- The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada), 7 May 1973, p. 432-448
- Lougheed, The Honourable E. Peter, Speaker
- Media Type
- Item Type
- A joint meeting of The Empire Club of Canada and The Canadian Club of Toronto.
Recent developments or issues: a world energy crisis; increased tensions and difficulties in world trade and monetary arrangements; problems with the special trade relations with the United States; the amount of tax dollars spent by the Federal government to offset regional economic disparities; the beginnings of development in Northern Canada; a shift in decision-making from the Federal Government to the Provincial Government; foreign investment and large corporations and their attack through the media and other groups; a belated recognition of the significance of Western Canada in the total Canadian economic picture. A discussion of the above issues, with examples and suggested directions. An admitted strong Western Canada point of view.
- Date of Original
- 7 May 1973
- Language of Item
- Copyright Statement
- The speeches are free of charge but please note that the Empire Club of Canada retains copyright. Neither the speeches themselves nor any part of their content may be used for any purpose other than personal interest or research without the explicit permission of the Empire Club of Canada.
- Empire Club of CanadaEmailinfo@empireclub.orgWWW address
Agency street/mail address
Fairmont Royal York Hotel
100 Front Street West, Floor H
Toronto, ON, M5J 1E3
- Full Text
- MAY 7, 1973
Essentials for a New Canadian Industrial Policy
AN ADDRESS BY The Honourable E. Peter Lougheed, M.L.A., LL.B., M.B.A., PREMIER OF ALBERTA
JOINT MEETING The Empire Club of Canada and The Canadian Club of Toronto
CHAIRMAN The President, The Canadian Club of Toronto, John E. Brent
Members and guests of the Empire and Canadian Clubs of Toronto, I would like to recognize one guest today, Mr. Donald Getty, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Province of Alberta. He's here today with the Premier and he is going to attend tomorrow the Finance Ministers' meeting in Ottawa. I would like to say Mr. Getty is an import from the east. He's a graduate of the University of Western Ontario and, Mr. Getty, in case I neglected to tell you, which was a gross oversight on my part, we are fellow alumni of the University of Western Ontario.
This joint meeting of our two luncheon Clubs here is sort of a meeting in limbo, it's after the official closing of the 1972-73 season and before the commencement of our 1973-74 season. In our last meeting we had many speakers from the west, a surprising number of young men, some of whom still are in the west, but many of whom have come to the east and rather making a name for themselves in a big way, particularly in politics but in other ways. But today I suppose if I were to recall a poem which started-oh young Lochinvar has come in from the west. Today I think we have hit the jackpot with young Lochinvar.
The Province of Alberta has been, at least until quite recently, rather an enigma to many of us. It is one of the most dynamic Provinces with the youngest average population in the country. It has vast resources, it has two of the country's fastest growing and exciting cities and its gross provincial product makes it the third richest country, correction, province in the country. Well, you know if I put in their natural resources maybe I should have said country. And yet under the stewardship of the solidly entrenched Social Credit Government that ruled consecutively for thirty-six years, Alberta politics were singularly unexciting. The man who almost singlehandedly changed all this is our guest today, Alberta's Premier, the Honourable Mr. Peter Lougheed. When Mr. Lougheed began his 1971 election campaign it was sort of a David and Goliath affair. Mr. Lougheed's Progressive Conservative Party had only ten seats, the Socreds had fifty-five. But when the smoke cleared away, those standings were neatly reversed with the PC's holding forty-nine seats to the Socreds' twenty-five and most of the credit belongs to Mr. Lougheed himself and the hard hitting campaign he engineered. Given his own impressive abilities and background, Mr. Lougheed's outstanding victories should not have been too much of a surprise to anybody. Politics in the Lougheed family is something of a tradition. His grandfather, Senator Sir James A. Lougheed, was Alberta's first Federal Cabinet Minister and as National Chairman of his Party he led the Conservatives in the Senate for twenty-five years. His grandson seems to have inherited some of Sir James' competitive instinct. While he was at the University of Alberta studying law, he played football with the Edmonton Eskimos and after earning his law degree he left the team and went on to Harvard where he earned an M.B.A. On his return to Canada he joined Mannix Limited and in 1962 entered private legal practice. However, he soon returned to the family tradition of politics. In 1965 at age thirty-six he was elected leader of Alberta's Progressive Conservative Party. Now his friends didn't send him any notes of congratulations, they sent him rather condolences because at that point in time the Progressive Conservative Party didn't have a single seat in the Legislature but Peter Lougheed had the last laugh, when in 1971 his party was returned to power with an overwhelming majority ending the thirty-six year rule of the Socreds. And just to prove that this outstanding victory was not a flash in the pan, the following year the Federal Progressive Conservative Party made a clean sweep of all nineteen seats in Alberta. This victory removed any doubt that anybody might have that Peter Lougheed was not a man going places. It can surely be said that the man who ran back kicks for the Edmonton Eskimos twenty years ago had introduced a very effective scoring game into Alberta politics and now after two years in power Peter Lougheed is still demonstrating his political prowess.
