March 20, 1979

PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

I would like to refer to another editorial, this one from the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Adrian Dionne

Liberal

Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):

What was the last one?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

The last one was the Toronto Sun, which could lead us into a whole new discussion of sunset laws. This government would do well to learn about them in order to cut government spending. It would do well to use a little solar energy and to have a little imagination to brighten up the lives of Canadians without having to talk about emergencies and crises and without dividing provinces one from another. The government has the attitude that somehow it cannot put something forward unless there is an enemy hidden in the closet.

If hon. members will permit me, I would like to go to another source, the Toronto Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 20, 1979:

The act hands the government the stand-by power to take control of everybody and everything that has anything to do with petroleum, petroleum products and their alternatives within Canada.

Does that not sound just like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he said that all that pack of socialists

4354

March 20, 1979

Energy Supplies

opposite want to do is grab power? When the minister was speaking in the debate on an identical bill in 1973 he put his finger on the key question. I trust that he stands by what he said and that he will condemn this government and say, "I do not want to sit with them any more"-and join the Social Credit party or the New Democratic Party.

This article goes on to say the following:

Using this board under this act the government could eliminate rights of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It could do everything from rationing the gasoline you may use to compelling a pipeline company to build a pipeline that would bankrupt it. Persons committing offences under this act, and under the regulations that will be approved by cabinet (not by parliament), would be liable to fines of as much as $20,000 or two years in prison-

Then the article goes on to this very interesting part:

Because the opposition parties opposed the hasty and unconsidered and unnecessary establishment of such powers, the government has imposed closure.

Closure to get closure.

In the true arbitrary tradition of Canadian Liberal governments.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

Explain to me what closure.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

John Raymond Ellis

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ellis:

Something that should happen to your mouth.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

The best closure this House could have would deal with the oral cavity on the other side.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

I am proud to be a Canadian but not with a guy like you.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

1 do not want to hurt unduly hon. members opposite, but they have the opinion that somehow we on this side of the House are the only people opposed to this bill and that we have no policies. I outlined some, but they were not listening. I mentioned a number of press articles which say that there is every reason to be opposed. I also note that a member of the cabinet has said that this kind of legislation is dead wrong.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

Name him.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

The hon. member asks me to name him. He is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

That's a lie.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Back off.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite says that what I said about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a lie. If he says that, he is also saying that what is recorded in Hansard at page 8763 back in 1973 is also such. Therefore I will be raising a question of privilege when I am finished my speech, and asking that the hon. member make a withdrawal.

I would like to put on the record comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce at that time. He said, and I quote:

-passing the bill before us would do nothing to create harmony among the ministers attending the conference; rather, it would interfere with the good will necessary if we are to meet the difficult situation which may develop in the coming winter.

The minister later said:

It is headed for confrontation, particularly if we as legislators in this parliament do not caution the government and make it clear that the allocation bill we are being asked to pass represents a reach for power not granted to any federal government except in time of war.

Let me underscore what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said. He said that they were asking for power not granted to any other federal government except in time of war. Now members on that side would somehow like to point their fingers this way and say we are the only ones who oppose this. The fact of the matter is that, nestled in their own nest, is someone who pointed a finger and said virtually what we are saying at the present time. Then the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went on to say the following:

Section 109 of the British North America Act provides for provincial ownership of mineral resources, and this was part of the making of this country of ours when it was put together under the British North America Act. This may have been a mistake, but we came together with that provision. What kind of a government do we have here that wants unilaterally to break that provision? I am not suggesting that Lougheed will not allow some changes, but I am saying that this government through this Bill C-236 wants unilaterally to break that agreement which eventually brought ten provinces together to make this country of Canada. We have heard a lot of talk about the fact that this Prime Minister is the one who wants to keep Canada together. He has not suggested that lately, because if he did no one would believe him.

I should like to give one final quotation because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tonight very unfairly accused us of being people who somehow held up this bill. The truth of the matter is that if we analyse the data it simply does not document that fact. I would like to put on record what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, as reported at page 8765 of Hansard dated December 14, 1973. When he referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) he said:

I suggest he has no interest in hardly anything other than the promotion of the French language in Canada. That is about the extent of his interest.

Certainly that would not be the position of our party. We do not take a position like that. But somehow a man who felt that way about the government went and joined them.

We have received today a complete, unadulterated misrepresentation when the minister indicated that we have no policy. We could smother the government with policies. The government has attempted to create among Canadians the image that there is an impending crisis just around the corner, yet we have had a vacuum of policies and directions as to what we ought to do and where we ought to go. The government introduced Petro-Canada because it wants to nationalize. It put in an emergency measure bill because it wants socialistic style power. The government is attempting to get control for the love of embracing control.

Since the formation of the OPEC nations seven years ago, we have not had the establishment of an energy policy which would mean that Canadians relying on Canadian resources would have the energy they need. Instead of policy we have had confrontation. As a Canadian and as a member of Parliament I want to say that I am getting very, very tired of the fact that the government cannot put forward any kind of a position without first finding an enemy. I know why the bill is here. It

March 20, 1979

is here to try to divide one part of Canada from the other. It is here to try to divide the producing parts of the country from those in need of energy. It was designed as a pre-election issue. That was the claim of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he spoke in 1973 before the 1974 election. Today we have simply a repeat of style, not a repeat of need. The government knew that for seven years OPEC nations were made up of unstable governments. It has known for a long time that there was a need for increasing the supply of resources to the far side of Canada.

