1980-11-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Liberal member of Parliament for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has widely circulated a copy of his letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) dated November 17 in which he stated:
It is reported that you are prepared to concede even more power to Prince Edward Island. This island has a population about equal to that in my constituency yet it has four MPs and a complete provincial government with powers that exceed those of the government of the state of California.
There has to be a limit. Prince Edward Island is too small a tail wagging too big a dog.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House censures the member of Parliament for Vaudreuil for promoting national disunity by his vicious attack on Prince Edward Island, the cradle of confederation, and for his most hateful campaign to deny the province of Prince Edward Island a genuine role in future constitutional decisions.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a very important motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which I hope will receive the unanimous support of the House. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House expresses its very deep regret over the insulting and denigrating remarks that were made to all the women of Canada last evening by the Senate co-chairman of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, and this
House therefore calls on the government to arrange for the immediate dismissal of Senator Hays as co-chairman and his replacement by someone who understands and appreciates the rightful place of women in all aspects of Canadian society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GREY CUP GAME, 1980 MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion of real urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A strong and mighty force from the very heart of my constituency in Edmonton has journeyed east to create mayhem, to do battle and to conquer. The conquest is to be effected in a little known place called Toronto, and pits those fierce Eskimo warriors from Edmonton against a litter of snarly Tiger Cats from Hamilton in a contest of punch, kick, scratch, hold, bump, knock, stomp, choke, crunch and kill!


An hon. Member:: It sounds like the House of Commons!


William J. Yurko: In the interests of preserving peace in the nation and national unity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That this House undertake immediately to prevent further the exodus of capital westward by cautioning easterners to moderate their liberal wagering habits during this event, and furthermore, to offer its condolences in advance to the litter of kittens from Hamilton.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 21, 1980


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced that the government was breaking its commitment to the employees and clients of Canfarm and was withdrawing federal assistance to Canfarm. In view of the fact that this action could cost the loss of 136 jobs of employees and could deny Canfarm services to some 5,000 farm clients, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House calls upon the government to reconsider its decision to cancel its support to Canfarm, in view of the serious threat posed to Canfarm employees and to Canadian farmers by the government's action.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is on record as saying that acid rain is costing the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian environment hundreds of millions of dollars per year in damage, in view of the same minister's statement that at least $400 million must be spent to deal with the problem of acid rain and that that money has not been allocated, and in view of the fact that the Liberal government is not acting in the best interests of Canadians by reducing the amount of acid rain through budgetary measures and policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House unanimously call for producer-pay legislation so that the producers of acid rain, in both Canada and the United States, may be presented with bills on a quarterly basis for the damage and destruction they now cause to all Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ACID RAIN-CALL FOR DISCUSSION WITH NEW UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the pressing need for Canada and the United States to deal co-operatively with the immediate and serious threat to our lakes from acid rain, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale):
That this House acknowledge the urgency of a cabinet level meeting between the Canadian and the U.S. governments, after president-elect Reagan takes office, on the subject of the environmental damage caused by acid rain.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I note that since Parliament has reconvened the government has failed to call a single meeting of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines. With the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cavorting with the camels in the sands of Arabia and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) galling investors in New York, this failure leads Canadians to believe that the Liberal government has abandoned any major energy initiative in Canada and still continues to follow its policy of dependence on high-cost, insecure, imported oil. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That a meeting of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines be called forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, members will be aware of the continued harassment of Kim Dae-Jung, the leader of the non-Communist opposition and former presidential candidate in South Korea, which has culminated in the military court handing down a death sentence.
November 21, 1980

This has been confirmed by the appeal court in that country. The situation is urgent because of the limited possibilities of appeal and the possibility of an early execution. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House expresses its serious concern over the action of the military court in South Korea in sentencing to death Kim Dae-Jung and that this House implore President Chun to use his ultimate executive power to secure the release of Mr. Kim.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the following message be delivered to the Prime Minister:
"Canadians made the PM's blood boil
So he fled to Arabia to buy their oil
Where he was wined and dined by Sheik Yamani
In exchange for piles of Canadian money.
Afraid of being up the well-known creek He'd pay twice the price to the oil-rich Sheik So here we are with Mr. Trudeau to thank While the Arabs laugh all the way to the bank.
To you, Pierre, who became the third hump Appropriately riding on your camel's rump,
Oh, when will you cease this mania to roam''-


Madam Speaker:: 
REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in many areas of Ontario, including my riding of Grey-Simcoe, unemployment has now reached a level much higher than the national average of 7.8 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
Oral Questions
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion meet with the government of Ontario to renegotiate their agreement so as to subsidize industries that wish to establish themselves in municipalities in southern Ontario which are now suffering from a very high unemployment rate.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in an interview with the Montreal Gazette and as published this morning in the Montreal Gazette-I am sure that the minister or at least his staff would have noticed the article-the Minister of Finance indicated that Canadians would have to get used to a lower standard of living in order to combat energy prices. These comments are consistent with comments made by officials of the minister's department last week, that as far as they were concerned Canadians will also have to endure lower real wages in order to combat inflation.
Would the minister tell the House whether or not that is the policy of this government and, if so, how long will Canadians have to endure a lower standard of living in order to put up with the government's failure to come forward with an energy policy which would assist Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an interview I had yesterday on a very complex subject. I am not in any way disowning any of the comments I made in that interview, which were a series of economic observations including the fact that all industrialized countries, including Canada, are facing lower growth rates and that it is unlikely that in the immediate future any industrialized country will achieve the growth rate which was part of our public consciousness in the past decade. That is what I said and I believe that is the case.
I also believe it is essential to understand at the present time what is required in the way of economic behaviour if we wish to make any impact on the very troublesome question of inflation.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, in the same article it is reported as follows: "MacEachen mused, noting the tendency is to blame inflation always on someone else". The minister then went on to explain that inflation should be placed at the door of individuals, of enterprise of union economic decisions

November 21, 1980
Oral Questions
and a host of other areas, and not once, according to the Gazette portion of the report, does he mention the government might have something to do with the high rate of inflation.


Mr. Stevens:: They are the real culprits.


David Edward Crombie: Given the minister's own budget, particularly what is stated within at page 33, and the effect of that budget on low and moderate income people, at a time when the minister himself is saying that we will have to get used to lower standards of income, will the minister please review those aspects of his budget which will fall most heavily on lower and moderate income people in this country, particularly in light of the forecasts with respect to lower economic activity, lower wages and lower standards of living?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that no mention is made of the government's role in combating inflation.


David Edward Crombie: Causing it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree with him that the government does have an important role to play, and I have in the course of the budget and the policies flowing therefrom undertaken to follow certain policies which I hope will have a direct impact on the inflationary situation, not only in the field of fiscal and monetary policy, but also in the very important area of having taken steps to improve the productivity of the Canadian economy.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will understand when 1 say most Canadians believe that, as soon as the minister and his government are willing to accept responsibility for inflation, the first step will have been taken to solve part of the problem.

Let me ask a final question which relates to the minister's budget and the effect of his statement yesterday. In his budget the minister indicated he was interested in achieving significant savings in the social policy field. Indeed, his budget indicates that social policy spending will receive less and less of the government's expenditures over the next three years. 1 ask the minister to give this House an undertaking that in the government's dealings with the provinces the minister will resist any suggestion that the federal government diminish its contribution and support for the Canada Assistance Plan, which carries most of our social services in this country, and for medicare. Will the minister resist the federal government's diminishing its contribution to those two programs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 have indicated in the budget and subsequently that we intended to negotiate the question of fiscal transfers to the provinces as agreements expire, and that it would be an objective of those negotiations to attempt to secure savings in that area, as in other areas of government expenditure. We have not prejudged the question,
but it will be the objective to secure savings in the general field of transfers.
The hon. member has referred specifically to the Canada Assistance Plan and to the medicare act. I assure him, as the minister in a former responsibility who piloted both these measures through the House of Commons, that I will be very respectful in any negotiation of the important role these programs play in the social security system of Canada.


EFFECTS OF INFLATION ON WORKERS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Labour who does not appear to be in the House. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary can answer the question.
Does the Department of Labour agree with this new policy of the Minister of Finance that Canadian workers should be required to bear the brunt of the anti-inflation fight by requiring them to accept lower real wages? If so, could the Minister of Labour explain to this House why that draconian measure should be borne by the workers of this country and almost exclusively, in the minister's view, by them?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I have been requested by the Minister of Labour to answer questions on his behalf. If I could anticipate the answer of the Minister of Labour, first, he would indicate that he is in support of the policies of the Minister of Finance. Second, he is as concerned as the Minister of Finance and the rest of the government with respect to inflation and how the first people it hurts are the workers of Canada. It is in their vested interests, and it should be in the hon. member's for the entire Parliament to ensure that inflation is kept under control so that those who suffer the most, namely, the workers of Canada, no longer suffer.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister knows from his current and previous experiences that real wages for workers in this country have fallen since 1977, with one exception-the nine-month period when another government was in power, during which time real wages rose.
My supplementary question is this: Can the minister explain to this House why the government is returning to the policy of requiring workers to accept lower wages in order to pay for the failure of Liberal economic policy? Does that express what the Prime Minister said on the night of February 18, namely, "Welcome to the 1980s"?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the only way workers can share adequately in the wealth of this country is by keeping inflation under control. History shows unmistakably that when inflation is out of control it is the labour movement and the membership of the labour movement which suffer the most.
I would hate to tell the hon. member what some of the heads of the labour movement in the country at large have told me about what they thought of some of the fiscal measures of the
November 21, 1980

previous government. It is not very laudatory, I can assure the hon. member.


U125) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OWNERSHIP OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware that in recent years a letter was sent by the Exxon Corporation to Imperial Oil of Canada pointing out that, whatever patentable research material was developed in Canada by Imperial Oil, whether in the tar sands or any other area of research, and regardless whether the Canadian taxpayer financed it or not, the final ownership of that patentable material would not reside with Imperial Oil of Canada but with the Exxon Corporation in the United States?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of that particular letter. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party has it, I would appreciate receiving a copy, which I will examine.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my information is that the government has been made aware of this. In fact, the Prime Minister was made aware of it some time ago. Since it is the case that millions of dollars came from Canadian taxpayers under the old IRDIA program and went directly to Imperial Oil for work in Canada to develop new technology, and since this technology does not belong to Imperial Oil of Canada but to Exxon Corporation in the United States, an incredible situation, will the minister advise what is now the government's response to that situation? What does the government intend to do to ensure the most elementary justice to the Canadian taxpayer in this important matter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has not indicated that he has a copy of such a letter. I said that I am not aware of such a policy or letter, but that I would inquire. It is unfair for the hon. member to ask me to comment on a hypothetical situation when he does not appear to be in the position to provide proof of the existence of the letter at this time. I repeat, I will inquire. I will certainly examine this matter and be happy to comment further once we have the facts.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in a matter of minutes I will be able to provide the minister with a copy of precisely that letter. With that in mind, and assuming that the letter is exactly as I have described it, will the minister assure the House that the Government of Canada will take immediate steps to have this relationship changed? It means that millions of dollars were put up by ordinary citizens from coast to coast for Imperial Oil to produce significant technology here in Canada which does not even belong to the people of Canada
Oral Questions
but to the Exxon Corporation in the United States. Can the minister assure the House that the government will take immediate steps to put an end to this totally unacceptable situation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly read with great interest the letter to which the hon. member has referred and examine the situation. When the government has an announcement to make, I will let the hon. member know.


NEWFOUNDLAND HYDROELECTRICITY EXPORTS-CORRIDOR THROUGH QUEBEC-ALLEGED DOUBLE STANDARD
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today in the Newfoundland legislature the government of Newfoundland announced it was taking away the water rights of the Churchill Falls Power Corporation. They did that out of a sense of complete exasperation and frustration over their inability to reach an agreement with Quebec. The minister knows the consequences of that.
I therefore ask this question. A few days ago the Economic Council of Canada released the results of a special study it conducted on the Newfoundland economy. One of their findings was that the Newfoundland economy was losing annually $600 million a year to Quebec in shortfall as a result of that iniquitous power contract. In light of the findings of the Economic Council of Canada and the importance it places on the development of hydro, and in view of the move in St. John's today by the Newfoundland government, I ask the minister quite earnestly if he will now exercise the constitutional authority he has under section 92(10) and grant the request of the government of Newfoundland to provide a corridor through Quebec so that Newfoundland can develop its power and sell it on the open market?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to a study which has been published. He knows that this study has already been challenged in various quarters as to a certain number of its assumptions. I am in no position to pass honest judgment on that particular study, and I will let the matter stand where it is now.
As to the legislation introduced today in the Newfoundland legislature, I understand that the premier has indicated that he wants this legislation passed and referred to the courts to have the matter investigated by the courts in order to determine whether the Newfoundland legislature has authority to pass this legislation.
As to the specific point raised by the hon. member about a corridor, the Prime Minister indicated at the last federal-provincial conference of first ministers that in his view the federal government had such a right, that the federal government was