Ladies and gentlemen, our speaker today has already demonstrated that he is a man of unusual abilities and energies. He has demonstrated this in athletics and scholarship and in the tough game of politics. And I think I may say in addition to all of these outstanding qualities he also has, in reserve-maybe I should say in reserves-another vastly powerful and plentiful source of energy that adds a great deal to the weight of his political clout.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you the Premier of Alberta, The Right Honourable Peter Lougheed.
THE HONOURABLE E. PETER LOUGHEED:
Let me say at the outset that I am very, very pleased and honoured to be invited here today to visit with you. The invitation has been of some long standing and what gave me some considerable pleasure was that it was even continued over the past few months. I think about that introduction, Mr. Chairman, and I know that that was a slip of the tongue with regard to the third country in Canada and when I think of that I wanted to say this at the outset that there are two rumours I wanted to deal with; one is that it is not true that when the Queen comes to Canada this summer that she is then going on to visit Alberta. The other is that it may be somewhat true that there is going to be a delegation from the Arab states and they're going to miss Toronto and go on directly to Edmonton.
Let me at the outset though express my appreciation for being here and to say this, too, that I join with all of you in offering my respects to the memory of the Honourable Leslie Frost who was not only a great Premier of your province but was a distinguished Canadian that I had the pleasure to meet and to have advice from in my early years in public office.
It's my purpose today to attempt to communicate to you some of my views on some essentials for a new Canadian industrial policy.
Now I make no apologies for the fact that my views reflect a very strong Western Canadian point of view. The basic purpose of my remarks is an attempt to communicate to you that new and national industrial policies are urgently required very soon to take advantage of some important potentials in Western Canada-which would benefit all of Canada.
The main thrusts of my remarks are not new-they are substantially in accord with the tenor of my remarks here when I was invited by The Empire Club some six years ago-at which time I was the leader of the party, as the Chairman has mentioned, that had no seats in the Alberta Legislature. I said on that occasion that Alberta's future as a province depended upon a third stage of development-after Agriculture and Petroleum-of Industrial and Tourist development. And, I said then, that Alberta because of its geography and its resources would be most significant in terms of direction and mood in the total Canadian scene. And I submit that that has proved to be quite true.
But since that occasion over six years ago there have been some developments:
First, there is clearly a world energy crisis with major ramifications for Canada and for the energy province of Canada-Alberta-and particularly for the Athabasca tar sands within Alberta.
Secondly, we have, as all of you know, increased tensions and difficulties in world trade and monetary arrangement which have a particular significance for a leading nation such as Canada.
Thirdly, I think it is fair to say that the period of comfortable and special trade relations with the United States appears to be subsiding.
Another development has been over those six years that millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent by the Federal Government in an attempt to offset regional economic disparities.
Another factor has been in those six years that the northern half of our nation is only just beginning to provide an economic potential of a magnitude that most of us had barely hoped for and the basic gateway to such northern development is through the Province of Alberta.
There has also been a significant shift in decision making from the Federal Government to the Provincial Governments and-as reflected by a recent Gallup poll-such a shift surprisingly perhaps has the support generally of the people of Canada on a two to one margin.
Another development has been that foreign investment and large corporations are being even more vigorously and emotionally attacked through the media and other groups.
And finally there is a belated recognition of the significance of Western Canada in the total Canadian economic picture.
Ladies and gentlemen, within the perspective of these more recent developments-I would like to expand upon some of my views regarding new industrial policies and specifically deal with two areas Transportation Policy for Canada and the Gas Pricing Position of the Province of Alberta.
I note that the Federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in speaking to The Canadian Club of Toronto a few weeks ago stated that developing an industrial strategy for Canada would be impossible but developing a coherent set of industrial policies would be more possible. I submit he is somewhat pessimistic and that in broad terms the Provinces of Canada together and with the Federal Government-should be able to reach some basic understandings as to realistic economic goals and objectives and a possible industrial strategy which would increase the probabilities of our being able to meet those goals and objectives.
