased to second this motion.
I looked at the minister and he made no motion that he did not agree. Then I looked at Madam Speaker and she looked at the minister and the minister gave absolutely no indication that he was not seconding the motion. So Madam Speaker put the motion as if it was seconded, and if anyone reads Hansard they will see that Madam Speaker asked for consent and that some hon. members agreed and some said no. 1 wonder who said no, whether it was the Conservatives or the Liberals. 1 thought I had snuck on to the minister a terrific coup! My motion reads as follows:
That the government immediately (1) cut significantly the petroleum and gas revenue tax; (2) provide exactly the same incentives for exploration and development on provincial lands as is provided for Canada Lands under the petroleum incentive program; (3) drop immediately the retroactive 25 per cent ownership requirement on all Canada Lands:
1 honestly thought that the minister had seconded the motion because he did not jump up and say no; he did not shake his head and the Speaker put the motion. 1 hope he takes the matter seriously and moves to make some changes.
Today in committee I asked a representative of Norcen if they had a figure on the true cost of bringing oil from the Beaufort Sea f.o.b. Montreal. I am an engineer and we always make studies before we start to invest. The witness hummed and hawed and said it would be about $100 in 1990 costs.
How do they think they are going to bring that oil to Montreal on a profitable basis unless through massive federal subsidies-subsidies for transportation and boats, subsidies for loading and unloading stations, subsidies for exploration,

May 5, 1982
subsidies for development to a much greater degree than the government would ever have subsidized Alsands. The government is prepared to do it because it is a massive shift of activity from the provincial area to the federal government area. 1 think that is not fair, Mr. Speaker.
I want to speak briefly on megaprojects, Mr. Speaker, and then 1 will sit down. Megaprojects cost lots of money. When the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the committee I told him that he was killing all the megaprojects and that the reason was that he was constantly juggling the three very important fiscal and monetary variables. One of these was the value of the dollar. He was varying it weekly, so why not yearly or every six months or every month? Thus the interest rate structure, the money supply and the inflation rate was bouncing. I said that under these circumstances there is no way a megaproject could be financed because they cost as much as $13.5 billion. You need stability for that, Mr. Speaker, so you must know what conditions will be five years or even ten years from now.
There is no stability in Canadian fiscal and monetary policy today at all. Megaprojects are dead. The only things that will be financed are projects that do not require much capital outlay and have a short period between beginning and production so that some of the money can come back. You must be able to get your money back in the shortest possible time in an era of economic instability. This means that we are going to have small projects in Alberta. There will be a small project at Cold Lake. In fact, if the federal government was really intelligent it would go to Imperial Oil and say that it wanted to fund that project totally as an experimental commercial project under that company's ownership and management. Someone has to commercialize that resource, Mr. Speaker. It is a fine resource-it has 50 billion barrels of heavy oil. It will be produced in little projects of 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 barrels per day. The government would be acting intelligently to go along with Imperial Oil and the Alberta government on an experimental basis in order to commercialize that project.
I started out by saying that I was saddened, Mr. Speaker. I really am because I know how hard we worked on Alsands. I was responsible for choosing the town site and making the plans for the housing and infrastructure. We built a highway and we built a bridge and all that is down the drain now. It is indeed sad, Mr. Speaker, because it did not have to be that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to join in this debate. This is the latest hour at which I have ever spoken in the House. It is late for us, but it is too late for the Alsands project.
As I sat and listened to the debate it is clear that the government has developed its strategy and taken its position. In the arguments made by the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), there is the common theme that Alsands is not a great catastrophe and
really does not have much effect on the NEP. They said the industry would not take it up and it is the industry's fault that it would not go. When they make that argument, Mr. Speaker, they are denying arguments they have been making over the past number of years. They deny government documents and statements that are made; they deny what every Canadian knows the Trudeau government has stood for and has been saying for several years now, that the kind of economic activity these megaprojects represent will regenerate all of the things we have been gradually losing over the years in Canada-the economic progress, energy resource development, the things we have to have if we are to have economic recovery and renewal.
They are denying that now, Mr. Speaker, and in a way which I do not think can stand up to logic. It might stand up in the political argument they can and will be making in the days to come, but different writers-and we can quote as many as they have been quoting-are talking about the disarray of the NEP and the need for the government to look at its whole economic strategy and devise a new approach because of the failure of Alsands.
It is interesting to listen to the NDP right now because they are walking on both sides of the street, as usual, and we have not had a clear statement from them on whether they support this project or whether they think it is something we do not need. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) made several interesting comments. I know he has a lot of background on this and has spent a lot of time looking at renewable energy opportunities, but his comments would have to leave the listener wondering what he was really saying about this specific project.
The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's energy requirements demand that very important projects like Alsands and Cold Lake, indeed the piepline, whether it goes through "rat's pass" or "gopher's hole", be completed. Those kinds of projects can account for economic investment in Canada amounting to some $65 billion in the next few years. We have lost them because of the wrongheadedness of this government.
What is this resource we are missing? The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) mentioned 50 billion barrels of heavy oil in Cold Lake. I know he was confining his remarks to that area, but really what we are looking at is a resource of possibly 900 billion barrels of oil in the oil sands, 250 billion of which are economically recoverable at today's prices. The development of that resource gave Canada the lead in technology which is being used by other countries, and we were developing these resources to meet our energy needs.
We are here tonight with a requiem for a tarsands plant. But beyond the economic investment what have we really lost in the last few days? We are holding an emergency debate and I wonder what Canadians will think of that. In fact, we have been at a constant crisis level with this government. We started out badly several years ago and it has just been getting worse. We go from crisis to crisis in such a way that I think people are becoming almost conditioned to serious problems. Whether
May 5, 1982

it is agriculture, home owners or the unemployed, we are in a constant state of disarray and crisis. That is unfortunate, but this example might be a good way of judging what the Canadian people think. Certainly we are seeing the political reaction from the Liberals, and it will be interesting to watch how that develops in the coming days because by itself it is enough to cause Canadians to defeat this government if they had the opportunity.
So what have we lost, Mr. Speaker? We have lost the technology which I mentioned. Beyond that, we have lost something in the national economy. A previous speaker talked about the effect of the loss of investment. We have seen the dollar drop in the last 24 or 48 hours by nearly one cent. People are looking for it to go lower. That has happened because of the understanding that people in the money markets around the world have of the importance of that specific project to our economy.
We lost not just at the national level, but also at the provincial level. Right across the country we have companies which would have thrived on the economic activity, and the economies of individual provinces would have benefited greatly had this project gone forward.
We have lost the opportunity in the reasonably near future to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1980, which was important to the previous government and which has been taken up by this government as an objective. What did this specific failure really do to that objective? What it really means is that by 1990 we are going to be responsible for importing an additional 300,000 or so barrels of oil a day. We have had some grand projections, but all the government's projections show the oil from the tar sands and heavy oil deposits comprise a significant component of the energy self-sufficiency curve we are supposed to be on. That will be lost. No matter what our achievements are in conservation-a 7 per cent reduction this year, which is fine and dandy-in the long term, even though our total demand in 1990 may be somewhat less than it is now, self-sufficiency is going to have to include the tar sands and heavy oil components and they will not be there.
My crystal ball is no better than anyone else's; I do not know exactly what is going to happen in international markets, or whether we are going to have more difficulty than we have had in the past in obtaining supplies from other areas, but it is clear that an increasing proportion of our requirements is going to have to come from outside the country. That means increased balance of payments; it means increased insecurity in times of emergency. It means the line that was the Ottawa Valley is gradually moving west in spite of the fact that we have the reserves-if we could develop them-in the tar sands and in heavy oils.
Points have been made about the opportunities as far as Beaufort and Hibernia are concerned. I am sure the government will continue to make these points. However it is a
question of technology, whether it be the building of icebreakers, or the reason for the tragic sinking of the drilling rig off the east coast. Technology has yet to be developed in a way that will give us energy supply with a sense of certainty. Selfsufficiency in energy in Canada is in serious jeopardy now.
We have been talking about the megaprojects, megavisions, and perhaps the "microminds". All of these grand scale ideas have a common denominator that is important to Canadians. While they might be large projects, they impact on people and jobs. There are 100,000 people who are affected because of the job opportunities lost on these megaprojects. Those people are not just nameless blobs: they include students in school looking toward an engineering future or a future as control technicians trained specifically for these energy projects. We are looking at construction workers and all of the support systems required for projects like this. We are looking at employees in plants all across Ontario whether they are producing valves or steel, as in the riding of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). We are looking at jobs for countless numbers of Canadians. The projections are as high as 250,000. I do not know how many in total it would be, but if we do not start those projects and have a program that is able to continue, we have lost not just the investment, not just the energy security, but we have lost the opportunity for Canadians to be productive in their own country. That loss is a loss that even the New Democratic Party should understand, appreciate and for which they should be sorry.
The kind of planning the government has put forward has produced another loss with the tar sands plant. One member spoke about different situations around the world. He spoke about shales in the United States and projects in France. He mentioned that the Mexicans are not now going to develop a nuclear industry. But it is not that we might not be able to sell another Candu reactor to Mexico, on which we were counting; it is a question within this country of what kind of confidence business has. We must be cognizant of what kind of mood and climate there is for business, the way it looks at government, whether business is prepared to invest in Canada and Canada is considered a good risk.
The most powerful signal that anyone could get is the reaction of the consortium involved in the Alsands project. It has shown that there is no confidence among the business community. Business simply has no confidence in the kind of planning on programs which the government has envisaged. Procrastination has occurred in the government's planning program. Potentially that will affect the nuclear industry even at home because 40,000 jobs are at stake.
How many other industries or activities that have not yet been conceived are jeopardized now because of the lack of business confidence? How can Liberal Members of Parliament supporting government and government policy explain that while at the same time they talk about the rip-off perpetrated by the oil companies on consumers? How can Liberal Members explain why private investment in the billions of dollars has been flowing out of Canada at an extraordinary rate? Well over $5 billion in private investment in 1981 flowed out, quite

May 5, 1982
separate from the energy projects and the oil industry. That money flowed out of the country because there was no confidence here. This is just another example reinforcing what is already in the minds of people around the world-that Canada is not a good place in which to invest right now because of the government's attitude.
While we are looking at the losses we have had, I think we have come to the point in time when we have a requiem for a tar sands plant.
We cannot leave this subject without talking about the need to redefine what we have to do and what is necessary if we are going to avoid not just the loss of another megaproject but the continual erosion of confidence and the continual loss of the economic activity we need for Canada.
I do not want to leave things on a negative note. There can be specific examples in the energy area of things we could do. A small project in Cold Lake was not a bad idea. I believe that was put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton East. But I do not feel that it is adequate. It will not solve our problem. A small project like that, while serving as a reasonable example, will not restore the confidence of the business community or of Canadians in their country.
We have witnessed the introduction of the National Energy Program. That was followed by a budget and tax reform all on the same day. These measures have confirmed in the minds of Canadians that the government does not want to encourage investment. The government does not want Canadians to prepare for their own future. This government has taken away many of the options and opportunities that Canadians have as they work and try to build their own future. We need to restore those things. First, what we need is a new budget; there is no question about that. This is of paramount importance at this time. We need to do several other important things at this time. We need new and fresh ideas. There can be many specific examples within monetary and fiscal policy, but a new budget is the first part of a new process that we must have.
Second, we must have a new minister of energy. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is in the United States now. If he stays in the United States too long he may start destroying their energy scene like he has destroyed ours. However, I have a lot of confidence that the Americans will not let that happen. However, I would not mind if the Americans kept him there for a while longer to give us a chance to recover.


An hon. Member:: He should go farther south.


Gary Michael Gurbin: He may feel more at home farther south. The next thing we need is a new Minister of Finance. The new finance minister will have to be accompanied by a couple of new top civil servants as well. Any new minister of finance will have to get off the track that is being followed now. The track we are on now is clearly not working. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has tried it for long enough now but so much of the restorative capacity has been placed in
jeopardy that we may not even have an opportunity to get back on track if we do not get rid of him quickly. Therefore, the Minister of Finance has got to go.
The final person who has to go is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Erik Nielsen: Shakespeare wrote in one of his plays that the fish starts to rot at its head!


Gary Michael Gurbin: Despite the specific actions of the Prime Minister which have caused confrontation and disunity, he is gradually uniting the country in its dislike of him. I am sure that if the Prime Minister were the final person to go it would be supported right across the country. It is important for this to come about quickly if we are to get on the track of economic recovery on behalf of Canadians.
I humbly request that Mr. Speaker use his good offices in some way to help us call an election.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the debate this evening, or rather this morning, to say that I am sorry to learn that construction of the Alsands synthetic oil plant has been suspended. However, before speaking to the motion introduced by the hon. leader of the opposition, I would be remiss in my duty if 1 did not congratulate the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for his gigantic and perhaps first class work during the last two years. While the minister has often been criticized, and severely criticized in the last few days by the opposition, the fact remains that the Canadian people are grateful for the energy policy he has formulated for Canada, especially as far as oil pricing is concerned. The suspension of construction at the Alsands plant does not jeopardize the energy policy of this government, and the Canadian public still has an advantage since the average price of crude oil amounts to 75 per cent of the world price and Canadian consumers still pay only 54 per cent of the world price for conventional oil.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians ask themselves one question at the present time: Will there be a shortage because of the suspension of work at the Alsands synthetic oil plant? The answer is no because Canada fortunately has other potential supply sources. The Alsands situation is regrettable, but we must now concentrate on these other sources, which will become more and more economically advantageous for Canadian taxpayers.
On April 30, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated and I quote:
The new potential in the Arctic and the offshore areas is most encouraging, and we are still confident of reaching the target of self-sufficiency before 1990. We support exploration and development in these regions with our incentives and pricing policy. The large-scale exploration operations in these regions mean new contracts for the maritimes, oil equipment and related industries in Canada. As the traditional centre of the oil industry, Alberta, will receive considerable benefits from this activity, just as it will benefit from exploration for new oil in Western Canada, which is now as attractive as anywhere else in the world.
May 5, 1982

The minister went on to say:
Co-operation with the Alberta government will continue to be a priority and action will be taken to promote industrial activity in this province to compensate for the work planned by Alsands.
And the minister also stated:
Since the energy pricing agreement of September 1, there has been close cooperation between both governments and the final offer to the Alsands group was extremely generous.
The hon. Minister of State for Mines and Minister responsible for the Status of Women, who spoke earlier in this debate, gave the background of the joint offer which the governments of Canada and Alberta made to the companies of the Alsands group.
1 cannot go back to those details, however 1 must stress that despite the very reasonable and significant government offer, the companies did not find the project feasible in the current economic context, and the same situation prevails south of the border. All hon. members are aware that a few days ago Exxon suspended a gigantic oil deposit project in which it had already invested $400 million.
As mentionned by the minister, the financial challenge was too great at this point in time for the Alsands project to proceed, because the companies were reluctant to commit themselves, partly because they realized there were excellent alternatives, especially in the Canadian offshore areas. When the global economic situation improves, there will be an opprotunity to reconsider the Alsands and similar projects, perhaps within a year, as the minister stated. They could even be implemented at a lesser cost to the Canadian taxpayers.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment felt by hon. members and all Canadians who saw in that gigantic project a number of economic benefits, especially a great number of jobs. However, we all know there are limits to the sacrifices Canadians can make toward the implementation of such a project. The risks are too high, and the Canadian and Alberta governments did all they could for the Alsands project to proceed. Private corporations could assume no more risks, neither could the governments. And this by reason of the uncertainty on future global oil prices and interest rates. Private sector participants did not feel they could go ahead, even under the less risky conditions deriving from the Canadian and Alberta government offers. Canadians should not lose confidence in exploration and the revival of the Alsands project. In these days of special difficulties for the world economy, large energy projects are postponed throughout the world, even south of the border.
I referred earlier to the famous Exxon project. We have learned from experience that rapid changes in economic conditions are the rule rather than the exception. Economic circumstances might very well favour the Alsands project sooner than we think. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that oil consumption declined significantly over these last few years in Canada. 1 learned this afternoon there was a 17 per cent
decline in the consumption of heating oil in Canada and a 7 per cent decline in crude oil during 1980. Moreover, 200,000 home owners used the heating oil substitution program. It is important that Canadians be made aware of these facts in this debate. Despite what the opposition may say about the government energy policy, Canadians can boast of paying less than the world price for their gas. In a few provinces of Canada, the price of gas per litre is much higher than, for instance, in Quebec. If a Quebecer pays more for gas, it is not on account of the Canada-Alberta agreement on prices paid to producers but as a result of the provincial tax recently decreed by the Minister of Finance. I see that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is looking at me when I say this, but he could have explained earlier why the price of gas is higher in Quebec than in the other provinces.
Also, under the Canada-Alberta agreement, natural gas will be made available in Eastern Canada, including Quebec, especially in the Gaspe Peninsula at very reasonable price. It is important to recall those steps taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Once again, the hon. member for Joliette could have mentioned it in his speech instead of asking for the resignation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Mr. Speaker, the expansion of the present networks of gas pipelines as well as their extension in new areas such as the Gaspe Peninsula will stimulate industrial development. It is a long-term development and we feel that new jobs will be created in depressed areas thanks to the gas pipeline. I see that the hon. member for Joliette is nodding, it will be built but it will take a few years. I said that it was a long-term project.
I would therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that the energy policy designed by the minister and the government deserves more praise than criticism.


Mr. Laniel:: Because I know that the hon. member who will rise after me and even the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) are not likely to say anything new, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to remind the House that today is still May 4. Although an effort was made to advance the date on the calendar, 1 want to say to those who are responsible for that that we are still at the same time we were yesterday when the Progressive Conservative Party started this debate and that it has made no progress since, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is getting late when I see that the ideas of my hon. friend have fallen asleep. It is now 12.45 a.m. and today is May 5, and we have merely adjourned the ordinary business of the House to deal with a very important issue. If the hon. member cares to have a look at Standing Order 26, he will see that we may even sit this afternoon to debate this motion and that the time will not be eight o'clock yesterday.

May 5, 1982


Gérald Laniel: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not at all. In this respect, the hon. member might rise after me and make his own remarks.
This Alsands question is merely a symptom of the times. It is only the culmination of a situation which has been brewing over the last several years.
There are many things which I and my colleagues from the province of Alberta could demonstrate have happened over the past 18 months since the declaration of the National Energy Program, that ill conceived, dastardly raid by a greedy federal government on the petroleum resources of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Ever since the commencement of that program we have seen a decline in cash flows; we have seen the government go back on its word to Suncor, for instance, with regard to the price of its synthetic crude; we have seen taxes at the wellhead imposed by the Government of Canada through the petroleum and natural gas resource tax. As well, we have seen the leaders in the petroleum industry have their profits drastically cut back.
Of course, that fact does not worry members of the New Democratic Party because according to them the leaders of the petroleum industry should not make any profits whatsoever. Those NDP members do not realize the expenditures which must be flowed into research and development projects for each subsequent year in order to develop new resources. Where will that cash flow come from?


Gérald Laniel: What are they doing in the United States right now?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member who just intervened has displayed his obvious ignorance of, and the attitude of members from central Canada toward, the oil industry. What are they doing in the United States? It is Canadian drilling firms who are in the United States. There are 260 drilling rigs, both seismic and original, which went south. I can show the figures from the Canadian Oilwell Drillers Association as to the number of rigs which are operating in western Canada. There are only approximately 440, with some 70 which are sitting idle, far more than any previous year.
We have had nine out of 35 heavy oil equipment trucking firms going bankrupt in the past few months. In my constituency I have seen three long-established heavy equipment firms go bankrupt since November. One of the largest firms in western Canada is reputed to be on very shaky ground. I hope that is not true and the denial is correct but I have heard the story.
However, this is symptomatic of the problems which exist today. My colleagues from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and the member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) will all attest to the fact that in our city, wherever there is an industrial patch in which there are oil industry supply and service firms, it is shameful to see
the number of "out of business" and "closed" notices. They are a shameful reminder of our economy today.
We have seen these small Canadian business firms go bankrupt. Did the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) have any concern for the damage the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was wreaking throughout western Canada among the oil supply firms? No, not one bit. It is where the government's concern should be. It is not the Exxons, the Gulfs, the Texacos or Shells who are taking the worst beating. They are taking a beating but they are big enough to survive. You see that when you cut off, super-tax or pillage an industry. You cut off the cash flow. Then there is trouble. Even a company controlled by the Government of Canada, Panarctic, cancelled plans for two offshore drill rigs. That put 750 men and women out on the street in Edmonton, that one stroke of the pen.
The hon. member does not know that Alberta, Edmonton in particular, leads Canada in the construction of drill rigs that are sold all the way to Australia. They are put into operation in the North Sea. They are built for export. This is the scale that has been developed by Canadian workmen and women since the start of the oil play in 1947. At that time we did not have a welder who knew how to do anything with an oil pipe. With a lot of hard work and a lot of movement by Canadians into Alberta under Americans with know-how and money, the industry was built up in Canada. In just two years the Government of Canada has knocked it to its knees. Why? Because it was so money-hungry.
Ralph Hedlin wrote a very interesting article in the May 3 edition of the Alberta Report, page 16. I will read a couple of paragraphs:
A year ago, more or less, an Ottawa newspaper reported an interview with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Self-sufficiency in crude oil, said Mr. Trudeau, could be achieved through any of several routes. Alberta could cooperate or not. Canada's oil supply world, on that euphoric day, was seen to be simple and manageable.
"Trudeau said he would work around Alberta and Premier Peter Lougheed if necessary to make Canada energy self-sufficient. The Prime Minister said he needn't use the federal government's declaratory power or give in to the western province to move the country closer to supplying all its own energy needs.
'I don't have to choose either,' said Trudeau. 'If that were the only choice it would be very, very difficult. Fortunately there is another possibility. We look toward Hibernia, we look toward the Beaufort, we look toward the high Arctic.' "
In this scenario incremental Alberta production wasn't necessary. There were many strings to the oil supply bow. Given the Beaufort, the Arctic Islands, given Hibernia, Alberta could peddle its papers; oil supply was seen to be easy. A year later the options had defined themselves more precisely in this prime ministerial scenario. The Arctic Islands are still promising for those able to wait a couple of decades. The Beaufort is probably commercial but a maze of regulatory processes have to be threaded before oil deliveries begin. The game, clearly and inevitably, must include Alberta and it must include the east coast offshore.
Then we get a description of the Prime Minister's fight with Premier Peckford and the people of Newfoundland. That is not going to go the Prime Minister's way. Therefore, it comes back to Alberta, but only belatedly. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources along with the province of Alberta made a one
May 5, 1982

minute to midnight offer to Alsands. It was done at the very last minute, but it should have been done much earlier.


Gérald Laniel: Because of whom?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because of the intransigence of the federal government. May I say that in this offer there are considerable concessions from the last budget under the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. Those are the things that caused the problems all along. It started back in the days of John Turner and when Donald Macdonald was minister of energy. They laid down what the Government of Canada would take out of the petroleum industry when the OPEC countries started. They laid down the punishing gas export tax. They are the ones who put on this damm fool subsidy which costs Canada billions of dollars every year, paid for by the export tax which was taken out of the oil industry and the pockets of people in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It was also a tax on the rest of the people in Canada.
Progressively we saw taxes added to the price of fuel. Canadians paid a tax to encourage people in central Canada to consume more oil and gas. It culminated in the performance of the Liberal party in the 1980 election over the excise tax.


An hon. Member:: There is one Liberal in the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is how much they care. However, I see my good friend from Valleyfield here. Outside of him, the Liberal party is not interested in what has happened to western Canada, and western Canada is not interested in the Liberal party. It has shown that in federal elections and provincial elections, and I can guarantee that the Prime Minister and several of his ministers almost require a visa in their Canadian passport to visit those western provinces. That is how welcome they would be.
About 18 months ago members on the government side were very proud to be twinned with western Canada constituencies. They would not dare go out there now. However, they were supposed to find out what the people thought. They have not listened. They do not want to listen to western Canada.
I could read miles and miles of statistics about towns like Brooks, Lloydminster, Drayton, Fort McMurray or Grande Prairie. When we go into these towns we see vast unemployment. The trucks have to be sold at auctions at a quarter their value because the operators cannot afford the heavy licence fees and heavy finance payments. A big truck costs perhaps $150,000 or $180,000. Try financing that when there is no work or very little work. In the cities, service firms, restaurants, catering companies and others are in difficulty. The hon. member from Valleyfield and other hon. members can say, "Well, come and see some of our shoe towns and some of our furniture towns". We have never refused to go and see them. We know they are in trouble. However, what they refuse to understand is that the policy of this government has deliberately put those towns in the same position. And hon. members opposite wonder why there is alienation, why people are
concerned and why today my leader insisted that there be a motion to adjourn the House for this debate. I wish hon. members opposite would come in and listen.


Erik Nielsen: They are all gone.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But no, we see a dumb insolence across the way. There is total neglect.


George Albert Proud: It is your day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is why there is frustration among my colleagues. If hon. members would just come in here, we could have a very worth-while dialogue. I would be interested in listening to them talk about their problems in the furniture industry, in the shoe industry and in the textile industry. We do listen to them. They do not realize it, but we hear them.


Gérald Laniel: You support textile and shoe imports.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member is reading my mind. He has never spoken to me about this. He would not know what I think about these things. He has never talked to me about them. What he is talking about right now is just a lot of nonsense, with all due respect to our friendship.


Gérald Laniel: You import Ladas.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a Canadian car.


Gérald Laniel: I hope I go to Dieppe.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will show the hon. member some good ways to get into Dieppe, right over the beach. It is a terrible reflection that in this debate-


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


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the hon. member should be allowed five minutes more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Gérald Laniel: I speak for my party.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse this beyond two minutes; otherwise I might place too much emphasis and too much value on those interruptions.


George Albert Proud: It is good to be friends.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What has to be done? The conventional oil industry is more than satisfied with the proposals put forward by Premier Lougheed whereby there will be a remission of royalties and an increase in certain incentives.
Speaking of incentives, 1 want to put the lie into the mouth of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) when he says that incentives paid to oil companies as a result of activity are moneys paid out by the Government of Canada. That is nonsense. That is an utter fallacy. If there were not any

May 5, 1982
activity, there would not be any allowances. There would never be any income earned, so therefore incentives do not cost the Government of Canada one blessed penny because there would not have been any work done in the first place. The program put forward some two or three weeks ago by the Premier of the province of Alberta offers some help. It restores a degree of confidence. After all, this government does not know what confidence in the oil industry means. The government upset the industry once before with a white paper on taxation. It took three years to get things back on an even keel after that Benson white paper on taxation in 1968. It will take time to turn the industry around. Unfortunately, some more firms will have to go under. Time is against them, and people cannot live just on time.
Alsands would have been great, but what we have is a culmination of a tremendous effort by a government which knew not what it was doing. It was wrecking an industry because of an insatiable desire and greed for funds and power as it attempted to socialize the oil industry. Canadianization was nothing but another word for socialization.
1 hope our friends across the way will read some publications. I will supply them with factual, intelligent descriptions of what is happening in the petroleum industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Let those who have some goodwill and intelligence read and understand. Then we in Parliament will have accomplished our task. We will have convinced the government that it has been in error and that this is a hairshirt Canada has fashioned for itself.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Supply and Services have resorted to an old barristers trick of confession and avoidance. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has done that too. They say, "Yes, but look what happened elsewhere. We are no different from the others". That is a poor way out of this situation. Let us see what we can do to turn it around. Let us have faith with what Premier Lougheed was trying to propose, and let the Government of Canada participate in a similar type of program. Then we will believe the government; but until then it is out to lunch and cannot convince anyone of its bona fides and its interest in governing us in western Canada.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker-


George Albert Proud: I will stay for my good friend!


Stan Darling: I am delighted to see the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) here.
It is a privilege to be able to participate in the debate this evening and also to get on so early. A while back we had a similar debate which went through the night and into the morning. I believe I rose in my place to speak at about ten minutes to seven in the morning, so I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak a little earlier.


William James Kempling: You are more important now.


Mr. McDermid:: It is because of the high esteem in which we hold you.


Stan Darling: My colleague says it is because of the high esteem in which my colleagues hold me. I do not know if there was gentle sarcasm in that!


John Horton McDermid: No way!


Stan Darling: Back in 1980, just over a year ago, the government unveiled its National Energy Program. At the beginning of the book outlining the government's strategy were introductory remarks by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) entitled "An Energy Program for the People of Canada". In light of the recent collapse of a major segment of the program, I feel it would be more than appropriate to recall some of the emphatic, self-assured statements by the minister concerning this grandiose scheme. I quote:
This is a set of national decisions by the Government of Canada. The decisions relate to energy.
They will impinge, however, on almost every sphere of Canadian activity, on the fortunes of every Canadian, and on the economic and social structure of the nation for years to come.
They have major, positive implications for the federation itself.
How prophetic, in a way not anticipated by the government, these words have become.
Because of these "national decisions by the Government of Canada", the fortunes of Canadians have indeed suffered. The economic and social structure of the nation has been dealt a devastating blow, now and for years to come. With the failure of Alsands, the very serious problem of western alienation will only increase and result in major, negative implications for our federation.
Also included in the self-congratulatory opening comments were the following remarks by the hon. minister:
We are second to none-and in many respects we lead the world-in the techniques and the organization required for the exploration and development of primary energy sources.
The government described itself as second-to-none. With its record in matters of energy being lowered to match that of its record in matters pertaining to the economy, 1 would agree that this government is unique; unique in a uncomplimentary form; unique in that, according to the dictionary, the government has no equal; unique in that no other government in the world today, given the resources and potential of this nation, has made such a mess of governing. In this it is unequalled.
Canadian expertise, the government said, was internationally acclaimed and such expertise would enable Canada to contribute in aid of others less fortunate. With the massive problems connected with the government's energy pricing policies and now with the collapse of Alsands, we will be making a contribution of our expertise, but not in the way intended. Most Canadians who are expert in the energy field have already moved out of the country and more are following week by week.
Referring again to the minister's opening remarks in the introduction to the National Energy Program, I quote now the
May 5, 1982

first of the three precepts which dictated the federal government's action:
It must establish the basis for Canadians to seize control of their own energy future through security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market.
It is very well known that whenever this government starts to seize control it has a habit of repeatedly choking its victim to death.
To put into perspective what has happened, I turn for a moment from the remarks of the minister back in 1980 and quote from today's issue of The Toronto Sun. Laura Sabia, an outstanding columnist-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Yes, that is quite right. But for a little ill luck, she might have been sitting in this very chamber today participating in this debate. We hope to see her here following the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Laura Sabia states:
Friday, April 30th, will long be remembered as "black Friday". On this date was scuttled the $13.5 billion Alsands megaprojet. Into the scrap heap went the possibility of over 50,000 jobs, plus spin-offs for the steel, construction and manufacturing industries and an infusion of $450 billion into the economy. Gone, our hope for self-sufficiency in oil by 1990.
Not only did the Alsands go down the drain but the Alaska gas pipeline was delayed for two years by the oil companies and may never be built at all. Two hefty blows in one day, courtesy of Pierre Trudeau's disastrous leadership, Marc Lalonde's arrogant National Energy Program and Allan MacEachen's calamitous-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 would remind the hon. member to refer to other hon. members by their constituencies, not by name. Order, please.


Stan Darling: Your Honour must appreciate that I was reading the editorial from the The Toronto Sun, and those are the words in the article.
Mr. Speaker, I think these three could go down in history as the "demolition trio". There is no question about that. I heard the story going around Parliament today that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has been discussing with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), believe it or not, some assistance for Argentina. Therefore, they will send our three most devastating destroyers to Argentina-Trudeau, MacEachen and Lalonde. If they do not put Argentina on the rocks, nothing will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: The column went on to say that the federal government has lost all credibility and is incapable of governing. A passage worth repeating states:
It is incapable of governing. It has lied and deceived the electorate. It promised cheap gasoline and gave us the most expensive on the North American continent. It promised us the Alsands and the Alaska pipeline and scuttled both by stupid policies and arrogance beyond measure.
This reference to arrogance, a well-known trait of this government, leads me back to the second of the federal precepts for a National Energy Program. This one stated such a
program must offer to Canadians, all Canadians, the real opportunity to participate in the energy industry in general and the petroleum industry in particular, and to share in the benefits of industry expansion.
The government, promising that, under its National Energy Program, Canadians would share in the wealth, has created a situation in which Canadians give up what little wealth they have left. For Canadians, participating in the energy industry has meant higher prices for gasoline and home heating oil. It has meant that over two thirds of the cost they pay for these energy products goes toward taxes.
Again, let me remind the House that in December, 1979, when the Clark government was defeated on the proposed 18cent gasoline tax, the then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister of today, went around the country saying that an 18cent a gallon tax was astronomical and terrible and that if he and his government were returned to office, there would be a ceiling of 14 cents a gallon for gasoline tax. We know what the story is today. We are now paying upwards of $2 a gallon. I am quite sure that the electorate of Canada would love to have second thoughts and the opportunity to vote again.
Participating, as I mentioned earlier, means buying Petro-Canada, with tax dollars, at four to five times the market value and paying additional tax dollars to complete the deal.
We now come to the third great theme behind the government's now crumbling energy program. The minister said in 1980:
It must establish a petroleum pricing and revenue-sharing regime that recognizes the requirement of fairness to all Canadians no matter where they live.
Just over a year later, this magnificent vision has become transformed into an opposite and depressing reality. The reality of the government's concept of fairness has been to impose a series of special taxes and levies, price increases which do affect all Canadians, no matter where or how they live. And how you live is often more important than where you live. Those least able to afford this peculiar brand of "fairness" are the ones who pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to support it.
Speaking of fairness reminds me of a story which I believe I have mentioned before. A little boy had just entered school for the first time. He came home looking very glum so his father asked what was wrong. He said, "I don't like my teacher, she's mean." The father said "What do you mean, she's mean?" The boy brightened up and smiled at that and said, "She's mean but she's fair-she's mean to everybody!" I could say that the government is mean but it is fair-because it is mean to everybody.
In 1980 the government described its National Energy Program as a means of making more efficient use of energy for Canadians by Canadians. It was to be a means for bold, decisive steps, not generalities, for practical programs, not just

May 5, 1982
ideas, for rapid and concrete measures to resolve problems, not just pious hopes.
In 1980 the government said that the program meant security, opportunity and fairness. Those were fine-sounding words and I presume everybody was elated by them. In 1982 the government's National Energy Program means insecurity, lost opportunities and unfairness. In just a few short months the government has dropped the torch of energy self-sufficiency that it began carrying so high and so proudly and Canadians have third degree burns as a result.
When the government said that through its national energy policy it was going to set the country on fire, that was not just an analogy. Unlike the legendary Phoenix, the Canadian economy may not rise easily from the ashes of this latest government fiasco.
In its panic and haste to divert attention from the Alsands disaster the government, in addition to down-playing the consequences of the loss of the megaproject, has suggested it would get other projects going using money and concessions offered in the eleventh hour salvage attempt on the Alsands. The reaction of industry has been cool, to say the least. A spokesman for the Esso project at Cold Lake, Alberta has been quoted as saying that the generally unfavourable economic climate, coupled with the severe drop in the oil industry revenues resulting from the National Energy Program, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for that firm to contemplate resurrecting the Cold Lake project. The reaction from industry should come as no surprise-once burned, twice shy!
Having laid waste the economic base of one province, the government has been focusing its attention and its evil eye on the potential base of others, this time in the east. This is what the government means when it says that it wants to practise fairness to all Canadians regardless of where they live.
Our philosopher king, who obviously lives in the clouds, has spent most of his energy on the patriation of our Constitution and his Charter of Rights. We are now masters in our own house, he proclaims, as he pirouettes in glee. He does not care that the house is heavily mortgaged, that there is little food on the table, that most of the occupants are out of work, that the neighbours are angry, that the security devices are obsolete and that the foundation is crumbling. The response to another thunderstorm, another catastrophe, is another shrug from him. The contempt this government has for the people who pay its way seems boundless. The leader of the government, of this arrogant band of purse-snatchers and pickpockets, should not be allowed to continue his coy musings about retirement. He should be forced to retire, and naturally his cabinet should join him in exile. "Throw the rascals out" is an appropriate cry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I will admit that there are some pretty good members on the other side, but it is those who got us into this mess that I am talking about. The unfortunate part is that some of the good guys have to go with the bad guys. That is the way it has to be.


George Albert Proud: Thank you!


Stan Darling: The loss of the Alsands project is only one of the many disasters to hit the country under the rule of this government. I do not think this country can bear much more.
The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) who spoke first in this debate for the government said that the demand for oil is not as great today because of the 7 per cent reduction in its use at the present time due to conservation, insulation and other things. I believe she is partly right, but another reason for the reduction in the use of fuel oil is the atrocious price that we pay for it. We are all aware that there is a glut of oil in world markets and that the price is going down as a result. The price has gone down drastically for our neighbours to the south. I believe that in some western states gasoline is selling for under $1 per gallon, but here it costs over $2 and is going up.
What can we look forward to? A bill was given second reading just a week ago which would give the government the power to add 58 cents per gallon to the price of gasoline and fuel oil, at its discretion.


Erik Nielsen: And without parliamentary approval.


Stan Darling: I guess they will get that at third reading. This is another thing that Canadians can look forward to. I can assure you that will be a step in the right direction toward conserving oil even further.
It is a well known fact that people on low incomes have turned down their thermostats because they cannot afford the cost of heating. I suppose they wear sweaters and socks in the house in order to conserve fuel and still remain reasonably healthy.
We know that we might as well be talking to the wall as talk to the government. It does not have the guts to let the Canadian people decide. It has another two years in its mandate and we can be sure that it is not going to do much in that time.
Three ridings in this country have no representation at the present time, Mr. Speaker. If the government does not want to call a general election and defend its policies, the least it could do is call three by-elections within a reasonable time and test its popularity that way. We hear the minister say all the time that the people are behind them. They are a long way behind, Mr. Speaker, and they are not going to get any closer! Those three ridings, Leeds-Grenville, Timiskaming and Broadview-Greenwood are now vacant-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


George Albert Proud: Let him go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 5, 1982


Gérald Laniel: Why doesn't the hon. member talk about the tar sands? He didn't say a word about the tar sands.


Stan Darling: The hon. member should read my comments. I certainly spoke about the tar sands or the lack of them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Tell him again, Stan. Don't let him get away with that.


Stan Darling: We are well aware of the tar sands. I am not an expert on the tar sands but 1 know the damage that has been done. Many of my expert colleagues from Alberta have put on record the figures which show what the government has done with respect to the tar sands.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: You visited them, Stan.


Stan Darling: Yes, I visited them on two or three occasions and 1 was absolutely amazed and thrilled to see the operation. To know that the expansion is now going to be phased out is certainly a tragedy. And this government has the responsibility for it. It is the old story of put off and put off. If this deal had been made two years ago the oil companies would have grabbed it, but no. This is the greatest government for putting things off; the former minister of national defence can certainly attest to that. 1 sat on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for a number of years. I spoke on this subject in the debate last Thursday and pointed out that through procrastination this government has left the Canadian Armed Forces in the worst shape they have ever been as far as equipment is concerned. We were promised six frigates about eight years ago, and where the hell are they now? Still on the drawing board. I am quite sure the former minister will say that the earliest they will be in the water is 1988, and probably 1989. The estimated price, talk about squandering money, was about $1.4 billion. It is now $4 billion, and what will it be by 1988? Probably $7 billion. This is just another example of a government that is squandering money and not doing what it should when it should.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this motion. 1 commend the Chair for allowing this debate. It is important because of the simple fact that the government's economic strategy is based on these energy megaprojects, and the government expected them to stimulate the economy. That stimulus is essential at a time when we have close to two million unemployed, if you consider those Canadians who have given up looking for work out of despair and in recognition of the fact that the jobs are just not there. But now that has all gone by the boards and we have a situation of the highest unemployment rate since the depression, and inflation continues to rise.
That, Mr. Speaker, is really something which is new to industrialized economies. Traditionally, when unemployment rose, influence would fall. But now we have both evils together. High interest rates hurt the average Canadian, the small businessman, and in fact they have been a contributing factor to the destruction of these energy megaprojects. What we have today is a bankrupt economic policy which has led to high
unemployment with no let-up in sight. Not only was the economic strategy of this government based on energy megaprojects, but so was the economic policy of the last government. In fact, the famous, or shall we say infamous, remark of the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) about short-term pain for long-term gain was simply a statement about energy resource development and the attempt to ride the wave of increasing world energy prices to prosperity.
Ever since it came back into office this government has attempted to build an economic strategy based on increasing world energy prices. It has just not worked, Mr. Speaker, because it is based on false assumptions. Somehow they got the notion that energy prices were going to continue straight up and the government could thereby increase its revenues and solve the deficit problem. They could create big energy projects and stimulate the economy to provide employment. However, world energy prices simply have not followed those straightline predictions, and it is rather ironic that the two free-enterprise parties made the same error in judgment. They did not take into account that world energy markets are not static and that rising prices would themselves bring on new sources and change the whole price picture.
The government also underestimated the impact of conservation. It did not realize that individual Canadians would take action by insulating their homes, driving smaller cars and driving less. They did not take into account the full impact of individual conservation efforts, and that threw off their whole strategy with respect to these energy megaprojects. The government has, in fact, misread the entire economic situation and built its vision of the future on false assumptions, on a misreading of world energy markets and an underestimation of the capacity of Canadians to conserve energy. They even misread the industry's capacity to finance these large projects because they did not take into account the impact of their own policy of very high interest rates. This policy is, of course, one that was followed by the previous government as well.
Rather than have governments which rely on the exports of natural resources to create employment, rather than a policy which relies upon a few very large projects to stimulate the economy, what we need is an alternative plan of investment, and we need it now because the economy needs stimulus now and the people need jobs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time to outline an economic strategy which the NDP has already unveiled to the Canadian public, and which we call a new employment option for Canada. I want to outline it in detail because I want people to be aware of the fact that there is another approach to economic matters, and that it is possible to stimulate the economy to create jobs in a very real, sensible and sane manner. The proposal which my party has outlined really consists of five basic steps. The first step is really a matter of economic planning, of planning for job creation in Canada. The notion here is that the government will negotiate seriously with multinational corporations to have them sign production

May 5, 1982
agreements with Canada in which they would ensure that goods were produced in Canada to service the Canadian market. In other words, if a multinational corporation wanted to have access to the Canadian domestic market, it would have to manufacture in Canada and produce goods in Canada. The corporation would have to take our natural resources and process them into finished goods for the Canadian market. We would make sure that companies understood we were serious about their manufacturing in Canada if they wanted to have access to our markets in order to make a profit. Companies would gain access to our markets based upon their willingness to manufacture in Canada, in other words, to create jobs in Canada. The first part of the new employment option for Canada would be to negotiate seriously with multinational corporations in order to create employment in Canada and not just take advantage of our market without doing any manufacturing here at all.
The second plank of this new employment option for Canada would be aimed at the export market. What we would be seeking to do would be to underwrite the risks that entrepreneurs take when they enter into the export trade. Other governments, such as West Germany and Japan, make available to companies and entrepreneurs capital to underwrite certain risks. We should be doing that in Canada. Canadians are some of the greatest savers in the world. We put aside much of our income in banks and in other financial institutions. We should use this capital which Canadians create by saving in order to underwrite the risks faced by our exporters. Comprehensive coverage of production, credit, accident, commercial, exchange rate, inflation and market development risks should be provided. This is already provided by countries such as West Germany and France. It is time that Canada took the export market seriously. We should have a comprehensive plan to underwrite the risks of exporters so that we could capture a greater share of the international market in order to provide jobs for Canadians.
The third plank of our new employment option for Canada involves tax cuts. We propose a tax cut for low and middle-income Canadians. The purpose of this tax cut would be to stimulate demande in the Canadian economy so that the presently underused capacity of Canadian manufacturers could be used now when there is a need for jobs. Therefore, by providing a tax cut for low and middle-income Canadians, we would put more dollars in the pockets of ordinary Canadians who would spend that money and thereby create demand for goods and a possibility for Canadian manufacturers to provide jobs for Canadians.
The fourth plank in our new employment option for Canada is an excess profits tax on banks. The reason for this is that banks have been benefiting from the very high interest rates presently prevailing in Canada. They have the capacity at the present time to pay excess profits tax. By imposing this tax we could take the revenue raised by the tax and invest it in a housing program in Canada to meet the much needed housing needs. In the process, we could create further employment. We could take part of the excess profits tax and put it into some
system of mortgage relief, as has been done by the new Manitoba government. The new Manitoba government has provided direct mortgage relief for ordinary Manitobans. An excess profits tax on banks could provide the revenue necessary to provide this necessary mortgage relief for ordinary Canadians right across Canada.
The fifth plank of our employment option for Canada relates to interest rates. Quite simply, it is time that we had a made-in-Canada interest rate to remove the threat of very high interest rates for small-business men, farmers and ordinary home owner. Any person who reads the financial pages of Canadian newspapers knows that there are many economists in this country who indicate that the present interest rate policy is far too high, that there is room to move the interest rates in this country downward, and that the present policy of this government of keeping very high interest rates is not justified on the basis of economic factors alone.
Those are the five points of the new employment option for Canada as proposed by the New Democratic Party. This employment option really comes back to the fact that we need to take our natural resources and process them here in Canada. We need to create manufacturing jobs here in Canada. It is not enough simply to take our rich natural resources and sell them off to other countries, whether south of the border, to Japan, or wherever. It is necessary for us to take hold of the wealth we have here and to process it here in order to create the kind of employment we need in the country. At a time when we have close to two million unemployed, if we take into account those who have stopped looking for work as well as those who are on the active unemployed lists, it is a time to adopt a new, different and aggressive approach to economic development in Canada, an approach that is based on the fact that Canadians have the education, the capital resources and the intelligence to manufacture goods in Canada. It is simply not necessary to give away our natural resources and our manufacturing jobs to other countries. It is time that we saw the possibility of manufacturing in Canada. We should also remember that manufacturing is not only done in Ontario, but that it is also done throughout Canada. If we took an intelligent approach to the creation of wealth and employment in this country we could have very strong centres of manufacturing in all regions of Canada. It is not necessary to leave all the manufacturing to one region of the country. We could make some rational and some intelligent choices so that every region of the country had a fair share of the manufacturing potential that is Canada's.
It is fortunate, indeed, that the Chair has allowed this emergency debate with regard to the energy megaprojects. It is important because this debate gives us an opportunity to point out the bankruptcy of the government's economic policy which has been based upon resource giveaways and based upon one or two very large energy projects. Fundamentally these energy projects were based upon false assumptions about the energy markets of the world and about the continued behaviour of individual Canadians. This debate really shows that the
May 5, 1982

economic strategy of the government is completely bankrupt and that it is time to find new ways in which to stimulate the economy. The energy megaprojects will not be here to stimulate the economy. We must have a rational plan of investment to stimulate the Canadian economy and to create employment. There is no greater need in the country today than the need for jobs for ordinary Canadians.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is approaching 2 a.m. on May 5 and we are almost in the same position we were in two years ago when we were debating the National Energy Program. It is sad that it has taken this long to discover that the policies of the present government are leading us fast down the road to high inflation and high unemployment. Also it is sad to think that the present government campaigned in the 1980 election by promising to create policies which would wrestle inflation to the ground, create maximum employment for Canadian people or less unemployment, and stimulate the economy so that it would recover from what it perceived to be a problem when we were in government.
Liberal mismanagement, namely in the National Energy Program, is creating major problems in my area of Peterborough with Canadian General Electric and in Oshawa with the General Motors Corporation. We must remember that there is no greater user of trucks and truck bodies than Alsands and similar projects. The government has created a policy which has driven the private sector out of the country to find areas in which it can develop in a free enterprise system, free of government intervention.
A leading editorial which appeared in a Toronto newspaper yesterday really summed up the situation. It reads:
We all know some of the villains in the megaprojects fiasco. Alsands is dead largely because Prime Minister Trudeau and Energy Minister Marc Lalonde wanted to play at being bigtime businessmen. That's what the National Energy Policy is about. Getting private oil companies out of the field and government oil companies in their place.
It's fun being a businessman based in the PMO's office. You get all the advantages-big limos, private planes, big big deals-and none of the disadvantages. Like using any of your own money or facing shareholders' meetings.
Eventually the taxpayers run out of money and the government runs out of rhetoric. Then the deal that should have been offered private oil companies in the Alsands project is finally offered them, except it's several years and God knows how many broken promises too late.
The companies don't trust the government and the megaprojects go belly up. All we can say is that if the Alsands deal offered was fair last week-it was fair two years ago.
1 know all these matters disturb members of the government because they have to return to their constituencies and justify why there are 1.25 million people out of work and why the inflation rate approaches 13 per cent when last month the Americans were in a minus position. They must explain why all these people are unemployed when they promised in the last federal election campaign that their programs would create jobs and lessen unemployment. This is simply not the case, and they have no logical explanation whatsoever for the disastrous situation in which the country finds itself. They can use all the
verbiage they want. They can spew out $70 million in advertising, using the money of taxpayers, in an effort to convince Canadians that their policies are working, but the bottom line is there and it will always be there-if people are unemployed, if they cannot put food on the table, if they are losing their homes, if they cannot adjust to economic policies which are creating high inflation and high unemployment, and if the agricultural community is facing the highest rate of bankruptcies it has ever faced, the government will not survive. The people will eventually realize that they have been literally hoodwinked.
Even the briefest review of energy and industrial opportunities awaiting the country, not only in the west but in the north as well, would impress and persuade anyone of the government's present folly and inexcusable mismanagement in letting these opportunities slip through its fingers. Month after month, year after year, Canadians have awaited an energy policy and an industrial development policy which truly match and do justice to the potential of the country. The size of the immense projects, highly touted by the government a mere six months ago, is truly awesome and together they are worth more than $400 billion. This size is only matched by the immensity of the blunder of the government in failing to get the ball rolling in the industrial energy sector.
Apart from this inexcusable lapse on the part of the government, a lapse which should demand the resignation of every minister involved, Canadians have faced record rates of gas price increases since the Liberals came into power only two years ago. The significance of rising gas prices and the loss of these megaprojects have not been lost on Canadians. We actually have a government in office today which told Canadians just two years and a few months ago that they should not re-elect the Conservative government because it was about to raise the price of gas by 18 cents. The assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the campaign at the time was that he would not raise the price of gas in excess of 14 cents. Those were his words. What has he produced? What are the results of the campaign promises of Liberal members in 1980?
These Liberal sheep on the other side of the House-and I notice that they are all fast dispersing-have presided over one of the most divisive political and economic rifts between the provinces and the federal government the country has ever witnessed. Now they have pretty well scuppered the most important industrial project in Canada this side of 1990. The chances of Canada ever becoming energy self-sufficient by 1990 are fast disappearing. Hostilities between different parts of the country, between business and labour, and between government and corporate concerns have been fostered, encouraged and even initiated by this guilty government.
What makes this most hurtful to Canadians who care about the country is that these animosities need not exist. 1 am sure my colleagues from the west will support me when I say that there exists an interdependence of feeling or a mutual atmosphere of co-operation among all working people and their families right across the land. There is nothing which unites these people more right now than their frustration with the

May 5, 1982
absolute lack of pragmatic and practical initiative in the field of industrial energy development on the part of the Liberal government.
In October, 1980, when we were debating government mismanagement of the energy sector in Canada, I said in the House that the people of my riding of Peterborough and all those who live in the industrial heartland of Canada could see very clearly that what is good for the oil producing provinces is very good for the so-called consuming provinces. The government might also wish to ask an Ontario worker whether he would care to choose between losing his job because of lost orders to his firm, because it has gone under or because it has given up on a misguided and ill-thought-out energy program. It is a national energy program that has been pursued for political reasons and which has resulted in a great opportunity being lost.
I know that the workers of one Ontario company, which made the bucket wheel reclaimers for the Syncrude plant are a few of many who will be thrown out of work because the government has not been able to get Alsands and Cold Lake on the track to maintain their business. In my own riding of Peterborough, that city's major industry, Canadian General Electric, depends very heavily on our energy sector. Recently, I spoke to a representative of Canadian General Electric which employs over 4,000 people and he told me that any expansion in any area where electricity development is involved will benefit Canadian General Electric. He said, "Our whole market is based on the expansion of industry, and the more developments and capital investments there are, the better it is from our point of view." The better it is for virtually every company in Canada from our point of view. Obviously there is a tremendous ripple effect which would have occurred had Alsands gone ahead.


Gérald Laniel: Why do you rejoice about it?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: There is no rejoicing on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We are not here at 2 a.m. on May 5 to debate the National Energy Program because we are rejoicing about it, as the Liberals are. We are here now because the Liberals do not care.
It is not just Canadian General Electric or the bucket reclaimer manufacturers who are affected. It is also those factories which produce motors, industrial controls, wire and cable and many other products for the resource exploration market. I am sure that the hon. member on the other side has some industry in his riding-at least I hope he does-which is not suffering from the loss of Alsands through the ripple effect. If he does not have an industry, let him stand up when it is his turn to speak, and if he has enough nerve to speak to his constituents, let him tell them that the loss of Alsands and the Alaska pipeline means absolutely nothing to Canada because then he will be saying what he is saying in the House.
That is the problem. The Liberals do not repeat what they say in the House when they return to their ridings to explain the loss of Alsands. Surely I should not have to impress upon the hon. member-now there are two out of 145 Liberal members sitting on the other side representing Canadians from coast to coast-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I very seldom take exception to anything one of my colleagues says, but I will tell you that I am a member of Parliament for Peterborough and I represent constituents from coast to coast. The problem is that very few of the Liberal members on the other side of the House are here. They know there is an emergency debate. Sixty per cent of them were present during question period at two o'clock this afternoon and less than 3 per cent are in the House tonight at 2 a.m. to take part in this debate. This debate is the result of action taken by the Liberal government, not by the Conservatives. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) has sat in his place all night and said nothing. I hope he will rise to speak.


Gérald Laniel: I will be here all night.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If he wants to ask me questions in his 20 minutes, I will be very pleased to answer them.
It should not be necessary to impress upon this government the fact that losing the chance to develop the tar sands industry and the pipeline industry in the west, or indeed any other project in any part of Canada, is holding up industrial development and causing economic insecurity in the whole nation. That is very clear to everyone on this side of the House. I fail to see why it is not clear to every member on the government side and in the other opposition party. 1 am sure, however, that NDP members are more receptive to the loss of jobs than hon. members opposite. It is time that members in the government began to speak for the people they represent in their ridings.
I believe that Alsands alone was going to be responsible for approximately 129,000 barrels of oil per day-barrels which are still imperial. If those 129,000 barrels a day are converted into gallons, and if we converted that loss to see the money which is flowing out of Canada because of the cancellation of Alsands, we would find that we have lost $13 billion worth of capital to create industry and feed companies such as General Motors, Canadian General Electric and many other companies across Canada. If the hon. member does not care to admit it and just continues to sit back smugly, he will be held accountable at the time of the next federal election.
Eighteen months ago we told this government: "The Cold Lake project alone accounts for $10 million a month in running, development and support costs. Imperial reckons that this can continue for only four months at the outside under present Liberal government policy." That was 18 months ago.
During the debate earlier this evening I heard purportedly responsible people on the government side, as well as some from the NDP, trying to rationalize the removal of the oil
May 5, 1982

companies from the Alsands project by saying that the companies could not justify the investment. Why then are they investing that money in exploration and development in the United States of America? Why have they pulled money out of Canada and invested it in other places? If you listened to the press conference given by the principals of Alsands, you would have heard them state the reason. They said that one of the principal reasons they were pulling out of Alsands was the political climate. That climate was not conducive to investment and the injection of private capital.
If the hon. member has any experience in the business sector, which I hope he has, he will know full well that one would not invest one nickel in the business sector today if a return was not foreseen and there was fear of government expropriation. Business people are not prepared to invest money while there is fear of expropriation by a socialist government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would like to thank the lone government member in the House for agreeing to extend my time.
Let us discuss the Ontario economy. We are not only trying to develop the west. I wish this government would get it out of its head that anything that happens in the west benefits only the west. The loss of Alsands has cost millions of dollars to the province of Ontario alone; $6.2 million of that would have accrued directly to Ontario. The impact of Alsands alone on the Ontario economy would have been enormously helpful. For example, $800 million would have gone to the iron and steel industry in Hamilton, $730 million would have gone to the metal fabrication and machinery industries in Toronto, $740 million would have gone to the manufacturing and processing plants of central Ontario, $325 million would have gone to transportation equipment, $370 million would have gone to finance industries and $750 million would have gone to trade and services, and this is only a partial list.
I am sure that any member opposite could stand up today and talk about the spin-off effect of the loss of the pipeline. Ask the minister from Hamilton how many jobs that will cost Stelco and the city of Hamilton. I am sure he would inform you it is a terrific loss of jobs. It will create much unemployment in the peninsula and in the automotive industry in Oshawa in the riding of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It will create acute problems in my riding of Peterborough with Canadian General Electric. This is a fact that is known by every political leader. If he is honest, he will report, first, that these two losses are a major contributing factor to unemployment and, second, that the major problem we have today is dissatisfaction with the present Liberal government. I know it pains the other side to hear about the only truly practical, sensible and workable budget that has been introduced.
In conclusion, it has been my personal misfortune to view over the last couple of years a series of legislative measures all of which come under the general heading of the National Energy Program and all of which have resulted, to one degree or another, in the situation we have today. What in fact this present government has imposed on Canada to the country's cost is a plan which will convert this nation into an impoverished, socialist state. It is doing this through its national energy policy in concert with various acts of Parliament. These acts have transferred exploration recovery incentives to Canada lands, for example. It has reduced the share of revenues to the oil companies by some 12 per cent, companies that have now quite properly put a halt to all further development and have shifted their teams to other parts of the world. They have decreased incentives and subsidies to those companies that have minority Canadian ownership interests. This will lower these companies' market values and thus make a takeover bid by the federal government easier in the future through the Canadian ownership account.
At the same time, the Liberal government sought to increase the proportion of oil and gas revenue it receives from the provinces. As nationalization of the oil companies increase, provincial revenues decrease because federal oil companies do not have to pay provincial royalties no matter where they are located. Consequently, the federal Liberal government is determined, along with its partners to the left in this House, to nationalize the Canadian oil industry by 1990 and put it into public ownership and not, as they maintain, forge ahead in industrial development and obtain self-sufficiency. Let us admit and let this government admit clearly that it alone is singularly and totally responsible for losing Alsands and the pipeline.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1980 I was in Ottawa looking after some matters in my office. I happened to bump into a member of Parliament from Quebec at the entrance to the Parliament Buildings. We stopped in front of the door and chatted. He had just returned from Washington where, along with some other members of Parliament, he had met some American Congressmen. They have discussed the energy problem facing the United States and Canada. He said the Americans told them that if we did not move to the world price for oil, we would be the only country in the western world which had not moved in that direction. They forecast that if we did not move that way and did so rapidly, we would have a very serious problem with our energy pricing two or three years down the road. How prophetic those words were!
I asked him at the time what he was going to do about it. I will not identify the member. He is a good friend of mine, a Liberal from across the way. He named the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), something I cannot do under the rules of the House. He said that until we rid ourselves of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and

May 5, 1982
Resources, we are not going to get anywhere with oil pricing or energy self-sufficiency in this country and we are going to be in trouble with our energy program.
I am not surprised he said that about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure everyone remembers the oil pricing formula that he gave when he was energy critic. I will quote him in case anyone forgets. He said:
If the price of conventional is X, you will have a price of X plus Y for the nonconventional oil, and then the international price-you know what it is-but we have indicated we will continue to subsidize the price ... So what you would end up with would be a mix of these prices.
What does that mean? That is what he said. It was quoted in The Globe and Mail. Therefore, it is not surprising that we have to rid ourselves of that minister.
In question period on Friday, April 23, I told the Prime Minister that I would donate $1,000 to assist him in his adjustment to retirement if he would go. He replied that it sounded something like a bribe. I was serious. I said I did not even want a tax receipt for it.
A strange thing happened today. First I should say that when I was home on the weekend dozens of people approached me and asked me whether I was serious. When I replied yes, they wanted to donate money to this fund. Today I received a letter in the mail. Believe it or not, it came by courier from Kelowna, British Columbia. It reads:
We read recently that you had offered $1,000 to Prime Minister Trudeau to help him adjust to retirement, but that that was rejected.
Perhaps the amount was too small. With this in mind we decided to help out in our little way. We accordingly enclose cheques in your favour totalling $15- sorry it is not more but you will probably receive further contributions from other enthusiastic citizens across Canada.
This money is to be held by you to be given to Mr. Trudeau if he resigns as Prime Minister by November 1st, 1982-repeat 1982-and publicly says he will not run to replace himself. If this has not happened by that date then the money and any income accrued on it is to be given to the federal Progressive Conservative Party to assist in its expenses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: There are three cheques attached to help us along.
I saw the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) here earlier. When she came back into the House I thought she would stay. I listened to her speech earlier this evening and was really surprised when she more or less brushed off the Alsands project, the Cold Lake project and the fact that the pipeline has been put off for another couple of years. She brushed them off saying that they were nothing to get too excited about, that we will be able to bring on Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea and that that will take care of the oil which would have been produced by Alsands, Cold Lake and so forth. I do not know whether the minister has really looked into this matter seriously or whether she was just reading a response given to her by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but, as many hon. members have stated here tonight, Alsands was to be completed by 1988-89 at a cost of $13 billion. It would have produced between 129,000 and
137,000	barrels of oil a day. During the construction phase, employment would have peaked at about 9,600 or 10,000 people. Once operating, the plant would have employed permanently about 2,800 to 3,000 people.
The Cold Lake start-up was scheduled for 1986-87, and that project would have cost $12 billion. The cost was projected at $12 billion when the project was dismantled in 1981. The project would have produced 140,000 barrels a day. During construction there would have been 6,500 jobs, and 20 per cent of them would have been in Ontario and eastern Canada. Those two programs together would have involved $25 billion. Eighty-five per cent of the initial spending would have occurred in Canada. Thirty-eight per cent would have occurred in Alberta, 28 per cent in Ontario and 10 per cent in Quebec. The multiplier effect of the two projects would have meant a total impact on Canada of about $46 billion, almost double the estimated capital cost.
The Minister of State for Mines spoke about Hibernia and Beaufort Sea projects. I do not know who she has been talking to-


An hon. Member:: Here she is.


John Horton McDermid: In her latest designer jeans.


William James Kempling: 1 love those jeans. I do not know who the minister was talking to or where she got her information on the Beaufort Sea, the Mackenzie Delta and Hibernia, but several oil companies have been meeting recently in annual meetings, and Mr. J. G. Livingstone, president of Imperial Oil, said that there are still some promising prospects in frontier areas. He said that the Beaufort Sea and the Mackenzie Delta have potential to become a major world-scale oil producing region and that the Hibernia discoveries show that there is oil in the Atlantic offshore area. However, Mr. Livingstone said, commercial production from the Beaufort-Mackenzie Delta area is still quite a long way in the future and Atlantic production, because of engineering and other problems, is a rather longterm proposition. That confirms what other experts in the field have said. They have said that we will be lucky if we see any oil from the Beaufort and Hibernia by the turn of the century. That is the estimate with the present available technology.
I believe it was last summer when there was a conference in Newfoundland to discuss the technological problems faced in getting Hibernia oil into production. The estimate was that with the present technology we would be looking probbably at the turn of the century before we had oil from that area.
With respect to what has happened to various oil companies involved in these projects, I would like to put on the record comments made by an oil company executive, Mr. J. C. Phillips, chairman of the board of Gulf Canada. He said that Gulf Canada's experience is typical of integrated oil companies and that its earnings dropped by 21 per cent to $299 million in 1981 from $380 million in 1980, with the decline being accounted for entirely by a sharp fall in earnings of its exploration and production arm. He said that Gulf Canada's tax payments under the petroleum and gas revenue tax surpassed
May 5, 1982

$70 million that year. Oil companies have told us that where they have experienced their difficulties has been with their exploration and production companies and not with their distribution operations. Mr. Phillips went on to say that the number of wells drilled in Canada fell to 6,500 in 1981 from
9,000	in 1980. He noted that drilling activity in the United States reached a record high in 1981 and attracted many drilling rigs from Canada. Estimates by the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors indicate that 200 drilling rigs left Canada during the year and that about 40 per cent of the rigs remaining in Canada are idle. That is the nub of the whole problem.
Mr. D. K. Mclvor, chairman and chief executive officer of Imperial Oil, said that the National Energy Program tax regime, by reducing the industry's earnings-


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No tie.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker-


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


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the honorable member, who was questioning some of the statistics I quoted earlier which were based on figures which came to us from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The honorable member questioned the figures I gave. I question the figures he is giving. The figures which are being offered-


Some hon. Members:: No tie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is very difficult to hear whether the minister has a point of order because there is so much noise in the House.


John Horton McDermid: She is debating figures.


René Cousineau: Have some respect for women.


Judith A. Erola: Whether I wear a tie or not is irrelevant. Are hon. members opposite wearing brassieres? They probably need them.


Erik Nielsen: Order.


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


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker-


René Cousineau: You have not said a word.


William James Kempling: I could not hear what the minister was saying. How could I reply?
I want to put on the record what Mr. D. K. Mclvor, chief executive officer of Imperial Oil, said. He said that the National Energy Program tax regime, by reducing the industry's earnings and cash flow, has very seriously impaired the ability to generate investment capital and that it has also shaken the confidence of investors, particularly foreign investors. Mr. Mclvor went on to state:
"This combination of a severe reduction in internally generated funds-which in turn affects a company's ability to borrow-and weakened investor confidence makes the accumulation of large-scale funding, through equity or debt, extremely difficult.
"For instance, any fiscal terms that could be struck for the Cold Lake project today would be purely academic, no matter what rate of return these terms created. Imperial simply doesn't have the money to invest on the scale required. For the same reason, and also because of a general lack of investor confidence, it would be very unlikely that we could find other participants."
There one sees the impact of the invasion of the Government of Canada into the energy field and what it has done through its excessive taxation of the energy industry.
Another financial analyst, Mr. F. B. Lamont, managing partner of Richardson Securities of Canada, Winnipeg, said the federal government's National Energy Program must be changed because it is a major contributor to Canada's present economic and financial malaise. He said that besides heavy taxation, the NEP is based on suppression of prices to Canadian producers and a subsidization program that favours imported oil at the expense of Alberta production. He stated, as reported in The Globe and Mail, dated April 28, 1982:
We have been subsidizing the import of foreign oil out of the public purse to the extent of $17 billion annually. This is more than 20 per cent of our national debt. Indeed, the interest on the money we have borrowed to subsidize oil prices at 15 per cent is $2.5 billion annually, more than the entire 1981 budget of the Province of Manitoba.
This gives some indication of the dimension of this tax. He went on to state:
It is impossible to understand how Draconian tax levels, suppressed prices and subsidized consumption of foreign oil are consistent with the strategic importance of Canada's oil industry, conservation or self-sufficiency.
The tragedy is that the challenge of self-sufficiency is slipping away from us altogether. A survey on the recession in Canada as the result of the turn-back of many of these megaprojects and other disastrous effects in Canada has recently appeared in The Globe and Mail under the byline of Peter Cook. I will just read a couple of excerpts wherein he stated:
A comparison of leading indicators shows Canada's economy to be in a more pronounced recession than the rest of the industrial world, and suggests any improvement in business conditions will be delayed and could lag behind other major economies.
The findings run counter to assertions by federal Liberals-made after last weekend's Cabinet meeting at Meach Lake-that the economy's troubles spring from international difficulties and that little restorative action is possible.
He wrote that a study of several economies conducted by Geoffrey Moore, of the Centre for International Business Cycle Research at Rutgers University:
-rated Canada as the only economy where the decline was continuing to register in the leading economic indicators series in the first months of this year.
Mr. Moore stated:
"What we saw in Canada was an index which has reached a new low, whereas in the case of the United States, our leading indicator series had levelled off'-

May 5, 1982
The Rutgers study reported that the European economies, led by France and Britain, were in a recovery stage in January and had been pulling back from a recession that hit bottom last year. Japan's economy was even more buoyant, with its leading index rising 10 per cent annually, while Canada's position had worsened. In the first half of the year, the Canadian economy had fallen as fast, if not faster, than the U.S. The article continues to show that the information must cross the aisle to hon. members of this House who argue that we are part of the world economic problems, and there is nothing much we can do about it. It shows that other countries have done something about it. They have turned their economies around and are on their way up.
I do not know how many hon. members deal on statistical comparisons but, in 1968, Canada's gross debt was $32.5 million. Government spending has gone up from $12 billion in 1968 to an estimated $75 billion in 1982, according to the projected budget. If we look at a series of statistics taken from Statistics Canada and from the government papers which come to our office, we notice that there has been a decline of 16.5 per cent in industrial production averaged over the past three months. There has been a decline of 33.8 per cent in the production of trucks from a year ago. There has been a decline of 15,000 jobs in the level of employment in Ontario. There has been a decline of 127,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in Canada since August of 1981. There was a decline in the corporate profits by 44 per cent in 1981 in the fourth quarter. There has been a decline in new motor vehicle sales of 24 per cent compared to February of 1981. There has been a decline in car production to the lowest level since 1967. There has been a decline in real housing investment, predicted to be 7.7 per cent in 1982, and there has been a decline in the number of housing starts of 15,000 units as the direct result of the recent budget.
To show that everything is not on the decline, I will give hon. members some examples of increases. Perhaps that will make them feel good. There has been an increase in the rate of unemployment. It is 9 per cent as of March, 1982. There has been an increase in the rate of unemployment in Alberta from one half of one per cent to 5 per cent in one month.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


William James Kempling: I just have a few more items to add to balance up the declines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I see two hon. members rising, and the allotted time of one of them has expired. Therefore, I must remind the hon. member that as long as two hon. members are standing, I must recognize the one who has the floor. The hon. member's time has expired, so I therefore recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters).