November 21, 1980
Oral Questions
prepared to exercise the rights necessary but that obviously the best solution was still a negotiated settlement.
Moreover, I remind the hon. member that any such decision by itself would have no impact on the existing contract with Churchill Falls, which obviously is a different situation where there is a contract between Hydro-Quebec and the Churchill Falls Corporation. Even if we were to agree completely with the question raised by the hon. member, it would not change the other contract, which is the point at issue at the present time. However, at the last premiers' conference the Prime Minister indicated quite clearly the point of view of the federal government in this respect.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that there is a direct linkage, particularly in light of the action announced today by the Newfoundland government. I believe the minister will find that there is a much greater disposition now on the part of the government of Quebec to sit down and discuss this matter rationally with the Government of Canada.
About two months ago the Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada telling the Prime Minister that he had a letter of intent from the power authority of the state of New York to buy power from the undeveloped Lower Churchill. That seems to fulfil the requirement which the Prime Minister laid down. To the best of my knowledge that letter has not been answered.
Will the minister now tell the House and the country that he is prepared to exercise the constitutional authority he has under the BN A Act, section 92(10), give Newfoundland what is its just requirement under the constitution and announce that a corridor through Quebec will be provided? The least he could tell us today is that he is prepared to take this matter up on an urgent basis with the government of Quebec.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 refer the hon. member to the very clear statement made by the Prime Minister during the constitutional conference on this very subject. The statement by the Prime Minister was unequivocal and quite clear.
As to the question of dealing with the government of Quebec and the government of Newfoundland, I can tell the hon. member that I have had discussions with the minister of energy of Newfoundland and indicated that we would stand ready to sit down with the government of Newfoundland and the government of Quebec to try to iron out these particular issues which are outstanding. Until now I have not been able to get a positive answer from the government of Newfoundland that it is willing to participate in such discussions. 1 indicated that if the government of Quebec and the government of Newfoundland were willing to have the federal government sit down with them and try to work out in an amicable way a resolution of these very difficult questions, we would stand ready to help and try to work things out. I must say that I have not been able to get a positive response as yet from the government of Newfoundland to this particular offer.
1 have made the same offer to the government of Quebec, that we are standing ready to help if the government of Quebec felt
we could contribute anything in terms of resolving this difficult situation in an amicable way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, this is a very important matter, and 1 am sure you appreciate that. Can the minister tell the House and the people of Newfoundland why he is applying a double standard in enforcing the constitution? He imposes no such conditions on the building of pipelines to carry gas from western Canada to Quebec as those he is imposing on the building of a corridor through Quebec for the transmission and sale of Newfoundland hydro power. Why the double standard? That is what the people of Newfoundland and members of this House would like to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I suggest the type of false rhetoric such as that used by the hon. member does not help resolve this kind of issue. We have never indicated that we were applying a double standard or that we were refusing to exercise our constitutional jurisdiction. We have indicated that we are going to apply the same standard and exactly the same regime, but the fact is that in this particular instance it would be much better and easier for all concerned, including the government of Newfoundland, if this question could be resolved in a negotiated way rather than by using rhetoric and the kind of abusive language the hon. member is using.
I submit to the hon. member that there are better ways of doing things. In the case of electricity, for instance, there might be the economic necessity and it might be much more advisable to wheel power through the Quebec hydro system. In the case of pipelines we do not have to go through provincial pipelines to carry oil or gas. In the case of electricity it becomes economically much more advisable and feasible to use the existing systems.
However, we have indicated that we stand ready to exercise our constitutional power, and I want to make it quite clear that there are no double standards for this government. There are not two constitutions in this country; there is one constitution, and we will apply it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last night in Edmonton more than 2,500 people filled the Jubilee Auditorium, which is in my constituency, for a western separatist rally. The audience was protesting federal government policies on the constitution and on energy, which are alienating Alberta.
Will the government now demonstrate its sensitivity to this serious question of separatism by conducting a special review
November 21, 1980

of its constitution and energy policies, so that those Albertans who want very much to remain part of Canada will be assured that the government will respond to the legitimate concerns of Albertans?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in reply to that question let me tell the hon. member that prior to the presentation of the budget I certainly made a serious effort to respond to what I determined to be a deep sensitivity about the intention of the government to impose exclusively an export tax on natural gas.


Mr. Siddon:: Here we go again with the same old excuse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may not be widely understood or even known in Alberta that that particular intention was abandoned in order to respond to the concerns which had been expressed, not only by the Premier of Alberta but also by other spokesmen in the province. So there has been some attempt to respond.
Second, may 1 say to the hon. member that in response to the statement made subsequent to the budget by the Premier of Alberta regarding his readiness to undertake further talks with the Government of Canada, we indicated our readiness to engage in those talks in an effort to reconcile our differences and to reach some agreement with the province of Alberta. It seems to me that if we could make progress on that front, it would be the most positive step that could be taken in response to the hon. member's real concerns.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows well that conclusion of a comprehensive energy package is necessary to respond to the concerns of Albertans. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will reconsider his position and put more effort into the reconciling of the two positions, so that this flame of separatism can be stamped out quickly before it becomes a prairie fire. I ask him if he will accept the testimony of anger which I am conveying to him today with the deepest sincerity. Will the government assume its fundamental responsibility to promote true national unity by taking, as the first step, the decision to extend the constitutional committee's deadline, so that the voice of the west can be fully communicated to the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, on that particular point, namely the deadline of the committee which was discussed yesterday, I understand that negotiations commenced yesterday between the House leader of the government and the representatives of the other parties with a view to reaching some conclusion. As I stated yesterday and as the government House leader has stated, we are prepared to take a flexible approach in an effort to give a reasonable opportunity for all groups in the country, including those from the west, to
Oral Questions
express their views on this important matter. I hope that as a result of these negotiations a common and satisfactory conclusion can be reached.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has been reported in Winnipeg that the permit for the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass will be issued within a week. This overpass, if built, will cut to ribbons the inner city of Winnipeg. Not surprisingly, the decision by the federal government to finance the construction of the overpass is now being challenged in the federal courts. It is being challenged on the basis that the CTC approved the grants six days before the city applied for the money and failed to give the application adequate consideration. Will the minister at least assure this House that the permit for construction will not be issued until the federal court has rendered its decision?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am trying to find out now what is the effect of the appeal to the federal court on the decision of the CTC. I hope to get an answer on that this afternoon.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same minister. I welcome the fact that he is looking at the impact of that court challenge of that decision, but I would also like to make a further appeal to him to respond to the long-standing call from citizens in Winnipeg for public hearings on this matter, or at least to respond to the latest call for written questions if he is not willing to grant public hearings, so that the decision can be dealt with adequately and legally.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I said that I would look into the legal effects of the appeal, but the discussion of the overpass in Winnipeg has been extensive and the proper authorities have made the decision to do what they will do now. The fact that somebody opposes it, however important it may be, should not be a reason not to go ahead with the decision which has been made by the proper authorities.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. When the minister states in the House that his department has obtained alarming reports on acid rain in Canada he confirms that

November 21, 1980
Oral Questions
aquatic life has disappeared from 140 lakes in Ontario and that salmon rivers have been destroyed in the maritimes. Elowever, the Minister does not mention conditions in Quebec. In the October number of the magazine Actualite, we learn that the Montreal area gets more acid rain than all of eastern Canada, which is also responsible for a reduction of salmon spawning in the rivers of the Gaspe Peninsula. That being said, I ask the the minister whether he expects to meet soon with his Quebec counterpart in order to make him fully aware of that serious problem and to see to it that Canada will show the political will to face the worst environmental disaster of the century.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that conditions are worse in Montreal than in many other places in North America. It is surely a serious problem, but we are trying to obtain more data on its impact in Montreal. I have already met with my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Leger, and we have discussed among other things the problem of acid rain. We have already set up a structure of co-operation among the provinces under the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, including Quebec which is fully taking part in this undertaking. Indeed, the Quebec government is chairing one of the study groups in that structure set up by the council.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing. The Canadian Council on Social Development has forecast that the energy price increase announced in the budget, higher inflation and the forecast of higher unemployment will all have a major effect on the cost of living of Canadians. Mortgage interest rates are expected to rise as a result of the increase in the bank rate. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has given any consideration to granting a shelter allowance to assist Canadian families, so that they will not have to pay more than one-third of their income for shelter?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the budget itself contains a measure which reflects the concern of the government for people on lower and moderate incomes who are looking for shelter, particularly in the rental area. That is why, for example, the MURB provision was introduced to help loosen up that particular market.
As regards a shelter allowance, this is a proposal which has been promoted, for example, by Mr. Matthews in his advice in a report to which I referred last week produced for the previous government. It is a proposal that the corporation has considered and one that I am considering in depth. It is one of the proposals to which I referred when I said that, in considering the government's priorities, we thought that that might have a higher priority than the community services program which we declined to continue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, perhaps we are on the right track. Would the minister not agree that a shelter allowance which is geared to income would cost the government less money than the current welter of housing programs, such as public housing, non-profit housing, co-ops, AHOP disasters and MURBs. MURBs really do not do anything to put people in homes. It is nothing more than a tax shelter. Would the minister not agree?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the last comment of the hon. member. In fact, the program is designed to put approximately 10,000 families into housing accommodation which they would not otherwise have, had this government not taken that action in the present budget. So it is designed to put families specifically into accommodation. It is designed, through the filter process, to assist other families to take up accommodation which would be made free.
In response to the first part of the question, let me say that you cannot simply proceed to grant a shelter allowance and do away with all the other programs, the specific targeted programs. I think that almost universally people in the social service area, the experts, will say that it has to be a program which complements existing programs.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: My question is for the
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Madam Speaker. The country knows well the difficulties that the nuclear reactor industry is having because of poor sales, and it is our understanding that the government is now negotiating with Roumania for the purchase of a second nuclear reactor. Can the minister tell the House, first, what stage these negotiations have reached; second, whether it is true that the negotiations are going forward on the basis of the Roumanians being able to build and develop 14 more reactors, which would mean very short-term benefit for Canada if we just sold them one more; and finally, what measures the government is taking, now that the president of AECL is charged with conspiracy, to help maintain the credibility of AECL and its international reputation.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the contacts with Roumania are concerned, these contacts have been carried on extensively during the past few months. My parliamentary secretary was in Roumania with a delegation of senior officials to advance those negotiations. The total program in Roumania is indeed a large one. It involves several reactors, but obviously


NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING REACTOR SALE TO ROUMANIA- CREDIBILITY OF AECL
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1980
[Stage Direction]
these reactors will be built over a period of years. At present we are advancing our negotiations concerning the second reactor, and I hope in the next few months we will be able to reach an agreement with Roumania which will be satisfactory to both countries.
As far as the last question raised by the hon. member, I must say that I heard some comment from a Tory member on the other side-not from the hon. member, I should say- which 1 hope will not be recorded in Hansard. There is an elementary rule of criminal law in this country, and that is that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty.
Second, as far as the particular charge is concerned, as hon. members know, it has nothing to do with the administration of AECL. It concerns the administration of a particular firm with which the current president of AECL was associated in the past. I have discussed this issue with the president of AECL and the board has considered this matter. It has been decided that we would apply the fundamental rules of justice, and I would hope that members of the Conservative party will have as much respect as the hon. member has had for this subject.
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It was a member of the NDP.


Mr. Clark:: Name him, name him.


EFFECT OF REACTOR SALE ON CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. I appreciate that the matter is before the courts and I do not wish to judge the president of AECL. My concern is for the reputation of AECL which may suffer even in the absence of any charges.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the same Roumanian reactor negotiations. I wonder if the minister is aware that, because of a lack of foreign exchange in Roumania, some of the negotiations are going forward with contra-trade agreements or negotiations and these agreements might significantly affect our own industrial activity in areas such as textiles, agricultural machinery and even wine, where the industries are already in trouble and where we may be imposing an additional burden upon them by agreements with Roumania.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, there is no provision in our legal framework for state-to-state deals in these areas. Any trade between our two countries would have to take place within our present legal framework with respect to customs and similar aspects. In any event, we are certainly following this with a great deal of attention so that hopefully arrangements can be worked out to facilitate exports of Canadian nuclear technology to Roumania and commercial exchanges generally between our countries which will be in the interests of both countries, including respecting the needs and interests of Canadian
Oral Questions
industries and workers and taking those interests very much into account.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 13, 1979, if I remember correctly, the House passed a unanimous motion that the Auditor General be instructed to audit the Indian bands trust fund account. Could the minister tell us at what point that audit is right now?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the question because I am not aware at the moment just what the situation is. 1 will inform myself and let the hon. member and the House know.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his role as spokesman in the House for the Northern Pipeline Agency. How can his government justify using the Railway Act introduced in 1919 to expropriate land in southeastern British Columbia for the construction of the Foothills natural gas pipeline? How can his government justify sending riot police into the area, simply because the owners are demanding the right to negotiate fair market value for their land? Finally, how can his government justify using nineteenth century police state legislation without even attempting to negotiate in a fair manner with the land owners involved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not think I have to attempt to justify what the hon. member has indicated, because what is being done is not related to some of the more outrageous comments the hon. member has made in his statement. What is being done is in accordance with the law passed by Parliament and which is in application in this country. I understand that there are a few individuals who are not satisfied with the offer made by the particular company which is building the pipeline. These matters are being discussed under the rules provided in the law. Also I am advised that National Energy Board officials have been sent there to see whether they could help in arriving at a satisfactory settlement between the parties concerned. The government is not a party to these discussions as such, as the hon. member knows.
4944

November 21, 1980
Oral Questions
As far as we are concerned, we have succeeded in obtaining a commitment from the builders that they will settle on the basis of the rules put forward in a bill in the Senate by Senator Olson which represented a significant improvement on the old legislation. Unfortunately this bill has not yet been passed by the House, but the applicants are ready to consider themselves bound by it.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, it seems that no one in Ottawa is willing to listen to the concerns of the people in this area. My supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the government's supposed commitment to human rights, will the minister agree to withdraw these petitions from the courts so that fair negotiations can take place between the land owners and Foothills? Furthermore, will he agree, to bring in immediate changes to the Northern Pipeline Act along the lines first suggested by Senator Bud Olson in 1979 to ensure that the expropriation provisions are brought into the twentieth century and that these problems will not recur as pipeline constuction proceeds through the rest of British Columbia and into Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government is very much aware of the necessity of improving this legislation. The fact is that Senator Olson introduced in the Senate the bill to which the hon. member referred. I tried to see whether it could be put on the legislative timetable since the new session opened. It was not possible to find time, but nonetheless we have succeeded in reaching a situation whereby the private companies building the pipeline agree to be bound by the particular bill introduced by Senator Olson in the Senate. So in effect, the people concerned can benefit from the provisions of the bill which unfortunately has not yet been passed by the House.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As the minister knows, for a considerable amount of time I have called for some long-range planning at Toronto international Airport. Is the minister prepared to let the people of Brampton, Etobicoke and Mississauga know if in fact he does have some long-range planning in mind at Toronto International Airport and, if so, when it might be announced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if I remember well, since the 1975 decision not to go along with the Pickering project, Malton airport has been analysed and studied extensively. There have been a number of studies in a wider context like, the southern Ontario multimodal passenger study. There have been more specific ones, for
examples, on the third terminal or on access by foreign carriers.
To answer the question more specifically, there is a master plan which is in the process of completion now and which will be revealed next January. It will be exposed to full consultation, as these matters usually are, with the local people interested in the development of the airport.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that information and I say thank goodness, it is about time. Will the minister assure the people of the area, the local municipalities and citizens, that they will have a fair opportunity to study the plan and make proper recommendations to the minister and to the members of the ministry, and will he widely advertise the fact that they will have this opportunity to do so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the invitation is well taken. Presumably the member, as he has done previously, will want to participate in these exercises too. I understand there are a number of committees presently constituted of officials and representative members. These will be used. On every occasion I have seen in other cities where such a master plan existed, the department, particularly in recent days, has been known to extend itself to the fullest to hold consultations. For example, this happened very recently in Ottawa.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his capacity as minister responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board. It deals with an important matter reported yesterday in The Globe and Mail which arose in the riding of York-Scarbor-ough in the residential area of Malvern, where high degrees of radiation were discovered. I wonder if the minister would assure the residents of Malvern and the members of this House that his officials are working quickly and carefully to analyse this situation so as to put their minds at ease on a matter which concerns them very deeply.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am advised that the officials of the Atomic Energy Control Board have already been on the site. They are examining the situation carefully and the Atomic Energy Control Board will make public any conclusion that is reached from the surveys that are being conducted now. I understand officials of the AECB were there as early as yesterday.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have that reassurance. I wonder if the minister will table details of the cause and the cure to be made in this regard. The problem
November 21, 1980

goes back a long way, to a farm which has now been approved for residential construction. The effect on adults is bad enough but the radiation at ground level for children is eight times the normal level. I ask the minister for an early report on this matter.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board will release publicly any conclusion it reaches as soon as possible. I will be very happy to forward a formal copy of the board's report as soon as it is available.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think she is aware that more frequently the test of amniocentesis is being used to determine pre-natal birth defects in, and the sex of, the unborn child. In Canada, according to the law, abortion is permitted only for therapeutic reasons, yet statistics indicate that following the use of this test more females are being aborted than males, thus drawing the ugly inference that mothers carrying female children are needing more therapy than those carrying male children. 1 wonder if the minister would use her good offices and speak to her colleague, the Minister of Justice, about amending the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion, so that we can stop this attack on women and use abortion only where the physical health of the mother is at stake.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, regarding the misuse of the several brands of pre-natal screening kits, I informed the House earlier this week that I have written to my provincial counterparts, enclosing information from my department. Instead of discussing the Criminal Code I asked the provincial ministers who are responsible for health services in each of the provinces to establish specific, detailed minimum requirements in the handling of and the procedures by which these kits could be used. These kits can never be used alone; other diagnostic procedures should also be used by the doctor in every single case. Other rules are being spelled out and they have been sent to the provincial ministers. I hope this route will be sufficient to control the misuse of these screening kits and to control the diagnostic mistakes which arise.