In conclusion, let me say that today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tried to leave the illusion that somehow my party filibustered this particular bill. In truth government members spoke virtually as much, in terms of combined opposition or other parties, as our party did. The Liberal party used as much as 75 per cent of the combined speaking time used by the other parties in the House. Is ten minutes of a Liberal member's time any longer or shorter than ten minutes of a Conservative member's time? Time is an absolute factor which does not change. The only difference between Liberal speeches and ours is that theirs makes one numb on both ends.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to deal with the question of privilege I mentioned. The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) made a statement a few moments ago that I lied in giving a quotation. I ask him to withdraw that statement for the goodness of some parliamentary conduct. I hope the hon. member at least has the decency to recognize that, when we speak in the House, we do not need people on the other side acting like chickadees in fermented chokecherries. I hope the hon. member comes forward with a complete and absolute withdrawal.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):

Mr. Speaker, I have here the Harrap's English-French dictionary. At the English word "lie", we find "mensonge" in French. When I said "lie" in English, I wanted to say to the hon. member that he was telling a white lie, that what he said was without any malice. You said that it was a minister who made a certain statement in 1974. At that time, he was not a minister, but a member of the Progressive Conservative opposition. I am not therefore accusing the hon. member of being a liar; I am simply saying that he made a white lie or that he misinterpreted the facts.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I do not believe that the explanation given by the hon. member is acceptable according to the rules of the House, whatever interpretation he wants to give to the word "lie" or "mensonge" or "liar". These words are not parliamentary and should be withdrawn.

I agree completely with the request of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone). The words "lie" and "liar" are unparliamentary and should not be used. If the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to withdraw, it would be

Energy Supplies

appreciated. Even his explanation is not acceptable in the manner he has made it.

I think that the hon. member should recognize-order, please. I think that the hon. member for Mercier is able to speak for himself and does not need the help of all his colleagues. I am trying to be serious. Certain members may find this funny, but I believe that the procedure of the House and the decorum that must be maintained in this institution apply to both sides, whether the member involved is a friend or simply another parliamentarian. The hon. member for Mercier.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As a typical and honest parliamentarian and as a typical Canadian, proudly and with great pleasure I take the word "lie" off the record. As a true Canadian and a true parliamentarian, I apologize as well.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the exchange between the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) ended quite properly as Your Honour requested, although it reminded me of the classic story of the hon. member who asked Mr. Speaker if it would be all right if he called an hon. member across the way an s.o.b. Mr. Speaker assured the hon. member that he would be out of order. So the hon. member said, "I won't say that then. I just hope when the hon. member gets home tonight his mother comes out from under the porch and bites him!"

The New Democratic Party supports this legislation as inadequate as it is. I want to assure you and the House of that. However, the more I listen to the minister the more I worry about whether he is going to support it.

If you have ever seen a reluctant dragon, surely it is the minister and this government. They feel very sensitive about being called socialists, or of being accused of instituting socialist measures, particularly when all they have really done, sir, is implement a measure they were trying to implement back in 1973 and 1974, and which they did implement in a minority parliament. However, they had to do it most reluctantly. I suspect that the majority of the Liberal caucus have had to be dragged kicking and screaming in on this one. They are sensitive about Conservatives accusing them of being socialists. If that makes them socialists, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it makes us. If that is socialism it is a disgrace to real socialism, that is, democratic socialism.

The minister has gone through a lot of exercises on this legislation, and I have come to the conclusion that the hurrier he goes the behinder he gets. He accused the Conservatives of conducting a filibuster, and then he took an hour to make his third reading speech. We thought he had made his points on

March 20, 1979

Energy Supplies

second reading and in the debate on motions at the report stage, but then he capped it off with a dumb closure motion, when the Tories obviously had already caved in and chickened out. The whole exercise was totally unnecessary as we probably could have saved a day or two in any case.

In 1973 we had something of an energy crisis. We heard a great deal about it from all sides of the House and, of course, from all over the world. We were reminded very forcefully at that time about our vulnerability in the supply of oil. Although it was referred to as an energy crisis then, and to some degree it is now, both occasions have given us the opportunity to re-examine our dependence on foreign multinational oil companies, and to re-examine our dependence on other producing countries.

During the previous energy crisis the NDP had the balance of power in Ottawa. We forced-and we take credit for it and pride in it-the Liberal government to set up Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation. That government really did not believe in it. There has never been a Crown corporation set up by any so-called private enterprise party in which that party believed. The Liberals did it, however, on occasion to bail out some bankrupt friends, or as a last resort, desperation effort, but not because they believed there was any intrinsic value in a public corporation that is publicly and accountably owned and controlled by the public through its parliament. They really did not believe in that, but they did that because they had no other choice. They could not rely on the private sector, the multinational corporations, to serve the interests of the Canadian people, or to put the interests of our nation ahead of their own corporate interests. That was the case then and it is the case now.

Since then, however, the Liberals have not used Petro-Canada as an instrument of national policy as the situation then and now demands. While the government has been paying some lip service, has made some gestures, and has gone through some motions in respect of Petro-Canada, the Conservatives on the other hand say they will scrap it if they form the next government.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink

March 20, 1979