Mr. Masters:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. However, in deference to my colleague opposite I would be pleased to give him
an appropriately short amount of time in which to give his summation.


William James Kempling: As I was saying, if there is an increase to balance up these declines, I must tell Your Honour that there has been an increase in the rate of unemployment in Alberta from one half of one per cent to 5 per cent in one month. There has been an increase in farm bankruptcies by 157 per cent in the first three months of 1982 over the first three months of 1981. There has been an increase by 86 cents a gallon for gasoline since the Liberals took over with promises of keeping gasoline prices down. There has been an increase in mortgage rates to 18 per cent or 19.5 per cent from 15 per cent to 15.5 per cent a year ago. There has been an increase in the current account deficit of $8 billion to $9 billion as compared to $1.9 billion. There has been an increase in bankruptcies of 33 per cent in the first three months of 1982 compared to the first three months of 1981 and there has been an increase in inflation from 12.5 per cent on an annual basis in 1981, which has been the largest annual average rate of increase, I might say, in the last 33 years.
The various presidents and chief executive officers of the oil companies have said that as well as onerous taxes imposed upon them by the National Energy Program, they have lost investor confidence. I suggest that the reason that confidence is lacking is the terrible economic performance of the government.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the subject at hand I must say that I have a feeling of deja vu, being here at 19 minutes to three in the morning. It seems only a short time ago that there were very few of us in the House and we seemed to be all on this side with our few faithful servants of the House of Commons. At that time hon. members opposite were doing whatever they were doing for 14 days while the bells were ringing. Perhaps they were catching up on suntans and things of that nature.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The hon. member implies that members on this side were not working. Mr. Speaker, we were attending committees.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have to reply to that point of order. I did not imply anything. I simply said that we were here and we were all alone, for 14 days. But that is a red herring and this is a very serious debate. It is an opportunity for members on all sides to air their views and perhaps come up with new ideas and new initiatives. I hope it will help set the record straight.
On the weekend I had some very interesting discussions in my riding. People in the Thunder Bay-Nipigon area, like other Canadians, are disappointed that the Alsands project is not


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 5, 1982

proceeding at this time. Northwestern Ontario has many resources, one of which is gold. There was a time when gold mining in the small town of Beardmore where I was brought up, was a great thing. There were three gold mines. Then they closed-not because of government policy but because the price was not right. All of a sudden the price of gold is rising dramatically and the mines are re-opening after being closed for 30 or 40 years.
My point is that the marketplace is at work in the instance of the Alsands proposal. This is borne out by people such as a senior official of Exxon who commented on major projects of this kind in an interview shown on an American television station. This gentleman was part of the free enterprise system-and 1 happen to believe in that-and he was asked why Exxon and other oil companies are backing away from projects. His response was to the effect that the projects take an immense amount of capital and they cannot wait too long for that capital to come in. He pointed out-and this is true in the Alsands case and the pipeline that has been delayed for two years-that they had to put too much in for too long without the certainty that it would come back within a prescribed period. He said, as most Canadians with logical minds know, that things have suddenly changed. Two years ago we knew that we were running out of oil very quickly. That has not changed but the time-frame has changed.
A number of things have happened, Mr. Speaker. We do not consume the product as quickly as we once did due to a downturn in the world economy. That has helped to bring the price of oil down and it has had an effect on projects such as the Alsands.
Hon. members opposite have made light of conservation but in Canada and in the United States, and indeed all over the world, conservation has had an effect.
Energy comes from many sources, Mr. Speaker. We are beginning to see what happens when we use more coal. 1 know that my colleagues from British Columbia and Alberta are happy that more coal is being used and that more will be used all over the world in the future. That, too, will decrease the immediate need for oil in this country.
Hydro plants, nuclear powered, conventionally powered and steam powered, are coming into production and are adding to the total supply of energy. We are beginning to make much better use of natural gas, and that is a good thing.
All these things are part of the reason why the private sector has elected not to go into the Alsands project at the moment, even though they concede that the federal government and the government of Alberta have made very generous offers.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Why didn't you say that
two years ago?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I keep hearing this reference to two years ago but although I do not profess to be as learned as my colleagues opposite, it seems to me that the implications were there then. If I were in the private sector and were going to put down so much money for such a long time I would want to know what
5.0. 26
is going on-are we bringing in more oil from conventional sources? Are we finding that offshore resources are coming in very quickly? Even more than two years ago technology was beginning to show that there was the possibility of gaining more oil from reserves that we could not get at or that were thought to be uneconomical in the past and so, with the increase in oil prices at that time, it seemed that perhaps we had better go slow on this important project. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there will come a time when the Alsands and pipeline projects will continue. But to blame the delay on the NEP, or this government or that government, is to say that the private sector is not at work and is not the most important player in the game. I happen to have a great deal of respect for the astuteness of the private sector, and I think that thinking Canadians recognize that this resource which remains in the ground-although we would rather it was turning out all the jobs we want, and all those other things-is still there to be developed in its time. We thought its time had come, but unfortunately it has not because of a number of different reasons.
I wanted to intervene in this matter, Mr. Speaker, simply to try to give an overview which I think even members opposite recognize is the basic truth of the matter. You cannot tell me I am that far off base when we see that Exxon has cancelled projects around the world, as have the French and so many other countries. They have said, "Hold on, these projects are very expensive and we do not really need them right now because we cannot afford to tie up that amount of capital for that much time".


Some hon. Members:: Why?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: The members opposite ask why? What they are really suggesting is that they are joining their friends at the other end of the House who are saying, "Let us do it all; if they will not do it, we had better do it for them". The whole concept of the Alsands project was to give the private sector the maximum opportunity to exercise their right in the free enterprise system to make such a development. The only other way it will work, Mr. Speaker-and if I were leading the country I would be tempted but I would certainly back off- would be to take billions of dollars out of the public coffers and make this thing work because of the spin-off effect. But that is coming out of the public purse, not the private sector, and when the private sector knows the time is right, they will make it go. We are prepared to work with the private sector and we have proven that, and so are the producing provinces, particularly Alberta.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 keep hearing members opposite saying it is government policy, it is this and that. The country to the south of us has a slightly different system but they have the same problems and exactly the same thing has happened there.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about the Australian megaprojects.

May 5, 1982


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: They do not have the same kind of plan which seems to be so objectionable to these people. I think in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the NEP will put us in the position we really want to be in where we are self-sufficient in energy. I know that will happen. I think we will also be able to do it in the Canadian context because we will have enough control of it to make it go the way we want it to go and make us less dependent on other parts of the world. So I hope, with all the rhetoric-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: -which has been let loose in this House, that somewhere along the line members opposite in their private moments will recognize that basically the private sector rejected the Alsands proposal. I do not criticize them for that, I am sure they had good and honourable reasons, but the bottom line is that it was going to cost too much and take too long to get a return. With the change in the world situation they were not as certain about the project as they would like to be, and so they have backed off at this time. The oil remains and will be developed when its time comes. We on this side will make darn sure that we are prepared to work with the private sector to bring this project to fruition.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate, but quite frankly I do not believe members on the government side really appreciate how serious the economic situation is in Canada today. About 12 years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had this to say in an interview while discussing his efforts to change the course of the ship of state. He 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.
We have landed, Mr. Speaker, on a differnt island than the people of Canada ever anticipated 14 years ago when the Prime Minister was first elected to office. We have landed on an island where unemployment rates are the highest since the depression of the 1930s. We have landed on an island with double-digit inflation and where gasoline is $2 a gallon and going up. At the same time, gasoline across the border is about half our price and going down. We have landed on an island where interest rates run anywhere from 17 per cent to 20 per cent and higher. We have driven hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital out of our country. We have farm, business and personal bankruptcies. We have budget deficits in the range of $16 billion and a gross national debt of some $137 billion. The amount required to service that debt amounts to more than the entire budget for this country at the time when the present Prime Minister took office. There is a feeling of frustration and pessimism in the business community, indeed in the hearts and minds of the public generally. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was in the wheelhouse but he was not alone; he had the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and his followers on the ship with him.
They were helping him chart the course, and they were stoking the fires to keep the engines going and move the ship towards a socialist state.
When the finance minister gave his budget speech on November 12 he filed a document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s''. I would like to quote from page 2 of the document, which was prepared by an ad hoc committee made up of the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, chairman, the Hon. H. A. (Bud) Olson, vice-chairman, the Hon. Herb Gray, the Hon. John Roberts, the Hon. Pierre De Bane, the Hon. Ed Lumley and the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy. The first paragraph on page 2 reads as follows:
The decade of the 1980s holds great promise, offering opportunities of unprecedented magnitude and the potential for lasting benefits from economic renewal to Canadians in every area of the country.
The leading opportunity lies in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources.
The next paragraph reads:
These developments will involve massive investments in productive capability and in the transportation industry's capacity to ship bulk commodities. The recently published report of the Major Projects Task Force, for example, identifies $440 billion of potential projects, predominantly in the energy and resource sectors, which are under consideration for investment between now and the end of the century.
Energy and resources were the sectors that were to offer the opportunities of unprecedented magnitude and potential. They could have done so. But what happened? The government brought in a national energy policy, a policy that was supported by my friends on my left, the New Democratic Party. It was a policy which virtually destroyed the oil industry. Some 270 drilling and oil service rigs left Canada as a result of that policy. There were bankruptcies in service related industries. There were lay-offs, adding to our unemployment statistics, not only in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but in Ontario and Quebec as well.
A few days ago I spoke to a young engineer who graduated last year from the University of Saskatchewan. He and his friends prior to graduation had worked in the summer time in Alberta for some of the major oil companies. Upon graduation they were hired by these oil companies. They felt their careers were assured, that they had been hired on a permanent basis. Some of these young engineers who thought their future was assured have recently been laid off. A young engineer told me that most summers the oil companies in Alberta would hire anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 students to give them engineering training. These summer jobs have all disappeared. The oil companies, while they had advertised for students and engineers at universities across Canada earlier in the year, have now sent letters to all these students that they would not be hiring any summer students and very few graduates. This word comes not only from the major oil companies but also from Petro-Canada. They are just not in a position to hire summer students. This is what the national energy policy has done to our young people.
May 5, 1982

In the last few days the Alsands project has been abandoned. The Alaska highway natural gas pipeline has been put on hold for a two-year period. As a result of the cancellation and the delay there has been a loss of thousands of man-hours and man-years of work across the country.
I listened with some interest to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier in this debate. Quite frankly, I did not know and I still do not know on which side of the fence he is.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know either.


Douglas Charles Neil: He appears to be straddling the fence. On the one hand he has a hatred for the multinational corporations, the large oil companies. Obviously, he would like to nationalize them and kick them out of Canada. But we can expect that from someone who is the vice-president of Socialist International. While he believes in nationalization and getting rid of what he calls the multinationals, he was condemning these same companies today for not investing the massive amounts of money necessary for the Alsands project. The Leader of the New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. He cannot get rid of private enterprise and have Crown corporations or government create the jobs necessary to cut down our unemployment.
I was interested in an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, May 3, 1982. I would like to quote from that article as follows:
"The Alsands failure will reduce business investment spending in Canada by $360 million this year and sets the stage for a steady loss of real output, employment and foreign investor confidence," adds William Empey, vicepresident and director of economics with Data Resources of Canada, an economic forecasting concern. Mr. Empey sees the investment spending loss rising to $2.7 billion in 1985.	.	-
Another paragraph reads:
Adds Mr. Empey of Data Resources: "Since much of Canada's political and economic history is made up of such high-profile joint business-government ventures, this failure might be interpreted as a particularly bad omen by international investors."
Twenty thousand man-years of direct employment and
60,000	man-years of indirect employment went down the drain when the Alsands project was cancelled.
The delay in the Alaska highway pipeline project means that another 70,000 man-years of employment are gone, gone at a time when our unemployment is at an all time high and when jobs are required. 1 have been a member of the special committee on the Alaska gas pipeline since its inception in 1978. Time and time again, the minister reiterated that he had an ironclad guarantee from the Americans. On that basis the southern prebuild was carried out.
I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) earlier today. I agree with his comments when he said that there was no need for the Alaska highway pipeline if the Mackenzie Valley pipeline had been built. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline would have been built if it had not been for Mr. Justice Berger and his socialist friends to the left. If it had not been for them, the pipeline would have been built and in
operation today; our natural gas would have been moving down from the Mackenzie Valley; American gas from Prudhoe Bay would have moved across the Delta and down through Canada; and Canada would have received the benefit of a substantial amount of income, not only in the form of jobs which would have been created, but through the materials which would have been required and from taxes on the cost of transmission of gas.
I listened with interest to the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) earlier in the debate. It is interesting to note that she is the only minister who saw fit to participate, but she seemed to ignore the fact that many projects are not going ahead. For example, there is the Dempster pipeline which would have meant 6,000 man-years in direct employment and
26.000	man-years in indirect employment. Earlier I mentioned the Alaska highway pipeline. Also there was the Polar gas project which would have meant 15,000 man-years in direct employment and 45,000 in indirect employment. Kitimat was cancelled, a project which would have meant 5,000 man-years in direct employment and 15,000 in indirect employment. Also the tar sands project was cancelled with its 20,000 man-years of direct employment and 60,000 man-years of indirect employment. The list goes on and on. If we total the man-years, we find that because of cancellations and delays some
71.000	man-years of direct employment have gone by the boards as well as some 255,000 man-years of indirect employment.
What did the minister concentrate upon in her remarks? She seemed more concerned with the fact that the government developed CHIP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program. She felt that it was the ultimate because it created some jobs and conserved energy since it would cut down on the utilization of gas or oil. I just could not believe it. Until such time as Canada is rid of the man at the helm and of the first, second and third mates who sit in the front benches on the government side, until we steer a course for a new island, unemployment, high interest rates, recession and depression will continue.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, it is 3.15 a.m. on May 5 and we are debating a motion under Standing Order 26 which was introduced about three o'clock yesterday afternoon, so that the House could be placed in emergency debate commencing at 8 p.m. on May 4 because of the failure of the megaprojects to materialize.
The Alsands project would have created some 4,800 permanent operating jobs and many more jobs during the construction phase. Also there was the Cold Lake project which perhaps has been cancelled. It would have involved some $14 billion, some 3,300 permanent operating jobs, and some 28,500 jobs in the construction phase. The final project which enters into this emergency debate is the Alaska gas pipeline which will not likely proceed either. It involved a cost of some $40 billion, some 400 permanent jobs in its operating phase, and some 11,875 jobs in the construction phase. This is not counting the hundreds of thousands of spin-off jobs from coast to

May 5, 1982
5.0. 26
coast. In total, some 70,000 person-years of employment in the construction phase and perhaps 8,500 permanent jobs will be lost.
We are really talking about much more than only those three projects. We are talking about the disastrous state of the Canadian economy, about jobs, and about energy self-sufficiency which has gone by the boards. I do not think there is any possible way that the present administration governing the country can ensure that we reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I ask hon. members to show some courtesy by not hollering across the floor. The Conservatives say that the Liberals are wrong; the Liberals say that the Conservatives are wrong. I say that they are both right because they are both wrong.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Take that from the top again, Doug.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They both are wrong when it comes to the stands they take on the megaprojects. Economic times in Canada are not good. In fact throughout the world economic times are not that good. This has reflected poorly upon Canada and the Canadian government. It has filtered down to other levels of government. Many people feel frustration in the country today. For example, I think of some provincial governments which have been turfed out lately, such as the government change in Manitoba and the one in Saskatchewan.
Let me indicate what happened in the recent election in Saskatchewan. Some of the NDP members who held seats in northwestern Saskatchewan either held their vote or marginally increased their vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: They were defeated because their Liberal constituents all voted Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I think it shows, and the statistics will bear it out, that the total Liberal vote collapsed. It went from a small percentage to an even smaller percentage of around 4 per cent. That vote did not go to the NDP; it went to the Conservative party in Saskatchewan.
Another reason for the defeat of the Saskatchewan government was that it came at the hands of the many young people who were very apathetic about the current situation. Those young people believed in the Conservative promises and voted against the government in the hope of gaining something better. I believe that democracy should prevail, and I want to give Mr. Devine and his government in Saskatchewan an opportunity to make changes. While those Conservatives to my right smile, I will ask them to look at the situation in Manitoba. After the NDP premier Ed Schreyer of that province was defeated and the Conservative premier Sterling Lyon took his
place, in subsequent elections the federal NDP elected more members to the House of Commons. For that reason I do not know why the Conservatives are rejoicing as much as they are over that situation. In any event, we want to give Mr. Devine a fair opportunity to deliver on the many promises his government made during the campaign. With 57 seats in the 64 seat legislature, there is no reason for them not to deliver to the people of Saskatchewan.
The Tories are asking for an opportunity to govern the country. I wonder if they are that much different from the Liberal government. If we review the voting record since the beginning of this Parliament, the Conservatives have voted with the Liberals on 29 occasions, whereas the NDP voted with the Liberals on 14 occasions. This means that the Conservatives voted almost twice as many times with the Liberals to form a coalition.
When you review the megaprojects, you must wonder about their viability. We hear of the many benefits of megaprojects, but I think of megaprojects which have been built that have caused many problems for the environment, such as acid rain which has killed many lakes in Ontario and other areas of the Great Canadian Shield. I think of such things as the heavy oil upgrader which is to be built in Saskatchewan. Would it not be possible and more beneficial to have smaller self-sufficient communities which are more self-sufficient in energy and food production, and where people at the grass roots level usually know how to govern themselves better, rather than having a government thousands of miles away? I think it would be better to build three smaller oil upgraders at three strategic locations in a province rather than constructing one megaproject. It is questionable whether megaprojects are energy selfsufficient in themselves. There is some thought that the energy involved in creating these projects is never returned in the energy produced by them.
It seems that the three megaprojects have collapsed. These were projects which were strenuously supported by Liberals and Conservatives because they thought that this was the direction the country should go. Because of our party's environmental concerns and our suspicion about the lack of efficiency of megaprojects, we do not necessarily support them because of their size, there are some examples from which we should have learned a lesson. For instance, there is Ocean Falls in B.C., Uranium City in Saskatchewan, where people were encouraged to live and depend on an industry which would some day expire. This also happens today in some areas where there are megaprojects. Thousands of families are drawn to areas where these projects will eventually be closed down. The government will then have to deal with the social unrest which will occur in those areas.
It is asked by some why the Conservative and Liberal policies are closely related. For instance, their interest rate policies are very clearly similar. Those two parties have the same view on many energy issues. They both favour the megaprojects while not considering the conservation which should take place.
May 5, 1982

I can tell you why they are so closely related. I just have to look at some of the contributions given to the old-line parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, in 1978. It has been said that the Liberal party is the representative for big business and the Conservative party is big business-or is it the other way around? In 1978 the Alberta Gas Trunk Line contributed $15,752 to the Conservative party. That same company donated $15,800 to the Liberal party. The Aluminum Company of Canada donated $15,000 to each of the old-line parties.


Jack Wendele Shields: How much did you contribute to the NDP?


Douglas Keith Anguish: The member for Athabasca asks how much I donated to the NDP. I donated $1,800 to the NDP last year, and I am proud of it.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce donated $25,351 to the Conservative party and $25,000 to the Liberal party. In 1978 Gulf Oil of Canada gave the Conservatives $41,000 while only giving the Liberals $27,200. Does that mean they favour the Conservative party over the Liberal party? I do not think so.
If we review the 1979 figures, we see that Gulf Oil gave $53,324 to the Liberals and only $39,342 to the Conservatives. It is the same situation which might flip-flop back and forth every year. The two old-line parties are still the same and they do not represent the common interests of the people.
In total for 1978 the Conservatives received $878,839 from public corporations. They received $1,413,560 from private sector corporations. We see that the Liberals received $1,019,972 from public corporations while they received $1,234,470 from private corporations.
In 1979 the Alberta Gas Trunk Line donated $36,630 to the Conservatives and $31,600 to the Liberals. Kaiser Resources, which is a big western development company, donated $31,990 to the Conservatives and $31,000 to the Liberals. Cominco, which sounds like part of Canadian Pacific, donated $5,000 to the Conservatives and $5,000 to the Liberals. West Coast Transmissions donated $15,357 to the Conservatives and $16,000 to the Liberals. Other examples are the same, and they just continue. These parties are the same.
In order to reach energy self-sufficiency we, as a country, must very seriously consider some alternatives. We cannot only anticipate attaining energy self-sufficiency just through the development of hydrocarbons, although they should be developed vigorously. We must look at conservation measures which are so important to reduce our dependency on hydrocarbons.
The internal combustion engine can run on many things besides hydrocarbons. It can run on ammonia mixed with acetylene hydrogen, propane, a number of things which are less polluting to the environment and which could be more cost competitive. It just needs some impetus, some push from a government, a push which a federal NDP government could
give to the energy sector to make it go after alternatives in the energy-efficiency battle.
We also need to look at the jobs we need to create in Canada. As many members on all sides of this House mentioned, we have the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression. We in the New Democratic Party attribute most of that to high interest rates.
When we look at the amount of money which has been freed up by the cancellation of megaprojects, some $77.5 billion, maybe there is a possibility that this can have some downward pressure on interest rates. This money could be freed to do other things in the economy. I hope that is one of the positive results of the Liberals and Conservatives not wanting to go ahead with the things that are necessary in this country.
We would like to see the federal government not stifle the productivity of the people. Our gross national product is very sad when we have people who have been ingrained with a strong work ethic. They want to work. They want to help their country. However, governments like this government have held them back.
We need to increase manufacturing and processing in Canada. If you look at the manufacturing industry as opposed to the resource industry, it costs 40 times as much to create a job in the resource sector as it does to create a job in the manufacturing sector. We have to look at things that are more labour-intensive, such as manufacturing, as opposed to capitalintensive types of projects in the resource sector now and the high costs of recovery of some of the hydrocarbons.
We need an economic development plan so that people can prosper from coast to coast within an improved self-sufficient community, using the resources they have for their benefit and to fulfil their needs, and then exporting to the rest of the world. Once our needs are fulfilled, we can export beyond our borders and import as little as possible in order to have our productivity increased.
We also believe we would go a long way once the interest rate has come down a bit. Hopefully from this new money in the market, the interest rate will be locked in and not allowed to fluctuate wildly up and down. One of the frustrations of many small businesses, farmers, individuals on fixed incomes, and wage earners is that they never know what the interest rate will be from month to month when they go to the bank. They do not know how much they will have to pay on their mortgage, their car, operating capital or inventory. If they could at least plan with some degree of certainty, knowing that interest rates are going to be 15 per cent, and will be 15 per cent for a year, the people would know what they were dealing with. They could plan for their future.
We also believe that anyone who makes a large profit that is unwarranted, a profit that is beyond anyone else's in the country, should be taxed on that as an excess profit. We think there should be income tax cuts for the low and middle-income people. These are some things that can get Canadians back on the right track and back into the work force. Some of what has been outlined this evening by my colleagues and myself point

May 5, 1982
out a better way for Canada through the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening a little while ago to my New Democratic and Progressive Conservative colleagues bragging about all kinds of election results. I remind them that over the past 20 years, the results which we have seen here in the House of Commons, have been, I believe, to the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada. If I am not mistaken, in the past 20 years, there have only been nine months of Progressive Conservative rule and God knows we were anxious to see that rule come to an end.
A byelection was held in the riding of Levis exactly one year ago on May 4, 1981. I had no idea that 366 days after that byelection, we would be holding an emergency debate on the Alsands project at 3:40 in the morning.
The motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply that the entire country should be in mourning because the Alsands project has been suspended. Reference is being made to famous megaprojects to indicate that these projects are important for Canada, but it seems that we would want to have the people believe that by scrapping the Alsands project, we are scrapping all important projects in Canada in the coming years. By attempting to make the people believe such a thing, they are really trying to make them forget that we have planned megaprojects worth hundreds of billions of dollars up to the year 2000, that the cost of the Alsands project was estimated at about $14 billion and that the Alsands project is not yet dead and buried, but only delayed for several months or a few years. I think that the persons directly involved can explain the situation even better and I refer to the comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) last Friday, April 30. The Honourable Minister stated, and I quote:
-the suspension of construction activities at the Alsands synthethic crude oil plant means that Canada will have to put greater emphasis on its oil potential in the Beaufort Sea and off the Atlantic coast and on the development of traditional western crude oil resources, on increased oil and improved crude oil recovery.
However, we are talking about, and all parties are prepared to say it, the suspension of the project, not the termination or death as some are saying tonight. I continue with the Hon. Minister's statement, and I quote:
Fortunately, Canada has other potential supply sources-
New prospects in the North and offshore are very encouraging and we are still confident that we will reach our goal of self-sufficiency by 1990. We support exploration and development in these regions through our incentive measures and our pricing policy.
The Minister continues, and I quote:
The uncertainty surrounding the evolution of world oil prices has private investors concerned, not only as far as the Alsands project is concerned, but also with regards to major synthetic crude oil, electrical production and coal liquefaction projects in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I think it is important to note that not only in Canada have oil production programs been delayed. I continue to quote the Minister:
Clearly, this financial challenge was too difficult to overcome at the present time. Ironically, corporations hesitated to commit themselves, partly because they realized that there were excellent alternate solutions, particularly in offshore regions.
I wanted to refer to these excerpts from the statements of the Minister because in the riding of Levis and in the greater Quebec City area, and I would even say in eastern Quebec, one of the topics in the news in recent weeks has been the presence of Dome Petroleum in the greater Quebec City area. I think that when the Minister says that we will have to focus our attention on the Beaufort Sea, we must realize that Dome Petroleum, which purchased Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. in the Quebec region in June of 1981, is currently exploring for and developing oil and gas resources in the Beaufort Sea.
Moreover, at the time of this famous transaction which represented approximately $40 million or $38.6 million, Dome was presenting itself as an independent company administered by Canadians conducting oil and gas exploration activities in Western and Northern Canada. Since its early beginnings in 1950 when it had only a few people on staff as compared with the present day figure of 4,300 employees, the company has always focussed on growth and thus, in June 1981, it acquired the Davie shipyards along with its 2,300 or 2,400 employees. We must understand that Dome Petroleum purchased the Davie shipyards in 1981 in order to create new jobs, in the sense that the company had an expansion program and a shipbuilding program under way. Eventually, within the framework of the project currently in the hands of the Canadian government, Cabinet will normally have to decide in coming weeks whether this project is to be approved or not. As I was saying, a project worth several hundred million dollars is under way to expand and modernize the Davie shipyards.
I do not believe that because we are shelving temporarily the Alsands project, Canada is losing everything. Unfortunately, it is true that for the time being, in this particular region of the country, some jobs will- not be created in the near future. However, people in other regions of the country, particularly in Eastern Canada, in Quebec and the riding of Levis, will come out ahead. In fact, they will profit from the misfortune of others. Under the circumstances, the Canadian government and the government of Alberta did everything they could to carry through with the Alsands project. I do not think that they could have done much more than they did, short of taking public funds and giving them to private corporations.
We are talking about the two governments being involved as equal partners. I think that, under the circumstances, that was more than sufficient and a more than reasonable offer. The New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives believe otherwise. The New Democratic Party would have liked to
May 5, 1982

have seen Petro-Canada take over the project and public funds used. The Progressive Conservatives, on the other hand, perhaps would have liked us to help the private corporations even more by providing them with more financial backing. However, the parties involved were unwilling to carry on with the project. And, as I said at the beginning, we have to understand that the project is only being delayed for several months or years, in view of the present state of the world economy, and that it will not be delayed ad vitam aeternum.
Two, three or even four years ago, we were saying that the Alsands project was vitally important, that it had to go ahead and that many other projects were also of an urgent nature. Given the present state of the world economy, and in view of certain forecasts which were perhaps inaccurate for all sorts of reasons, today we find ourselves in the position where we are saying: world oil prices have fluctuated, perhaps we don't need as much oil as we thought we did, perhaps we can delay the Alsands project for six months, for one year, for two years, for three years and maybe even for four years.
I think we have to live with today's crazy economy where a barrel of oil can be had for $40. We could speculate that tomorrow the price might drop to $30 or to $25, contrary to what recent forecasts indicate. All of the forecasts were based on the assumption that the price of oil would continue to increase. However, as it happens, in recent months, OPEC decided to drop its prices. Today we can even anticipate a further reduction in the price of a barrel of oil. Therefore, under the circumstances, the decision that was made by the two government to make a sizeable offer, but not to concede everything, was a reasonable decision. We will just have to wait for a few months or a few years before Alsands and all of the other projects are carried out to the benefit of all Canadian workers.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I must say you are looking very well, considering the circumstances. You are certainly looking much better than the three members of the Liberal party who have turned up for this evening's debate and the one single member of the New Democratic Party. I am pleased to be amongst many colleagues in the Conservative party. The fact that there are many shows that the people in my party are really interested in the affairs of the nation and really concerned about what has happened to Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline.
What we are debating tonight is not just the two projects named in the motion, the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline, but a culmination of a whole series of disasters. There have been megadisasters and minidisasters, but they have all been disasters. The Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline fiasco was preceded by Judy Creek, which went down the hole; Cold Lake, which was shot out of sight; and various pipeline projects, including Kitimat, and the proposal to build both oil and gas pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley. They have all gone by the board. Those are the ones which have
been spectacular because the loss of jobs associated with them has been fantastic. Tens of thousands of jobs in the construction industry have been lost. Those jobs would have been directly associated with the actual physical construction of various projects.
We have heard from many speakers tonight. We have heard that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost from Nova Scotia and the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario and all the way over to British Columbia. Hundreds of thousands of important jobs have been lost because of the policies pursued by the Liberal government.
I do not want to dwell particularly on loss of jobs, of opportunities and of billions of dollars worth of spin-off benefits because many speakers, this evening and yesterday afternoon, have done that extremely well. However, I would like to discuss some of the minor disasters which have gone along with the major ones. In many ways these are more insidious. With respect to major megaprojects we are talking about jobs lost, but those jobs did not exist in the first place. It would have been very nice to have them in this day and age, but with respect to smaller projects we are talking about jobs which did exist but which no longer exist. They have disappeared from Canada altogether.
Let us consider, for instance, just a small well in Saskatchewan producing perhaps 20 barrels of oil a day. That is not a lot, but it helps Canada on its way to energy self-sufficiency. It provides a certain amount of employment. That is 20 barrels of oil a day we do not have to import. However, because of the policies of the government, and the National Energy Program in particular, that well has had to shut down because it is no longer profitable. The operators of that well have been losing money on every barrel of oil pumped out of the ground. My friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), is conversant with this particular problem as it affects his area.
Let me discuss small Canadian exploration companies in the oil and gas business. I know many people involved in them. They had high hopes. Indeed, many of them still have high hopes of eventually becoming large corporations which might compete with BP, Shell, or even Imperial Oil. However, they no longer have that opportunity, if they want to stay in Canada. That opportunity has been denied them by the actions and policies of the Liberal government.
Let me discuss shut-in gas fields which still exist. There are quite a few in Alberta and in other places. There is one in Yukon. There is gas which people have worked to find and prove up, but they still cannot find a market for it. That gas could be used to displace imports of oil into Canada. People could be working in those gas fields, but they are not. They are not working because of the policies pursued by hon. members opposite.
Let us take a look at the service industry in the oil field business, including service rigs, hauling and specialty companies, drilling muds, well logging and that type of thing. We are no longer drilling wells in Canada because of the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, and these people have had to leave
80114- 17

May 5, 1982
Canada. They have gone down to the United States in droves. This is another effect of the national energy policy and is illustrative of the insidious effect this policy has had on the Canadian enterprise stretching from Alberta and the west right across Canada.
When we add all of these small minidisasters together, as I have said before, we find that they are just as disastrous as the loss of Alsands and the loss of the Alaska gas pipeline. We must ask ourselves why has this all come about? The answer is pretty clear. It is because of a concept shared by the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party. Their view of the Canadian oil and gas industry is to see only a few people in the business, those from large companies. It does not really matter whether it is a nationalized company like Petro-Canada or whether it is a company like Imperial Oil. They want to see these few big corporations around which can then be controlled very easily from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
If hundreds of small operators are mixed in with the big guys, it is pretty hard to control them. They will speak up for their rights. Bigger companies and multinational organizations seldom do. They generally stay out of what they might term local politics or national politics. They do not get involved in that type of thing. They go by the rules as they exist in a country. However, the little guys are like farmers. They speak up for their rights. They will make noises during elections. They will try to change government policies. They will get in the way of the technocrats in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. For that reason the Liberals and the NDP want to get rid of them. They want them out of business.
The government and its friends in the NDP would like to see the oil and gas business as a utility, where rates of return are strictly controlled and where there is no real point in taking any risk because one will not make any big money if one hits it. The government will tax it all away. It will allow a 15 per cent or 16 per cent return on the investment as it allows the business of generating electricity, but that is all. The government is taking the fun out of the oil and gas exploration business. Why would anyone want to become involved in the business any more? We might as well leave it up to the big guys. They drill so many wells that it is simply a matter of statistics to them. They drill so many wells and they know that they will find so much oil and gas.
It is not like the business was before and the way the business should be, with individual Canadians willing to come and invest their own capital in these projects. If they are unlucky and they lose everything they have, it is well and good. It is their money. They lost it, and they should not expect anything in return. But, on the other hand, if they do strike it rich, if they are lucky, then they should be able to make a decent return. They should be able to walk away with what my friends on this side will call windfall profits.


An hon. Member:: That is a dirty word.


Dave Nickerson: It certainly is in the vocabulary of the party to my left, but it is what built the Canadian energy industry in the first place. If we want to sustain the energy industry, particularly in oil and gas, we have to bring back the profit motivation. What the Liberals and the NDP want is a strictly controlled industry. We have seen that in the national energy policy, in Bill C-48, and in the tax bills. They want no leeway given for enterprise but everything done under the dictates of the government. That is the reason for the mess we are in today. They have treated the oil and gas industry as a fabulous source of revenue-at least that is what they expect it will be. I think they are going to be disappointed because prices will not continue to escalate as they have in the past.
The agreement between Alberta and the federal government, which was two years in the making, would result in an additional $50 billion of tax revenue accruing to the federal government. If it takes that much money out of the oil and gas industry, what is left for the people who make the investment? If they drill a well and find something, they have to pay the profit over to the government, but if they vote the right way and support the right party, they might get a little bit back as a PIP grant. That is not the way the industry was built up in Canada and it is not the way it will be sustained.
The demise of the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline has been described this evening as a betrayal of Canadians. It has been described as a breach of trust. One could say that it is a betrayal which was brought about by ignorance and sheer incompetence. We know that these attributes abound in the ranks of the Liberals and their western cousins, but the argument could be made that they knew not what they did when they brought in those policies. There is evidence to suggest, however, that at least in some instances it was not just incompetence that brought these things about; it appears to have been deliberate sabotage.
I should like now to deal with the Mackenzie Valley, a part of Canada that I am proud to represent. If Canada had played its cards right in the 1970s it would not have raised all kinds of obstacles to progress and we would by now not only have a major gas line down the Mackenzie Valley but in all probability we would have a major oil line as well. The oil lines that now stretch from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to the Port of Valdez would in all probability have been built down the Mackenzie Valley. That was not to be the case.
Let us remember the Arctic gas-


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Friesen):: The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) on a point of order.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I think it only appropriate, in view of the excellent speech that is being given by the hon. member, to point out that there is only one Liberal member in the House and one NDP member, who just came in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Friesen):: That is not a point of order.
May 5, 1982


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth noting that there is only one Liberal member in the House and only one NDP member.
I was speaking of the Arctic gas proposal in the years 197374-75. About $250 million was spent by the proponents of that scheme to prove its feasibility and to do all the work necessary to show that it could be built without undue environmental effect, that the engineering was sound, and that the economics were sound.
We know what happened to that. The proposal was shut down by the NDP Judge Berger in his infamous report. He was appointed with the connivance of the Liberals, and the NDP acting in concert. The sordid history of the Berger inquiry has left Canada, and especially the Mackenzie, much the worse for wear. The NDP has consistently opposed any and all projects which would have brought energy self-sufficiencey to Canada and which in the process would have created thousands and thousands of new jobs for Canadians. It is no use crying over spilt milk, however, and it is no use crying about the fate that has been brought upon us by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the NDP in collusion.
We cannot go back to 1979 and have the vote on the Crosbie budget all over again. We cannot go back and hold the 1980 election again. But I think we all know what the results would be. The Canadian people certainly wish they had another chance and that we could turn the clock back and go through it again, but that is not to be.
We have to face the future, even if it is not what we would like. This evening we must not just describe all that has gone wrong in the past. We have to think about the policies that should be developed and adopted now so that history does not repeat itself. Let us consider what policies we should adopt to get us out of the mess into which the Liberals have got us.
Before I go into that, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I do not think anyone else has touched upon. I should like to know what is going to happen about the Northern Pipeline Agency. I do not have any particular sympathy with the Hon. Mitchell Sharp who has had his nose in the Liberal trough for many years, but there are many skilled and experienced engineers, accountants, lawyers and biologists who have congregated to act on behalf of the Northern Pipeline Agency. The decision to delay the project is probably the worst that could have been made. These people would have been better off had the decision been either yes or no.
I wonder if I could request the unanimous consent of the House to continue for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dave Nickerson: I should note that I am only on page four of an eight-page speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will just complete my remarks about the Northern Pipeline Agency, and I will give you at some other time my plans for renewal and reconstruction of the Canadian oil and gas industry, should you so wish.
The question of the Northern Pipeline Agency, and it is a serious one, has not been brought up in this debate. The question is: what do we do with it? We have all these competent, capable and experienced people drawing larger than normal public service salaries because of the nature of their work, and they do not know where they stand or what they have to do. In fact they have very little to do at this time. I can think of a useful purpose for some of these people on the rather small oil line which is to be built from Norman Wells to Zama Lake. There are a number of problems similar to those which might have existed on the Alaska gas pipeline, but on a smaller scale, and it might be useful if some of those people serving in the Northern Pipeline Agency were seconded to help deal with some similar problems-


Jack Wendele Shields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are still only two members of the coalition in the House, one Liberal and one NDP.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Elzinga):: I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out that very valid point of order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I approach this debate I cannot fail to consider that the collapse of these two projects has all the earmarks of being just one more in a series of megadisasters for which this government must be held responsible. I would suggest the first megadisaster was the downgrading of Parliament. As I approach the tenth anniversary of my nomination for election to this House, I look back with sadness on those ten years which have been strewn with disasters of one kind or another, all caused by the wrongheaded policies of this government. In fact one could almost say this Liberal government has developed the knack of putting a blight on practically everything to which it has set its hand.
I think of Parliament and how it has been downgraded. It was started by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said members of Parliament are nobodies when they are 50 yards off the Hill. I think we can narrow that distance now and say that, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, members of Parliament-including his own-are nobodies in this House. In fact there is nobody over there at the moment except for one body. I do not mean to be facetious about this, Mr. Speaker, because it is a serious matter. This democratic institution, which the Canadian people rely on to deal with the problems confronting them, has shown itself under the direction of this particular government to be absolutely incapable of doing just that.
Another megadisaster is the confrontation between east and west. Federal-provincial relations have deteriorated to the point where there are animosities which I find unworthy of Canadians, but they have been created by this government and

May 5, 1982
its attitude toward the other level of government. A paper came across my desk the other day, the Sunday Express from one of the eastern townships, with the heading "Trudeau has been an absolute disaster". It goes on to say:
When Trudeau first came to power unemployment was at 4.5 per cent-today we're over the double digit mark. Inflation hovered around 4 per cent back then and today it stands at 12.5 per cent. Federal spending in 1968 was roughly $12 billion, while now-thanks to the extravagant ways of a Prime Minister we can clearly not afford, it has reached $72 billion.
He preached 'a Just Society' then promptly delivered The War Measures Act. He promised to maintain Canada's "integrity" but today, members of the once proud Royal Canadian Mounted Police occupy the prisoner's dock of a Montreal courtroom-
And they are being denied documents for their defence. Everything this government touches is blighted by the contact. The military have been downgraded. The fourteenth anniversary of the Prime Minister's time in office should have been a day of mourning. In 1968 the military had about 100,000 members. It is now down into the 80,000 range. Everything, including inflation and interest rates, has become worse under this government and now we are faced with the energy problem. Hard to believe, is it not, that two years ago there was a throne speech, and we are still in the same session. It is very interesting to look at some of the statements in that throne speech. It said:
-energy development has the potential to create growth and prosperity across Canada.
No one denies that, but where are the growth and prosperity? We are in mourning today over the demise of two very important energy projects from which Canada would benefit.
I am just taking selections from the throne speech. This is the Governor General speaking but it is really the Prime Minister, and we read:
My ministers do not intend to impose an 18-cent increase in the excise tax on transportation fuels-
That, I suppose, is pretty clever. The government does not intend to impose an 18-cent increase, but instead of that the government has imposed a 52-cent increase. I still say that statement is slightly misleading, because within that 52 cents the first one third of it is 18 cents.
The Speech from the Throne goes on:
-and the made-in-Canada price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed in the budget of the previous administration.
Just for fun I make a note of the various changes when I am at the gas pump where I normally get my gas. In January, 1980, for regular gasoline we were paying 23.2 cents per litre, which is about $1.05 a gallon. Excuse me for using a gallon measurement. I think I am covered by parliamentary immunity here so I cannot be taken to court for using that improper term.


An hon. Member:: You had better check that one out.


Donald W. Munro: The Speaker will protect me, I am sure.
As I was saying, gasoline was $1.05 a gallon in January, 1980. But what is it in March, 1982, which I think is the last time an increase was imposed? The cost is 41 cents a litre. That is almost double what it was in 1980. It is now $1.86 a gallon. But in the Speech from the Throne of April 14, 1980, we read:
-and the made-in-Canada price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed in the budget of the previous administration.


Mr. Gustafson:: The American price is 27 per cent lower.


Donald W. Munro: And as my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) says, you can fill up your gas tank for a great deal less in the United States than you have to pay in Canada.
Let me read a little more from the energy portion in the Speech from the Throne. It reads:
In spite of Canada's large energy resources-
Which are admitted. The sentence continues:
-which put this country in the extremely favourable position of being a major energy exporter, we remain partially dependent upon imported oil.
That was April, 1980. We are still dependent upon imported oil despite that claim that we would be sefl-sufficient by 1990. We are not closer to self-sufficiency. We are receding from that goal as the evidence accumulates before us.
The Speech from the Throne continues:
-and by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies.
One way this government expects to cease being so dependent on imported oil is by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies. But what did we see last Friday, which was Black Friday? Last Friday is the Friday we are talking about, when we saw the demise of two important projects. One would be a transit project but the other one was purely domestic, the Alsands project. I find it tragic that the government should have two years ago set that as its goal but finds itself today in this particular position.
There is another matter which affects our compatriots in the eastern provinces. The Speech from the Throne goes on:
My government equally favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritime provinces-
That natural gas pipeline is called the Q & M, that is, Quebec to the maritimes pipeline. I think the real name of that pipeline should be the M and Q, that is, the Montreal to Quebec pipeline, because I do not think it has even got that far in this time. The Speech from the Throne reads "the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline". I do not know what has held it up. I am sure that my colleagues from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are deeply upset because they have to pay the highest possible prices for their heating fuel, and this would relieve much of their burden.
I have a final quote from the Speech from the Throne that I would like to put on the record. It is found in the last part of the section headed "Security of Energy, at a fair price." It reads:
May 5, 1982

My ministers believe that, if given the opportunity, Canadian companies and investors would involve themselves more heavily in the energy field. My government, therefore, adopts the specific goal of at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry by 1990-
The government did not specify how it was going to do that. There were a good many Canadian-owned companies at that time. However, if we take a look at the latest issue of Canadian Business, which is the May, 1982 issue, here most graphically described on page 84 we find the state of some ten private Canadian businesses engaged in the energy field. The names may not be familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless here they are: Chieftan Development, Czar Resources, Dalco Petroleum, Drummond Petroleum, Francana Oil and Gas, Numac, Page Petroleum, Rupertsland, Sulpetro 'B' and Trinity Resources. Here there is a uniform history of disasters in Canadian-owned enterprises. The heading of the article is a tragic one, "Drowning in debt". I would like to quote just a little from this article. It commences:
There are hundreds of oil men in Calgary today who are watching the companies they built, carefully and successfully, drift dangerously toward receivership. There are hundreds of former employees of oil companies in Vancouver who are no longer needed because the companies they worked for cannot afford to explore for energy in Canada.
That is a direct result of the energy policy of this particular government. The article goes on and mentions a number of companies and how their situations have deteriorated as a result of this policy. True, we have to admit there is a bad business climate throughout the world and a bad business climate here in Canada. Money is difficult to come by. The National Energy Program, which was supposed to be a budget, came out as the national energy policy, and that is all it was.
One of the promises in the National Energy Program which was published in 1980 was the Petroleum Incentives Program. It offered:
For oil and gas exploration anywhere in Canada, enterprises that are at least 50 per cent owned by Canadians, and are Canadian-controlled, will qualify for an incentive payment equal to 10 per cent of approved costs incurred in 1982 and 1983, and 15 per cent thereafter.
Let me go back to the article entitled "Drowning in debt" in the May issue of "Canadian Business" magazine. It reads:
All these hopes were crushed when the NEP was tabled in late 1980.
These were the hopes of being able to maintain themselves in the market. The paragraph continues:
It introduced a complex set of new rules and regulations which offered new funding with one hand and took it away in new taxes with the other hand.
Canadian content became the crucial thing. These companies are fully Canadian. The petroleum incentive payments were offered in 1980. But let me continue with this article:
But to date not one penny of PIP grants has been received by the industry, even though companies have operated and budgeted under the new regime for one and a half years. Some analysts have estimated that over $5 billion is now owing in PIP payments, but this grant money will begin to flow into the industry only after the energy security bill incorporating the remainder of the National Energy Program-
-and associated energy changes in the infamous Bill C-94.
-is appropved by Parliament.
This is the inducement to get busy in the oil and energy business. We have heard a misleading National Energy Program. We have seen and we have received a misleading National Energy Program. We have seen the destruction of the industry, the destruction of hope and the destruction of the employment market.
Figures have already been quoted, but I think it useful to quote them again for the benefit of the two government members who are present this morning, one reading a newspaper and the other just sitting there. It is worth recalling the losses in employment as a result of the imposition of the National Energy Program. It was foreseen by the former minister of energy, mines and resources in 1978 that there would be 71,000 direct employment opportunities in a number of energy projects both in the west and in the north. As the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) pointed out, this is a northern problem as well. The 71,000 direct jobs which were foreseen included the Dempster and the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. In indirect employment 265,000 man-years were foreseen. I suppose one should say person-years, but I think in the oil industry we should stick with man-years. This indirect employment has now gone by the boards as a result of the Speech from the Throne and the National Energy Program. The government has brought this megadisaster upon Canada. It boasts about the number of jobs it created, but it ought to know the number of jobs which have been lost in Canada. Governments do not create jobs, industry creates jobs. These jobs would have been available for Canadians had the government not followed the disastrous course it adopted in 1980.
Also it was indicated in the Speech from the Throne that the government did not intend to impose an 18-cent increase in the excise tax on transportation fuel. It did not mention the tax on heating oil, which of course was one of the main points of the Conservative government budget. There was not a word said about relief for those living in the colder climates of Canada in the National Energy Program; it was tragic.
In conclusion, I should like to quote a rather significant comment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a 1969 interview just after coming into power. He was discussing the efforts to change the course of the ship of state. He 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.
That was an ominous comment, especially when we think of the fact that he used the words "I know"; but the rest of Canadians were not supposed to know. They have learned the hard way and we have seen the results of that shift in position. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a great deal of design in what has happened to the country, and it saddens me to say so.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to mention that I cannot remember ever

May 5, 1982
making a speech, be it in the House of Commons, in my constituency or anywhere else, at 4.35 in the morning. Nevertheless, this is a very important topic which we are discussing. It is of such vital concern to the entire country that we felt we could only dramatize it by extended debate in which members from all parts of the country could participate. On behalf of their constituents they could express their concerns regarding the very dramatic economic loss to the country as a result of the cancellation of the $13.5 billion Alsands project. It has literally bit the dust or has ended up in the economic graveyard of the Liberal government. Also, the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline has been put off for another two years, and perhaps indefinitely.
At the present time in the country Canadians are starting, after three of four days of listening to radios, reading newspapers and watching television, to realize the enormity of what has happened through the almost total mismanagement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal government.
Some time before the end of this debate later on today, this afternoon or perhaps tomorrow, we hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will return to the House of Commons, give a speech, and admit that in many ways he was wrong in the direction and the intent of the National Energy Program which he and the Prime Minister piloted through the House of Commons. The purpose of this debate is to centre upon this particular question. We hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will make some constructive comments and provide some positive direction.
The project that certainly concerns most Canadians at present is the $13.5 billion projected Alsands project which would have delivered 140,000 barrels of oil per day. This would have greatly enhanced Canada's chances for energy selfsufficiency. Because this project has failed we will find ourselves more dependent on imports in the next eight years than we are now. We will be at the whim of OPEC countries in terms of who they export to and the price they export for, and we will be influenced by what happens when an international incident may arise. These possibilities are greater since the failure of this project.
Aside from this fact, Canada will lose literally thousands of jobs in the process. It is estimated that the Alsands project alone would have provided a minimum of 25,000 construction jobs, a minimum of 25,000 manufacturing jobs in eastern Canada and anywhere from 7,500 to 10,000 permanent jobs once that project was completed and on stream. Some $450 billion would have been injected into the Canadian economy over the life of that project. That is a tremendous amount of money for any country, let alone a country the size of Canada. These are some of the benefits we will lose because of the failure of this project. Of course, it would have sparked tremendous economic growth at a time when it is almost nonexistent. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest financial disasters to hit Canada in decades.
I very briefly alluded to the reasons for this belief when I began my remarks. We have a Prime Minister who does not really understand, and at times does not care about, economic activity in Canada. We have a stubborn Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will not listen to the reasoning of MPs, Canadians and the oil industry in general. We have a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who does not seem to understand and grasp the enormity of the kind of projects we are talking about tonight and their impact upon Canadians. These are some of the people who are responsible for the economic insanity brought about by this government.
It all started with the National Energy Program which was and is an unmitigated Canadian disaster. We have seen this government try to repair something which is irreparable. There is no way to patch up the problems that the termination of the Alsands project and the National Energy Program itself has caused. Because the National Energy Program has made a huge grab for more federal revenue, because it certainly thrusts the government deeper into the private sector than ever before, because it discriminated against foreign petroleum companies which have worked in good faith for Canada for the last number of years, and because it has confiscated petroleum rights and unsettled foreign investors, Canadian oil exploration and drilling companies have been driven away and may never return.


Mr. Benjamin:: Tough.


Jack Burnett Murta: The hon. member to my left says "tough". Many of these companies which have left were Canadian companies that were owned and operated by and comprised of Canadians who have been forced to go elsewhere in order to avoid going bankrupt like many other Canadian companies. Canada has been left at the mercy of OPEC countries and other oil exporting countries. The abandonment of the Alsands project will drastically affect an already shaky economy.
I assume that the government will desperately try to revamp its economic strategy, if it ever had one. Since the government included the vast amount of moneys it would have received from the vast resource sector in its projections for the next number of years, it will somehow have to replace those funds. Therefore, two things will have to happen. First, there will have to be drastic cutbacks in programs over the next couple of years-which has not been the general rule of the government-or second, the government will have to increase its deficits to a degree which no one can imagine. I suspect the government will opt for major tax increases over the next few years.
The failure of Alsands will reduce business spending in Canada by an estimated $360 million this year. This will set the stage for a steady loss of real output in the ensuing years. As a result, we will find increased unemployment in Canada and a very shaky foreign investment climate. Companies are not interested in dealing with a country which has a government that does not have an economic strategy, that wants to become involved in industries and control private incentive. It
May 5, 1982

is a climate such as this which has brought about a stagnation in Canada's economy today.
An estimate of business losses by 1985, which is probably conservative, amounts to $2.5 billion. This is an astronomical amount for a country such as Canada. It is no wonder that Canadians are concerned and that we have ended up having a marathon debate on one of the most important economic matters that any member in the House will speak to for a good many years.
Some $7 billion has left Canada in order to purchase foreign-owned oil companies during recent years. This is one aspect of the National Energy Program which concerns many people. This expenditure has put pressure on the dollar and interest rates. Of course, it has had an effect on everyone, from small and large businessmen to farmers and housekeepers. Anyone involved in any kind of economic activity in this country has felt the indirect effect of the mess the government has made with its National Energy Program. Billions of foreign dollars have fled, making the situation even worse. It is estimated that some 330 oil drilling rigs have moved south and that 2,000 fewer wells were drilled in 1981 than in 1980. This is the kind of economic stagnation we are seeing in this country. It is a direct result of the total lack of understanding of the Liberal government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, at least from a public perception, has been spearheading this whole process.
More than 15,000 jobs have been lost in the petroleum industry and an incalculable number in the manufacturing sector that supplies the petroleum industry. The bottom line has been that this government has been a disaster, not just in terms of world prices but in the whole design of its economic strategy and the direction it has taken on the energy question.
Canada at one time was a great country, and it still is. The potential is there. However, to some extent we have lost our objectives and ideals. We are floundering at the present time. We are concerned about ourselves because others are concerned about us, our neighbours, other people and countries. This is having an unsettling effect on Canada.
We are also concerned because unemployment is desperately high in this country. Future generations do not have confidence. They want to work but are unable to find a job because economic activity is not being generated by the private sector, in some cases combined with the government. It is not there because those who Canadians look to in terms of leadership, politicians and government, have not given leadership over the past two or three years.
Think about the effect of unemployment on a family. When we think about the damage it creates, one has to be concerned. In some respects this debate is larger than just the question of energy and economics, although both are very serious. It embraces the whole question of the social fabric of this country and the damage this kind of government is doing to that social fabric.
We hope the Prime Minister will not be around much longer. Then maybe we can again piece together what must be done. Given the chance, we feel that this Conservative party can do that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is ironic that while it quite rightly condemns the Liberal policy followed by this governmment, it equally condemns the policy of the party that moved the motion. The only complaint of that party agains the Liberal government is that it is not doing more of the damaging and disastrous things that it is doing.
We have a policy of selling off Canadians resources at the highest rate without any regard for the future of the Canadian economy or the needs of our people. The fact that the policy is already on the rocks illustrates how disastrous it is for the Canadian people and raises the possibility that it might be changed, if not by one of the two antiquated parties to my right and opposite, then by a newer party.
The Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline have failed. The government now hopes to bring the Cold Lake project back from the graveyard. No one is optimistic about that working. These projects were always doubtful. They rested on very shaky predictions of oil prices and had to run against extraordinary interest rates. It was easy to see in advance that they were very unreliable projects.
Our party pointed this out previously, yet the government chose to charge ahead. The government was willing for this purpose to cut $6.5 billion over the next five years from needed public expenditures, transfers from the provinces, money needed for our health system, education system and other necessary social programs shared by the federal and provincial governments.
That money has been taken out in order to fund the corporate welfare bums, the oil companies. The $6.5 billion, give or take a couple of hundred million, is almost the same amount taken from education, health, daycare, pensions and benefits to senior citizens in order to fund companies that have more money that any other companies in this country, if not in the world, simply to meet their blackmail claim that they need more and more. They say that 18 per cent is not enough, they need 20 per cent. If we gave them 20 per cent, they would want 25. They think that the Government of Canada is a bottomless pit.
Their real oil well is not in the oil sands, the Beaufort Sea or the Hibernia, but here in the Parliament Buildings, primarily in the frontbenches of the government. That is where they get their money. They do not have to take oil out of the ground as long as they can get fat subsidies from the Liberals or Tories, depending on which party used the subsidies to oil companies most successfully in their election campaigns.
It is still a failure. In fact, the whole policy of the megaproject system is a failure. Megaprojects are the wrong projects in which to invest. The government wants to put about $440

May 5, 1982
billion into megaprojects during the next 20 years, and yet the government's own figures show it takes about $4 million to create one permanent job in those megaprojects. That is 40 times what it costs to create a permanent job in manufacturing. At a time of rising unemployment, the government was proposing to dump $77 billion into these three projects for only
8,000	permanent jobs.
Hon. members talk much about construction jobs, but construction jobs come and go very fast and they leave very little behind. Construction jobs are necessary in any developing country, but an overemphasis on construction jobs simply disrupts family and community life and leaves ghost towns behind. Construction jobs are no substitute for building up permanent industries in Canada. They are no substitute for jobs in places like Brampton or Toronto. They could be a supplement to those jobs, but they are not a substitute.
By concentrating exclusively on megaprojects-damaging the country's manufacturing industries-the Liberal Party has done as much harm as it could, although perhaps not quite as much harm as the Tory party might have done had it been in power.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There ain't a hell of a lot of difference.


John Horton McDermid: Come to Brampton and deliver this speech.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Manufacturing jobs are needed to build this country. They build permanent communities in which education and job training make some sense. Fly-by-night construction projects are here today and gone tomorrow.
This government has been killing off manufacturing industries. Its high taxes have been draining off the income people need to buy the manufactures of this country. They have been killing off the initiative of the small businessmen who have been the backbone of manufacturing in this country.
The high interest rate policy of this government has done the same harm to small business and manufacturing. The government claims it does not have a high interest rate policy, yet this government and the previous government of the Tory party have both endorsed the policy of Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They still do.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: For seven years his stated policy, about which Governor Bouey brags, is to restrict the money supply in order to raise interest rates. This is the policy endorsed by the two antiquated parties in this country. It has produced high interest rates which have caused a present rate of over 1,000 bankruptcies per month. That is what is killing manufacturing.
In addition, this government has followed a policy of so-called free trade, that is, handing over Canada's manufacturing jobs to countries-many of them police state countries- which enforce low wages. Wages of $2 a day are enforced in places like El Salvador. Wages of $1.39 an hour for autoworkers are enforced in places like South Korea. The policy of this government is to dismantle Canada's manufacturing industries
in favour of industries in countries where low wages are enforced.
As if that were not enough, the government is also allowing the internal basis of Canada's transportation to deteriorate by cutting back on both the passenger and the freight capacity of VIA Rail. For decades hopper cars have been one of the basic freight capacities of Canada's rail system, but they have been allowed to deteriorate. The government refuses to make good its promise to renew and replace hopper cars. In other words, the government is not interested in maintaining the industrial manufacturing capacity of Canada.
According to the reports of Canadian and American business experts, Canada is losing out in the present western world recession. We are the slowest of all the western countries to recover or to show any signs of recovery. This is because of the policy supported by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid) and many other members in the north end-the wrong end-of this House, that is, the policy of killing off Canada's manufacturing industry for the sake of quick bucks from megaprojects.
Canada is on the way to becoming a Third World country. It is very ironic that the person who coined the phrase "Canada is becoming a banana republic" was at one time the leader of the Tory party-which forces Canada to do what the late John Diefenbaker warned against. There is, in fact, no difference between the Liberal and Tory parties, with the exception of one small difference of degree. They alternate. They vie. At one time one says we should have higher oil prices and the other says no. Then the other one gets into office and says, "Let us have still higher oil prices". Out of office each one wants low oil prices but in office wants high oil prices. Their basic concern is to curry favour, not with Canadian voters but with oil companies, it is quite understandable that they would want that; they rely very heavily on oil companies for com-paign funds. Nearly half a million dollars is given to each of them by oil companies for campaign funds at election time. That buys a lot of election campaigns.


Mr. Siddon:: Where do you get your money?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The result is that they follow bad policies. It does not matter whether they are preached by the Conservatives and practised by the Liberals or vice versa; their policies are disrupting the industrial communities of Canada. They are disrupting the industrial cities Canadian workers have built. They are policies which are causing misery and unemployment in every city.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize the hon. member was not here when our budget was defeated, but surely he is wise enough to realize that it was his party which deprived the Canadian people of a small business development bond which would have been applicable to the farming sector and the small business sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), but I doubt very much that that is a point of order. It is a point of
May 5, 1982

debate. It is very interesting, but I am sure the hon. member for Pembina will have a chance to express his views later on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I just want to remind the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) that the motion he is talking about-


Peter Elzinga: Order. It has been ruled out of order. Sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The motion the hon. member is talking about was moved by the NDP and supported by the Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: I am sorry. Even though it is about 5.10 in the morning, I think we can pursue the debate in an orderly fashion. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, hon. members should know by now that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) does everything in a negative way. He cannot speak positively about anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: I recognize the hon. member for Spadina. Would hon. members please allow him to proceed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has a very difficult time in debate because he has to use parliamentary language, and that is quite a restriction on him. However, he will have his opportunity later on. The point is that the policies followed by both the government and the Conservative party are designed primarily to fatten and enrich oil companies.
The NDP has been requesting policies which would build the Canadian manufacturing industry and promote Canadian content. That is in direct opposition to the policies of the present megaproject system because its sourcing is clearly not Canadian sourcing. There have been some vague promises by some of these companies that they would source their equipment in Canada, but they have already shown that they will not do that. For example, on the west coast they have already shown that they would much prefer-and this government goes along with them-to buy offshore equipment rather than Canadian produced equipment. However, the policies of the NDP would be to restrict imports, as is done by Japan, Mexico and other industrialized countries, in such a way that if they are to sell in Canada, they must also produce in Canada. If they are to sell cars in Canada, they must also make cars in Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's the way it is in Poland.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This is the policy we have been advocating. This is the policy which would rebuild our manufacturing industry. If we had a viable manufacturing industry in Canada, then it would be possible to supplement that with further development of these megaprojects up north; but to use the megaprojects as a substitute for Canada's manufacturing industry is a disaster
which can only be followed by two parties which still live in the nineteenth century. Therefore, I will be very interested to hear whether any of the hon. gentlemen to the right or opposite have anything positive to say about the building of Canada's manufacturing industry-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You wouldn't understand it, anyway.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -because that is the key to the future health of Canada.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), who just spoke, does not want to export gas. He does not want to build Alsands. He does not want to build an oil and gas industry for Canada. What in blazes does he want to do to create jobs in Canada? Just what are his plans to create jobs in Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are going to capture the gas you are exporting.


John William Thomson: Does the hon. member not think that we should use the resources that God put at our disposal in this country for the benefit of Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For whom?


John William Thomson: Before commencing my speech, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight because I know that some of the others will not get an opportunity to speak.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, yes, they ran out.


John William Thomson: It seems kind of funny to thank someone for the opportunity to speak at 5.15 in the morning, but I sincerely do because I have some strong feelings on the subject we are discussing.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: And only two Liberals in the House.


John William Thomson: Last week I had an opportunity to speak in Belleville. After I had concluded my remarks, a lady came up to me and said, "I have a daughter and a son-in-law who are living in Stettler and I was out to see them recently". These people were originally from Ontario, from the Belleville area. She said to me, "I cannot believe the seething hatred for central Canada which is in their hearts. They have only been out there for a few years". Then she said to me, "You take your hate and go back to Alberta". I was dumbfounded. I had been giving a speech on Canadian unity, and I do not believe I had made any remarks which would have brought on such hostile reaction, so it was interesting to me.
Later that week, last Friday night, I happened to be in Pickering and I ran into an Ontario cabinet minister. I was seated beside him at dinner and he just ripped me up one side and down the other over the Alberta heritage fund.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Give us your unity speech.