Benno Friesen: 1 would first ask the minister if she would table that correspondence in the House. Second, I think she is aware that the test is apparently not accurate and that many times, even though the test has proved to be positive, if an abortion was not performed the children have turned out to be normal.
I ask the minister to address herself to the substantive part of my question, which is that it is being used as an attack on women by aborting more female children than male where there has been no indication of defect. Would the hon. lady address herself to that part of the question?
Business of the House
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think I am quite familiar with this line of reasoning, for the hon. member has used it before on several occasions in the House when dealing with other issues. There is no evidence or even any shadow of evidence to indicate that actions are wilfully being taken against women. Thanks to these relatively new diagnostic procedures, it is now possible to identify in the unborn serious deficiencies which may result in the children being affected with birth defects of the brain or spine and having to live with serious handicaps for the rest of their lives. If, within the limits of the Criminal Code and through the hospitals' therapeutic committees, physicians are called upon to make decisions, there is no indication that the use of these screening kits can be attributed to an abuse of or discrimination against women.
I suggest that this approach is all wrong. The purpose is to ensure the welfare of the mothers and their future children, and to make sure that the diagnosis is accurate and timely. That is my position. As to the suggestion that I should table in the House the letter I have sent to my provincial counterparts, I will check to see if that is the usual practice. However, there is nothing to prevent me from advising my colleagues in the House of its content.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to the consideration of the Petroleum Administration Act later today and next week. There has been consultation with respect to the length of the speeches as well as the taking of the recorded divisions, if any, and there seems to be agreement to the following order:
That during the consideration of the motions relating to the proclamation of sections 35 and 52 of the Petroleum Administration Act all members except the first speaker for each party and the leader of each party shall not speak for more than 30 minutes; and that if a recorded division is required on the first of the said motions on or before Tuesday, November 25, 1980, it shall be taken at 5.45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 26, 1980; and that if a recorded division is required on the second of the said motions it shall be taken at 9.45 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 1980.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, that is acceptable to this side. But while speaking to the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary I want to give the Chair notice of a point of order, or a question of privilege, which arises out of the manner in which the two notices have been treated.
I raised related questions before in the House with respect to changes being made by the Journals branch which alter significantly the written record of the House. In the case of the notice filed under the auspices and perhaps even prepared, I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there have been some substantial changes made by the Journals branch to that notice. I do not intend to develop my point

November 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
today, but merely give the Chair notice that I shall be raising the matter. I shall do so when I am not taking up important time in debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, with respect to the motion proposed by the government House leader, we are in agreement with it.


Madam Speaker:: I must assume that the hon. President of the Privy Council has the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion. Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have received requests from some hon. members of the House to explain why I am wearing this button. There are three good reasons. The first reason is because of the pressure faced by my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). The second reason is because approximately 25 years ago two great Canadians, Mayor Vic Copps and Mayor Gaston Hardy, twinned the cities of Hamilton and Shawinigan. The third reason is that because I am the Minister of State for Social Development I have to be concerned for the underdog, so I am concerned about the poor, the widowed, orphans, Liberals in Alberta, and the Hamilton Tiger Cats!


MR. NIELSEN-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. LALONDE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege with respect to the very uncalled for and, if I may say so, snide remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with respect to a vague accusation that some members in the Conservative party interjected during one of his answers in the question period. The minister expressed the hope that it would not find its way into Hansard. I sit much closer than the minister to members on this side, and I heard no such interjection coming from a Conservative member.
I believe it does nothing for the spirit of this place when the minister makes comments such as he did which reflect on every individual member of the Conservative party, and which reflect on the very principle which he so loosely espoused while he was replying to the question, that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unless the minister can point to a member of the Conservative party and attribute that interjection to
that hon. member, then I think as a gentleman and a member of this House he should withdraw any reference he made to members of this party.


Madam Speaker:: This certainly is not a question of privilege. However, the point has been made.


An hon. Member:: Allow the minister to speak.


Madam Speaker:: The people who record the proceedings of this House write down everything they hear. I am sure that they are not influenced by whatever directives or instructions they may receive from both sides.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not the point.


Erik Nielsen: That is not the point. The remarks which the minister made today are on the record. I think he is rising right now to withdraw those remarks, and I would urge the Chair to allow him to do so.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says that what I heard, and what I suspect he heard, did not come from a member of the Conservative party. I am ready to take his word that perhaps it did not come from a member of the Conservative party. However, I think he will recognize that there was certainly a very uncalled for comment which came from somebody in the opposition benches.


Mr. Dinsdaie:: Smear everybody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there is no point in making the matter worse. In the first instance the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) attributed a remark to some Conservative member. Now he says that it was someone on the opposition side, which would include my party. I heard no remark. I have asked my colleagues, and they tell me that none of them made any spurious remark. I believe that the minister should either withdraw the remark or tell us what was said and who made the comment.


Madam Speaker:: I think we will all be better off when we read Hansard tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have here is a statement made by a minister of the Crown which cast direct aspersions upon every member of the opposition. The minister has narrowed his statement to say that it was not a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, although he did so in a most grudging fashion. He has allowed his accusation to stand as it relates to members of the New Democratic Party.
There is now a clear breach of the privileges of every member of the New Democratic Party, but prior to that of every member of the opposition. I believe that we should not wait for Hansard but, rather, have the matter resolved now by
November 21, 1980

having the minister stand and clearly withdraw the accusation which he has made against other members of this House.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I was sitting beside the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I can certainly affirm with absolute determination that such a comment was made.


Charles Joseph Clark: What was the comment?


John (Moody) Roberts: The comment was in reference to the president of the Atomic Energy Board.


Charles Joseph Clark: What was it, and who said it?


John (Moody) Roberts: I cannot ascertain from which member it came.


Charles Joseph Clark: What was said?


John (Moody) Roberts: The comment was to the effect that "he is a Liberal, so he is all right." That was the comment. I suggest that it is an improper comment of prejudice against the president of Atomic Energy of Canada. I cannot ascertain which member said it. Perhaps the hon. member who uttered the comment would be big enough to get up in the House and say so.


Charles Joseph Clark: No one said it. No wonder this House falls apart.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, now that we have been told what the remark is, I have checked again with my colleagues, and they tell me that no one made such a remark. It is most unfortunate that it has been said. I had the feeling that at first you thought, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was complaining because there was intimidation of Hansard not to include the remark. That is not the point, because the remark is not there. I submit that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), should withdraw the charge unreservedly.


Charles Joseph Clark: Name the member or withdraw.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I heard what was stated by the Minister of the Environment very clearly. 1 heard every word of what was said and it came from the opposition benches. I have checked further with several members on this side, all of whom have confirmed that this was the case. 1 hope the hon. member who made the comment will have the courage to stand up and say so.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the two ministers are now making this problem far worse than it was at the beginning. The Minister of Energy could have solved the problem by doing the gentlemanly thing and withdrawing his accusation, but now he and his colleague are saying that they heard a remark. I have checked with the members of my party, and there was no such remark from these benches. I heard the hon.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
member for Winnipeg North Centre say that he has checked with all his members and that no such remark came from the NDP benches.
Why does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not respect the tradition of this House and withdraw, as most gentleman who sit in this place should, because the charge made by the minister is tied to the loose use of the expression "one is presumed innocent until proven guilty", leaving the inference that we do not respect that basic, fundamental tenet of the law.
If the minister would like this matter to carry on, then he will have his way, but if he wishes to do the right thing and act like a gentleman, as hon. members usually do in this House, he should withdraw his remarks without any reservation whatsoever. Such an act on the part of the minister might do something to restore some sense of co-operation and an atmosphere wherein the government's business may move along in a little more tenable way.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to lie to this House. I will not lie to this House. What I heard has been confirmed by several members on this side, and whatever the hon. member may say I would remind him that several members have left the House since question period ended.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is not acceptable.


Madam Speaker:: We are into a situation where members are commenting on a remark which I did not hear. From where 1 sit I am not surprised though that I could not hear it. Some say that something was said, and others say that it was not.


An hon. Member:: It is a figment of his imagination.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was not said.


Madam Speaker:: If I gather what the discussion is about, not having heard the first remark, members are objecting to the minister's remarks. Perhaps I could look at the minister's remarks in Hansard to determine whether the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is founded.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I simply want to clarify what my understanding is of what you were suggesting.


Yvon Pinard: It is clear. Why do you interfere with the business of the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: The government House leader is speaking from his seat supporting the actions of his two ministers whose statements have served, once again, to make it difficult for this House to co-operate and make progress. The clarification I sought, since you are holding the question open, was that there would be an opportunity, I presume on Monday, for other representations to be made. These concern the damage which

November 21, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie we believe has been done to the practices of Parliament by the stubborn refusal of the two ministers to accept the word of members on this side of the House, and to withdraw comments which amount to a blanket slander of members sitting in the opposition in Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot ascertain at this point that I will entertain further discussion on the matter. I might. I said that I would look at the remarks of the hon. minister and determine whether there is a question of privilege as raised by the hon. member for Yukon.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises out of an answer given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) today. It concerns the Canadian Transport Commission issuing a permit to the city of Winnipeg to build the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. 1 was informed this week that a permit would be issued, that it had been cleared through the Department of Justice. As I understood the minister's answer today, he said that he was going to check to see whether it was all right for the CTC to issue the permit to the city of Winnipeg.
I do not believe the minister has the authority to overrule the Canadian Transport Commission on a decision to issue a permit. 1 believe that this matter should be cleared up in the House. Did the minister mean that he was going to take this matter up with the cabinet and have the cabinet overrule the Canadian Transport Commission? Is the minister going to interfere directly with the Canadian Transport Commission to have this permit stopped? The minister does not have the authority, and I believe he should clear up this point.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have a great number of things to worry about, and that is one of many. I have an indication here that the situation is as I described it, namely, that I have to assess the effect of the court action on the decision of the CTC to allow for the construction of the overpass. If my hon. friend is ahead of me on that particular matter, I will gladly have a conversation with him immediately, but that is the information I have. I was going to spend some time this afternoon checking to see to what extent one event influences the other. I will do my best to do that because I know how urgent is the implementation of the decision.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. If the minister and the cabinet are going to decide that they will stop the issuance of the permit, will the minister give a commitment to the House that the city of Winnipeg will be reimbursed for $2.5 million, because you are directly responsible for the delaying-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is going beyond his point of order in this second intervention. I am sorry, but I must interrupt him.


THE LATE P. B. RYNARD TRIBUTES TO FORMER MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise to advise this House that Dr. P. B. Rynard, member of Parliament for Simcoe North for 22 years, passed away last evening. Doctor Rynard was a great humanitarian. He was a kind and thoughtful physician. He was a well-loved representative of his constituents and a respected member of this House. He set an example for every Canadian to follow, especially those from rural and semi-rural constituencies.
We are all saddened by his death, but we acknowledge with thanks that he left Canada and Canadians better as a result of his contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to express my own sorrow at the knowledge which the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has conveyed to us about the death of a former colleague in the House of Commons.
Like many other members, I knew Dr. Rynard personally. I had extremely good personal relations with him. I benefited from his administrations from time to time, and I had the highest regard for him. He was a strong advocate of his own positions in the House of Commons. He participated actively in the question period, and at the same time he maintained a courteous attitude toward all members of the House, which I think all of us could emulate from time to time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as another member who knew and worked with Dr. Rynard for many years, I join with the rest of the members of the House in paying my warmest respects to his memory.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as one who served in the House with Dr. Rynard, I want to mention my own regret at his passing. He was, as has been indicated, not only a lively advocate of strong views in the medical field, but he was a medical adviser to many of us from time to time. Like other members, I benefited from his presence in the House and, like others, I will miss him very much.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Spaker, I have the privilege to lead the party which Dr. Rynard served so effectively and consistently, not only on the floor of the House of Commons but across the country. He brought the skills and the care of an excellent general practi-
November 21, 1980

tioner to the general practice of politics, and his contribution to the House and to the country will be honoured. He will be missed by all who knew him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my words of sorrow at the passing of Dr. Rynard. As hon. members know, I had an opportunity for some time to represent the riding of York-Simcoe, which included the southern part of Simcoe county, and Dr. Rynard, of course, represented the northern part of Simcoe county. 1 want to tell all members of the House that during that period Dr. Rynard was a great help to me. He was, if you like, my mentor in the House, being the representative from the adjoining riding. We are deeply sorry to hear of his death last evening.
Order Paper Questions


MR. HUDECKI-PREDICTION OF HAMILTON VICTORY IN GREY CUP FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to respond to the motion made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). I want to assure him that the ornaments we are wearing are not to indicate sorrow or sympathy, but in anticipation of the victory that will take place when we have the non-governmental confrontation between the east and west on Sunday afternoon. I wish to indicate to him that Hamilton, the champions of the eastern conference of the Canadian Football League, will uphold the fine tradition of eastern and central Canada and play with dedication, fairness, and true sportsmanship typical of that area, but with the ferocity of a tiger they will win.