I've noticed in my short experience as a premier that when it comes down to the crunch-the premiers of Canada are prepared to place the national interest ahead of any narrow provincial interests and that's important to the strength of this nation.
But perhaps the phrase "industrial strategy" is really a matter of semantics and if Mr. Gillespie and his colleagues would prefer to strive for a coherent set of industrial policies we should perhaps accept that position and work with him and his colleagues towards it.
Obviously in any set of industrial policies for Canada the Provincial Governments will have to concur to make them meaningful and effective. It may be that we can only agree on a few and not on a broad range but we should strive to see where that common ground is and strive to see if we can reach agreement on a few very important areas.
As a prelude-our province like other provinces is developing our own provincial industrial strategy as an umbrella for our policy framework. In twenty short months we have made some progress and in a very summary way they involve these areas.
1. Taking advantage of our valuable but depleting resources to build a more stable industrialized base in our province.
2. The maximum degree of process of our agriculture and other raw resources within our province to create jobs for our citizens.
3. To attempt to diversify geographically throughout Alberta to the smaller centres.
4. And to create a taxation system based upon ability to pay and incentives to job-creating enterprises.
For Canada it would seem to me that progress might be achieved now in striving for industrial policies in areas:
First, new transportation approaches to take advantage of regional potential.
Secondly, the spreading of job-creating enterprises away from heavily concentrated industrial areas.
Thirdly, a balance between the emphasis on supporting slow growth areas and taking advantage of growth centres such as Fort McMurray.
And, finally, a climate which encourages worldwide investment but provides incentives for increasing Canadian equity participation.
Now there may be other areas where it would be useful to concentrate our efforts but in my view at this point in time in Canada I would see the most likely progress, the most productive progress would be made by concentrating upon those four areas.
Let me then expand, ladies and gentlemen, upon the first area which is an entirely new approach to National Transportation Policies to take advantage of regional potential.
As you are aware, the Federal Government in the Speech from the Throne last January proposed a western economic opportunities conference with the four Provincial Governments in Western Canada. The conference is scheduled for Calgary in late July and has been termed by the Federal Government as a unique venture in the history of Federal-Provincial relations in Canada. In proposing the conference, the Federal Government suggested specifically that transportation should be considered and that it was basic to overcoming the problems of distance and hence stimulating and broadening the economic and industrial base of Western Canada. The four premiers of the Western Provinces met in Winnipeg a few weeks ago and maybe to the surprise of some, we all agreed, despite our party differences, of the need for a total new transportation policy for Canada and that one of the key items on the agenda should be transportation.
I put to you, ladies and gentlemen, on this occasion that if this conference turns out to be merely talk and there are not concrete results it will be a setback for Canada. In social and unity terms-a western region charging forth on all cylinders as a full participant in Canada surely has to be a positive factor for Canadian unity. And in economic terms-the realization by Western Canadians of their full potential can benefit all Canadians.
So this July conference in Calgary provides a unique opportunity to make historic changes. All of Canada, and Central Canada in particular, should be supporting the National Government in policy commitments which will make the conference a success. It will only be a success if there is a commitment to action. A mere agreement to consider will not be enough. The Federal Government initiated the conference-it hence has undertaken an obligation to assure that-unlike constitutional conferences-it is a success and not a failure for if it fails-similar approaches called by the Federal Government will be approached with scepticism and suspicion.
There is one clear way that this conference can be made a success. A commitment by the Federal Government to major changes in national transportation policy. This would reduce a historic grievance of Western Canada in the nature of Confederation and I doubt there is a better time to do it than now. I think it's fair for me to say that there is a growing recognition here and throughout Central Canada that further concentration of industrial activity within this area or on the shores of the St. Lawrence is not in the national public interest-and the quality of life can be adversely affected by such further concentration. And secondly, that the west has probably never been in a better position to capitalize upon new transportation policies in an effective way. The demand for our petroleum, agriculture and forest product resources is very strong. In North America and the world the managerial and entrepreneurial talents are clearly in abundance. The technical schools throughout all of Canada are starting to produce substantial numbers for the required skilled-labour force and northern development has never been such a significant factor. What better time in the history of confederation to capitalize upon the job potential-resource base of Western Canada-but it will not happen without substantial changes in National Transportation Policies directed particularly to the two railroads by the Federal Government.