May 5, 1982


John William Thomson: I said to him, "Ontario and Quebec have their heritage funds. They are called Ontario Hydro and the Quebec-Hydro. The equity in those two corporations is roughly twice the amount of the Alberta Heritage Fund". That did not faze him one bit. He was not about to buy that. He said, "But Ontario Hydro and Quebec-Hydro are assets which are working for the people, while the Alberta heritage fund is just a big pot of money sitting out there, doing nothing for anyone". So I said to him, "I think that that is not quite true. Twenty-five per cent of the Alberta heritage fund is tied up in the Alberta home mortgage plan in exactly the same manner as the Ontario mortgage corporation. Another 25 per cent of the fund is tied up in the Alberta government telephone company. About 10 per cent of the fund is tied up or has been spent on oil sands research and technology. Another 10 per cent of the fund has been dedicated to medical research under the Alberta medical research authority".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: The cabinet minister said, "Well, I never knew that before". However, the point I am trying to make here is that he, too, had a built-in prejudice and hostility toward another part of Canada.
Then later on in that same evening, I ran into a young man from Oshawa who was attending this function. He said to me, "Alberta is ripping this country apart. Alberta is ripping me off. Why should I pay the price that you are demanding for oil?" Again, the point I am trying to make is that here was another young man who was full of hatred, vengeance and hostility. This is not peculiar only to the people of Ontario; I see more of it in my own riding. I did not think that I could stand here tonight and tell hon. members the feelings of the people from my riding of Calgary South, and I think it prevails throughout all of Alberta.
Let us just forget about the National Energy Program and Alsands for the moment. The people of Alberta today have moved from a position of hostility to one of hatred, frustration and despair. I cannot identify all of the reasons which have caused this, but it is true. They do not feel they have a representative federal government. The Constitution does not mean a thing to them, not a whit. It is just a scrap of paper to them and no more than that. As a matter of fact, most of them would have preferred to live under the terms of the British North America Act, except for perhaps a few who did feel that it was worth while to patriate. However, they do not have any respect for their federal institutions. Why do they not have any respect for their federal institutions today? It is because the federal institutions, whether we like it or not, have betrayed them. They have betrayed what the people believe to be the foundation of this country-the freedom of the individual. The federal government has betrayed them. The government has alienated the people of western Canada, whether the government likes the fact or not. Alienation has not been caused only by the National Energy Program or Alsands. It has been caused by the federal government over the last ten years.
In my lifetime there has not always been this alienation. I was born and spent the first half of my life in Toronto and for the second half I have lived in Calgary. In the first 40 years of my life I never knew the Canada that we have today. In the last 15 years westerners have come to feel that they are no longer a part of this country, that their federal institutions are not responsive to their needs. The government has kept pushing and pushing them away from the mainstream of Canada. They want to be part of the mainstream of Canada, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to separate. They desperately want to feel a part of Canada, but for the last ten or 15 years the federal government has pushed them further and further away. It has isolated them and they are desperate.
Why have we got hate and hostility in Ontario and western Canada? I think some of the responsibility has to be attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal government. What is a federal government and a prime minister for if they are not available to help heal the wounds that occur as a result of regional differences of this country? They should give people a sense of national purpose and a feeling of belonging to a country. Surely that is the responsibility of any government that is in power and primarily of the prime minister. It is his obligation to give us that sense of national purpose and to dispel regional hatred and hostility.
When I contemplated the subject of debate tonight I felt that the Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline were not very important when compared to whether or not we are going to have a country. Who really cares about the Alaska gas pipeline or Alsands if we do not have a Canada? What is the point of building these projects? We certainly do not need them in Alberta or in western Canada. If we are thinking in terms of regionality and not considering the broader spectrum of Canada, then western Canada certainly does not need an Alsands plant.
In the past month I have had the opportunity of speaking to a large number of businessmen from Ontario and Alberta. I spoke to about 60 businessmen from almost every sector of the Alberta economy in the last week. Last night I met with several of the public affairs representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and last week I talked to people in Belleville and Pickering, Ontario.
Each time I spoke to people I was struck with the same thought-that whether we like it or not we are in the midst of a crucial economic depression in this country. I am reluctant to use the word depression because it strikes a note of panic in most people. Some of us can barely remember the horror of the 1930s. I was a boy then but I know of the suffering of some members of my family and of our neighbours.
Surely we must face up to the serious situation in Canada today. I am not about to say that these problems result entirely from the Liberal government's past or present policies. Many of the problems in Canada's economy are the result of international factors beyond our control. There is absolutely no doubt, however, that the government's past and present policies have
May 5, 1982

exacerbated the problems facing the nation today. There can be no doubt about that and in particular about the effects of the National Energy Program and the budgets of 1980 and 1981.
The most serious problem that I see facing the Canadian economy today, apart from the fact that we are in a depression, is that investors and Canadians generally do not have any confidence in the economy or in their country. They do not have confidence in the federal government. They have lost confidence in the Canadian economy's ability to provide them with jobs and to assure them an income. Many people I have spoken to who might be in a position to invest in Canada are now not only not investing in Canada but are faced with the problem of economic survival. Time and time again I have heard them say "Batten down the hatches", or "If I can just live through the next 18 months, if I can survive, maybe I can fight the battle another day."
There is not a single person I have spoken to in the last few months who is prepared to invest in Canada. No one is prepared to invest in a country like Canada with its resources and with so much going for it. It is a disgrace. It is hard to believe.
I have been an entrepreneur for most of my life, Mr. Speaker, but I would not invest in one single common stock that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange or any other Canadian exchange. All one has to do is look at the Toronto Stock Exchange index to see the level of confidence Canadians have in their economy and government today.
The house-building industry is in a shambles; the automotive industry is on the ropes; the forest products industry is in desperate shape; the mining industry is fighting for its life; the steel industry is trying to keep its head above water; and finally, many sectors of the oil and gas industry are facing bankruptcy. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker, because I have talked to the people who are running these companies. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout Canada are falling like flies. They have been devastated by the Canadian economy and by high interest rates.
I am not about to condemn the Liberal government for all the evils of high interest rates but they need not be as high as they are. It is the National Energy Program, Canadianization and the headlong plunge into nationalizing the Canadian oil companies that is responsible. One of my colleagues says that it has cost $7 billion. Interest rates need not be as high as they are. That policy has inflicted untold damage on the small and medium-sized business sector of the economy.
I guess what I find so unbelievable is that the government does not seem to recognize the problem. If it does, it does not seem to be prepared to do anything about it. I do not know whether it is a question of pride or stupidity, but surely to goodness you can see the Canadian economy falling down around us. You have to be blind not to see it.
Yesterday in this House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources deliberately misled the Canadian public by telling
them that the participants in the Alsands project decided against going ahead because the world price of oil was dropping. Certainly that was a factor but not the major one. Mr. Stoik, president of Gulf Canada, one of the last of the companies to leave Alsands, said:
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?
The president of Shell Canada, Bill Daniels, said:
In the current and foreseeable economic and industry environments we cannot proceed.
It was absolutely untruthful and misleading for the minister to blame it on the falling world price of oil. What a tragedy of staggering proportions for Canadians, not only in terms of lost jobs but in terms of lost opportunity for oil self-sufficiency. We are further away from that than we were in 1974.
The minister and his cabinet colleagues should be horsewhipped for what they have done to Canada. If the minister had an ounce of integrity he would resign, as would the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The National Energy Program has emasculated the oil and gas industry in Canada. It has discouraged foreign investment, damaged our trade relationships, weakened the Canadian dollar, and increased interest rates beyond what they might otherwise have been. But does this government recognize the problem or do anything about it? Not on your life! They sit there, smug and arrogant, and laugh. Day after day in question period I watch the minister get up and laugh at his fellow Canadians' misery. My constituents are going broke, and he laughs at unemployment. Those that do not have jobs are losing their houses, and he has the gall to sit there and laugh at Canadians who are suffering because of his government's policies. I condemn them for it, and my constituents condemn them for it.
What kind of insanity is a National Energy Program which purchases 400,000 barrels of crude oil every day from Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, while it shuts in
300,000	barrels a day of western Canadian crude? Can you imagine what the feelings of my constituents and the people of western Canada are when they see that happening? Why are we paying foreign suppliers hundreds of millions of dollars a month which could be going to Canadian producers and creating Canadian jobs, not only in the oil industry but in Ontario?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thompson:: It is beyond comprehension. What kind of National Energy Program is it which drives Canadians out of their own country because they cannot find work here? A friend of mine with 31 years of experience in oil and gas exploration in Canada has been forced to move to Texas in order to earn a living. I talked to the president of a small independent oil and gas company, completely Canadian owned, with 25 employees. I asked him if he would help me with a fund raising project and he said "I am sorry, I cannot, I

May 5, 1982
am moving to Denver. I have closed the doors, 25 people are moving with me", and they are selling their Canadian oil and gas properties.
What kind of a National Energy Program is it which drives 150 trained engineers in oil well logging from Canada to the United States and other parts of the world with half their equipment? It is insanity. Wake up!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired and he should seek the unanimous consent of the House to complete his remarks.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to intervene right away because I am one of those who still believes we can learn by listening to each other. I listened to the speech very attentively as I always do, but particularly to this one, and I am afraid I understood that the hon. member for Calgary South said that a minister has deliberately misled the House. I am still very interested in hearing the speech and I would certainly consent to the hon. member continuing, but he knows the rule very well.
I understand his feelings very well, but I would not like to have a debate later today or tomorrow over a question of privilege which can be disposed of right now if the hon. member changes his phraseology.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he is perhaps premature in rising as he does on a point of order. I think in all fairness he should wait until the minister returns from his trip to the sunny south and has an opportunity to explain whether in fact he did what the hon. member has indicated he did. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, that in July, 1955 in this House, as reported at page 6638 of Hansard, the Speaker said:
An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week.
Clearly, it could well be that if the hon. member feels in some vague way that the expression used by the hon. member was unparliamentary, that does not mean it would not be found to be completely parliamentary in the context of this debate tonight.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that what was unacceptable then is still unacceptable. I think the hon. member knows very clearly that anyone can raise this point. I want to be clear, even at this time in the morning, that I do not need a minister here to tell me what I have to do.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Speaker decides.


George Albert Proud: The rules are very clear; if you want to change them, we will proceed on that some day. I want to give consent to the hon. member so he can finish his remarks, because if you believe in Canada, you have to listen to people who have strong feelings. However, the rule is clear. I heard the remark and I ask the hon. member for Calgary South if he
would kindly change it so we can give our consent to hearing his views, which we can then reflect on.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of expediting the debate and giving the minister the benefit of the doubt, I will withdraw the word "deliberate" and say he unintentionally misled the House. And I thank the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) for his intervention.
To continue, I have just a moment left here-


George Albert Proud: No, take your time.


John William Thomson: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is, I guess, laughing somewhere almost every day. When people get into a corner, I guess the best defence sometimes is to laugh. But as I said earlier, he is laughing at the suffering of fellow Canadians, suffering caused by the minister and his mandarins.
What kind of a man is this minister of energy? He is a man who has so little respect for the Canadian people that he finds nothing wrong with using Petro-Canada as an instrument to employ his public relations assistant. He sees nothing wrong in that, but I say that is misusing taxpayers' funds for his own personal benefit. I think that is wrong. But this is the kind of man the minister of energy is. He sees no conflict of interest in that whatsoever.
What kind of judgment can a man like that bring to bear on energy policy when he cannot see the moral right or wrong in using Petro-Canada, which is a Crown agency belonging to the taxpayers of Canada for his own personal purposes? What kind of a man is this?
As far as oil self-sufficiency is concerned, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources still has the gall to stand up in this House and say that we will be self-sufficient by 1990. I heard a gentleman here tonight say that there is no problem whatsoever with self-sufficiency by 1990. Again, I have to say to the hon. member, "You are misleading the Canadian people, perhaps unintentionally; but you are misleading the Canadian people if you are telling them that this country is going to be oil self-sufficient by 1990".
Neither the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, nor his department have any idea how they are going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, if any hon. members take the trouble to talk to the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or bring them before the current energy committees and ask them how we are going to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990, if they are truthful, they will tell you that they don't know how. What they will tell you is what the minister and others have said, that with offshore oil, Beaufort and Hibernia, along with substitution and conservation, it will be done. I think that is what the hon. gentleman on the other side said tonight. Those are words. But we are talking about replacing one million barrels of oil a day by 1990. Let me repeat that; one million barrels of oil a day by 1990 have to be replaced.
May 5, 1982

Presently we are importing 400,000 barrels a day. Our conventional oil production between now and 1990 will decline by 600,000 barrels a day. Surely, even if we substitute as much as we can in terms of gas for oil over the next eight years, and even if we do conserve, we will be consuming roughly the same amount of oil per day or we will have a completely no-growth economy over the next eight years.
We are looking at one million barrels of oil a day. Where is it going to come from? There is not one knowledgeable person in the oil industry nor even those in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who will tell you that Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea will deliver oil before 1990. There is not one person who can tell you that. We do not have the faintest idea how we will get oil from Hibernia yet. We know it is there but we do not know how to go down through 250 feet of water 200 miles offshore, with icebergs coming down iceberg alley that are scouring the ocean floor to depths of 100 feet, and extract it. We do not know what kind of platforms we will erect. We do not know what kind of sub-sea wellheads we will instal. The Beaufort is equally as difficult. But I have taken too much of my time.


George Albert Proud: But at least you are saying something.


John William Thomson: The Alsands and Cold Lake projects would not have solved the problem of oil self-sufficiency, but they would have provided 280,000 barrels of oil a day of that one million. These projects would have provided goodness knows how many jobs for Canadians at a time when we are in desperate need of employment. But they would have provided a stimulus to the whole Canadian economy. They would have given us something to lean on in a time of distress. They would not have been a panacea by any means, but they would have gone a long way toward helping to solve some of the crucial problems that we are facing at this time in Canada.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be speaking at a quarter to six in the morning in this debate in this House of Commons but there are some things to which I must reply in this emergency debate which started last night and was called by the opposition.
At the present time of soft world prices and world oil surpluses, there are many examples of development programs that are facing funding cutbacks in other countries in the world. I think that has to be noted. These examples point out that Alsands is not unique. In fact, in the United States alone the Exxon shale project has already been cancelled.


An hon. Member:: That is a red herring.


Ralph Ferguson: In Colorado, the Exxon Troupe lignite gasification program and certainly the Panhandle coal gasification project in Wyoming has also been scrapped. Mexico has delayed a huge project. Nigeria has shelved a $14 billion project. Falling oil prices and demand are creating uncertainty about the outlook for up to 70 potential new United Kingdom oil fields in the North Sea. Beyond project commitments already made, most further oil development in the British North Sea seem to be coming to a halt. While development in
The Netherlands sector of the North Sea is continuing, the emphasis is on small oil fields requiring minimum financial commitment. Due to falling oil prices and soaring costs, British Petroleum is turning to less costly equipment alternatives in its North Sea development. Investment costs per barrel of oil production capacity are thereby being lowered. The worsening oil markets and pricing uncertainties have led the French to shelve plans to buy 40,000 barrels per day of heavy crude from Venezuela and the French have shelved plans for building an upgrading plant in France at a cost of over $1 billion. However, like the Alsands project, if the situation changes in the future the plans can be revived. In the United States there are similar situations to those that I have mentioned.
There is an article in today's Globe and Mail written by George Linton which has rather significant news in it. It reads:
Shares of Dome Petroleum Ltd. of Calgary and of Gulf Canada Ltd. of Toronto rose in active trading on North American stock exchanges following a statement by William Richards, Dome president, that a Bearfort Sea well currently being tested "could be one of the best in Canada."
Another paragraph in this article reads:
Mr. Richards, testifying in Ottawa before a parliamentary committee, said the Tarsiut N-44 well "looks to be the best well we have drilled in the Beaufort and could be one of the best wells in Canada."
The well is producing "very interesting results" and offers an "very good prospect for being a commercial discovery."
I suggest that the cost of this oil from the Alsands project being what it is, the economies are simply not there at the present time-to proceed with this megaproject under current world conditions-not only conditions in Canada but world conditions.
Opposition members talked about operators moving to the United States in order to find work. I ask them why anyone would want to drill another gas well in Canada when there are already thousands upon thousands shut in at the present time because of the disappearance of markets. Most of the equipment left the gas fields where more than 40 per cent of the exploration work was being conducted prior to the rigs moving south of the border in September, 1981. Most of the rigs which moved south at that time were small and older ones which were not capable of reaching the depths required to bring new oil reserves within our reach.
The Alsands project was not economically feasible even if we consider the fact that the Government of Canada, working in unison with the government of Alberta, offered to guarantee not only 68 per cent of the equity put forward by the companies, but to supply 50 per cent of the total equity. Were hon. members opposite suggesting that the government should have put in 100 per cent of the equity and made it a public utility? Is this the other option? If this is what they are suggesting, I think we should look at it. They are not satisfied with what we have done; perhaps this is their alternative. I thought only one party opposite believed in nationalization. I believe there must be room for the private sector.

May 5, 1982
I have with me the 1980 annual report of Imperial Oil in which it described its exploration in the Arctic. It reads:
One of the best hopes for major additions to Canada's conventional supplies of oil and gas lies in the regions of the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea in the northwestern Arctic.
I believe that this has proven to be correct. Turning to the 1981 annual report of Suncor, it was pointed out that new oil discoveries were being made on a day to day basis in Canada. It referred to Arctic Islands drilling and read as follows:
The 1981 drilling season in the Arctic Islands was highly successful. Three wells were spudded in late January and all three were discoveries. Oil and gas were found at Skate B-80, 18 kilometres northeast of Lougheed Island; Cisco B-66, 16 kilometres west of the Island; and Maclean 1-72, 27 kilometres east of the Island.
It went on to point out the tremendous potential in the Arctic Islands.
Turning to the 1981 annual report of Petro-Canada, it showed in detail the amount of drilling which has taken place off the east coast. It indicated that this oil will have a much lower cost than the oil anticipated in the tar sands projects. We have the reserves. It is a question of developing them within a cost frame which lends itself to economic conditions not only in Canada but in other major industrialized countries.
While we would have liked to see the tar sands project go ahead-as I believe some day that it will-we must remember that the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta made concessions. In the meantime we should reexamine the entire situation to see if we can develop other energy sources which will be lower in cost and redirect our present energies. Perhaps many job opportunities could be created in other places. If the Wilkins theory of the early 1940s were applied, the spin-off effects would benefit all Canadians.
Returning to the debate at hand, I think there are some matters which must be made very clear. There have been many different statements made about the National Energy Program, which has run into many problems. We must bear in mind that the federal government does not set retail prices, but it establishes the price paid to refiners for their crude. The blended price about which I am talking now is 70 per cent of world price as of January 1982 and the old oil price is 54.4 per cent of world price. Refiners purchase their crude oil at this price. Several costs are added to the retail price, such as 9 per cent for federal taxes.
I have heard hon. members opposite, not necessarily this morning, saying that oil and gasoline is much cheaper in the United States. I should like to give some comparative figures. I checked on the weekend and gasoline in Michigan was 98 cents per gallon. An American gallon is equal to 3.78 litres and a Canadian gallon is equal to 4.54 litres. If a gallon of American regular leaded gasoline costs 98 cents and the current United States dollar exchange rate in Canadian funds is approximately $1.22-and that was the exchange rate of the Bank of Canada as of May 4-then to purchase one American gallon of regular leaded gasoline in Canadian funds would cost $1.19. Since there are 3.78 litres in an American gallon, the cost to consumers in Canadian funds per litre of regular leaded gasoline would be 31.72 cents. Regular leaded gasoline in Ontario can be currently purchased for 37.9 cents per litre at
the Top Value station on Bronson Avenue in Ottawa. In Ontario the provincial sales tax on gasoline is 20 per cent or approximately 6.4 cents on every litre of gasoline. This means that the Canadian price is actually lower than the United States price.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about United States taxes?


Ralph Ferguson: I have not mentioned the Ontario corporations tax or the lack of an Alberta tax on gasoline. For the benefit of the hon. member, let me indicate that in Alberta the price is approximately 31 cents per litre. We hear complaints about the price of gasoline. Oil companies indicate in some of their advertisements that two thirds of the price of gasoline goes to various levels of government. Perhaps this is true in the province of Quebec, but it is certainly not true in Alberta, Ontario or in most other Canadian provinces.
There are various rates of tax in the provinces. For example, in British Columbia it is 20 per cent. Of course, Alberta has no tax. Saskatchewan will be 20 per cent and 28 per cent, plus the insurance tax, which I understand will be removed. For Manitoba it is 20 per cent and gasoline at 18 per cent. Quebec is 40 per cent and New Brunswick is 16 per cent. Nova Scotia is fixed at 4.7 cents for gasoline and 6 cents for diesel fuel. In Prince Edward Island it is 22 per cent for gasoline and 29 per cent for diesel fuel. In Newfoundland it is 22 per cent and 26 per cent. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories it is fixed.
I believe that the point which must be made is that it is just not a Canadian problem which has caused the cancellation of this megaproject. I am not even sure that we should say cancellation. I believe that temporary postponement is more accurate.
If we reflect back to the early explorers at the time when oil was first discovered, we realize that the potential of these reserves was recognized. These reserves are still there for future generations to be used as technology improves and more economical methods of extraction take place. With respect to surface extraction or open pit mining, we can only go down 70 feet in much of the tar sands area. Petro-Canada is actively involved in extensive research in order to find easier and better ways to develop and extract that oil. As well, many other companies are experimenting with steam extraction in order to find ways to go much deeper and utilize more of the oil that is there.
In the area where I come from, Lambton-Middlesex, there are many old oil wells. Some of them were the first discovered in North America. That is where Imperial Oil first began.
I am saddened at the fact that due to the lack of early technology those early drillers put down a multitude of wells without accurate records, with the result that after they became uneconomical, those wells ceased to be used and were left unplugged. Consequently, we are very limited in the ways
May 5, 1982

we can proceed to extract 60 per cent of the original oil that is still in the ground. The estimates vary as to how much is still there but certainly we have seen, through the National Energy Program, a revival of those old wells. New wells are being put into those new formations which may only yield 3 barrels per day, but under the National Energy Program and the pricing scheme, they are profitable.
It is wells such as those in Kansas that are attracting the drilling rigs out of Alberta to work areas with shallow fields in order to get oil which is less than 1,000 feet deep.
I believe that cheaper methods will be found not only to extract oil from my own area but from the tar sands as well. In fact, about 40 per cent of the wells in northern Alberta fall under the category of low producing wells. The incentives through the incremental oil revenue tax and the production in low producing wells has certainly made it feasible for the service industry to bring those wells which have been dormant back into production. These are wells which had been in production for only 20 years.
I believe there are many other areas to be considered during these difficult times. With the oil present in Canada today and as development of the Beaufort, Arctic Islands, Hibernia and the fields off the coast of Labrador continue, I believe that in the near term enough oil will be found to satisfy the needs of the Canadian people and give us the security required until such time as we have the technology required to do a better and more thorough job of extracting oil from the tar sands. It is my hope that these projects will continue and I am sure that they will. However, it will have to be under conditions which will give a better economic rate of return to the oil companies and to Canadians.
In closing, I would point out that with the oil companies as involved as they are, along with the two governments, perhaps their decision was correct in view of all the other cancellations in other countries of projects almost as large as this one. I look forward to the day when the National Energy Program will give us energy self-sufficiency. I trust that it will happen as forecast, that is by 1990.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, through you, good morning to all of those who tuned in from Atlantic Canada and to any early risers in Ontario and Quebec. My colleagues and I in the official opposition have been here all night in this wake for the Alsands project. I must say that I wish all Canadians could have heard the impassioned and excellent address given by our colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) about half an hour ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Indeed, many of our colleagues, whose eloquence obviously comes to a peak at these very weird early morning hours, gave excellent speeches.
It may be unusual for Members of Parliament to be speaking at 6.07 o'clock in the morning, but we in the official opposition not only find unusual, but critical for the economic and energy future of this country, the developments which
have clearly resulted from plain bad management by this government.
Let me say to those who have faithfully monitored the debate up to this point: do not expect any firm answers or even credible answers from this Liberal government by the time you rejoin us later in the day. From what we have heard, this government has answers to the tragedy which has occurred. It can only stand condemned for the collapse of the two megaprojects; Alsands and the Alaska highway pipeline. It can only stand condemned for the tens of thousands of Canadian jobs and dreams and for the ill-conceived National Energy Program. Without the National Energy Program I am convinced that we would not be having this emergency debate. Alsands would still be in place and the Alaska highway pipeline would still be under way.
I am an optimist by nature. I have always had an unshakable belief in the great good fortune of our country to have such a wealth of natural resources and people with an entrepreneurial spirit. But I have been deeply disturbed by the failure of this Liberal government to work in concert with the producing provinces in a national effort to move Canada toward the vital goal of energy self-sufficiency. The Progressive Conservative government set that goal for 1990. Our government, under the leadership of the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) would have provided reasonable and orderly increases in petroleum prices over the next five years. We would have guaranteed Canadian industry and consumers that they would have continued to pay lower prices than their American counterparts. We would have produced more than $6 billion in new federal revenues for investment through a Canadian energy bank in new energy supply, substitution and conservation projects. Canadians do not need to be reminded once again why those plans ended with the federal election of 1980.
Canadians should be reminded of what has happened since the "cheaper than 18 cents a gallon" bunch rode back into power in 1980. A giant cloud of confrontation and mistrust has poisoned the relations between Ottawa and the producing provinces. Instead of agreement, the provinces were given aggravation and the National Energy Program. Instead of our programs which would have contributed so much to Canada's energy needs, economic growth and the creation of jobs for Canadians, we now see what the country bought in February 1980.
We have a National Energy Program which has driven investment, drilling rigs, expertise and whole projects out of the country or into the ground. We now have entire cities in this country on the verge of bankruptcy. We now have the collapse of the mighty Alsands project, the indefinite hoisting of the Alaska highway gas pipeline project, cutbacks in exploration and development activity, the direct loss of 71,000 jobs and the indirect loss of 255,050 Canadian jobs. That is Canada's loss. The blame for this gutting of Canada's energy future and our economy lies squarely on our perpetual Prime

May 5, 1982
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and on the Liberal government of Canada.
There is no question that inflation has played a big part in the devastating turn of events. There is also no question that the rate of inflation was a whole lot lower three years ago and that these megaprojects would have been a good two years down the road had our government remained in power.
Let us just see what has happened to inflation. The inflation rate has risen from 9.3 per cent in March 1980 to 11.6 per cent in March 1982. In the past year alone, fuel oil costs have risen by 29.6 per cent, transportation costs by 16.4 per cent, fresh fruit costs by 28.7 per cent, processed vegetables costs by 18.8 per cent, and its goes on and on.
Wages are not keeping pace with inflation. The average wage earner in Canada has lost $285 in annual purchasing power since the February 1980 election and $635 since the fall of 1977. If you want to look at Canada's position vis-a-vis other industrialized nations, in the Olympics of economic performance, Canada is a hands-down loser in terms of trade, productivity, energy efficiency and changes in the standard of living. In terms of economic growth, in 1980 Canada's economic performance was one of the worst in the world. There was almost zero, 0.1 per cent, economic growth in Canada compared to an OECD average of 1.2 per cent growth and a European Economic Community average of 1.4 per cent. Our economic performance in 1980 ranked us twenty-first among 24 OECD nations.
In terms of energy efficiency, Canada is perhaps the most inefficient user of energy in the western world. In 1978, for example, we used energy at half the efficiency of European nations. The true picture of Canada under a Liberal government is much bigger and blacker.
Any consumer can confirm these statistics, especially those Canadians who travel a great deal to other industrialized countries in the western world. People need only drive up to a gas pump in the United States or compare prices at check-out counters in other countries to know what has happened to the Canadian economy.
I guess it is in the price of gasoline and home heating fuel where we feel most betrayed by this government. I know, as consumer affairs critic for the official opposition, that my anger is mirrored by millions of other Canadians. Consumers are going to get clobbered again as a result of this latest development.
Hundreds of thousands more barrels of imported oil during the coming years will likely result in higher home heating costs and, if this Liberal government continues in power, the next few months will definitely see higher prices at the gasoline pump. After all, governments, federal and provincial, lift 66 cents out of every dollar that consumers pay for gasoline in taxes.
The Trudeau government has continually inflicted its brand of water torture in the form of energy pricing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the practice of referring to hon. members of the House should either be by constituency or by function. That is a courtesy well preserved.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have said the government which is led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which is completely unacceptable to many Canadians. Nevertheless, I shall stick to the rules.
That government has continually inflicted on Canadian consumers its brand of water torture in the form of energy pricing. Their drip by drip campaign has been masqueraded under the metric guise of litres. The Liberals still insist on referring to the so-called odious 18 cents a gallon in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), so let us just put into perspective what has happened to the Liberals' solemn promise of cheaper gas in the last election campaign.
Gasoline prices have risen in some parts of Canada by as much as 86 cents a gallon. The average across Canada-my office recently sampled Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Fredericton and Halifax-is 80 cents a gallon. That is 80 cents versus 18 cents, and that is just since February 1980, a little over two years.
What are consumers getting for this broken promise, this four and a half times more expensive increase in the price of gasoline than the 18 cents in the Conservative budget of 1979? Well, Canadians can see in the collapse of two large energy projects over the past few days that there are no economic benefits from this very costly increase. Indeed, there are very definite negative spin-offs, especially in Ontario and Quebec.
If the impact of the Alsands and Alaska highway are not felt immediately, future expansion plans, supply, employment and general economic development in Ontario and Quebec will almost certainly suffer.
I am indebted to my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), for supplying me with notes which target several key areas in central Canada which could either greatly benefit from high drilling activity and the megaprojects or which can be hurt temporarily or even permanently. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre had this to say:
Energy is Canada's number one growth industry. The energy industry can be the primary engine for growth in employment, new technology, increased exports and new industrial development that will be drawn to this country by the promise of secure energy supplies at a price advantage relative to other industrialized countries. We in Ontario tend to think only of Alberta when we think of oil and gas. Let me illustrate the misconception of that view.
The potential stimulus for our manufacturing industry from energy development is virtually without parallel in our history. There are job opportunities in the next seven years in these industries to employ some 350,000 people throughout Canada. We cannot afford to disregard these opportunities.


May 5, 1982

The hon. member made those statements in 1980. Clearly this government does not believe in those opportunities. For some years we have been concerned, as the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre says, with the importance of developing our talents in areas where we have natural strengths. One of these areas is clearly oil sands development. The engineers and technicians working on the oil sands and heavy oil projects are developing technology which will be in tremendous demand in countries such as the United States, Venezuela and Australia. That will be no more, Mr. Speaker.
More than that, each synthetic oil project will generate economic activity over the life of the project about equivalent to the current level of our annual national income. In other words, each project will produce about $250 billion to $300 billion of economic activity over the 25-year life of the project. Of the economic activity during the construction period, about 40 per cent is generated in Alberta, 25 per cent in Ontario and 12 per cent in Quebec.
Major suppliers to the oil industry from Ontario and Quebec include Algoma Steel of Sault Ste. Marie, which supplies seamless steel casing. Stelco Canada, located in Hamilton and Welland, produces seamless tubing and continuous weld tubing. Ladish Company of Brantford supplies the industry with piped valves and fittings. Jenkins Brothers Limited of Lachine, Quebec and Mississauga, Ontario produces forged steel valves. Graphic Controls Canada Limited of Gananoque, Ontario supplies gas charts to various companies in the industry. Hawker Siddeley, Orenda division of Toronto, supplies industrial gas turbines. Farhamet of Orillia produces abrasive resistant castings used in the petro-chemical industry, and Simmons Drilling buys most of its trucks from Kenworth in Quebec.
Ontario is a major beneficiary, and would be a major beneficiary, not only because these activities produce the lifeblood of our manufacturing industry, oil, but because they also provide a major stimulus to our economy. Now, and if not immediately, down the road a few months and, even worse, two or three years from now, Ontario will not be a major beneficiary and there will not be any major stimulus as a result of the collapse of these megaprojects.
Some of my former colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery have almost been throwing up their hands and saying that from now on it is probably just a matter of good luck instead of good management in terms of our energy future and our energy security. In a philosophical column of yesterday, May 4, in the Ottawa Citizen my good friend Charles Lynch closed with this paragraph:
We must temper our expectations and put aside our dreams, and accept that the fading years of the 20th century won't be as exciting as the eight preceding decades, with their mixture of hope, peril and achievement. We know now, for the first time in the memory of the oldest among us, that some things are beyond our grasp.
I am not so sure I agree with Mr. Lynch's sad conclusion. I have not stopped dreaming dreams for this country. I do not believe the last two decades of this century should be any less
challenging or any less fulfilling than the preceding four and a half decades during which I have been around. I do not believe Canadians should abandon hope for this nation. Of all years, this year when Canada has achieved full independence and complete maturity as one of the great countries in the world we Canadians have much to look forward to, a great deal to achieve in the way of potential and a mighty part to play in the free world. If we are limited in any way, it is through the complete and utter incompetence, insensitivity, combativeness and mismanagement of this Liberal government.
Canadians have the capacity to get rid of this government in the next federal election. Canadians have it in their hands to elect a government which will regain the confidence of investors, and confidence of our massive energy industry, the confidence of the provinces and, above all, the confidence of this country's pioneering spirit. Those of us who are participating in this important debate, Mr. Speaker, fully intend to be sitting on your right after the next election, and we as the new Government of Canada will inspire that confidence in Canadian industry and enterprise. This government has proved that it is out to destroy initiative in this country, and we in the Progressive Conservative Party are determined not to let that happen.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, the government's national energy policy has now obviously collapsed in tatters around the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). If he would just stand up and resign as he was asked to do when he announced the failure of the Alsands project, we could all go home and start dealing, in the next day or so, with a brand new energy minister and, hopefully, a new federal energy policy.
It seems odd that everyone except the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could see the collapse of the Alsands project coming, and we could all predict the postponement, once again, of the Alaska gas pipeline. Yet right up to the last minute these megaprojects remained the heart and soul of the National Energy Program. Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources really hope to pull off a miracle, or was he caught completely off guard?
With the removal of the centrepiece of the National Energy Program we are left with the federal government's beloved Petro-Canada and some investments in a few projects which may or may not show results in the foreseeable future.
I know that the federal government has some investments in oil and gas projects up in the Arctic, but the best estimates as to when we might see any oil or gas south of the Arctic Circle run anywhere from five to ten years to never. Judging by the government's performance since we were promised cheaper gasoline at the pump in the last election campaign, I suggest that the best estimate is never.
In its April 23 editorial, The Windsor Star predicted that the Alsands project would be dissolved by the end of April. The Star was right on, and it really is too bad that a project with a projected production of 137,000 barrels of oil per day

May 5, 1982
and a life expectancy of 25 years had to go down the drain because of government bungling.
Let us take a look at what the government has left in its national energy policy grab bag. We have Petro-Canada, as I mentioned before, the darling of the Liberal government and the NDP. The national energy policy gives Petro-Canada a free pass to the federal Treasury and carte blanche to buy up anything that comes up on the market, even if it has to pay 50 per cent to 100 per cent more than a company would bring in the private sector.
Then we have that much-touted policy called Canadianiza-tion whereby the federal government goes around buying up oil companies which are already Canadian owned. Then there is the government policy, brought in after the 1979-80 federal election campaign promises were put on the shelf, which imposes new federal taxes on gasoline at the pump every other week. These are not policies; they are evidence that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his colleagues in the cabinet do not have any policies. They are bankrupt and tax-happy.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has the nerve to suggest that the collapse of the Alsands project is the fault of the private sector companies which were anxious to develop this source of oil just a few short years ago. They were so anxious that they have already invested tens of millions of dollars in the project. But it is smart money which goes where the action is, and the companies involved have to show a profit. When they see world prices being brought down by a reduction in demand for fossil fuels and when they see the federal government standing on the sidelines with both hands out, they run for cover. Who can blame them? They do not have access to the public Treasury. They have to answer to their investors and to their bankers, and they already know what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thinks of those of us who are not in his cabinet. He says that when we get 100 yards away from the House we are nobodies. Well, we have had all night and we have all day to let him know whether we are just a bunch of nobodies.
While we are talking about the increase in gasoline prices and the decline in world oil prices, I might ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or anyone opposite who bothers to listen whether they have consulted lately with their counterparts in the United States. I was told a few days ago that the price of gasoline has dropped slightly below $1 per gallon in some states, and the people still think they are paying too much.
Each time the price goes down in the United States, the price goes up in Canada, and it is really going up. We know already that we can expect two or three more increases in the price of gasoline and heating oil over the next few months, and the price in most places is already more than $2 per gallon.
A few days ago I was glancing through a householder sent to me last summer by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He had listed gasoline prices at several points in his riding. Regular gasoline was selling for $2.36 per gallon in Faro, and unleaded gas was selling for $2.43 per gallon. Heating oil cost $1.66 per gallon. These were prices in the
summer of 1981, and so I would very likely be shocked to hear today's prices. But the way things are going in my own riding, we will see those price levels down here before too much longer.
To get back to the government's tattered national energy policy and the collapse of the jewels in the Crown, the Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline project, I am intrigued by some of the figures that were being touted around by the government just a few days ago. My attention is drawn immediately to the number of jobs that we could expect to see created during construction. At the peak of construction there were to be almost 10,000 new jobs created, with 2,800 longterm jobs created to run the plant afterwards. Construction was to extend over the next six or seven years. Those jobs just went down the drain.
I notice that $13 billion in new money would be injected into the Canadian economy, but when I read further I see that one of the three remaining partners in the now defunct project was Petro-Canada, good old Petro-Canada, waving its key to the front door of the public treasury. Therefore I would expect that a large part of that $13 billion would have been recycled money, yours and mine.
Only the present government, with its bungling and fumbling could have struck fear into the hearts of the partners who jumped ship earlier in the game. Or, maybe they just got disgusted and decided that there was a better climate elsewhere for their investment capital. These are major players, Mr. Speaker, the big leagues, Dome, Hudson's Bay, Amoco Canada and Chevron Canada, and Shell Explorer (Houston). Of the remaining partners there was Petro-Canada, Shell Canada and Gulf. With Petro-Canada eyeballing Gulf, and Gulf looking over its shoulder at PetroCan, it must have been a very pleasant investment climate.
The Alsands collapse would have been bad enough by itself, but the tattered remnants of the government's energy program were already waving in the breeze caused by about 200 oil rigs heading south. A few days ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proudly announced that a couple of drilling rigs had returned. Big deal, if any of the rigs have really come back. I feel sorry for them, because they were probably hoping to get a piece of the action at Alsands if the energy minister had pulled off his miracle, which never came about.
With the Alsands fold-up coming so close on the heels of the shutdown of the Cold Lake project last year, I do not see how the energy minister can keep his pipe dream of Canadian energy sufficiency propped up. We could have energy selfsufficiency under the minister's policies, but who could afford it? Who could afford to pay the price for energy self-sufficiency when we are already paying the highest prices in North America at the gas pumps, and drillers and investors are leaving Canada in droves?
I am absolutely appalled, and I think we all have a right to be appalled and even angry, that the present Liberal cabinet,
May 5, 1982

the largest cabinet in the history of Canada, cannot come up with a single idea or policy that will produce a single job. I think that we have a right to ask why it is that this Liberal government cannot seem to come up with anything except high unemployement, high inflation, high energy costs, high interest rates, high government deficits and a low Canadian dollar.
Our national economy is in an absolute shambles, and this is reflected in general public apathy. We see people packing their belongings and moving out of their homes in the dead of night. They are leaving their homes to the banks or trust companies, or to the Canada Mortgage and Elousing Corporation. They just do not care. They are fed up. A few short years ago the average Canadian would not have dreamed of doing such a thing as to walk out of his home and say, "To hell with it".
Canadians are fed up. They are fed up with not being able to afford a roof over the heads of their children. They are fed up with worrying about how much longer their employers will remain in business. The night before last there was a television special about a dying town, and the camera showed the types of businesses that were folding up. One was a bill collection agency. They are usually the last to go. But, I suppose, they decided that they could not get blood from a stone, so they just closed their doors.
Canadians are fed up with excuses and diversions. For almost two years the Prime Minister fiddled around with his pet project, the Constitution, while Canada burned. The government is spending $9 million to tell Canadians that they have a new Constitution, as if they did not already know. What Canadians want to know today is, what is the government going to do about high unemployment and high inflation. If they are not going to do anything, it would be refreshing at least to hear them admit it.
The collapse of the Alsands project is a serious matter. But let us not mistake it for the disease. It is only a symptom. The real disease is the collapse of the Canadian economy, and the jobs lost by the Alsands collapse will, unfortunately only be added to the record total of unemployed in Canada today.
The investment capital chased away by this Liberal government at the Cold Lake and Alsands projects will only be added to the list of investors already driven out of Canada. The real tragedy, the one thing that none of us is able to understand, is that the collapse of the economy is being presided over by 35 cabinet ministers, the largest cabinet in any country in the western world. This inflated, bloated cabinet, is backed up by no less than 114 people with the rank of at least deputy minister. What are they all doing, Mr. Speaker? What are they waiting for?
I am deeply disturbed by the collapse of the Cold Lake and Alsands projects, and the further delay in the Alaska gas pipeline project. I am disturbed by the collapse of the federal government's National Energy Program. However, my real sympathy is for the business people who are having to declare bankruptcy and close their doors, some of them old family firms of second and third generations. My sympathies are with those people who cannot find jobs, whose work ethic is being
trampled into the ground. My sympathies are with those families who cannot afford decent accommodation because of high inflation and high interest rates. I hope we can give some advice to this government which it will heed and which will stimulate our economy, put our Canadians back to work and put our Canadians back in their homes. I hope we can find an oil policy which will work and be beneficial to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Tories down there for their applause. It is very nice of them.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You need a hand now and again.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: At this time in the morning one needs all the help one can get.


John Horton McDermid: Where the hell have you been all night?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I managed to get two or three hours of sleep. I am in a somewhat better shape than a couple of people will be because of it.
I think all hon. members in this House feel rather sad during this debate because of the sorry mess caused by the continuing policies of the ding-bats and the ding-a-lings, the Tweedle-dums and Tweedle-dees of Canadian history as far as energy policy is concerned. A number of my colleagues and a number of other hon. members have discussed the single-track psychology of the megaproject and the inevitable problems which will arise later on because we tend to put all of our eggs into one basket, sometimes in a basket of a slightly different colour, but one basket nevertheless. We seem to be playing Pharaoh in this country. For at least 5,000 years, politicians have been building pyramids every time they think they are in trouble. The only difference between those of today and those that were built in Egypt 5,000 years ago is that most of the ones we are building or trying to build in this country now turn to dust even before they are erected. It does not seem to matter very much whether it is a giant oil sands project or whether it is B.C. Northeast Coal which almost seems to be on the rocks before it gets started. People are saying it is underpriced by $20. I know that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has no great love for what that project seems to be doing in his constituency.
There are large-scale hydroelectric projects that are shipping electricity across the line for far less than they could get for it there.
In times like these we tend to forget the stupidities that led us into the present crisis. These super-efficient oil companies that my friends to the right and hon. members opposite like to tout as being the champions of initiative and skill got us into a mess a few years ago and, all of a sudden, hundreds of years of oil reserves turned into 20 or 30 years of reserves in one fell swoop. That is the kind of leadership and imagination of which a lot of Canadians have had enough.

May 5, 1982
It is this sort of thing that has allowed the present government, among others, to create its own "Canadianization" version of the Tasmanian devil that looks like one thing, acts like another, and brays like something else, and is not particularly productive.
Other megaprojects are involved such as the coal deposits in northeastern British Columbia. There is talk of shipping this non-renewable resource across the ocean at a subsidized price to low-cost industry whose products will come back to compete with our own. That is another glorious result of the various national energy policies that we have seen in this country, one after the other. B.C. Hydro is shipping huge quantities of hydroelectric power south of the border at a price which is far lower than the market could bear.
It appears that the new nuclear station in New Brunswick is going to share its excess electric power from that nuclear plant-which has been a boondoggle all its own-down south of the line. And yet we talk about energy self-sufficiency, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons that I dwell on that is that Kootenay West had its own megaproject a few years ago. That was another boondoggle, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit premier of British Columbia at that time was a man that many of us had a great deal of affection for. At least he knew a little bit about life, having gone from the bottom up, and unlike some other politicians in this country, he understood a little bit about how people and how communities tick. We could use a little more of that kind of horse sense today. He made a couple of real dandy mistakes, however. One was the Columbia River Treaty and the various and assorted dams that were "not going to cost the province a nickel." We see the same kind of economic genuis behind the National Energy Program.
A lot of people tonight seem to not want to talk about anything but Alsands, but there is another issue in this motion, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Alaska highway pipeline. I know that the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had a little good-natured fencing match over that issue a short while ago. The issue of the Alaska highway pipeline and how we got into the sorry situation that we are in today again appears to be on the back burner. I wonder why no one has spoken about the prebuild tonight?
We sometimes talk about people being in bed together, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals and the Tories may not be in bed together but a lot of people suspect that they are going at it pretty hot and heavy somewhere behind the bushes. They just do not like to do it out in the open. They are both nourished from the same tit, Mr. Speaker. That is the way they act and it has been the same in this country for over 100 years.
I am a relatively new member of the House, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things that makes me sad is the combination of the spirit of arrogance on the side opposite and the continuing spirit of revenge that has been present in the Conservative Party ever since the kamikaze squad led them to self-immolation in December 1979. The choice that is before the Canadian people is whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going
to kill them on purpose or whether the Conservatives are going to do it by accident. That is the only choice.
Tommy Douglas used to tell a story about the old cream separator. I will not go into that, but what is going on with the energy policy today reminds me of it. All these guys know how to do is how to shovel public money at people, whether it is to the oil companies or to the people who, unfortunately, have been left without jobs in this country. They always want to shovel money at people.
The Tory-Liberal policy on energy is continually to shovel money into one end of a pipe and then to call it a suitable reward for private initiative when their friends in the oil industry-who, by the way, help finance their parties and their election campaigns-grab the cash as it comes out the other end. If it does not come out the private end of the pipe, the PCs and the Liberals keep shoving it into the public end. They call that providing additional incentives. When they have shovelled so much of the taxpayers' money into the pipe that it is forced out of the private end, then the companies compete to grab the spout and take the risk of being trampled in the rush. That is about the only kind of risk that some of the friends of the people to my right and some of the more secret friends of members opposite take. They get 93 cents out of the dollar, so that is not much of a risk. It is an old story and maybe people get used to it.
I said I was saddened by the combination of arrogance and revenge that I see around here. Ever since that late evening of February 18, 1980 this incompetent kamikaze squad to my right, otherwise known as the Conservative party, has been sulking. It has been mired in a well of self-pity. When they tire of banging their heads against the wall or, more often, banging their heads against each other or engaging in some other act of self-flagellation, they rise only to vent their rage at everybody in sight, shouting, "Revenge, betrayal, conspiracy, unfair", in a useless and increasingly sad attempt to focus blame on others for their own miserable ineptitude.
PC no longer stands for Progressive Conservative, Mr. Speaker. It stands for pitiful castaways. That is what they are, pitiful castaways. Somebody ought to do a TV serial on them. They have been cast away into the garbage can of political oblivion, and the more you hear from them, the more you know that they have really earned that role.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: That is what happened in Saskatchewan.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It makes you sad because they have had some pretty good people in the past, and there are a few good ones there now. One of them had to leave, and he now sits behind us over here. The hon. member for Edmonton East is one, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is another. There may be others. From time to time we do hear some rational thought, and whether we agree or not philosophically, at least there is an attempt to serve what we all call the public interest. There are people who are a
May 5, 1982

little bigger than the kamikaze squad over there who fell on their own swords. I wish I could find something more cheerfull to say about them, but I find it difficult.
One of the problems is that the government cannot seem to make up its mind on what it wants to do. If you are going to go the public sector route on projects which are not profitable enough or which society in its wisdom feels that for social or political reasons have to go ahead, that is fine. If you want to use the same process in those areas which are profitable so you do not have all the losers on the public purse and the winners in the private sector, that is fine. But to have a system called Canadianization, which is nothing more than a pseudonym for bureaucratization, is the worst of both worlds. It makes you think that they are trying to decide on what kind of mixed-up policy they can have to create more jobs for bureaucrats. I wish they would get their heads together because, for better or worse, they are in those seats over there and we are stuck with them probably for the next couple of years at least.


An hon. Member:: You put them there.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That was not our choice, sir.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was your stupidity.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Whether you like it or not, the people of Canada put them there. They also put you on this side, and I know you do not like that. I think there is a sadness which pervades all of us over the events of the last little while. I was wondering whether we should not ask the Canadian Labour Congress to put on a grade-one school in bargaining strategy and make it a compulsory course for all cabinet ministers and anyone who aspires to be a cabinet minister. Hopefully, they will then learn not to repeat what they did with the pre-build. You do not give the whole package away until you get somebody's signature on the dotted line, not some phony ironclad, lily-clad, cottonball guarantees which are not worth a damn thing anywhere. It is sad that the attitude which is perceived to be typically Canadian is that you always get taken for a ride. That is the image these guys on my right and those guys on the other side have continually given to us in the international business world. You give away the store and then wonder why somebody takes advantage of you. If you sit down forever with your head in the sand and your bare rear end stuck up above ground, somebody is going to do it to you sooner or later.


Peter Elzinga: I find it rather offensive, Mr. Speaker, to hear these sexist comments coming from the hon. member of the NDP. The least he could do is to offer respect to the women-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been listening carefully to the language, and while it is borderline, it is not unparliamentary.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It's just the romance in my soul, Mr. Speaker, but I must apologize for offending the sensibilities of my hon. friends down in the corner. It is just that they get us so excited. They are such titillating personalities. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any sexual innuendo in talking about their being lousy bargainers. We are going to be
in a crunch very soon, Mr. Speaker, and I hope my friends on the right and across the way take one of those elementary bargaining courses I was talking about and do a better job for the people of this country.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have several things which I think are quite important to put on the record and I hope they enter the minds of some members of the House. What we are debating here tonight started in 1973-74. Eight years ago we had the rise in metal and oil prices, and we saw the provincial governments tripling and quadrupling their taxes on the mining and oil industries. It went right across the country. Keep in mind that there are more culprits in this particular mess than appear on the surface. The beginning of this mess we are in today was when the provinces went hog wild in their greed and tripled and quadrupled their taxes.
In 1974, the critical act which really put us on the path to where we have ended up tonight was the decision of the federal government to retaliate against the provinces and bring in the Turner budget which made provincial taxes and royalties nondeductible. In effect, it was an interference with the federal system and was, in plain terms, stealing the property of the provinces. One mistake by the provinces was countered with a second mistake, much worse, by the federal government. That first budget was under a minority government. That minority government was defeated after two years and we went to the country. The NDP and the Conservatives worked together in 1974 to fight that budget, led by a man who is no longer with us, Mr. T. C. Douglas, who at that time was the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This history is important because when you find a fight between two levels of civil servants-because that is really what it was-or who could grab the most money from the mining industry and from the oil industry to go on that spending spree which all the provinces and the federal government went on, this is where our trouble began.
The key to it in these Turner budgets was the non-deductible provision. I felt just as keenly then as I do now about that horrible mistake in economic and political judgment. I spoke in the House at the end of one of the ways and means motions on the second budget on January 30, 1975. I would recommend that speech to every thinking person, not only in this House but all across the country. It was reasonably non-political. I put forward then the warning that every capital intensive venture that would be embarked upon in the future had no hope of success because of the double taxation in the Turner budget. I give credit to the then leader of the NDP for seeing the danger. He warned the House that once the government cracked down, unconstitutionally, on the mining industry and on the oil industry, the forest industry would be next in line, followed by the electrical industry. Those warnings by the two of us went unheeded. Now I can look at that speech made

May 5, 1982
eight years ago and realize what a tragedy has unfolded leading up to the last two or three days.
Canada has waited 100 years for the world to need its resources. But it is on these resources that we plan to build our industrial pyramid. But you have to get a demand to create a cash flow on which to build. That mistake of the Turner budget in 1974, because he repeated the same thing the second time around, will rank in the economic history of this nation as one of the greatest blunders ever made.
Shortly after the election, as we all know, Mr. Turner, the minister, asked to retire from his job because he had been destroyed, and he knew it. All he got from his leader as a reward was the offer of a senatorship. He has returned to law practice. We hear rumours through the press that he may want to come back. The truth is he likes it where he is now. He knows what he has to face in this House with a budget like that on his record if he comes back. He was one of the most best liked and most able men I have seen on any side of the House. I saw him destroyed by taking up the case of civil servants in finance and seeking revenge against the provinces for raising taxes, which they had every legal right to do.
I want to make one thing abundantly clear. I have spoken tonight about Tommy Douglas, an NDP member, and myself, a Conservative. We were not speaking as partisans in that debate, we were speaking as Canadians from Saskatchewan who came up the hard way. We were speaking on behalf of the future of the Canadian people. I can never forget in my own mind, as the debate ranged the second time on the second budget, hon. NDP members in this House cheered on their Liberal allies. They thought they were gouging the oil and gas companies and the mining companies and they said "That is their policy, destroy them." But they did not realize that they were destroying the jobs of the workers of Canada. Now we see the mines that should have been in Ontario are over in Minnesota where we pay a much higher price for the basic iron reserves of which we have ten times more in Canada than the Americans ever had.
I put this before you because the mistake that we are witnessing this last few days started a long time ago because some people put politics ahead of their country.
I have never blamed Turner for that budget. I knew he was concerned about it. Yet he had no recourse, without any backing from his leader, in standing up to the civil servants. That is the reason why he was through. The same thing was repeated.
All governments entered into a rash of takeovers; private enterprise entered into a rash of takeovers. These takeovers were not to increase production, just to become bigger. There was the potash industry in Saskatchewan. There was no discussion with the public. The government of Saskatchewan rushed in after the election was over in 1974 and took over large chunks of the potash industry. In British Columbia there was a great fight for the mining industry. That government brought the mining industry to its knees. Not only was this government at fault. A rage seemed to come over people. They had to smash any person or company that was in the resource field. That mistake rests on all political parties. But there were
some in every political party that warned against it. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, we should be absolutely clear what the real mistake was, people put partisan politics above duty to their country.
This was the beginning of the federal-provincial war over revenues which has existed ever since. This war has led to the most serious attack on the Constitution we have ever experienced in our history. The first bit of evidence on this was the Petroleum Administration Act, 1974. We fought it in the House all during that year, before and after the election. We were able to get nine provinces to join us in the fight. In the meetings with the then minister reponsible for mines and the then minister of finance, the legislation was not made any more acceptable. The great mistake was that the ministers used the excuse that there was an energy crisis and that it was necessary to have the Supreme Court of Canada say that in a crisis the federal government would have certain powers which it did not otherwise have. This meant that the power of the federal government could override the power of provincial governments, which is paramount, because the resources belong to the provinces and they have every legal right to do whatever they like with them. The Petroleum Administration Act is still on the statutes. It was amended only two months ago, but it is still unconstitutional. No one has ever referred the matter to the courts so that we could have the benefit of a decision on its constitutionality.
Now that the crisis has turned around and apparently for a few short years the world will have a surplus of oil, would they rule it a crisis in energy? I do not know, but I hope Canadians realize that we are debating the mistakes of the last eight years in this all-night session. These mistakes should be branded on the flesh of politicians with a hot iron so that they will not be repeated.
We have seen the rise of separatism in Quebec and the rise of western alienation. Then came the period of fraud and scam when nothing was being done on economic issues. Politicans became involved in a program of producing great showpieces to amuse the people. There was a great cry that it was necessary to patriate the Constitution. Now that it is patriated, do Canadians notice any difference? We have the same old Constitution with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights has not been repealed. One would think from all the screaming and yelling in the House that a battle was going on.
Also we have Tweedle-dum in the NDP and Tweedle-dee in the Liberal Party saying that the Constitution is the greatest in the world. What fraud, what scam! Is it any wonder that people across the nation are losing their respect for every party? We all suffer because of image-making politics led by pollsters, advertisers and con men. The radio, television and newspapers preach a campaign of fear rather than debate issues. For example, they told the people of Canada that they should not dare to vote for the Right Hon. Leader of the
May 5, 1982

Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) because smart Toronto had named him a "wimp". They scared the daylights out of people. Some wimp! He was the one who rose and said that because of the federal-provincial war brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Constitution Canada would never be the same again. Any responsible person in Canada who rises and says that there is danger ahead and that the country is being changed is not a wimp. Every Canadian listened and acted. As the record shows, this man rose in the House of Commons and said that Canada would never be the same, and the population came to attention. After a two-year fight, this young man pushed an arrogant government to its knees. The government was forced to refer the Constitution to the Supreme Court of Canada and to take it back to the provinces. No man is perfect, every man makes mistakes. When a man does something which is worth while for his country, it should be noted, as I have noted it today.
The National Energy Program caused many of my colleagues to become very excited. It was a fraud from the word go. It was an exercise in pretending to Canadianize the oil industry. All it did with the energy policy was to come to the bitter truth of the last few days. It was a fraud from the beginning, and the government is paying a heavy price for it today.
During this debate we have heard about the loss of jobs and businesses. Not only eastern Canada is in stagflation, but the government has succeeded in sending the entire country into a very deep recession and probably a depression.
I well remember the debate on the budget which was referred to earlier. The budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was not too bad. It was the first budget in the western industrialized world which tried to balance the budget, not only by restraints here and there but by decreasing taxes across the line. When there are two political parties rivalling each other and claiming credit for defeating the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West, how will history deal with it? Long before President Reagan was elected and balanced the budget by reducing taxes which will become effective this summer, the Conservative government had done it in 1979. It is true that the advertisers hired by the party did not know about it. Perhaps they do not read very well, but the fact remains that it was not a bad budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I only have a few more comments to make. I am simply pointing out that all of us have a lot to answer for over the last eight years. I did want the opportunity to put what I said on the record. Many a fine person in the game of image politics has been destroyed in the history of his country because it all comes out sooner or later.
I would like to think that there is some glimmer of light which will emerge from this debate. I believe there are glimmers of light in this sorry mess with Alsands and the pipeline delay. As I pointed out in my speech almost eight years ago, neither of these projects should have proceeded in the manner in which they were financed.
I wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and spoke to him. I wrote to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and spoke to him. I wrote to every premier in the country and I wrote to every major oil and gas company to show them my old common sense figures. It is not the cruel way of putting a company under a high interest load for a long payout period. I would just like to say that I have available hypothetical cash flow figures showing how it works. For example, when interest rates are high, you do not borrow.
Another principle which I put forward and which has been used before is increased velocity of capital flow and I will explain how it is done. Whether you buy a home, farm or capital intensive business, you must get rid of front-end loading. As a result of this type of financing, the Alsands projects can be brought onstream so that not only will the government earn money, the companies will get enough money to reward them for the risk they have taken. We should not object to making more money when everybody benefits. That is my only point.
Another reason why I am glad that the Alsands project did not proceed is that we have on the horizon three new technologies for recovering heavy oil out of the ground and removing tar sands from the sand in a much cheaper and better way than what we are doing with our present technology. This slight delay may encourage governments to try the latest technology. One can be tried and proven one way or another within a year and the other may take longer. However, it may give us a chance to avoid what I thought would be a great blunder if we proceeded with these megaprojects which had bad financing policies while not looking for enough alternative technologies which could make them better. There exists in the tar sands 1,000 billion to 1,500 billion barrels of oil. With our present technology, all we can hope to derive is 250 billion to 275 billion barrels. With these newer and cheaper technologies it would be possible to derive up to 60 per cent. The present recovery plan is about 12'/2 per cent to 15 per cent. I find it sad that we can only derive 10 per cent or 12 per cent of those resources and leave the rest in the ground. This occurs constantly with our late oils in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, as well as in all other major oil producing countries in the world. We have recovery up to 25 per cent or 27 per cent, but I am disturbed by what is left in the ground. Technology is being developed and I believe success is very close in this particular area.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing a good speech from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I would hope that in the near future he will have an opportunity to put

May 5, 1982
on the record his suggestion regarding the financing of this project.
I was pleased to hear that he ended on a positive note. I believe that it is absurd to assume that we are discussing the total demise of the oil sands project in this country. I cannot believe that this is the case.
If we look at alternative plans in the future instead of discussing the last year or two, we will see that we need those projects very badly. The method of extraction discussed by the hon. member should be looked into in this country.
I do not entirely agree with him that what he calls double taxation has been at the heart of the problem. I believe there are other factors involved which exist today. I will deal with those factors in a few moments.
For several weeks now I have listened to the debate on this subject and the whole question of the National Energy Program. I would like to make some observations with respect to this debate. If one listens in particular to the Progressive Conservative members, one would assume that at some point the National Energy Program was guilty of drilling a hole under the earth's crust, thus allowing all our oil to leak out, and not leaving us with any. It is their attitude which makes one think that the oil will be gone forever and we should be extracting it rapidly because it will all leak out. They have the same attitude with respect to gas which is capped. They believe it will somehow leak into the air. They seem to think that if we do not explore we will not be able to find it again. It appears to be the dominant attitude of those hon. members.
Perhaps nuclear fusion or some other technology will render this particular resource useless, but I do not believe that. Those resources are there and they will become more valuable as time goes on.
I would like to put forward some of the reasons why we are not proceeding with this project. They do not have anything to do with the value of those resources. To suggest that we must develop our oil and natural gas quickly is ridiculous. Another fallacy which prevails is that if the state acquires an interest or ownership in a private corporation, it is an expense to the government. For instance, if the government is buying Pacific Petroleums it is considered to be an expense to the government and a waste of money. On the other hand, when Thompson acquires ownership of Hudson Bay it is called an investment. Thompson expects to make a profit over the years on what would be termed a good investment.
When the Canadian government buys Petrofina, it is an expense. Obviously it does not expect to make any money out of that purchase. We constantly hear the question being asked as to why we buy these gas stations. It is as though we were spending a lot of money and not getting anything out of it. I will tell you why I want us to own such a company. I want to see the inside of the industry, from the search for oil to the drilling, to the gas pump. I want to keep an eye on this. That was the reason for setting up Petro-Canada in the first place. It is still a reasonable proposition.
There is another point which seems to elude a lot of people, particularly the Tories. I find it difficult to understand the position of the NDP on this. The point is that it seems there is something dishonest or socialistic-I guess the two are used together by people who talk of socialism as some kind of evil, even though we live in a part of the world where a mixed economy is a common factor, at least for this century-about a government that would get itself into the position of trying to own 50 per cent of its own natural resource.
How is this done? How is it acquired? Do we sit and wait for it to happen? It has never happened before, and will not happen unless someone takes a step to make it happen. Someone must say this is what we are going to do. I remember a convention in about 1975 or 1976 where there was a lot of talk about 50 per cent ownership. We do not hear that any more. All we hear now is that it is a terrible thing for us to do.
I have to be very angry with the NDP on this point. I have great respect for the Hon. Tommy Douglas. In my opinion he was a great legislator. I worked with him for a long time on approximately five energy bills. When I say a long time, it was because they were drawn out for a long time, 30, 40 or 50 days.
Each time in the House when we dealt with energy bills, or dealt with them in committee, the members of the NDP, represented by Mr. Douglas as the energy critic, supported every one of those bills. The National Energy Program is the first time that party has not supported these bills. Mr. Douglas has shown interest in supporting them by talking with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and groups of other people, offering his support.
There may be some things in the bills that could be changed. They could be changed by a party that says it supports the principle but here is what it wants to do. That is not the kind of politics that party is playing at this time.
I would like to deal specifically with the problem of the so-called demise of the Alsands project. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is correct that it is only a temporary demise. It is interesting to note that on the same day, or within a day that the announcement was made that this project would not be going ahead, Exxon in the United States announced it would not be going ahead with the oil shales project. I find it very interesting that the two projects were slowed down, stopped, terminated or postponed at almost the same time. I expect the rationale for both decisions has to be found in the global economic scene.
There are some factors we should look at seriously. The first and perhaps most important factor came into effect in the last six or eight months as a result of softening in the major markets of the world price of conventional crude oil. Prices had risen very rapidly, almost doubling, since we came into power. All of a sudden they have started to taper off. This is a very temporary phenomenon. There has not been nor do I think there will be any large increase in the world supply of conventional crude oil. There is the Hibernia and some large finds in the North Sea, but total world growth in known
May 5, 1982

reserves does not appear to be substantial. This is another reason why synthetic fuels will come onstream in a few years.
Let us look at what caused the softening of oil prices. The conservation ethic had a lot to do with prices. Prices increased from $1.50 to $2 a barrel to $34, $35, $38 or $39 a barrel, depending on the spot market. That happened in less than a decade, about nine years. It had a very significant effect on the amount of oil being used, but not much effect on the amount of oil that has been discovered. That problem must still be dealt with. However, conservation as it is related to price has had an effect on the amount of oil being used.
The second factor is the world recession. There is no doubt that with a general recession, individuals, corporations and nations do not use energy at the same rate. Things have slowed down. The growth factor is not there.
This country has gone from a growth rate of 5 per cent or 6 per cent along with a good portion of the industrialized world in the mid-seventies to almost a negative growth rate at this time. That has had a significant effect on the price of crude oil. The failure of crude oil to continue to rise in price has been one of the major factors in making this project not very desirable at this time in terms of financing and a return to the companies and governments involved.
The second factor is related to the first factor. These factors are not separable. They have to do with world inflation. This has not been given enough consideration. I spoke about it in 1973, and many times since. I refer to the inflationary cost in terms of megaprojects. Time and again with a project as large as the gas pipeline or a tar sands plant there is a built-in inflationary factor which does not seem to follow reason. The inflationary factor with the trans-Alaskan pipeline was several times the normal rate of inflation. You predict certain things will happen and the inflationary factor grows immensely. If you look at the oil shales in the United States and the two projects that are under discussion, the gas pipeline and the Alsands project, you find a tremendous inflationary factor built into those megaprojects. The argument is one I have always made; hon. members can go back and look at the record. I think this is one of the things we must consider.
1 seriously want to discuss the third factor. I think we should get into this in a real way. Some action in this area is needed in order to move our economy in total, and in order to give these kinds of projects some possibility. The matter to which I refer is that of high interest rates. We cannot ignore this factor. We can shout and say all kinds of things, but high interest rates are what really determine what in the long run, along with the other factors, will be the bottom line. What does a project cost? Anyone buying a house today must know that the real factor is not the cost of the house. The real factor is what will be paid over 20 years, 25 years or 30 years. The same is true with any project. Megaprojects have their own special inflationary problems, but still the main factor is the cost of money and the cost of investment. That is what we must consider.
We keep hearing-from monetarists, particularly-that inflation can be beaten by high interest rates. That monetary policy involves reduced monetary supply. It involves a reduced supply of money and, inevitably, high interest rates they say, will kill inflation. They have not done so in this country, and I do not believe they really have in the United States. With the inflation rate being down, one would think interest rates would also come down, but that has not happened. The effects are rather strange. In the United States today the real interest rate is somewhere between 14 per cent and 15 per cent. What I mean by the real interest rate is the bank prime rate minus the inflation rate, and the real interest rate is something in the order of 14 per cent or 15 per cent. If there were any direct relationship between inflation and interest rates, one would assume that when the inflation rate in the United States is less than 3 per cent-some say it is a good deal less than that- interest rates would come down accordingly.
I have gone back a couple of times and taken close looks at the relationship between inflation and interest rates, or the real interest rates, and I have found there is a very close relationship, but that that relationship disappeared about 1978 or 1979. In 1973, real interest rates in Canada averaged about 3.9 per cent; in 1974, about 1.9 per cent; in 1975, minus 0.7 per cent; in 1976, 0.7 per cent; in 1977, 0.6 per cent; and in 1978, 3.3 per cent. All were under 3 per cent, or in that area. The difference between the inflation rate and the prime rate was between zero and 3 per cent. I have looked into this matter back to the sixties and back to the fifties, and I have found the same pattern. The real interest rate has been anywhere from zero to 3 per cent.
All of a sudden the rate took off. In 1979 it went up to 5 per cent; in 1980, 4.8 per cent; and in 1981, 6.5 per cent. If we look at figures from July 1, 1981, to the end of February, 1982, we find that the average was 8.9 per cent. In the United States it is about 14 per cent or 15 per cent.
What used to be true is no longer true. That relationship is not holding the way it used to hold. I think this distortion in the relationship has more to do with the problem we are facing than almost any other factor, including even world recession or world oil prices. This distortion has made this kind of project almost prohibitive. It is almost impossible to go ahead with it because of this distortion.
My time is up, and I see you are ready to rise, Mr. Speaker. At a later date I would like to discuss this distortion, what is causing it, and what is the underlying cause of the fact that our economy is so stagnant at this point.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) wants to put off until another day an explanation for the underlying causes of our economic dilemma. If he had been here all night he would have heard very detailed, succinct and thorough explanations of those causes and, if he would care to stick around a little longer, we might give him the benefit of further explanations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right out of the eighteenth century.

May 5, 1982


Thomas Edward Siddon: It has been a long, weary night for those of us on this side who stuck it out, but for me it has been worth waiting for this opportunity to speak in this important debate on the crisis facing our nation and the incompetent leadership from the government opposite which has led Canada to the brink of a national economic depression. I wonder why it was that only two Liberals sat on the benches opposite for most of the nighttime hours and only one or two NDP members were here. This is an important time when they should be listening to the views of the opposition and contributing to this debate in a rational way instead of living in a dream world, as the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan appears to be when he describes these problems to international factors, the provincial governments, and to all the red herrings he can dig up, and never faces up to the fact that the government opposite was elected to govern and to take advantage of certain situations in our country.
We have excess production capacity to ensure that people in this country are employed, but constituents call us on the telephone, as a young lady called me the other day. That young lady is a mother of two. She wept for half an hour while telling me that she and her husband placed their personal home on the line a year and a half ago to borrow money for a business venture, only to see it collapse because of the retrograde policies of the MacEachen budget and the National Energy Program. This couple are now faced with the government's taking away the home for which they worked several years, and losing the equity they have accumulated in that home.
A Vancouver housing developer who put a million and a half dollars into a major apartment project in Vancouver came to my office, with red in his eyes and ferocity in his heart, to tell me that he lost a million and a half dollars and that everything he had worked for in the last ten or 15 years was tied up in property he could not sell. Lie told me he was on the brink of bankruptcy. These are the circumstances which have brought this country to the point where we must hold this emergency debate and talk incessantly until the government opposite begins to realize that all this need not have happened. That is the crime of it all. All this need not have happened.
The anti-Canadian policies of the Liberal government opposite, aided and abetted by the NDP, are wrecking our beloved country, which was once a land of freedom and opportunity and is now reduced to little more than a welfare state. These people are referred to by The Globe and Mail as the demolition experts. I think that is quite an apt description of the anti-Canadian, subversive policies which are imposed upon this country by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to such an extent that they are bringing about the economic ruination of our country and a crisis of confidence of unprecedented proportions.
Frankly, those who have money to invest in the future of the country just cannot trust the leadership of this nation. I would like to quote Mr. W. A. Macdonald of the respected Toronto
law firm of McMillan, Binch, who spoke at a special IBM conference in Banff recently. Mr. Macdonald said:
Canada is beset by political directions at the federal level that run strongly counter to strategic requirements of the country. The policy outlook and political commitments of those in charge make an early change in these directions unlikely.
Canada, with this major drag on its capacity to adjust, has lost the confidence of investors at home and abroad, and has damaged the foundations of its relationships with other countries, particularly the United States.
Mr. Macdonald went on to state:
The most difficult thing to reserve will not be the bad policies, although that will also not be easy. It will be to restore trust, within the country and outside.
That is the dilemma we are facing at a time in our history when we sit on the threshhold of massive potential and opportunity. In those oil sands in the Fort McMurray area and northwestern Saskatchewan we have the potential to produce oil for 500 to 1,000 years at the current rate of consumption, approaching one billion barrels a year. We have that potential to be tapped here and now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are guessing.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Although research and extracting of oil from sands has been under way since 1950, when the Alberta Research Council and the government of Alberta first initiated this research, the best known technology today requires that megaprojects and the economies of scale be used to develop that potential.
Some of the other concepts which involve solvents and steam injection and frothing to the surface of underground deposits are not viable, at least for a decade. Therefore the point we have to make is that these major megaprojects are essential and that before 1990, if we are to become self-sufficient in energy, we must have six to eight projects of the scale of Alsands in operation. That is the only way to produce the more than one million barrels a day of excess supply which we will need if we are not to be dependent on OPEC and the instabilities of world political factors. The only way we will get that is to get on with projects like Alsands here and now, and to take advantage of the excess capacity in our manufacturing sector now, not five or ten years from now.
We should use technology which has already been proven by Syncrude and Great Canadian Oil Sands to get on with extending our domestic supply by another 140,000 barrels a day, by building Alsands. In order to pay the cost of that, we need to have that northern gas pipeline under way. Our country is currently faced with massive unemployment in the steel and technological industries. We need that employment now.
That is the great tragedy of all of this matter. At a time when we need all of these things now, through government policy we have destroyed that opportunity and we are contributing further to the deterioration of our national economy.
Why is it so important that we reject the arguments of those hon. members opposite who are saying, "Well, now, there is a glut of oil on the world market, and it is just too expensive to
May 5, 1982

produce that exotic oil from oil sands even though that is our key to the next five centuries". They are saying, "Oh, no, there is a glut on the world market".
I want to remind the hon. members opposite that, right here and now, we have a war going on in the Falkland Islands, and that war is a reflection of the tremendous instability in the world political structure which could see all of South America possibly aligning itself with the communist nations. We could see Venezuela and Mexico cutting off their oil, including the cheap oil which has been contracted for Mexico, in a matter of a fortnight, or overnight. We could see the Middle East erupt into a violent crisis or confrontation. We have the potential for world war breaking out at a time when our dependency on offshore oil has increased from something of the order of 20 per cent in 1979 to almost 30 per cent now. If that foreign oil supply is cut off tomorrow, we are a very vulnerable nation. It is absolutely inexcusable, at a time when we have the potential, as represented by these major megaprojects, to ensure the internal security and maintenance of the lifestyle to which Canadians are entitled, given their decades of work to this end.
It is too late to turn the calendar back. Many of my colleagues have pointed out that had the Crosbie budget of December, 1979, been adopted, this country would be in a much better financial shape today. Interest rates would have been less than 14 per cent-probably 13 per cent. The Alsands project would have been a year and a half on stream in terms of the major financial commitments, and this disaster would never have happened. In all likelihood the Northern Gas Pipeline project would also be in production.
However, because we cannot turn the clock back and bring in the incentives to investment which are an important political principle of this party and, in fact, of our Canadian history, I want to make a suggestion at this point, because it offers the potential for an immediate solution to this problem.
I would suggest that the Government of Canada undertake to initiate Canadian oil sands investment certificates which would be issued to all those who chose to invest in private sector corporations which would then engage in financing the Alsands and future megaprojects related to securing our energy supply. These investment certificates issued by the Government of Canada would entitle the shareholders to a 100 per cent tax credit for any earnings on those investments.
If five million adult Canadians were to purchase $100 of those share certificates, we could raise $.5 billion in one year. Five million Canadians at $100 each would not be hard to come by at this particular and critical time in our history. I would suggest that if those types of certificates were made available to encourage Canadian participation by private individual Canadians, we could raise sufficient capital and produce the restoration of confidence which is required from Canadian sources to ensure that this project is adequately financed from the private sector and will go forward.
Therefore there is no excuse for the government not taking a positive and constructive initiative, even now, to save the Alsands project.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's Social Credit.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan does not understand the structural problem which has led us to this dilemma. There are three key factors which have led us to this problem.
First of all, government tax policies of this past decade have punished any Canadians who would invest in securities, stocks or speculative ventures aside from their own homes. They have been punished if they chose to invest in anything other than their own homes. Therefore, what we have done has been to fuel the speculative spiral in the valuation of private residential properties, which has led to an appreciated equity in those homes of something in the order of $300 billion more than they were worth a decade ago. Refinancing that $300 billion equity each year will cost $30 billion at a 10 per cent interest rate. When the interest rate rises to 18 per cent or 20 per cent on home mortgages, we suddenly suck up another $30 billion out of our domestic economy. That is money which should be invested in job-creating ventures in productive sectors aside from home construction. That could very readily be accomplished, but for the fact that the unhealthy state of our economy, the massive government deficits and the attack on foreign investment have destroyed the economic climate in Canada to the extent that we are contending with high interest rates.
The only available cash and capital left in Canada for investment purposes are being soaked up by the government through Canada Savings Bonds and by home owners who have to refinance that $30 billion of equity at interest rates which are twice what they were a decade ago. Therefore this driving out of foreign investment, this punishing of Canadians who would invest in our country, this discouraging of private ownership and investment, is at the heart of our problem.
I might point out that the spend-thrift government opposite must now re-issue some $6 billion worth of Government of Canada bonds in the next year and a half which were formerly issued at 4 per cent and 6 per cent, and will now have to be reissued at 16 per cent and 18 per cent to refinance that portion of the deficit. In so doing, that will also soak up a big chunk of equity which should rightfully be invested, through private ventures, in megaprojects and other important, large-scale projects.
The Prime Minister is now trying to redeem himself by beginning his campaign for the premiership of Quebec so that he can continue his bitter confrontation with Rene Levesque long after he has left the national scene. He has already done much damage to our national affairs. However, after he has destroyed Canada, he now thinks he can save Quebec as premier. Would that not be interesting, and what a laugh! The Liberal party now thinks that John Turner, to whom my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Mouse Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) referred earlier as one of the architects of this disaster, might come back and somehow save the Liberal party in Quebec.