POINTS OF ORDER
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I distinctly heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) say that he perhaps represented the city of Edmonton, or some part of it. I want to straighten the record and suggest that the Minister of Justice does not represent the city of Edmonton in any way.
However, I want to indicate that when I put my motion earlier this morning, I did not hear any negative replies. Nevertheless, 1 can understand the sentiments under which the motion was not accepted unanimously. I would also like to suggest that since putting the motion I noted that a number of hon. members were wearing wreaths of sympathy or mourning for the "kittens" from Hamilton. Therefore, I recognize that even though the motion was not passed, indeed the sentiments were there.



MR. STEVENS-INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO PETRO-CANADA- TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Clarke.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises from an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with respect to a certain instruction given to Petro-Canada under Section 7(2) of the Petro-Canada Act of Canada. The minister indicated that such an instruction was given and it was confirmed by order in council, either before or after the actual instruction. Will the minister indicate whether he will be tabling the order in council and, if so, when, so that we can see the exact nature of this instruction to Petro-Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table copies, in both official languages, of a review of the taxation of capital gains in Canada.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]

["I do not think the Chair is expected to comment further on the matter of personal privilege that was raised. I might add that my recollection of Beauchesne is that members ought to use notes rather than read speeches. Some of us have difficulty doing that. However, in keeping with the good wishes expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have a good weekend, I would state that the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.\nAt 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, November 24, 1980']
Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be happy to table the order in council as soon as I can get a copy of it. If I can get it later today, I will ask the permission of the House to table it. If not, I will table it on Monday.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 473 (amended), 476 (amended), 662, 861, 862 and 1,353.

November 21, 1980
Order Paper Questions



[Stage Direction]
Question No. 473 amended-Mr. Orlikow:
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what amount was spent in adult training programs for (i) native people (ii) the rest of the population in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Comprehensive statistics, which would provide information on the amounts spent on adult training programs for all native people, including status Indians, non-status Indians, Metis and Inuit were not compiled before April 1, 1979; however, information on the amounts spent for training courses purchased for status Indians on reserves is available. As British Columbia and Yukon data are not available separately, the combined estimated amount spent, for each year specified, is as follows:
(i) Status Indians on Reserves
(ii) Rest of Population
(a) 1976/77	Institutional	(CMTP)	$1,854,071	$44,717,277Industrial	(CMTP)	255,000	8,660,402(b) 1977/78	Institutional	(CMTP)	1,895,043	46,163,700Industrial	(CMTP)	300,000	10,428,949(c) 1978/79	Institutional	(CMTP)*	1,414.293	41,262,772Industrial	(CMTP)	67,819	11,425,097
The payment of UI benefits, rather than training allowances, to eligible trainees began in the 1978/79 fiscal year. Because of this, and the fact that UI payments to native trainees cannot be specifically identified, comparison with previous years is not accurate.
Note: See 476 (amended)


ADULT TRAINING PROGRAMS-YUKON TERRITORY-NATIVE PEOPLE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 476 amended-Mr. Orlikow:
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what amount was spent on adult training programs for (i) native people (ii) the rest of the population in the Yukon Territory?
Lloyd Axworthy: Comprehensive statistics, which would provide information on the amounts spent on adult training programs for all native people, including status Indians, non-status Indians, Metis and Inuit were not compiled before April 1, 1979; however, information on the amounts spent for training courses purchased for status Indians on reserves is available. As British Columbia and Yukon data are not available separately, the combined estimated amount spent, for each year specified, is as follows:
(a) 1976/77 Institutional Industrial
(i) status Indians on Reserves
(ii) Rest of Population
(CMTP)	$1,854,071	$44,717,277(CMPT)	255,000	8,660,402(b) 1977/78 Institutional	(CMTP)Industrial	(CMTP)1,895,043	46,163,700300,000	10,428,949(c) 1978/79 Institutional	(CMTP)*Industrial	(CMTP)1,414,293	41,262,77267,819	11,425,097
The payment of UI benefits, rather than training allowances, to eligible trainees began in the 1978/79 fiscal year. Because of this, and the fact that UI payments to native trainees cannot be specifically identified, comparison with previous years is not accurate.
Note: See 473 (amended)


U.I.C.-CONSTITUENCY OF YORK-SUNBURY
Mr. Howie: As of April 1, 1980, how many persons in the constituency of York-Sunbury were receiving unemployment insurance?


Lloyd Axworthy: The number of persons in the constituency of York-Sunbury collecting regular and fishing unemployment insurance benefits only as of April 1, 1980, was 2,741; this does not include claimants receiving special benefits such as maternity, sickness, retirement and training under the Adult Occupational Training Act. To obtain statistics covering all such claimants would require the rewriting of computer programs at considerable time and expense.


CANADIAN SALTFISH CORPORATION
Mr. Gass: Did the Canadian Saltfish Corporation enter into an agreement with Canadian fish processors for the marketing of frozen groundfish and/or frozen pellagic fish and frozen squid and, if so, with which companies and under what authority?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: At the request of the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation has, over the years, marketed frozen salmon, frozen char, cured herring and cured mackerel. This was done as a temporary measure to improve the returns to fishermen, until permanent arrangements were established to market these products. Recently, at the request of three processors, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation entered into agreements to market their frozen groundfish, frozen pelagic and frozen squid products. The companies involved are: Bay Bulls Sea Products Ltd., Bay Bulls, Newfoundland, Woodman's Fisheries Ltd., New Harbour, Newfoundland, and Tors Cove Fisheries Ltd., Tors Cove, Newfoundland. These are interim measures, which will be discontinued when these companies are able to market their own products or have made other long-term marketing arrangements.
November 21, 1980

Petroleum Administration Act
SALMON FISHERMEN-ATLANTIC PROVINCES	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Gass: 1.	Will compensation be paid to salmon fishermen in the Atlantic provinces during the current fiscal year and, if so (a) what are the names of the fishermen (b) what will be the amounts, in each case?
2.	Will compensation payments be made beyond the current fiscal year?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Yes.
(a) and (b) This information is considered to be confidential and its release would be contrary to the individual's right of privacy. The breakdown by province is:
New Brunswick	-	$1,000,203.10Newfoundland	-	272,480.00Quebec	-	231,492.00
2. There are no plans to pay compensation beyond the current fiscal year. However, a limited compensation program may be considered for individuals suffering continued economic hardship in areas where it is not possible to open the commercial fishery.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The notice that was just read is not the notice that was filed. It has been altered, I understand, in the Journals branch. That is going to be the subject of a point of order I wish to develop further when I am not taking up the time of the debate. I maintain that the motion as just read by the Chair is not properly before the House because it has been altered by Journals. I do not know whether it was done with the knowledge of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Probably not. It has happened in the past where Journals have changed the written record of the House. In this case they have changed the wording of a notice that had been filed. This is not the notice that was filed.


CANADA EMPLOYMENT CENTRES-APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Halliday: Since the introduction of the apprenticeship program sponsored by the Canada Employment Centres, how many employers have signed up with the program, only to let the employees go within 6 to 12 months of taking them on as employees?


Lloyd Axworthy: Under the Adult Occupational Training Act, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission/Depart-ment may reimburse provinces for certain training costs (classroom instruction only) and, in some instances, provide income support to apprentices. However, apprenticeship programs come under provincial jurisdiction; for this reason, tripartite contracts are signed by provincial directors of apprenticeship, employers and apprentices. As the responsibility for regulating all aspects of apprenticeship programs and for monitoring apprentices' employment records lies with individual provinces, this information is not available from commission's files.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), Madam Speaker, may I point out that the motion as it now appears on the order paper is the only motion permitted by the statute under which this debate is taking place. I do not have the statute in front of me at the present time, but I have checked it on several occasions. The statute provides that when a certain type of proclamation is made, ten members may pray that the order be revoked. That is all that can be put down. The hon. member made an allusion to something being done with my knowledge. He is wrong.


Erik Nielsen: I did not say that. I said perhaps.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member does not have to worry about what he said. The fact is the Table officers did discuss the matter with me and pointed out what it says in the statute. I agreed. I had made it clear to my colleagues in caucus that the only motion we could put down was that the order be revoked. I submit, therefore, that the motion before the House is the proper one provided by the statute under which this debate is taking place.


Erik Nielsen: I do not intend to pursue this, Madam Speaker, because I do not want to intrude into the debate. However, that is not the point. The point is that the notice filed by the New Democratic Party member is not the same as the notice that was read by the Chair. I do not quarrel with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre saying that the form in which it is now is the only way it can be done. I agree with that, but that is not the way the notice was filed. The wording has been altered. That is the point I take issue with.
4952

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act


Madam Speaker:: I take it from the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that if there has been an alteration in the motion, it was so that it would conform with the provisions of the act. This is the kind of advice which is normally given to members when they want to bring in a motion. The Table is here to assist members to do what they want in the manner in which it should be done. In my view, and I say this with reservation, that is normal practice. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is giving me notice that he will raise a question of privilege at another time. I presume he wants the debate to proceed as previously announced. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, today we begin a very unique debate. On budget night, October 28, the Liberal government announced it intended to invoke Division II of the Petroleum Administration Act of 1978. It proclaimed two regulations, one covering oil prices and the other covering gas prices.
This Division II of the Petroleum Administration Act is a drastic piece of law because it gives the federal government the power to set oil and gas prices unilaterally without the consent of the producing provinces. Once the government triggers this part of the Petroleum Administration Act and takes this power, it must within 15 days table its proclamation in the House of Commons. This was done on November 12. At that point, any ten members may pray that the proclamation be revoked. This is what I and nine other NDP members have done. 1 happen to have faster running shoes, so my motion is being debated first.
The unusual procedure may indicate that it was hoped by Parliament when it passed the Petroleum Administration Act that Division 11 might never be invoked, because there are very few parliamentary procedures like this one. As I said, it is a fairly unique procedure. Another rare example is the legislation that covered wage and price controls.
Make no mistake about it. The invoking of this Petroleum Administration Act provision is equivalent to invoking the War Measures Act in the escalating dispute with oil and gas producing provinces, especially with the province of Alberta.
Never before, short of a wartime emergency, has such a drastic power been used. In the past we settled oil and gas pricing disputes by agreement-and 1 stress by agreement- between Ottawa and the producing provinces. Indeed the constitutionality of the Petroleum Administration Act, if it is indeed constitutional, has never been tested. It appears to be grounded in the federal power over interprovincial trade supplemented, perhaps, by the emergency powers available to the federal government in section 91 of the British North America Act.
Let me make clear at the outset the position of the New Democratic Party. In principle we are not against the existence of such emergency powers, but we say that they should only be
invoked when all else has failed, and that is not the case now. There is still room for negotiation, compromise, and agreement. There is not yet a state of war between the federal government and the producing provinces, so we think it is unwise, unnecessary and dangerous to invoke the act now. I challenge the minister who is sitting across from me to explain why it was necessary for him to act so unilaterally in this matter.
I look across the floor at this Liberal government, and I despair. It is out of touch with provincial aspirations, especially those aspirations-and I use my words carefully-of Canadians who live in western Canada. This is best illustrated by the actions of the leader of hon. members opposite in his flight from responsibility to Arabia.
I do not agree with the Alberta position and that of Premier Lougheed, but I can sympathize with the frustrations of people in the west when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not talk to his fellow Canadians in Edmonton but dances "sheik to sheik", as an hon. member said yesterday, in Saudi Arabia, as he once did in New York. The timing for that trip, in my submission, is disastrous. The symbolism is wrong. The disdain for the producing provinces of Canada is evident, outrageous, and offensive.
For his part, Premier Lougheed has invoked his own Bill 50 to cut back the supply of oil or to turn down the tap. In my view this too is an irresponsible escalation of the conflict. In Alberta they are playing with matches these days, and both the Alberta economy and the Canadian people could get burned.
I was also shocked at the support given to Premier Lough-eed's action of turning down the tap by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Conservative financial critic, and the Conservative party to my right on the night Premier Lougheed gave his statement. 1 refer to the statements made by the hon. member for St. John's West at the press conference shortly thereafter.
I will go further and say that the Leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Clark), who should know better, is aiding and abetting the new forces of separatism in western Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is rubbish.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 heard the hon. member say "rubbish". The party to my right is aiding and abetting separatism in western Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is rubbish.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member to my right is objecting. Why does he not stand up in the House and object? Why does he not go out to western Canada and say that? Why does his leader not stand up and say that he is totally against this?


Thomas Edward Siddon: He has.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If he takes this position, I ask hon. members to my right who are aiding and abetting separatism why their
November 21, 1980

leader has not stood up and repudiated certain reported remarks.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He has.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. member will give me a chance, let me ask why the former prime minister, who is the leader of the Conservative party, has not stood up and repudiated the remarks-or denied them-which are reported in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, October 25. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was reported to have said, and I quote:
I think (Western Canada) should separate if there's no other way of resolving the situation. If we are going to keep Canada together, the four western provinces ... should speak as one.
Then the hon. member advocated a western parliament. What is a western parliament?
This is the Parliament of Canada. Such remarks aid and abet the forces of separatism in western Canada, and that has never been denied. I invite the former Prime Minister to rise on a question of privilege tomorrow and deny this statement.


Mr. Kempling:: He will do it tomorrow.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let him do it tomorrow.