The ludicrous nature of the freight rate structure in Canada is of such a nature to be called a farce. A product shipped from Ontario to British Columbia and back to Alberta is charged less than if the same product on the same train had been dropped off in Alberta on the way by. Skelp is charged $2.11 per hundred pounds when shipped from Hamilton to Edmonton, but if sent to Tidewater at Vancouver, the cost is $1.35 per hundred pounds. Structural steel from Hamilton to Calgary $2.46 per hundred pounds-from Hamilton to Vancouver at $1.64 per hundred pounds. Now I've heard the railways' argument-and they make no economic or policy sense at all. And Western Canada needs a basic steel industry to assure balanced growth.
Some argue about a "subsidy" for Crow's Nest Pass grain rates being a public contribution for the west. These rates are special rates to ship wheat from Western Canada to the Lakehead and creating jobs at the Lakehead. Calling it a subsidy for Western Canada? What do we call tariffs which assist central Canadian manufacturers? What do we call the special tax provisions for secondary manufacturing in terms of their location?
What about agricultural processing-Edmonton to Vancouver livestock-cost cents per hundred pounds, 119but frozen meat, 139! Rapeseed from Lethbridge to Montreal-70 1/2 cents per hundred pounds-but process it in Alberta and it costs $1.22 to ship it east. The result-you export jobs from the agricultural heartland of Canada to concentrate more people in the same crowded parts of Canada. It makes no sense at all!
Then there is the categories of freight rates called agreed or commodity rates. It's supposed to depend upon competitive conditions. What sort of competition?-trucks-and who owns the trucks? And where is the competition supposedly the greatest-the Montreal-Toronto shift? Between '67 and '72 the non-competitive rates increased an average from $2.50 per hundred pounds to $3.32. And during the same period, the competitive rates either remained constant or increased to a much lesser degree.
Ladies and gentlemen, this raises an important question should in a nation of Canada's size and thinly spread population we have freight rates that are based on so-called competition-or should the rates be used as a critical factor in developing national industrial strategy-based on what's good for Canada where new jobs could be located and whether or not they shouldn't be linked with resources up-stream?
Let's look at the coal situation-Ontario imports thirteen million tons a year from Pennsylvania and West Virginia-that amounts to many jobs in the United States. The same quality coal is lying out in Alberta in the west. Why would Ontario business use the United States coal-because of the distance and cost. The Canadian Railways have freight rates from Alberta for coal that make it substantially cheaper for Ontario business to buy it from the United States. Surely, this should be reviewed in the national public interest. Is not the basic thinking behind such a situation completely contrary to the entire logic of the traditional tariff structure of Canada?
Now some say-Mr. Lougheed-we've heard this story before but when we heard the railroads' side of the story they attempt to justify their actions on a cost basis-fair enough-I enjoy a good debate anytime and anyplace. But, first, I want full and complete disclosure by the railroads of all the cost data they are now providing the Canadian Transport Commission. I don't propose to enter the debate with one hand tied behind my back. I want to know the extent of the fixed-as compared to variable-costs. I want to know the economic benefit to Canada of the terminals and loading facilities to the major centres of Canada. I want to know the relative cost factors by taxpayer contributions to comparative transportation facilities-such as airport terminals. In short-full disclosure by the railroads of their cost data. And second-public justification of every major freight rate in terms of cost benefit for the Canadian public interest-not the railroads' financial interest. The railroads are common carriers. They were established historically to pull Canada together. Primarily by building through Western Canada-in fact, to really create Confederation as we know it today. Are they fulfilling their original purpose? I am satisfied most westerners do not think so!
So to reiterate-there is no better time than now-for a new transportation policy for Canada to produce a stronger Confederation.
Let me now shift to the third and the final matter I would like to attempt to communicate to you-the logic of Alberta's new natural gas pricing policies in the Canadian public interest.
I think some relevant background facts are needed:
First, natural gas is a depleting, non-recurring natural resource.
Second, Alberta provides in excess of eighty percent of Canada's natural gas supply.
Third, the vast majority of Alberta's production and reserves are owned by the people of Alberta through their government.
Fourth, that the largest domestic market for Alberta natural gas is Ontario which accounts for 27 percent of the production from Alberta.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Alberta Government over a year ago requested its independent and highly respected Energy Resources Conservation Board to hold hearings and make a special review on the matter of field pricing of gas in this Province, our Province. The Board reported last August to us that the current average field price for gas in Alberta was being sold at only about sixty percent of its fair value. In short, it was being sold substantially below value.