Erik Nielsen: God help us.

May 5, 1982


Thomas Edward Siddon: What a ludicrous suggestion that would be.
In the remaining few minutes of my allotted time, I want to discuss the direct impact of this Alsands decision and the termination of the northern gas pipeline, or postponement for two years. First of all, Stelco has confirmed that it has already signed a contract for some 675,000 tons of pipe, which is 55 per cent of the total requirements for the northern gas pipeline. It was to begin filling that contract in June of this year. Ipsco in Calgary and Regina was to fulfil the other 45 per cent requirement for steel pipe for that pipeline, also commencing this summer. In the case of Stelco the price would be roughly $900 to $1,000 per ton, or roughly $675 million of investment which will not now go ahead.
This contract would have kept Stelco's Stelfor mill at Welland, Ontario, going for about three years. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) is not here today but I wonder what he would have to say about the fact that 400 jobs would have been created and sustained had the contract proceeded. The $675 million would have been invested in steel which is upgraded from iron ore having a value of $50 per ton of pellets through to something like $1,000 per ton. That upgrading would have represented jobs in Canada for Canadians who need them at a time when the government is sanctioning orders for steel offshore and thus is exporting jobs to Japan and elsewhere.
Mining equipment would have been essential in the Alsands project. Only $235 million worth was produced in 1980, but in the Alsands project alone the Canadian equipment content would have amounted to about $1.2 billion. That is about five times the amount of mining equipment produced in Canada last year. It would have included structural steel, iron ore, copper, zinc, nickel and molybdenum.
The Alsands project would have involved a lot of conveyor work which would have been supplied primarily by Stephens-Adamson of Belleville and FMC of Toronto. Other Canadian conveyor suppliers are Forano of Quebec, Continental Conveyor of Thetford, Quebec, and Jervis B. Webb of Hamilton.
Canada also produces bucket-wheel loaders of 20-cubic yard capacity. These would have been supplied by Orenstein & Koppel Canada Ltd. of Dundas, Ontario.
Compressors, pumps, valves, and controls could have been supplied by Ingersoll-Rand, Allis Chalmers, and Dorr-Oliver of Orillia.
Total domestic production of machinery and equipment in Canada in 1980 was $7.1 billion. That did not involve these particular projects, and many orders in the other sectors are drying up because of the deterioration of our economy.
There was an opportunity for this country to become a world leader in developing technology in the machinery for harvesting oil sands and for producing a very much needed resource. It is an opportunity that the Steel Company of Canada and the equipment manufacturers needed to get them over a threshold.
These companies had made financial commitments and were prepared to go further. Instead of that some 25,000 people in the mining industry are now unemployed.
The mining industry of Ontario in particular supplies all its output to the steel industry of Ontario. A multiplier factor is involved, so 25,000 summer lay-offs in the mining industry in Canada will affect about 120,000 jobs by the end of summer.
If a consequence of the cancellation of the Alsands project is that we do not have the cushion that is needed to provide the employment that the project represented, summer lay-offs, and shut-downs, and early retirement schemes will be replaced by permanent unemployment. That is the spectre which faces our country. Do we want security of supply? Do we want to restore health to the economy, or do we want to continue with a proud, stubborn, obstinate and incompetent government which is devastating and destroying our national economy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate today. I must say that I join with my colleagues who are saddened by the events of the last few days which were the culmination of a series of errors of omission and commission over the years in the business and taxation policies of the government.
We are discussing this today against the background of the report of the Conference Board of Canada which was released yesterday. It indicates that every province of this country shows a downturn and projects a downturn in its economic situation. In fact it shows that Ontario, which would benefit so greatly from the continuation of the Alsands project, has one of its worst economic report cards in decades. Last week's reports are described as gloomy, and provincial assessments which have just been issued, back that up.
We are seeing the demise of a very important element of the national economic development program of the government. We are looking at the end of the underpinnings of this whole program that it has put forward. We look ahead to unemployment, failure to invest, and further hesitancy on the part of entrepreneurs to create jobs.
I should like to deal with the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. Last night I listened with a sense of dismay to the leader of that party. As I did, I began to understand why the people of Saskatchewan, exercising the divine right of the people, turned the NDP government out at the last election. I had wondered why that had happened, and finally I found out.
The New Democratic Party is out of touch with reality. Historically it has denied, by its votes in this House, what Canadians have thought is important to them.
I had some responsibility in the government of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for the Alaska gas pipeline. The economic consequences of that natural gas pipeline were to be monumental to the country. I am one of those who does not take comfort from the fact that the pipeline has been put off for two years. That has been done in the
May 5, 1982

context of rising construction costs that will make the project even more difficult for private financing in two years time.
If the project had gone ahead on time, the construction costs, the carrying charges and all related matters would have been such that they could have been assured that the United States would look to Alaska as a reasonable source of energy. Cost and uncertainty are what have driven away the investors in that pipeline. But when this House sent a signal to the United States that there was a commitment by Canada to support the pre-build, what happened? The NDP voted against it. Why? Because they did not believe the assurances given by the U.S. Congress.
We all had difficulty with the assurance given by President Carter toward the end of his administration because we were worried about it. However, there had to be a Canadian commitment to the project. This House, acting on assurances of this government, voted for it-except for the NDP. And yet yesterday, when this debate began, the NDP lamented the loss of jobs and opportunities resulting from the delay of a project which they voted against.


An hon. Member:: Hypocrites.


Walter David Baker: My friend calls them hypocrites. I leave you to make that judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in this House the NDP leader said something which, quite frankly, startled me. He said he was pleased that the Alsands project had collapsed under its own weight. Then, with the marvellous facility they have for talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, he lamented the loss of jobs from the project which he said he was happy had collapsed. You cannot have it two ways, but the NDP have had it two ways for so long that one becomes sickened by their twofaced approach to public policy.
The government has been committeed to development, Mr. Speaker. The problem with the government is that it has never understood how that development should take place in the Canadian context. That is why we are at this crossroads. The projects which have been cancelled, as cited by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, were the cornerstones of the government's approach to the economic development of Canada. All of them have gone by the board. Therefore, what other demonstrations are necessary? What costs have to be borne by Canadians before they realize that, development-oriented as this government pretends to be, whenever the Liberals get their hands on the levers of power, somehow or other they screw it up. When that happens, what do we hear? Last night the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) said there are other projects. We can look to the projects off our coasts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are other projects, and I am concerned as well about them when they are in the hands of this government.
Part of the problem has been that the Prime Minister's rhetoric about co-operation, sharing, about concern one for the other, about the fact that utilization of all our resources is important, and that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts, has not been matched by policies. Right at this moment the federal government is involved in a vicious fundamental
argument with Newfoundland. I see history beginning to repeat itself with respect to Hibernia, because these people never learn. If we are to get the best out of the country for its people, then the regions have to understand one another and the federal government has to understand the regions. There is a legitimate political concern in eastern Canada, and if it is not solved then we are not going to have the benefits from those projects.
Whatever the future holds, we are now dealing with the present. We are dealing with the collapse of a major and fundamental part of the government's economic recovery program for Canada. What caused that collapse? Well, Mr. Speaker, if you scratch the surface of this problem what you see at its heart is government greed. There is no more heavily taxed industry in Canada. My friends in the NDP would cheer for that-whatever it costs, keep industry down! It does not matter if it costs jobs, because their socialist philosophy is very important to them regardless of the cost. There is a limit, Mr. Speaker, to the extent to which governments generally can shoulder their way up to the table. If they move their shoulders harshly, without considering those who sit beside them, namely the investors who take the risk and create jobs, then the investors gradually are pushed off the end of the table. If you look at the energy industry in Canada, that is what has happened and we are left in the position we are in today.
The national energy policy had four major objectives: heavy taxation on oil and gas production; grants for exploration and development based upon the nationality of shareholders; suppression of prices to Canadian producers below open-market levels and the resulting extensive administration of price levels, and the subsidizing of consumer prices by keeping them below world prices through direct government expenditures. We all know now the cost of that policy which I have simplified into those four elements. The cost to our province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is monumental, and all this against a backdrop of depression and change in every possible way in the community. High interest rates, inflation, housing shortages, bankruptcies and unemployment, all constitute a performance which is rather frightening for those of us who look to the future of the country.
This collapse is much more than merely the end of one particular project. There is no comfort in accepting the bromide of the Minister of State for Mines who said we still have the resource in the ground. It is still in the bank, so to speak. Well, it is in the bank, but it is like forgetting about an account if you have it in the bank and cannot get it out. Whether it be for governments or otherwise, there has to be a return of some kind so that people can get it out.
So long as conditions exist as they do now and into the unforeseeable future, then we will have lost this great opportunity represented by the Alsands project. The Alsands failure will reduce business investment spending in Canada by $360 million. It sets the stage for a steady loss of real output, unemployment, and foreign investor confidence. That is what

May 5, 1982
the observers of this scene say, observers who have no axe to grind with respect to the country. Translate that to jobs, Mr. Speaker. Translate that to people, and translate that to lost opportunity. Translate that to the person who faces uncertainty in aging industries, who is looking to the new developing industries as the place to use his or her skills. It is much more than lost investor opportunity, it is lost investment opportunity certainly, but it is lost opportunities for people who want to work. That is what we face.
Why do we face that? I have mentioned one of the reasons, that governments seem to want to shoulder themselves to the table. I am now looking at the "Canadian Research Report" from the research department of Richardson Securities of Canada. In this report is an address given by the Winnipeg managing partner of Richardson Securities on April 27, 1982. At the time he was talking about then current negotiations. It reads as follows:
The current negotiations on tar sand ventures illustrate other misconceptions of our policy makers; that tar sands can provide a significant revenue return by way of royalties or taxes and that these ventures bear some similarity to "public utilities".
It has always been the case of the New Democratic Party that these ventures are public utilities. They are not, Mr. Speaker. He goes on this way and describes the projects:
Tar sand projects are in fact low grade mining operations which involve enormous initial capital and high operating costs for rates of production which are low by conventional oil standards. They involve a series of very large-scale activities done in a sequence which makes the entire operation vulnerable at every stage; pit design, ore grade, mining, conveying, separation, coking and refining. The discussions of "projected" rates of return have deluded the Energy Department as to the fundamentals of tar sand developments.
I just want to remind hon. members that he said this back on April 27:
The Alsands project is stalling at the moment partly because of economic astigmatism of the governments involved-
He says "governments". That is the plural. He continues:
-partly because of fundamental economic factors, but of equal or graver concern is the fact that the major potential participants have lost confidence in the integrity of commitments made on behalf of the federal government.
This is right back at the doorstep and the feet of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), other members of cabinet, and those who blindly support this forced march to economic decimation. That is where this analyst and many Canadians are putting the blame for what has happened. He goes on to say that the way in which this can be changed is, first, to change the architects of such a deluded policy. They have led us from this period of lost opportunities, lost jobs, lost employment, lost social advance, into a period of time that has caused this House to enter this most unusual debate on a situation which, in terms of our economic development as a nation, finds the country in a state of emergency.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this emergency debate on
one of the fundamental questions facing the Canadian economy today. As previous speakers have pointed out, the entire Liberal strategy is in a shambles. It is not only the Liberal strategy that is in a shambles, but in all our constituencies we can see the economy of local people that has just completely gone down the tube. All the Liberal government has had to offer for the past two years has been the promise of megaprojects.
This emergency is not because of the problem of energy security. The Alsands project and the Alaska gas pipeline might be necessary for Canada's energy security in the future, but this is not the reason for the emergency right now. The emergency right now is as a result of the government's entire strategy for recovery and job creation which was based on those two projects. The government kept looking toward the big ticket as a way of solving all its problems. This is somewhat like an immature high school student who had hopes of somehow winning the fairy princess if only he could do some great thing. The government kept hoping that somehow it could woo economic recovery by doing some great thing, by having some economic project that would somehow get the economy rolling again with spin-off industries and everything else. But now the entire project seems to be down the tube.
Last February Senator Olson, the Minister of Economic Development, speaking in Victoria, said that Canadians should no longer feel it necessary to move away from being hewers of wood and drawers of water. He felt that we could continue in our traditional role as being exporters of raw resources, that this was the route we should continue to follow if we wanted economic prosperity.
The problem with being hewers of wood and drawers of water comes when we run short of wood and run short of water. I can see an analogy to this and the problems which the logging industry faces in British Columbia. Loggers say every year it seems that they have to go farther and farther back into the valleys, and higher and higher up in the side hills, cutting small trees in order to get the same amount of wood. In British Columbia we have a series of mills that were designed for larger trees. Now that we are dealing with smaller size timber these mills are no longer economical. The hewers of wood and drawers of water policy was a fine policy when we had readily accessible resources. But those in forestry and mining find that our resources are not quite so accessible as they used to be. And in the energy area we find that our cheapest oil and gas sources have already been exploited and shipped out.
In December, 1969, the energy minister, Joe Greene, declared his support for a continental energy policy. At that time he committed up to 34 per cent of Canada's established gas resources for export to the United States. Of course that was at the time when he confidently accepted industry estimates that we had oil supplies that would last for 923 years, and natural gas supplies that would last for almost 400 years. By selling off our more accessible resource we have robbed ourselves of reasonably priced energy that will be needed for the future. The days of cheap energy are over, thanks in large
May 5, 1982

part to the continued sellout of these resources to the United States.
Now that our easily accessible energy sources are exhausted or becoming depleted, we face a situation where we must develop more expensive energy projects. These projects depend upon a cycle of heavy capital investment which includes extensive capital borrowing from abroad. In order to raise capital, we must export more energy. It becomes a vicious circle, a circle which does not lead to energy security or to economic independence.
I should like to look for a moment at the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. Both the Liberals and the Tories voted for the pre-build without adequate guarantees. On July 17, 1980, the government tabled a letter from President Carter. It was really the most worthless scrap of paper since Chamberlain returned from Munich. However, President Carter made one interesting comment at the conclusion of his letter. He said:
Successful completion of this project will underscore once again the special character of co-operation on a broad range of issues that highlights the U.S.-Canadian relationship.
It is that special character of co-operation on a broad range of issues which I think the House should consider for a few moments, because it almost always involves Canadians being taken to the cleaners.
Also in July, 1980, my party pointed out that it would not be in the interests of the United States to complete the pipeline once we had given the go ahead on the pre-build and to export additional Alberta gas. There was no reason for the United States to complete the pipeline in the immediate future. It had what it wanted from us. We gave it to the United States, with Tory consent in July, 1980. From their questions and speeches at the time, we see that the Tories agreed with us. They also thought that this was a sellout, that Canada was taking a long-shot risk and that there were no guarantees, yet the Tories voted for the pre-build. I have not as yet heard a satisfactory answer on why they did. Why did they vote for the pre-build when they knew it was a sellout and that there were no job guarantees with it?
There is a phrase in the Bible which compares the nation of Israel to a wild ass braying in heat. It seems to me that the government, in its attempt to attract multinationals into going along with the Alsands project, has acted something like a wild ass braying in heat. Imperial Oil was involved in the Cold Lake project. It is an interesting example of the manner in which multinationals want to operate. Originally they requested a 17.5 per cent rate of return. Later they wanted 18 per cent. After the National Energy Program was introduced, they raised the ante once again and wanted 20 per cent. Now that project is very much in question.
The Liberal government tried to sweeten the pie for multinationals at the expense of Canadian consumers. My party very rightly denounced this as a sellout because it meant that we would put up the capital, we would take the risk, but we would not receive any equivalent equity. We have seen in the
past the irresponsible way in which multinational corporations used their capital as a lever with the government and have no hesitation about going on a capital strike.
Merrill Lynch said that in some projects the oil companies are looking for 31 per cent and 32 per cent rates of return. Last year the Bertrand commission detailed the manner in which multinational corporations have ripped off the Canadian public from one part of the oil industry right through to the finished product, from the beginning of exploration to the gas pump. The Canadian public has been ripped off with the connivance of the Canadian government and of the official opposition.
I suggest that there are alternatives. If we need projects such as Alsands, we can do it ourselves, we can receive the profits ourselves, and we can make gas and oil products available to Canadians at reasonable prices without exorbitant profits being taken by multinational corporations. When we look at the entire question of energy security, we must emphasize conservation and better utilization of existing reserves. Also we need to put more money into the development of so-called soft alternatives. Thinking in terms of megaprojects and what they would have provided in the way of jobs, we must realize that there are better returns on our money if we have an industrial strategy which looks at Canada as a whole, looks at its resources, its people and its ability, and does not simply depend upon big ticket megaprojects.
We need an industrial strategy which requires corporate responsibilities from companies operating in Canada. If these companies are to make profits in Canada, they should be investing their money here. The answer is not always big ticket megaprojects. We can obtain more jobs for our dollar if we are willing to invest in some small projects.
All members of the House have heard appeals from small businesses which are going down the drain because the government does not seem to care about jobs which already exist in Canada. We are losing jobs. The government promises that somewhere down the road it will have a megaproject which will somehow meet all our needs.
In my constituency we are in the process of losing 600 jobs at the Chemainus mill. There has been a mill there for 120 years. At one time it was one of the largest mills in the world. MacMillan Bloedel, the company which is involved there, has shown no sense of corporate responsibility to the community whatsoever. It is taking the money it made in that community and investing it in other parts of the world to exploit those areas. At present it is saying that it cannot build a new mill in Chemainus because it has to develop a new pulp mill in Alabama. It is time to put an end to the rip-off of our resources and the exploitation of our workers. We want to see companies which make money in Canada investing their money here to create jobs.
This is an emergency because the government has done nothing but look to megaprojects as a source of economic recovery and job creation. I hope it realizes that the time it has spent dreaming about megaprojects could have been better spent developing a reasonable industrial strategy. Also I hope

May 5, 1982
that it realizes its approach has been wrong and that it should no longer follow a policy of putting all its megas in one basket.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the collapse of the Alsands project. It is really only the tip of the iceberg when you consider what is happening to the entire economy of Canada. Whenever there was a statistic published outlining a decline in employment opportunites, or a rise in Canada's inflation rate, or any change in Canada's economic indicators, we were told by the apologists for this government that there is no need to worry, that they have a number of megaprojects on the drawing board and, just as soon as these developments take place, there will be a favourable change in Canada's economic picture. We were told to be patient, to wait, and that all would be well because the Liberals are in office.
We in the opposition waited for some sign from the government which would indicate that it knew what it was doing and that it would fulfil its promise. Finally, however, the sands in the hourglass of time, at least for the government, have run out. Its bets have been called and its hand has been found wanting. As the great evangelist Billy Graham would say, "You have reached the hour of decision." The fact that the government is incapable of governing and incapable of giving direction to our great country is causing a great sense of frustration, fear and despair among all Canadians. Today this country is crying out for leadership, direction and guidance from the federal government.
Unfortunately, this government is not fulfilling its mandate. It is not acting in a way which builds confidence among Canadians or which gives them any hope for the future. Canada has been relying on the prospect of energy megaprojects to guarantee energy self-sufficiency, to give employment to some 100,000 Canadians, and to stimulate the economy in both the resource and industrial sectors.
However, this bubble has now burst with the announcement on Friday, April 30, not only of the collapse of the Alsands project but also of the collapse of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline project which has been postponed for at least two years. This represents an unprecedented disaster of mammoth proportions for the Canadian economy. The entire blowup can be directly traced to the National Energy Program.
Of course, Alsands is only the last of a long list of megaprojects which has been cancelled as a result of the National Energy Program. Other examples are the Esso Resources Cold Lake project, the Esso Resources Judy Creek recovery project, and the Syncrude expansion project.
The economic impact of this cancellation is profound. For example, the Alsands project was estimated to produce
132,000	barrels of oil daily; Cold Lake an estimated 138,000 barrels daily; the Syncrude expansion project 62,000 barrels a day, and Judy Creek somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 barrels daily. When these figures are added, the cancellation
of these projects represents a total loss to Canada of something over 350,000 barrels of oil daily. Obviously, the Liberal policy of self-sufficiency in oil which was proclaimed with so much fanfare by the Minister of Finance, (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is doomed. The promises of oily, gassy and greasy have ended up as little more than an oil slick on the pages of time. Is it any wonder that the dollar dropped by one half cent on the day of the announcement?
Under self-sufficiency as promised by the Liberals, the maritimes could have been expected to be supplied by Canadian oil. As it now stands, this will only happen if a miracle occurs which will bring oil to Atlantic Canada from Hibernia and other offshore developments in that part of the country.
For a time, it seemed that the lucrative offers by the federal and Alberta governments to get the stalled Alsands energy project off the ground, and under construction, was one the companies could simply not refuse. However, refuse it they did, despite substantial concessions by the two governments, including the offer to cover $11 billion of the total estimated cost of the projected $13 billion. This was to be made through direct equity participation and loan guarantees. In the end, the two remaining partners in the Alsands consortium, Shell Canada and Gulf Canada Ltd., said that the risks and massive costs involved were simply too great. The uncertainty of interest rates, combined with the two recent rapid declines in world oil prices, have made the industry increasingly reluctant to tie up massive sums of money in such an expensive and longterm venture.
There have been other uncertainties as well. One is the imperfections of the oil sands technology, and the second is the more ominous industry-held view that governments have been inconsistent in sticking to terms of previous agreements.
In other words, industry, big or small, no longer trusts this government and when a situation of this nature exists there is only one thing, in my view, to do, and that is to replace this government and give a new group of Canadians a chance to restore confidence in our nation.
With interest rates still running at record levels, and with business executives and consumers becoming increasingly convinced that things will get worse before they get better, the Alsands plant had to become not only a symbol of economic recovery for the country but consortium members had estimated that the ripple effects over the project's lifetime would have an economic impact throughout Canada of some $470 billion.
It was also to serve as a political symbol indicating that government and industry could indeed work together. This begs the question of just what happened, and it brings us right back to the basic concept, namely, it is the question of trust. In my opinion the companies believed in the financial analysis that, although the terms of the deal were acceptable, they were in something like a "Heads I win, tails you lose" situation. If the project was successful, the private concerns were in fear of being forced out by the government through broken promises and agreements.
May 5, 1982

If the project was not successful the private companies stood to loose billions of their shareholders' investments, and under today's confiscatory tax laws and the arbitrary changes being made in those laws, that was simply too great a risk to take.
As a result of the collapse of their megaprojects, our Canadian recession has been turned into a full-fledged depression. Nowhere is this more evidenced than in Sydney, Nova Scotia, my home province.
The Sydney Steel plant has closed down its operations due to working conditions and the need for higher wages. Due to the mismanagement of our economy by this government workers today need a yearly salary increase at least in the amount of the 12 per cent inflation just to survive. When the individual industry in which they are employed can no longer keep raising salaries and secure the money needed for salary increases by raising the price of the product manufactured, then the industry unfortunately collapses. This is what is happening, not only to Sydney Steel but to an entire city in my province where the workers have no other place to turn, and it is happening right across the face of this nation.
In my view, this is a depression that never should have happened in this country. I say this because we are a resource rich nation. We are rich in human resources, coal, oil, gas, uranium, copper and nickel. We have more wheat than we can eat and more fish than we can fry or sell.
I ask this House what would the good Lord have had to give us, 24 million Canadians, in order to make us, if not prosperous, at least fully employed and enjoying a healthy standard of living? The answer, of course, is a government that is willing to co-operate rather than one interested in constant confrontation, a government that will establish policies and encourage productivity, policies that will reward initiative, that will free the energies of our people rather than penalize their every move with restrictive, crippling taxes and bureaucratic red tape. That is all that is happening to this nation, and that is what is keeping us down.
This depression presently facing us was triggered and has since been intensified by a succession of federal measures and, to a lesser extent, by the provincial responses which they evoked.
The breaking point, in my opinion, came when this government established the National Energy Program. The government will never admit that it made a blunder of the worst magnitude, not even today when its energy program is in a shambles, when it has fallen down around it like the proverbial house of cards. Instead, when asked questions about the state of the economy, the various ministers at one time or another attribute the depression to the joint arrival of the developed countries on the downslide of a world-wide business cycle, or they attribute it to the high interest rates in the United States, as we have heard the Minister of Finance say time and time again. This indicates that this government is ignoring the dominant role of energy among our natural resources.
If this government, instead of establishing its confiscatory tax practices, had made provision for a competitive rate of return on oil and gas production, it would have strengthened the dollar, improved national productivity and raised the national income. At most, it could have overtaken the deterrence of high interest rates which is killing the Canadian construction industry, the housing industry, the fishing and agricultural industries as well as large and small businesses.
I have a telegram in front of me which arrived this morning, signed by Bob McDonald of Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. It indicates that the domestic automobile dealers in Nova Scotia are in trouble, asking that we please act accordingly. It states that Canada has become a dumping ground for the Japanese and, while we are at it, let's keep an eye on the Russians and their Ladas. It is their opinion that these products are underpriced. The Americans will not allow them in their country. Why do we allow them in ours? No matter which way you turn or which industry you look at, they are facing horrendous economic problems.
Before the National Energy Program, the strongly rising volume of investments in oil and gas exploration and development had been driving the whole Canadian economy forward. Every dollar invested by the petroleum industry multiplied two or three times through the economy in purchases of goods, equipment, and services.
Since the National Energy Program was introduced, the industry's investment in Canada has been drastically reduced by some 30 to 40 per cent through last year, and by a similar amount in 1982. These are not now recoverable funds. They have either been committed outside Canada or gobbled up by the maw of this ever-gobbling government. The withdrawal of private investors from Alsands is symptomatic of what has happened in the industry. All that has been surprising about it is that it has shocked some of those who have been supporting the national energy policy. They have professed to be shocked or indignant that a corporation should put the interests of its shareholders ahead of the government's so-called definition of the national interest. That they should be shocked gives us some indication and goes a long way toward explaining why we have sunk so deep into our present depression and why recovery from this depression will be difficult, hard work and a long way ahead.
In the last ten years the government has been reaching out to capture the key elements in our economy, to transform them into instruments for implementing its vision of the corporate or socialist state, that is, one in which political authority is assured by control over investment and production.
In the 25 years leading up to 1971, Canada had an average real growth in gross national product of 5 per cent, the envy of all western nations except possibly West Germany and Japan which at that time were still rebuilding their war-torn economies.
I was present in this House from June 10, 1957, on up through this period, and I watched at that time the progress that was made, especially in Atlantic Canada, under that great Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. During
16990

May 5, 1982
that period, and it is amazing to think of it at the present time, we had between 350,000 and 400,000 unemployed.
I wish some of the younger members could have heard the speeches made at that time by the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson, and the Hon. Paul Martin. They should have heard the condemnation and vilification of the Diefenbaker government at that time by those men because there were 350,000 unemployed. Today we have 1,250,000 unemployed. Somehow this has become a norm. It is acceptable. Well, it is not acceptable to me, to Atlantic Canada, or to this nation. It is time we stood up and shouted about the mismanagement of our economy, the high inflation, high unemployment and obvious lack of interest in trying to do something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What happened? In the 1970s as the dead hand of government was extended deeper into the economy, average annual growth of our nation began to decline. During the ten years since 1971, real growth has averaged only 7 per cent and in recent years it has slowed to 2 per cent. As the growth has slowed, inflation and unemployment have increased. In the ten years since 1971, inflation averaged 9 per cent a year and last year it reached 12!/2 per cent. I will be just a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to extend his time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the privilege. As growth has slowed, inflation and unemployment have increased. In the ten years since 1971 inflation averaged 9 per cent a year, and last year it reached 12'h per cent. Many explanations for Canada's fading economic performance have been given through the seventies by various cabinet ministers. One of their favourites was that, having passed through its development phase, the Canadian economy had now reached a maturity in which the policy should be established to provide a redistribution of wealth rather than the creation of new wealth. This, of course, was false doctrine based upon a false premise. What we now have is a smaller pie being cut into ever smaller pieces. That is why our people are complaining.
Growth has in fact been slowed by other clearly recognizable developments. One of these was the growing rift in confederation and enforced redirection of, first, private and then government investment in an effort to paper over the cracks in Canadian unity. In my opinion, had investment been free to flow to where it could obtain the maximum return, the benefits to all parts of our country would have been far greater than the costs incurred by present government policies.
Another growth-slowing development was the perception of an emerging nationalism as a force to be harnessed to political advantage. So successful was the government at this game that
nationalism became the principle vehicle for the transformation of Canada into a corporate state. At that, it is still not clear whether this government yet has recognized all the implications of its insistence that market forces can be subordinated to political direction. The introduction of the National Energy Program in the budget of 1980 followed by the chicanery and the flim-flam of closing tax loopholes in the budget of 1981 did more than simply cause investment to flee this country. It strengthened the government's control over the uses to which remaining investment in Canada could be put.
In the past America's recovery from a recession used to be the springboard for Canada's recovery but, in my view, stengthening American demand will not this time be enough to restore growth in the Canadian economy. What we need are infusions of new capital, and I ask: Where are these to be drawn from? Certainly not from Canadian corporations. Those which can still afford to do so are diverting their capital to the United States, and others no longer have the reserves to do anything. Taxes and inflation have taken too heavy a toll.
This government is looking to the United States recovery in the hope that it will stimulate our own, but it is forgetting the extent to which the channels through which renewed American growth that normally came into Canada have since been blocked by the Foreign Investment Review Act. More than anything else this depression was brought on by the progressive extension of federal intervention in the economy. Now the depression becomes, unfortunately, the justification for still more intervention in our economy.
I hope my thoughts will at least be given some consideration by those who have the authority and the power to run this country. Because if the government does not change direction, we will have more of the same, and we face utter and total collapse of our entire nations's economy.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say good morning, and I hope you spent the night comfortably, listening to so many speeches on an extremely important subject. Today is Wednesday, May 5, 9.03 a.m., and since yesterday, we have had thirteen hours of speeches on energy and the fact that certain projects, which would have created opportunities in other sectors, have been abandoned. Meanwhile, there is a lot going on in the world. Alas, Mr. Speaker, the big dream has ended. The Nordiques put their hearts and souls into it yesterday until the bitter end. The papers also tell us that an English destroyer was sunk and that probably thirty people lost their lives. Argentina is counterattacking-that was the headline in Le Devoir. In Poland the government in Warsaw has reinstated a curfew and more than 1,300 persons have been arrested.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, here in the House of Commons we are giving our fellow citizens the impression that we are wasting our time, while thousands of people in other countries are far less fortunate than we are, a third world war may be in the offing, and many of our fellow citizens in constituencies across Canada are waiting for concrete action by a responsible
May 5, 1982

government and an enlightened opposition that will establish sound projects and programs for job creation. What have we been doing here for thirteen hours and five minutes? We have been saying that the economic situation in Canada is bad, that it is going to get much worse and that it will soon be desperate. If the Conference Board wants to tell me that the economic situation in Canada has reached its lowest point in 50 years, all right, it is their job to analyse and assess the situation and tell us what they think.
But it seems to me that representatives of the Canadian people in this House could be expected to bring in some constructive proposals and suggestions. This debate was sparked by a press release dated April 30 and published by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and I quote:
Today, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, announced that suspension of construction on the Alsands synthetic oil factory means that Canada will have to stress development of its oil reserves in the Beaufort Sea and the Atlantic offshore, and also development of western conventional crude, enhanced recovery projects and heavy crude oil upgraders.
For 13 hours, everyone has agreed that Canada's energy resources are extremely abundant and more than adequate to meet all our needs. The programs exist, progress has always been satisfactory, and a tremendous task has been accomplished.
Now we must prepare for the future. One project had to be dropped, but there are several others. Canada's resources are immense, and what is needed now is the will to develop them. To some people, the energy resource challenge consists primarily in finding new supplies of oil, the main resource in which Canada is not yet self-sufficient. The Canadian government is aware of the considerable effort this represents, and what it intends to achieve is, briefly, energy security for all Canadian citizens, opportunity and fairness.
Since this is a serious subject, I shall try to do it justice, even at this very early hour. Therefore, as far as energy security is concerned, there is no doubt that Canada's oil and natural gas reserves have increased significantly, especially in the last ten years. Notwithstanding the turn of events in 1980 which brought the oil industry into a slump, a situation aggravated by the accumulation of unsold natural gas, the oil industry has remained very active. In fact, oil discoveries in Alberta, the province with the highest production, increased substantially in 1981, compared with 1980. Oilweek Magazine expects a substantial increase in all western provinces as well as in the Canada lands and the offshore.
There is also increasing geological activity in preparation for drilling. The news is generally good. We are making exceptional progress in reducing the demand for oil. This is one of the main goals in our fight for energy security. Oil consumption has dropped considerably, namely, from 291,000 cubic metres per day in 1980 to 268,000 cubic metres per day in 1982. Thus, our objective to conserve energy has been attained. It
means that Canadian self-sufficiency rose from 79.5 per cent in 1981 to approximately 80.9 per cent in 1982, bearing in mind that the ultimate objective is still 100 per cent in 1990. At the same time, income from Canadian oil and natural gas production has increased 6 per cent, from 28 to 34 per cent. We are rapidly advancing towards our goal of 50 per cent, a very minimal part of an industry that is so essential to Canada's future economic development.
Canadians are playing a new and major role in meeting energy requirements. We all know that it has always been a major concern of the Government of Canada to share this country's wealth fairly among all Canadians. That is why the government has wanted to establish a pricing and tax system for oil and gas that will be fair to all Canadians, whether or not they are living in an oil-producing area, and also a fair system for the distribution of income between governments and the oil industry.
Although the Government of Canada has insisted on a fair deal for all Canadians, I must say that as a result of certain provincial taxes, some Canadians today are less equal than others. I should like to comment on what happened in my area, Cabano, during the gas price war. The House will recall that in eastern Quebec, we had a strike among independent gas distributors which lasted nearly two weeks, so that people could no longer buy gas for their cars. But I would like to say that in our area, there is a price war between the companies, and what I am going to tell you is not meant as criticism of the government's policy of fairness. In the large urban centres, the companies maintain certain price levels and in other more sparsely populated areas, prices are a little higher. As a result of the price war, in my riding, and especially in Temiscouata, we pay 10 cents more per litre of gas. Add to this the 40 per cent provincial tax, and we have to add another 7 cents per litre. So, when I compare my province with the other Canadian provinces, I see that I am paying 17 cents per litre more than other Canadians, and as soon as the new government of Saskatchewan has removed the 40 cent tax on a gallon of gas, as they promised during the last election campaign, that will mean another ten cents per litre less for them. So, in our area, we will be paying 27 cents more per litre of gas than in Saskatchewan. I am already paying seventeen cents more than Ontario or New Brunswick and the other Canadian provinces. Something has to be done about controlling provincial taxes on essential goods such as gasoline, and perhaps this debate could serve as an opportunity for members to make suggestions on how to eliminate the imbalance in gasoline and oil prices.
So, Mr. Speaker, to get back to my subject after this short digression, I would like to say that the Government of Canada and the oil-producing provinces concluded an agreement to share income from oil and gas production. We must remember, however, that this income is used to provide equitable

May 5, 1982
financing for major projects and thus ensure energy security for all Canadians. These incentives are paid for research, off-oil conversion, grants for home insulation and a number of other programs. We are now building a sound basis for confidence in Canada's energy future by applying balanced measures that will help meet the energy requirements of Canadians in every respect. Some of these measures are: The Canada Oil and Gas Act, a new system that will encourage major discoveries so that we can expect to see renewed activity in oil and gas exploration in the north and the offshore, with new prospects for business and Canadian workers.
The Petroleum Incentives Program is now being considered by Parliament, and under the program, billions of dollars worth of subsidies will encourage intensive discovery activity and provide for better development by Canadian companies. The program also provides for a new reference price for oil. It is an incentive, at the world price level, for discovery of new oil anywhere in Canada, while remaining an integral part of a domestic oil price that is only 70 per cent of the current world price.
The Canadian off-oil program provides financial incentives for consumers who wish to convert their heating systems from oil to any other form of energy. It is an integral part of a project aimed at rationalizing oil consumption and expanding natural gas transmission and distribution networks. And speaking of the distribution of natural gas, I should like to inform my hon. friends on the opposite side that since there are no natural gas distribution networks in eastern Quebec, we greatly appreciated the agreement concluded by the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta for the construction of a gas pipeline in eastern Canada, including my riding.
There is also the expanded version of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. It provides financial grants for homeowners to help them reduce energy consumption, and is now available to 80 per cent of Canadian homes. However, I am sure that the Government of Canada will also continue to encourage development of our major energy resources.
The present economic situation, the existing uncertainty as to world oil prices and the drop in demand for oil, combined with rising costs, do not work in favour of the megaprojects that have had to be postponed, not only here in Canada but in other countries as well. Expanding Canadian oil and gas prospects have led to increased activity in the oil industry. For instance, three companies have announced major investment plans for the eighties.
Gulf Canada Limited expects to spend some $7 billion on capital expenditures and exploration within the next five years. Its program includes heavy investment in the Beaufort Sea and also in conventional light crude, natural gas, heavy crude and coal. Imperial Oil will be investing $7 billion over the next ten years, to expand its operations at Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories, while also increasing its level of activity in the
Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Islands and upgrading its commercial and petrochemical operations. Suncor Canada is planning annual expenditures of some $500 million over the next three years, twice the amount forecast in 1981. The company will be taking an active part this year in the discovery of 70 new wells in western Canada, and it also wants to take an active part in developing the Canada lands.
These multinational companies are still convinced that Canada can offer them unique opportunities. They have opted for working with Canadians and Canadian companies, with a view to creating a better energy future. Canadian companies have responded with imagination and enthusiasm. For instance, Canterra Energy, founded when the Canada Development Corporation bought Aquitaine-a French oil company-intends to spend $500 million in 1982 to expand its activities to include all western regions and the Canada lands. This year, Petro-Canada approved a budget of $450 million for discovery activity and development of the industry in western Canada. This is in addition to its principal activities in the Canada lands, especially as a working member of a consortium that is active in exploration on the Arctic Islands, and as leader of the Labrador group on the east coast offshore. The Arctic Islands consortium is continuing activity at a faster pace, producing fabulous amounts of natural gas, while it is forecasting new prospects for oil. Panarctic, a Canadian company, is the main operator for the consortium.
This increasing activity will result in substantial economic benefits for Canadians through job creation and spin-offs for companies in other sectors. For instance, Husky Oil and Bow Valley, both located in Calgary, have already ordered a semisubmersible drilling rig from Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock of New Brunswick. The latter company already has an option to build a second rig. And that is only the beginning. Already more than 200 businesses have come to St. John's, Newfoundland, to take advantage of the opportunities offered by oil and gas exploration on the offshore. Development of natural gas reserves in the waters of Sable Island, located off the coast of Nova Scotia, is expected to involve capital expenditures of $2.5 billion. An impressive 8,750 workers will be hired when the operational phase reaches its peak, while about 1,100 long-term jobs will be needed when the natural gas comes on stream.
None of these developments should surprise us, because the industry's net income per barrel of new oil, after deducting operating costs and royalties, has increased 107 per cent since 1979, as a result of adjustments in royalty percentages and the reference price for new oil. If we compare the oil industry's net income growth with the forecast for all Canadian industries, spread over a period of ten years, no other sector has been more successful than the oil industry. The future is promising for the industry, since Canada has made a commitment to implement its energy programs on all fronts. The National Energy Program is truly operational.
May 5, 1982

Mr. Speaker, Canada is full of resources, in the north, in the east, and of course in the west, which is particularly endowed with them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, my time has expired.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, normally I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons as I have a great respect for this institution. I am always thankful to the constituents of Okanagan North for giving me the opportunity to speak occasionally in this House. However, I do not derive a great deal of satisfaction from addressing myself to the collapse of two very vital energy projects in Canada, Alsands and the Alaska pipe line. I suppose one could take some satisfaction if one were partisan because this marks the formal collapse of a bankrupt policy, that is, the national energy policy. These two projects were much too important to the economic life of this country to take any satisfaction from their demise. The horrendous effects of their cancellation will be felt throughout Canada for the next decade or more.
This country is in a deep recession, Mr. Speaker, and it is very important for us to have some stimulus. There are almost 1.5 million people unemployed in this country, which is more than at any time in our history. We need some stimulus to help the economy recover from this deep recession. We need some aid for our manufacturing industry, our construction industry and to give the economy the boost it needs to pull out of the recession.
With the collapse of the national energy policy Canadians have witnessed the failure of three major initiatives started by the government when it took power some two years ago. That three-pronged attack was designed to hoodwink the Canadian public into believing that the government knew where it was going.
First of all, there was the Constitution debacle. That is over now but it was a grab for power by central Canada, an effort to control the future economic welfare of all parts of the country to the detriment of major parts of it. That grab for power was only defeated when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) identified it for what it was, while the New Democratic Party started its love affair with the Liberals on the Constitution issue.
The second major initiative which has failed is the national energy policy. It was a grab for wealth. All it succeeded in doing was to completely destroy the sophisticated and successful oil industry of this country.
The third major initiative which lies in ruins is the budget. It was a disaster which adversely affected the lives of every Canadian.
These policies, which were the culmination of ten to 14 years of poor government, started in 1972 with the inflationary budget introduced by the Hon. John Turner.
Perhaps it would be wise to put on the record some statistics of the 14 years since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. In 1968 the total number of unemployed was 351,000; the most recent figure is 1.2 million unemployed. Youth unemployment was 7.4 per cent in 1968 but in March, 1982 it was 15.8 per cent. The inflation rate has gone from 4.2 per cent in 1968 to 11.6 per cent. The consumer price index has gone from 89 per cent to 255.9 per cent. The value of the Canadian dollar was $1.12 in 1968 and now it is 39 cents. Our trade deficit on current account stands at minus $6 million. Bank interest rates have more than doubled and mortgage rates have more than doubled. As the final insult, we now pay 30 cents for first class postage instead of 6 cents.
All this indicates that we are in the deepest recession since 1930. Unemployment is rife and business bankruptcies are increasing. In fact, the only growth industry in the country is that of trustees of bankruptcies. Interest rates and inflation have caused the average person to suffer deeply. I am sure all members have received telephone calls from constituents who are losing their houses, their jobs, their businesses, after a lifetime of hard work.
In British Columbia the forestry industry is in a state of deep depression. In my constituency of Okanagan North unemployment is twice as high as is normal at this time of year. We have lost furniture stores, automobile industries, lumber industries, and those which are still in existence only use part-time workers.
There are those who say that this is all part of a deep and dark design to ruin the country. I do not hold to that view but I can certainly see how others might, because if someone in 1980 had designed a method to ruin the country, they would not have done anything differently. They would have had the constitutional debate, the NEP and the budget.
This government had those things and they have succeeded in placing this country in greater dire straits than we have ever been in before. The NEP was ill-conceived from the beginning. It was put together by a group of inexperienced and arrogant bureaucrats aided by incompetent, power-mad politicians. It was not as if there was a lack of warning about the problems we confront today. Bill C-48, which was the background of the NEP, had a very long hearing before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, which sat in 1980 and heard more witnesses and received more briefs than the Constitution committee. Every single brief opposed the bill and warned the government what to expect. Chevron had this to say to the committee:
-we now have Bill C-48 before us-prepared without any industry consultation and presented as a key portion of the National Energy Program.
Chevron continues to believe that this National Energy Program, as modified by federal-provincial agreement, will
1)	Reduce the present remaining reserves of oil and gas in Canada because
of increased tax and royalty costs and resultant premature abandonment of
wells.

May 5, 1982
2)	Reduce exploration and development activity; therefore reducing reserve additions and will create higher unemployment in the conventional exploration areas of Canada.
3)	Reduce exploration activity and development programs in Canada lands.
4)	Reduce if not eliminate the development of heavy oil megaprojects in Canada.
What did the government have to say about it? They ignored it completely. They are now reaping the rewards of their arrogance.
On October 28, 1980, the federal government tabled its National Energy Program and the minister described it as a set of national decisions by the Government of Canada. He went on to say that these decisions:
-will impinge on almost every sphere of economic activity, on the fortunes of every Canadian, and on the economic and social structure of the nation for years to come.
How right he was. He goes on to say that the NEP will have major, positive implications for the federation itself. He was not so right there. The implications are not positive, they are very negative. The minister was right, the NEP has imposed on every Canadian. The combination of the NEP and the budget has almost ruined this country. It certainly has ruined our investment climate. A recent survey indicated that 63 per cent of investment activity by Canadian companies will be in the United States. Capital was moved out of Canada in 1981 at eight times the rate in the 1970s, or some $19 billion. The government is deeply in debt this year and will be more so next year. Where is it going to find the money it is spending? It is going to borrow in the money markets and place us in a worse position. The debt load will prevent interest rates from falling, even though American rates fall.
The deficit, along with the lack of investment, will postpone recovery from the recession. Real growth will fall this year to less than .5 per cent compared to the Minister of Finance's projection of 2.2 per cent in his budget. With the collapse of these projects the government can no longer expect to receive the $54.2 billion they had hoped to take out of western Canada to bale them out of the mess they got us into over the past 14 years. The government will be lucky if it gets $24 billion. With revenues falling as a result of the recession, with expenses rising for social welfare because of unemployment, this government is going to be even more bankrupt than it is now.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, is there a solution? I have yet to see even the beginning of one from the government or the NDP. I suggest to government backbenchers that they look at the Conservative policy in this regard as put forward by the recent Conservative government. First of all, we showed real government restraint and cut back on expenditures. The government should get out of industry and the back pockets of the people and businessmen and let the country have room to grow and fulfil the great potential it has. The government should start, as the Conservative government did, an economic partnership with the provinces and co-operate with them rather than fight them as they have done in the past two years. There should be a greater reliance on private enterprise, and certainly a greater reliance on innovation, productivity and
investment. Research and development is an area in which the government has fallen drastically behind. We should build on provincial regional strength and existing economic infrastructures. Instead of downgrading our transportation system, we should be building it up.
Finally, more attention should be paid to human resources because in the final analysis that is where the greatness of this country lies. Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that the loss of these two megaprojects will somehow not result in the unnecessary extension of this depression.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the opposition benches nothing but gloom and doom about the future of our country. Let us be clear: none of us is thrilled to see these two projects postponed for some period of time.


Mr. Crosbie:: Postponed?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: On the other hand, I think Canadians must be very clear about what we are doing and have done in the area of energy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then you are finished.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I think if they put aside all the flak, all the clouds of doom and gloom which have been spread over the situation by the opposition-Mr. Speaker, I see the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is in the back corridor. I welcome the opportunity to have him come down and sit in his seat because I believe that the mood of doom and gloom presented to this House in his lead-off of the debate yesterday was unfair and not a balanced representation of the existing situation. Furthermore, when you read his speech, as I hope Canadians will, you will realize that he did not present one positive alternative.


Mr. Mazankowski:: There sure was: you guys get out.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: There are members on the other side who are not used to staying up all night in debates which they have called.


Walter David Baker: Make your speech; get on with it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I will be happy to make my speech with the permission of this House.
One of the fundamental aspects of our energy program is to create self-sufficiency in oil in this country by the year 1890.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1890?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I believe that our National Energy Program has set us on that course and that we have the opportunity to achieve it.


Erik Nielsen: Who has been up all night?
May5, 1982


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I said 1890? Certainly everyone realizes that it is within eight years time from now which is 1990.
I do not want to be misunderstood on this point. We have undertaken major programs in all of the energy fields which I believe show a constructive means of achieving this degree of self-sufficiency that we all seek.
Let me talk about conventional exploration and development for conventional oil. Exploration drilling for oil in Alberta, where the majority of our oil is now obtained, was higher in 1980 than in 1981.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is nonsense.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It was higher in 1981 than in 1980. Oilweek magazine predicts an increase in drilling this year in all western provinces as well as in the frontier and offshore regions. Geophysical activity, which precedes drilling activity, is also on the increase. I do not know whether hon. members are afraid of some more good news, but we are also making some excellent progress in reducing the demand for oil. This has been an essential part of our drive for energy self-sufficiency.


John Carnell Crosbie: No one can afford it any longer.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Consumption of petroleum in Canada has dropped. It dropped last year by 7 per cent or a little more than 20,000 cubic metres a day. That is the equivalent of one Alsands project. That type of conservation is an integral part of our National Energy Program. We have achieved this by helping people to go off oil on to more readily available fuels. We have over 100 years of proven usable gas reserves in this country. It is natural that we would want to encourage Canadians to switch from oil to gas, which we have in abundance and which we can export.


An hon. Member:: A new Joe Greene.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: That is part of our program, our program of helping Canadians convert. They are given an $800 grant to help them convert off oil. They have been converting in record numbers to electricity, to gas and even to wood. That is a direct result of the farsightedness of this program. Hon. members scoff at our conversion figures. Let me give the figures to them. More than 170,000 conversions have taken place. That is not bad. More than 78,000 of them have been to natural gas. The hon. member over there wanted to know that.
Let me come now to the expanded Canadian Home Insulation program. We have brought in the expansion of the CHIP Program to include another 1.6 million homes. It seems hon. members do not want to hear the good news, but I think Canadians want to hear it.
Let me talk about the propane vehicle conversion program. There are grants of up to $400 for a vehicle to get off gasoline and on to more readily available, cheaper fuel.


Charles Joseph Clark: How do you buy one if you are unemployed?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have a tremendous program of compressed natural gas that is being sparked by a Canadian company which will be the leader in the field. Over the next short term we will have compressed natural gas filling stations right across the country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Depressed interest rates is what people want.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is a major western company and it is Canadian owned. It will be developing the technology. I would encourage members to take the gas with which they are filling this chamber and put it into their cars, because they will have government support to do it and they will find it is a lot cheaper. They will be buying Canadian. Another major program of which I am sure hon. members are aware is the Q & M Pipeline. It is going ahead. The Q & M Pipeline is a major megaproject to help bring natural gas from the west to the east.


William James Kempling: When is it going to start?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is a major program. The program that we have put forth calls for energy self-sufficiency by 1990.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If hon. members opposite would just listen, they will see that we are well on the road to achieving that type of self-sufficiency.


Mr. Jelinek:: We are well on the road with what?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Q & M Pipeline.


An hon. Member:: Your own colleagues do not believe you.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let me come to research and development. Between 1980 and 1983 we will have spent a total of $260 million on research and development projects, in co-operation with the private sector, along the road to achieving selfsufficiency.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did you bring down the target?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Hon. members talk about gloom and doom in the private sector.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Reaganomics cancelled the project in Colorado, and that is the kind of policies you guys want to pursue.


William Herbert Jarvis: Go to the west and look around.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the rigs that have gone south?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Yes, some rigs have gone south. It has killed the impact according to Oilweek magazine. There will be increased exploration and development in Alberta this year over last year. If hon. members do not believe that, all they have to do is look at the Oilweek magazine.


Mr. Fleming:: Listen to the voices of the oil companies over there.

May5, 1982


René Cousineau: Puppets.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do not know whether it is because it is late in the day or early in the morning but I cannot seem to hear what the hon. member is saying. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Peterson).


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind a few interventions from the party opposite, but so many of them have had an opportunity to speak, it is obvious to me that they did not make the points that were really the important ones because now they want to intervene. But the fact is we can achieve energy self-sufficiency.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You know all about intervention.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What is happening in the private sector? Gulf Canada Limited has announced plans to spend a massive $7 billion in capital and exploration over the next five years. Imperial Oil Limited has announced that it will spend billions in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Islands. Suncor Canada Inc. is spending SI.5 billion over the next three years. These are multinational companies. How about the Canadian companies?


Charles Joseph Clark: They are all gone.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: These include Canterra Energy Ltd.; Norcen Energy Resources Limited and Petro-Canada. These are Canadian companies that will be spending a lot of money on new exploration and development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If hon. members opposite want to make speeches, I hope that you will allow me to encroach somewhat on their time, Mr. Speaker. They have been occupying a fair amount of my time. I do not think hon. members opposite want Canadians to have a message of hope brought to them.


William Herbert Jarvis: You gave it to them in 1978. I have it here. It is Mr. Gillespie's message.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I do not think they want to hear a message that has realism in it. Their future is filled by spreading a cloud of doom and gloom across this country. They want to deny hope to Canadians.


William Herbert Jarvis: This is Mr. Gillespie's message, not ours, and it was 80 per cent wrong.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What about the spin-offs from the projects that we are creating? More than 200 new firms have settled in St. John's, Newfoundland, to take advantage of the new opportunities created off the east coast for oil exploration. What about the gas potential around Sable Island? As many as 8,750 workers will be needed during peak phases to work on the tremendous gas potential around Sable Island.
The Alsands project has been postponed for the moment, but there are other incredible reserves. Our program has been flexible enough to embrace utilization of these reserves. If hon. members opposite from the east coast do not think that we should be going ahead and exploiting these reserves, I should like to hear more from them. They are the ones who seem to be talking so much this morning.
There are many other options for achieving a degree of selfsufficiency. For example, there are alternative energy sources. We could look at hydro, the potential of the Lower Churchill project, electricity, the Polar gas project, gas conversion, and coal in British Columbia. We have an incredible resource there. We have new alternative sources of energy, such as solar and the others outlined by the excellent work of the task force on alternative energy which was chaired by my colleague the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). Also there are the opportunities for Canadians to convert to biomass, or to renewable energy from our forests.
Also we have incredible spin-offs envisaged by the National Energy Program. If hon. members opposite want to hear some more good news, Canada is a world leader in the production of hydraulic generators-hydroelectric generators.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hydraulic or hydroelectric generators?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: They are produced in Peterborough and in Scarborough. They have a world product mandate. These generators are exported around the world. We are world leaders in that area, and this is part of the program.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You buy coal loaders in Japan.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In case the hon. member does not know, the last four generators purchased by the Grand Coullee dam project in 1980 in the United States came from Peterborough, Ontario. I am very proud of that. Hon. members on this side of the House should be proud of that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: All one of them!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am proud.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have advance technology, long distance transmission and high voltage d.c. transmission of electricity. If the hon. member from the east coast does not want to hear good news, he should not listen to it. The people who elected him will be delighted. Husky Oil and Bow Valley of Calgary have ordered a semi-submersible drilling rig from Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock in New Brunswick, with an option for a second one. That is responsible activity carried out under the umbrella of the National Energy Program. Just because there is a momentary setback-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Is 1,250,000 unemployed a momentary setback?
May 5, 1982


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I want Canadians to know that the heavy oil in the tar sands is still there. It will be there when world prices rise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Has one member opposite stood up and said that we should pump public dollars into a project which at present world prices is not economically feasible? Should we foist that burden upon the backs of Canadian consumers? If that is what they believe, if that is their alternative, I ask them to stand up. Even with the tremendous guarantees of the federal government, it was not considered viable by the private sector. Why should we as a government walk in and pump billions and billions of public sector dollars into a project in order to make it work? Hon. members opposite should talk to consumers in Ontario or to consumers in all provinces. I have not heard an hon. member from that side say that he is prepared to pump public dollars to a greater extent than was offered by the province of Ontario and by the federal government to make those projects work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Those projects will be there and they are part of our program. When conditions change we will be prepared to continue our efforts. I welcome and compliment the efforts of the province of Alberta and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in attempting to work with the private sector to find a way of making it viable. Unfortunately, it did not work.
I believe that confusion reigns supreme on the Tory side of the House. Members of that party have criticized us for government spending in the past. They criticized us when we established Petro-Canada. They criticized us when the federal government wanted to increase its share of energy revenue from 10 per cent-and Alberta had 40 per cent-to something more reasonable. They criticized government involvement in this sector. Now they criticize us for not bailing out the Alsands project, for not bailing out a private sector enterprise. That is hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You deliberately killed it two years ago.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member said that the federal government killed the project.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no doubt about it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The facts are clear and they are on the record. We offered a 50 per cent joint venture of public money and private money. We offered guarantees on the loan. We offered tax holidays until the capital was repaid.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Too late.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What more would the hon. member want us to do on the backs of Canadian taxpayers at this time? I challenge hon. members opposite to rise and say what they would do today. They are like the people who are looking
forward with optimism to the nineteenth century. They should get their heads out of the sand.
There are opportunities under the umbrella of the National Energy Program which are being exploited. We have those opportunities. Canada has the possibility of a bright energy future, an energy future in which we can and shall be selfsufficient in all forms of energy by 1990. I look forward with optimism to achieving that under the umbrella of the NEP. This is not the time for doom and gloom. This is the time for the spirit of frontier development and the spirit of enterprise which Canadians have always displayed in the past. I am confident that they will recognize the challenges and the opportunities which are there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it certainly opens one's eyes to how flexible people can be when one listens to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) who just sat down. He certainly showed that he can spout nonsense with a straight face. That would naturally make him a favourite in the stakes, in the cabinet shuffle which will come very shortly. The hon. member said that we have opportunities. What he meant is that we had opportunities before the Liberal government bluffed its way back into power in February, 1980, and laid waste and devastated the Canadian economy.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the new energy policy and the budget have done more damage than was done by the plague of locusts in Egypt. They are the devastators of the Canadian economy and of the Canadian energy scene. They are the wreckers of confidence. They have wrecked confidence in the country. They have imposed a pestilence, a plague, a famine and a blight on the Canadian economy. The results are the closure of the Alsands project and the Cold Lake heavy oil project.
The hon. member had the gall and the audacity to refer to the report of Gulf Canada. Here is what the president of Gulf Canada said in December, 1980:
Over the years the government has so stained its credibility with retroactive rule changes that those of us in the industry now must 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?"
That is what Gulf says and that is what hon. members have done. They have pulled the rug from under the industry.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: That is your positive alternative?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member wants to know what the positive alternative is. We are the positive alternative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 5, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: You sabotaged the government in your greed for power because you could not stand to have anyone else in power. In 1979 the Liberal party wormed its way back by confidence tricks with the co-operation of the NDP. The Liberals got back into power. They have betrayed the Canadian people ever since.
The minister talked about how wonderful it was that the consumption of oil dropped in Canada last year. It dropped in Canada because the government tripled the energy taxes that it defeated us on, the 18 cents a gallon. They tripled it. Prices have gone up a dollar a gallon in the last year.
As for heating oil, which we were not going to tax at all, the government has placed a crushing burden on the people of this country. There is no energy tax credit for them. Canadians are taxed to death by this government which got into power by saying that they would not increase taxes in the energy area at all. People have been converted off oil involuntarily. They are now being converted off Liberals, and that is what they will do when the next election comes.
The hon. member had the audacity to mention the east coast. This government is attempting to wrestle away from Newfoundland, the poorest of the ten provinces, the right to exercise control and management over the oil and gas that is on our shores, that we brought with us into confederation in 1949-the Hibernia oil field. The greedy-gut centralizers of this Liberal government have stopped development on the east coast because they are attempting to grab that from the province. Sixty-one per cent of the people from Newfoundland just devastated the Liberal party in Newfoundland who they hold equally responsible with the federal Liberals. They will devastate the hon. members opposite when the next federal election comes unless their policy reverses 180 degrees.
They will not have an east coast oil development to go ahead with until that matter is settled. There will be no oil ever coming from the Hibernia oil field until the province of Newfoundland and the provinces that have resources under the water off their shores are recognized as having control and management of them. That is another disaster in which the government is engaged now and which has not been concluded yet. I do not think the hon. member had anything else to say.
Let us just see what has happened and how important this matter is. This is a report of the Economic Council of Canada. They were appointed by the Prime Minister. They advised the Prime Minister on economic policy. I refer to Volume II, No. 2, in their magazine in 1981, at page 10. They said:
Although economists are often accused of not being able to agree on anything, there is virtual unanimity in the profession right now that the future of the Canadian economy over the next decade will depend on energy.
The Economic Council itself, in its 1980 annual review described energy investment as about the only good thing the economy has going for it.
It is about the only good thing going for us in the 1980s and energy investment is now declining and energy projects are being slaughtered, suspended and cancelled all over Canada. The report went on to say:
What will it take to make Canada self-sufficient in oil? If this country's needs for oil are to be met exclusively from oil sands production, there would have to be
five new oil sands plants in operation by the end of the decade-and that would be in addition to the Alsands and Cold Lake projects which is now on the books.
The government has killed the confidence of the investing sector here in Canada.
When we review what has happened in the last two years, we see a government that has imposed a new energy policy, that has destroyed confidence in the country. We see a government that now has the highest interest rates in our history. They are unecessarily high. Why? Because over the past eight years, under their stewardship we have had $34.5 billion in deficits in the balance of payments. We have a weak Canadian economy, a weak Canadian dollar, and instead of doing something to help strengthen the Canadian dollar, instead of having policies to attract foreign investment and loans to Canada, instead of having a policy to entice private investors and encourage them here in Canada, the government has exactly the opposite policy. It has thumbed its nose at the foreign investor and has threatened the private investor.
The hon. member for Willowdale mentioned Petro-Canada and investment. He said that the government was not going to put public finds into the oil sands project, and why should they? The oil sands project would have provided hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada and helped us to make ourselves energy self-sufficient. It would have produced 137 barrels of oil a day, on into infinity. What would this government sooner do? It would sooner spend $1,750 million of the taxpayers' money without their consent by having Petro-Canada buy Petrofina, which did not add one cup of oil to Canadian supplies. It added nothing. It did not add any natural gas. It took over existing assets and paid three times their value. That is 4 cents a gallon every Canadian driver today contributes. When he drives 20 miles he is contributing 4 cents a gallon to that purchase. Can that be compared to the oil sands project or the Cold Lake project of Imperial Oil or the Judy Creek project, or any other project that would give us new resources?
Where is this western development fund which they talk about? Here is what the Minister of Finance said to Canadians on September 9, 1980, in Halifax. He said that it was to create jobs, improve living standards and promote greater equity that he took on the position of Minister of Finance. If that is the reason he took on the job, why is he still here? We have the highest unemployment in our history, the highest unemployment rate since 1940. We have over 1.5 million people on the bread line. Where are the jobs that this Minister of Finance has created?
He says that he is improving our living standards for the fifth year in a row when we have a loss in real wages. People's real income and real wages are going down. He has not improved living standards. He says that he is promoting greater equity. What is his greater equity when we have had all of these increases in energy prices, the taxation of life insurance policies, the attempt to make it less attractive to invest by taxing interest on investment, the taxation of employer contributions to employee dental and health plans. Is that
May 5, 1982

the great equity that this Minister of Finance is promoting? If the man had a shred of conscicence or a shred of decency he would disappear into thin air so that we would not have to be bothered with him again.
What was it that the Prime Minister said? He told the Canadian people on January 12, 1980: "We have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunities and provide security". The only opportunities which have been provided in the last two years by this pestilential Prime Minister has been opportunity for trustees in bankruptcy. They are the only people who are being given increased opportunities. The trustees in bankruptcy cannot handle the business. Have you seen one Canadian with his dignity enhanced in the last two years except for these puffed up cabinet ministers in their jump jets and their Canadair jet Challengers that they are spending $23 million on this year, while the government cannot find a cent to spend on search and rescue facilities in Newfoundland? They can buy two jet Challenger aircraft with the most luxurious of appointments to take them around the country in their dim-witted and fat-lotted ways. They are the only ones whose dignity has been enhanced.
Have you seen anyone who has had their security increased in the last two years, Madam Speaker? You have not. That was their economic program. What has the government done? Interest rates are 4 per cent or 5 per cent higher than they ever needed to be because the government, instead of helping to strengthen our dollar, brought in the new energy program that attacked the dollar. It drove $10.2 billion in capital out of this country last year. Canadians are moving their money out and foreigners are refusing to invest. They have no confidence in this government. They know that this government does not support the private sector and they know that it believes in government ownership and control. They know that this government disdains them and has attacked and criticized them. As Mr. Stoik of Gulf said, they have strained their credibility. That is why the dollar is so weak.
The government will change its FIRA policy. It is a government of Tarzans beating their chests, they say, because they are such Canadian economic nationalists. Having allowed our economy to be completely dominated by the Americans over the last 30 years or 40 years of their stewardship, the government is now an economic nationalist beating its chest. It has beaten the Canadian dollar down so that it only has high interest rates to protect the Canadian dollar. That has been the cost of those policies. It has cost Canadians billions and billions of dollars, Canadians who are losing their homes and businesses across this nation. They are responsible and no one else, not some outside force, not the United States. It is not the stars in the sky that have caused this. The Liberal government of Canada caused this devastation. Their whole strategy is now gone. The strategy was in the budget speech, such as it was. Expanded world markets, massive resource projects involving major expansion in manufacturing and transportation, are all gone. This document entitled "Economic Development in the
1980s" had that strategy. How can they explain their new reorganization?
On January 12 of this year the Prime Minister proudly announced a new reorganization of his government in respect to economic development. Only Alice in Wonderland could have done any better than the Prime Minister. He has created a Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development, MSERD, headed by Senator Olson. "MSERD" rhymes with "absurd".
It is going to have regional offices in every province. It is going to have a federal economic development co-ordinator in every province of Canada. We are going to have a federal gauleiter in every province because we no longer have cooperative federalism. Co-operation is at an end, the Prime Minister says. The Prime Minister is going his own way in economic development. He wants to be sure he wrecks every individual provincial economy by putting in each province a regional office with a federal economic development coordinator. What else is he doing? Why, we are going to have a project director for megaproject development in every province. This is the great reorganization!
Why have megaproject development co-ordinators when you have no megaprojects? As I told the people in Prince Edwward Island on Monday night, keep your eye on the Gulf of St. Lawrence to see if there is a megaproject floating by which the Liberals have destroyed and cast off. I told them to see if an oil sands or a tar sands plant floats by, and if so, to grab it because they have a megaproject co-ordinator in Prince Edward Island. Perhaps they will see an Arctic pilot project or a Cold Lake heavy oil project float by. They should not forget to grab it because the federal government will now have a whole series of project directors for megaproject development. If there are no megaprojects, why does the government bother to have the Prime Minister make this proud announcement about his megaproject developer?
They set up a Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, DRIE, as compared to the old DREE. In charge of that department is to be the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who, when asked questions in this House, goes berserk. He is like a lawnmower going berserk when he is asked a question in this House, trying to avoid answering it. To appoint that gentleman from Windsor, Ontario to be head of DRIE to battle against regional economic disparity in this country is the equivalent of the Red Cross making Dracula their blood transfusion co-ordinator. Why have all this reorganization if the government is unconcerned about them? It does not care that its only two big megaprojects are gone. Why have megaproject supervisors if it does not care about megaprojects?
There is a lot more I could say about this reorganization because there is now a minister for external relations and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), both doing the same work. The Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. De Bane) is wandering around looking after

May 5, 1982
foreign relations. He must have a large family that lives overseas. I do not know what else he could be doing. We now have two ministers in charge of external and foreign relations, but I will leave that for another occasion.
If megaprojects are not the strategy of this government, if it is uncaring about the fact that the Alsands plant is gone, I presume we will have an announcement that we are no longer going to have megaproject co-ordinators.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is not here today. Whenever he gets up in this House with his arrogance, superiority and destructiveness, he confirms to me that the Dracula legend is true. The other day he said not to worry about Alsands, that we are going to have the Cold Lake heavy oil project. He said we are going to resurrect that. However, when we look at The Globe and Mail of May 4, we see that Esso spokesman Glen Rainbird said:
Even if we had been offered the same terms we would have made the same decision as Shell and Gulf ... We have taken it out of our three-year planning horizon.
Imperial Oil is taking Cold Lake out of its three-year planning horizon. That is gone. Even if it can ever be resurrected, it will not be looked at again by Imperial Oil for three years. This is the government that prefers Petro-Canada to take over Petrofina, rather than create an economic atmosphere that would enable Imperial Oil to do the Cold Lake project on its own or Alsands and its partners to do the next tar sands project on its own. We have had in this Minister of Finance not only incompetence, but deceitfulness, duplicity, dinginess. He is diminished and defeated by his job. The member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and the rest should go to their caucus and make sure that that minister is taken from that job and put somewhere else. They can give him any kind of job they like. Make him super Deputy Prime Minister, but put him out of harm's way. Take him out of that job.
He is left by the Prime Minister slowly twisting in the air. No one would mind that but the whole Canadian economy is twisting with him. We do not know whether his budget will go into effect or not go into effect. He has made eight changes and God knows how many more there will be. While he twists, he twists our economy into disastrous shape.
They are the Neville Chamberlains of the Canadian economy. They are the Munichers. They are also going in that direction in so far as international affairs are concerned.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the four horsemen of our economy, the four horsemen of the economic Apocalypse. They represent only one end of the horse, and that is not the head. The four horsemen of the Apocalypse were war, famine, pestilence and death. This government is warring on the Canadian economy. It is starving Canadian entrepreneurs and risk-takers. It will not give them any incentive. They are like pestilence across this land.
A week ago I was in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Mineral exploration is down 40 per cent this year. Bush
aircraft companies are going bottoms up, going into receivership all over the place. The north is devastated. Mines are closing everywhere. They are damaged coast to coast. It is unbelievable.
In my own province of Newfoundland, the economy has never been worse. There is no construction and the highest unemployment in our history. The people of Newfoundland know who caused that. They demonstrated that on April 6 by voting 61 per cent for their Conservative government of Newfoundland.
The four ministers I mentioned are the dire straits quartet. The one positive thing they could now do for Canada that is still possible for them to do is resign, take themselves out of office, and give the Canadian people the chance to judge again. They know what their performance has been like for the past two and a half years. They have this Prime Minister who now thinks that he is God. Caligula could not have done any better. He is going by his personal fiat and he is going to do what he likes for the next several years. Let him put that on the line. Let him see whether the Canadian people want him or the positive alternative that we represent. Not the New Democratic Party; they are no alternative. They are hand in glove with this group opposite. Give the Canadian people a chance.
Give the policies that we introduced in 1979 a chance. Had they been continued, those projects today would have been under construction. The Canadian economy would have been vibrant. Interest rates would have been lower. Canadians would have had confidence. They would not be having their hopes crushed and destroyed by the hon. gentlemen opposite who no longer have a purpose. They no longer have any plan. They just want to cling to power no matter who it hurts, who it damages or what happens to Canada. They are in this conspiracy to stay in power. They are now twisting and wondering how they can get rid of their Prime Minister and bring in some saviour. Well, they are not going to get rid of the Prime Minister. He is not finished with Canada. He wants to leave us with an East European economy before he goes. He is an admirer of the "success" of the Polish economic system and he will not leave us until he has done us the same favour.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I listened to the previous speech with a great sense of horror, and I wonder what the people in the galleries and those at home who watch this debate think when it can sink to such levels. We have listened to a verbal attack on Canadians and a verbal attack on members of my party who evidently do not share the view of the hon. member who has just spoken but nevertheless have a belief in the future of this country and do their duty. I wonder what impression people listening to this debate have when they listen to performances with so little content and of such low quality. It is shocking to listen to such a deliberate attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to such a deliberate attack on ministers of the Crown and elected representatives, who represent Canadians as well as
May 5, 1982

hon. members opposite. This attack was by a member who is really a master in verbiage but whose credibility is very much in doubt.
The hon. member is a member of a party which, in December, 1979, was not even able to count to make sure it would have enough members present to win a non-confidence vote, and now the hon. member comes here and cries because his party lost an election. It lost an election because Canadians did not, and still do not, have confidence in it. The hon. member has forgotten that fact, but Canadians know they cannot trust a party which cannot even count up to 141. That is what happened to the Tory party in December, 1979. Hon. members opposite have not recovered since, and because they have not recovered and because they have a psychological problem and their egos are hurt, we have listen to this kind of speech, which was the worst performance I have seen in this House in many years. On behalf of those who have to listen to this kind of junk, I regret that very much.
If there was a gold medal given for running down one's own country and its government, surely the hon. member would win that gold medal, and surely he would exhibit it. It would be sad if he were to take pride in this kind of performance, but I wonder what pride one can take in casting doubts and distorting facts deliberately, as the hon. member has done for the past 20 minutes.