Marc Lalonde: Tomorrow is Saturday.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let him do it on Monday.
Lest I be accused of letting hon. members opposite off lightly, let me say that we saw earlier this year a government willing to negotiate and undertake the co-operation and restraint necessary to keep our country together. I speak about its efforts in Quebec. If the Liberals would spend half the amount of effort in negotiations with the producing provinces they spent in trying to woo Quebec, I think the situation would be different. Instead, it seems to me-I say this earnestly, and I hope I am wrong-they are pushing for a fight. There is what Richard Gwyn described in his book as the Prime Minister's white anger and his determination to put his opponent down at all costs and never give up. The Arab junket has just topped this off. The people of the west now fundamentally distrust the Prime Minister, and 1 call upon the Prime Minister either to resign for the good of the country soon or to come to western Canada and be prepared to speak to and with, and not lecture or hector, Canadians who are living in the west.
Instead of a falcon for Sheik Yamani what we need is a dove from the Prime Minister to the Canadians in western Canada. The alternative is a prolongation of this family fight, and no one wins a family fight.
This is not the way we used to do things in Canada. We Canadians have prided ourselves on our ability to compromise, to reason, and to look at the greater interests of our country. Compromise and co-operation have been the Canadian tradition. What we have been seeing in the last year is not the Canadian tradition. I feel that in invoking the Petroleum Administration Act this present government is departing not
Petroleum Administration Act
only from the Canadian tradition but also from its own traditions and policies.
The late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson developed a policy called co-operative federalism. I would like to take a moment today to talk about co-operative federalism, and to emphasize how relevant it is these days, as it was relevant to the problems of the sixties. The spirit of compromise on which it was based was very much a reflection of Mr. Pearson's own style. As a good diplomat he recognized that issues were not just black or white and that his party did not have a monopoly on wisdom. Somebody should tell the present Prime Minister that humility and tolerance of people's weaknesses can be a source of inner strength.
In this spirit, in the throne speech debate of February, 1964, then Prime Minister Pearson stressed that only through constant co-operation and consultation could the new rising demands of Quebec be resolved. I want to quote, especially for hon. members opposite, what Mr. Pearson said at that time. As reported in Hansard for February 20, 1964, at page 64 he said this:
The solution, on the essential foundation which I have mentioned, to our problems must be found in what we call co-operative federalism. That means to me that the federal government must of course always seek the approval of provincial governments, when that is necessary under our constitution, before decisions are made. That is obvious. But there must also be consultation on matters which, while within the jurisdiction of the federal government, are shared constitutionally with provincial governments, or are of such great and immediate importance to provincial governments that, for good results, provincial support and co-operation must be obtained.
Later in that speech he said, and I quote from page 65:
The issue is not, and must not, become "provincial rights" versus "Canada first". These slogans and any others which represent competing approaches to national unity are dangerous and could be destroying; and they misrepresent the actual position.
Of all the critical issues that were resolved through the spirit of co-operative federalism none was more important than the pension plan dispute of 1964. With strong opposition from Quebec and the crisis of confederation reaching a peak in those days, Pearson attempted to begin the healing process with a major speech on April 14 during the budget debate. In that speech he attempted to convince both English and French Canadians that only through compromise could conflicting goals be harmonized and the unity of the country preserved.
I should like to quote from that speech as reported in Hansard of April 14, 1964, at page 2142. It reads in part:
I refer to a problem which is very much in our minds and indeed in our hearts: the problem of Canadian unity; the problem of unity in a federation; the problem of federalism, which is basic to our growth, basic to our strength; basic to our very survival.
Politically that problem, as in every federal state, is the necessity for having a central government strong enough in jurisdiction, in resources and in resolve to discharge its responsibilities to all the people, but a central government which will not encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces or which acts so as to prejudice their ability to do their job within their jurisdiction. The reconciliation of these two things is not easy.

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
Then, at page 2145 of Hansard, he went on to say this:
-there must be co-operation for progress in order to avoid a conflict that would destroy us.-
-without this co-operation and understanding, in the face of new pressures, tensions and problems arising out of growth and change and the quiet revolutions, the nation that our forefathers founded and built, might disintegrate and disappear. We must do nothing, either by provocation or by weakness or by stubborn unawareness of the basic nature of our federalism or by words or actions based on prejudice or fear, to bring about that weakening or disappearance.
Compare these words with the Prime Minister showing up in Winnipeg-


An hon. Member:: Regina.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -showing up in Regina and telling Canadians living in western Canada that they were hysterical.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is hysterical in Winnipeg.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Finally, Mr. Pearson concluded with the following words:
It is the task of parliament, without regard to party; it is the challenge of statesmanship rising above faction, to find the solutions to our problems which are now more serious and more difficult than any we have faced in peacetime since 1867. We must find these solutions by agreement, not force them by compulsion. We cannot hope to find such agreement in our country if we cannot find a basis for it in our Parliament.
We have a lot to learn from these words. We now have a not so quiet revolution in western Canada. The west is booming economically and, strangely, while becoming wealthier, the west is becoming angry.
Pearson also once said:
We must bring about a co-operative federalism, that is to say, a federalism free from any spirit of unacceptable centralization.
Unacceptable centralization, power for the sake of power, that is what scares the west right now. A good example of this is in the budget and in the energy policy, and that is the proposed western development fund, a $4 billion fund taken from western resources to be managed by Ottawa's bureaucrats, for western Canadians. That is not co-operative federalism at all.
Members opposite should realize that the new west is proud. I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's speech in Regina. That is not co-operative federalism. Members opposite should realize that the west is not monolithic. There is not only Premier Lougheed in Alberta, there is also Grant Notley. He has been saying some things in a reasonable way. I say this to my friend, there are voices in western Canada other than the voices over here to my right of members who are apologists for the multinational oil companies.
Not all westerners are as negative as Premier Bill Bennett of British Columbia. David Barrett, the next premier of British Columbia, I hope, has advocated public ownership of the oil companies, and he carries on in what I think is the older B.C. tradition that the younger Bennett's father knew but the younger Bennett has forgotten. When Dave Barrett speaks he speaks about Canadians who live in British Columbia, but the emphasis is on Canadians first.
I did a survey in my riding, as many hon. members have done, which I sent out in my householder. I received a number of replies. It is interesting to see-and I have checked this with some of the members from Ontario-that a lot of things are very similar. The constitution is not a big issue. The bread and butter issues, such as the budget, the energy policy and so on, are the more popular issues. Here is one letter which says:
I resent being called westerners. Who are Canadians then, only Ontario? I do not mind paying more to help. I resent it all being spent in the east.
There is a feeling of partnership, a feeling of concern amongst the ordinary people, not the fascist oil company types who are heading and funding the separatist movement in Alberta right now, but among the real, ordinary people. There is a concern there that they be Canadians first. I want to stand up as a member from British Columbia, with members from the west around me, and say strongly that we are totally against any talk or movement for separatism in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: However, I want to say also that this will not stop us from standing up at every opportunity-as hon. members will learn after lunch-and defending the interests of our provinces, our regions, and of Canadians living in the west.
The invocation of the Petroleum Administration Act and the slide into a real fight with Alberta, it seems to me, is also inconsistent with the Prime Minister's own writings. The Prime Minister wrote in his better days, in 1964, the following words. He wrote this in a tract called "Federalism, Nationalism, Reason", 1964, in "Future of Canadian Federalism":
Federalism is by its very essence a compromise and a pact. It is a compromise in a sense that when national consensus on all things is not desirable or cannot readily obtain, the area of consensus is reduced in order that consensus on some things be reached. It is a pact or quasi-treaty, in the sense of the terms of that compromise cannot be changed unilaterally. That is not to say that the terms are fixed forever; but only that in changing them, every effort must be made not to destroy the consensus on which the federated nation rests.
Those words were echoed in the "Canadian Forum" in 1964 by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Therefore, the principles are there. We must return, in my view, to the spirit of co-operative federalism in this country, and that means three things. First, it means that officials from Ottawa and Alberta must meet. Not only must they meet, Mr. Speaker-and I say this to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-but they must meet, in professor Donald Smiley's words of Queen's University-


Charles Joseph Clark: York University.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -when he talks about co-operative federalism being a high degree of pragmatism, knowing that there cannot be any assumptions by federal officials that decisions by the central government are somehow inherently better or more legitimate than those of the provinces. I feel that the officials in the minister's department and officials in Alberta should, for the good of Canada, be more objective and work in the way described by professor Smiley.
November 21, 1980

Second, the Prime Minister must turn his JetStar around and park it on the tarmac of Edmonton airport, Regina airport or Vancouver airport, preferably on all three, and he must stay there until he has an understanding with the western governments. He must come back from Arabia.
Third, the Leader of the Opposition must rise above expedience and stop fanning the fires of separatism. He must make a strong statement in the House against it.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my speech on the revocation of the Petroleum Administration Act proclamation. I have talked about Canadian co-operative federalism, and now I want to turn to a matter which happened the other day in the House. I asked the Prime Minister a question on the day after the announcement by Premier Lougheed of his intention to cut back oil supplies. As some members might have noticed, sometimes when a question is too difficult for the Prime Minister, or when he does not want to answer, he responds with another question in kind. He responded by asking me a question on my party's stand on revenue-sharing. In other words, how would we split the pie, what would we do? I should like to take some time now to answer that question and, in so doing, deal with the government energy policy. I have described the minister as being like a boxer-kind of a fake to the left and still a few jabs from the right.
The Liberal policy is to raise oil prices and basically to give the industry the windfall profits. Canadianization is simply a clever ruse. Like many people, I think I have figured out, after going through the extensive document called "The National Energy Program," exactly how it works. The events of the last couple of days have confirmed my suspicions.
Large companies such as Imperial or Shell will issue more shares to Canadian investors so that they become "a Canadian company", thus eligible for those lovely and ample government handouts sprinkled throughout "The National Energy Program". Some of the Canadian companies that are now threatening to go on strike should read the program very carefully; they will find lots of handouts. Those large companies which will now have Canadian shareholders will still be controlled by foreign multinational oil companies. The government will be able to come to the House and say, "We have reached our goal-50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990". The Toronto Star will be so happy, it will be ecstatic, but the situation will not really have changed.
Petroleum Administration Act
In other companies we will replace an American business elite with a Canadian one.


Mr. Wilson:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear my friends to the right applauding that. Is it really what they want? Apparently so, apparently the minister wants it as well. We will simply replace the Rockefellers with the Conrad Blacks or the Bob Blairs.


Marc Lalonde: With the T. C. Douglases.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who will benefit? Who will pay? Let me talk about that for a moment. The average Canadian family will pay through increased costs for heating oil and increased transit costs. As a matter of fact, their costs for heating and transit will double in the next three years. The average family will be paying something like $350. To be more precise, to use the government's own estimates, they estimate that the cost of home heating oil will double in three years. On page 106 of "The National Energy Program" figures there show that the costs will go from $640 to $1,280 per year.
In my constituency the average family on an average street will find that they have to pay more to heat their homes with natural gas. They can expect a 30-cent per thousand cubic feet tax on their December bill. By 1984 the price of gasoline for the average family will double to $1,248 per year. That will mean a $100 per month increase for the average family. By 1989 it will cost $50 to fill their tanks with gas. The drive from here to Quebec City and back will cost $100.
I think ordinary Canadians feel that oil prices must go up. They know that. But this government has put up the oil prices without any cushion at all for the average family, and without any help at all for them.
I turn to the Prime Minister's specific question: how would we in the NDP share this revenue? "The National Energy Program" says that an overwhelming share of Canada's current oil and gas production was found prior to the rapid rise in world prices, which started in 1973. Therefore, we would further reduce windfall profits from these projects to the industry. There was talk about the split in the revenues being 45, 45, 10, which was the old split. The provincial government's share would be 45 per cent, 45 per cent would go to the oil companies, and 10 per cent to the federal government. What we would do is change the split totally. It would be more like 45 per cent to the federal government, 45 per cent to the province, and 10 per cent to the companies. If the government had any real guts, any real desire to get money back to the average person and away from the big companies, this is what they would do, too.
We would get even more money by developing the tar sands under public ownership. The large multinational companies want a 15 per cent to 20 per cent profit out of the tar sands, and the minister is prepared to allow them to receive that. Looking at the take from those tar sands I say to average Canadians and to the minister that it is not that difficult. Here

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
are the figures. If you raise it to $60, or $90 a barrel, as I believe it will rise to eventually, in 1990, multiply that by 140,000 barrels a day times 360 days over a period of 25 years and you will see the vast amounts of money that will be generated.
The minister is prepared to let the multinational oil companies develop those tar sands, and he confirms that in his energy policy. I am well aware of the difference between heavy oil and the tar sands. I remind the minister that people up there talk about the tar sands as being heavy oil as well. So there are vast amounts of money involved. That is our future up there in oil supplies and it looks now as if the government is prepared- $40 million Marc over there is prepared-to let the foreign multinationals develop that while at the same time giving the illusion that somehow this Canadianization will really help the average person.
I suggest we could give the money back to the people in a number of ways. One way to do this is obvious. It is by way of a cost of living allowance to families in order to get some cash right back to them so that they can keep up with the increased prices I have mentioned. Another method is to have a federal-provincial fund for energy development, not just a federal boondoggle, not a western development fund run by Ottawa bureaucrats for westerners but a genuine fund that will have federal and provincial co-operation.
I was in Vancouver last weekend where I was working in the municipal elections. I think Vancouver is very fortunate to have Mr. Michael Harcourt as the new mayor of Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: Is he a Conservative?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, he is not a Conservative, I can tell you that. He is a proponent, and he was throughout the election- and this may have got him elected-of using some federal-provincial funds for rapid transit. In my city there is no rapid transit and we must get some funds there. There must be money for alternate energy. The people are ready for that.
Last night on my way home I was thinking about the minister giving $40 million to Imperial Oil, and he has put $20 million into the Enertech Corporation for alternate energy. He is willing to loan twice as much to Imperial Oil as he is prepared to put into alternate energy. Finally, money could be given to local citizens to set up neighbourhood energy programs where real conservation could take place at the local level, which is ultimately where these things must work.
Another point I wish to make in answer to the Prime Minister's question is that-


Marc Lalonde: Tell us what the price would be.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -we would take over the three largest foreign multinational oil companies under public ownership. We would set out a concrete commitment, not just this vague promise by the Liberals that something may happen in the future, but a concrete commitment with a timetable, and that could be paid out of future increases.
The minister asked me about oil prices. Yes, the price of oil would go up.


Marc Lalonde: How much?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The price of oil would go up.


Marc Lalonde: What is the reference?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I told the minister it would be 45, 45, 10.


Marc Lalonde: Of what?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Ten per cent would go to the oil companies, not the other way around, the way the minister talks about.
Mr. Speaker, instead of giving $9 out of $10 in public money to the private companies for drilling grants, as the program proposes, we would add an extra dollar to that and give all the money to Petro-Canada to do the drilling. Then the oil and gas that are discovered would be owned by the people.
Let me explain a little more. What this policy says is that if you are a fairly well-off taxpayer you can give $100 into a drilling fund, you will receive back $80 as a grant and you receive another $12 in tax write-offs. So $92 out of $100 is really paid for by the government. If the government will forgo that revenue why does the government not get something out of it? Why does it not get the ownership out of it? That, to my mind, would make sense as a policy.
As I said, we have been watching the government's words closely as compared with their actions. One of the actions taken was the Arctic pilot project. That is a new notion of government policy where gas will be taken by Petro-Canada and other companies from Melville Island in the western Arctic through the Northwest Passage down to a port in Quebec or Nova Scotia. That depends on which minister wins the battle for the port. The point is that the gas will then be exported to the United States. The boats that bring the product down will be foreign-built and manned by foreigners. Is that an industrial strategy as part of a national energy policy? It seems to me we have not changed anything if we continue with projects like that. That is one of the problems with this energy policy as it is set out.
Finally, there is no better example of the problem of resource sell-out than the pre-build of the pipeline. There it all is: short-term jobs and export of natural resources. And who benefits? The American multinational companies. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that if this Petroleum Administration Act is to be invoked-what I have called the War Measures Act of the oil war, if you like-then Canadians will want to see something in return. Canadians want to see a sparkling energy policy which would make the country selfsufficient and ensure that the ordinary Canadian benefits.