In November of last year the Alberta Government announced new natural gas policies for Alberta which included the directive that there would be no further removal of gas by permit from the province unless and until all the gas purchased in Alberta was being purchased at fair market value. It's a depleting asset and millions of dollars in the public responsibility of stewardship that I have are being lost daily as a result. Since that time there have been extensive increases in the cost of competitive fuel, particularly with regard to crude oil-and the present value of Alberta natural gas contracts may now be substantially less than the sixty percent of fair value.
In understanding Alberta's position, ladies and gentlemen, it is fundamental to keep in mind that we are dealing with a depleting resource-owned essentially by the people of Alberta. I also know that our position has raised a number of questions-particularly in Central Canada-and I can think of no better place and time to attempt to respond than here in Toronto today.
First, there has been concern expressed about our complementary plan to rebate to Alberta consumers from the Treasury of the Alberta Government as a provincial fiscal government measure, such amounts as will assure that Alberta users of gas will have a net cost lower than in other parts of Canada. In other words-it's not a two price system in the strict sense of the word; it's a one price system with a provincial government rebate, not much different than a homeowners' tax discount or a property tax credit. It can hardly be considered a restraint on interprovincial trade when it is carried out in that fashion. In actual fact the fiscal purpose is two-fold-to use the advantage of low cost energy to stimulate industrial development to replace Alberta's reliance upon depleting resources. Would any of you do otherwise-and secondly, to provide a dividend for the people of Alberta as a return for their ownership interest in the resource itself.
Now a second concern has been mentioned and that is that the majority of the benefit of the increased gas prices would go to the gas producing companies rather than to the people through their Provincial Government. This contention is invalid on a number of counts. Firstly, the Government has clearly announced that it intends shortly to sharply increase the royalty rates for natural gas, as it has already done for crude oil. The crude oil rates were increased by approximately fifty percent last year.
They now amount to twenty-two percent approximately of the gross value of production. And it is important to underline that that's a percentage of the gross value of production-not of the net value of production.
Without committing ourselves-but using comparable royalty rates for natural gas production-the fact is that the provincial government would receive off the top-without any risk whatsoever-more in revenues on an average basis than the gas-producing company would make in profits with no investment by the provincial government. Now that can hardly be considered other than a good deal for the ownership interest. The government does not participate in the losses of the hundreds of dry holes. And I say that with some sensitivity that I recognize there are some people here today who have been telling me that. In addition, the provinces receive substantial revenues for land sales and rentals-which are essentially rights to explore. But further than that, the province would gain in a very substantial way with higher gas prices through a very positive impact upon our total provincial economy, in particular, greater drilling activity, greater tax revenues to our citizens and those tax revenues are involved in tax revenues to the Federal Treasury.
Alberta is one of three provinces that pays into the equalization pot for less fortunate provinces and we confirm that principle of Confederation and are prepared to support it. The stronger the Alberta economy-the more able we are to pay in to the equalization pot and the funds essentially come from the income taxes on earnings of citizens. I could list a number of other economic benefits. But a further question I am sure is on your mind. What about the profit portion Mr. Lougheed, what happens to that? Well the vast majority of it is re-invested in further exploration efforts, not just in Alberta but in federal lands in the north and off the coast of Nova Scotia. A healthy petroleum industry in Canada is a very positive part of the Canadian economic situation, leaving aside even the benefit of the economic merits of the balance-of-payments contribution.
Another matter raised is that our policy is a narrow Alberta one. Well think about this! At 16 cents per M.c.f. for our gas, there is some 5 trillion cubic feet, in the judgment of the President of the Alberta Gas Trunk Lines, beyond economic reach. It will stay there, and surely as an asset for Alberta and for Canada, it is desirable that that situation change and that the price be increased to the point that makes those gas reserves within economic reach. And the reserves are declining for only one reason-the overall price is too low. Now there is one other point that has been raised I wanted to dispose of. I know it's not serious-but it's been raised-that Alberta should use its sources of supply to provide below value gas to central Canada and that in due course the Federal Government would use its federally-owned land to provide high cost gas to the United States. Well if that's equity for Alberta, then Confederation is really in trouble and I don't think it's a serious contention.
Now a further response has been made that is that the increase would not be so bad if it was not so dramatic or all of a sudden. The fact is, the proposed increase is merely a catching up process. Statistics Canada Price Index-Domestic Gas, Toronto-1961, 100; and this may surprise you for each year 1962 to 1972, 99.1. Residential consumers of Canadian natural gas have generally enjoyed-at the expense of Albertans-a very remarkable price stability compared to other consumer prices. Just the mere minimum of 10 cent per M.c.f. would be a catching-up of only about one-fifth of the increases on consumer products generally over the last ten years.