Mr. Mayer:: Why don't you tell us about the 1.5 million unemployed?


Mr. Caccia:: The hon. member deliberately distorted facts from one issue to the next. He did it so professionally that all I can say is the hon. member could win a medal for running down his own country.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is entitled to say whatever he wants to say as long as he stays within the rules of the House. You no doubt heard, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour accused my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), of deliberately distorting facts, and that clearly is a breach of parliamentary rules. That onus is on you, Mr. Speaker, to request the minister to withdraw that statement.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member distorted facts all the way through his speech.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You said he deliberately distorted the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Charles L. Caccia: Well, evidently. I imagine he made his speech in good faith and knew what he was talking about, and therefore it was deliberate.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Make yours in good faith and withdraw.


Charles L. Caccia: The hon. member can believe I will do my best.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague has raised an appropriate point of order. We presume Your Honour will be able to rule on it. The minister said
"deliberately". A number of us in the House heard it. He has had an opportunity to withdraw but has chosen not to do so. Therefore, we ask Your Honour to fulfil the responsibilities of the Chair and ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement, which clearly was unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: "Deliberately" is not an unparliamentary word. It depends on what is attached to it. Unparliamentary expressions include "deliberately misleading", "deliberately misled" and so forth. I did not hear the minister being charged with saying that. I do not see "deliberately distorting" referred to in the rules.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Deliberately distorting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: "Distorting" is not listed, as far as I can see, and if the hon. member wants to cite a page from Beauchesne, that might help the Chair.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Show some honour, Charlie, and withdraw. Show some integrity.


Charles L. Caccia: This government has asked the provinces to act responsibly with taxpayers' funds. This government has dealt with the provinces over the past two years in a very constructive manner. There have been meetings here in Ottawa with the provinces on a number of occasions. Last summer we finally arrived at the point where the unthinkable took place; nine provinces and the Government of Canada arrived at an agreement which allowed us to conclude the constitutional exercise in a successful manner. Does the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) include that on his balance sheet? Does he include the fact that the Government of Canada has been able to arrive at an agreement with the province of Alberta on energy? Does he consider that a plus or a minus? Does he consider the fact that today we have in Canada the best federal-provincial relations we have had for many years? Does he consider that a plus or a minus?


William James Kempling: The economy is in a shambles.


Charles L. Caccia: Then the hon. member for St. John's West went on and engaged in that old chestnut about which many of us have heard many times. He spoke about the deliberate high interest rate policy of this government, knowing very well what he said was not so. The hon. member knows very well the source of our high interest rate problem. We are part of the economy of the western industrialized world, and we cannot insulate ourselves from what happens south of the border. We cannot establish our own interest rates without being aware of what is happening in other major markets and to the American dollar, and to blame the government for high interest rates is really to ignore what has been said over and over again in this House and what has been said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in the budget.

May 5, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: Blame the United States. Blame the sun god. Why not blame the Japanese?


Charles L. Caccia: The hon. member is a master at blaming. I am glad he is responding to what I am saying. Evidently he does not like to hear what I am saying. It is getting to him; otherwise he would not be here in the House to hear my comments on what he said.


William James Kempling: You are deliberately distorting him.


Charles L. Caccia: He knows very well that the high interest rates in this country are not manufactured by this government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, they are.


Charles L. Caccia: We have to bring inflation down in order to bring down interest rates, and we also have to watch what is being decided in Washington with respect to the large deficit down there. That will also determine the confidence of the money market in the U.S. dollar. The hon. member knows very well the forces which come into play. He knows very well what the facts are, and that is why he is walking out of the chamber right now.
Despite the difficulties we have encountered so far, we have used unemployment insurance funds successfully to absorb the shock of difficult economic times and high unemployment. Hundreds and hundreds of unions have come forward and signed agreements with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to make sure jobs are not lost. Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not make reference to the tens of thousands who are benefiting from this program? Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not recognize the fact that despite economic difficulties this government has maintained and protected the socialinsurance scheme we have? We have not done as the Americans have done. We have not cut them down. We have kept social protection for Canadians. That is a great plus for a country which is going through difficult economic times. Why did the hon. member for St. John's West not say that?
Canadians are also entitled to see the positive side of the coin. Canadians should also know what is going well in the country. The country should not be run down by hon. members like the hon. member for St. John's West who make a profession of doing that. That is not right or fair, and the hon. member should not do it. Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not speak about the program of expansion of railways in the west and the investments which will be made in the months and years to come? There will be investments in the billions to improve our railway system to permit the movement of our energy resources and natural resources to the west coast in order to improve the economic standards of the people on the prairies and in British Columbia. Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not speak about that, as well as about the performance of the government?


William James Kempling: The minister is a disgrace!


Charles L. Caccia: We heard a lot of criticism this morning-


William James Kempling: Why do you not resign, Charlie?


Charles L. Caccia: I am delighted to have such an audience. I have not had such a large audience in a long time-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Certainly not on your side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: -of such fine parliamentarians.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The only minister in the House!


Charles L. Caccia: It is very simple, because they are looking after the affairs of the government by having a caucus right now, because that is what we do every Wednesday morning, do we not, Mr. Speaker? Right.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You need a caucus, Charlie! You'd better figure out when you are going to have an election!


Charles L. Caccia: Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not tell the audience here and at home that we have achieved a good energy policy in this country despite all the criticism that we hear?


John Carnell Crosbie: Come off it. I am not going to be a diabolical liar. You are doing the lying for the government, not me.


Charles L. Caccia: We hear only the negative part of it. But the hon. member would not speak about the fact that the Canadian ownership of energy resources is being increased. Why does he not talk about the pluses of this policy? It is certainly good for Canadians to own a good portion of their energy resources. Why does he not mention that in his speech? When he talks about large projects, he tells listeners here and at home that two projects have defaulted. It is true that two projects have not got off the ground. However, why does he not also tell Canadians about the fact that we do have projects which are going on? We have Dome Petroleum's project of oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea, amounting to $500 million. Why does the hon. member for St. John's West not mention that in his speech? Why does he not mention that the Norman Wells oilfield development for $600 million is going ahead? Why does the hon. member not say that? Why does he only bring the bad news here? There is also good news for Canadians to hear.


Some hon. Members:: What?


William James Kempling: Name one!


John Carnell Crosbie: You get 40 weeks of UIC! Is that the good news, Charlie?


Charles L. Caccia: Is he engaged in the job of demolition or is he engaged in the job of construction? That is the difference between them and us. We are engaged in a job of construction and they are trying to demolish the government. We had better put them back in their places before it is too late.
May 5, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: You demolished the Canadian people! You are professional deceivers!


Charles L. Caccia: The hon. member for St. John's West is now unsuccessfully trying to read the newspaper. Why does he not speak about the Revelstoke hydro project in B.C., a project that is going on to the tune of $1 billion? Why does he not mention that to those who listen to him at home?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How much did you put into that one, Charlie?


Charles L. Caccia: They would be glad to hear that, because what is good for British Columbia is also good for Newfoundland, or does the hon. member think that what is good for Newfoundland is only good for Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: They know what is good for them, and it is not the Liberal Party!


Charles L. Caccia: It is good for the whole of the country, is it not? Why does the hon. member not tell us about the Trans Quebec & Maritime PipeLines?


William James Kempling: When is it going to start?


Charles L. Caccia: It is going ahead.


Some hon. Members:: When, when?


Charles L. Caccia: It is a large project. It is a $1 billion project, and it is going ahead.


William James Kempling: Tell us when, Charlie!


Charles L. Caccia: Why does he not tell us about the coal development project for $700 million?


William James Kempling: Tell us when, Charlie!


Charles L. Caccia: That is going ahead and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Charles L. Caccia: He did not mention that project in his speech.


William James Kempling: You have been talking about it for three years!


Charles L. Caccia: And what about the Ridley Island grain terminals in British Columbia?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: That is an investment of $400 million.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When, Charlie, when?


Charles L. Caccia: Why does the hon. member not mention that? You will see-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It makes no difference! You killed that one, too!


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


William James Kempling: You do not know what you are talking about! Why do you not resign?


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not a minister of labour, you are a minister of miscarriages!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps we could, together, accord the usual courtesy to the hon. member who has been recognized.


William James Kempling: Well, Mackasey was trying to take credit for the Bruce generating station. They are taking credit for what Ontario Hydro is doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Once the remarks have all been aired, perhaps we will hear the remaining remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: What a disgrace!


Charles L. Caccia: I could go on, Mr. Speaker, for some time, and we all know that there is a time limit to the speech.


William James Kempling: You are a disgrace to Parliament!


Charles L. Caccia: But I was really struck and concerned by the fact that the hon. member for St. John's West would engage in such a demolition job which was intended to demonstrate that everything in Canada is going wrong. That is not a fact, and hon. members opposite know it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, there is a Conservative Party, and that is all right!


Charles L. Caccia: There are a lot of good things going for us in this country, and the opposition had better realize it, because it is important that we maintain the confidence of Canadians in their own country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was told that coming to the House of Commons would be a learning experience, and after two years, I have learned something. I have learned that when it comes to basic policy or basic philosophy on how to run the country, there is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the so-called Progressive Conservatives. The fact is, the two old-line parties are really two parties fighting for the same position.
This whole process of debate today is aimed at doing exactly that. Two parties are fighting for the same position. The fact that they are fighting for the same position has been proven over and over in this House. It has been proven by their blind support of Reaganomics. Every day in the House we hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) telling us that the

May 5, 1982
policies of the Reagan government will save us from inflation, while our friends in the Tory party cajole us with pleas that if we would move a little closer to the great United States President, we would not have all the same economic problems as the United States. I know that this does not sound very logical, but logic is not one of the strong points of the official opposition. I suppose that the greatest proof of the similarity between the Liberals and the Conservatives was shown in the 29 times they voted together in this House in this session. The Liberals and the Conservatives have voted together 29 times on issues such as how the government should handle Governor Bouey.
Consider their support of the grain embargo. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals supported the embargo which the United States put on the movement of grain into Russia, an embargo which the United States immediately dismissed or circumvented, but which hurt the farmers and the grain producers of Canada. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives supported that embargo. Here we are again, speaking on a motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), a movement designed to put some distance between the policies of the Conservatives and those of the Liberals. That is why it was brought forward. It is because their policies on these issues have been very close together ever since they were in power. Again, for proof of similarity of the policies of these two parties we can look to their voting records. One of the projects which has collapsed, or at least has been delayed, is the pipeline. There was another case in Saskatchewan where the Liberals and Conservatives voted together.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You know why you were defeated in Saskatchewan.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: On July 22 of 1980 the New Democratic Party attempted to ensure some guarantees. On that date the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) presented the following motion to the House:
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.
In a speech on the same day he said:
Indeed, I have been raising this issue in this House ever since April 17, namely, that we in the New Democratic Party believe this prebuild should not go ahead unless Canada is guaranteed that later on there will be gas swaps of amounts equal to the gas we sell now at approximately equivalent prices, along with guarantees, ironclad, signed, sealed and delivered, that the whole pipeline will go ahead. That is the position of the New Democratic Party.
Later in his speech he said:
The main issue is that the Liberal Party is gambling with the future of this country in going ahead with this pre-build. Hon. members on the other side obviously do not see this, but I believe the jury in the country is beginning to understand what is really at stake and just what the Liberal government has done.
The Liberals and Conservatives voted together on that motion in order to make sure we did not have guarantees of swaps or guarantees that the pipeline would ever be built. They gambled and lost, so today we are faced with the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and with the collapse of the pipeline. All the spin-off jobs in manufacturing and related industries have collapsed or have been postponed. This was made possible by the fact that those two parties would not support some guarantees and voted together to kill the NDP motion for guarantees.
Let us examine the government's position on megaprojects and on energy. The government pinned its economic and industrial recovery strategy on the development of resource megaprojects. The leading opportunity in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources is outlined in a statement taken directly from the economic development document of the November 1981 budget. This sounds very much like a continuation of past policies which have promoted the export of raw materials and the potential jobs that would have occurred had the resources been processed and manufactured in Canada. The government sees this resource development policy as an opportunity to benefit all regions of Canada concurrently if it is managed properly with respect to funding and promoting indigenous manufacturing and service industries.
If the Liberals were serious about managing and developing megaprojects in order to build an enduring and diversified economic base, they would need to take the interventionist approach along the lines of promoting Canadian ownership and control as they attempted to do in the National Energy Program. However, they clearly state in their economic policy document that they do not consider this approach appropriate for any other sector, such as mining or forestry. Moreover, they have abandoned their throne speech promise to strengthen FIRA. The Liberals seem to be content to let others write the rules while they remain the referee.
Another weakness of the Liberal strategy is that it assumes our resources are for sale and that we will use them as a lever to gain access to larger markets for our resources and manufactured goods. Unfortunately, the government has been a poor bargainer, and in recent resource and trade deals with Japan and the United States that has been evident. All too often foreign governments and companies have been able to play on the need of this country to export raw products, which does not allow us to develop our manufacturing industry.
The economic viability of many of these megaprojects has been seriously called into question when the factors of prices, taxes, inflation, interest rates and financing are examined in the light of what is happening in the changing world today.
Claims of job creation and industrial spin-offs were exaggerated, and they were not cost-effective when compared with manufacturing investment. In all the megaprojects the Canadian content guarantees were weak. The fact that these energy companies withdrew from these projects proved that the projects are really not cost-effective. There are cheaper
May 5, 1982

alternatives to costly oil sands development. For example, enhanced conventional oil recovery or even alternative energy forms and conservation are available.
By committing themselves to megaprojects the Liberals inevitably committed themselves to massive public subsidies through tax concessions, grants and loans. The benefits are not worth the costs, and the projects have died.
The Liberal resource megaproject plan was simply to change our past economic pattern. As someone put it, we were drawers of water and hewers of wood. That has been changed to diggers of coal and pumpers of oil. We deserve better.
The NDP position is that where resource megaprojects can be demonstrated to be necessary to help achieve some defined national goal which is realistic, they should proceed with public subsidies and maximum public equity. The key words are "public equity". Moreover, maximum Canadian content must be guaranteed in terms of equipment and employment. Very little Canadian content was guaranteed with respect to the pre-build, according to those involved.
A reliance on resource megaprojects to stem the tide of the deindustrialization of Canada has proven precarious because of the uncertainties about the economic viability of these projects and the danger of perpetuating resource sellouts along with the export of jobs. The NDP has explained its policy in a statement entitled "A New Employment Option for Canada" which was released in February, 1982. We have shown a preference for concentrating on the development of our manufacturing sector by processing most of our raw resources here in Canada to create jobs for Canadians. This is a particularly important decision as far as western Canada is concerned. We have the resources; if we ship them away we limit the increase of jobs which are possible in western Canada.
With regard to some energy megaprojects, the NDP believes that we should develop, where feasible, less costly alternatives. For example, instead of a series of costly oil sands plants, enhanced oil recovery projects may be more economical and produce an equivalent amount of oil. Conventional heavy oil upgrading or even coal gasification requires less capital investment than oil sands plants. Alternative energy projects to make gasoline from natural gas, and methanol from wood waste, are also becoming economically viable. Investment in conservation is also less capital intensive, creates more jobs, and reduces the need for costly energy developments.
The NDP believes that only through strong government presence can we give direction to resource development and provide guarantees to maximize Canadian benefits. If the policy is wrong, the government should change it, but the presence I speak of must be sensible and in the right direction. The lip service given by the Liberal government until now has proven to be a disaster. Coupled with a plan to restore our manufacturing sector, this will enable us to revitalize the Canadian economy.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, upon checking the procedural books it turns out that using the words, as I did, "deliberately misleading" is unparliamentary. Therefore, I wish to apologize
to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and I wish to thank you for your guidance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion concerning the crisis in the oil industry brought about by this so-called Liberal government supported by the western Liberal Party, otherwise known as the NDP. I must say it comes as no surprise to me considering the current Liberal government's track record on fiscal responsibility. Furthermore, the National Energy Program is a cruel joke on the Canadian people.
It is no surprise that it is the Liberal NEP which has caused the failure of the Alsands project. Canadians now know that what is needed is a government prepared to work with the private sector for the betterment of all Canadians. This necessarily involves developing a feeling of trust between business and government. Progressive Conservatives place more emphasis on the creation of wealth, for we know that as more wealth is created there will be more to distribute to those social programs currently underfunded by a debt-ridden federal government. Business requires flexibility in the marketplace to pursue programs which will benefit Canadians.
The NEP has caused the industry to cut back on its capital expenditure plans, its research and development, and its participation in the Alsands project, in order to generate sufficient capital to finance projects currently in progress. The minister tells us the slowdown is a result of a worldwide economic recession. The petroleum industry has always been a strong performer in the Canadian economy, and the Alsands project was a recognition of the role energy would play in Canada's economic development. It could provide the vital initial impetus to get Canadians back to work and business into gear. The industry could play a pivotal role in our economic development in the years to come. For every billion dollars it spends, it can generate between $500 million and $1 billion in further business activity across Canada, in addition to contributing to our energy security. One can sense the extent of the failure of this government from the failure of the Alsands project.
The major oil companies are not the only ones suffering from the NEP. I find it unbelievable that as a result of oil import compensation charges Canadians will pay more for gasoline and home heating fuel when they conserve fuel. As we use a higher percentage of foreign oil, it is Canadian production which will suffer. There will as well be a loss of jobs and a negative effect on our balance of payments.
Our neighbours to the south are benefiting from a worldwide oil glut. However, the Canadian consumer realizes no such benefit. In my riding, the tourism industry supplies much needed employment. The high price of gasoline will have a detrimental effect on the number of American tourists who come to that region, and that will continue for as long as there is that difference.

May 5, 1982
In the rural areas of Ontario, where a car is more of a necessity than a luxury, residents are feeling the effect of high gasoline prices eroding their standard of living. The government-forced metric conversion program has cleverly masked the layers of tax increases being shoved on to the Canadian consumer. The $2 a gallon price for gasoline has become a fact of life for Canadians in central and eastern Canada. The small independent businessman who operates a service station bears the brunt of criticism from consumers about rising gas prices, but he has no power to control those prices. We know, thanks to the report on the state of competition in the petroleum industry, that when you squeeze out independents, the price goes up. In this case, it goes into the hands of a government pricing monopoly. These businessmen are entitled to a fair return on their investment, but with decreasing profits and rising costs the future looks dismal.
Canadians have recently witnessed the realization of a made-in-Canada Constitution. They have prided themselves on their association with Great Britain and the democratic tradition inherent in parliamentary institutions. I would have hoped this would have allowed us to carry the British democratic legacy honourably. However, I have observed that the British parliamentary democracy is not only mature, but more responsible in government. The Falkland Islands dispute provides proof of that assertion. In that dispute a senior cabinet minister, as well as two junior cabinet ministers, accepted responsibility and did the only honourable thing: they resigned. They accepted responsibility and demonstrated their belief in responsible government by resigning. However, in Canada, we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who introduced the National Energy Program in 1980 and then in 1981 introduced a budget that was so obnoxious his own party rebelled, not to mention the Canadian public as a whole. This budget, which is still in the process of amendments, is the ultimate in incompetence. Clearly, parliamentary democracy demands and rightly expects his resignation. The fact that the Minister of Finance has not changed indicates that the current government's concern for parliamentary democracy does not exist.
Now we have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who also must concede defeat. Under his stewardship, the collapse of the Alsands project has worsened an already bleak economic situation. The minister is quick to avoid blame by transferring it to external factors. The minister should do the only honourable thing; that is, take responsibility for the failure of the Alsands project and resign.
It was not external factors which led to the demise of the Alsands megaproject. Clearly it was Liberal mismanagement. The budget and the national energy policy complement each other. They both stink!
To talk of oil self-sufficiency as well as to promise exploration in other areas does nothing to alleviate the anxiety of Canadians over their future financial prospects. The tax regime imposed by the National Energy Program has reduced
the industry's cash flow and earnings from oil and gas production to the point where its ability to generate investment capital is seriously impaired.
Investor confidence in the industry and in the economy has also been badly shaken, especially in the case of foreign investors. The combination of a severe reduction in internally-generated funds, which, in turn, affects the companies' ability to borrow, as well as weakened investor confidence, make the accumulation of large-scale funding, either through equity or debt, extremely difficult. It is obvious any fiscal terms that could have been struck between industry and the government had become academic, no matter what rate of return the terms created, because the petroleum industry simply does not have the money to invest on the scale required. For the same reason, and also because of a general lack of investor confidence, it is unlikely to find new participants in the near future for the Alsands project.
Investor confidence in Canada by foreigners is now restricted to bond sales and bank deposits, which have become particularly attractive to non-residents because of the high interest rates. This represents an outflow of between $4 billion and $6 billion in interest. As the federal government must float more bond issues the situation simply gets worse.
Government policies which cause the amount of capital outflow that is now occurring are policies exacted at a tremendous cost to all Canadians. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency tells us that the cost of Canadianization was $6.5 billion in the first six months of 1981.
This government must ask itself whether Canadianization costs exceed the benefits. Can we still afford the national energy policy? Of course not. There was a net direct investment drain of $10.2 billion in 1981.
While there is an element in the government which holds Canadianization above all else, the cost that is being imposed on the Canadian economy is horrendous. The name National Energy Program has a nationalistic ring that makes it sound appealing. It is, however, ill-conceived legislation that is beginning to backfire. In financing the current account deficit, together with the outflow of direct investment capital and unidentified outflows of funds, Canadians had to borrow $13.6 billion in 1981 through new security issues outside the country. An additional $14.9 billion was required in short-term capital imports.
The sharp rise in interest charges on the foreign debt is a visible legacy of the National Energy Program. The crippled dollar is another. The federal government has serious fiscal problems with little room to manoeuvre. The solution is clear. Relax the National Energy Program. Allow industry to keep a sufficient share of the oil and gas revenues it generates. It does not need handouts. It will then have the funds and the incentive to undertake a wide variety of projects. This action will also encourage outside investment.
The federal government needs to reassess its taxing and pricing arrangements for the health of the industry and the economy. While there may be initial pain from reduced
May 5, 1982

petroleum taxes, the creation of new jobs and increased profits in many sectors of the economy would generate considerable additional tax revenues.
The current period of softness in the international oil market will allow the government the opportunity to reassess our crude price position as well as our tax position. One alternative would be for domestic production to track the price schedule agreed to by Ottawa and the producing provinces, but not to allow the price of domestic crude ever to exceed that of imports.
There are other steps which could be more appropriate as federal government objectives that would allow for tax changes that could result in additional industry revenues comparable to those initiatives that have been currently implemented by the Alberta government. What is important is to provide sufficient funds to revitalize the petroleum industry in a manner that would provide the industry and investors with a badly needed assurance of some long-term stability.
The National Energy Program has coincided with one of the worst economic periods this country has experienced for a very long time. Coinciding as it did with a depressed economic environment, the effects of the national energy policy are devastating.
In Saskatchewan, Grant Devine spoke not at but to the people. He responded to the voters' wishes and struck a responsive chord, particularly with young people who are worried about their future financial prospects.
The role of government in the economy is to provide a framework for private sector growth. Creation of wealth is what government does best. Governments which become directly involved in commercial activity are not operating in the best interests of Canadians. There is still the opportunity to correct this state of affairs. If the federal government acts to provide relief on the scale that the gravity of the situation dictates, the country will see a significant turnaround in the industry and a new spirit of confidence will emerge in the future of this country.
I sincerely hope that the Canadian voter will not be fooled by the "prince-in-waiting", John Turner. The mad money policies of the current Liberal federal government were started by the former finance minister back in 1974 much to the detriment of the Canadian public. Somehow I believe the Canadian voter is fed up with being lied to.
The national energy policy, a policy of socialism with its high degree of intervention, is a 50-year-old policy that may have had some benefit during the last depression, but it is killing us now. People are rejecting the promise of next year. Temporary shutdown, it is called.
People in Saskatchewan have clearly indicated with their vote that they want relief from high interest rates, inflation and lack of opportunities. If the current government does not have the intestinal fortitude to make the hard decisions needed for these difficult times, let it put the question to the voters. Then we can get a new government that will put the state in its place and get Canada working again.
Even now, this government is telling Canadians that it is not the fault of the national energy policy that the megaprojects are failing. It is apparent this Liberal government is assuming that if you continue to repeat something often enough, hopefully, Canadians will actually believe it. This is why Trudeau and his government have launched a $5 million ad campaign proclaiming that it is "helping Canada work". Besides promoting job training and skill development, the campaign is intended to suggest that whatever its problems, the Canadian economy is working. Taxpayers are actually revolting at this waste of money. Times have changed and people no longer believe slick media slogans-the just society in 1968, the land is strong in 1972, win the ethnic vote in 1974, trust the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1979, and gasoline increases below 14 cents per gallon in 1980. This type of advocacy advertising is now backfiring because 1.2 million people are officially unemployed, along with students looking for work, struggling businesses, farmers and consumers trying to make ends meet with high interest rates and inflation. They all have trouble believing this b.s.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William John Vankoughnet: Canadians by the thousands now know this socialist party as a tired old government lacking proper representation across Canada, devoid of ideas to fit the crisis, pork-barrelling and pouring out tax dollars as a screen for inaction and incompetence. This political bankruptcy is a result of many good Liberals abandoning a sinking ship over the past few years. All that is left is the philosophy put forward by a Liberal backbencher on January 29, 1982, when he said:
If, in order to promote our development the Liberal Party thinks we have to be communistic, we shall be communistic. This is what it is all about to be a Liberal.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) concerning the cancellation of the Alsands project and the postponement of the completion date of the northern gas pipeline project. This is not the first delay we have seen with the Alaska gas pipeline project. Certainly during the 1970s, when we were in power, we moved expeditiously to see the northern gas bill passed so that we could put in place the regulatory procedures and the agency to see the project go forward. The project is a private enterprise in which most of the funds are being raised in the United States, as they should be, because it is American gas in Alaska which will be transported to the southern 48 states. The delays are regrettable, but they are due to circumstances in the United States. We moved rapidly to put in place the agency during the 1970s. I served as chairman of the Northern Pipelines Committee. If there was any delay at that time, it certainly would not have been caused by us.
In its announcement last week the Alaskan company indicated that there were a number of factors in the United States which were affecting the project. For example, there

May 5, 1982
was the short-term excess oil supply; depressed prices of crude oil, which, incidentally, cancelled or postponed other projects in the United States like the oil shale project; low levels of economic activities; and the general uncertainty of United States financial markets. All these were factors in postponing the start-up and the completion date of the northern gas pipeline.
However, that is not to diminish the disadvantage to Canada. Most of the pipeline will be built in Canada, from which we will receive many spin-off benefits. Also there will be the foreign exchange advantage and the balance of payments advantage in the cost of transporting Alaskan natural gas to the lower 48th parallel.
It is interesting and significant that the sponsors and natural gas producers in Prudhoe Bay indicated that they are still committed to the project and will continue with the expenditure of money for the planning and development of the project. Likewise, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., indicated that it would continue with the pre-construction work or Phase II so that the project can go forward even though it is delayed for a couple of years.
It is important to remember that the western leg of the prebuild was completed last fall and that the eastern leg of the pre-build will be completed this fall. Certainly this will mean that something like one third of the total length of the project will have been completed. The waivers given last fall by the United States Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, were largely due to the completion of one third of the length of the project itself. Even the economic benefits of the pre-build are of significance to Canada. For instance, the National Energy Board estimated that the net economic benefit of the prebuild to Canada will be some $4.5 billion, and that over the lifetime of the line some $17 billion worth of natural gas will be sold in contracts to the United States, which should give us a balance of payments benefit from the pre-build of some $2 billion. Although the project has been delayed by some two years, there is no doubt that we will derive a great deal of economic benefit from the pre-build of the gas pipeline. This is especially significant at a time when we seem to have a surplus of gas in western Canada which is shut in.
With regard to the cancellation of the Alsands project, the House will recall that when the National Energy Program was announced on October 28, 1980, the Premier of Alberta indicated that he was putting a hold on the Athabasca tar sands project, on the Alsands project and on the Cold Lake project. This was especially regrettable; I am sure the premier of the province now believes that that decision was most regrettable.
On November 12, 1980, I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I indicated that the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works had been studying these massive projects which would have an immediate influence on the amount of oil, but that over the period of construction they would be of great economic advantage to Canada. Also I indicated that in the end they would
certainly provide a great deal of oil supply and security. I asked the minister the following question:
-will the minister be seeking an agreement with the Alberta minister of energy to have the province's hold on these plants lifted and this issue separated from the over-all disagreement on oil pricing and revenue sharing from conventional oil, so that these projects can go forward without delay?
In his response the minister said:
The one suggested by the hon. member is indeed one we would welcome.
He went on to indicate that he would talk with the Alberta minister of energy. It is most unfortunate that the whole question of tar sands plants could not have been separated. If we look at it realistically, we realize that the federal government was trying to get its share of revenues increased from some 10 per cent, as it was before October 28, to something like 25 per cent or 28 per cent. That kind of disagreement will take many months and, in fact, it took about ten months to reach an agreement. There was no illusion. When you think about trying to increase the federal government's share of revenues and taking on the multinationals and provincial governments, in an issue like that, you realize it will not be easy. It will take a number of months to accomplish.
It is unfortunate that this project could not have been separated from an over-all agreement on oil pricing and revenue sharing of conventional oil. I believe if that were the case it would probably have gone ahead. The companies clearly indicated that in their testimony before the committee in the fall of 1980. We can never be 100 per cent sure. There was an agreement in early September, 1980, which was made with Alberta, but the project still did not proceed immediately at that time. Negotiations preceded that and clearly there has been the utmost co-operation between the two levels of government. They have been willing to put up half the equity-about $6.5 billion-of the $13 billion required for the project. They were willing to guarantee a return of some 20 per cent on the investment of the private shareholders of Gulf and Shell. Even with the co-operation between the two levels of government, the guaranteed return on investment, and equity participation of 50 per cent, the companies were still unwilling to proceed with the project. The problems that the United States investors faced on the northern gas pipeline were the same problems facing the private investors. I believe that it is their prerogative. It is a private-enterprise project, even though governments were willing to guarantee rates of return by granting concessions in royalties and taxes. Whether or not to go ahead is still a private-enterprise decision.
I recently spoke to a senior official in a large company who was studying a massive expenditure in the development of his company. He said, "When we sit down to look at these maga-projects we know that if we make a bad decision we can effectively wind up the company." I believe that with the uncertainty as to the interest on money, oil prices and so on, the responsibility and difficulties faced by large corporations are considerable.
May 5, 1982

The Energy Legislation Committee during this past few weeks heard a great deal about the delay in exploration and development activities in the oil and gas industry in Canada. I think it is rather interesting to note that a recent report of the United States department of commerce forecast of projected capital expenditures abroad for foreign affiliates of U.S. companies estimated that Canadian affiliates of U.S. petroleum companies plan a 28 per cent increase in exploration in Canada in 1982 over 1981. I believe that it is a significant figure because exploration by United States affiliates on a worldwide basis is estimated to be only approximately 18 per cent.
Therefore, in spite of all the rhetoric we hear from the other side and complaints about the National Energy Program, the fact is that American-owned affiliates are making capital investments at a much higher rate in Canada than they are in other countries.
We are told that a report will be coming out very soon. I believe it is the next report of Oilweek in which it is indicated that of something like 170 drilling rigs which moved from Canada to the United States-supposedly because of much better returns there-only 20 are operating. I think we would want to take all those arguments we hear from the other side with a grain of salt. It is clear that the economic uncertainties are faced by all countries around the world and not just by Canadian oil companies.
For instance, during the past couple of weeks in the United States, Exxon Colony in Colorado had planned a 47,000 barrel per day shale oil project costing $5 billion. It is my understanding that this project has been cancelled because of the very same problems that face the private sector with regard to the northern gas pipeline deferral and the Alsands cancellation. Likewise, Exxon Troupe in Texas has a gasification project worth $4 billion which has been deferred recently. Similarly, Panhandle, which is a company in Wyoming, had a coal gasification project involving some 49 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas which has been cancelled. In Nigeria, a liquefied natural gas project costing $14 billion was recently shelved because of the problems that face all megaprojects, wherever they may be in the world.
Naturally, we are all disappointed that the Alsands project was scrapped. However, I believe it is rather ridiculous to accept the argument from the other side that Canada's prosperity depends on a single project like Alsands. Its own private sponsors have indicated that it is unprofitable under the present economic conditions, in spite of the generous offer by Alberta and the Canadian government which would have covered fully the 84 per cent of the cost of the suspended project. Hon. members opposite have no faith in the economic drive of Canadians. Are they suggesting, despite their continued pleas, that the private sector should do more in the Canadian energy field and that the federal government should saddle the Canadian taxpayer with the total cost of Alsands, amounting to some $13.9 billion?
I would like to give a short report on the economic benefits which megaprojects are providing to Canadians. The number of projects, other than Alsands, to which I can point is a tribute to the diversity of the Canadian resource sector and the
potential which exists there. For example, there is the development of the Hibernia oil and of Venture gas off the shore of the east coast. There is the exploration and development of our oil and gas resources in the Beaufort Sea. There is the Trans Quebec & Maritime PipeLines which is now getting ready for construction.
Let us review some of these projects briefly. Since the National Energy Program was announced, work has progressed steadily on the work on Hibernia. Four delineation wells have been drilled. As a result, the Canadian Petroleum Association has recognized new proven oil reserves amounting to over one billion barrels. Our expectations for the area are even greater. This development means jobs for people in Newfoundland, in Atlantic Canada and across the country.
We have the Venture gas field near Sable Island. Petro-Canada had an important role to play in the discovery of this field in 1979. Since the National Energy Program two delineation wells have been drilled at Venture, resulting in an estimated proven reserve of 1V2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The Venture gas field lies within the offshore region covered by the recent agreement between the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia on offshore resource management and revenue sharing. Under this agreement, the government of Nova Scotia will exert a large degree of control over the development of these resources and receive the lion's share of potential offshore revenues.
What is more, the offshore administrative regime established under this agreement and the new oil and gas act which was proclaimed on March 5, 1982, will ensure that Canadians participate more fully in the accelerated exploration and development activity which will now take place in the Canada lands on the east coast.
I could go on and mention the Beaufort Sea development which is estimated to cost some $44 billion and will create
10,000	jobs, some 4,600 permanent. I could also mention the Trans Quebec & Maritime PipeLines project which will cost some $2 billion and create 12,000 jobs. There is also the heavy oil upgrade in Saskatchewan which will cost $2 billion and the Dome Petroleum project to explore liquefied natural gas which is expected to be completed by 1985. It represents $2 billion in investment and 8,200 jobs during construction. The rim gas project, also to be completed in 1985, will cost about $1.5 billion and mean 2,000 jobs in construction.
I could also mention the new methanol plant in Kitimat, British Columbia, to be completed in 1983 at a cost of over $140 million, the ethylene plant II to be built in Joffre, Alberta, by 1984, costing $500 million, expansion of the Trans-Canada PipeLine in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario which will mean an investment of $237 million this year, and the truck construction of a new TransCanada PipeLine from North Bay to Morrisburg, Ontario, which represents an investment of $408 million.

May 5, 1982
It is clear from these comments that although we are all disappointed that the Alsands project is not going ahead because of economic circumstances, we recognize there are many other projects going ahead which will help to move us toward energy self-sufficiency during this decade. I think these few comments indicate a great deal of movement in that direction.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote as follows from the document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s", which was tabled with the budget introduced in this House in November 1981:
The decade of the 1980s holds great promise, offering opportunities of unprecedented magnitude and the potential for lasting benefits from economic renewal to Canadians in every area of the country.
The leading opportunity lies in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources.
It goes on to point out the importance of massive megaprojects. It identifies $440 billion worth of potential projects, predominantly in the energy sector. It talks about the tremendous opportunity this will provide in terms of manufacturing activity, both to supply machinery, equipment and materials needed for resource development and to extend the further processing of those resource products beyond the primary stage.
It goes on to talk about the massive investment that will be required and about the opportunity for utilizing Canada's innovative resources in the development and exploitation of advanced technology, about increasing the productivity, providing the necessary goods and services, creating a climate of innovation and creativity in manufacturing, about engineering, technological communications, and electronic opportunities. It then points out the following:
It is equally clear that we must build upon and strengthen our technological infrastructure. Innovation is a major key to success in the market place and to the achievement of the productivity growth that is so essential to the real growth that underlies our expectations of rising standards of living.
Those are lofty, credible objectives, but analysed in the context of the reality of what is happening, these words are nothing but empty, shallow, meaningless rhetoric. It clearly points out once again the misleading nature of this government. What we have in this document is nothing but a bunch of rhetorical fluff. It resembles in great part the platform that was presented to the people of Canada during the 1980 election.
I am not sure how much longer the people of Canada will be in a position to swallow this kind of phoniness and deception. The policies of this government are such that they mitigate against the achievement of these goals and objectives. They mitigate against achieving a stable climate that is conducive to investment and has some semblance of confidence.
The people of Canada and Canadian industrialists have no confidence in the management of this country as it is now provided by this government. They believe this country is being steered by a group of economic misfits.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is being castrated.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My colleague says it is being castrated. That may be an appropriate word. Suffice it to say it is being steered by a group of economic misfits which industry does not trust. It changes the rules in the middle of the night. That is why Alsands is not going ahead.
This government has developed a policy of redistribution of wealth rather than the creation of new wealth. It discourages investment, creativity, innovative abilities of Canadians, vitality and the creative instincts of Canadians.
We are living in a society, an economic climate that is sterile rather than vibrant. Moreover, the on-again-off-again policies of this government, the budget, the National Energy Program, the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the manner in which they govern in a climate of confrontation and unilateralism has created chaos and uncertainty. The budget and the National Energy Program have created confusion, the result of which has created hardship and heartbreak for many thousands of Canadians.
Since the 1980 election, this government has had essentially one objective in mind, that is, to get even with the west. I have a cartoon here which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of June 9. It is rather interesting that it should appear in a newspaper in Canada's capital. It illustrates the picture of the Empress of Venezuela supertanker which is obviously carrying oil to Canada. At the same time there is a box of Canadian dollars being lifted by the crane. The picture shows our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with a caption that states: "Consider yourselves lucky, this money could be going to Alberta."
In a nutshell, that really puts this whole debate into perspective. There is an insane jealousy along the benches of this government for any potential development and growth that may take place in western Canada, particularly in the province of Alberta. There can be no question that, in the interest of national security, in the interest of the advancement of our technology and maintaining world leadership in oil sands technology, in the interest of fuelling the engine of economic growth and development at this critical time, and providing jobs, and in the interest of bolstering the manufacturing sector of Canada, this Alsands project should be going ahead. There can be no question about that. It could have been under way and it should have been under way. There is no question that it could have been under way, but unfortunately it was doomed. It was doomed, Mr. Speaker, the moment this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assumed his responsibility in charge of energy in this country.
To back that up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the July 10 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is an article written by Mr. Ronald Anderson, a very perceptive individual in terms of economics and energy policy in this country and indeed throughout the world. He stated, back on July 10, 1981:
May 5, 1982

Mr. Lalonde does not care much any more about the oil sands. He continues to say that the Government wishes to pursue all options in increasing the domestic supply of oil; but the National Energy Program largely wrote off the supply of conventional oil in Alberta-
We know that because we have 300,000 barrels a day locked in right now in the province of Alberta and probably 50,000 barrels a day in the province of Saskatchewan. So that has been proved. He has been right on that. I quote again:
Mr. Lalonde now seems ready to write off the oil sands.
That was stated, Mr. Speaker, by Ronald Anderson in the Globe and Mail of July 10, 1981.
So the mould was cast at that time. The mould was cast, and so for hon. members opposite to stand up and blame Alberta, blame the private sector, blame the oil companies, blame the opposition, is totally false and inaccurate. The mould was cast, Mr. Speaker. This Alsands project was doomed by this government, by this minister, when he assumed the responsibility of his portfolio.
The article goes on to read:
Mr. Lalonde, after a tour of Dome Petroleum Ltd. drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea, is reported by The Canadian Press to have talked confidently about the possibility of an oil surplus in Canada by 1990.
The Energy Minister indicated that he regards development in the Beaufort as an alternative that is at least as attractive as oil sands development. He said it now appears that Canada can be "pretty confident of production coming out of the east coast and the Arctic."
That again demonstrates and illustrates the naivete of a man in charge of the energy future of Canada. We know that it will take years to overcome the regulatory hurdles, in terms of building a pipeline from the Beaufort Sea or any other mode of transportation. It will take years to develop that system to get oil out of the Beaufort into the lower part of Canada. We have the ongoing jurisdictional dispute between the province of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada.
Furthermore, I would venture to say that in the end the oil from the Hibernia or frontier source will be as expensive as the oil out of Alsands. It seems to me that any deliberate policy shift to reliance exclusively on the offshore and the frontier represents a very high risk. That is where we are today, Mr. Speaker.
The members opposite cannot try to weasel out of this, the responsibility for the failure of this project going ahead lies at the doorstep of the treasury benches. The responsibility also lies at the doorstep of the members who support this government and keep it in office, and that applies also to the red rump to my left.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources chooses to do what he does, he is not only hurting the economy of western Canada, he is in fact hurting the whole nation. That is what the National Energy Program has done. It will go down in history as the major man-made disaster of the 1980s.
We talk about Canadianization. And who is not in favour of Canadianization? We all want to see our energy industry controlled and owned by Canadians to the greatest extent possible. The fact of the matter is, whether or not we have a
large degree of foreign ownership, we will have the regulatory abilities to develop those resources in a manner that meets the national public interest. We still have that freedom, surely.
Therefore, I do not get overly excited about the fact that we have a high degree of foreign ownership, because we still have ultimate control. But what does Canadianization cost us? It cost $6.5 billion in the last year, and that is money that has not produced one barrel of oil. It has not added to our ability to achieve greater self-sufficiency.
What else has the National Energy Program done? It has seen the exodus of $10.2 billion of investment capital out of this country, about $5.3 billion worth of foreign capital and $4.9 Canadian. We have massive government intervention in the energy industry, and we can expect more.
I notice that the Financial Times of April 19, says:
According to an internal energy department study obtained by the Times, officials are probing the refining and marketing segments of the oil industry, looking for rationalizations for new interventions. There is talk of "carrots" and "sticks" to promote different objectives ... We can see possibilities involving forced Canadianization, price controls, profit restrictions, production directives, and continuing erosion of private control of the industry.
So Canadianization is not really the ultimate purpose here, it is nationalization and greater centralized control, so that the bureaucrats and the politicians here who occupy the treasury benches can determine who the winners and the losers are going to be, who will get a grant and who will get a subsidy and where and in what part of the country. And by doing so they will be dividing rather than uniting this country. We have had too much of that. What we need in the country is a renewal of our economic and political partnership. We need co-operation. We need co-operation with other governments, we need co-operation within industry. That has been lacking. We have had division, chaos and confusion. That must stop.
I will quote now from a freelance writer who writes for the Edmonton Journal. He has observed this massive government encroachment, this massive government intervention. He has been noted as not being a Conservative or a Liberal, but rather he has been noted as being in line with the New Democratic Party. This is what he had to say:
When I look at the Ottawa crowd today, I have visions of Lenin, Trotzky and other assorted personages of the Russian revolution of 1917 ... First the government instigates inflation by being spendthrift and by being overly generous in the settling of its own labour disputes. Then it goes after inflation and hurts many people.
Much of the inflation we have in this country today was and is caused by government irresponsibility. Even now, when everyone is supposed to hold the line, Ottawa's spending is up by more than 20 per cent.
He goes on:
Federal and fiscal monetary policies affecting directly and indirectly Canadians' ability to afford housing, are other examples of Ottawa's anti-middle-class sentiment. Fewer people than ever before are in the position to own homes of their own. A nation of home owners is becoming a nation of tenants. This is bound to weaken society severely.
Coming from an individual who has leftist tendencies-and he is horrified by the tendencies of this government-one would certainly assume that the average Canadian, too, is horrified.

May 5, 1982
I have in my hand an article from one of those average Canadians, a man by the name of John B. Witchell. He refers to the writings of the Prime Minister in the book entitled "Federalism and French-Canadians" in which it is stated:
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist government in certain provinces, from which the seeds of radicalism can slowly spread-
If the whole of the Canadian electorate could miraculously be converted to socialist ideals at one fell swoop, there would be no reason to discuss strategy-
In his article, Mr. Witchell says:
By now, if we are willing to accept the clear intent of Trudeau's words, we begin to realize that his "Federalism" is merely a stepping stone to socialism- socialism as in China, Russia, or the Cuba toward which he once paddled in his own canoe.
That is the major concern in Canada, over and above the fact that we face the highest unemployment rate in history, the highest interest rates, the highest rate of inflation, and the highest level of bankruptcies. People are concerned about what this man and this government, his cabinet colleagues and his supporters in the back benches, will do to them. They are fearful when they hear that the government is contemplating the taxation of the imputed rental income from the homes which individuals own, another $4.5 billion. It is there. We as members of the opposition must draw this to the attention of the House and the country, day in and day out. There can be no question.
Referring back to the National Energy Program, 1 have heard much from hon. members opposite about the fact that this Alsands project has failed because of the private sector. I have also heard hon. members opposite and those in the NDP say, "Well, those boys in the Conservative Party are in the pockets of the multinationals". The National Energy Program has not hurt the multinationals. It has crippled small Canadian industry. Exploration is down by 40 per cent since this disastrous policy came into effect. Look at the headlines which state, "Exodus of oil rigs increases", "Budget may throw 200 rigs off the job", "Small firms suffer". The small Canadian firms suffer. Another headline states, "Oil service, a lot of red ink, a lot of pain". Referring to trucking companies, about 25 per cent of Alberta's heavy-haul truckers went out of business during 1981, according to the industry's trade publication. Ontario loses too. The fact is that when this megaproject was worth $7 million, as the Hon. Larry Grossman indicated in the study-although it has doubled to $14 million-it creates $800 million in business for the Ontario iron and steel industry. That would amount to $1.6 billion, $370 million for Ontario metal working firms, and if we double that it amounts to approximately $700 million. The Ontario transportation industry amounts to about $650 million. There is another $1.5 billion for other manufacturers and processors in Ontario. There is another $1.6 billion for the Ontario trade and service sector. If we look at what Syncrude has provided, we find that out of the $2.2 billion Syncrude project, roughly 20 per cent of the labour force came from Ontario and 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the equipment it needed came from Ontario. Syncrude
officials calculated that, by 1976, more than $100 million worth of machinery and equipment was ordered from Ontario.
So here we are. We see firm after firm going out of business,, yet the government has the audacity to deliberately kill a project which will kill industry in Alberta and in Ontario. For every job created in the oil industry in Alberta, two jobs are created elsewhere in Canada. This government's attack on western Canada is really in effect an attack on the central manufacturing heartland of Canada and, indeed, is causing chaos and confusion and is creating further dislocation, hardship, hopelessness and despair in this country. I can say to Your Honour that not only should this government resign, but it should also leave. It should get right out of the country because it is a menace to Canada and to the free society that we enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by telling the House and Canadians how disappointed I am in the hon. member for-is it Vegreville?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is close enough.


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He was the former distinguished minister of transport who, in normal times, enjoyed the full respect of all hon. members from all sides of this House and in committee. However, to see him come into this House and stand up and try to sow the seeds of disruption and separation within this country the way he did this morning gives us cause for concern. I am sure he will want to reflect on his contribution.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You have destroyed the country. I have not been in charge of that.


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member will want to reflect on his approach this morning. As I said, the hon. member for Vegreville has obviously been drawn over by his leader, not to the right or to the left, but beyond any semblance of reason. In recent times the hon. member has given utterances to the press to the effect that he was not sure whether he would support his leader in the next leadership review. However, this morning he gave us a demonstration that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has drawn him beyond any semblance of reason.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: "Beyond Reason". I have read that book.


Maurice James Harquail: Last evening, the Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself to take advantage of the fact that he was leading off in debate to draw in hon. members from this side. I must say that he did it in a very unfair manner. It was found that he did not even know what he was talking about, because when he made reference to the riding of Restigouche, he did not even have one bit of information as to the economic development taking place in northern New Brunswick. However, I am delighted that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition brought forward this motion to adjourn when he asked leave to move the adjournment of the House. Now there is a party which is interested in the future. There is a party which
May 5, 1982

is interested in the country. However, what do its members want to do? They keep the bells ringing for two weeks.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: To stop this wave of socialism.


Maurice James Harquail: Now they come to the House to ask the support of the Speaker. They lean on poor Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice James Harquail: -to help them out of the disarray that they are in today. That is the problem. In any ordinary democratic system, there must be a good opposition to give good government. What do we have here? The reason this institution has had its problems since the beginning of this year, 1982, is facing us right here in the benches of the Official Opposition.


Walter David Baker: Order, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton rises on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know it has been some time for the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), but we are debating a matter of urgency. That was the finding of the Chair. That is why we are here. I think the House would appreciate it if the hon. member would direct himself to the emergency which has occurred as a result of the failure of the Alsands project and pipeline.


Maurice James Harquail: This is another indication of some of the tactics of hon. members in the opposition. They are so interested in democracy that they are not even willing to allow elected representatives in this House to have their fair time in which to speak when they have the floor. But notwithstanding their belligerent attitude, let me just go on to tell my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton-


Walter David Baker: Nepean-Carleton.


Maurice James Harquail: -Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that I will be coming to the subject in very short order.


Walter David Baker: I am waiting.


Maurice James Harquail: 1 just want to take the opportunity to address myself to some points which were brought into the debate, in case the hon. member was not here. As a matter of fact, he was here. That is how he was able to mention my riding. The Leader of the Opposition was looking through his briefcase and he could not find his notes. That is how prepared he was. He asked the hon. member for help in locating his notes. The Leader of the Opposition got exercised about the fact that I said, "Give him a helping hand. He needs all the help he can get". That is when he decided he would try to attack me, that he might take that approach. Where was the concentration and dedication of the hon. member's leader to the subject that he had brought into the House, the Alsands project, when he started to talk about my constituency? The evidence was very clear, but hon. members opposite do not want to hear about it.
Let me then tell hon. members about the economy of northern New Brunswick. Since the Leader of the Opposition
does not know about it and since he asked for information last night, I am here today to tell the world, the House of Commons and the citizens out there who are listening just exactly what is happening down there. I will be mentioning oil exploration off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland when I get to the subject of Alsands. There is a number of other items about which hon. members opposite do not want to hear, but I will put some facts on the record so that all Canadians will know.
The Leader of the Opposition is not aware that in recent months, because of very substantial support and co-operation from the federal government, three major companies have decided to modernize pulp and paper mills in northern New Brunswick. One is located at Atholville. One is at the town of Dalhousie, and one is at Bathurst. There is in total in excess of $600 million of capitalization as a result of approximately $60 million of federal incentive money. That is one aspect the Leader of the Opposition inquired about last night, and I thought I would bring that information forward and clarify it today.
In addition to the modernization of pulp and paper mills which will secure permanent jobs for the next 40 to 50 years there will be, of course, spin-offs for the economy in the region, and the number of new jobs created during construction will be very significant. I underline the importance of that.
In addition to this, the Brunswick Mining & Smelting Corporation of the Noranda group has decided to proceed with the construction of a new zinc plant within my constituency at an estimated cost of $360 million. If we combine the capital investment and the modernization of the pulp mills which is under way now, which amounts to upwards $600 million, and the commitment to incentive grants of $21 million plus the 50 per cent tax credit on new construction of over $360 million, I am happy and excited to be able to stand here and tell hon. members that upwards of $1 billion of capital investment is going into northern New Brunswick. As far as I know, northern New Brunswick is still part of Canada. Let us not forget that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank God for the provincial government.


Maurice James Harquail: Now that through our democratic process I have had the opportunity to set the record straight on that point, I want to refer to the matter which has been brought before the House. I am sure all interested Canadians will want to ask themselves why the opposition has adopted this strategy and this tactic at this time. Why would the Leader of the Opposition want to delay the proceedings of the House? Why would the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to bring in delaying tactics? Why would they want to holler and whoop and yell when we bring forward points which are not quite in agreement with the foolish attitude they have to our approach to trying to operate this country?

May 5, 1982
Another thing which strikes me but which has not yet caught hon. members opposite-this was referred to by the previous speaker-is that in 1980 the Canadian people made a decision. That decision was made as a result of the democratic process of going to the polls.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Based on a whole bunch of deceit.


Maurice James Harquail: What hon. members opposite have not yet accepted-they have not had the intestinal fortitude-is the democratic decision of Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not in western Canada.


Maurice James Harquail: Canadians were very clear in their decision, and who got the mandate? The economic policies of hon. members opposite were put before the people in that democratic process, and they got their answer. The answer of the Canadian people to the Progressive Conservative economic approach was no. The answer was a pure and simple no. We have accepted the responsibility to govern.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You haven't any mandate from the west to govern.


Maurice James Harquail: Now we hear from the little fellow from British Columbia. He just woke up. He is back in the House screeching and yelling. Yesterday the NDP member from British Columbia got into a screeching match with the House leader for the official opposition. That is his mental attitude and approach to good debate in the House. The hon. member who is trying to interrupt my speech now, screeched and yelled yesterday. The energy critic for the New Democratic Party engaged in a violent exchange with the House leader of the official opposition.
If we were to listen again to everything said in the last 12 hours or more, we might begin to wonder if there is nothing positive going on in Canada. Is everything gloom and doom?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


Maurice James Harquail: Is there nothing positive happening in terms of economic development in the country? Let us hear the catcalls when I enumerate some of the projects under way in Canada. Under active construction is the Dome Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration phase involving over half a billion dollars.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Dome is going bankrupt.


Maurice James Harquail: The Esso Beaufort Sea drilling system involves SI30 million. The Gulf Beaufort Sea drilling system in the Northwest Territories involves $700 million. The Norman Wells oil field development involves $600 million. The Trans Quebec & Maritimes PipeLines involves $861 million. The Revelstoke hydro project in British Columbia involves $1,115 billion. The Pickering "B" generating station involves $1,805 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is a provincial project.


Maurice James Harquail: That is part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice James Harquail: Are hon. members suggesting to me that the Pickering "B" generating station is not part of our economy? I have heard the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) yell in the various committees, but I thought he would show some respect in the House of Commons. He is not in a committee now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Poor little fellow.


Maurice James Harquail: Let me tell hon. members about some of the other things they do not want to hear about. There is a commitment to the CF-18 Hornet fighter aircraft project amounting to $2.99 billion. I am sure hon. members opposite want me to go on. The Ridley Island coal and grain terminals involve over $400 million. That is close to half a billion dollars.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Stalled.


Maurice James Harquail: The synthetic crude oil refinery and benzene plant in Alberta involves $600 million.


William James Kempling: That is stalled.


Maurice James Harquail: Do hon. members opposite want me to go on? They shake their heads. They do not want to hear this. Canada is still a great country. Canada is one of the best countries in the world, and hon. members opposite should not forget that. They should not try to drag it down and give the impression to Canadians that it is in such bad shape. They are only causing a negative division in the country, and I suggest there are some positive things going on.
Let me talk about advance planning and design stages of other projects. The Lower Churchill Falls project involves $1.65 billion. The Canadian patrol frigate program involves $1.89 billion. Sable Island offshore gas in Nova Scotia involves $2 billion. The Norman Wells oil pipeline involves $400 million. La Grande Phase II at James Bay involves $3,487 billion. The Hibernia oil development project offshore Newfoundland involves over $4 billion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Where?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not even started. You have it stopped in its tracks.


Maurice James Harquail: Hon. members are concerned about what we would do to offer alternatives. We have stated what we would do, and there have been agreements. It is not good news at any time to hear of a project which has faltered. I would be among the first to join my colleagues who have said here in this debate on this motion that we are not happy about the fact that these private companies have decided that the risk is too great. However, let us not forget that we had the courage of our convictions to go ahead and offer financing for this project. We are not happy about the fact that it has been postponed. I am sure the government of Alberta is not very happy. Mr. May 5, 1982

Lougheed is not too popular these days out west, and I am sure he is not pleased. What does the Leader of the Opposition say about that? He is very careful not to bring Alberta in when he talks about the demise of Alsands. Alsands is always the problem only of this government. Alsands is all a Liberal problem. How naive can hon. members be? Under what illusions are they operating? Do they think people are so gullible that they believe that kind of hogwash?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We certainly don't believe you.


Maurice James Harquail: I sat here and listened to the hon. member for Vegreville a while ago, and 1 hope he displays to me the good spirit he displays most of the time. Hon. members opposite become very upset when someone else speaks in the House because their leader allows only a few of them to speak. I do not understand that logic, but that is a difficulty hon. members opposite have. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts.
I would like to go on and speak about alternatives to Alsands. I mentioned the Beaufort Sea, and I would like to mention others. The Dome project in the Beaufort Sea involves $500 million in investment. The Esso project involves about $130 million. I mentioned the Gulf drilling system project in the Beaufort Sea, the Norman Wells oil field, Hibernia, and the natural gas pipeline into Atlantic Canada, something we are very happy about. In British Columbia we have a coal development project which represents some $700 million, and I have already mentioned the Ridley Island coal. There is the Carmont upgrader in Montreal which represents an investment of over $1 billion. There is the upgrader in Saskatchewan which is another billion dollar investment. These are some of the projects which have not been mentioned here once.
It all becomes very clear. People stop and ask themselves why do they play this kind of political gamesmanship? We have an opposition in such disarray that it has to come back to the House with delaying tactics, where the House was hijacked, and then they have the gall to come in and say with a happy face that they are all good men and women who are sincerely interested in democracy and they want our country to work. As the worn out expression goes, you cannot have it both ways.
You cannot say the country is having all sorts of difficult problems just because one project was cancelled. We have admitted that it is regrettable the project is not going ahead at this time. Perhaps it will at a later date and we will be ready to support it. It just happens that the world economic situation today is such that it does not permit the project to go ahead. Reference has been made to the reasons why. We here in Canada are not an island unto ourselves; we deal in the international marketplace.
There are other countries with similar problems, not the least of which is the United States which had to cancel the $5 billion Exxon project in Colorado. A $4 billion project in Texas has been deferred. The Wyoming Panhandle coal gasification
project, $49 billion, has been deferred. A nuclear energy project of over $30 billion in Mexico is delayed. Liquefied natural gas exports from Nigeria in excess of $15 billion have been shelved. The list goes on and on.
We can talk about the situation in France referred to by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) last evening, which represents a very significant amount of money and which has been postponed. In the U.K. falling oil prices and demand are creating uncertainty about the outlook for up to 70 potential new fields in the North Sea. These are some of the facts which sincere Canadians would be interested in knowing. But that is not to say, as is being put forward, that it is all doom and gloom. There are many exciting things taking place in Canada.
While we have suffered for years in eastern Canada, specifically the Atlantic area, we are at long last over and above the seasonally adjusted unemployment situation which is constantly with us in the forestry and fishery industries. We now see some hope in New Brunswick because of the modernization of their important pulp and paper mills and the proposed construction of a new zinc plant which will cost in excess of $360 million.
I have put forward, Mr. Speaker, some aspects of this government's position with regard to projects, ongoing and proposed, costing from $500 million to in excess of $1 billion. These are all the direct result of decisions taken by this government in a spirit of co-operation with private enterprise to secure jobs for the future, and create jobs now.
There are other aspects which I would like to draw to the attention of the House during this debate, but of course time is limited and I would be the last one to want to delay the business of the House. I for one, if members opposite were prepared to tell the whole story, would be in a better mood to accept it. But they do not want to talk about anything positive.
What we have seen here lately is an attitude of character assassination, attacking people personally, with no consideration for the traditions of the House, and they are trying to break down the country. And I think that is an outright shame. We know why! The answer is in the Gallup poll. When they should be on the crest, the polls show they are dropping. The Canadian people have no faith in the opposition parties, but we are going up in those polls. Then, when you look at the leadership, our leader far outstrips the Leader of the Opposition in the polls, and even the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) is running second behind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is a desperate party, a desperate opposition in disarray, with a desperate leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member presenting a list of all the good news, most of which had nothing to do with this government and was in the works in spite of, not because of the government. I was particularly interested to hear him mention the heavy-oil upgrader in Saskatchewan. That has been in Liberal speeches for the last eight years, and we still cannot find it. It

May 5, 1982
has just dropped out of sight. Then there is Prince Rupert. I was reading the Western Producer the other day, and the hon. member should subscribe to it because Prince Rupert is not off the ground either. Oh, the National Harbours Board has a couple of bulldozers running around pushing dirt up to the shoreline, but that is all.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there will always be investment in projects going on in many fields of endeavour in any country, but when it remains unplanned and unco-ordinated, and when it is subject to high interest rates, just like the home owner, investors will go broke. All the experts told us what we have to do. I have a figure here totalling some $77 billion just on three projects. Of course, now that we have lower world oil prices there is not as big a buck in it as there was, so the industry is going home. The private investors are not interested because the bucks are not going to be as big as they would have been had those projects been in place one or two years ago. So much for our great corporate citizens and their grand plans for private enterprise to make Canada self-sufficient in energy. The Liberals keep running around trying to be half pregnant. But there is no such thing. On the one hand they say they are all for free enterprise. They make just as good speeches as the Tories do about their versions of free enterprise. Then they say, "We are going to go down the middle of the road." But the problem is that all the action happens in the middle of the road. My hon. friends on the government side have been running around for the last several years trying to be all things to all people. They cannot make up their minds what to do. I will say that the Progressive Conservatives decided which way to go, but they could not count.


Charles James Mayer: Tell us how you do it.