Mr. Malone:: The "Baby Duck'' of oil.
November 21, 1980


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In conclusion, there will be other speakers who will not speak in ignorance like my friend here next to me, but with some substance about energy in agriculture, energy in Atlantic Canada, about an industrial strategy tied to an energy policy, about gas exploration and gas exports. The Petroleum Administration Act is against our better traditions. Those traditions are based on co-operative federalism and on compromise. There are alternatives, but the Liberal government has refused to consider them. 1 have suggested some alternatives with regard to negotiation and dealing differently with the western provinces through a joint provincial-federal development fund.
This is the energy policy of our generation and it will be the crisis of the next five or ten years. To me this energy policy is like a Christmas present which, when it is unwrapped, turns out to be a gift to those who have always benefited. I refer to the business establishment in Canada. Although this time it is the Canadian business establishment, nonetheless, it is a policy that does not benefit the ordinary Canadian.


Marc Lalonde: Would the hon. member permit one short question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member referred to higher prices under his own scheme. Would he tell the House what he has in mind? Is it an international price, a percentage of the international price, or a price determined on Canadian costs?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. minister knows, I and my party have never agreed with the concept of moving to international prices. That is the OPEC price and it is an artificial price. Moving to the world price, which is the reason why my friends to the right lost the last election, would cause dramatic problems in Ontario and the other provinces in terms of layoffs and soon. Nevertheless, the price must move up.
We would like to see a made-in-Canada price, and I would remind the minister that it was my party which coined that term. This price would be a composite of the costs of production, reasonable profit for the companies and, of course, we would take extensive steps toward public ownership. This is the direction the government intends to take, but there would not be the extra cost and, therefore, prices could be held down somewhat lower than the minister suggests. The producing provinces would receive their fair share, which I think they are approaching now.
However, there would be more of a share for the federal government which, as I said in my speech, would be recycled quite dramatically and quite directly back to low and middle-income families who need the money because of increased costs.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Would the hon. member permit another short question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In the hon. member's suggestion that Imperial Oil should be taken over, is he recommending that it be taken over by being purchased at its fair market value, or does the
Petroleum Administration Act
hon. member have some other formula in mind for acquiring that valuable company's assets?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting some sort of expropriation without reimbursing Imperial Oil any money, that is absurd.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How much?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not my party which has forced Imperial Oil's shares down and made them more available on the market; it is government policy. The government will have to make a move if it really wants to take control through some sort of legislation which will require, for example, the selling of more treasury shares. These shares will not be sold to Canadian citizens at large, but the government would have to acquire enough shares to control the company.
I suggested in my speech that what the government is trying to do is to force this company to sell shares to Canadians, but it will still be controlled by Exxon in the United States. That is the government's policy. My policy would be to force Imperial Oil to give control to the Canadian government.


Arnold John Malone: Give it to the government. Never trust people.


Mr. Miller:: You should have done it 15 years ago.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the government had made this move 15 years ago, as my friend suggests, it could have saved this country a lot of money.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks on the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act, I feel I have to respond to the very ill-founded comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He made some comments in relation to the activities of my leader in connection with the whole problem of western separation. Far from, to use the hon. member's words, "aiding and abetting western separation", the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been working very hard at redirecting the efforts and activities of the people in the west who are leaning toward separation toward building this country and not ripping it apart.
I think it is incredible that this misstatement of fact would come from a member of a party which refused to play an active role in the No committee during the Quebec referendum. Just to remind my hon. friend, during that referendum the Leader of the Opposition played a very active role in the province of Quebec, and, I believe, made a very positive contribution to the success of the referendum of May 20. To slander my leader in the House when he is not here to answer is completely unforgivable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was here this morning. He was in the lobby, he heard my remarks when they were made, and he could have taken his seat. Since he did not, I will ask the hon. member simply to stand up and repudiate the comments

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
as reported in the Vancouver Sun of October 25, 1980. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) advocated that-


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


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I still challenge the hon. member to withdraw his comments with regard to the Leader of the Opposition. I will not comment on any speculative press story. I was referring to the statement the hon. member made with regard to my leader.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was not a speculative story.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I absolutely repudiate what the hon. member is stating here, that the Conservative party-


Arnold John Malone: You resemble that statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is prepared to recognize the hon. member if he seeks the floor on a point of order, but what he is doing at the moment is entering into debate. I have a responsibility to distinguish between the two. If the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order which is with reference to the Standing Orders, I will recognize the hon. member, but I cannot allow him simply to enter into the debate at his own will.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the facts stand alone. The destructive role played by the Conservative party in western Canada is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Etobicoke Centre.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, do not forget the Centre because I have a lot of opposition to the north and to the south of me in Etobicoke, but I would like to concentrate on the Centre, and we will take the other two areas the next time around.


An hon. Member:: We will squeeze you out of there.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to turn to the debate at hand which is on the Petroleum Administration Act, with regard to the unilateral imposition of prices on oil and natural gas.
This particular portion of the debate is on the question of oil. Both clauses 36 and 52 of the Petroleum Administration Act provide for the unilateral imposition of a price if no agreement can be reached. We in the House must consider the impact of this imposition of establishing maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil as it relates to the conditions which prevail in the international market as well as to the probable effect it will have on the producers and consumers in Canada.
Both my friends from the New Democratic Party and representatives from our party have sought revocation of this price action. Before discussing the impact on the consumer and the producer, I think we should pause for a moment and consider why we are here. We should ask why we are having this debate. We should ask why this government was unable to reach agreement with the producing provinces prior to setting this unilateral price.
In December, 1979, our government was able to reach an agreement with the province of Alberta, after tough and protracted difficult negotiations, but we were able to reach agreement. The minister of energy for the province of Alberta has referred to this on many occasions, and the minister is very well aware of that. It has been the base from which they have negotiated in the province of Alberta. Let me remind the House that that agreement was reached after a series of difficult negotiations. Then the election happened. Since then we have had a display of attempts to reach some agreement between the two levels of government.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been involved, but we have had no real documentation of the efforts of these two gentlemen in achieving agreement. On the other hand we have had a very full documentation from the minister of energy for the province of Alberta. He has outlined meetings he had with the minister on May 13, June 18 and 19, and later with the Prime Minister in July. Finally there were a couple of meetings in October. Mr. Leitch outlines in full detail the contents of the discussions and the negotiations which took place during the course of that time.
I am not here to claim that Mr. Leitch's recounting of these negotiations is the correct one, but it is the only one on the record. Today I set out a challenge to the minister to place on the record his version of the negotiations. Without that, we have only the one version. As long as that happens, the people of Canada and this House are going to be missing an important part of the negotiations which bear very directly on what we are talking about here today.
It is in the essence of any federation to deal and to compromise, to negotiate and to co-operate to reach agreement between the different partners. The essence of this legislation is that the federal and provincial governments must reach some agreement. In not reaching some agreement, they must display to the people of Canada an honest effort to reach agreement. Otherwise, the Petroleum Administration Act or this federation itself becomes a charade whereby the senior level of government, the federal government, can override the junior partners in confederation.
In place of the Petroleum Administration Act we have complete control by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in place of a true confederation we have a centralist government here if this activity is allowed to continue further. If we have unilateral action on the price of oil, without any attempt at negotiations, I ask myself and I ask the House where do we go next? What is our next step? Where
November 21, 1980

will we next see unilateral imposition of the will of one level of government? Confederation is a partnership. We must take action based on compromise and conciliation. We must work hard at that in a country as diverse as Canada. Those agreements are not going to come easily. But attempts must be made in a serious and honest manner. Any unilateral action will seriously damage the fabric of confederation. We have seen today what is happening in the whole area of energy policy.
Over the past two or three months we have seen the same sort of action taking place in the constitutional debate. We cannot let this go on any further. This is the principal reason why we are here today debating this motion. In my opinion, the government is taking advantage of the Petroleum Administration Act to force its will on the people of Canada without making a proper effort at negotiation.
In order to support that statement I refer to a document, the infamous August 30 leaked cabinet document, outlining the negotiations leading up to the first ministers' conference on the constitution. At page 43 the statement was made:
The political climate in Canada is likely to be poisoned by a major energy conflict throughout the fall of this year and at least the early months of next year.
Clearly there was no expectation, and undoubtedly no efforts at achieving a satisfactory result in the energy negotiations. This act should only be used in the most unique and emergency circumstances when all efforts have failed, after serious efforts have been made, to seek agreement. Only when that has happened should this portion of the Petroleum Administration Act be invoked.
Let us now look to the impact of the act. That is what we were requested to do under the terms of the act in this debate. Consumers are being asked to pay SI more for a gallon of gasoline in the next three to four years. But what is the consumer getting for this $1 more? We know what the shortterm effects of that will be. The consumer will be paying vastly more, and most of it will be going into the coffers of the federal government. As I said before in this House, we see here a massive tax grab. When we compare what is attempted here under this energy policy with the policy which was set out by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), we see a tax grab which is fully three times as great as that in the December budget. That is a huge tax increase.
On this point let me just destroy a myth which has been allowed to grow over the last two or three weeks. The minister and the Prime Minister on many occasions have referred to the federal share rising from about 10 per cent or 11 per cent to 24 per cent. That statement is wrong. It is misleading. It is deceitful and it is dishonest. The percentage figure is far larger than that. Today there is no doubt the federal government gets about 10 per cent to 12 per cent of the revenues. Premier Lougheed has accepted the fact the federal government must gain a greater degree of revenue from energy in this country. But in the December budget the figure was going to move to 24 per cent.
Petroleum Administration Act
For the first little while after this budget came out I was scratching my head because I could not understand, with this far higher tax grab by this government, that we have seen the figure go up to only 24 per cent. Then I put the figures down on paper. It s not 24 per cent, the figure is about 48 per cent. The percentage figure is somewhere between 45 per cent and 50 per cent depending on the different assumptions you want to make. This has happened because the minister has conveniently left out the petroleum compensation charge and the Canadian equity ownership account charge, which will surely be drawn upon in the coming year. There are also some very unrealistic assumptions concerning the sale of natural gas to the United States, both in terms of price and volume. This has the effect of overstating the position which the industry and the federal government will be taking, as well as understanding the position of the provinces.
Let us hear no more of the 24 per cent figure. The figure is clearly of the order of 45 per cent to 50 per cent, which is fully double that in the statement. The people of Canada, when they heard this figure, said it was a reasonable policy. It is clear that we have a dispute today because the figure is far more than the 24 per cent that is set out in the program.
One other reason for the dispute today is that at the Prime Minister's press conference of July 25 he was asked what is a reasonable figure for the province of Alberta. He said, "We say that it would be fairer if Alberta reduced its take, say in the order of 40 per cent". The figure for the province of Alberta, again depending on assumptions, is somewhere between 30 per cent and 35 per cent. We have two sets of facts here. I say it is one set of facts and one set of fiction.
Let us look again to the impact on Canadian consumers and producers. The objectives of this program, some of which are set out specifically in the program, and some of which are implicit, are as follows. First, security of supply; second, Canadianization; third, economic development. Those are all mentioned quite specifically. Fourth, that any energy policy should work to bind this country together and not pull it apart. That should be a fundamental objective for all of the other three objectives as well.
How is this energy policy contributing to security of supply? We read of Mr. Lyons, the president of Ocelot Industries, saying, and I quote:
-Canadian exploration will be reduced and funds allocated to other projects.
Sulpetro, a good Canadian company, says "The program will reduce the company's cash flow, assets and availability to general explorations funds." Simmons Drilling rigs will probably be moved to the United States.
Just prior to question period this morning, I had a discussion with representatives of the Canadian Association of Oil Drilling Companies. They told me that 66 rigs will be moving to the United States over the next few months, 79 rigs have been idled through the cancellation of long-term contracts, and 50 additional contracts have been cancelled for winter drilling this month.

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
What is more far-reaching than this, because drilling contracts are a clear leading indicator of activity in the energy business, is that no commitments have been made for next summer. Around this time of the year the drilling companies normally expect to have about 75 per cent of their rigs spoken for. That is the state of confidence in the oil and gas industry today. It is reflected directly in the outlook for business for the drilling companies in this country.
1 have spoken to a number of other companies, some of which have not been quoted in the papers. There is a clear indication that we will be seeing less exploration funds, in some cases up to 50 per cent less, being spent in this country next year.
I ask the minister why he appears to have written off the conventional sources of oil in this country. About two years ago in west Pembina in western Canada, there was a very significant oil strike. It was in an area which had been drilled quite extensively and had been a very successful producing field. Rather than stay at the 5,000 foot level where the previous field had been found, the companies drilled down to about 10,000 feet and found the new west Pembina field. Therefore we should not be writing off conventional sources of oil in this country. Rather, we should be encouraging conventional exploration and development, and that is far from what is happening with this energy program.
I recall the 1973-74 period when we had the last major conflict between the federal government and the producing provinces. During that period we lost some very valuable time, about one full year, of exploration activity. A lot of rigs went south and spent their time finding oil in the United States. What is different between now and then is that our oil export versus our oil import balance is considerably different. We were in balance. At that time we were exporting about the same as we were importing. In fact at that time we had a surplus in our oil business of about $1 billion. Today we have a deficit of $4 billion. To lose this valuable time at a period when international oil prices are rising, exposes us to greater imports and greater uncertainty of supply. It is sheer folly, and will have a major impact on consumers in the years ahead.
To top it off, as the House well knows, this week we had the announced cancellation of the Cold Lake oil sands project, which has been resurrected on a short-term basis by a loan from the federal government. This is one of the most serious elements of the fallout from this very negative energy policy. The oil sands will be producing about 50 per cent of the oil requirements of the country in ten years' time. Those are the figures set out in the national energy program. They may well be producing to a greater percentage, depending on what happens with conventional oil discoveries, which are not very favourable at this time.
These projects take about six to seven years to bring on stream. With any delays, we risk losing all the good, talented Canadian people who will be drawn to similar projects in other countries. We stand to lose a tremendous amount of money through escalating costs of these programs if delays take place. It is only through agreement on the total conventional oil and
oil sands package that we will get the oil industry doing the job it should be doing, which is finding oil to improve security of supply in this country. Therefore, it is essential that we reach total agreement as quickly as we can.
Discussion of oil sands projects leads me to the next point, the question of jobs or economic development. One of the most serious effects of the delay of the oil sands projects is on economic development. We have seen, through figures which have been pulled together by major participants in both the Alsands and Cold Lake projects, an analysis of the total economic impact of the oil sands projects. Let me read this into the record.
The province of Alberta, depending on the calculation you use, will receive about 38 per cent to 42 per cent of the economic impact of these projects, the province of Ontario anywhere from 25 per cent to 28 per cent, the province of Quebec about 10 per cent, and other provinces somewhat less. The point is, and it is made clear by those figures, that the economic impact in Alberta is about equivalent to the economic impact that is felt and enjoyed by other provinces in this country, particularly Ontario and Quebec.
The Canadian Petroleum Association estimates that the impact of one Alsands development or one Cold Lake development will be close to $25 billion. About one quarter of that will go to the province of Ontario and another quarter to other provinces outside the province of Alberta. We in Ontario benefit through the purchase of iron and steel, metal fabrication and machinery. Also, high technology instrumentation and services are provided from this part of the country.
A number of other areas receive great benefit from activity not just in oil sands projects but also in other parts of the oil business in western Canada. Fahramet of Orillia received some major benefits through the sale of heat corrosion abrasive resistant castings used in the petrochemical industry. Simmons Drilling buys a vast number of its vehicles from eastern Canada, and if it is going to move its drill rigs south of the border, instead of going to Canadian manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec, that business will end up going to the United States.
A number of companies have reduced hiring projections for next year by as much as 50 per cent to 60 per cent. Grey-Mak Well Supplies, now the largest independent oil well casing manufacturer in Canada, has opened up a plant in the United States because it is concerned about the outlook for business in this country. There is no doubt that uncertainty, as well as the less attractive economics of the industry, have caused and will cause a great deal of economic unease and a turndown in business not just in western Canada but throughout this country, and it is to this that we must address ourselves when considering the impact on consumers, because many consumers will lose their jobs. Many will find that they will not work overtime hours.
Let me refer back to comments I was making about oil drilling companies. These companies move around many of the
November 21, 1980

