Thomas Clement (Tommy) DOUGLAS

DOUGLAS, Thomas Clement (Tommy), C.C., B.A., M.A., LL.D.(Hon.)

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Nanaimo--Cowichan--The Islands (British Columbia)
Birth Date
October 20, 1904
Deceased Date
February 24, 1986
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=d34eb71d-3bc8-4258-8a3f-2007fa662c38&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
minister, printer

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
CCF
  Weyburn (Saskatchewan)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
CCF
  Weyburn (Saskatchewan)
October 22, 1962 - February 6, 1963
NDP
  Burnaby--Coquitlam (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
NDP
  Burnaby--Coquitlam (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
NDP
  Burnaby--Coquitlam (British Columbia)
February 10, 1969 - September 1, 1972
NDP
  Nanaimo--Cowichan--The Islands (British Columbia)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
NDP
  Nanaimo--Cowichan--The Islands (British Columbia)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
NDP
  Nanaimo--Cowichan--The Islands (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 2378)


March 2, 1979

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, last January, in a speech which the director of investigations made to the Canadian Club in Montreal, he said that the present combines legislation was not adequate to cope with the takeover of Simpsons by Hudson's Bay.

In view of this very much larger takeover, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to follow the example of Premier Bennett of British Columbia, who persuaded the Canadian Pacific Railways to put off its acquisition of MacMillan Bloedel until such time as effective legislation could be put in place by parliament.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   BUSINESS TAKEOVERS
Full View Permalink

March 2, 1979

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the acquisition by the Thomson interests of the Hudson's Bay Company, which takes in Simpsons and Zeller's, plus the control of a large area of the Canadian economy covering mining, oil, gas, real estate, newspapers, radio and 35 per cent to 60 per cent of the control of retail sales by departmental stores, does the Prime Minister not consider that this constitutes a national oligarchy through

March 2, 1979

which a handful of individuals will be able to control the economic life of millions of Canadians?

Does he not think that is serious enough to warrant the government bringing down that legislation now and asking parliament to give it quick passage?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   BUSINESS TAKEOVERS
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1979

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, neither the National Energy Board nor anybody else, other than the government, can make the final determination as to which will have priority. I am trying to find out from the minister if Q and M is simply a pre-election gimmick for the people in the maritimes, or whether the government is serious in its intention to see to it that the gas available for that pipeline is reserves.

I want to tell the minister that page 5 of the National Energy Board report points out that in its previous report of two years ago it predicted we would have gas deficiencies by 1983, and it now says it is able to say that we will not have gas deficiencies before 1992. At my age, 1992 does not give me any concern, but to a blossoming youth like you, Mr. Speaker, it must cause some apprehension. I am, therefore, asking the minister if he considers that a 13-year down the road possibility of gas shortages does not concern him and does not make him feel that the government ought to say that the first priority for the gas which is now in place will be the Q and M line and the need for Canadian supplies, rather than the export market. Will the minister tell us where he stands on that?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT-SURPLUS OF NATURAL GAS
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1979

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of gas, but not much of an answer to my question.

In view of the fact that in 1970 this government accepted the recommendation of the National Energy Board and approved the export of these three trillion cubic feet, and only a few years later the same board and the same government were telling the people of Canada that unless we built a pipeline into the Arctic we were going to freeze in the dark, the minister will have to find something better than this rhetoric in order to convince the Canadian people that we can meet our needs and at the same time export an additional two trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

I want to ask the minister this very specific question. In view of the fact that the estimate of Q and M for gas requirements is 5.1 trillion cubic feet, and the National Energy Board estimate is 3.3 cubic feet-which is a difference of 1.8 trillion cubic feet-and if Q and M is right in that regard, then two trillion cubic feet for export will be used up-and you cannot use the same gas twice-which will take priority, Q and M or the exports? Would the minister please answer that question?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT-SURPLUS OF NATURAL GAS
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1979

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the most recent report of the National Energy Board which indicates that if the board had followed the formula it has always used in the past, there would be no surplus of natural gas, but by means of a formula specially concocted for the occasion, it finds a surplus of 1.6 trillion cubic feet or 3.4 trillion cubic feet, depending on which premise is taken, and recommends an export of two trillion cubic feet.

In view of the fact the government has endorsed the idea of the Q and M line to the maritimes and the idea of making gas available to transfer from oil to gas in many of the industries in central Canada, can the minister assure the House and the country that no exports of natural gas will be approved until such time as it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient natural gas, first, for the Q and M line and, second, for the transfer from oil to gas in industry; and, finally, to supply the growing demands of the petrochemical industry for petroleum products?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT-SURPLUS OF NATURAL GAS
Full View Permalink