David P. Smith: Tell us how Blakeney counts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Keep your cool, fellows.
I never gloated over eight elections in which the Tories got wiped out.
If the megaprojects are worth while, then there has to be built-in protection of Canadian companies and Canadian governments. These projects are not built just because we can make a fast buck outside our borders when there are areas in our country that do not have gas or have to pay exorbitant prices for fuel to heat homes, drive cars, run farm machinery or run industry.
What I consider to be traitorous-and I hope that word is not unparliamentary, because I believe that the traitorous attitude of the Liberal government, supported by the Conservatives, is to go again into supine acquiescence at the request of the United States government-is to agree to another four trillion cubic feet of natural gas going outside our borders and that we are going to build a pipeline in the southern part of Canada to get rid of that Canadian gas. We had nothing but a telex which the U.S. ambassador delivered here. It was not signed by the President of the United States. There was no legislation by the U.S. Congress. But every time
Genera] Haig hollers "Jump," these fellows ask "How high?" The Liberals do the same thing when it comes to our resources. They pander to corporations who can make a lot of big bucks. They even pander to making some bucks for their own particular government. It is a policy of "Ship the resource out of here." We have been had again.
The delay of at least two years about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is complaining will last exactly as long as it takes for the United States to decide that it has to have its own natural gas extracted from the North Slope of Alaska, and until then, as long as the Americans can have our gas, they will take our gas.
I get annoyed with those who say that there is a surplus. There never has been a surplus. There never will be a surplus of natural gas in Canada in terms of what Canadians need.


Charles James Mayer: Not as long as we have the national energy policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Whether it takes 20 years or 200 years, Canadians need and will use up all the present and the proven reserves that we have.
We are finally building a pipeline to Atlantic Canada, which should have been in the works many years ago. But it is finally happening. While we were running around on hands and knees dealing our natural gas with yankee traders and pre-building a pipeline that will carry and sell Canadian gas, 4.1 trillion cubic feet of it, our fellow Canadians in eastern Quebec and in the four Atlantic provinces are paying exorbitant, unconscionable costs to keep their homes warm. That 4.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would have heated every home in the four Atlantic provinces for 25 years. But in order for the owners, the so-called owners, the private enterprisers, to make bigger bucks, we sell it off.
I invite my hon. friends to read the debates in this House in 1973, 1976 and 1977. While I hate people who say "I told you so", what the former member for Nanaimo-Cowichan and The Islands had to say, and what my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) had to say, has turned out to be completely correct. Here we sit with several hundred miles of pipeline running through Alberta, part of Saskatchewan, into the United States and up into B.C. Our Canadian gas is being used by Americans.
The demand we made in 1973, 1976 and 1977 that every cubic metre of natural gas we provide the Americans be returned to us whenever we need it, whether it is five, ten or 25 years down the road, is not met. Unless the line is completed through to Alaska, Canada will not be able to construct the Dempster branch to bring Canadian gas to Canadians. This frantic effort to sell off more of our resources that we need ourselves is something that should not be done. There is no such thing as a surplus of natural gas, and there never has been. This resource is something which the Canadian population will use up no matter how many years it will take.
The Leader of the Opposition complains about this two-year delay. We will be lucky if it is only two years. I predict that it
May 5, 1982

will be much longer than that. But he complains. Yet he and his colleagues voted with the Liberals for the umpteenth time on the pre-build. The Liberals and the Tories were dancing together at night at Canadian Petroleum Association receptions.
1 do not know why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should complain in his motion. He said that this was an emergency. He helped cause the emergency. He and his colleagues aided and abetted the so-called emergency. In the meantime Canada has been stuck and "had" again.
When we are dealing with megaprojects we should remember that many megaprojects could be carried on other than those involved in oil and gas. If there is the political will to challenge investors, workers, businessmen and people generally, many megaprojects could be developed. If we took only $2 billion out of the $77 billion supposedly lost, we could put it into the construction of well-insulated and energy-efficient housing units. The side effects of that $2 billion investment would be public investment, plus whatever private investment would be involved. We could return the forest industry to work, we could return the appliance factories to work, we could provide roofs over the heads of tens of thousands of Canadians. They would be megaprojects which would not worry about whether or not someone in Texas or Denver is happy with the Government of Canada.
For less than half the cost of the Alsands project over the next eight to 12 years, depending upon how fast we want to do it, we could electrify 300 miles of urban transit in Canadian cities. We could electrify 10,000 miles of railway track to carry 75 per cent of the traffic, which would be only 10 per cent of the trackage in the country. That is another example of a megaproject which would save more diesel fuel than could be produced by oil sands plants. We could transfer 36 million gallons of diesel fuel per year from running trains to producing food. It would be equivalent to producing two crops in the three prairie provinces in one year.


Charles James Mayer: From where will we get the electricity?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are up to our backsides in electricity, and we are in the process of developing electrical expansion in at least five provinces, some of which is designed for export to the United States.
Other countries in the world of all political stripes have been doing this since World War II. Here we sit like a bunch of dummies. The railways are putting tens of millions of dollars into reducing grades in the Rocky Mountains when they could have electrified the track for less money. Getting such outfits to change their mind set would show some imagination. I have mentioned only two examples of megaprojects. The first one involved the expenditure of $2 billion more on housing than we are presently spending. It could result in interest rates geared to income. The second example was the electrification of urban transit, our main high-density railway lines. It would create more employment and conserve energy. Also it would transfer energy into more useful purposes such as food production. It
would cost a lot less than the Alsands and Cold Lake megaprojects.
Operations such as Alsands are there for the country to use as and when it requires production. I do not see why it must be done yesterday or tomorrow, in view of all other available alternatives. The day will come when the nation will have to invest billions of dollars into Alsands, but it does not have to be done in a panic, especially if we were working on other megaprojects.
I hope the government will take a good hard look at its policies and that it will reverse them. I hope the official opposition will quit supporting the government on losing propositions which get rid of natural gas, so that some pipeline companies or oil companies can make more bucks by sending it to the United States, when we need it here in Canada, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
I am glad Madam Speaker approved this emergency debate. I think the debate concerns the fact that the national government should come to the House with a completely new program which goes in a different direction. It challenges Canadians. It is something like a declaration of war but is more like a declaration of peace. We can do what needs to be done because we have the people, the resources, and the money. All we need is the political will to do it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, first I should like to congratulate you for approving this debate. I think it has been a good one. It has provided me with a certain sense of deja vu, particularly since I am taking part in it along with the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski).
I remember the first speech I made in the House of Commons. It was during the course of an emergency debate when the then minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Otto Lang, disregarded the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and touted the grain stabilization act. I remember well the excellent speeches made at that time by those hon. members. I am feeling a sense of deja vu because at that time hon. members from western Canada were castigating Otto Lang for his LIFT program-Lower Inventory For Tomorrow-which paid farmers not to grow wheat. Now we have the spectacle of the present government paying oil companies just to hang around, paying Imperial Oil $50 million just to wait around for a few more months to see what would happen because these economic illiterates were not able to make up their minds, paying the Alsands consortium a few more millions of dollars just to hang around a bit longer, until finally the whole thing collapsed because of the pernicious inertia of the government in its applied energy policy.
Also 1 remember well two or three years ago speaking with officials in my department about the glorious future of the country in terms of regional disparity relief because of the Saudi Arabia which they claimed we had in the country. The province of Alberta was to be the great instrument for developing the kind of wealth which would allow Canada to reduce its

May 5, 1982
foreign commitments, to carry out the dream of economic equality in the country, and to fuel the recovery of the Altantic region.
Now we find out that the former American president, Abraham Lincoln, was correct when he said, "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". The government has killed the initiative of this dynamic sector upon which all Canadians were counting for the benefit of their country.
Another reason for my feeling of deja vu was the national energy policy of Donald Macdonald,a former distinguished member of the chamber, of whom I am sure Madam Speaker has fond memories. He was a good minister who brought forward a policy which at the time seemed to be reasonable after the first Arab oil shock, as it was then known.
There was also Douglas Fisher, another distinguished member, who pointed out at the time that this particular national energy policy resembled in many ways the same kind of objectives the present minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) so proudly proclaimed when he brought it into the House after the election of 1980.
Mr. Fisher said in an article in The Toronto Sun that:
-Mr. Trudeau addressed the nation on TV to outline Canada's immediate responses to the oil crisis. He wanted Canadians to know his government had been working on "both immediate problems and also putting in place the elements of long-range energy policy."
Then on Dec. 6, 1973, he set out in the House his first "National Energy Program." Its "prime objective, to be reached before the end of the decade (i.e. 1980) is self-sufficiency in oil and oil products."
As Douglas Fisher wrote that was in 1973 and the target was 1980. Now, in 1982, with the whole National Energy Program coming down in ruins around us, this government has the audacity to say that we will have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. What a lot of hogwash, as someone said, you cannot accomplish "vast" projects with half-vast ideas. I think that that was never more true than at the present time.
When 1 heard the speech of the hon. member for Restigou-che (Mr. Harquail) I was reminded of Ogden Nash's famous dictum which could be transposed like this, "Perhaps modern Canadian politics would be very much the better for a more restrictive use of simile and metaphor." The examples he was using, as the hon. member from Regina quickly pointed out, were recycled and recooked projects that were existing in many cases, as the member said, despite the government's efforts and not because of them. The hon. member for Vegre-ville did not have an opportunity to point this out-although he deserves a great deal of credit for it-the Prince Rupert grain elevator project, a $300 million project for which the government is taking credit is very important to Canada. It was dead in the water when our government took office, but the hon. member for Vegreville revived it. Now the hon. member for Restigouche and others like him are taking credit for it.
The whole problem of the government's National Energy Program which has had such terrible effects on the country, particularly in the Atlantic region where we were depending upon its revenues to help develop our economy, relate back to the 1980 election campaign. If there is not a proper foundation of credibility to support your policies, it becomes an exercise in futility because the public will soon see through it and no longer trust you.
I happen to have with me a famous election campaign advertisement published by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He published this ad with great fanfare. It said, "Would you let the Tories raise the gas price again?" He went on to say that because he spoke up for the people of Canada and the motorists of Cape Breton, the price would come down. He said "Vote Liberal and the price would stay down." Anyone who would make a statement like that must have known, if he had the knowledge people gave him credit for, that what he was saying was not true. This matter was later compounded in the House, after the Liberals came back to power, when the Minister of Finance, along with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), began to play games about what was happening in terms of what the Canadian consumers and the Canadian producers were getting.
In November of 1980 the press printed an excellent article which had a picture of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance. This article, written by John Ferguson, had the headline, "Is Ottawa Intentionally Misleading the Public?" The article quoted the Prime Minister as saying, "Let us look at the budget to see if it is fair to the provinces. The western producing provinces will be getting exactly the amount that Mr. Clark's December budget said they will get; $40 billion between this year and 1983." The Minister of Finance was then quoted as saying, "The energy pricing burden placed upon all consumers in Canada, including low-income people, is $40 billion less in the budget than the budget last December." That was our budget, the Crosbie budget.
Mr. Ferguson wrote that the two statements were flatly contradictory since it was impossible for the producing provinces to get the same amount of revenue under the Liberal pricing proposals if consumers are paying less than they would have under the Conservative budget. When this was pointed out to the Minister of Finance, he said, "Your point is correct." But he said that he did not think there was a contradiction. Mr. Ferguson went on to write that while the minister was smiling after looking at a transcript of the Prime Minister's speech, he thought that there was clarification needed. That is clearly a $40 billion clarification.
While I have been in the House for a good portion of the time since that statement was made, I do not recall that it has ever been clarified. It is just another example of unclarified statements that the people of Canada had to put up with since this government returned to power.
I will admit that when our party was in power we did not do everything correctly. However, at least we did not put our party ahead of the country. We kept our commitments and attempted to pass a budget which embodied some relief for
May 5, 1982

people with low incomes who could not afford to pay the very modest increases in petroleum products which we proposed to impose. We also showed some pity for senior citizens who we knew could not afford to pay high prices for fuel oil. We also realized that home owners would need some help with their taxes and mortgage payments.
Of course, none of these provisions were introduced by the present government. In my estimation the reason these provisions were not introduced was that the government thought it would be able to derive enough revenue from Alberta, that great engine of economic growth, and apply that money to implement those programs which our party had envisaged. I suggest that our program was much better and would have had more humane results.
Another cause of our economic malaise is the intense preoccupation of this government which it has shown during its term of office for sociological, philosophical, linguistic and other policies. Some of these policies are very good and constructive, but the government has forgotten entirely about the need for good constructive management.
People talk about the Prime Minister's brilliance and eruditeness, but forget that if those qualities are not grounded in solid common sense and managerial ability, he is not able to govern the affairs of the country. As many people know, under his stewardship we have seen a dynamic country which was number three in the world sink to very low depths among the industrialized nations of the world. Unfortunately, this latest debacle indicates that we are not about to make any dramatic recovery. Billions of dollars have been wiped off the stock markets of this country and it is not just the profits of rich industrialists. It is the profits from investments of ordinary Canadians also. The whole perception of this national energy policy has soured our relationship with our neighbour, the United States.
I believe it was John Kennedy who said in this Chamber that "history has made us friends, geography has made us neighbours, and economics has made us partners." What we should be doing is entering into bilateral arrangements with the United States in certain areas for our mutual benefit. We should not be fighting with them over a diminishing resource. Ultimately this will do neither country any good because it has destroyed the potential which this country used to have to cooperate with the petrochemical industry and to use that great wealth for the benefit of the entire country.
We are told by some members opposite that things in the Maritime provinces are all right. My own constituency is a case in point. Not too many months ago things were not too bad in the constituency of Central Nova. We had the Hawker Siddeley railway plant in Trenton, we had a shipyard in Pictou called Ferguson industries as well with full employment. We had other industries also upon which families depended for their future. Since this economic malaise has come over the country, and since we have now had a realignment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and since there is apparently no money left to fund economic relief, there are
nearly 3,000 people unemployed in Trenton and 300 people unemployed in Pictou. There is a great sense of alarm felt by my constituents.
I am glad to know that things are going so well in the constituency of my friend from Restigouche. I can assure him that is not the case in my constituency and in many others in Atlantic Canada. He talked about the Q & M pipeline. I would like to talk about the pipeline too. In 1980 the Prime Minister in a speech to the Board of Trade in Halifax set out the Liberal energy policy. There was no mention at that time about the Constitution or all of the subsequent things. He was going to do something about energy to help Atlantic Canadians. One of the points that he emphasized was the need to switch to alternate energy sources. The Prime Minister said on January 25, 1980, that in order to switch:
People must have access to gas. Nowhere is access needed more than in eastern Canada and I am announcing today as part of our program the Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec and the maritimes. The pipeline will have reversal capacity so that maritimers will have the opportunity both to use western natural gas now and to send offshore gas to central Canada later. Like the railroad in the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
Some steel link. It is 1982 and the pipeline is slowly inching its way down. The sad part is that it is not a truly reversible pipeline. It looks to me like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and this government are deliberately delaying it. I hate to say this, but I may as well, as the saying goes, speak the truth and shame the devil-it looks as well as though the fix is in. Instead of the Atlantic region, specifically the Strait of Canso, getting the liquid natural gas terminus that would provide us with the wherewithal for a petrochemical industry, that will go to Gros Cacouna. As well, I do not think the pipeline is designed the way it should be. I believe that the whole national energy policy as far as Atlantic Canadians are concerned is highly suspect.
I hate to say it, but I think that all members of this House and all Canadians are justified in expressing this kind of view, going right back to the time when the Minister of Finance made his obviously misleading statement in order to get reelected. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated his desire for untrammelled power, passed the national energy policy, and in the process alienated our relations with the United States, at the same time the constitutional machinations were alienating us from the United Kingdom.
A lot of people are concerned now that the national energy policy is to all intents and purposes ensconced in the kind of statutory form that will be hard to correct considering the great power and the great amount of discretion that the minister has. I read somewhere today that the Canadian Bar Association is nervous about the kind of discretion and unrestricted power of this minister.

May 5, 1982
1 made a few notes about some of these sections on an earlier occasion. It may be reasonable to put a few of them on the record now. The minister may enter into an exploration agreement under this legislation, without notice. He has the sole discretion over the production licence. The minister has the discretion of renewing the production licence. He has the power to direct that the Crown's share be transferred to a designated Crown corporation without any input from any partners or anyone else.
He can veto the transfer of Crown shares for any interest acquired by Petro-Canada. One section provides for in camera proceedings in any appeal to the Federal Court of Canada. The sections go on and on.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, if you were a farmer, a lumberman or small business person, would you like to do business in an environment where the Crown can come in and say, "Congratulations, we now own 25 per cent of your business. Here is some more good news. We will tell you exactly where you can sell your product, how you can market it, and what kind of a price you are going to get for it." 1 do not think you would be very happy. I do not think it is any secret that the petroleum industry, whether it is American, French, Canadian or any other nationality, welcomes this kind of restrictive environment in which it is prepared supposedly to risk hard-earned dollars.
This psychology of the government of taking money from people, recycling it, and giving it back in grants is just not working. How could it work? It is wasteful. It is not in accordance with good business practice or human nature. Basically, that is what is wrong with our country.
This government has manipulated and intruded itself into many areas. It is not as though it has any competence. That is the sad part. Winston Churchill, writing a book in the 1930s called "Great Contemporaries", made a very poignant remark about a contemporary. I think his name was Lord Rosebery. He said that it might be said of Lord Rosebery that he outlived his future by ten years and his past by more than 20.
I believe when we look at the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance we will come up with a similar judgment. I remember when the energy minister gave that famous speech in the House when he was the minister of national health and welfare, about keeping the NFL out of Canada. I thought at that time he was on the downhill slide, and I think he still is.
The Minister of Finance, a native Nova Scotian of whom many people used to be proud and gave a lot of credit for sagacity and shrewdness, is now, I am afraid, not exactly on the same pedestal as he was. I have heard more jokes about him in the last month in Nova Scotia-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the swimming, do.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, I couldn't tell that one. To get back to the matter of the emergency debate, my party believes, and I sincerely believe, that if we as Canadians could stop bribing people with their own money, if we could imbue Canadians with a sense of initiative once again, and bring in some of the
policies that would reward people and companies, we might offer Canadians a bit of hope for the future. We should go back to doing what we did a few years ago. At least we were making economic progress then. The emergency we are facing today indicates that this government and what it is doing are a dismal failure.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I should make the observation at the outset that this debate was precipitated based on your ruling that there was a matter of national urgency which demanded that we in the House of Commons turn our attention to matters of energy policy and the economic future of this country as a result of the collapse of the two major projects.
Implied in that ruling, I suggest, was a recognition that although the two projects were mentioned in the request for an emergency debate there were many other factors of importance to which we in the House of Commons should turn our attention. We should discuss alternatives so that the government could take some advice and change the course of its policy for the purpose of bringing Canadians to the position they are entitled to expect, that is, a position of reasonable security in terms of energy and in terms of our economic future.
It is unfortunate to observe that in the course of this debate the government party thinks so little of discussing in an open forum such as we have in Parliament our energy future and economic future that there are no more than three government members now sitting in the House wishing to be involved in this debate. The fact that there are only three members out of 140-odd government members in the House at this time demonstrates very vividly the lack of interest and the arrogance of this government with regard to these issues.


Mr. Forrestall:: It may be that they are embarrassed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They have every right to be embarrassed under the circumstances.
What are we talking about? We are having this emergency debate. People may be asking about it. This debate has already lasted for a considerable period of time. It is going on because we on this side of the House feel very strongly that a change in direction is absolutely essential. This government has shown by its past activities that it responds only when blunt instruments are applied to it and its policies.
We recall very vividly what transpired when the government brought in this latest energy bill. It was necessary at that time to take a stand on the form of that bill. An omnibus bill was brought forward. We on this side of the House in the Conservative Party took a firm stand. In the final analysis, after a great deal of pressure was exerted on the government, it capitulated and accepted our most reasonable proposition
May 5, 1982

which was put to it some months before the bill was introduced. The government has the responsibility of holding up the business of the country.
You may ask what was so wrong with that bill. Madam Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association has made a representation to the special committee on energy and has said in its representation and its petition, put forward impartially, what it thought of the energy legislation. What they have said to that committee of the House of Commons is simply this. The government's energy legislation is arbitrary, it is contrary, they say, to the rule of law and it is in fact contrary to the principle set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an independent assessment made by the Canadian Bar Association. They are not involved in any political issue but they look at the legislation from the point of view of the application of the rights and freedoms of the average citizen. This is their assessment of the energy legislation in Canada. This is their assessment of the attitude that this government takes toward energy legislation, as a government.
They say that the bill which allows the federal government to assign billions of dollars in exploration, in incentive grants to Canadian-owned companies, gives so much discretion and regulatory power that it will significantly impair the rule of law. That was the view of the Canadian Bar Association. It says that the legislation also contradicts the new Charter of Human Rights and likely will be challenged in the courts if it remains unchanged. This was the attitude taken by the Canadian Bar Association. It is an important point of view which enters into the discussion of this particular government's energy policy.
This policy has been a disaster. It has left Canadians with a future of insecurity. It has done away with any real prospect of oil self-sufficiency by 1990. I have only to refer in that connection to the last annual meeting of Texaco Canada Incorporated. The president of that corporation, reporting to the shareholders of the company, indicated:
It now appears that oil self-sufficiency is not a realistic objective in this century, notwithstanding the reduced demand for petroleum products.
Madam Speaker, what is the situation we have today as opposed to the situation that I think obtained in this country almost two years ago? At that particular time, Madam Speaker, two years ago, the Canadian oil industry was driving swiftly toward the goal of national self-sufficiency by 1990.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was proud of being part of the government that understood the essential importance of striving for that goal by 1990 at a time when we were making very substantial progress. Look at what has happened. In fact if the policies which were initiated by our government had been implemented at that time and carried on, we would have been in a position today where our economy, I suggest to you, would have been flourishing as a result of the initiatives we had taken.
Rather than that, what we see today is a disaster, a country with the potential we have here, faced with economic ruin. That is putting it very mildly. We are talking about the loss of jobs in this particular project-100,000 jobs in terms of primary jobs relating to this project alone; we are talking about 90,000 jobs in secondary capacity, flowing out of these particular projects. These are only two of the projects we are talking about.
We have to recall that these megaprojects were the fundamental cornerstone in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The minister predicated his forecast of megaproiects going ahead in terms of energy selfsufficiency, of economic development in our country. It has come to the point now, Madam Speaker, where today we have to redefine the term "megaproject". Now, a megaproject, according to this government and this Minister of Finance, means any project of a value of $500 or more. This is precisely because the minister goes around and tells us now that rather than having the larger projects we will have to be satisfied with a multitude of smaller projects.


An hon. Member:: Minis.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What are these projects that are going to resolve our economic circumstances? What are these projects that are going to restore us and our country in terms of energy self-sufficiency? There is very little precision, only some generalization about the projects going ahead that will take the place of the megaprojects.
Self-sufficiency, Madam Speaker, is an objective that we in our government had as the highest priority. It had its economic advantages and benefits. People in the country now, looking back at the proposals we put forward, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, look back with fond recollection. I can tell you that in the time of another election, if this government goes forward to the people, that point will not be lost on the electorate, especially in view of the promises made, as pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), by the Minister of Finance in particular about keeping oil prices and gas prices down below what they were under our projections.
Madam Speaker, the federal government, when we look back at the promise made in the last election, has deluded the people of Canada with respect to the energy future. I recall one of the first initiatives taken by this government. It consisted of a very elaborate and extensive advertising campaign initiated by the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). We have all seen this campaign on the television screens and in the newspapers. It was an expensive, slick advertising campaign. What we were told was that our energy future was in good hands with the federal government.
Madam Speaker, we know that the federal government is not subject to the Combines Investigation Act, because it is a part of the Crown and cannot be prosecuted. We know that it cannot subscribe voluntarily to any association that deals with misleading advertising. It is a good thing for them because if they were subject to the law and to voluntary constraints they
80114- 19

May 5, 1982
would have been prosecuted for misleading advertising to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What do we find today? When this party's government was in place, we were able to reach an agreement with the province of Alberta in terms of pricing arrangements. We had the Alsands project ready to go. We were close to closing the negotiations with Imperial Oil on the Cold Lake project. These projects were ready to go with the co-operation of the province of Alberta and the government of that province. These are the facts. These particular projects to give work to the people were in place. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the energy benefits from that particular project would have been very substantial.
I hasten to point out, Madam Speaker, that at that time the cost of the Alsands project was some $5 billion. That is a much different figure from the figure we are faced with today, that is, $14 billion to $15 billion. It is no wonder the company finds it absolutely impossible to go ahead, after the delay and the confrontation it has had with the federal government which has delayed purposely the development of these projects in western Canada. They are paying a political price in western Canada. That price is going to spread to central Canada and to Atlantic Canada at the time of the next election. This process has been in operation for two years. It would have involved production of 140,000 barrels of oil per day, or roughly 8 per cent to 10 per cent of Canadian crude oil production. It was estimated that there would have been over 20,000 man-years of construction work, but 6,500 permanent jobs in Canada, of which 2,800 would be jobs directly connected with the project. However, technological advantages and advantages respecting our ability to develop projects in Canada and to train people to do these jobs in our own country have been lost. There was also the potential for increasing employment opportunities for Canadians and, specifically, to provide training and job opportunities to the native people in the region surrounding Alsands. These things would have been in place. But no, this government had a different slant to its energy policy and brought in what it calls the National Energy Program. What has been the result?
I want to talk about conventional oil exploration and development. The program has been an unmitigated disaster. I am sure you realize, Madam Speaker, that during the past year over 200 oil rigs have left Canada for the United States. Of those remaining, at least 40 per cent are standing idle. That is the result of the energy policy of this government, and that has had a very deleterious effect on the industry and the future of energy self-sufficiency in our country.
In very simple terms, the energy policy is a massive tax grab by the federal government. That is the simplest way to describe the energy policy of this government. It is a massive tax grab, and it affects us in western Canada more than it does
people in any other region. I can assure hon. members of that, and that is understood and resented very much.
The National Energy Program has had the effect of reducing the earnings of oil companies. This applies not only to large oil companies but to small Canadian oil companies in Canada as well. Earnings have been reduced to the point where it has become impossible for companies to generate the investor confidence and the investment in their own companies which is needed to acquire funds with which to invest in the megaprojects which are absolutely essential to our energy self-sufficiency.
The earnings from operations of Imperial Oil, the largest oil company in Canada, fell from some $600 million the previous year to some $450 million this year. That has been repeated by large and small companies across the country. This massive transfer of oil and gas revenues from the industry to the government treasury has severely curtailed the ability of the private sector to finance exploration and development. We are bringing conventional oil exploration and development to a standstill. Hon. members opposite should go to southern Saskatchewan and see the rigs standing idle. They should go there and see all the supply people going out of business. These supply people are the people who service rigs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Wells are not producing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wells are not producing. What are we doing with the potential we have in this country?
In terms of frontier development, there has been chaos in the management by this government of our Canada lands. Because of red tape the industry has curtailed its plans to explore and develop in 1982. The best information I have is that reductions will continue into 1983.
I should refer to the offshore. This government feels that somehow Hibernia will solve all our energy self-sufficiency problems. We have seen the way this government has handled the offshore situation. Confrontation is the hallmark of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government. It has been that way since the Prime Minister took office. It has been that way with the province of Newfoundland, to the point where there is absolute reluctance on the part of the industry to move to the offshore or to make the major investments required to bring Hibernia and the potential which exists there into production. Would anyone in the House be prepared to invest the kind of money necessary when there is no understanding between the federal and the provincial governments with respect to jurisdiction, not only in terms of drilling but also in terms of manpower and other related matters?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No way at all, as my colleague says. Conventional development and production today is virtually shutting down, and the minister says this is a worldwide phenomenon. What he does not tell us is that in the United States oil and gas drilling is up this year 31 per cent from
May 5, 1982

1981. I would like to quote from an article by Diane Hill in The Calgary Herald of April 28 as follows:
This year is shaping up to be another record-breaker for oil and gas activity in the United States-thanks in part to the work of Canadian petroleum companies which have set up southern operations.
According to the Denver-based Petroleum Information Corporation, drilling for oil and gas in the U.S. during the first three months of 1982 was up 31 per cent from 1981.
Diane Hill went on to point out the following:
And 1981 was the industry's busiest year ever.
I have only started, Madam Speaker. I beseech the government to listen. I beseech government members to put extreme pressure on the treasury benches in this regard. We are facing potential disaster in terms of our economy and energy selfsufficiency. 1 say to the government that now is the time and the opportunity for it to reconsider its energy program. Let the government withdraw the energy program and reconsider it. We on this side of the House would co-operate and give the government the best advice we could because we believe in Canada. Let the government withdraw the budget. Calls on the Minister of Finance to withdraw the budget have come from every walk of life in Canada. I say to the government that now is the time to show political courage and leadership. We would support an effort to bring Canada back to its rightful place in the world, and we would offer the government constructive alternatives.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate, which will be a welcome opportunity to recall certain facts. As we all know, Madam Speaker, during the last few months, the Governments of Canada and Alberta were making every attempt to keep the Alsands project afloat. Notwithstanding the, in my view, extremely generous offers made by the federal and provincial governments with respect to tax provisions and financing, the other private sector members of the Alsands consortium decided that conditions were not favourable for carrying the project. Naturally, I share the disappointment of all Canadians who were looking forward with enthusiasm to this project, which would, in time, have become a source of oil and economic benefits as well.
Madam Speaker, we all know there are limits to what a government or several governments can do to improve the terms under which a project is to be carried out. In any case, Madam Speaker, we certainly do not need any advice from the Conservative Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Speaking of advice, Madam Speaker, this morning on the radio I was listening to a program on CKVL called "En premiere page", which is hosted by Mr. Yves Ryan, the Mayor of Montreal-North-my municipality-and Pierre Leroux. I was saying that we do not need the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, and on the program the Leader of the Opposition was asked what the price of gas would be if he and his party were in
power today, May 5, 1982. The Leader of the Opposition answered that the difference would be 2.5 cents per litre or 18 cents per gallon. His host quickly corrected-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is right.


Carlo Rossi: The member opposite says, "That is right". 1 would suggest he do some arithmetic, because he is making the same mistake as his leader. According to the program's host, 2.5 cents a litre would mean ten cents per gallon, and from the answer given by the Leader of the Opposition it was clear he had no idea how the metric system worked, and he was letting his host do the arithmetic. Then, the Leader of the Opposition, who does not have a clue about the metric system, was asked what he would do about inflation. He said: "The first thing 1 would do to control inflation would be to get interest rates down". Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was contradicting what he had said not quite twenty-four hours before. I shall quote from La Presse of May 4:
In an interview with the reporter, the Leader of the Opposition, Joe Clark, made the most astounding and disarming statement ever made by an Opposition Leader.
These are not my words, but the reporter's. Acknowledging that his party had not come up with an alternative to the Bank of Canada's economic policies, he continued as follows:
We have looked for a solution different from the government's, but we have no alternative. Today, I cannot come up with a better solution.
Those words were spoken by the Leader of the Official Opposition. This means that the Progressive Conservative Party and any government it might be called upon to form have no magic solution to the problems caused by inflation, the recession and especially by high interest rates. Within twenty-four hours, the Leader of the Opposition had contradicted himself, as he usually does.
Further on, still on the same program-I am a fan, and I listen every morning with great interest-the Leader of the Official Opposition was asked whether he was aware of the fact that Mr. Mulroney was travelling around the Province of Quebec. Mr. Clark's answer to the radio host was that Mr. Mulroney-and the Official Leader of the Opposition was aware of the fact-was travelling around Quebec to raise funds. He said that Mr. Mulroney was very active in that field, and that he was going to do what everybody else did before getting into the House, namely, become a Member of Parliament. For the time being, he was doing very well as a fund raiser.
Coming back to another one who claims he is always defending the right of Quebecers-they do not appreciate the truth on the other side, Madam Speaker. They do not like hearing it. There is another one who rises on the other side, in order always to defend the rights of Quebecers: I refer to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). That hon. member is

May 5, 1982
the main architect of the Union Nationale's demise, as leader of that party. Do you know what he promised Quebecers? To abolish the safety belt. What a program! To abolish the safety belt, because his wards in Quebec see that as dictatorship, being forced to use safety belts. 1 will not fall for that. His same Progressive Conservative Party, when the hon. member for Joliette was in the government, as he will recall, raised the embargo on chicken. In his constituency, in Saint-Felix-de-Valois close by, people do not feel like congratulating him, the self-avowed protector of Quebecers.
It will also be remembered that before the Progressive Conservative government in 1979, the Liberal Party granted $3 million every year for the building of produce warehouses, which allowed Canadian and Quebec farmers to hold the domestic market longer. As soon as the party opposite became the government, those grants were abolished. Fortunately, Quebecers and Canadians soon woke up, the Liberals were reelected and the same grants reinstated.
As I said, Madam Speaker, we have no lesson to learn from our friends opposite. And in spite of those promises, and although there was a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta, the Clark government never could sign and agreement with Alberta. We, the Liberal Party, succeeded in this. In the case of the Alsands project, the Canadian government and the Lougheed government gave up for the time being the idea of going ahead. Indeed, Madam Speaker, there is a point where the sum of all estimated benefits from a project, either financial, economic or psychological, are exceeded by costs and the risks involved. In my view, the Canada and Alberta governments got as near as they could to the balance point in their effort to promote the Alsands project. But even if we wanted to, we could not require from governments that they create the conditions which would have allowed the project to proceed without the private participants having to take some risks. In the final analysis, both governments were ready to assume the majority of the risks involved in front-end investments, through direct involvement and loan guarantees.
Because of the uncertainty of future world oil prices and interest rates, to mention only two of the major factors, the participants from the private sector did not think that they would be able to proceed even in present conditions. By offering guaranteed loans and special provisions for reimbursement, the federal and Alberta governments tried to find an answer to alleviate the concerns expressed by the participants. One of the concerns of the companies from the private sector was that they could not benefit from tax write-offs in a current manner. The offer of the government provided equivalent benefits. An area of concern involved the cash flow requirements and the risks involved. In this regard, the federal government included in its offer a guaranteed loan and shortterm participation at a rate of 50 per cent. Finally, the companies were worried about the risk that oil price increases would remain low. To alleviate this concern, we proposed loan repayment conditions providing, in the case of lower than
expected price increases, an extension of the period during which the project would not be subject to full taxation.
Madam Speaker, the government therefore put together a package which, while not providing for an excessive return, was very generous in reducing the risks of the participants. The companies involved could not expect an excessive rate of return, but they were to be protected against a decrease in revenue.
In view of what I have just said, it therefore seems that the Canadian government not only met the particular concerns of the companies involved, but also that it made an attractive general proposal which could have led to the completion of the Alsands project.
I want to underline that despite what the Progressive Conservatives are trying to suggest, the government is not closing the door definitely on the Alsands project. Let us not forget that, in these particularly difficult times for the world economy, important energy development projects have been postponed throughout the world, including of course our neighbouring country, the United States. It would be foolhardy to assert that these conditions will not change during the coming year. Indeed, we know from experience that rapid changes in the economic situation are the rule rather than exception. Economic conditions could very well become favourable for the Alsands project sooner than we would expect.

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta have made repeated efforts over the past several months to encourage the Alsands project to go forward. The opposition is blaming the federal government, but in doing so they are condemning their Tory counterparts in Alberta.
We must acknowledge that despite an extremely generous offer from both the federal and the provincial governments in terms of the tax regimes and other financial matters, the remaining private sector members of the Alsands group have decided that the time is not right to proceed with the project.
I share the regret of all those Canadians who looked forward to this project as a source of both oil and economic benefits in the years ahead. But we all know that there is a limit to which any government or governments can go on making the conditions right for any particular project. There is a point at which the sum of all the expected benefits from a project, financial, economic, even psychological, are exceeded by the costs and risks. I feel, Madame Speaker, that the Governments of Canada and of Alberta went as close to that balancing point as possible in the effort to encourage the Alsands project to proceed. As it stood in the final analysis, the two governments were prepared to assume the vast majority of the upfront capital risks through direct participation or loan guarantees.
Because of uncertainty about future world oil prices and interest rates, to name two crucial factors, the private sector
May 5, 1982

members of the project could not see their way clear to proceeding, even under this reduced risk situation. The Alsands companies were concerned about their projected rates of return and their cash flow positions as the project went ahead. Both levels of governments proposed an offer which, in my view, provided a good rate of return and maintained that rate even with lower than expected rates of growth in world oil prices. The minister has already tabled the details of the offer. Let me note, however, that the rationale for the degree of support offered was to ensure that the project would receive benefits equivalent to those implicit in Alberta's earlier promise of a 20 per cent loan guarantee and, as well, to those of a fully taxable firm which can use conventional tax writeoffs on a current basis.
With the government guaranteed loan offer and the special features for repayment which are incorporated in it, we addressed directly the concerns which the project sponsors had expressed to us earlier. One such concern was their inability to use tax write-offs on a current basis. Our offer guaranteed them equivalent benefits. The second was their cash flow problems and risks. The government offer addressed this with a guaranteed loan and and a 50 per cent joint participation. Finally, the companies were concerned about the risk of low rates of the oil price increase. This we addressed by designing loan repayment terms which would, in the case of a lower than anticipated oil price growth, have delayed the time when the project would become taxable.
Of course, if oil prices escalated rapidly, the loan would be repaid more quickly and advance the date at which the project would be subject to full taxation. Thus, the government presented a package which did not provide an excessive rate of return but which was very generous in terms of reducing risk for the participants. They could not anticipate excessive rates of return but they would receive protection on the downside.
It should be clear from the terms I have outlined that we have not Only addressed the specific concerns of the companies, but put forward an objective total proposal under which the Alsands project could have gone forward.
The minister has made it clear that he was not closing the door to a renewal of the Alsands project at a later date. Delays in major energy projects are being encountered throughout the world in this particularly difficult time for the world economy. It would be rash to say that these circumstances will not change in the next year or two. Indeed, the record suggests that rapid changes in economic conditions are more the rule than the exception. Economic circumstances may well favour the Alsands project sooner than we might expect at the moment.
[ Translation]
As I said, Madam Speaker, both governments went as far as they possibly could on the financial aspect. We cannot alter indefinitely the incentives intended for particular supply sources, in view mainly of the wide range of opportunities. In
addition to the potential from frontier regions, we are taking into account the increased recuperation of oil and the upgrading of heavy oil in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
In our quest for oil self-sufficiency, Madam Speaker, we want to proceed in the manner that will prove the least expensive for Canadians. The industrial economic fallouts would have been useful, but we hope to recoup them through other means. Some have wondered why this project was not entirely financed by the federal government. Madam Speaker, I reply by saying simply that the Alberta government insisted from the very beginning on a major involvement on the part of private industries, a concept that we support fully. As soon as the National Energy Program was announced, the Government of Canada indicated that it was desirable for private industries to be more involved, although still to a limited extent, in the direct ownership of the oil industry. I will conclude very shortly, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Keep on talking!


An hon. Member:: Take 20 more minutes! Take all the time you want!


Madam Speaker:: I think that the hon. members would like the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) to complete his sentence.


Carlo Rossi: Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleagues opposite, and they know that we always do this when trying to end a debate.
I conclude, therefore, by saying that we see no reason to change our position. We want to emphasize the opportunities to co-operate in the development of major energy projects and the Alsands project provided a tremendous opportunity in that regard.
Again, it is unfortunate that we could not seize this opportunity at this time, but there will be others. I am sure that before long, we will have again the possibility to develop our oil sands and achieve our long-term objectives in the field of energy.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this emergency debate. I think it is important not only to look at what the implications are for these two major megaprojects as a result of their demise, but what the implications are for Canada as a whole. What is at issue in this debate is the demise of the Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline projects. They total close to $63 billion, and perhaps much more by the time they come on line. The questions we must address are: why did they collapse, and what does it mean to the average Canadian taxpayer, something which has rarely been addressed in this debate so far.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) described the collapse as a result of madness rampant in the Liberal Party, particularly in the front benches. A Liberal said it was due to

May 5, 1982
the undermining influence of the Conservatives. There may be a little bit of truth in both, but not very much. I think it is time members of the House and members of the public faced the facts. The projects have collapsed, which has meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of man years of employment across Canada. We in this party say the collapse of the Alaska gas pipeline is a direct result of the gutless attitude taken by the Liberals and Tories for failing to obtain financial guarantees for the northern section of the Alaska gas pipeline some five years ago.
Canadians cannot help but wonder why this House is endlessly debating the oil and gas industry. One day we are told that the industry has ripped off the average Canadian consumer for $12 billion, but then no action is taken by the House of Commons. That leads to a very cynical attitude, particularly when one realizes that so much of government policy is based on opinion polls. When the public is angry about something, the government releases a report hoping that it will turn the consumers' attention away from what is really at issue. The next day we find out, for example, that the oil companies will get 93 cents on the dollar in subsidy for exploration. That perhaps came as a perk to angry oil executives after the public had been informed that the oil companies had ripped off $ 12 billion before that.
On Alsands, we now find that a guaranteed rate of return of 22 per cent is simply not enough. We have to ask, Madam Speaker, what do they want? It is quite clear they want Canada's economy on a platter for surgery as the monopolies see fit. That is why we in this party say that if the Liberal-Tory coalition must pander to the dinosaur mentality of most megaprojects, then we must, through this House of Commons at least, make those projects work for the benefit of all Canadians. But more than that, we should use some imaginative and creative developments of our national options. Where do we go from here?
The most recent piece of legislation indicating where the government intends to go was Bill C-48. In this bill the government has indicated its intention to spend about $300 billion over the next 15 years north of 60 and off the east and west coasts drilling for gas and oil. These are major megaprojects. But we can see already that with the Canadian economy in the shape in which it is and the global economy going the way it is with oversupply, particularly in the oil and gas sector, that approach may well and predictably be inappropriate to get Canadians back to work and our economy going again.
On the other hand, we have the Conservative position that has been put forward very well in the last 24 hours. That is simply to give a better deal to the oil and gas companies, which may well lead us deeper into the mire in which we find ourselves already.
The Conservatives say the Liberals killed these projects. But what do the Tories really say? Are they saying that Peter Lougheed and the Liberals should give more to Alsands, that
the 22 per cent rate of return is not enough? Surely, these are the original parties to the selling out of Canadian interests. It is a quick fix always at the cost of our children and the future of our country. What we should be doing is going into small-scale oil and gas projects, wind, tidal, low-head hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal and conservation.
What about the example given by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), this morning, that of the electrification of the railway, particularly in dense urban transit areas which, at half the cost of the Alsands project, would release the same volume of diesel as will be created by Alsands? So why put $13 billion into Alsands when there is an option to provide through conservation the same volume of oil to Canadians at half the cost? I think the Canadian People have a right to know what is going on behind the scenes in the boardrooms.
We could have more jobs and a much more stable economy. We could develop export markets for world-leading technology in almost all of the alternates because we have one of the most highly educated and technically skilled societies in the world. Why Alsands? Sure there are jobs, Madam Speaker, but at $4 million per job, while alternatives, conservation and manufacturing can be brought in for less than $100,000 per permanent job, it does not seem right.
The facts surely lie in the dinosaur mind set of the two major parties in this country, the Liberals and the Tories. Their roots, especially their election funds lie deeply in the bank accounts of the oil and gas companies.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a falsehood.


James Ross Fulton: That element has more to do with this debate than most Canadians appreciate.
The Liberals and Conservatives even at this time vote together on policy day after day. In this session alone, the Tories have supported and voted for Trudeau 29 times. This party has voted for government bills only 14 times.
The collapse of Alsands is due to three important and reasonably obvious factors. First come the high interest rates which are supported by both the Liberals and the Tories. Second, the rising construction costs. I think all members in the House know that energy projects are prey to a kind of inflation that is quite separate from the consumer price index. Third, dropping fuel prices caused by a recession and high interest rates. These dropping fuel prices are also caused by an oversupply in both OPEC and non-OPEC nations, something that has not occurred generally in the past. Even with the Liberal and Conservative guarantees of a 22 per cent rate of return, the economics simply do not seem to fly.
Let me deal with the Alaska gas pipeline, Madam Speaker. It is a very serious issue. We have seen the federal government's never too specific industrial strategy. We have seen it now that it has collapsed. We have seen Alsands go down, which really was the cornerstone of the Liberal's policy. We have seen Cold Lake and Shell. We have seen the Norman Wells pipeline delayed for two years. We see the Quebec and
May 5, 1982

Maritime line for gas which may well run into serious problems with Nova Scotia ambitions to bring its gas onshore. As for double-tracking in the west, I do not think that was anything other than a campaign promise never to be delivered. We see now the very likely prospect of the collapse of the nuclear industry in Canada which will see the loss of 40,000 jobs. Then there is the Alaska gas pipeline which would have provided hundreds of thousands of man-years of work if this House had had the guts to put together a piece of legislation which required the kinds of financial guarantees that we talked about in the House five years ago.
I would like to quote from a recent article appearing on the editorial page of The Citizen for May 4, 1982. It reads:
The Trudeau government made the stupid mistake of committing Canada, in 1980, to "pre-building" the southern portions of the line so that the link to U.S. markets would be ready when the upper portion was completed by the U.S. partners.
In July 1980, Energy Minister Marc Lalonde warned that if the U.S. reneged, it would be the greatest breach of faith in 200 years of Canada-U.S. relations.
We have had that now and not one member of the government has even stood up to talk about it. The article continues:
The two-year delay may be claimed by Lalonde to be something less than a complete collapse of the plan, but any realistic appraisal of the situation must conclude that a $50 billion pipeline initially projected to cost less than $10 billion is a non-starter, especially in today's high-interest-rate, reduced-oil-price economy.
I would like to comment on the Conservative position on the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline because I think the Tories have played a vital role in selling out Canada's interest so that we now have trillions of cubic feet of gas essentially going out of Alberta at a door-step cost, cheaper to U.S. consumers than to Canadian consumers. So here we have these two parties which vote together but do not have the financial guarantees for the northern end of the line, yet we have gas companies in Alberta and Saskatchewan saying that they need subsidies so they can have cash flow in order to drill for gas. They drill for it, they get it but they cannot sell it because we have a surplus in Canada. But what they do then is to come to the Liberals and Conservatives and say, "You have to build a pipeline. We have to export it to sell it to the United States." We build the bottom part of the line. Then we export gas to the United States cheaper than Canadians can buy it. Of course, the Americans are not going to build the northern end of the line as long as they can get our gas cheaper then they can get their own. They never have to build the line. It is an example of Canadian lunacy where the Liberals and Conservatives are so tightly interwoven with the gas and oil companies that they are always taking another step and always needing more cash flow. Always one more step is taken to sell out Canada.
In 1978 the Conservatives supported the Liberals on Bill C-25 which established the northern pipeline agency. It gave effect to the agreement between the U.S. and Canada to build a pipeline. Led by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), their northern pipeline spokesman, the Tories opposed the NDP position and our amendments regarding the maximizing of Canadian content in jobs and material, protecting native rights and the environment, and ensuring there would be no
Canadian government financial backing or liabilities for the construction of the line.
The Tories also supported the pre-build concept. In December, 1979, the Conservative government authorized an additional 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for export, thereby strengthening arguments for the construction of the pre-build and using it to export Canadian gas. It is interesting to note that only 40 per cent of the possible throughput of that prebuild is being used. The Americans are dealing with us in a very interesting fashion. They will not finance or build the northern end. They will take what they want out of the line when they want it. They will not even abide by the contracts which have been put in place.
The Liberals, led by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), opposed these exports when in opposition. The minister called for "ironclad guarantees" that the entire line would be built and said that there should be future gas swap arrangements with the United States in return for the exports. Of course, once he was in office he never followed through on either of these demands.
In July, 1980, the Liberals, by order in council, not through Parliament, subverted the intent of the original act which authorized the construction of a gas line to export United States gas to United States markets by authorizing the export of gas through the pre-build section. During this debate the then Tory energy spokesman, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) stated:
I did not talk about ironclad guarantees, nor did our minister of the day, because it is absolutely impossible. If the hon. members there demand complete ironclad guarantees, I say to them that they are against the pipeline. It is as simple as that. If you are for complete ironclad guarantees from industry, you are against the pipeline, and I say to you that you have to make up your minds.
That was the Tory position in 1980. Both the Liberals and the Tories voted together against the motion put forward by my party which would have preserved and ensured that the guarantees were in place so that we would not be here debating this today. They voted against the motion which I am about to read, yet they stood in the House of Commons yesterday and today, yapping that they required an emergency debate about an issue which they created that will cost Canadians a great deal of money. The following motion was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That before this 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.
They both voted against it. The situation is very interesting. I should like to go back a little further to remind both these parties how the issue came to be. On April 4, 1978, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, Mr. Tommy Douglas, commented upon the minister of energy in 1971, Mr. Joe Greene, who said at that time that there were hundreds of

May 5, 1982
years of oil, that we could export it for years and years, and that there would be plenty for Canada. Six months after he made that statement standing in the House, Canada was in a deficit. Canadians have been led by some very wishy-washy statesmen who have not even taken the time to compile scientific material upon which to base their statements. Joe Greene simply telephoned the oil and gas companies and asked, "How much gas and oil is there?" When he found out that there was enough oil for hundreds of years, he said, "Sell it off. We will have a good time, everyone can have new cars". A terrible fraud was perpetrated on the people of Canada.
I think Mr. Douglas put in a nutshell where these two old line parties are leading the country when he said:
It makes one ask whether this government is like the Bourbons who learned nothing and forget nothing. Have we forgotten that it is only five years ago that some of us were pleading in the House to phase out exports of oil?
Today we are doing it with gas. He continued:
Today we are a net importer of oil and we are told by the National Energy Board that in the 1990's we will be spending $4 billion or $5 billion per year to pay for imports of oil.
We now know that it will be much more than that. Also he said:
Are we going to make the same mistake with reference to gas? We are exporting 60 per cent of our gas production. We are going to increase it now by almost 40 per cent.
When our children stand in the House, they will be puzzled about the members of Parliament who sat here in the 1970s and 1980s. They will think there really was madness then. Perhaps the hon. member for Athabasca is correct. The only problem is that when his frontbenchers are on the government side, they find themselves involved in exactly the same kind of madness. Mr. Douglas went on to say:
The government say: "Just a moment, we are going to work out a swap arrangement". I think a swap arrangement could be worked out if it were on an energy equivalent, so that for every 100 units of BTU energy we sold we would get back a similar amount, if and when we wanted it.
That was never followed. He also said:
Do we realize what we are doing? We are walking blindfolded into a continental energy policy. The Americans have always wanted a continental energy policy, particularly when they ran short of energy. We are like the couple of brothers who went into town: one saved his money and did well, and the other one had a high old time until he was broke and then said, "Let's pool our resources".
This is what they are saying to us now. This is precisely what the Liberals and Tories are saying that we should be doing. They throw it all away; they sell it off as cheaply as they can to the United States. They sell it to the United States more cheaply than we are required to pay to heat our homes and run our vehicles. They sell it all off and say that the economy is having a great time. But we are getting into a deeper and deeper pit on the energy side. We can manage for quite a few years, but we do not have inexhaustible supplies. Mr. Douglas continued:
If we enter into a swap arrangement by which we sell 370 billion cubic feet of gas per year at $2.16 at the border, and 10 or 15 years down the road we buy it back at $3.50 or $4 per thousand cubic feet, we will have sold Canadians down the river. This House had better be aware of the manner in which the pieces are falling into place.
Now they are talking about starting the pipeline at the south end and building it so that it will take Alberta gas down to the United States, and the companies involved will make enough money out of that to finance in part the rest of the pipeline. The primary purpose in the immediate future is not to take Prudhoe Bay gas to the United States. The primary purpose is to take Alberta gas to the United States, and then hope some day, when the line is completed and Prudhoe Bay gas is coming down, if we need it, we can buy it back at a price. I suggest with great conviction that price will not be the same price we got for the gas we sold.
Mr. Douglas was prophetic when he spoke in the House six years ago. The present situation is such that the Tories are trying to convince the Canadian public that the collapse of the northern end of the pipeline is somehow related to the Liberals. Their voting record and speeches are very clear. Anyone who analysed the situation six years ago knew that we would be in the position we are in today and that the northern end of the pipeline would never be built. It is a preposterous proposition for them to put forward continually.
The hon. member for Yukon is trying to make a great deal out of the issue. In 1978 he said the following:
-let me make it abundantly clear that this party does not in any way intend to delay unduly the passage of this vitally important legislation through the House. Members of my party cannot advance amendments that will cause irreparable harm to the viability of this project, nor can any amendments be advanced that will go beyond the provisions of the international agreement that has been negotiated. Amendments are possible, and we will attempt to assist the government in a constructive and positive manner-
It is preposterous for them to be taking the position they are taking now on this very important issue. Of course it is not unusual. If our amendments for guaranteed financing had been put in place, we would not have to debate this side of the issue. That part of the line would have been constructed right now. It would have been in the interests of our neighbours to the south, so that they could move their gas from Alaska, down through the Yukon, and the southern portions of British Columbia and Alberta, and into the United States. We would have been left with the legacy from these two parties of a prebuild line exporting only Canadian gas.
I should like to make a couple of more quick points. One is a quotation from a Calgary newspaper under the headline entitled, "Proving small is beautiful". As I said earlier this afternoon, every Liberal member has indicated a desire to launch into megaprojects to stimulate the Canadian economy through the trickle-down theory. Even the Calgary newspapers tended to stay with the megaprojects until this week. Now they are starting to move away from them. The article which appeared in The Calgary Sun reads as follows:
There are rumblings already to the effect that some conventional energy schemes, largely neglected while we held our breath over the megaprojects, may be returned to favour.


Madam Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 5, 1982


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. members present for allowing me to continue. They said the following about the underground gas storage scheme:
-putting gas underground without making it work hard at some specific task is a very inefficient procedure.
If the same couple of trillion cubic feet of surplus gas went into good old Turner Valley, for example, according to even the most conservative estimates, we could avail ourselves of an additional 100 million barrels of the finest quality crude ever found in Canada.
And of course there is the plus of the gas that would come out again. That's $4 billion worth of oil-
It goes on to say:
Oil sand experiments-nearly two-dozen larger than bench-sized projects-are still proceeding despite the Alsands fiasco.
I have two final comments. One is simply to repeat the position taken by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) who says that, "Greed, greed, greed, killed Alsands". The position taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is that the private sector killed Alsands. A very interesting quote for me to end on is, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored. On Bay Street they are saying it is a recession when your neighbour is out of work and a depression when you are unemployed."


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might wish to explain to the public in the galleries what is happening in the House today, particularly to the people who have come to see question period. Perhaps you could explain that we are in an emergency debate under Standing Order 26 on the subjects of the collapse of the oil sands project and the Alaska pipeline.
I would hope, Madam Speaker, that you would say that we have been here since eight o'clock last night with your permission. We would hope that perhaps we could stay here long enough so that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may come back from Texas.


Madam Speaker:: All I can say is that the sitting which began yesterday at eight o'clock has not yet terminated.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to address the problems of the economic disaster which has been caused by this government. It is a very sad time for many Canadians. The government has wasted the sacrifice that has been made by many pioneers and has destroyed hope for the free enterprise system. It has killed the initiative and spirit of Canadians. It is a sin how the "gang of five" has destroyed the incentive of Canadians through the failure of the Alsands project, the Cold Lake project, the tar sands and the Alaska highway pipeline. One of the causes of the collapse of Alsands is the inefficient budget which was produced and manipulated by this government. However, the government is not totally to blame since the bureaucrats played a large role in the formation of the budget. Our bureaucracy is now completely out of control. The government must take the blame for this, and it can now be said that this government is no longer capable of governing.
What this country needs is a new budget, a new Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and, in fact, a new government which can restore confidence and provide a new direction for
Canadians. The Liberals have created this bureaucratic monster which is completely out of control. It has destroyed the hope and incentive of Canadians.
Instead of the government addressing itself to the economic problems of this country, it has been preoccupied with the Constitution. As well, the government has been taxing us to death while bankrupting Canada.
Members in the government have referred to the 18-cent increase in gasoline which brought about the defeat of the Conservative government. The fact is that the Liberal government has raised gas prices three times that amount, an act which was accomplished with the co-operation of the New Democratic Party. They are also responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today. This is a heavier cross they will have to carry which will be reflected in the next election.
The Liberal government set out to buy oil companies at a time when Canada could least afford them. It is clear that the money which had been invested is now in the United States. It is no wonder that our economy has been crippled. The government is out of touch with reality. While the government was negotiating agreements with Alberta on the Alsands project, it was negotiating with Mexico at the same time and thereby shortchanging Alberta on its heavy oil. It is not surprising that this Constitution, which was intended to unite our country, has divided it more than it has ever been. However, no one is against the Constitution because it is part of our country's growth.
In spite of what has occurred, the Alberta government has once again introduced an incentive in an attempt to get the Alsands project started again. The federal government is not addressing that situation at all. It is still playing with matters which are not relevant to the economy of Canada at the present time.
It is interesting to hear Liberal backbenchers ask us not to blame the government because it is the bureaucrats who are causing our current problems. This morning, I spoke to the Minister of Finance and he indicated that he was looking forward to receiving assistance, with respect to the economy and interest rates, from the United States. It is quite clear that at this time the government no longer governs. It has absolutely no control over the economy. It is the bureaucrats who are running the country. However, they had no alternative because the responsiblity was delegated to them.
As I mentioned, this government is looking to the United States for some direction or some sign of relief in the United States economy. The government has certainly not followed the lead of the United States with respect to the metric system. Metrication is costing billions of dollars. The government is not implementing a proper system for bilingualism. No one is against the French language, but the fact is that it is being pushed down the throats of some Canadians in areas where it is not necessary. This is also true for some civil servants who must be bilingual in order to hold a job. The fact is that it is not necessary in some positions. The unemployment situation is one of the worst we have experienced since the Great

May 5, 1982
Depression. In fact, it is a depression, and it is a serious one at that. People are losing their jobs and homes, businesses are going bankrupt, and 70 per cent of companies are in receivership this year as compared to this time last year, 34 per cent of which have declared bankruptcy. This is a very serious situation. Canadians have an abundance of natural resources and human resources, yet we are not capable under the system, because of the way it is being bungled by the government, of owning or building a home in this land of plenty. One certainly cannot blame the United States, other foreign countries, business or anyone else. One must put the blame where it belongs. It is the Liberal government which has seriously mismanaged this government.
O)
May I say that the time has come for Canadians to realize the situation we are in. Some people say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is inexperienced, but I am sure that everyone is now convinced that we would not be experiencing the present sad economic situation if there were a Conservative government in power under the leadership of its present leader.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking here on an issue which has crippled the economy and taken away jobs, opportunities and the hope of Canadians. It was not needed or wanted; it was forced by a government which did not have the foresight and the courage to do what was best for the country and did rather what was best for the party.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. At the outset, I must say that I am somewhat alarmed at the positions and, indeed, some of the rhetoric being thrown around, particularly by the New Democratic Party. In one instance, that particular party took its place in the House of Commons and said to the people of Canada that the government should back off the Alsands project. When the private sector makes a decision, and it no longer wishes to continue with that project, the New Democratic Party of Canada tells the people that it is in support of the project. It also says that we need it because we need the jobs. It is hypocrisy at its best. However, what does one expect from that party?
Throughout this session of Parliament, we have seen that party flounder on one issue, on another issue and then on many issues. But of course, the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, also talks out of both sides of its mouth. All through this debate, and we started last evening at eight o'clock, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the official opposition, but we have not heard any suggestions as to how we could improve on the situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, we have. A former minister just gave us some suggestions, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Not only are the hon. members of the opposition intellectually bankrupt, but they have no leadership, either. They lack the intestinal fortitude to put their policies, particularly their energy policies-


Mr. Fennell:: We put it forward.


David Charles Dingwall: -to a vote before their own party. That is how lackadaisical, how inappropriate they would be to govern this country. It has been argued by some individuals that the mere fact that they have attacked the Government of Canada on its position on the Alsands project means, in essence, that they are attacking the Conservative government of the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: They don't care.


David Charles Dingwall: It has been suggested by some that there is a leadership issue in the forefront of all of this-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't you believe it.


David Charles Dingwall: -and that somehow that great white knight of the oil and gas industry, Mr. Lougheed, has ambitions to go on to federal politics.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about Brian Baloney?


David Charles Dingwall: Now we have a clearcut issue. The Official Opposition wishes to dissociate itself with the government of Alberta and its position, particularly as it relates to Alsands. That is typical of the Conservative Party of Canada. When the going gets tough, it buries its head in the sand.


An hon. Member:: Alsands.


David Charles Dingwall: I assure hon. members that Mr. Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta, is watching this debate very closely because he has worked with the Government of Canada to come up with very generous proposals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: -in order to help the Alsands project succeed. But, of course, the official opposition, in its daily mutterings, whether from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) or from an hon. member from Newfoundland, whichever one you wish to take, must have it both ways. If the Conservative Party does not have it both ways, it feels very uncomfortable. It is extremely uncomfortable in this position because it knows that the offer made by the Government of Canada and the province of Alberta was a fair and just one, and the decision taken by the Alsands consortium was a decision based on economic circumstances which are not only in evidence here in Canada, but across the world as well.
The opposition refers to the Alsands project going down the tubes. What about the $30 billion nuclear energy program in Mexico which has been delayed? A $14 billion liquefied natural gas export program in Nigeria has been delayed. The gasification project in Texas, estimated at $4 billion, has been
May 5, 1982

deferred. This situation is occuring not only in Canada but also in other jurisdictions throughout the world which are experiencing the same sort of worldwide recession and which have made business decisions based on those factors, thereby delaying projects. 1 suggest that it is not good enough for the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, to abandon its provincial wing under the leadership of Mr. Lougheed and then say that Canada can be immune from certain factors which are affecting all countries of the world.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You cannot tell us because you have no provincial weight.


David Charles Dingwall: Of course, another project which was cancelled was in Venezuela. The hon. member knows very well that that country, too, based its decision on economic factors. But notwithstanding the fact that the Alsands project has been delayed or shelved for an indefinite period of time, there are still a number of energy projects which are under active construction, such as Dome's Beaufort Sea project, amounting to $500 million, the Esso Beaufort Sea drilling system, amounting to $130 million, the Gulf Beaufort Sea drilling system, amounting to another $700 million and the Norman Wells oilfield development program, amounting to $600 million. Therefore, despite what the official opposition and the New Democratic Party may say about the gloom and doom in this country, construction is taking place. There is movement in the energy field.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Tell us about the 12 per cent inflation and the 9 per cent unemployment.


David Charles Dingwall: The official opposition obtains a great thrust from feeding off the misery of other people. But that is why its members are in opposition and that is why we are in government. We are responsible and we will make decisions. We will give Canada a direction in which it should go whereas they have failed to do that and failed to make any suggestions on that. Many other projects are now taking place. The $700 million, Quintette coal development in British Columbia is taking place, as well as Ridley Island coal and grain terminals in British Columbia, another $400 million, the Algoma Seamless Tube Mill in Ontario, $300 million, the metal mining and refining modernization and expansion program in British Columbia, another $700 million.
The Canadian people ought not to be fooled or duped by the official opposition when they talk about the gloom and doom in this country. There are projects going ahead. No one on either side of this House would say that we are not living in difficult economic times. That is the reason and the rationale why the Alsands consortium made the decision they did in terms of high interest rates and the economy.
We have heard a lot of mutterings from the official opposition about an incentive to invest in oil exploration in Canada. I do not want to rhyme off a number of factors that come from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I will
give the hon. member some quotes from sources to which they have referred on previous occasions.
Solomon Brothers, October 1, 1981, first-year netbacks on new oil reference price oil will be up to 80 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. Pemberton Securities, November, 1981, conceivably the dramatically higher netbacks for new oil could ultimately lead to a resurgency in industry activity approaching that experienced in the mid-1970s.
Greenshields in February 1982 had a number of factors they wished to share with the Canadian people. These are as follows: exploration for new conventional oil will forge ahead because the price for new oil has almost doubled since December 1, 1981. The relative netback to new oil discoveries is two and a half times higher than in 1979, adjusted for interest rates. With higher netbacks, some small or poor quality reserves that were previously passed by will merit development. New oil discoveries can be put on production within two to 12 months. Finally, new oil plays are available, favouring both companies with land leverage but allowing even those without to participate.
There is something positive happening in the energy sector. It is not as positive as all members would like. We would certainly like to have the Alsands project proceed but the private sector, which supposedly has a philosophy which is akin to that of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, says they want the free market to operate. However, when the free market comes up and makes a decision like the Alsands consortium has made, they blame the government of Alberta, the Tory government of Alberta, the provincial wing of their party. I suggest there is a major split in the Conservative Party of Canada. It is Alberta versus the federal Tories.


Philip Derek Lewis: You had your provincial wings clipped.


David Charles Dingwall: A lot of the mutterings last evening centred around the fact that our goal of oil self-sufficiency will not be met as a result of the failure of the Alsands project. I wish to indicate to members opposite that in terms of the projections we have, we feel there is going to be a shortfall in 1990 of about 285,000 barrels a day.
That shortfall can be met by the possibility of further development on the east coast, the possibility of the Beaufort Sea as well as other oil sands projects. The shortfall which the opposition members have alluded to in their speeches in this debate will be addressed. I am very confident, although 1 sense from some opposition members a real negative attitude about east coast development, particularly as it relates to oil and gas. On one hand that party wants to have development of the oil and gas industry, but you have to question very seriously some of their mutterings and statements to see if in fact they want to see the east coast of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, prosper in this important sector.
I am hopeful that with the Hibernia find, with the offshore development in the province of Nova Scotia, particularly as a result of the agreement which the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia have reached after many months

May 5, 1982
of negotiation, a great deal of activity will take place off the coast of that province.
There is one individual whom some members of the official opposition like to quote from time to time. That individual said, "It may be that only time will tell that the activity factors we saw in the summer of 1980 were perhaps somewhat unrealistic as a result of the natural gas marketing situation, so perhaps the really important variable in terms of meeting the recovery dates I have mentioned in this answer will depend upon the prospect for improved natural gas market sales in the United States." The individual who made that statement is the Premier of the province of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed.
When hon. members refer back a couple of years, particularly to the summer of 1980, I place that before them very politely. That was said not by me or by any member of my party, but by the Premier of the province of Alberta, a member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
The utterings, doom and gloom and personal attacks being levied by members of the official opposition does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. I had hoped when this debate began that we would hear clear, concise recommendations and proposals from the official opposition. We have heard absolutely nothing. They are still crying over spilled milk in February 1980 when the people of Canada said no to "Joe Who". They will say no to that party in the next general election and the one after that.
They have no policies. If they do, they hide them from the Canadian people. They hide them very well because they came together as a party to discuss policy and then made some very serious resolutions for that policy conference. One of the resolutions that they have is that they are not going to have any resolutions. They are not going to take any votes on any policies that their party supposedly wishes to have enacted into law for the people of Canada, none whatsoever.
That is the party which is trying to portray to the Canadian people that somehow they have a right or an obligation to govern this country. If they cannot put their own policies before a vote by their own party and have a vote on the leadership of their party, how can they expect the Canadian people to have confidence in anything they say as it relates to energy policy? The official opposition and the New Democratic Party have pretty well had their own way in terms of criticizing. I had hoped, when the 22 members of the New Democratic Party spoke, that we would have had some valid suggestions on how to improve the situation, but we did not have one.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about Mr. Broadbent's economic strategy?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has raised the Broadbent economic strategy.


An hon. Member:: The member for Oshawa.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the usual practice in this House is to refer to members by constituencies or by their functions.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always very willing to take your advice and I will refer to the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). It is good that that hon. member from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has made reference to his particular economic policies. I do not wish to take up too much time of the House of Commons.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have already done that.


David Charles Dingwall: Let me refer to one of their policies which affect my own constituency, Mr. Speaker; that is, in relation to the nuclear industry. It was that party, the New Democratic Party, it was their philosophy, their economic strategy, to create jobs. They said, it is on the record, that the two heavy water plants, in Port Hawkesbury and in Glace Bay, would be closed-thereby throwing out 1,000 jobs. But they stand in their place, they tell members of this House, they tell the gallery, they tell the people of Canada, "We, the NDP, are in favour of creating jobs."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are not in favour of nuclear bombs for the Argentine.


David Charles Dingwall: They cannot have it both ways. The NDP are clearly on the record as saying, "We want the two heavy water plants closed." I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has got the guts to go to Port Hawkesbury, to go to Glace Bay, to stand in the union hall-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have been there.


David Charles Dingwall: -with his friends in the CLC and tell them, "We want to close down the heavy water plant." I challenge the member for Vancouver-Kingsway to do that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are going to close that very plant next year, I bet you.