small towns in Alberta, and they produce business not just in the oil drilling field but also in various aspects of the communities of western Canada. That is causing a great deal of uncertainty and, I might say, a great deal of anger with respect to what has happened to the business these people have enjoyed over the past few years. 1 am not referring to big, major companies, but to small corner stores, Harvey's hamburger type stores, and drycleaning stores. Those are the businesses which are being affected in western Canada by this energy policy.
I remind hon. members that 12 per cent of the total output of the Canadian steel industry is involved in supplying the requirements of the exploration and development industry in this country.
Another aspect, on the economic side of the national energy program we have before us today, is that most experts in the industry and on the periphery of the industry are projecting that we will be importing a larger amount of oil in the months and years ahead under this program. What does this mean in numbers we can all understand? It means that we will be spending Canadian dollars to buy oil from Saudi Arabia. We have seen what has been happening this week in Saudi Arabia. We will also be spending Canadian dollars to buy oil from Mexico and Venezuela. We import 425,000 barrels of oil a day. That translates into a figure of about $6.2 billion annually. However, looking at it from the standpoint of the individual, that works out to about $270 per person, or about $1,000 per family being spent outside this country to create jobs in Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela, but not here when we can be doing it right here in Canada.
The Bank of Montreal projected that in about five years that $6.2 billion figure will increase to about $11 billion to $16 billion. On a per person basis every man, woman and child will be spending $475 to $700 or, in terms of a family, $1,600 to about $2,500, to create jobs in other countries when we could be doing it here in Canada. That is opportunity lost. It means that jobs which are solely needed here, particularly when we are facing unemployment in the order of one million people this winter, are being exported to other countries.
What we have here in the national energy program is the worst of all worlds. As consumers we are paying high prices. We are paying one dollar more for a gallon of gasoline, but we are not getting economic growth or security of supply to offset that major cost. We are not seeing economic growth to offset the negative impact which will be felt. We are having deadweight high prices. They are not dynamic high prices which would create jobs in this part of the world.
I see that you are signalling to me, Mr. Speaker. I assumed that the time consumed by the frivolous points of order of members of the New Democratic Party would not be taken from my time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We do not have a Standing Order which covers that. Perhaps we could resolve the matter by suggesting that the hon. member take another
Petroleum Administration Act
couple of minutes, and then I will recognize another hon. member.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Let me comment very briefly on two other aspects of this policy. The first is Canadian ownership. We on this side of the House are very much in favour of increasing Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry, and we were moving in that direction back in December.


Marc Lalonde: When? How?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This was back in December, 1979. It is very clear. The minister knows that. He should check with his officials. If he did, he would find out what we were doing. Canadian independents are very much weakened by this energy program. Multinationals can survive, but Canadian independents are being forced to go south of the border. The high taxes involved hit them harder than multinationals. In order that the government receives its 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the total industry revenue take, the government has hit independent companies much harder than it has hit the multinationals. That does not make sense to me. There has to be a better way. We just cannot afford to have these companies drawn away by much higher payouts. The netbacks on oil exploration are $9.50 in Canada versus $25. Those figures were quite clear before the budget, and the budget will widen the disparities between this country and the United States in the years ahead.
The overriding and chief objective any energy policy should have is Canadian unity. We must use energy policy to bring the east and the west together and not to drive them apart. The huge economic opportunity which is available through development of our energy reserves can bind this country together and lead to a tremendous burst of economic activity which would have a very positive effect and direct people away from any separatist tendencies and toward building this country to be a much stronger and viable one than it is today. However, the result of this policy will be that we will drive parts of the country away from each other.
The government is playing on divisions between the east and the west. Oil sands projects have been deferred, and that will lead to reduced economic opportunity here in eastern Canada. The energy policy can be a means of reducing western alienation. Let us not encourage it by taking actions which appear to attack different parts of the country without giving them a clear opportunity to have their voices heard in Ottawa through a proper series of negotiations, not the type of negotiations which appear to have taken place under the auspices of the minister.
In conclusion, let me say that there are five areas in which this energy policy is wanting: security of supply, job creation, Canadianization, a stronger Canada and-the part I was unable to cover-the very serious international situation. I urge that this House revoke the unilateral imposition of prices and force the government to return to the negotiating table with the province of Alberta and develop a policy which will be

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
acceptable, because only through developing a policy which is acceptable to all parts of this country will we create the appropriate environment for the full development of our energy resources. Only then can Canada achieve its full potential as a strong country economically, secure in its oil supply and united in its purpose.


Raymond John Skelly: Would the previous speaker entertain a short question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The difficulty is that the hon. member's time has now expired. I can permit a question and an answer only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the preliminary remarks of the previous speaker and I wonder if he might not agree that responsibility should be borne for such remarks as "I think western Canada should separate" when they are made by a member of that party. I think the leader of the party has that responsibility. In the context of the hon. member's speech, it is very important for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to take the responsibility of denouncing such remarks and bringing his member into line. I respect a decision made by the previous leader of the hon. member's party when he took the former hon. member for Moncton to task, and eventually caused him to sit as an independent member, because of some disparaging remarks he had made.
I would not ask him if the former prime minister, now Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, were not in fact completely responsible for this inflammatory and unjustified movement on behalf of the Conservative party which is going on in western Canada. I would be very interested in hearing the hon. member's views about his leader's responsibility for this program and these statements.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there is anything more to say. I said clearly that my leader has taken a strong position against separation. He is trying to deflect the efforts of the people who are heading that way; he is trying to build this country, not rip it apart. Anyone who has read any of the speeches he has made should have absolutely no doubt about that. What puzzles me is how the members of the party to my left can suddenly become "holier than thou" when they took no part whatsoever in the work of the No committee in the Quebec referendum.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As soon as they show their colours, I will accept their comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) asked the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) a question on his "holier than thou" attitude-


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member for sanctimony please sit down?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is evident that I have to hear the hon. member who seeks the floor on a question of privilege. However, I just want to make it clear that this is going to prolong the debate, unless there is a reference to the Standing Orders or a serious question of privilege. I would ask hon. members to consider whether they want to pursue this type of debate, the obligation being upon the Chair to try to avoid it. I will recognize the hon. member but I want to warn him that he should try to stay on the question of privilege.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The privilege is-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the hon. member would let me continue. He will get his chance. My question of privilege is this. The hon. member is misrepresenting our position on the Quebec matter. My leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), made statements in Quebec and they are on the record. What the hon. member was asked and what he will not deny, and perhaps later the Leader of the Opposition might comment on it, concerns the remarks made by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who had advocated the separatist option for western Canada. Would the hon. member deny that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 took the trouble to indicate to the hon. member that he should address himself to the question of privilege. The hon. member is entering into a debate. It is not a matter of personal preference on the part of the Chair. There is an obligation on the Chair to apply the Standing Orders. What the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is doing is entering into a debate, and my responsibility to the Chair obliges me to prevent him from doing so. I see the hon. member rising again. I will recognize him once more, but after that I will have to put an end to even recognizing him, whether it be on a question of privilege or a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something to end these comments. I accept your ruling and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will rise in his place on Monday morning and deal with the matter I have raised today.


An hon. Member:: Tell Nystrom.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate today. Obviously I would have preferred it had the motions not been put forward, but since the two opposition parties have decided to put these motions forward, I am pleased that members on this side of the House will have a number of opportunities to speak again on this very important question of energy and to explain to the Canadian public the policy which is contained in the national energy program for the 1980s.
November 21, 1980

I am convinced that this debate will allow the government to obtain even more support for this program than it has had since the budget, and I must say 1 am very encouraged by the large degree of public support which has come from all areas of this country from ordinary people. I am not speaking here in particular about individuals who happen to occupy important positions, but rather about ordinary citizens on the street, families, farmers, fishermen, workers who drive to work, and people who provide for their family's needs. It is indeed encouraging that there should be a recognition in all areas of the country that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the government have announced in the budget and the national energy program appears to correspond to what the overwhelming majority of people in this country recognize as being a fair deal for all parts of Canada, a fair deal for the producing and consuming provinces and a fair deal for the consumers, even though the price of oil will rise.
Canadians are honest and mature enough to recognize that prices will have to rise, but they also recognize that the national government in the energy program has taken steps to try to cushion as much as possible the impact of those higher prices. Also, people recognize that this is a fair deal for the national government. What is recognized very clearly is the fact that never before has any Canadian government come forward with a declared intention to ensure that Canadians will have majority ownership and control of that strategic industry. The government has indicated its clear indication in this respect, and it is encouraging to see, not only a broad public support for this but recognition, even by industry, that it will have to adjust to this new reality in the years to come.
I want to indicate once more that the government will deal with this issue in a fair way but also in a determined way and we are convinced that this energy program is in the interest of Canadians all across this country.
Before embarking upon a discussion of the proclamations themselves, I should like to make one or two comments in relation to the speeches made by the previous two speakers. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will allow me, I should like to raise with him a point about something he said regarding the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Trudeau). I listened with great interest to his speech and 1 found in it many good points which should be borne in mind, particularly his reference to Mr. Pearson's speech in 1964. But I think the hon. member's statement was unworthy of him when he referred to the present Prime Minister and his travels abroad.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is he doing abroad?


Marc Lalonde: I think it is time that members of the House and Canadians in general grew up with respect to the role of Canada in international affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petroleum Administration Act


Marc Lalonde: Every other country in the world would give their right arms to have a prime minister like the Prime Minister of Canada, to have a prime minister who honours his country in international fields as much as our present Prime Minister.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He should be here.


Marc Lalonde: As hon. members know, this country is dependent upon international trade. Indeed, we are dependent more than most other countries on international trade. Our country is a medium country; it is not a small country, but it is certainly not what one would call a super power. Under the leadership of people like Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson and the present Prime Minister, our country has acquired great stature internationally and has grown on the basis of its expanding international trade. The activities of the Prime Minister, ministers and members of Parliament abroad are very important and significant in this respect.
I remind the hon. member that a number of Canadian businessmen are currently in Saudi Arabia negotiating a further enlargement of trade and business between Saudi Arabia and Canada. This means jobs and money for Canadians. It is important the government commitment is very clear in that respect. The country depends just as much for its jobs on what it sells abroad as it does on what it sells at home. Rather than making those comments, I think the hon. member should have applauded the initiative taken by the Prime Minister in visiting that country at the present time to help Canada expand its trade.
In addition, the hon. member knows Canada will be host next year to an economic summit of major economic powers of the western world. One of the items to be discussed at that time will be North-South relations, relations between the more affluent countries and the poorer ones. One of the most important problems in this very difficult issue is the role OPEC countries play in that respect. OPEC countries have become an immense centre of wealth, wealth which is being syphoned away from industrialized, underdeveloped and developing countries. The developing countries are suffering the most. If we want to make some progress on this issue which is very vital to not only the future of this country but the future of the world, it is essential we have the co-operation, support and willing participation of OPEC countries. At the present time this is recognized by people all over the world, except apparently on opposition benches. I say that with regret. I hope I am misreading the situation and that all parties of the House will support, with great enthusiasm and strength, the efforts the government will make and is making at the present time to try to achieve progress on an issue which is as critical for the future of the world as any we have known in the last several decades.
Therefore, I urge the hon. member and the people of Canada to look at the situation, not in a parochial manner, but to grow up and see what role Canada is called upon to play in the world nowadays. In that sense, when the Prime Minister of Canada is travelling abroad, he is speaking for the whole

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
country. We should be proud of it, like any other country in the world, when their heads of state or prime ministers are travelling abroad. I hope we will get this kind of support in the future.
I heard the hon. member indicate that the Prime Minister should be here, but I remind him that the government is going on, the country is going on, Parliament is going on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He should be in Edmonton.


Marc Lalonde: I hear the member saying he should be in Edmonton. As I said in the House earlier, Premier Lougheed indicated that he did not want meetings at the first ministers' level at the present time; maybe later on, but he feels they should be taking place at the level of officials. We have agreed to that, and those meetings will take place. I hope they will be successful. Perhaps there will be meetings at the ministerial level and most likely at the first ministers' level eventually. We have indicated that we are willing to have those meetings at any time, but there is no point in tying the Prime Minister to Ottawa and saying, "Just wait in case you are called to go to Edmonton". There has been a clear indication by the Premier of Alberta that he does not want this type of meeting at this time, and it is as simple as that.
I do not want to spend too much time on this particular point, but I thought it was important to stress it in light of the opening remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Also I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and those of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) respecting the necessity of co-operation and working on the basis of an agreement. We subscribe to those principles. We subscribe to the principles enunciated by Mr. Pearson as Prime Minister in 1964. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated, the Prime Minister as a private citizen wrote something to the same effect-that it is essential, if this country is to survive, that there be co-operation between the levels of government. But obviously that co-operation must be a two-way street; there is no doubt about it. We have indicated in the past that we were ready to go to great lengths to make accommodation and to arrive at an agreement. In this particular instance we indicated that we wanted an agreement, that we preferred an agreement. Over the last six months we participated in many discussions.


Arnold John Malone: You have not. That is false.