Now another response has been made and this is one worthy of debate, that the price increases might jeopardize the competitive industry position in Ontario with that of the United States. For the vast increase has been in industrial use in this province rather than residential. But the facts really do not bear out the argument. For one thing, fuel costs generally are a very low percentage of the total industrial costs. And for another, the increased cost of other alternative fuels is rising dramatically.
As far as I'm concerned in our judgment, what's going to happen in the United States is not just a dramatic increase in the cost of new gas but all gas and energy costs everywhere in the world are going to go up, all of them, and dramatically. So even with a doubling of natural gas costs in Alberta at the field-and that's just the field portion-our long term competitive position for Canada in my view will be stronger, relative to the United States, not weaker. The real issue then is where new industry should be located.
Ladies and gentlemen, all of these items which I have raised are responsible responses and reasonable ones to our position, even though quite obviously I think they are without much substance. There is another one however that makes us angry. It is that Ontario did Alberta a great big favour in accepting the national oil policy some ten years ago and using Alberta's crude oil rather than the "stable sources" of Venezuela, Iraq and Iran so that now we should balance up the transaction and we should sell our low cost gas to make it even. Well, for a start, how about the extra cost the farmers of the west have paid for CentralCanadian-constructed agriculture implements? How about other tariff-protected items over the past decade?
But perhaps most important, how about the fact that if we didn't have a national oil policy, which in my view is a minimum policy for a nation, we' wouldn't have the subject we're even talking about. We wouldn't have the reserves of oil and gas or the prospects for future northern development for the industry would have gone elsewhere in the world. Then there is the even more extreme statement by certain minority groups in Canada
That we should rely upon slightly-cheaper (maybe) insecure foreign crude for east of the Ottawa Valley to provide revenues for the Governments of Venezuela, Iraq and Iran-and to hold in the ground and not sell Alberta oil to the United States-but store it for the time when not, if-these foreign sources are cut off or become exorbitant. Confederation? Not by a long shot! Economic sense?-No!-Economic NONSENSE? Yes!
And finally, there is the argument-that we should sell it on a cost-of production basis-what other products do we all buy that are based on that premise.
In closing, let me say this. We recognize the Alberta gas pricing policies are significant and that they merit serious national review and discussion. But thoughtful Canadians will not emotionally or illogically respond or place the issue out of perspective. Significant as the matter is-it's not in the same category at all with major Canadian economic questions such as the international monetary changes, Federal tax policies, the development of the Athabasca tar sands, world grain prices-or many other. In short, I submit, ladies and gentlemen, there has been an over-reaction-an exaggeration of the Alberta gas pricing proposal and its impact upon the consuming areas but I hope I reflect today our determination with regard to the issues. I appreciate the opportunity though to be here, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to clear up some misconceptions-refute some ridiculous responses-but also rebut some worthwhile arguments.
I trust our position is clear. The people of Alberta own the gas-it is a depleting resource-fair prices would benefit the people of Alberta, but also the economy of all of Canada-and Canadians should not reasonably expect Albertans to continue to sell their gas below fair value.
In closing, let me leave this one thought. I make no apologies for expressing to you today some very strong western Canadian and Alberta views-contemporary 1973 views. I doubt very many of you expected me to do otherwise. But, I ask you to think about this-would it not be good for Canada-if the west-yes, and Alberta with our energy resources in particular-became a much stronger part of the Canadian nation-in economics-in jobs-in population-and in social terms? I hope your conclusion will be yes.
Because-like almost all Albertans-I am a Canadian, before Albertan-I love this country and my roots are very deep. And I believe that what I propose would not hurt any other part of the country-but it would make this great country of ours that much stronger in all its parts!
Thanks very much.
Mr. Lougheed was thanked on behalf of The Canadian Club and The Empire Club by Mr. Robert L. Armstrong, a VicePresident of The Empire Club.
I borrow a phrase from Norman Webster's "Across Canada" article in the Saturday's Globe and Mail in which he talks about the inscrutable east. We of the inscrutable east and, I confess, I didn't realize that we were that far east that we were entitled to the description of the sphinx-like inscrutability but, scrutable or inscrutable, we have today received a message from a very fine emissary of the vigorous and resurgent west.
May I express our deep appreciation to you for your attendance on this occasion and for the friendly manner in which you put out the facts which you have and wish you well in your future as Premier of Alberta.