David Charles Dingwall: The Conservative Party muttered numerous things in this debate which are totally false. They know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) devoted a large amount of his time in the previous month and in the previous year trying to effectuate a settlement in regard to the Alsands project. He has worked endlessly, Mr. Speaker, and he has worked closely with the government of Alberta to try to achieve this particular goal, and I think his efforts should be recognized by all members of this House, regardless of their political faith.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary who has just taken his seat said some very interesting things during his 20 minutes. I was rather intrigued by something he said a few moments ago. He said that we seemed to be crying over spilt milk, implying that we have not quite gotten over the election of February, 1980. He threw out a number of challenges. I would like to throw out one challenge to the hon. gentleman-who is still in the House.
May 5, 1982

I would like to ask him how he intends to go back to his constituency in Cape Breton and justify the position that he took during the election of 1980, consistent with the position that was taken by his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he campaigned against increases in gas and oil products.
What has happened since that time? Notwithstanding the promise of the Prime Minister in 1980, when he said on February 12:
The Liberal price hike will be less than half of what the Tories plan to inflict on you; we will negotiate an increase of less than 14 cents.
We know that the price of a gallon of gas has gone up by 75 cents since this government took office, and most of that is tax. We also know that the price of home heating oil has increased by 50 cents a gallon.
1 would like to know how the hon. gentleman intends to go back to the depressed economy of Cape Breton and justify that situation, a situation which he campaigned against in the election of 1980, notwithstanding the fact that he knows full well that the Crosbie budget provided a shelter for home heating oil, a shelter against increases in the world price. The people who are hurting most as a result of the increases in home heating oil are the people who live in places like Cape Breton, in areas of the country where the economy is not in recession, where the economy is in depression, where the people are really feeling it.
Notwithstanding the pronouncements of the hon. member to the contrary, we know that that situation will get worse as a result of the breakdown in the national energy plan, as a result of the failure of the so-called megaprojects, as a result of the failure of the Alsands project. Not only will that exacerbate an already serious unemployment problem, which is currently hovering around 9 per cent, depending on where you are, which in the hon. gentleman's constituency is about 20 per cent, and which in my own province is over 15 per cent. We know that will contribute to the unemployment situation and will mean further increases in the price of home heating oil and in the price of gasoline. That, Mr. Speaker, is the fact.
1 listened last night to the speech of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). I listened very carefully because that was the government's official response to this emergency debate. Naturally, we had hoped that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could find the time, with the JetStar at his disposal, to get here from Texas. I do not think it was impossible for him to fly from Texas to be here in time for the debate, given the time frame. The permission for the debate was granted at 3 p.m., the debate was started at 8 p.m. The minister could have got here at some point during the evening, but he did not. He chose not to get here. Instead we had to hear the Minister of State for Mines trying to make a strong argument on a weak case. And, of course, she failed.
It is not without interest to the people of Canada that this debate has taken place. I am sure the people of Canada well know that we have been sitting here continuously without a break since eight o'clock last evening. That is over 18 hours of continuous sitting. The Chair accepted the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and agreed that
there was in fact an emergency situation in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26 as a result of the breakdown of the megaprojects. Her Honour, the Speaker, realizing that that emergency situation existed, granted the emergency debate. One of the reasons we have carried it through to this point in time is that we had every reason to believe, and we still have hope, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will find his way back to Canada from Texas and will stand in this House, and not only tell this House but tell the people of Canada just exactly what the position is in this country, vis-a-vis the energy situation, vis-a-vis the economy, as a result of the breakdown of the megaprojects, as a result of the breakdown of the Alaska gas pipeline, with respect to unemployment and with respect to its impact on increased energy prices. We hope he will find time to come here and give us the official position of the government.
Let us get back to the Minister of State for Mines. One of the things that kept cropping up in her speech, and it has emerged in subsequent speeches of members of the Liberal Party, refers to "the potential of the Hibernia field". You see how the situation has changed? Up to last week the position of the Government of Canada was, "We can wait it out. We can wait out the Newfoundland project because we have the megaprojects, we have the Alsands project, that is going to give us energy self-sufficiency and we can just take our time on Hibernia because of gas; the oil is there. It is just like having gold in Fort Knox." Now, of course, with the breakdown of the megaprojects and with the collapse of the Alsands project all of a sudden Hibernia emerges as the real alternative. We now are being told that with Hibernia and with the potential of the Beaufort Sea-which does not have proven reserves as does Hibernia; the proven reserves of Hibernia are about one billion and could be as high as 1.8 billion barrels of oil-we can still achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990.
What is the position? As of this point in time the position is that the two governments are not even talking to each other. There has been a total collapse in the negotiations between Newfoundland and Canada on jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, and nothing has happened. That in itself contributes substantially to the delay in getting on with the development of that very important reserve.
In addition to that-and this is a factor-the loss of the Ocean Ranger and 84 lives in February tells us one thing. Apart altogether from the tragedy of it, it tells us very clearly that we still do not have the technology to cope with that hostile environment out there and to extract reserves from the ocean floor. It is not without interest that the spot where the Ocean Ranger, the world's largest floating oil rig which was supposed to be unsinkable, went down was just about 30 miles from where the Titanic, which was also supposed to be unsinkable, met the same fate with an iceberg. We were not coping with icebergs in the Ocean Ranger disaster; we were coping with mountainous seas, high winds and blizzard conditions,

May 5, 1982
and we still do not have the technology-that is what emerged loud and clear from the Ocean Ranger disaster-to cope with that environment. However, even forgetting that factor for a moment, the loss of the Ocean Ranger means that the development of this important reserve will be set back by at least two years.
That must be added to what we hear from the industry. The industry tells us-this does not come from the Newfoundland government or the Government of Canada; it comes from the oil and gas industry-that if an agreement were to be reached today, it would take anywhere from eight to ten years to get the first barrel of oil from the Hibernia field. So let us take eight years and add two years to that because of the failure of our technology to cope with that environment; we are looking at 1992. That is supposing we could get an agreement today. So we can see we cannot all of a sudden look to Hibernia as the promise to make up for the loss of the failure of the Alsands project.
Let us examine the position of the Government of Canada and why negotiations are not taking place today. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said, on February 24, that he was prepared to be flexible in his talks with Newfoundland and that he was prepared to compromise. He said Newfoundland must be prepared to do the same thing. We looked upon that as an opportunity to make peace and to sit down and negotiate. Negotiations did resume early this year. I believe they were making some progress, until an interesting thing happened in the midst of those negotiations.
Let us remember that there was an agreement on both sides to set aside the question of ownership and to negotiate joint management and joint revenue sharing. In the midst of those negotiations the province of Newfoundland was double-crossed by the Government of Canada. There was a case at that time before the Federal Court of Canada which had been brought by the Seafarers' International Union regarding jurisdiction over rigs. Included in the terms of reference of that case was not only the question of jurisdiction over rigs but also the whole question of which government has jurisdiction over the offshore.
The Government of Newfoundland felt that this was a betrayal of the undertaking which had been made precedent to the reopening of the negotiations, and made the reasonable request to the Government of Canada that it instruct counsel to withdraw that question from the court. The Government of Canada refused to do so. As a result, on February 12, the government of Newfoundland announced that it was referring the question of ownership of the mineral resources of Newfoundland's continental shelf to the appeals division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, an action which was made necessary by the federal government's decision to introduce this question into the SIU labour relations case before the Federal Court of Appeal and its subsequent refusal, as I have said, to join with Newfoundland in asking that court to delay hearing the case while negotiations were in progress.
During the course of those negotiations Newfoundland, in response to the reasonable request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for compromise on both sides, put on the
table a compromise proposal which formed the basis of the new negotiations. As a result of what happened in the SIU case, as I have said, negotiations collapsed. The Newfoundland government then decided to appeal to the people of Newfoundland and called a general election. However, in the process of doing so the government of Newfoundland decided to go one step further and be even more reasonable in its compromise proposal, in other words, to set before the people of Newfoundland in a general election an even more reasonable proposal than the government of Newfoundland had set before the Government of Canada during the course of the negotiations last winter.
Those compromise proposals were released on the day the election was called, and it would be worth putting them on the record. Very simply, what we are looking for is a true partnership. We are not looking for a partnership in which one government has the dominant say and one government controls the majority of the management board. That is not a partnership but a co-partnership. The government of Newfoundland proposed a true partnership in which each partner would have equal representation on the board and there would be a neutral chairman agreed to by both partners. That is a partnership. Anything else is a majority-minority position, and the people of Newfoundland were not prepared-and are not to this day-to accept the minority position on a management board respecting that important resource which holds so much promise for our people. We can wait. We can wait because the onus now, as a result of the failure of the megaprojects, is on the Government of Canada.
The proposals put forward were very simple. Both governments would set aside ownership claims and become co-owners of the resource. What could be more reasonable than that? Both governments would be equal. Both governments would receive their share of revenue directly from a joint agency. Arrangements could be changed only with the consent of both governments. That is a reasonable proposition. The proposal went on to talk about how prices would be established and what the province would receive. For example, the province would initially receive the traditional share which has been received by the western provinces for onshore oil and gas. The province's traditional share would continue until a trigger point based on fiscal and economic objectives had been arrived at, and the share would then change in favour of the Government of Canada.
What was the response of the people of Newfoundland in that general election? The response of the people of Newfoundland was that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland was practically wiped out. The great Liberal Party of Newfoundland, the founding party of Confederation in Newfoundland's union with Canada, was practically wiped out at the hands of Premier Peckford and the government of Newfoundland on the basis solely of this reasonable proposal.
The people of Newfoundland want to be reasonable. They want to share. They want to be good Canadians. They want to share in this partnership. They want to contribute their share
May 5, 1982

to Confederation. We are tired of being a "have-not" province. For once we have an opportunity to rise above that "havenot" situation. For once we can see ahead to the time when we will not have to come cap in hand to Uncle Ottawa as a colony and look for more where we can share a resource that is ours.
The response of the people of Newfoundland was 62 per cent in favour of that position, and only eight Liberal seats out of 82 survived.
What was the response of the Government of Canada? Almost before the ink was dry on the writ, the very next day on April 7, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is now somewhere in the oil fields of Texas, had something to say. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of April 7, the minister accused Premier Peckford of resorting to "outright lies" in the campaign, and said that the election results meant nothing as far as the federal government was concerned. He said "Our principles remain the same. We have no new proposals to put forward."
That was his provocative and insulting response not only to the government of Newfoundland but to the people of Newfoundland-"We have no new proposals to put forward-our principles remain the same."
That situation has now changed, Mr. Speaker. Within a few days of the announcement of the failure of the so-called megaprojects, the breakdown of the Alsands project, the minister told the House that he had been on the phone to the minister of energy for Newfoundland and that he hoped they could get together again.
How things change, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the minister that hard times are no stranger to Newfoundland. We not only live in a hostile environment but we live with hard times. Through the four or five hundred years of our history we have learned to exercise patience. That patience is still there today. We can wait, Mr. Speaker. Our position is reasonable. It has the support of the people of Newfoundland. We can wait. My question to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, is how long can the people of Canada wait?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I want to say that I have not had an opportunity to examine Hansard as thoroughly as I would wish and note all the input into the debate since yesterday afternoon by hon. members opposite. On the basis of the examination I have made and the reports that I have received from others-


An hon. Member:: It has not been printed yet.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -it strikes me as being a most unusual emergency debate on the question of the collapse of the Alsands
project and the concern of the official opposition about megaprojects in general.
It is a surprising debate because, as one who is concerned about energy and the economy, I would have expected that a request for an emergency debate when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was known to be out of the country on an important engagement meant that the opposition had concrete, positive, alternate proposals about what the government should do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Look what we have flushed out. The eyes of Texas are on Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner:: You said he was in Texas.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How was J. R. Ewing?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, when hon. members opposite settle down I will try to continue. I am very pleased that the minister has arrived in the House.
As I was saying, hon. members opposite decided that the situation is such an emergency that all the business of the House must be put aside and for two days or so we must talk about the problems that arise from the collapse of the Alsands project.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am either getting to them already or I am about to get to them, because that is when they make those noises. If they would just listen politely they might learn something.


An hon. Member:: Not from you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I expected them to come forward with a positive plan. I expected that if they sincerely wanted an emergency debate so urgently, that if they could not wait until the minister was in the House and could answer questions, they would have offered five or six alternatives. If people want to know what their actual purposes were and what they had been doing, they should read Hansard and find out how hon. members opposite have talked about the economy, about an election, and many other things that have no relation to the subject matter of their emergency resolution whatsoever.
I want to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on your tolerance in regard to the breadth of comments that you have allowed them to make which are far from the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all respect to the minister, the Chair has observed that on both sides there has been a certain tolerance.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you for that assurance, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to follow the principle that has been established about the breadth of debate in my remarks.

May 5, 1982
The opposition asked for the emergency debate, however, and if they talk about a wide range of matters then it is quite obvious that it will bring forth a response on a wide range of matters. The fact that they have brought no new ideas, made no concrete suggestions or alternatives, indicates that there is more politics than economic concern in their action.
1 believe that the temporary collapse, we hope, of the Alsands project is regarded as unfortunate by everyone. But I think the vast majority of Canadians would be more unhappy if the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada had decided together to go ahead in changed world circumstances where this would result in higher energy costs to the Canadian people and would provide us with the security of supply that we badly need but at a cost higher than alternatives that exist elsewhere. Hon. members opposite are trying to convince Canadian people that this is the responsibility of the government. Perhaps they have to try to convince people that despite the fact that the price has softened internationally, and that the costs for the Alsands project were very high, we should have gone ahead regardless of the fact that the private partners who put up their own money withdrew because they considered it to be too expensive.
What hon. members opposite are saying is that the government should have gone ahead nevertheless, and should have imposed a project upon the Canadian public that would result in an even higher energy cost than is the case at present.


Mr. Wilson:: That is nonsense.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I should like the hon. member to explain why that is nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 will.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will listen very carefully because that question deserves to be answered. The hard cold facts are that hon. members opposite have not answered that question in this debate. Instead they have rambled on about the problems of the economy as though we lived on an island floating in the sky somewhere and are not affected by the American markets, the European situation, and international conditions in general. But that is not an unusual ploy for the opposition. Indeed, I recognize it is perhaps a legitimate ploy, but it is not the sort of constructive approach which results in a party gaining the confidence of the public. I therefore think it is ill-advised.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident it is the view of the Canadian public, that if the Alsands project was going to result in a higher cost of energy than available alternatives, the Canadian public would not want that project to go forward. They will be very much influenced in their judgment on the wisdom of the government's decision by the fact that the private companies decided not to go ahead under these circumstances.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The new-found capitalistic principles of Gerry Regan.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think the people will also be influenced, as I am, by the fact that the government of Alberta, which is not noted to be of the same political stripe as this government or to take the same views in relation to the economy, also felt it had gone as far as it should go in trying to make this project go forward. So I want to applaud the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who had the courage to take the right step. I applaud Premier Lougheed also. Between them, they decided they should not go ahead with a project which had become uneconomical and uncompetitive in today's world market conditions. In many ways the easy task would have been for the minister and the premier to have gone ahead regardless of cost, and that is why I applaud the fact they had the courage to recognize that the long-term interests of the Canadian public in relation to pricing have to be their first responsibility.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, say a few words about the National Energy Program which these people say is in a shambles.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Sure, we have problems in western economies at the present time. We have a softness in markets which affects a province like mine, Nova Scotia, where we sell the vast portion of our fish into the American market. We sell the products of our large pulp and paper mills, most of the tires from Michelin, and many of our other industries into the American market. The result is that when the United States catches a cold, Nova Scotia sneezes. The same thing applies to British Columbia, indeed to a large part of the Canadian economy. If the Americans do not build homes, then we do not sell our gypsum from Windsor, Nova Scotia, my home town, or the forest products from British Columbia. So do not try to tell us that the economy is not dependent upon world markets.
What have we done in the NEP?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Nothing.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Before it even existed we had established PetroCan, something which hon. members opposite wanted to do away with. Had they been in office a little longer, they might have done that great violence to Canada's future. In the meantime they bury their heads in the sand when the subject of PetroCan comes up because it was PetroCan's participation which kept the drilling going off the east coast when the private companies were not prepared to put up more money without having a major share paid for by the federal government. I applaud the minister for that because that brought about the successful gas discovery off Nova Scotia which will provide for the economic future of that province, and do much to help Canada's economy. It was PetroCan's involvement in Newfoundland which provided such a tremendous role in the success of Hibernia and adjacent areas. The NEP, with its investment incentives which might otherwise not have been possible, have of course resulted in the Beaufort moving forward.
I guess we all felt there had to be a selection, Mr. Speaker, as to which projects went ahead more rapidly. Can you think
May 5, 1982

of any better basis for making that selection than on the basis of which projects can bring Canadians the lower-cost energy? That again justifies the action taken on this particular project.
I am rather surprised to see hon. members questioning the judgment of Premier Lougheed. Usually they are such servants, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, of provincial Conservative governments that they hesitate a long while to disagree one iota with the position of a provincial Conservative government when they should be recognizing their national interests.
What else has been happening, Mr. Speaker? We have had the settlement with Nova Scotia. As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) just said, Newfoundland has not settled, but I would suggest to you that the development of Hibernia has been set back a substantial period of time over the last three years because of the lack of a reasonable settlement on the part of Premier Peckford. I suggest we would be well under way in the development of that great resource if Frank Moores were still the premier of the province.
I also want to point out that we have achieved something else under the leadership of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources over the past year. The programs of conservation and home insulation have resulted in a situation equivalent to having had the Alsands plans go ahead. These programs, introduced by the minister and widely used by Canadians, have resulted in a 7 per cent decrease in the consumption of energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think this House should be moving a vote of thanks to the minister. There probably has not been anything in the history of the country as successful and widely used by Canadians as the insulation program which will provide us with savings, not just now, but permanently.
Another thing which comforts me in the belief 1 am correct in applauding the minister is the fact that this changed world economy, the change in world oil prices, and the rate of inflation, have also resulted in most other major international projects of this type being cancelled or delayed. They have been stopped for the same reason. Why is it, for example, that the French have shelved the idea of bringing in heavy crude from Venezuela and putting in a $1 billion up-grading plant? Because it is too expensive in the circumstances. Why is it that Exxon has cancelled their huge shale oil project in Colorado, a $5 billion investment? Why is it that the coal gasification project in Wyoming has been scrapped? Or the $30 billion nuclear energy program in Mexico delayed? I could list several others if I had the time.
The reason is that there are changed circumstances in the world with respect to pricing, and those companies, like the companies and governments involved in Alsands, had enough common sense to recognize that you go ahead when it is in the interests of providing a competitive product. When the price gets out of line, then you have to go back to the drawing board.
The progress which has been made through NEP incentives in the Beaufort Sea, the Revelstoke hydro undertaking, the Bruce operating station, the gas pipeline through Quebec into the Atlantic provinces, and others, indicates that this is
probably the most active department at any point in the history of Canada. It is bringing about the development of alternatives. You have more and more new sources of energy coming on stream. Hon. members opposite are hard pressed indeed when they try to tie a tough but wise decision to a debate on Alsands. The emergency debate indeed should instead have been an endorsement of the action taken by the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What action?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say to the hon. member for St. John's East that I was gravely troubled by his words in relation to the question of an equitable agreement between Newfoundland and the Government of Canada about a resource which legally belongs to one or the other. It is not a question for politicians to argue about. If they can make a settlement, that is wonderful, but otherwise the court decides. But I was bothered by the fact that he said, "We can sit back and wait and sit back and wait." I do not think that is a good Canadian attitude. I think it important to Canada that those resource developments which can help the people of Newfoundland now and can help Canada now in relation to energy should go ahead. That is the sort of attitude I would like to see on his part. I ask him to reconsider the whole question.
I believe I have nearly exhausted my time. Let me say to you in relation to this particular project that, as hon. members opposite say "I have exhausted them", I have exhausted their arguments. I have answered them effectively. I think they will find that the Canadian people will not buy this sort of use of time for which the Canadian people are paying their salaries. I think Canadians would like to see some constructive work. Save your electioneering until election time and come here to represent the people who elected you, and do constructive work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to participate in this emergency debate. Unfortunately it is not, because of the loss of the Alsands project. This loss is probably the biggest blow to Canada and its economy in all our history.
At the outset I would like to welcome the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who has just returned from visiting Texas and all the oil rigs and Canadian investment that he chased from Canada. I am sure that Texas was very happy to get rid of him in a hurry because I believe the Americans would not want to end up in the same economic and energy situation which the minister has created here in Canada.
As far as the statement made by the Minister of State (Mr. Regan) are concerned, I will not comment on them except for one statement. The Minister of State questioned my party's position on a positive plan. I do not know where the minister

May 5, 1982
has been for the last couple of years that he does not even know what the position of this party is on energy matters.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not know your position on your party's leadership either.


Otto John Jelinek: The minister knows very well that this party when it was in government, and since then, has established incentives for Canadian companies, incentives for Canadian ownership. During the short time we were in office we had entered into an agreement with Alsands which would have put that project into production by 1986. As the minister knows, and as all Canadians know, we would keep the excise tax increase on the price of gasoline at the gas pump to 18 cents per gallon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: But the price has increased by a dollar. The Liberals promised to keep the excise tax at 14 cents a gallon. But look at what has happened to that promise. The Conservative government said it would not increase the cost of home heating fuel. But the Liberals have increased home heating fuel by over 50 cents a gallon. The Progressive Conservative government established an energy tax rebate for low and middle-income families. We were in the process of recycling increased revenues into economic development packages which would have assisted mass transit programs and steel production, etc. The list goes on, all leading toward energy selfsufficiency in 1990. Now with the actions of this government opposite, that energy self-sufficiency dream and potential of Canadians have gone down the drain. Members opposite are the ones to blame.
And if the cancellation of the Alsands project was not enough following the cancellation of the Cold Lake project the minister of energy and the government kept telling us and kept telling Canadians that other things were going downhill as well.
I can refer to all the economic standards, whether it is inflation, unemployment-


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has the floor now is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading the House. When he made the remark about the minister being in Texas, the fact of the matter is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is making a point of argument. The minister will have an opportunity to be recognized. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) has the floor. Order, please.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it will be very nice when some of those Liberals become Canadians before politicians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: That is Joe's mentality.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side get upset when they hear the truth. They know that the Progressive Conservative government had an energy policy which would have led to energy self-sufficiency.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A point of order must be a genuine point of order and not an argument.


Maurice James Harquail: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you would be prepared to listen to it. I would like to know whether or not you will allow me the opportunity of at least two minutes to make my point before you rule on it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker-


Fred Alward McCain: Respect the Speaker. Hold others in contempt if you wish, but respect the Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: It is very obvious members on the other side get frustrated when they hear views. I would not blame them at all when they have a Prime Minister-


Maurice James Harquail: You are skating on thin ice.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I request hon. members to keep order in the House. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that Liberal members get very frustrated when they hear the truth from this side of the House. It must be very damaging to their egos to know they have gone downhill, for the last 14 years, as a matter of fact, and now have blown the potential for Canadians of energy self-sufficiency.


Maurice James Harquail: You have a lot of nerve. You are skating around.


An hon. Member:: Skating again.


Otto John Jelinek: Hon. members over there talk about-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I again request hon. members of the House to observe the appropriate decorum. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, they keep talking about my figure-skating background. They have done better skating today in this House of Commons than I ever did. I can tell you that I am proud of my achievements as a figure skater.
May 5, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I won a gold medal for Canada, with my sister, and I am proud of that achievement. 1 wonder what that hon. member has contributed to Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This has been a long debate. The hon. member has been given the courtesy of the House to have the floor. I invite him to speak to the subject.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, now that I have reminded the Minister of State of the policies and programs of our government, I am sure he is satisfied enough because he has left the Chamber, hopefully to study some of those programs to try to encourage his cabinet to copy some of them for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.
I have talked about the Alsands project, but if that was not the final straw, let us go back a year or so. During the last year and a half there have been many problems which Canadians were faced with in various industries. There were problems in the textile industry, the automotive industry, the agriculture industry, along with problems in the small business area. The list goes on. Over the course of last year whenever we questioned those specific problems in this House of Commons, the government would say, "Wait until the budget comes down in November." Finally the budget was brought down, and even the Liberals must agree that it was the most disastrous budget in the history of this nation with the policies and programs that were in it. Not only have we had 40 changes already by the Minister of Finance, but most of the budget has not yet been passed. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is too cowardly to introduce a new budget.
I do not have to get into the specifics of the budget, because we in this House, and all Canadians, realize what the consequences of that budget have been to the economy of this nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I heard an expression that has been deemed unparliamentary. He referred to an hon. member as "cowardly". I invite the hon. member for Halton to withdraw the remark and rephrase it.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Otto John Jelinek: I will withdraw that and replace it with "stubborn", Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You are a pretty good skater.


Otto John Jelinek: In lieu of assisting some of these industries, particularly the small business sector, we were told that a budget would be brought down-and we all know what the consequences of that budget were.
Then the answers to our questions and to the problems in the country were, "Don't worry, because the National Energy Program is going to save the economy of this nation".
But what happened to the National Energy Program? Very quickly, I shall give a few statistics, Mr. Speaker. For example, drilling activity in Canada, down 25 per cent in 1981 over 1980-and I want to point out that that is in contrast to an increase of 25 per cent in the same period in the United States, to counter the contention of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that it is an international problem.
Well completions in Canada in 1981 were 7,183, compared to 9,480 in 1980-a drop of 25 per cent; exploratory drilling in Canada declined by 19 per cent; development drilling in Canada was down 28 per cent. And since the introduction of the National Energy Program, Mr. Speaker, on October 28,
1980,	226 drilling rigs have left Canada. The number of active rigs in Canada declined by 33 per cent between 1980 and
1981.
So much for the National Energy Program. So, what do the Liberals do then? They come back and they say, "We have all of the megaprojects that are going to save everybody and everything, because the spin-off is so terrific from these megaprojects right across the country." The Alsands project alone was a $14 billion project. And it is true. The spin-offs from that project would have been tremendous. One hundred thousand jobs would have been created between that project and the Cold Lake project. The spin-offs would have affected Ontario by 40 per cent of the total cost of those projects, be it in steel production or in automotive plants, manufacturing, or the parts sector. Even the small business sector in secondary manufacturing would have profited tremendously.
I agree that the spin-offs from this project would have assisted the economic situation tremendously right across the country. But now, Mr. Speaker, now that is down the drain. And the Minister of State has the audacity to come before this House and question why we are debating this in an emergency session, when the Speaker herself agreed it was an emergency situation to be debated by this Parliament because it is a tragedy for the economic welfare of this nation.
This is not just one small industry-and I have some compassion for those small industries, as many of my colleagues know; this is a major project affecting all of those industries from coast to coast and affecting the employment opportunities for Canadians, of which there are over one million and a quarter unemployed today. That is the tragedy of the situation, and that is why this debate, Mr. Speaker, is continuing. It is because of the government's policies.
One has to question why it is that some of the policies and programs that have come from that side have been established. No one has really answered why. But I have an inkling that perhaps the philosophy of their Prime Minister, which is well known to many, has a lot to do with it, Mr. Speaker. The socialist tendencies of the Prime Minister are on record. I know that members opposite do not like me to refer to them-


Mr. Breau:: Oh, go ahead.


Maurice James Harquail: Go ahead.

May 5, 1982


Otto John Jelinek: -but I will refer to them again. One of the Liberal members says, "Go ahead".
We can start back in 1940 when the Prime Minister was booted out of the Canadian Officer Training Corps during the war for lack of discipline-


Mr. Pepin:: I thought you were talking about socialism.


Otto John Jelinek: I challenge the Prime Minister to denounce-


An hon. Member:: Spit it out.


Otto John Jelinek: -to denounce these accusations.


An hon. Member:: Spit it out.


Otto John Jelinek: You can tell him what I am saying.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are blushing, Joe. Your leader is blushing.


Otto John Jelinek: In 1941 the Prime Minister was associated with the anti-war and red supported Bloc Populaire in undermining the war effort. Then, Mr. Speaker, in 1945 he enrolled at Harvard, which at that time was a spawning ground for leftist intellectuals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Where are you getting your information?


Otto John Jelinek: I just read your old reports.
In 1950, Mr. Speaker, he was in Shanghai, when the communists took over, and became a rabid admirer of Mao Tse Tung and his red regime. And the list goes on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are blushing, Joe.


Otto John Jelinek: In 1952, today's Prime Minister of Canada led a delegation of communists to the Moscow Economic Conference. In 1953 he was barred entry into the United States as an inadmissible person, a persona non grata. And I will go on. In 1955 he launched Le Rassemblement, a leftist united front rally in Quebec. But the CCF, which was later to become the NDP, refused to join because it was too leftist. In 1960 he led a communist delegation to Peking for the red victory celebration. And on and on. This list goes on, including a quote from The Practice and Theory of Federalism, which he wrote in 1961-and I will quote what today's Prime Minister of Canada said then:
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist governments in certain provinces, from which the seeds of radicalism can slowly spread.
That is today's Prime Minister-and thank goodness-


Yvon Pinard: How much are you paid to spread hate in this country?


Maurice James Harquail: Spread hate. That is your party. You are spreading hate in Canada. That is the policy of your party-to spread hate.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank goodness for the provinces that this dream of socialist governments from coast to coast has failed.


Maurice James Harquail: Spreading hate; you are spreading hate.


Yvon Pinard: You are paid too much to spread hate in this country.


Maurice James Harquail: Hate, hate, hate.


Otto John Jelinek: Listen to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Maurice James Harquail: Hate, hate, hate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying "Hate, hate, hate". It seems that the Liberals-


Maurice James Harquail: That is all that you know,


Otto John Jelinek: It seems that the Liberal government hates the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are a red neck, Jelinek.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appeal to hon. members in the House to observe decorum. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: They are very excited over there. They are talking about hate. One would question whether they liked the Canadian public when they created an economic situation where in this great country-a country which has more natural resources per capita than any other nation in the world, that possesses technological know-how unmatched by any, a country whose human resources are better than those of any other country in the western world-we have one million and a quarter unemployed; where we have an inflation rate of nearly 13 per cent; where we have high interest rate policies supported by this Liberal government-


An hon. Member:: And by the Tories.


Otto John Jelinek: And they talk about hate! Why don't those Liberals, especially the backbenchers, go to their ridings and listen to what their people are saying, because I can tell you that the people out on the street are starting to hate this government for its ineffective monitoring of the economic situation that it has created.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Otto John Jelinek: That is what hate is all about.


An hon. Member:: You are spreading hate in this country.


An hon. Member:: You should be ashamed.


Otto John Jelinek: The minister himself should go to his people and hear what they are saying on the street. They are not
May 5, 1982

happy-and this was before the Alsands project fell apart and created what is potentially the greatest economic disaster from coast to coast in this country.
If they can refute any of these statements I have made regarding this Prime Minister, I welcome them to stand up in this House and say that they are not so. I challenge them to do that. I do not see anyone standing up.


An hon. Member:: Total silence.


Maurice James Harquail: What is not so.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in closing-


Maurice James Harquail: Ask the question.


Otto John Jelinek: In closing-


Maurice James Harquail: Ask the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Maurice James Harquail: He asked for a reply, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Maurice James Harquail: He asked us to reply, Mr. Speaker. He has offered us the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Restigouche has made a number of interruptions that are out of order. I invite him to keep his seat. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: It will be hard for him to keep his seat in the next election.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In closing, because I know time is running out-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I am sure the Liberals are happy that I am closing, because I could go on and tell them a few other things that they wouldn't like. Sometimes we must stop pussy-footing around and call a spade a spade so that they know where they are sitting-and many of them know and feel embarrassed about the situation.


An hon. Member:: Go and wash your mouth out.


Otto John Jelinek: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the potential that this country has to offer Canadians is matched by no other country in the world. It is here. And we admit that there is an international problem economically speaking-inflation-wise and otherwise. But the facts speak for themselves. This government is dealing with those international problems worse than any of the other industrialized nations. That has been established as well. One need only look, for example, at the inflation rate in the United States-which in
the first quarter was only IVi per cent, compared to a 15 per cent inflation rate in the first quarter in Canada.
One need only look at some of the western European countries, or even the Far East or Japan, to see that, yes, those countries are being hit with problems, with economic problems, but they are dealing with them better than we are, and yet they do not have the natural resources and potential-the great potential-that this country has to offer Canadians. And therefore there is only one solution, Mr. Speaker, that this government resign and allow the people of Canada to make a decision. And if it does not, I would, in closing, make one suggestion, that being that, because of the seriousness of this debate, the Governor General should dissolve this House and call an election on behalf of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do welcome this debate. 1 am very happy to see that a number of members have participated. In a way, however, it is a strange emergency debate. 1 was in the House on Monday, the decision by the Alsands group having been announced on the previous Friday, and I noticed at that time that neither the energy critic for the Progressive Conservative Party nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was in the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Where were you yesterday?


Marc Lalonde: I don't know where they were, but it took the Conservatives four days before they discovered there was an emergency which they wanted to debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marc Lalonde: On our side, Mr. Speaker, we were in this House and we were ready to debate. We have been ready to debate all along. We have been debating today, and we will continue to debate as long as the opposition wants to debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I want to begin by saying that the National Energy Program, notwithstanding the attacks of the Conservatives, is alive and well and getting the job done. It has done so for 18 months now, and it will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The government, through the National Energy Program, is meeting the energy challenge in three ways: providing security of supply-security with regard to oil in particular; providing the opportunity for Canadians to participate; and providing fairness in pricing.
The progress we have made in the short 18 months since the NEP was announced is not only enviable, it is remarkable indeed. Eighteen months ago we said that we would move Canada toward energy self-sufficiency-and we have already done so, Mr. Speaker. According to Oilweek magazine, the

May 5, 1982
voice of the industry, our self-sufficiency in oil has increased from 79.5 per cent in 1981 to 80.9 per cent in 1982, in spite of very difficult conditions all around the world.
Under the National Energy Program, our potential domestic supplies have increased. According to the Canadian Petroleum Association figures, our oil and natural gas reserves both increased in 1981.
Three oil discoveries have been made since the National Energy Program came into being, and delineation drilling at Hibernia has established proven reserves of more than one billion barrels of oil. That is progress, and that is what the opposition is criticizing. That is what they would want to undo.
Canada's enormous thirst for oil-and I think it is equalled only by the Tories thirst for power-has decreased, and this is something that cannot be said for the Tories, who are still following the mirage out there in their political desert. Consumption of oil in Canada has been lowered from 282,910 cubic metres in 1980 to a predicted 268,000 cubic metres per day this year. Canadians have made great strides in reducing their dependence on oil through conservation and by switching to more abundant and less costly energy sources.


An hon. Member:: Nobody can afford to do anything.


Marc Lalonde: Over 170,000 Canadians have taken advantage of the National Energy Program grants for converting from oil, and over one million Canadians have received federal grants for increased insulation. Over 1,200,000 Canadians have been helped by the Government of Canada to reduce oil consumption in this country-and that is much more important than whether one or two oil companies got everything that they wanted. It is important because it has meant a 17 per cent reduction in the use of heating oil over last year and a 7 per cent drop in total use by Canadians of crude oil over the past year.
As my colleague stated earlier, more oil has been saved by those measures than the whole production of Alsands would have been-and at a fraction of the cost, Mr. Speaker; at a fraction of the cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Apply that theory to job creation.


Marc Lalonde: In short, we are getting closer, with each passing day, to energy security, and the National Energy Program is delivering on that score.
Edmund Burke once observed that if we command our wealth we shall be rich and free, and if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.
Eighteen months ago we said we would give Canadians a say in their energy future-


Charles Joseph Clark: They are all saying "No".


Marc Lalonde: I am pleased to report that the Canadian share of oil and gas production revenues has increased by about six percentage points, from 28 to 34 per cent, under the National Energy Program.


An hon. Member:: It has gone down in absolute numbers.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are quickly attaining our goal of 50 per cent Canadian ownership. We challenged Canadians to play a new role in meeting their energy needs- and Canadians, contrary to the contention of the Conservative opposition, are responding, Mr. Speaker.
Our third goal in formulating the National Energy Program was fairness-fairness in the pricing and taxation of oil and gas; fairness for each and every Canadian from one end of this country to the other; and fairness in revenue sharing among governments and the industry.
In a period of 18 months we have successfully achieved agreements with the producing provinces-with Alberta, with Saskatchewan, with British Columbia, and recently with Nova Scotia. Again, remarkable progress-progress the Tories were obviously incapable of achieving.
They are determined to live up to a statement made many years ago by the Earl of Derby to the effect that the opposition's duty is a very simple one-to oppose everything and propose nothing.
The increased federal share of revenues have made possible the very programs which will ensure energy security for our nation-exploration incentives, off-oil conversion, home insulation grants, and many more. Why was Alsands suspended? The consortium gave the following reasons: the unsettled state of international oil markets and the possibility of lower than anticipated prices; the falling world demand for oil; and escalating project costs and concern about inflation.
There are two very significant points to bear in mind. The consortium did not deny that the Canada-Alberta offer was very generous, nor did it describe the National Energy Program as a cause for concern. True to form, federal Tories have shamelessly abandoned their Alberta counterparts. They are desperate men seeking desperate solutions, as usual.
The government worked closely with Alberta to develop this very generous proposal. I find it most regrettable that federal Tories blindly refuse to recognize the constructive and cooperative efforts of the two governments during the past few months. It is a classic dog-in-the-manger stance, one at which the Tories have become past masters. Indeed this is another typical classic Tory trait. It is not only pelicans, as nature teaches, that turn on their kind; the Tories are just pelicans in that regard.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members of the Conservative opposition to the statements made by the Premier of Alberta at his press conference on April 30, 1982. Those statements are on the record and they clearly indicate that we have done everything which could be expected from the govemnments in this regard, and that the governments could not responsibly go any further than they did. I invite hon.
May 5, 1982

members opposite to look at the record and to take the lead of the Premier of Alberta in what is a responsible attitude in terms of finalizing situations, and what is a responsible view of the world taken by a man who does not put his head in the sand and refuse to see reality.
I suppose there is nothing more appalling than the contradiction of the Conservative Party and the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party. They have taken their traditional stance of coming down soundly on both sides of the fence on this issue as they do on every other issue. They have repeatedly called for the shelving of Alsands. It follows that they should now be rejoicing at the news of the suspension of the project. Unex-plainably, or perhaps quite understandably, they are now moaning and groaning over its demise. I will not spend too much time commenting upon the NDP.
I should like to return to the facts of the situation. The Tories, with their overblown rhetoric, claim that we have starved the oil industry. Let us get the facts straight. Canada is a major energy explorer, something which benefits our balance of payments. In 1981, exports of natural gas, electricity, uranium and coal exceeded the value of oil imports by $3 billion. As well, declared dividends of the industry increased by $400 million or fully 33 per cent, as compared with an increase of 12 per cent in other sectors of the Canadian economy. This is the record. It does not reflect the behaviour of an industry which is extremely short of cash.
Let me compare our situation with that prevailing in the United States. According to International Petroleum Finance estimates, Gulf Canada, Shell Canada and Texaco Canada substantially outperformed their foreign parents in 1980 and again in 1981. This morning the Oil Daily, the national magazine in the United States of the energy industry, reported the first quarter results of the main oil and gas companies in the United States. I think it will enlighten the opposition to indicate the earnings of the following companies for the first quarter: Occidental, minus 76 per cent; Marathon, minus 71 per cent; Standard of California, minus 65 per cent; Mobil, minus 49 per cent; Texaco, minus 44 per cent. There is no national energy program in the United States. This is the situation faced by these companies in the United States. I could refer to dozens of other companies with similar results. This is the situation which the oil industry all over the world is facing at the present time.
As I indicated, we have seen better results for subsidiaries of American companies in Canada, such as Gulf, Shell and Texaco, than in the United States. This does not take into account the very substantial incentives announced by the government of Alberta in the last few weeks, such as royalty reductions which will amount to $5.5 billion over the next five years.
It is clear that it is the opposition, not the government, which has been withholding up to $1 billion in petroleum incentive payments to the industry this year by its bell-ringing exercise and its delaying tactics. If there was an iota of sincerity in its actions, it should approve forthwith the bill which is
before the House to ensure that Canadian oil and gas companies receive those benefits without any further delay. They say that the cow which moos the most gives the least milk. I would say that Tories are the best examples of such animals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: What results do we see today? First we see exploratory drilling for oil in Alberta where the majority of Canada's oil is currently produced. It was higher in 1981 than it was in 1980. Oilweek magazine predicted an increase in drilling this year in all western provinces as well as in frontier and offshore regions. By way of comparison, in that bastion of free entreprise, the United States, rig activity plummeted in 1982. Compared with the last quarter of 1981, the number of active rigs in the United States is down 20 per cent. In Canada geophysical activity, the precursor of drilling activity, is also on the increase. It is up 62 per cent over the last quarter of 1981. These are facts which the Tories continue to refuse to see, despite the fact that everyone else sees them and reports them.
There is one final undeniable fact which the opposition- and the Tories in particular-refuse to recognize. The National Energy Program is succeeding. It is getting the job done. It is working to ensure a better and brighter energy future for all Canadians. The Tories cannot stop it, not by holding the Chamber to ransom, not by any number of theatrics such as this debate, not by empty and unfounded criticism. We will not let them stop progress; the people of Canada will not let them stop progress. They are bombarding Canadians with words. Canadians require deeds. They can react, but they are unable to act. They can criticize, but they cannot propose. They can attempt to tear down, but they cannot build.
Years from now, long after most of us 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.
It is said that we often discover what will work by finding out what will not work. That is something the Conservative opposition cannot seem to grasp. It is the essence of the opposition's mentality to react like Pavlov's dogs to daily events. It is the challenge of those who govern to rise above those events and to fix their sights on the future.
I would invite the official opposition to take a leaf from the Premier of Alberta and the minister of energy of Alberta who have worked very closely with us on this program and who have come to the conclusion that it would have been irresponsible for the federal government and the Alberta government to venture any further than we did. If some hon. members argue, as they have, that we should have had an agreement before, I refer them again to the statement of Premier Lough-eed to the effect that if we had approved the project a year or 18 months ago, the agreement provided that the companies could still walk away from the project.

May 5, 1982
This is what Premier Lougheed had to say:
I wonder what would have happened to Alberta businessmen if Alsands had been cancelled because of the international situation, after seeming to go ahead.
We have seen this as recently as last weekend. At the same time that the Alsands project was cancelled, we saw Exxon in the United States literally walking away from a project in which $1 billion of investments had already been committed. They walked away from it.
We have seen the Alaska pipeline being postponed for two years. We have seen a number of other projects in the United States and abroad being either delayed or shelved or cancelled because of the uncertainty about world oil prices, inflation, and the cost of inflation generally.
I invite the Tories to do the impossible, to come out of their fantasy world, face the reality, and realize that what is important is that we can achieve self-sufficiency in this country without being dependent on the realization of a program like Alsands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I have to return to my constituency office in the east end of Vancouver. When I meet people who come there to complain about being unemployed, or high inflation, or all the different problems which they now face, I can quote the immortal words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) by saying that it is the challenge of the government to raise itself above these events.
We have just seen the collapse of a $13.5 billion energy project. Although the government is attempting to mislead us, we have, in reality seen the collapse of the financing of a $40 billion to $60 billion energy project which is the Alaska pipeline. But what does the minister say? He says that it is the challenge of the government to rise above these events. Furthermore, we have just seen the collapse of the whole economic strategy of the Canadian government which is built on megaprojects. Once again the minister says that it is the challenge of the Canadian government to raise itself above these events.
Someone once told me that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources might be a socialist. He is not a socialist. He is a Stalinist. He says that the NEP is alive and well and performing its job. That is a fatuous statement and completely inaccurate.
If the minister took the time to read the National Energy Program he would find that it says the Alsands project was at the heart of the National Energy Program and one of the main pillars of the program to provide energy self-sufficiency. Now that it is gone, the minister must rely on Hibernia, as he said. All Canadians know that there are technical and environmental problems in Hibernia. An example is the Ocean Ranger which tragically sank.
If the minister listened to the remarks of the member from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) he would realize that there is an implacable dispute between the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. The minister is now relying on Hibernia, but when will it come on? The minister
also referred to the Beaufort Sea. We have not had one barrel of oil from the Beaufort Sea, and there is some doubt as well about the formations there. There is no way at this time to get oil from the Beaufort Sea. There is no pipeline there nor any actively producing wells.
Where are the great facts that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is so proud of putting before the House? The fact is that the NEP is collapsing, and I predict that the minister will collapse with it.
I want to quote from the November, 1981, budget papers. It states that the leading opportunities lie in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources. It also states that major projects, according to a task force, amounted to $400 billion of potential projects, predominantly in the energy and resource sectors. Well, they have gone. What is happening is the collapse of the government's energy policy.
The minister makes a mockery of us having an emergency debate on behalf of the people of Canada here today. The minister referred to Monday, when I asked the House for an emergency debate and the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to listen, and also ask on Tuesday for that debate. I congratulate him for that.
The government says that there is not an emergency, yet if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will listen, they will find that the people of Canada feel that they have a government which does nothing but dither.
We see an edgy business community, a scared labour force in Canada, and now there is a government which is at a standoff with business, with labour, with the provinces and with both opposition parties. It is at a stand-off with all the people in the country whom we need to unite in order to make the country work.
All we hear from the Prime Minister is that co-operative federalism is dead. All this has the earmark of the policy of the Prime Minister himself. I say, as a western Canadian member of Parliament and as a New Democrat, that it is time for the Prime Minister to go for the sake of the country.
I will make some suggestions for a program to the Prime Minister. The Conference Board of Canada, in its quarterly provincial forecast which was released last night, shows that there is a decline in economic activity which began in mid-1981 and which is forecast to continue well into this year and represents the most severe setback experienced by the nation's economy in decades.
We know that we are in a recession, maybe even worse. The question is, can we do anything about it? The minister quoted the Earl of Derby saying that it is the opposition's duty to oppose and that is all. I disagree with that. I propose to make some concrete suggestions to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and their government. It seems to me that it is time for the nation to shift its direction decisively. Instead of waiting until November, we should have a new budget now. Instead of focusing on megaprojects which
May 5, 1982

are megadisasters, we need to focus on our manufacturing ability.
This is a country which has everything. However, what we do is export it all. I live in British Columbia and I see how we ship out our raw resources and how there is no manufacturing taking place. Our Canadian market, with 24 million consumers, is the key to our economic recovery. We do not have to blame, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) did, everyone else in the world. We can deal with our own market here.
Last year Canada experienced a devastating record S21 billion deficit in trading and manufacturing goods. This has cost the country 200,000 jobs in production. For every one job you get in megaprojects, you get 40 jobs in manufacturing. That is the direction in which we should head.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should get his facts straight. Alsands is no longer economically viable. The minister said that, the chairman of Shell said that, and we said that. Yet he accuses us of being hypocritical when we say the same thing. What we have said all along is that if we must have Alsands, and in the future we will perhaps need Alsands, but not now, we should not give a 20 per cent rate of return to Shell and Gulf, big multinational oil companies. We should look to Petro-Canada, our company, and we should look to the government of Alberta and its company, to develop Alsands jointly. That makes sense. We agree with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that there is a glut on the world market. There are high interest rates, partly because of the making of his own government. So, Alsands is not to go ahead. We accept that, but let us have some alternatives. We can go to enhanced oil recovery, to heavy oil recovery and to coal gasification. We could put some of that $13.5 billion into conservation, and we could literally insulate everyone's house in this country, which would be equivalent to about five Alsands plants. So, there are alternatives.
The minister mentioned the National Energy Program. We support the thrust of the program to Canadianize. We support that kind of thrust. However, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have taken a program with a good thrust and they have mucked it up. This program has become unworkable. It has become bureaucratic and it is just not effective. There are alternatives. You do not Canadianize by giving one third of $6.5 billion to Dome Petroleum and one's friends up in the Beaufort Sea. What you do is to expand Petro-Canada by taking over one of the multinationals like Imperial. If you want 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990, that is what you should do. You do not have to get into a series of unworkable grants.


John Edward Broadbent: And it would cost less.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It would cost less. What do you do about energy taxes? The National Energy Program is supposed to help Canadian industry, but I have heard from my friends to the right and people in Alberta that the small Canadian oil
companies which the program is supposed to help are not being helped. I wish the Prime Minister would listen to this. They are hurting, they are not getting help. So, what we would do if we had any sense in this country would be to remove the PGRT, the IORT and the excise tax, but, in return, ensure that the provinces assign some of their provincial royalties to the federal government. They must share them. Then we will have one person to pay, one system of royalties. We would not have all the paperwork and bureaucracy and we would be able to help the small Canadian companies. Then we could go in and, instead of exporting our gas to the United States, we could gas bank it. We would pay the small gas companies and we would pro-ration it so they would have a chance like the big guys. The little companies would have a chance in Alberta.
I know these are all western ideas which do not ostensibly concern the Prime Minister. But these are concrete suggestions of things we could do to break this log jam. I challenge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to look on that.
I want to speak about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself for a moment. He is in deep trouble, not so much concerning Alsands, although he is in trouble there, but, rather, concerning the Alaska pipeline, because the minister put his neck on the line concerning the pre-build of the pipeline. The story has not yet finished.
Just to recap, in 1977 the New Democratic Party, although criticized for our role in the pipeline matter by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), favoured the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. However, we wanted job guarantees for Canadians, we wanted environmental protection, and protection of native land claims. Our caucus voted against the Northern Pipeline Act of 1978 because it did not include these guarantees, because it was flawed and because Tommy Douglas, our energy critic at the time, anticipated the problems that would arise on this pipeline if we accepted that act as it was.
In the 1980s, this government brought in the pre-build of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. In the fall of 1979, when the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was in opposition, he said:
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 guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
What happened? The Conservative Party agreed to export the gas. The minister gave the speech that I quoted. Then the minister took office and completely reversed himself. He then agreed to export the gas without the ironclad guarantees being signed, sealed and delivered. That is the credibility of the man who last spoke, the credibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Those were his words and actions. What happened in 1982? There was the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline. We have built that length to take Alberta gas to California. In September, we will have finished the western length of the pre-build to take Canadian Alberta gas to the American mid-west, and the whole line will not be built. The project is classic.

May 5, 1982
I was in New York and called Washington last week and I obtained the American reaction. One Congressman said, "I would not put a nickel on any federal assistance to that pipeline. It will never go." The general feeling is that the total cost of $40 billion to $60 billion could never be privately financed. The government was misleading the Canadian people. It never could be privately financed. As if that were not bad enough, the government is continuing to mislead us. Mitchell Sharp, the pipeline commissioner, has threatened the American government. The minister has threatened the American government.


John Edward Broadbent: It is really scared.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The American government is really scared of that, because we have nothing left with which to bargain. We have pre-built the line and we are left with a line which is now taking Canadian gas to American markets. We have only one quarter of the number of jobs we would normally have, and we have no guarantee that the whole line will be built. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sharp, or a Canadian official on his behalf, went to the President of the United States within the last two weeks and asked for a reaffirmation of the guarantee, but did not get it. So, the government is misleading this House to state that it is still to come. This is a real shame. 1 remind the party to my right that it voted with the government. I believe the vote was 153 to 28 on that infamous day in July, 1980, when we warned the government and pleaded that if it went ahead it would have to stand alone on the pre-build and that it would sell out Canadian gas like it sold out the oil industry.
I think Canadians know, or should know, why we have problems with the Alsands today and why we need this oil, why we are prepared to do almost anything or to give any amount of money to get oil in Canada. The reason was that in the early 1970s we exported one half of our daily production to the United States. Can you imagine? We exported our oil to the United States. Now, because of the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline, we will export our gas. One is an idiot to make a mistake like that one time, but to repeat the same mistake one must be a fool.


An hon. Member:: You have to be a Liberal.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I weep for Canada.
Let me conclude by quoting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he spoke during the pipeline debate of 1956. He stated:
What shall it profit Canada if we gain a pipeline, and lose a nation's soul?
What shall it profit the people of Canada, if we gain a thousand pipelines, and lose Parliament?
In this recent pipeline debate, what shall it profit Canada if we lose a pipeline and we lose our reputation and our soul? The minister is continuing to mislead us concerning the pipeline. He has stuck his neck out. He gambled with Canada's energy future. He failed, and he should resign.
As a westerner I want to say to the Prime Minister, because his party has called us the doom and gloom experts, that we love this country. This country has all the resources known to man. It has everything, the energy and the oil. There is another Saudi Arabia out there in heavy oil. We have everything. All we need is the will to do it. Once we have that, we need the confidence to say we can do it ourselves through Petro-Canada, directing it with the people behind it. Once we do that, we will have energy security and self-sufficiency in Canada. It is there; we can do it.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said in his speech that Canadians are ready for a new economic strategy. We do not want to be hewers of wood and drawers of water any more, the megaprojects' fools. We want a new strategy for the west where I come from, and for the east where the hon. member for Oshawa comes from, to stimulate our manufacturing industry. We know that is where the real jobs are in Canada. Canadians in both the west and the east understand that and will support it. They are ready for tough government action to do that.


Aideen Nicholson: Our options include natural gas, the use of which is being expanded throughout Canada. We have programs to encourage gas production in Alberta, to support natural gas development off the Nova Scotia coast. Oil-burning electrical generating plants in Atlantic Canada are being converted to coal. There is exploration for oil and natural gas in the Atlantic offshore and in the Beaufort Sea. Natural gas distribution systems in eastern Canada are being extended and we have a wide range of energy renewable projects.
If we use our ingenuity and if we plan carefully ahead, we as Canadians can achieve energy self-sufficiency in the 1980s. The suspension of the Alsands project is disappointing but the whole history of energy projects in Canada is one of project delays.
During the 1970s many projects were delayed, not only because of pressure by environmentalists and other public interest groups, but also because of the conflicting interests of the companies concerned and the conflicting interest of the different levels of government and different regional governments. Project delays can be expensive and may lead to missed opportunities. They may also result in better and more carefully planned projects.
These are difficult times. That is all the more reason to concentrate on finding appropriate solutions rather on the kind of unconstructive complaining we have heard in the last day.
The decision of private oil firms not to proceed with the Alsands project at this time is one of a number of similar decisions that have been made internationally. French El Aquitaine has postponed its plan to buy heavy crude from Venezuela and build an upgrading plant in France at a cost of over$l billion.
In the United States the Exxon Troupe liquid gasification project in Texas, estimated at $4 billion, has been deferred, and the Exxon colony shale oil project in Colorado which is estimated at $5 billion. In Mexico a $30 billion nuclear energy program has been delayed. These are examples of the current situation with world oil surpluses and soft prices and difficult financing problems. The positive side of all this is that some of the reasons that demand for oil has been reduced is because conservation has increased.
It has been estimated that even Saudi Arabia's oil supply capability is going to peak at something between nine and 15 years so that the western world will not be able to rely on oil from that traditional source indefinitely. We must be pleased that all nations of the world, including Canada, are reducing consumption.
However, in Canada among our many other possibilities we have a natural gas supply much larger than we had hoped for at this stage, and great promise of further increases. People in the industry consider that we now have so much natural gas supply that we can begin to see natural gas rather as we see coal, that is, as a non-renewable resource available in such quantity that it can be used without compromising our future.
Apart from the fact that we are so fortunate in having large reserves of gas and coal, we are also fortunate in having a welleducated, innovative scientific community. In the alternative energy field, the Government of Canada is involved in two major projects with the Quebec government, for instance. One is a $35 million large scale vertical axis wind tunnel, the so-called eggbeater which is being developed to fit into the Hydro-Quebec grid. The other is a $36 million project to construct an experimental nuclear fusion device in conjunction with two Montreal universities.
The delay in proceeding with the Alsands is disappointing, but it is not a disaster unless we make it so. Probably no other country on earth has the raw material that we have, together with a well-developed infrastructure and a highly educated hard-working and innovative population. We have the advantages and we must seize the opportunity to develop them.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not have the opportunity to speak while the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was still in the Chamber, having just arrived by Challenger jet from Texas. Presumably he was asking the Texans to bring some of their money back to Canada or, more accurately, asking Canadians in Texas to come back to Canada.
The Minister's speech underlines the major problem with energy policy in Canada, and that is the minister himself. He simply cannot be trusted to keep his word, to honour government contracts, or to tell the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Harvie Andre: He said that the National Energy Program has resulted in an increase of crude oil reserves in Canada, and he offered oil rigs as proof.
On Thursday last, William Hopper, the Chairman of Petro-Canada, said before the Energy Committee in this building that those reserve additions were the result of the discoveries of Hibernia in 1979, a year before the National Energy Program came along. But that did not prevent the minister from standing up and claiming that under the National Energy Program reserves have increased. Under the National Energy Program, reserves have continued to decrease and decrease dramatically. He should consult his window on the industry, if he wants to know what is going on.
The minister quoted from some magazine he picked up in the airport in Texas, that we are doing so much better in Canada in terms of oil and gas exploration than they are in the United States. I would like to quote a few remarks from a research document prepared by the firm of F.H. Deacon Hodgson, Incorporated, investment counsellors. They made a comparison. They said, on data provided by the Petroleum Information Corporation of Denver, that here is how we have done:
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 United States. 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 per cent ... Development

May 5, 1982
drilling in Canada was down 28 per cent ... Since the introduction of the National Energy Program on October 28, 1980, 226 drilling rigs have left Canada. The number of active rigs in Canada has declined 33 per cent in 1981 over 1980. The number of seismic crews, a leading indicator of future exploration activity, also declined 25 percent in 1981 compared to 1980.
That is the comparison, Mr. Speaker, and that minister stands in the House and says, "Look how wonderful my National Energy Program is working because we are doing so much better than the United States." That, Mr. Speaker, is a minister whose words cannot be trusted.
In 1981 Canadian citizens and Canadian companies financed drilling of more wells outside Canada than inside Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a shame.


Harvie Andre: More wells were drilled in the rest of the world, mainly in the United States, than were drilled by Canadians in Canada in 1981. That was not the situation in 1980. What intervened? The National Energy Program, to Canadianize the industry.
What is Canadianization worth? Here is an article from a magazine, the "McAllen-Monitor", Texas:
Ed McGhee says the warning cry of "The Canadians are coming, the Canadians are coming!" is going up throughout the U.S. oil patches ... Canadian money and a lot drilled by Canadian rigs. "Coming they are-rigs, trucks, men, know-how, and money," McGhee said.
They are Canadians driven to Texas by that Minister of Energy who supposedly is doing it in order to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. That is what has been happening for this last year, and the minister has the audacity to stand up in this House and claim the opposite, when all this data and information are there and available. If he had stopped at Calgary on his way to Texas he could have found out first hand.
He says that he is really proud of how Canadianization is working. He had some figures about increased Canadian ownership. I wonder what would happen to some of those figures if he took out some of those companies who responded to his blandishments last year, and went ahead with the takeover-like Dome, like Sulpetro, like Turbo, like Drummond.
What is really the height of hypocrisy is that this is the same minister who, on January 25, was in Paris speaking to the Canada-France Chamber of Commerce saying that he would welcome French money for investment in energy projects in Canada. That was just on his way from Kuwait where he made the same plea to the Kuwaitis. What is wrong with a minister who prides himself on driving Canadians to Texas and then to make up for the loss goes to Kuwait and Paris, saying, "Please come, please come and invest in Canadian energy projects; we want you to come."
The minister then stood up and said that PIP-the Petroleum Incentive Program-which is supposed to give grants to Canadian-owned companies, is being held up by the Progressive Conservative party. Mr. Speaker, I wrote to him on December 21, 1981, several months ago, indicating that the PIPs program was the only part of this energy package that had some time urgency and that, if he would separate it from
the package, I would recommend to my caucus that we give it expeditious treatment. He wrote back and said, no. Now he stands up in the House and says that we are responsible for delaying this program.
Parliamentary rules prevent me from describing his statement accurately. The interesting thing about that program, one of the reasons we wanted to see it studied in committee, is that we wanted to have outside experts report on it. Well, we did have some outside experts report on it. The Canadian Bar Association has examined that legislation. In the opinion of the lawyer who presented the views of the Canadian Bar Association, that legislation is unconstitutional. It violates the Canadian Charter of Rights. So the entire foundation, what is left of that colossal mess called the National Energy Program, may well be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights. Isn't that interesting? What chaos is going to be left after that little exercise, Mr. Speaker?
I have at least 12 or 14 inches of file holders of letters from Canadian-owned companies talking about how the National Energy Program has destroyed them. I could not bring them all, but here is one. Badger's Drilling, which is 100 per cent Canadian owned, say that since the budget of October 28, 1980, the Canadian independent companies they have worked for have indicated they will complete their winter program and will spend anywhere from 40 to 80 per cent of their budget in the United States.
The Canadian companies have all moved their production to the United States. Mr. Speaker, up until last week the Minister of Energy was not worried about the effect this might have on self-sufficiency. He did not care, because we had an ace in the hole, we had tar sands, and the National Energy Program was going to spur contracts. It says so right here, on page 94: "The National Energy Program will spur oil sands development." Then it talks about the Alsands project and says that the positive impact of the program on oil sands development can be illustrated by its effect on the commercial viability of the Alsands project. It lists eight other projects which were going ahead because of this marvellous policy, every one of which is dead, dying or postponed indefinitely. As a result of this minister's energy policies, according to Statistics Canada, $18 billion of long-term capital departed Canada last year.
To finance that, plus our regular current account deficit, because of the disastrous shape of our economy we have to rely, basically, on short-term funds to the tune of $31 billion. That means this year we have to find an additional $5 billion or $6 billion for the interest on the money we had to borrow last year as a result of the disastrous consequences of the National Energy Program.
If Alsands had gone ahead, if Cold Lake had gone ahead, if Judy Creek had gone ahead, and if the heavy-oil upgrader had gone ahead, we could have counteracted that. Now I frankly do not know what we will do. If we believe Morton Shulman, the way to make money out of this is to short the Canadian dollar. Morton Shulman sees nothing but catastrophe in trying
May 5, 1982

to cope with this, and if we want to make money, we should short the Canadian dollar because Morton Shulman and every other investor in Canada has completely lost confidence in this government, and for good cause. This government cannot be trusted to keep its word.
Why did the Alsands project fail? In January of 1980 men and equipment were on site. They were constructing the work site. They were ready and anxious to go.
When it was re-elected the very first thing this government did, on April 3, 1980, was to invoke the force majeure clause in the Syncrude agreement, rescinding international prices for Syncrude. The very first thing the government did was break a contract. That caused Mr. Mensel, then the Alsands project chairman, to hold a press conference and to say to the government, "If you are going to do that to Syncrude, we in Alsands are not too interested in going ahead without something much stronger than you gave to Syncrude". Ultimately it took a year and a half to straighten that out. Did the government learn its lesson from trying to break a contract, and from what it did to the confidence of Alsands? Not at all.
By way of a letter-contract dated November 20, 1978 Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited wrote to the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Gillespie, outlining details of the contract, and the following is the relevant paragraph:
We understand that you will commence the process under the Petroleum Administration Act, as amended, to secure for GCOS the benefit of such international crude oil prices, commencing on the later of January 11, 1979, or the date on which the approval of the government of the province of Alberta is given in accordance with the law of Alberta.
Then the letter said if the minister agrees with this contract, he should sign the bottom of the letter. The signature of the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, the then Liberal minister of energy, mines and resources, is on this letter-contract. The signature is dated November 27, 1978.
Then the present minister brought forward the National Energy Program on October 28, 1980, and at page 29 the program document says:
Therefore, the production from the existing plant-
This is referring to the GCOS plant.
-will henceforth receive the conventional oil price.
A written contract with the Government of Canada is not worth the paper it is written on. That is the clear message. Never mind an oil statement, and never mind an election promise about keeping gasoline prices down. The government violated that promise. The government cannot be trusted to keep written contracts, and that is the problem.
Who in his right mind would make a risky investment in Canada with this government and the trained donkeys supporting it, when the record shows they will not honour written contracts? That is the dilemma. How can we restore credibility when people know their contracts will be torn up and when they know the government will invoke force majeure for phony reasons and introduce retroactive legislation like Bill C-48 to confiscate 25 per cent of the privately-owned assets of companies? When the government has that record, how can it restore confidence in order to bring some of that $18 billion of
Canadian money which left Canada last year back to Canada for investment in Canada to provide Canadian jobs for Canadian citizens who want to work and prosper and survive? How can the government get over that confidence factor? It must be obvious to everyone except the man who is now our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The government could get that confidence by demanding the resignations of those who tore up those contracts. If the Prime minister had the slightest concern for Canada as opposed to concern for the pride of his friends Marc and Allan, he would ask for their resignations right now. Nothing could do more in the short term to restore the confidence of Canadians in Canada. We are not even talking about foreign investors; we are talking only about the confidence of Canadians in their own country.
What a tragedy it is that Canadian citizens who live here, who send their children to Canadian schools, who have an attachment to this country and who feel pride in the marvellous geography of Canada lack such confidence in their government that they would rather drill in the United States, in Australia, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Vietnam or in China rather than in Canada. What a tragedy.
Unfortunately, these projects are dead. The window was wide open two years ago. People were so anxious to start on these projects that they had taken the risk of putting men and equipment on site to start construction, but they are dead. They are gone. We can weep for their loss. We can try to comfort those who are unemployed as a result of those projects not going ahead, but what we have to do is look at what we can do to replace those projects and to get this country working again. But it is almost hopeless to propose anything unless we deal with personalities. It is almost hopeless to talk about new policies, to talk about tax changes, or to talk about new budgets or new energy policies if they are going to come from the same people.
For the sake of Canada we have to start with a change in those two ministers, and I plead with the Prime Minister for once in his life to put Canada ahead of the Liberal Party and to put Canada ahead of the pride of his friends. I plead with the Prime Minister to put concern for the million and a half unemployed Canadians first and to get the resignations of those ministers, and then we can get on with the job of a new budget and new energy policies and putting this country back to work so that we can have the future of which we are capable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this afternoon we are having an emergency debate because the opposition has just realized that the Alsands project cannot be implemented right away. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said, it took the opposition several days to realize that the project would not be

May 5, 1982
implemented, although the announcement was made last week. The fact remains that today we are having what seems to be an emergency debate and an important one, at the request of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
It is rather funny, Mr. Speaker, because after two years as a member of this House, I am beginning to understand what makes the official opposition tick. I cannot say the same for the New Democratic Party because you never know what they are thinking. There are perhaps 30 members representing that party, and probably as many attitudes, ideas, points of view or positions. I do not intend to dwell on their position, in this debate, since they have not really expressed their views very clearly, and the hon. members who did speak to this issue differed in the versions they gave.
As far as the official opposition is concerned, there is no mistaking what they think. For one thing, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party has no idea what it is doing. And it had no idea what it was doing in the past either. Let me explain. Today, we have in the House a Leader of the Opposition with an opposition party that is astonished that the Alsands project is not going to be carried out. Going back a few months and a few years, who was in favor of a world price or at least 85 per cent of the world price, for oil and oil products? The Progressive Conservative Party. Who was telling Canadians oil prices would be raised to make Canadians learn to conserve oil? The Progressive Conservative Party. They took exactly the same position as the OPEC countries: we are going to raise oil prices so you will start conserving oil and our reserves will last longer, so we will be able to live on this resource for a long time. Thanks to their advice and their policies which were partially implemented, and thanks to the advice of the western oil producers, the premiers of the producing provinces and the leaders of the Arab countries, oil prices went up, and now that Canadians and Americans have learned to conserve oil, the Progressive Conservative Party finds to its surprise that because of this and because oil is more expensive as a result of their policies, we now have an oil glut, and prices did not go up as much as they expected. Consequently, it will no longer be necessary to extract expensive oil from the tar sands and in the near future new discoveries will give Canadians the oil they need. What a surprise! Mr. Speaker, it was their philosophy, their policies and their decision. Otherwise, I would like to know why Mr. Lougheed and his Conservative colleagues wanted higher prices for oil if it was not to make Canadians conserve it? Why? This is what the Arabs tried to teach us, but even more important, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people now understand something more essential.
In the seventies we always thought in Canada that while we imported oil from Arab countries, we also had some of our own and there would never be a shortage. A westerner, a former football player named Peter Lougheed, made us understand something, and with the help of his friends in this place, including the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark),
he made it clear that Alberta oil did not belong entirely to the Canadian people. At a given time, he told us: "I shall cut back 60,000 barrels a day." A few weeks later, it was 120,000 barrels a day. I remember having discussed this with some of the opposition members and having told them: "This is a dangerous game that you are playing, because if the Canadian people realize that the resources of their own country do not necessarily belong to them and are not necessarily easily available, they will look to other resources from their own regions, such as wood, peat, coal or gas." However, some of the people with whom I discussed this in private told me: "Pierre, you are wrong; all we want is for our own people to have the money produced by their oil so that our regions may develop after experiencing problems for 50 years." The Canadian government has always understood this, and I understand it myself. Why do you think there is a Heritage Fund in Alberta? Because billions of dollars were put in this fund and no one objected. However, the point that I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that the Canadian people have understood that the oil in Alberta belongs to all Canadians as long as Mr. Lougheed or the Conservative Party in Alberta agree.
Mr. Lougheed showed them that when he wants that oil, it belongs to Alberta only. It does not belong to Canada. He can even prevent it from belonging to Alberta if he decides that the oil will remain in the ground. In that case, even the people from Edmonton will not have it. It is therefore surprising today to hear the party that developed such policies, and especially its leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, whom I accuse of being behind the Western Canada Concept. Mr. Speaker, this same man came to my constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean in 1980 to sign a petition sponsored at the height of the referendum campaign by the separatist party, the Parti Quebecois. The Leader of the Official Opposition came to my constituency to sign this petition and support Rene Levesque and his accomplices.
Let us look at the Western Canada Concept. What are the ideas supported and developed by this party in western Canada? First, there is the metric system. The western Canada Concept is opposed to the metric system. Mr. Speaker, for several months, I have seen members opposite rise in this House and criticize the metric system. When I was knee-high to a grasshopper and the greatest scientists were still young, everything was metric in chemistry. You should try, Mr. Speaker, to do chemistry with quarts and gallons. Everthing is done in millilitres and in litres. Chemistry has been based on the metric system for years. This did not happen because Gimaiel from Lac-Saint-Jean wanted it. This is how things are; it is an international phenomenon.
The Conservative Party of Ontario, the party of Mr. Bill Davis, has been teaching nothing but the metric system in schools for ten years. The sons and daughters of the people
May 5, 1982

who elected the Progressive Conservative members from Ontario to this place learn only the metric system at school because the Ontario premier and the Conservative provincial government so decided ten years ago. While the sons of these members are learning the metric system from Bill Davis, Joe Clark stands here and tells me that he is against that system. What is this? It is simply because people in western Canada like to say that the metric system comes from the French. In other words, the objection is somewhat racist. That is the problem. Yet, chemistry is international.
I shall mention another issue that is raised by the Western Canada Concept before dealing with the matter which concerns us directly. Bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the library to prepare a list of the statements made by members of any party during the past two years against the legislation on bilingualism or against French. There are so many that I have been waiting for three weeks and they are still working at it. I will not say what party most of those statements come from. But I have heard people say: "You went too fast! The government went too fast when it put up bilingual signs in western national parks, etc. However, it must be kept in mind, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues from the west have told me so, that most young English-speaking westerners today are attending French primary schools to become bilingual. Are we going to spend our lives trying to develop unilingual citizens with a single culture? We are lucky enough in Canada and in North America to enjoy two languages. This is another theme developed by the Conservative members. And when the Progressive Conservative leader comes to my constituency and signs a petition on behalf of the separatists, he does not say: "Let us speak English only". He says: "Let us speak French only." It is practically the same thing, but the other side of the coin. He is again, therefore, behind the Western Canada Concept that made it possible for an Alberta member to get elected to the legislature. Go tell that to Mr. Lougheed and his Alberta colleagues and let us talk about the energy agreement signed by Peter Lougheed and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on behalf of the Canadian government.
That is a theme which has been used and abused by members of the official opposition. Why? Because they have no respect for anything. Nothing is sacred to them. But what is most incredible is that they dare come to us after all this time and say: "If the Alsands project has collapsed, it is because of the National Energy Policy". I can hardly believe it, Mr. Speaker. The party that has been fighting tooth and nail to make people understand that the Canadian price for oil should be 75 per cent and not 85 per cent of the world price is the Liberal Party of Canada. We have never been able to sell that principle. Even those who have fought against it are quite surprised now to realize that Canadians are buying less gas because gas is more expensive and therefore we need less.
Yet, there are some aberrations, and I often appeal to the good sense of my Conservative colleagues and urge them to please help their country. Mr. Speaker, please ask them to help our country. The party opposite has had great leaders. They were certainly not opportunists, they knew what a country meant, they would not sign petitions presented to them by separatists of the first order and they had something to give. I need not mention names, because the members opposite know them better than I do. But what is happening now in connection with their party, Mr. Speaker, is that even Tory members do not know who their leader really is. Even they do not know. Ask them. Maybe Mulroney can answer that question, maybe the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) can, I do not know. But one thing is sure: It is easy to understand how a party unable to fight with ideas would resort to all kinds of childish games to try to disrupt the business of the House. We have had point of orders, questions of privilege, the ringing of bells and now, an emergency debate. At least this procedure is legal. It is not on the borderline of legality or more or less out of order. It is according to the rules. But the fact remains that the political party which, more than any other, urged Canadians to reduce their oil consumption is now telling us, that an emergency debate is necessary because they have done that and we will need less oil in the future. It is most surprising. But that puts one in mind of their leader, who prances right and left, like a young calf cavorting around, tail up in the air, until you know what comes out. The politics we have been dished out of late by the Progressive Conservative Party in this country resembles that somehow.
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that other men will come forward. I am sure of that. Premiers like those of Ontario, perhaps Alberta, will come forth, who knows, perhaps a fellow from Sept-iles, or a friend of my colleague the hon. member for Manicouagan, one of his very good friends, in fact, who may be interested in taking over the position now held by the hon. member for Yellowhead. They are free to do so, but as far as the well-being of Canada and our population are concerned, we need a serious opposition, one that comes here with the intention of being constructive.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said a while ago that sarcasm and criticism are usually the order of the day, that there is no end to them, but that constructive proposals in the field of energy and others coming from the Progressive Conservative Party are something we will never see. Oh, no.
Once again, for I have done it several times already, instead of presenting such stupid, such backward, such self-serving motions, that are based on the latest news I appeal to the good common sense of my colleagues of the opposition. Every time something new comes up on television, we are sure to get a motion the next day. They come after the news because the policies of the parties of the opposition are conceived by the news media. After the reporter has spoken, then comes the

May 5, 1982
opposition with politics. This is how it always goes. I would urge the official opposition to be serious. Canadians need something more than parrots repeating what the media said the day before. They need statesmen to help them with worthwhile policies and structures for this country. In that context, I would refer to a sentence often heard from the Alberta premier: "We have no wish to sell all our oil today, as the Arab countries also say; we want to keep some for tomorrow so our children may also derive benefits. It is not enough to accumulate billions, to put them in the Heritage Fund and loan them at less than the going rate, because that money depreciates. Our children must have revenues down the road. Therefore, we will conserve oil."
I would urge opposition members to applaud at the decision taken by the Alsands companies not to proceed for the time being. This is exactly what they have decided. To postpone matters in order that our children may get the benefits. There is one thing we should not forget, Mr. Speaker. As I said, although it always pays to resort to regionalism and to a measure of racism, to oppose everything new by fighting the metric system, this leaves marks on people. When premier Lougheed decided to stop oil sales to Canadians, Canadians got a message they will never forget. That message is that what belongs to Peter Lougheed or the Alberta Conservatives does not necessarily belong to all Canadians. When a politician is not bright enough to realize that once he puts that message across, people will understand it for life, which means that such a politician is an opportunist and got where he is by accident, and probably will disappear by accident.
As far as 1 am concerned, as a member for the constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean, I have no objection whatsoever to the Alsands project proceeding later on, because I know we will still need energy. What is important to me is that people in my constituency have oil, energy. For now, they have them at a reasonable cost. This country has more reserves than ever. We have a Canadianization policy that has a tremendous impact. The simple reference to Petro-Canada having bought Petrofina is a matter of national pride in my constituency. We see Petro-Canada advertisements everywhere. We see everywhere the excellent service provided by Petro-Canada. We are proud that this country gave itself a structure not only to drill holes and to pump oil, but a structure based on the premise that every Canadian should have access to energy, both in the east and in the west.
Mr. Speaker, you are giving me an extra minute and I will use it to say how much I appreciate the way this energy policy was built on respect for everyone, on respect for the people of today and the people of tomorrow.
In the future, I would ask my colleagues of the opposition, when they want to blackmail Canadians, to use other means that cannot be turned some day against themselves or the people. Do not serve your leader's interests, but those of your constituents!
[DOT] (WOO)


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el). He has covered everything from soup to nuts. I am surprised that he has not given us the definition of a Liberal of today.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: You got that the last time and you are still thinking about it.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: There are still many Liberals in this country who are surprised at that definition. I do not think I can quote it as I cannot find the speech in Hansard. I remember that he ended by saying something to the effect "If Liberals have to move, to be socialists or communists, that is the way we will move." They will do anything to stay in power. The people of Canada are catching on and it will not be long until hon. members opposite are communists the way they are carrying on.
I do not think that anyone in Canada will ever forget Friday, April 30. It could easily become remembered as the 1982 counterpart to the "Black Friday" of 1929, when the economy collapsed in a state of confusion. This time, however, the blame can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the Liberal destroyers.
The destructive policies followed by this Liberal government have almost ruined the energy industry, the most vital sector of our economy. The National Energy Program will be seen as a blueprint for disaster that finally culminated in "Black Friday" 1982-the day that our energy sector was devastated-the day that 13 years of Liberal economic mismanagement culminated in the collapse of the Alsands megaproject.
We would be foolish to think that only Alsands died on April 30. We would be optimistic to think that this failure was even limited to the energy sector. The ramifications of last Friday will send a shock wave through the entire Canadian economy. It will directly, or indirectly, affect every family in Canada from coast to coast. What we have witnessed is a milestone on the path leading us from prosperity to poverty.
The death of Alsands hits us squarely below the belt. Investor confidence in Canada has now reached a new low. As a matter of fact Alsands failed partially because investors felt that they could no longer trust a government that invited them in as partners. The first effect of "Black Friday" could be seen as the value of the Canadian dollar dropped to mirror international opinion of this failure. But that was just one result.
In the weeks and months to come Canadians will be faced with the true extent of this total failure by the Liberal destroyers. They will see it in terms of lay-offs, in terms of bankruptcies, and in terms of ruined lives, lost pride and lost hope. But most of all Canadians will feel it as the ultimate blow-the final destruction-of their confidence in the Liberal government and its bankrupt economic policies.
For years now the Liberals have been hiding behind energy megaprojects. When questioned about their industrial strategy,
May 5, 1982

they would always say, "Well, we have the energy megaprojects. They will bring in much needed jobs and investment as well as more revenue for the government. They will provide us with energy security in the future."
The final curtain has dropped. On April 30 Canadians saw the naked truth. There is no industrial strategy. There is no pian to bring us out of our economic difficulties. The government has no plans, no ideas, no strategy, and apparently no real desire to address the problem. We are adrift, in a sea of economic mismanagement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has fiddled and he has burned Canada. He fiddled in 1972, and a former finance minister, John Turner, played second fiddle, at a time when they should have been pressing ahead on the projects that would have left us energy self-sufficient today with projects like Alsands and Cold Lake. The Prime Minister also fiddled as he ineptly toyed with wage and price controls in 1975 and failed to address the underlying problems that caused inflation. He continued to fiddle, next with the Constitution, when all around him Canadians were crying out for an economic policy. This had to be the greatest fiddling job in the history of Canada.
Last week we were treated to another farce. The entire Liberal cabinet emerged from a weekend meeting at Meach Lake to announce to a concerned Canadian public that they were determined to continue on their ruinous economic course. They fully supported the November MacEachen budget, the most vilified economic document in two decades. Surely it was not that they believed in what the MacEachen budget was doing. It could not be. Already it has been roundly condemned by three cabinet ministers and many Liberal backbenchers. It was not a statement of favour, it was a statement of failure. They admitted that they had no ideas, no plans, no direction. And in doing so they left the Canadian people in a vacuum to fend for themselves as best they can.
I think W. A. Wilson put it very well in an article in last week's Calgary Herald under the title "Federal Brainstorming Meets With Failure." One sentence at the end sums it up where he said that the Chretien-Regan statement after Meach Lake really meant "Sorry, we do not know what to do next."
They are bankrupt. Then came "Black Friday", the final blow. It was the final statement by industry and business as to what they think of the government's economic plans, and they said very clearly what they think of the National Energy Program.
I think that the oil industry's point of view was best expressed by Mr. John Stoik of Gulf Canada. He said:
Over the years, the government has so strained its credibility with retroactive rule changes that those of us in the industry now must 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?"
This lack of faith, however, is not confined only to the oil industry. In the April, 1982, edition of Executive Magazine Mr. Kenneth MacDonald wrote:
At a political meeting last January the sitting member, a Liberal, remarked, almost as an aside, on the abuse he gets from constituents. At times vitriolic, it was to him commonplace, part of the job. A few days later. Finance Minister MacEachen was given personal protection by the Parliamentary security service after two threats had been made upon his life. Prime Minister Trudeau himself had been the target of a man who was arrested after being found with the ingredients of a bomb.
He went on to say:
It would be easy to dismiss these incidents as extreme expressions of discontent with an unpopular government. Citizens who feel aggrieved by government actions have nowhere to turn but to their MPs. If their livelihoods were threatened by MacEachen's budgetary measures, some might be driven to threaten him in return. The Prime Minister's penchant for confrontation is hardly a calming infuence upon the unstable.
I have yet to be subjected to abuse, much less abuse of a vitriolic nature, by my constituents. But then again I have yet to support a government as incompetent and unfeeling as this one. It should not be part of an MP's job. It should not be part of our job to be subjected to threats and abuse. This is not a normal attitude, it is an act of extremely frustrated people. It is an indication of the lack of faith, the lack of hope, felt by the people of Canada.
It is a growing lack of hope that ultimately will result from the loss of the megaprojects. That is probably the most damaging aspect of their cancellation. Canadians have now discovered that the finance minister's policies are disastrous. He has constantly contended that when American interest rates come down, then Canadian rates will follow. Well, Mr. Speaker, American rates are coming down. The American inflation rate has dropped. For one month this year the U.S. actually experienced deflation. Why have we in Canada not experienced similar results from high interest rate policies? The answer is that the Americans have a plan.
The Americans support their monetary policy of tight money with a fiscal policy of government restraint. They are cutting back spending. They are deregulating. They are getting government off the backs of the people. President Reagan has reduced taxes and helped industry. In contrast, in Canada, we have high interest rates and huge increases in government spending.
Suddenly and with alarm, Canadians are realizing that we may not be pulled out of this recession by the Americans. There is every chance that we will soon find ourselves living at a standard markedly lower than that of our American counterparts. We are being forced to accept inflation. They are even now overcoming it. And it is rapidly becoming apparent that even the bankrupt Liberal strategy of waiting to ride the American coattail to recovery is not going to work. As this reality sinks in, it will become increasingly difficult to convince investors that they should invest in Canada. We need dramatic changes in policy, if this country is to recover. This government needs to make some tough decisions and to exhibit some leadership.
But ministers are not going to do this. Instead, their actions remind me of the sacking of Rome. The last few weeks have
80114 20

May 5, 1982
brought us unending tales of Liberal patronage and corruption. Example: we find out that Privy Council Clerk, Michael Pitfield, had his weekly first class airfare to Boston paid for by the people of Canada. The purpose of these trips was to ensure that Mr. Pitfield could moonlight at Harvard University. Example: last week, we learned that Mr. Arthur Erickson, a personal friend of the Prime Minister's, had been chosen as the architect for the new Canadian embassy in Washington. He was chosen by the cabinet-and this in spite of the fact that he did not make the short list, sent to the cabinet by a distinguished panel chosen by the government to sort through the applicants. Said the Prime Minister, "I pick my friends".


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: A personal toady of the Prime Minister's.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Right. Example: Jack Horner-


An hon. Member:: Tory, Tory.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Lorne Everett Greenaway: The Minister of Transport admitted that Mr. Horner will probably be rewarded with a seat on the board of Canadian National-and this for committing political suicide for the Liberals in the days before May, 1979.
Mr. Horner obliged the Prime Minister again in 1980 with a repeat performance of his remarkable kamikaze act. Rather than join Senator Stollery in the other place, the government has opted to offer the politically deceased Mr. Horner a position at CN.
1 wish I could stop there, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot. Another example: last week we found out that while the government has been urging restraint on Canadian workers, the Prime Minister's personal minions in the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, and the Federal-Provincial Relations Office, were getting raises in excess of 20 per cent, considerably above the guidelines set down by the Minister of Finance of something under 14 per cent. A fine example for Canadian workers!
And, Mr. Speaker, we found out last week how the Prime Minister himself demonstrates personal restraint at home. We found out that the Prime Minister apparently does not pay for any of his food, or his liquor, or any of the expenses incurred at 24 Sussex Drive.


John Carnell Crosbie: An incredible cheapskate. He does not even pay for a babysitter.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: That is right. The Canadian taxpayer picks up the tab. As a result, inflation has no meaning to the Prime Minister. He is inflation and interest rate-insulated. It is just a pity we could not soak him in urea formaldehyde.
Mr. Speaker, all of these things, these scandals, add to the sense of distrust by the taxpayer. They have the feeling they are being cheated rather than governed. Businessmen have lost confidence in the government. There is a growing feeling that this nation is turning into a banana republic, governed by a
dictatorial junta rather than a modern industrial state governed by a responsible and sensitive parliament.
This Liberal wrecking crew has destroyed Canadian faith in honest government. Without this faith and trust, we cannot hope to lead the nation out of its current recession. The Liberal government has not provided leadership; it has squandered our heritage.
There is a joke circulating in the Canadian business community, and it is that if one wants to own a small business in Canada, you simply buy a large one and wait six months. This may be a joke, but it has a lot of truth in it. It is a strong indicator of the attitude among investors at this point. If nothing else, the demise of Alsands will foster a continuation of this attitude.
And Alsands is not an isolated example of Liberal failure. It is the culmination of 13 years of ad hoc policy. It is the ultimate proof that a nation cannot prosper through crisis management.
In 1968 Canada was third in the world in terms of per capita gross national product. Today we are thirteenth. Other countries are gaining, and we are definitely losing. Expensive and wasteful government is robbing the Canadian people of their standard of living. It has killed their initiative by taxing away incentive.
I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, how the cancellation of Alsands will affect the people of my constituency and how the National Energy Program and the failure to build the pipelines will affect the people across the country.
Our life's blood in my part of Canada is the forest industry, and it has been staggering through a period in which the collapse of the housing market has cut deeply into the lumber market. The Alsands project, as well as other megaprojects, would undoubtedly have stimulated some demand for lumber and plywood for construction purposes. As spin-off industries grew, the people who worked in these areas also would need new housing and wood products. Instead, the forest industry is on its knees in British Columbia. Unemployment has reached crisis proportions. In one community in my riding, the community of 100 Mile House, unemployment for the first three months of 1982 is up 121.9 per cent over what it was a year earlier. In my home town of Williams Lake unemployment is up 91 per cent over a year ago; and in Quesnel there are 78.1 per cent more people unemployed this year than in the first three months of 1981.
Over all in my riding, unemployment is now running at about 25 to 30 per cent. These three communities, like so many others in my riding, depend on lumber sales to keep them going. The megaprojects would have, indirectly, provided needed jobs. But instead families of the unemployed are losing their homes; dreams are being shattered. Men and women are experiencing first hand the frustration and humiliation of unemployment.
These people are losing their hope for the future. As the November budget was a stinging left jab for Canada, the death
May 5, 1982

of Alsands will go down as the punch that will bring this country to its knees.
You probably do not know this, but in my riding last year there was a company from Calgary searching for oil. They spent over $27 million test drilling for oil. They found some encouraging results, and are now assessing data. But they are not going to spend any more money in my riding, or probably anywhere else in Canada, until the economic climate improves. Why should they? So, there is a whole bunch more jobs that have gone down the drain in my riding.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, none of this had to be. The Liberal wrecking crew could have avoided it. This government's lack of policy and direction has put us where we are. It was government greed that killed Alsands. It is government greed that has robbed the people of Quesnel, of Williams Lake, of 100 Mile House, and all Canadians, of their jobs and their futures.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the last 14 years of Liberal mismanagement, we have seen a complete lack of commitment to the future. Several weeks ago in this House I gave a speech that compared this country's pitiful economic record with the superior performance of Japan. I urged the government to study Japanese economic strategy, their formula for success, and especially the importance they place upon research and development.
If our government had displayed a similar commitment, we would not now be debating the loss of projects that represented our only hope. If only our government could have learned from the Japanese example. Other countries certainly have.
I wonder if this government is aware of what is going on in France at the present time. That country cannot depend on energy megaprojects. Instead, it has placed paramount importance on science and technology. They are pumping billions of dollars into research, all the way from the cost of educating young scientists right up the ladder to the conversion of research into productive innovation. They are passing legislation right now, a law, to fix the government research budget to an increase of 17.8 per cent a year in real terms over the next three years. The only thing rising that fast in the Canadian context is the deficit.
Furthermore, this law redefines the role of the ministry of research and development, giving it four main tasks: First, to pursue research in every domain; second, to ensure discoveries are brought to application wherever possible; third, to spread knowledge; fourth, to educate and train people for research. The government of France recognizes how to tackle problems; it does not just sit on its hands and hope things will improve. It is a pity that the Liberals have not taken advantage of the last decade to build a country, brick by brick, rather than to destroy it, budget by budget.
We have a long way to go. Last Friday was another setback for Canadians. When the government is thrown out in the next election, we will have that much further to go to bring about
the economic recovery of Canada. The sooner the election, the faster we can get on with the work of rebuilding. The time has come for Conservative construction, rather than Liberal destruction.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I have looked around the House and noted that there are not many members present who belong to the party which moved the emergency motion. We did not move the motion, but we are here to debate it. The party which moved the motion is very poorly represented today in this emergency debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I should like to tell hon. members opposite that we did not move the motion. We wanted to get on with the business of government, business which is important to all Canadians in the country.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member tell us how many Liberal members were in the House last night? At times there were none.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I submit first of all-


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said that last night at one point there were no Liberal members in the House. From 11.15 o'clock last night until 6.15 this morning there were at least one, two or three government members present, and I was one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I should like to continue my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. These are not points of order. Neither hon. member is in charge of taking counts in the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Again this is an attempt to distort the facts, which has been the tactic of the Tory party all day.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are the one who is distoring the facts.


Brian Vincent Tobin: My point was not how many members there were on the other side versus how many there were on this side. My simple point was that hon. members on that side of the House said there was an emergency. Hon. members on this side of the House indicated that we should get on with the business of government. It is that side of the House which once again hijacked Parliament. Approximately ten or 11 members of the Tory party have shown up in the House in an attempt to suggest that there was an emergency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 5, 1982


Brian Vincent Tobin: The only time they come alive or wake up is when an hon. member stands in the House and points out reality. It is a sad state of affairs.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yell louder.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am required to yell because it takes a great deal to get through the thick skulls of hon. members opposite. I also remind my friends opposite that none of them have recognized publicly in the debate-and I know what many of them have recognized privately over the last week since the collapse of the Alsands project-that the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta played a role in assisting the development of the Alsands project. Those governments assisted private enterprise and private capital in developing that megaproject. There has been no mention today of the government of Alberta.
I do not want to commence my remarks by examining the situation from day one, or returning to the debates or negotiations on the National Energy Program and the agreement which was subsequently signed by the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta. I know what was the role of the government of Alberta, but I remind hon. members opposite who at least share party affiliation, if nothing else, with the government of Alberta, that two governments were involved. One of those two governments as I recall-and this is my private view-held up for ransom Alsands in the name of dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" which it wanted to cross and dot. That party held up the project for ransom, but there was no mention of it today.
I regret I am becoming somewhat emotional and that in order to be heard I must yell slightly. Instead we have heard references to military juntas by hon. members opposite to describe the Government of Canada. We have not witnessed a rational or reasoned approach. We have not heard any constructive comments or suggestions. We have seen a group of grown men behaving like children today. We have seen the built-in prejudice of a group of fellows supposedly participating in an emergency debate on energy. Frankly I found that rather disappointing.
Let me talk about the National Energy Program. Hon. members opposite will have noted that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) indicated that self-sufficiency in the country increased to 80.9 per cent in the last two years and that domestic supplies of oil and gas increased in 1981. Also they will have noted that there have been several major finds of oil and gas in Canada in the last few years, not the least of which is the Hibernia field off the coast of Newfoundland. They will have noted that consumption of oil in Canada has decreased from 291,000 cubic metres to 261,000 cubic metres and that 170,000 Canadians have taken advantage of programs to switch off oil. Also they will have heard that over one million Canadians took advantage of programs to provide additional insulation. All these matters have resulted in reduced consumption and, in the final analysis, a lessened need to import expensive crude oil and to pay the difference, the oil compensation charge.
Those are the facts. I am disappointed, as I am sure every member of the House is disappointed, that Alsands is not going ahead. The rationale of hon. members opposite is that because the Alsands project is not going ahead, somehow the entire National Energy Program should be scrapped. Primarily because of a decision taken by those who control private capital in the country, the project is not going ahead and we should put an end to Petro-Canada. It is like saying that if one stubs one's toe, one should shoot one's foot. The government will not be bamboozled by such inane logic.
Let us look at hon. members opposite who have had no constructive comments or suggestions to make. Let us look at their record. They started out in 1978 by saying that the idea in the country was to get rid of all socialist politicians who thought up Petro-Canada. While they were contemplating moving the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem, they were contemplating selling off Petro-Canada at the same time. That is their policy. Let the future of Canada's energy needs be placed totally and irretrievably in the hands of the boards of directors of the multinational oil companies out of this country. That is their rhetoric.
I would like to believe differently but at times you really sound like a trained parrot, of those who would see the National Energy Program and Canadian-owned and controlled national oil company as a threat to your profit margins. Shame on you.
That is why you backed down. That is why you backed down from your so-called commitment to sell off Petro-Canada, because Canadians spoke with a voice and it was loud and clear, and it was angry and fed up with your rhetoric. We are fed up again today with that rhetoric.
I remember when the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) rose to talk about the budget two years ago. He referred back to his own budget which he introduced seven or eight months previously. I remember when he condemned the National Energy Program in his speech. He suggested that in some manner we could persuade-can you imagine that he believes Canadians are so naive-Canadians that their best interests and the best interests of Canadian oil and gas and energy reserves of this country could be decided upon and directed by the boards of directors of companies outside of this country. That was his argument.
What I find frightening is that the people of Canada in every Gallup poll have unequivocably expressed their support for that concept. Still today, two years later, we hear the same rhetoric.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are still buying oil from Mexico. You let Canadians go unemployed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 would like to say a word or two about Hibernia.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?
May 5, 1982


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly permit a question from the hon. member if he will kindly have the patience to sit quietly for a moment. He can yell if he likes. I enjoy the applause. I will be glad to answer a question if there is time at the end.
The Hibernia find, with over a billion barrels of oil in proven reserves off Newfoundland, unquestionably now becomes more important than ever. Its development in a relatively quick period of time is now more important than ever. First and foremost, I say this as a proud Canadian but also as a proud Newfoundlander for my province, that jobs are badly needed in the industrial development and jobs are badly needed in the spin-off industry. I can assure you that the economy needs a shot in the arm.
That development is needed now. I say this as a Newfoundlander, but that development is badly needed by the people of Canada more than ever. I simply want to take this opportunity during this debate to say two things. There have been two elections in Newfoundland in the last couple of years. During the election in 1980, offshore was an issue and five Liberals out of seven were elected in that election. Offshore was an issue in that election. We had a recent provincial election and there is no denying that Premier Peckford was given a very strong mandate. A great number of Conservative members were elected.
Members opposite should listen and learn. Perhaps it could be described as a paradox, given that that issue was raised during these two most recent elections in Newfoundland. I suggest that it makes it very clear to all concerned that the people of Newfoundland view Hibernia as a very important resource for that province and as a key for its future development. That fact must be recognized by everyone in the House.
I also feel that if you look back to 1980, no one can deny that the people of Newfoundland also clearly recognize that that resource is important to the country as a whole.
I would simply say that we have had the elections and the battles. Now is not the time to continue the game of winners and losers. For the sake of Newfoundland and for the good of this country, it is time for both sides to sit down and negotiate an agreement. It is needed now. I would caution all those concerned to remember that political parties, whatever their stripe, are more than any one man. Political philosophies are more than any one man.


An hon. Member:: You would never know it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would caution Premier Peckford not to view what I am sure is a very gratifying election result as a blind trust to pursue this issue in a purely political fashion. On the other hand, I can assure you that as a Newfoundland Member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues would understand and agree with this, and that all Newfoundland members would agree, that the Government of Canada will approach the table in the true spirit of fairness and justice. I can assure you that no Member of Parliament representing any province
on any particular matter would see any other approach than that.
1 can only repeat that I do not believe for a second that the failure of Alsands to proceed means that we should fall prey to the rabble-rousing and excited banter of those members opposite to say that this is a reason to destroy the entire concept of Canadian energy which is developed by Canadians and for Canadians. We should not say that just because the project has fallen through we should shoot ourselves in the foot, which is exactly what those members are suggesting.
Now more than ever, the potential lies off the shore of Newfoundland in Hibernia. Hibernia comes to the fore in this House of Commons and in this country. I plead that Premier Peckford and the Minister of Energy sit down to negotiate with good will.


An hon. Member:: You cannot trust a Grit.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is the simplistic, narrow-minded sort of philosophy which has kept you on that side of the House for the last 15 years. I believe I have made my point.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? He will recall that before April 6 he wagered a bottle of scotch with me that on the west coast of Newfoundland, two out of five returned candidates would be Liberal. They have not been returned and I have not seen my bottle of scotch. Did he drink it before he just spoke, or what is the explanation?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that question? I would remind the hon. member opposite that in fact there are two elected Liberal members in my riding. His bottle of scotch will be a long time coming.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is more than proof that you cannot trust a Grit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 believe this is an emergency debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that that question from the hon. member for St. John's West points out once again


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


John Carnell Crosbie: I rise on a question of privilege. When the parliamentary secretary gets up on a point of order, his light goes on. But when I get up on a question of privilege, the light does not go on. I do not intend to put up with that, Mr. Speaker, and that is my point of privilege. Why is there discrimination against us concerning the microphones when we are on our feet here, trying to make a point? The lights go on on one side, but do not go on on the other. That is the question of privilege I would like the Speaker to consider. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, by squealing around here and avoiding his obligation to repay me that bottle of scotch, illustrates why the province of Newfoundland will never trust the Minister of

May 5, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) or any other federal Liberal to give anyone a fair deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Now that the lights have gone out on both sides, I will recognize the hon. member for Regina East.


George Albert Proud: A debate over a bottle of scotch. Urgent debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of entering into the debate and being able to make a contribution to a very important topic. This debate, of course, was touched off with the postponement of the Alaska highway pipeline and the collapse of the Alsands project. As hon. members who have spoken formerly have indicated, the opportunity that this debate presents is being used to discuss a whole range of topics. Indeed, the question in the debate does not only concern energy, but also the sense of direction and purpose before the country.
In the debate thus far, a great many partisan feelings have been expressed and, in some ways, rightly so. I think this reflects the sense of frustration and anger Canadians from coast to coast have felt at the total lack of purpose and sense of direction of this government over the last number of years.
First, let me deal with the Alaska highway pipeline. This party is the only party which voted against the proposed resolution which would have allowed the pre-build to be built. At that time, we stated that unless we got ironclad guarantees from the United States, the more expensive portion of the pipeline would not be built. Events have proven us and continue to prove us right. Unfortunately, what we are now witnessing is the sale of cheaper Canadian gas, cheaper because it is more accessible. This resource is being sold off even though in the long run we will have to purchase the more expensive gas from the more northern regions.
Canada has played an historic role in the selling off of our resources. It is stated that we need to sell off this gas in order to improve our balance of payments position. Again, that has been our historic role. We have sold off the resources in order to create a balance in our balance of payments. So, it is as though we dig a hole and then we must dig a deeper hole in order to fill up the former hole. Each time we get further and further into trouble as we sell off the assets of Canada. We have sold off major portions of our oil during the sixties and the early seventies. We are paying now for that mistake. We are selling off our cheaper gas, something for which we will pay in the future. The cancellation by the United States, or the postponement as it is optimistically called by some, of the Alaska highway pipeline will have a negative economic impact in my riding. A fair number of the steelworkers who work at the Ipsco plant reside in my riding of Regina East. The bread and butter of Ipsco is not the manufacturing of the multidiameter pipe, though it was expecting orders from the Alaska gas pipeline. As well, the National Energy Program has resulted in a lessening of drilling and exploration in western Canada and, as such, has reduced the demand for the casings and tubings needed for drilling wells which are the bread and
butter of Ipsco. I am afraid to report that Ipsco might very well be laying off people later this year as a result of the misguided policies of the government opposite.
The other area of concern in this debate is the Alsands. The cancellation of this megaproject could very well indeed bring some blessings in disguise. There are some serious problems with the proposal concerning the megaproject proposal, as it stood. Megaprojects bring about or can bring about megaproblems. This megaproject is one of tremendous economic and political risk, an investment of some $14 billion in a new, untried technology. If it does not work, it could be a spectacular failure which the country can ill afford. Indeed, we could be building a white elephant of tremendous magnitude. There are some feasible alternatives. For example, we could build smaller tar sands projects which, instead of producing 140,000 barrels a day, could produce some 14,000 or 15,000 barrels per day. The attractiveness of going to the smaller units is that they can be brought on stream much faster. The risk is spread from a production point of view. There would be a longer production run in terms of the parts manufacturing plants for the smaller tar sands projects. Therefore, the economic benefits could be spread over a wider area. In the end result, we could produce the same amount of oil, by building ten smaller tar sands projects instead of one huge megaproject.
The cancellation of the Alsands project could also mean some good news for Saskatchewan. It could mean that some of the money which was to be spent-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How could it be good news in Saskatchewan?


Simon Leendert de Jong: -in the Alsands project could be used for some of the heavy-oil upgraders. Hopefully, the government will now find that it is imperative to move faster to complete the plans for a heavy-oil upgrader in Saskatchewan. In fact, it makes more sense to invest more in heavy-oil upgraders than it would be to invest in the tar sands as the Alsands would have done. The technology for tar sands is a totally unproven and untried technology. While much of the technology for heavy oil would still be new and experimental, it would be closer to the known technology of the light-oil refining. We would run less of a risk. It would not be of the same magnitude as the Alsands. The economic benefits would be more widespread. I hope that the cancellation of this project will allow the capital to be used for some of the other energy programs, including a heavy-oil upgrading plant, hopefully near Regina and Moose Jaw.
Had we gone ahead with Alsands, and this is something the government never quite admitted publicly, Canada could have been committed to energy prices of $5 to $10 more per barrel than the world price. Everything considered, we can perhaps be thankful that project did not go ahead. It is important to emphasize, however, the point that we must achieve selfsufficiency in energy. We must begin to use our imagination a bit. Instead of pinning all our hopes on a few megaprojects, we
May 5, 1982

should begin to realize that alternatives exist. I have talked of the possibility of smaller tar sands projects and heavy-oil upgraders. I also wish to talk about the area of conservation.
Government members have proudly stated that the conservation program they introduced, and in all fairness when in power the Conservatives increased the allotment for the CHIP program, has had good success. I understand that over the past year Canada reduced its consumption of oil by 7 per cent, approximately the same amount Alsands would have been producing.
That saving occurred at less public expense than what Alsands would have cost. As well, conservation is inflation-proof. Had we gone ahead with Alsands, we would have been stuck with high oil costs in the years ahead. That in turn would have helped to fuel inflation. It would have created inflation.
While the conservation route is cheaper and creates more jobs, it is also inflation-proof. It reduces the cost of energy to average Canadians. Surely intelligence would indicate that is the direction this country should go. It is cheaper, produces more jobs and saves money for consumers. It reduces their cost of living instead of increasing their energy costs as Alsands surely would have resulted in.
One wonders as well at the economic and energy projections that government economists have been toying around with. In 1973 the then energy minister, Joe Greene, made the statement that we had enough oil for the next 400 years. In the fall of that year, he admitted that we were running out of oil. We then saw the price increase. Government economists and oil experts applauded the increase and projected price increases in a straight line over the next several decades.
That never made sense to me. It seemed to me that a curve had to occur. As the price of oil increased, people tried to conserve, and find other, cheaper energy forms. Increased oil costs dramatically fuel the fires of inflation, making goods and services more expensive. This has resulted in lost productivity and lost production, and therefore less use of oil and now we have a situation where there is an oil glut.
It seems as though this curve could have been predicted. Had it been predicted, we would not have ever thought of putting all our eggs into one basket such as Alsands. We have to realize there is a limit to how high energy prices can go.
I sat here late into last night and a good part of today anxious to hear what my Conservative friends to the right have as an alternative to the lack of government direction. Ever since having been elected, I have not heard an honest solution to the problem we face, from them. 1 anticipated that the philosophy of the Conservatives would be conservation and that this would be reflected in their proposals.
The whole notion of conserving is not where the Conservative Party is today. They talk even more than members opposite about the big megaprojects. They want more of them and they want them bigger. They want more public funds to go in that direction. They are even more dumb than those opposite.
What are they offering in this debate? They are suggesting more public funds should be given to the oil companies. Where
is the line? How much do we go for? When do we finally say enough is enough, it does not work, it does not make sense, it does not connect and does not add up. The philosophy of unbridled free enterprise, let the oil companies take care of it all and we will have energy self-sufficiency, is one of the major reasons why the Conservative Party was turfed out of office and not re-elected.
In the aftermath, they blamed us for chucking them out of office. We did not do that. The Canadian people did that and they did it for one major reason. They suspected the Conservative Party and their friends in the oil industry would sell them down the river. Their attempt to dismantle Petro-Canada made the Canadian people lose all faith which they may have had in the Conservative government. I find that unfortunate in many ways. A change of government was badly needed. We needed some fresh air. This is what the Canadian people felt, yet they said no when the government of that day was going to dismantle public participation in the oil sector.
The people of Canada do not trust the oil companies to look after the public interest. They recognize that the oil industry, like any private corporation, is there for its own good. Of course it is. The people of Canada began to realize that oil and energy is too important to leave it to private interests and that there was a need for a public involvement and presence in this area. I suggest that energy be considered like other utilities such as water, sewage, roads, telephones and be under public control. It should no longer be an area for private exploitation.
I am disappointed that I did not hear in any of the Conservative members' speeches the notion of conserving. I suggest if we are going to solve the economic and energy problems that this country and the whole world face, we have to begin to realize that we are at the end of an era, the end of a road. The era of unlimited consumption and production and huge megaprojects is over. We do not have the capital to feed the monster for ever and ever. We do not have the resources to go on for ever and ever, just splurging away. The days of unlimited consumption, surely, we must all begin to recognize, are over. We have to begin to conserve our human and capital and natural resources. We must learn how to make the best use of what we have. If we as a society and a civilization are to survive, if we are going to have enough energy for tomorrow, if we are going to have enough employment for all, if we are to have enough wealth in order to maintain a decent standard of income for all, we must begin to plan how to use our resources, our capital.
We must begin to plan not only for today, but for tomorrow. Had we been doing that in the 1960s and the 1970s as my predecessors-like Mr. Tommy Douglas, who was the energy critic for my party for many years had suggested back then, we would not have half the problem that we have today. Had we begun to conserve our resources and our energy and our oil back in the 1960s and 1970s, we would not be in the spot we are in today.

May 5, 1982
How long can we continue going forward and forward in this ever-consuming type of lifestyle? It is coming to an end, and all of us on all sides of the House surely must begin to recognize this and begin to look at some of the new realities that are facing us. Surely, projects like the Alsands are not the best way in which we can conserve and use our capital resources. Selling cheap gas in the United States now surely is not the best way in which we can conserve and husband our natural resources for the future.
We are creating problems again for tomorrow that inevitably we will have to face.
The style that the Liberal government has followed in the decades in which they have been in power, spending everything today and not worrying about tomorrow, saying we will face tomorrow when it comes, has come to an end; the chickens have come home to roost.
We are now beginning to face the results of those policies, of selling off our resources for today and forgetting about tomorrow. Well, tomorrow has finally arrived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I have to inform the hon. gentleman that his allotted time has expired.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, may I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If there is unanimous consent, the honourable member may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker-


Philip Derek Lewis: It is time to lay an egg. That is the speech.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I will not comment on the remarks of the members to the right. Their comments have indicated the difference in mentality and outlook between them and the government party is not all that much different. Their only suggestion is that they can sell off resources faster than the other ones can.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent was granted on this side of the House on the basis that the member's speech would be positive in nature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It was positive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Unanimous consent is not by negotiation. It is unanimous consent.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say-


An hon. Member:: Say it, say it.


An hon. Member:: Or sit down.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The debate, is not only about energy, but as well our economy and employment. Again I would suggest that a wholly new attitude is needed, one that begins to realize that our resources are scarce, that capital is scarce, that human
resources are precious, that we must begin to conserve and to husband what we have, to plan for tomorrow and to stop blowing it today.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, it is just about 22 hours ago that the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) rose to commence this debate. He raised the question for consideration of the House; where is 1990 with regard to self-sufficiency in petroleum energy, which the policies of the government led by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would have given this country?
After 22 hours, Mr. Speaker, I think we can answer the question, where is 1990? It is down the drain, that is where 1990 is, down the drain with 71,000 direct jobs that would have been involved in the Alsands project. It is down the drain with 255,000 indirect jobs that would have been spread all across this country.
With these jobs would have gone money, Mr. Speaker, specifically $9 billion into the Alberta economy, constructing the Alsands plant, $10 billion into other parts of Canada, and in a total over the 30-year lifespan of the project the estimated benefits that would have been spinning around in the economy of Canada, a total of $415 billion. All that money is down the drain with 1990, and all of this at a time when industry all over Canada is facing unprecedented problems, most of them caused by the policies of the government opposite.
My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin alluded to the problems in the forest industry in British Columbia. The forest industry is not selling because people are not building houses, people are not expanding factories, the export sales are not there either, and in the first quarter of 1982 the giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited registered a loss of $10 million. I think that is the second time in history that that company has registered a quarterly loss.
In the mineral industry in British Columbia, 63 per cent is the reported rate of unemployment at this time.
In the face of all of these figures for job numbers and so on, last night we had the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) telling the House that 1.2 million Canadians supported the National Energy Program. She gave some examples. Mr. Speaker, 1.2 million Canadians, that is 5 per cent of the population. I wonder why the Minister of State for Mines did not tell the House what the other 23 million Canadians thought of the National Energy Program. I imagine we could tell then what some of them think. The government is, I hope, hearing what some of them think on that.
The Minister of State for Mines could have told us about the ten million taxpayers whose total personal federal income tax, in the last year for which figures are available, 1978, went to cover the oil import conservation program. All Canadians? What about all the rest of the Canadians who are now paying 77 cents a gallon more at the gasoline pumps than they were
May 5, 1982

paying two years ago? That is what the Minister of State for Mines did not tell us, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to an article in this week's Maclean's magazine, where Suzanne Zwarum was writing about the demise of the megaprojects. She quoted the president of Alsands, Mr. Ed Czaja, explaining why the consortium was closing down. He said that the time for the project to move ahead had been lost. He cited increasing costs, rising interest rates, continuing inflation, reduced cash flows of oil companies and the downturn in world oil prices. Those are five very good and valid reasons for any project to be shut down, but I think we have to look at those five reasons and find out why each of them exists. I would not suggest Canada could do much about increased costs or even about the downturn in world oil prices, but those are only two reasons, and I suggest this project would not have failed if those two reasons had been the only ones. However, the other three reasons, rising interest rates, continuing inflation and reduced cash flows of oil companies, are directly the result of policies of the present government.
I will go through them one by one. When he was finance critic for the Liberal Party in 1979, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) campaigned and said he would resign if high interest rates continued under a Liberal government and he was in the cabinet.


John Horton McDermid: Don't trust a Grit.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: My colleague says, "Don't trust a Grit". That is true. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not resign, and the policies of the present government are directly responsible for the interest rates we are experiencing in Canada today. That was a No. 1 reason why the project was shut down.
Another reason cited by the consortium was continuing inflation. We have seen time and time again that continuing inflation is directly related to government spending, lack of revenues and the resulting deficits and the government's having to go into the money markets to borrow funds to make up for its continuing deficits.
The third major reason cited by the consortium is the reduced cash flows of oil companies. This again is a full-fledged result of the interventionist policies of the government opposite, and the massive subsidies which have been paid to bring foreign oil in to Canadian refiners to be consumed by Canadians, as if consumers were not taxpayers. The National Energy Program resulted in long overseas contracts at high world prices and, as we have heard many times, the result is that 300,000 barrels a day are being shut in in Canadian oil wells. It is no wonder oil companies are experiencing reduced cash flows.
The article to which I referred earlier went on to explain that three remaining sponsors had been considering and deciding the fate of the project. Of those three, Shell Canada and Gulf Canada had decided to pull out, the other private
sector partners already having decided to pull out of that project.
I think it is curious that all hon. members to my left seem to have disappeared. I suppose it is dinnertime in NDP-land right now.


John Horton McDermid: They are always at the trough.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: At the trough. The New Democratic Party made a big thing complaining that the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta had offered too much by way of incentives to coax the project's entrepreneurs. That demands an answer. If such a good deal was being offered to those companies, why did they not take up the offer? The deal obviously was not good enough, or the companies would have jumped at it and taken it up. I do not know what the NDP would like to do now. I suggest members of the NDP should go to their offices and hammer out little medals which would say to each of the oil companies which pulled out of the Alsands deal, "Thank you for not taking up the government's offer because you saved us a lot of money". However, that will not help us get oil, and we will be in serious trouble in relation to oil production.
I have spoken to many people about the failure of this project and many other economic problems we have right now. What bothers them, and me, is why a government would carry out policies which obviously have such disastrous results as those we have seen with respect to this project.
I can only think of one reason why any government would want to go ahead with policies which it knew would have disastrous results, and that reason is one I almost hesitate to state because it is so outlandish. However, I cannot think of another one. Perhaps the lone Liberal over there can rise when his turn comes and tell the House why the government carries on with these policies when they have such obvious disastrous results. The only reason I can think of is that the present government wants to create a situation in Canada from which the government will have to save the Canadian people. Ministers have created such a situation with their unnecessary and stupid policies. When these projects fail the government can say it gave the private sector a chance, the private sector truned it down and now we need that energy so the government will step in "in a Canadianization effort" and take over those projects.
The Liberal Party has always talked haughtily about Canadianization in the energy field and in whatever other field it can Canadianize. I do not know where the Liberal Party was in 1947 when only foreigners were willing to come in and explore for oil in Canada, but that is another debate and another story.


David P. Smith: We were in office.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I ask the lone Liberal sitting opposite what was wrong with the Canadianization that existed in Vancouver where the Merit Oil Company chain sold 50 million gallons of gasoline to Canadians every year. It was totally Canadian owned. What happened? Petro-Canada, the government agency, went in and bought it from private entrepreneurs who

May 5, 1982
were all Canadian. Petro-Canada bought many service stations with sales of $50 million.


John Horton McDermid: State control is all they want.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: My colleague says "state control". What other reason could there be for Canadianization of Canadian companies? That is ridiculous.


David P. Smith: They weren't forced to sell.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: In the 1980 election campaign the Liberal party opposite told Canadians they would be able to pay less at the pumps under a Liberal government for their gasoline than they would under a Conservative government. 1 have driven all around Ottawa and Vancouver and in the areas surrounding those cities. I have seen many Petro-Canada stations, and they all sell gasoline for exactly the same price as Esso, Shell and all the other companies which are so bad for Canada.


Mr. Crosby:: More.


Mr. Corbett:: More.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: My colleagues have seen Petro-Canada stations selling for more. The hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) spoke about the naivete of Canadians. The Canadians in his area must be awfully naive because they sent him here to peddle the garbage he was peddling here half an hour ago. Perhaps "naivete" is not the correct expression to use for the residents of Newfoundland. They probably made a mistake in sending the hon. member here. However, in two years we will give them another chance. Perhaps it will be sooner, but they will have another chance to correct that mistake.
What about Canadianization and Canadian ownership? Canadians are now searching for oil in other countries, but the energy the Liberals are talking about is in Canada. It is under Canadian lands. What more secure form of ownership is there than to have the asset, whatever it be, lying under Canadian soil? The power to tax is with the government. The power to tax is supreme. Hon. members opposite talk about the riches lying under our own ground. The government totally controls the production and export of all petroleum products found in Canada. I do not know how much more Canadianization you can get. The power to tax is supreme. The government has created taxation policies which have driven the producers of these riches from Canada. It has forced them to go to the United States and elsewhere with their talent, their money and their equipment. My colleagues have referred to the number of drilling rigs leaving the country.
That is the way things appear to me at the moment. I wonder how they appear to people on the international scene.


David P. Smith: They admire us.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I think they are laughing. They would certainly be laughing if they could see the sole representative of the Liberal government who sits across the aisle.
In ten years there have been four Liberal finance ministers. The first was Mr. John Turner who was in the House when I first came. He quit because he could not stand being near the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is still around. Then there was Donald Macdonald. He could not stick around so he went to Toronto. Then came the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and he served for a time as minister of finance. Now we have the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
The taxing policies are in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Even when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has something to say, the Minister of Finance says it for him. Those four ministers have so fouled up the national energy policy over the last decade that nobody knows how we are going to survive and achieve the selfsufficiency we have been seeking. This has resulted in longterm contracts which means Canadians are now paying more than world prices for oil because of the subsidy. We are not able to go to the spot market and buy the cheap oil that is available there. Instead, we have to pay billions of dollars to foreign producers.
I have been trying to assess what people might think about our international reputation and whether they are laughing at the efforts of this feeble government. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal of Monday, May 3, 1982. The article reads in part as follows:
Canada was counting on Alsands and the Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline now delayed for two years and looking increasingly doubtful, to stimulate economic growth in this decade. The cancellation of Alsands throws "into question the Government's medium-term economic strategy which focused on megaprojects such as Alsands."
Then the article goes on in the next paragraph:
The Alsands failure will reduce business investment spending in Canada by $360 million this year and sets the stage for a steady loss of real output, employment and foreign investor confidence.
That is the opinion of William Empey, vice president and director of economics with Data Resources of Canada, and economic forecasting concern.
Mr. Empey says that the total investment spending loss will rise to $2.7 billion in 1985. Another aspect of the cancellation of these projects that has not been mentioned in this debate is the cost of close-up. The article deals with that question it says that after five years of planning, at a cost of $125 million, there will be additional winding-up cost of $30 million. That is a total of $155 million which is going down the drain. That project with its 137,000 barrels per day production represented 10 per cent of our current oil production.
As others have said, things would not be so bad if just the Alsands project were involved but we have also lost the Cold Lake project, the Judy Creek project and the Syncrude Expansion.
We are in a terrible mess, Mr. Speaker, and this government ought to dig out the policies that we presented in 1979. They
May 5, 1982

could find solutions there to help them out of their present predicament.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate. I suppose all debates bottom out sooner or later but it seems more than a coincidence that the debates that I have observed usually reach their lowest level when the hon. member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) speaks. From that point, it must be upward all the way. That particular member complained bitterly about the lack of strength in the Conservative Party. I notice that at the present time there is one faithful member of the Liberal Party in the House. 1 also notice that the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who attended so faithfully last night that he claimed he was a permanent fixture, is not here. He did step behind the curtain occasionally which meant that at times, there was no Liberal in the House. But the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) was here and he attends faithfully.


David P. Smith: I am from Don Valley East.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That is correct, and you are a graduate of Victoria High School. That is all that makes the member acceptable on this side of the House.
There was a very peculiar start to this debate yesterday. The fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was away seemed to throw the Liberal Party into a spin as nobody else seemed to know anything about the subject of the motion.
Then there was the rather peculiar speech given by the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), that amiable chatterbox from Sudbury. She seemed to think that the high point of the National Energy Program was the CHIP program. This is like the president of Cunard boasting about the Titanic because it would stop faster in mid-Atlantic than any other ship. She seems to believe that the CHIP program is something that the Liberals should boast about.
For those who are not aware, that is the Canadian Home Insulation Program through which the government subsidizes a type of insulation called urea formaldehyde that has since had to be removed from houses at fantastic cost. The government refuses to pay for this.
The minister may think that this is the best part of the National Energy Program but 1 hope that there are other parts that are better than the CHIP program. I do not have time to correct her ignorance at this stage.
Last night the Minister of Supply and Services, (Mr. Blais) supplied his usual comic touch. As often happens when the Liberals have a poor case-and that is frequently-then a personal attack is made on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). 1 have been here long enough to see that happen to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the Hon. Bob Stanfield and to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is too bad that this happens as it does not help the debate.
It is also interesting to watch the NDP scrambled desperately to get away from the Liberals in this debate, particularly those members from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland who have just been through provincial elections. I listened with what was almost glee to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) give a rather frantic speech today implying that, for heaven's sake, he did not want ever to be thought to support the Liberals!
Many of the motions that the New Democratic Party proposes are not acceptable to the Liberals and consequently they deliberately load them so that no one who believes in free enterprise could possibly support them. Then they are proud because they vote on the opposite side to the Liberals.
There is a longer history to voting than they would like to acknowledge. Those who participated in the Saskatchewan election ran into this at almost every door. They are so upset about the terrible incompetence of this Liberal government that they say to each other: "How did we ever get such a government in this civilized country? How did we pick this bunch of incompetents to run the country? What were our NDP members from Saskatchewan doing?" Well, they remember very well what the NDP did. In the 1972 election there were some 20 or so NDP here, enough to have the balance of power in a minority Liberal government. The House met on January 4, 1973, and during the succeeding 18 months there were 19 votes of confidence. On each and every one the NDP supported the Liberal Party.
What happened in 1974? The Liberals found they were high enough in the polls that they no longer wished to avoid an election, they brought in a budget which even the NDP could not support, went to the people and of course came back with a majority government. The NDP had been used for the dupes they are and consequently we inherited a Liberal majority government.


John Horton McDermid: Is that dupes or dopes?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I suppose the words are interchangeable. The "Simple Simons" of politics is the best way to describe them. They come around when they are needed by the Liberals, and the rest of the time the Liberals give them the back of the hand, which is what they get these days.
In 1979 we came back to Ottawa with a minority Conservative government. How the story had changed. We did not get 19 votes of confidence, having won the election; we did not get one vote of confidence out of them. We won the first vote of confidence by only two votes, and the NDP voted against us. It was on a supply motion, I believe. Interestingly enough, it was on an amendment by the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. I like to look back at these things because 1 find them rather ironic, perhaps even amusing. Most of the NDP I have spoken to about this have no idea what it was they were voting for, but it was against the Conservatives and for the Liberals. The motion was:
That this House has no confidence in the government-

May 5, 1982
Why do you suppose they had no confidence in the government? First, because:
-it will cause severe economic hardship for the Canadian people this winter: first, through its neglect of the grave possibility of shortages in heating fuel; second, through its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply;
Imagine that coming from the leader of the then opposition. It goes on:
-third, through its inability to conclude agreements preventing immoderate price increases in the future;
Can you imagine that coming from that group? It goes on:
-and, fourth, through its acceptance of record high interest rates.
I find that one particularly ironic and sad. They wanted to vote the government out because they were worried about its failure through its acceptance of record high interest rates. That was the motion that the NDP supported the Liberals on, to get rid of the Conservative government. They did not know what record high interest rates were until they got the Liberals back in.
When you knock on doors in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, the message you get is that they are very, very upset with the NDP for having allowed the Liberals to have and win an election. They are mad at the NDP Members of Parliament, and their provincial brethren went down like tenpins during the recent election, this despite the fact that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, (Mr. Nystrom), during the constitution debate split the NDP to avoid being lumped in with the Liberals. We are going to see a lot more of this phoney hyperbole from the NDP as they try to dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party even more, because anyone who is a friend of the Liberals these days is not going to get too many votes in the next federal election.
The NDP want Canadianization of everything. That was a word which was not heard until about two or three years ago, and I expect the flack who thought it up will be richly rewarded by the Liberal government; if not now, at some other time. The hon. member is leaving us without a Liberal in the House.


John Horton McDermid: Not one Liberal in the House.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you for your return, sir. We are glad to have you back. I think the Liberals started this debate hoping it would go away because they really had nothing to contribute. When they saw it was not going to go away last night, then they decided they must participate. During some of today's speeches, frankly, I think they would have been better off to stick with the first decision.
I would like to speak for a moment about what the Liberals and NDP have in common. The common ground is Canadianization, which is a Liberal word for nationalization, which in turn is an NDP word for socialization of the means of production.


David P. Smith: We are free enterprisers.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The only free enterprise they may have is in their caucus as they battle for the spoils to which they think they are entitled.


John Horton McDermid: Three minutes a week.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to point out something which happens when government gets into business, including Crown corporations. There is a rather nice example in Question 3893 which was put on the Order Paper by my colleague, and it was answered on April 1. It has to do with a subject which is close to both my colleague and myself, having to do with the Argus aircraft which were scrapped. This is a small example of how you should never conduct business, yet I daresay no one is going to suffer for this because nobody will ever be considered to be the culprit.
Some five years ago the Department of National Defence hired IMP of Halifax to determine how long the fleet of 24 aircraft could remain in service. The study, done at government expense, showed that five years was about how long they could stay in the air and still be sold as flyable aircraft. They then decided they would sell the planes and put out a tender to have the fleet disposed of. They made some effort to sell the aircraft and were unsuccessful. At nearly the same time they put out a tender to mothball the fleet, so it would be ready for some other purpose, I suppose.
The amount spent on mothballing the fleet was $349,298.87 so it would be preserved for future sale as flyable aircraft, I have to presume. In any event, I have not heard of people mothballing junk. At that time, just to add to the ridiculous situation they were in, an aircraft museum in Calgary wanted to buy one of the aircraft and it offered $60,000. They turned the museum down because they were afraid it was going to sell it to some other country as a war plane. The next thing we hear is that they sold the whole lot for $70,000. Not only did they sell them at less than $3,000 each, but they turned down the guy who was going to pay them $60,000 for one aircraft.


Otto John Jelinek: Liberal business practice.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Then the junk company came in and cut the aircraft up-after $349,000 worth of mothballing. This should not happen. Somebody in an ordinary business place would no doubt move on and look for some other business place at a lower level. Nobody, I suspect, will ever find out who really took the decision, not only to sell them as junk, but also to mothball them at the same time and go through both options.
That is what happens when you get nationalization and Canadianization. We get decisions like that.
I notice that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is very fond of blaming the United States and President Reagan for the failure of the Alaska gas pipeline project. I can never quite understand how the minister can
May 5, 1982

stand up in the House and pretend that he had a firm commitment from the Government of the United States that the gas trunk line would be built to Alaska. This is of course when he wanted the pre-build portion.
Let us have a look at the great words which the minister used. I hope they will haunt him to his grave. He was in opposition at the time. We can find his words, as reported in Hansard at page 2101 on December 6, 1979. I will just read a paragraph because it contains the minister's most famous comment. 1 suppose when they write down popular Canadian quotations forty years or one thousand years from now they should include Marc Lalonde and this following quotation:
So far as the statement of the minister is concerned, we note the vagueness of the statement about the building and completion of the pipeline which is essential. It leaves open the door to delays in the pipeline construction by extending the authorization of exports over a period of seven years and the possibility of reviewing the authorization after exports have started, therefore authorizing exports before the commitment for the building of the line has been made.
There is no word in this statement regarding swaps, and nothing about the eastern Canadian situation, the building of the Quebec and maritime pipeline-
Where have you heard about that lately? We used to hear quite a bit about it but not too much any more.


Howard Edward Crosby: It is a paper pipeline.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is too small at one end, I am told. The minister's statement continues:
-and the possibility of exports to the northeastern states. 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.
I am sure my metric friends will be pleased that we were dealing with gas in cubic feet at that time. That appeared to be a pretty firm position, I would say, from an ironclad minister. All that went by the boards last Friday. There is no commitment. He is now blaming President Reagan.
President Reagan was here in this Chamber on March 11, 1981. In his remarks he said:
I am happy to say that in the recent past we have made progress on matters of great mutual importance. Our governments have already discussed one of the largest joint private projects ever undertaken by two nations-the pipeline to bring Alaskan gas to the continental United States. We strongly favour prompt completion of this project based on private financing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We have agreed to an historic liberalization of our trade in the Tokyo Round of the multilateral trade negotiations.
That was all the president had to say. They took it very clearly that it would depend on private investment. They took it to mean some kind of government commitment. What kind of dummies have we running this country that not only would they make a mess of the deal but they would also try to blame the other guy for doing it?
1 would like to talk about the effect on the provinces of some of these failures to carry out business in the normal fashion and to get any project operating. I took this up with the minister at the time he brought in the excise tax on natural
gas. I pointed out in a question to the minister that the National Energy Program, which was announced as part of the federal budget, is really a grab for money by the federal government and takes money away from provincial revenues. This rather upset the minister because he did not like to have that pointed out. What he said was kind of foolish. He said, as the hon. member knows, that there are many more consumers of natural gas in Ontario than there are in British Columbia. Those consumers pay the same federal tax the people in British Columbia are paying.
I was talking-and he knew I was-about the sale that British Columbia makes to Washington State of natural gas. They could no longer compete with energy in Washington State because of the amount of the excise tax which the federal government had imposed.
Let us have a look at the National Energy Program of 1980. I believe it was brought in as a budget at the time. Let us see what it promised for western Canada. On page 77 of the document we find:
The National Energy Program is beneficial to the West.
Can people from the west, including those from Alberta, believe this statement that the National Energy Program is beneficial to the west? The paragraph continues:
It provides an oil pricing schedule that yields substantial and growing revenues to provincial governments and the industry from existing production, and establishes certain and attractive prices for the risky and costly sources that will form the basis for a sustained prosperity. The oil sands and heavy oils will make a major and enduring contribution to the economy of the west, while enhancing national energy security.
It is hard to believe anybody could possibly have said this is a year and a half ago. On page 78 of the National Energy Program document we find the following:
With initiatives in the program such as financial support for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, the province can move rapidly to reduce its oil dependence, using its own energy sources.
I do not want people from the maritimes to think they are the only people waiting for a pipeline. We were promised one too, and we are just about as far along as maritimers are in terms of having one, which is nowhere.
Let us see what the government had to say about the oil sands-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and the sole survivor on the Liberal Party benches.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is the fellow who put out the big charts concerning Parliament.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by making just a few more remarks. I want to quote from the papers on the budget of November 12, 1981. On page 55 of the booklet entitled "The Budget in More Detail", we find:

May 5, 1982
The pricing and taxation structure will provide significant stimulus for new tar sands projects.
I hope someone around here lives long enough to see some sign of the significant stimuli that are promised for new tar sands projects. One hardly knows what to make of it or what to recommend to the Canadian people. I am forced to agree with many of the remarks that have been made today. The problem is that two or three of the people at the top have the affairs of this country in an iron grip. 1 realize we live in a democratic country, but it suffers under some severe strains with the voting system we have at the present time. I believe in representation by population. 1 also agree with the second Prime Minister of Canada, Alexander Mackenzie, who said, "The worst possible thing that could happen in Canada would be if we started voting along racial lines and racial lines only in Canada". 1 am sure he was thinking that people could be elected to this House for the wrong reasons.
I might close by bringing something to the attention of hon. members. It does not have to do with racial backgrounds but with the intellectual. In 1935 Mr. Harold A. Innis said:
Intellectuals in large numbers will sink the raft of any party, and if allowed to write a program will kill it.
I am afraid that is what has happened here. We have a lack of practical men on the other side. We have some pseudo-intellectuals. They all think they are intellectuals. But as pseudointellectuals they are unable to be practical enough to bring forward a program from which anyone can expect reasonable results.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth, now.


Albert Glen Cooper: 1 am told by the member opposite to tell the truth. As he well knows we always do that. I will do my best to accommodate him. We are pleased he is here to hear the debate tonight.
Before I begin, I want to mention the fact that we have been debating the Alsands matter for 23 hours now, and many of the House of Commons staff have been here since yesterday morning at eight o'clock or nine o'clock. They have put in two very long days. I am thinking particularly of the Hansard staff, who have gone without sleep for over 24 hours. I know all members really appreciate their hard work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Glen Cooper: Whenever I think of people listening, I am reminded that my uncle, not very long ago, had some open heart surgery and ended up spending quite a bit of time at home. He spent much of his time listening to the debates in the House of Commons. When we think of that and we know there is someone out there listening, we tend to become very conscious of where we are speaking and of what we are saying. Unfortunately, very often we tend to sit in these hallowed halls and get caught up in little buzzwords and words that have significance to us here but not to the people across the country. To those people they do not have much significance.
I am thinking in particular of one of the expressions that possibly is key to this debate tonight, that is, this whole idea of economic development. That expression has become a favourite buzzword of the government. In fact, the budget of 1981 said that national economic renewal is the overriding priority of the Government of Canada and that the policies and programs of the national government represent major instruments for managing and exploiting development opportunities.
In that statement the federal ministry claimed to be devoted to economic development. The question that remains then, is: where is this economic development?
Was it really nothing more than just a buzzword in the Liberal caucus, another buzzword around Parliament Hill?
We begin to wonder when we see how busy the government has been robbing us through energy taxes rather than taking any form of real action. The government has been too busy writing about economic development to make economic development a reality. We have been suffering from a little bit of what I think could be called "analysis paralysis". We have been getting a lot of pretty paper, pretty wrapping and pretty packages. But what the government is really wrapping up is a disastrous energy policy and a disastrous budget. The real economic development we should be experiencing, which would have come through the development of major projects such as Alsands, the Alaska pipeline and Cold Lake, is further away today than ever before. Those projects are today further away from completion, or even beginning, than they ever have been before. Today, they are effectively dead.
But they have not just died. They have actually been killed. They have been killed by mismanagement by this government; they have been killed by the National Energy Program; they have been killed by the 1981 budget; they have been killed by the greed that has been demonstrated by the massive tax grabs this government has made on our energy revenues by closing what it calls loopholes, which are the very same policies that it put in place a few years ago. Those projects are dead today, and with them are a lot of dreams and a lot of hopes.
A news story-and I just refer to a short article in a paper in Fort McMurray which, as we all know, is the heart of this province-said this: "Those who will be hurt are property developers and small local construction contractors.
We tend to talk in terms of big numbers, but we forget, in fact, that what we are really talking about is jobs. One job, two jobs-we can multiply that several times, of course; but, in fact, it is individual people and individual businesses to whom we really should be addressing ourselves.
Where are we now without Alsands? Where does that leave us? First of all-and I think probably the most important thing-Canada is today further away from self-sufficiency than it has ever been in the past. Second, Canada will not enjoy the economic benefits that would have been the spin-offs from this project. Those benefits, those spin-offs, will no longer be enjoyed by Canadians. The National Energy Program has said that Canada has a diversified energy resource base to
May 5, 1982

support a relatively quick and clean shift away from world oil prices.
This government promised to make Canada energy selfsufficient by 1990. It promised to free us from the bonds of OPEC. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones of those promises, of that freedom, was Alsands, because Alsands was going to provide for us somewhere around 157,000 barrels of oil per day. It would have slashed imported oil into this country by around 20 per cent. Now, because of the loss of this project, we will have to import into this country about 300,000 barrels a day in 1990. We cannot expect much slack to be picked up by our conventional sources of oil, our oil other than tar sands oil, simply because that source of energy has also been discouraged by the federal government's policies. And so we are left in the position of not being able to reduce those imports. In fact, we are left today with a much clearer indication that that is going to continue well into the 1990s.
Each barrel of imported oil brought into this country means higher taxes for individual Canadians-taxes that already are too high for so many Canadians. We know that, and we know that we have had 15 increases in petroleum prices since this government has been returned to power with the help of the NDP. We know that federal taxes are responsible for roughly 75 per cent of the energy cost increases in 1981. We have places in the United States today where gasoline is cheaper than it is in Canada, and yet in the United States they moved to world price. We are nowhere near world price today, and yet our prices are already higher than theirs. What is the difference?


David P. Smith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Glen Cooper: The difference of course-


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have a quorum.


Philip Derek Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: A quorum has been called. I cannot entertain a point of order or a question of privilege.


Philip Derek Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Please, a point of order! A point of order, please!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I cannot entertain a point of order. I cannot recognize anyone once a quorum call has been made. I think you know the rules on that. I cannot entertain a point of order. The only thing I can do is to ask the Clerk to count the members present.


An hon. Member:: What about the point of order? You have to listen to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Otherwise how do you know what the point of order is?


David P. Smith: Take your seat. The Speaker is standing.


An hon. Member:: You rose on a point of order. What the heck are you talking about?


David P. Smith: The Speaker is standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am informed that there is not a quorum. I will have to ask that the names of the members present be registered by the Clerk.


David P. Smith: The House stands adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There are 18 members present.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I cannot recognize anyone.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I insist you call for a recorded vote as to who is in the House at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The names of every member present will be taken.


Philip Derek Lewis: I request that a recorded vote be taken of every member present at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The names of the members will be taken.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore there is not a quorum.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Sure, there is; there is a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I cannot entertain a discussion on this. I asked the Clerk to count the members and he reported to me that there are only 19 members present, including the Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: I demand that the record show which members are present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore I have no choice but to adjourn the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: I insist that the record show the names of members who are present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have no choice but to adjourn the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: The rules are clear. You have to establish which members are in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have no choice but to adjourn the House, and the names of those present will be taken.


Philip Derek Lewis: You have to establish which members are in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This has been done and I am sorry that the names cannot be taken again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: Are you suggesting that you are not going to take a roll call?


David P. Smith: The House stands adjourned.

May 5, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.


Philip Derek Lewis: Are you adjourning the House? Are you not going to take a roll call?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House is adjourned now.
And there being only 19 members present, including Mr. Speaker, the names were taken down and the House adjourned, without question put, at 7.02 p.m.

Thursday, May 6, 1982