Marc Lalonde: We negotiated in good faith. At the end of this whole series of negotiations there was one offer made by the government of Alberta. It was made around August 1 by Premier Lougheed when he was in Ottawa. Even then we persisted and made other offers; we changed our plans as indicated in the budget; when it was obvious that we could not reach an agreement, we used the powers under the Petroleum Administration Act; and we indicated that as soon as an agreement could be reached, we would be willing and ready to rescind those proclamations in order to work on the basis of an agreement. Preferably this country must work on the basis of
an agreement, but there is also a responsibility upon the national government to speak for the whole country and to assume its responsibilities at particular times. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, among others, was saying that we should have had an agreement and that we should not have used this proclamation. But what does he propose? He proposes that instead we have a division of revenues between the levels of government of 45 per cent, 45 per cent and 10 per cent to the industry. He proposes that we have a made-in-Canada price that is not related to international prices. He also says there should be a federal-provincial fund, if I correctly remember, in which the revenues would be put together and divided. These are interesting proposals. But I tell the hon. member right now that there is no way the government of Alberta would agree to it. No way. It is also quite clear that the government of British Columbia would not agree. He should know that very well.
So what would he do? Would he use the Petroleum Administration Act and impose his will on those provinces because he cannot get an agreement? I tell him now he will never get an agreement from the governments of Alberta or British Columbia on the basis of the proposal he has put forward. One must be realistic in this respect and look at reality.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre said "Oh yes, that's great, we had an agreement last year in December." What about the poor independent member in the opposition in Edmonton who was thrown out of the Conservative party because he dared to say there might be something good in the federal constitutional proposals? That is a heresy of the worst sort in Edmonton these days. He was promptly kicked out of the caucus and his party because he breached the faith. Now he sits as an independent and ever since he has been in opposition he has tried unsuccessfully to get copies of any agreement, any memo, or any phone call recording any particular agreement with the Conservative government last year. He has not been able to get even one little sheet of paper.
I recommend to the member for Etobicoke Centre, since he has a short memory, that he take up for bedside reading a book published recently entitled "Discipline of Power" by Jeffrey Simpson. I suggest to him that he skip the pages in which reference is made to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) calling the Premier of Alberta his friend. 1 do not think that should go into the record. I recommend he read chapter seven, which is entitled "Limits of Loyalty". It goes into all kinds of detail about copies of memos sent and everything that transpired in those negotiations. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can tell me whether that chapter is wrong. The conclusion of the chapter is clear-that right up to the day of the budget on December 11 there were still phone calls between the prime minister and the Premier of Alberta, that a committee of officials proposed a new formula for the energy self-sufficiency tax and that Mr. Lougheed had inserted four other points to be clarified. We read that maybe an agreement could be signed, and maybe not. That is the last we heard
November 21, 1980

because, as we all know, the government was subsequently defeated. When the minister of finance came with his budget he had no agreement and as far as we know we could not find any record of any agreement anywhere except that there are some people who would like to rewrite history. Obviously, it would be great if they could rewrite it with the benefit of hindsight. Also, we can understand the reasons why they would like to rewrite it.
What is the situation at the present time? Action has been taken by the government to ensure that the price of oil and gas in this country will be firm over the next while, at least until there is an agreement reached with the government of Alberta and the other producing provinces. It spells out quite clearly what those prices will be, as was indicated at the time of the budget. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway says that is unprecedented. He says it is a drastic piece of legislation, a drastic action which should be used only in times of emergency and that we should have reached an agreement. I agree that we should have had an agreement. But it takes two to make an agreement, as he well knows. In order to make an agreement there must be willingness to compromise on both sides, otherwise you will be in a situation where one of the parties says, "You sign here, or else." We said we were trying, we did attempt to reach an agreement and it was not possible to do so. We have indicated we are still willing to talk. Let us keep this kind of measure in perspective.
Mr. Speaker, is this so unprecedented? We are setting the price monthly for the natural gas sold internationally. Every month the national government has an opportunity to modify the price at which we sell gas abroad. We set the prices at which we sell electricity abroad on the same basis. We set telephone rates across this country consistently. We set transportation rates for freight and innumerable items having to do with transportation, air transportation and rail transportation. We are also setting the price of wheat. We use the two-price wheat system as the hon. member knows very well. We also set the price for copper in this country. Around 1973 we had two prices for copper also. So what we have done at this time is to exercise what is clearly and fundamentally a power, a responsibility, that lies with the federal government. It lies with other federations in the world, not only with Canada. In Australia, the states own the resources in the same way as the provinces own the resources of this country. The national government in Australia sets prices for oil and gas constantly and systematically. They do not even do it on the basis of negotiation.


William J. Yurko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister, in explaining the price-setting characteristics of his program, would permit a question at this time so that I might clear up something in my mind?


Marc Lalonde: I would rather have the questions at the end of my expose. I do not like to use all the time at my disposal for questions and not be able to make a few more points I wish to make. If the hon. member wishes to ask me afterwards I will be very happy to answer him.
Petroleum Administration Act
What is being done here results from the fact that we could not get an agreement. Under the Petroleum Administration Act the power is quite clearly provided. As I indicated, it is done regularly and without question in a federal state like Australia. It is done in the same way by the national government in the United States. Therefore, I do not think we should consider that this is such an unprecedented step.
What does the opposition want? The opposition said we should rescind those proclamations. And then what? The price for this product would be decided by the government of Alberta for the whole of the country. We would have the government of one province in this country deciding on the price of a commodity traded interprovincially and internationally. I see a Conservative member opposite nodding his head. I say to him he does not know what the constitution of this country is. He does not know what this country is. We would end up in a situation where provinces determined, by government regulations, the price of commodities in interprovincial and international trade.
I challenge the provinces to name one other federal country in this world where the provincial governments or state governments have such powers. It does not exist, for the very good reason that if there is one country, there must be one common market and one national government which, if there is no agreement, must in the end make a decision and say that this will be the price. That is what has happened. The price has been set because we could not get agreement after six months of negotiations. However, in spite of that we are ready and willing to sit down again and talk with the government of Alberta. I am happy that Premier Lougheed has indicated that he is willing to see the discussions resumed.
The government was in effect forced to act in this particular instance. I remind the hon. member that in August the government of Alberta unilaterally raised the price of oil by $2. We looked in the other direction, if I may use that expression, at the time because the increase proposed by the Alberta government corresponded with an offer we had made in August. In order to gain some time in discussion and in order to allow for better relations, we decided to ignore that particular action, which could have been challenged, and let the price rise.
One week before the government introduced its budget, the government of Alberta proclaimed the Alberta Natural Gas Price Administration Act. The net result was that the Alberta government would control through regulations the price of natural gas coming out of the province. Since we were bringing down the budget, it was essential that the government assume and exercise its responsibility. I make no apologies for that. Indeed, we would have been remiss in our responsibility to the Canadian people had we done otherwise.
Therefore, we have proclaimed those actions under the Petroleum Administration Act. I hope negotiations will resume in the next short while and that we will arrive at an agreement.

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act

I would like to point out that it seemed to us extremely important in this whole matter that our decisions should take into account the interests of the various regions of the country and those of the consumers.
The proclamations now under consideration simply aim at implementing a pricing system for oil and gas sold interprovin-cially and internationally in this country. The price of gasoline sold in Alberta and gas produced and consumed in British Columbia will not be regulated by these proclamations. Only oil and gas shipped across provincial and international borders will be covered.
We wanted a pricing system which would be fair for the country as a whole. As hon. members are aware, this will result in significant net benefits for the producing provinces, and especially for Alberta. Under this program, the government of Alberta would receive within the next four years approximately $31 billion while British Columbia and Saskatchewan would, of course, receive much less since Saskatchewan would receive approximately $3.2 billion and British Columbia about $3.6 billion. Even so, these figures will seem fabulous to all the other regions.
As far as the consumer is concerned, we have endeavoured to take steps, so that even if prices were to increase in the coming years, he would be reasonably well protected or at least he could anticipate impending increases and then adjust his standard of living accordingly.
My hon. colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has quoted figures from page 106 of "The National Energy Program" which I invite Canadians to get at their local post office. I am told that copies are available. Well, the hon. member will note that for the citizen of Winnipeg to whom he referred or for the citizen of St. John's, Newfoundland, for example, who spent about $680 for heating in 1980, should he convert his heating system to natural gas or take advantage of all benefits under the energy conservation schemes available under the national energy program, the heating bill of that citizen in Winnipeg will be reduced from $680 to a potential cost of $535 in 1984, while for the citizen of St. John's, Newfoundland, it could be reduced from $810 to $760 through the necessary conservation measures.
I mentioned Winnipeg and St. John's, Newfoundland, but I could also mention every other Canadian city. This means that Canadian consumers are invited to play a real part in this endeavour to attain energy self-sufficiency during the next decade. In addition, the program clearly indicated that even if prices rise, Canadian consumers will be in a position to protect themselves thanks to the programs which we have made available to them.

I notice that I have only a few minutes left. I would have loved to have spent more time putting forward other aspects but I understand we will have an opportunity to have a second
debate in the next few days on the second proclamation. I may want to use that opportunity to come back to the points which have been raised already in this debate and to cover several more points.
It is important to note that the government has made genuine, serious efforts to resolve this particular issue over the last few months. We have discussed a pricing formula and we have offered to abandon, if necessary, the existing mechanism for pricing and offered a new equalization formula whereby the provinces would have a more equal share amongst themselves. But those proposals were turned down. We tried to separate the issues of the tar sands and heavy oil from the issues of conventional oils, but that was turned down also. We proposed that there be a tax on the export of gas and electricity, but that was turned down. The budget was changed at the last minute and that plan was abandoned in order to accommodate the views of the producing provinces, particularly the government of Alberta.
Unfortunately, up until now, our proposals have not been fruitful. These proclamations have been introduced as a stopgap measure and as a substitute for the lack of an agreement. We indicated that we are undertaking further discussions without preconditions. I stress that this government has set no conditions for these further discussions. I ask the opposition parties to observe who is setting conditions and asking for certain requirements ahead of time.
It is important that we achieve a resolution which will ensure to the federal government a fair share of the resource revenue while ensuring for the producing provinces an increase in wealth to the extent they would never have dreamt of ten years ago or even as recently as five years ago, while still leaving enough profit for the industry. As a national government, we must think of the national interest. The national interest of this country is obviously larger than the interest of a particular region or province. We are determined to do everything we can to reach agreement. Again, 1 say to members on both sides of the House, because I know that many of them are as concerned as we are, and rightfully so, about the deep disagreement existing at this time, that I hope the debate in the country and particularly in Alberta will be kept at a level of reason with reasonable arguments. There are so many arguments being used which have no foundation at the present time. I invite the Tory member on the other side who is so vocal at the present time to keep his cool and listen a little bit because he might learn a thing or two. It might be helpful, instead of telling his constituents what he has been over the past little while-


Arnold John Malone: Name one.


Marc Lalonde: -to use his head and advance a resolution to this problem rather than fan divisions in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member from Edmonton East on a point of
November 21, 1980

order pursuant to the remarks made earlier that there is a single question to be asked and answered.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the minister. It concerns the proclamation of section 36 in the Petroleum Administration Act. I believe the government had two possibilities. First, to invoke and set the price of oil for one year and then hope that negotiations with the producing provinces would continue to affect the price subsequently.
The second alternative of the federal government was to invoke this section of the Petroleum Administration Act to set a schedule of pricing over a period of years from five to ten years, or four to ten years, in other words, set a pricing structure which then acts as a major club on the producing provinces in terms of the possibility of reaching agreement or no agreement at all.
Could the minister clarify very carefully if possible whether the invocation of this section of the act is for a period of one year only so that if an agreement is reached with the producing provinces within this year, then we will not have this act in place? If the government needs to come forward with this act again a year from now, it will come before Parliament again to invoke it. It is important that I know the answer to that question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member. He knows that we did come forward with a ten-year program called the national energy program. He knows, too, that the budget itself announced the projection of prices over that long period. I am sure the hon. member knows also that the industry and the people of Canada generally have been clamouring for some certainty. There have been consistent protests over the last few years because it was very difficult, if not impossible, to plan, especially for megaprojects on the basis of what the price is this year when we do not know what it will be two years from now or four years from now. In other words, some certainly was needed as to the future.
It was to ensure a certain degree of certainty and clarification as to the government's policy that it was decided to put forward this long-term plan. We have indicated that this is a ten-year program. It would be naive or irresponsible to say that in a ten-year program not one iota can be changed, or that this is cast in stone, just like the Bible. So that is not our perception. However, we have put forward the proclamation in question in order to avoid as far as possible-and I hope we will reach an agreement eventually-this kind of annual mutual harassment and this annual dramatic time which industry and governments have to go through when month after month they have to come back to renegotiate a pricing regime. We have put forward a pricing regime which we think will be fair for the industry over the next ten years and for the various regions of the country.
The government of Alberta has indicated that it is willing to sit down again and look at this issue, and so have we. It is there for everybody to see. I would think from my conversations with the government of Alberta and the government of Saskatchewan that they themselves would prefer, if possible, to
Petroleum Administration Act
have a resolution which would be for more than one year so that government and industry can get down to the business of finding more oil and gas and making more money and jobs for everybody.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to speak on this important subject-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? Please excuse me but I thought the hon. member was rising on a point of order and I hesitated to disturb him. The minister said he would answer short questions. Might I put one to him? It concerns the invocation of the act and it is fairly short. Might I do that before the hon. member begins to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This seems to be still within the time limit accorded to the minister, so one question and answer will be permitted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), Mr. Speaker.
1 do not think the minister would get disagreement from this corner of the House that in the end, in an emergency, the national government must make a decision and take action. But 1 would remind the minister that under our constitution the provinces have power over resources. I would think that he, as a Quebecker, would be very much aware of that. My question is this: there did not seem to be a dispute, in the eyes of the average Canadian at least, with Alberta in terms of prices. The minister mentioned that the province of Alberta had raised the price by $2 a barrel and the federal government had not opposed that. However, there was no indication that it would be raised any further. That being the case, could the minister not have said to the province of Alberta: "Here is our scheme and our maximum limits; if you go above that, then we will bring in the act, but as long as there is no dispute now, there is no reason to invoke this act." Would the minister explain to me why he did not go along with the present situation without invoking the act?


Marc Lalonde: At the time I had discussions with my colleague in Alberta there was agreement that there would be no price increase after August 1 above $2 until October. But the government of Alberta was retaining its right to act after that. As I indicated one week before the budget, the government of Alberta decided to proclaim the Alberta Gas Marketing Act, the Alberta Natural Gas Price Administration Act.
The hon. member must realize that the Minister of Finance needed to bring in a budget. In every country in modern times energy is a fundamental element in determining budget policy. For instance, it must be determined how much money a government will need in terms of support for energy programs-whatever they are in each country. Therefore, it was impossible to ask the Minister of Finance to walk into this House and say, "Here is a budget, but assuming that nothing else happens over the next little while, this is approximately what it will be". I think the hon. member's party would have been the first one to rise in protest and outrage. It would be

November 21, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
argued that by failing to disclose his plan of action the Minister of Finance was not assuming his responsibility; it would be argued he should ask Parliament to vote on something definite, not on something hypothetical and dependent on the goodwill of other levels of government which are not answerable to this House but to another constituency. Essentially and fundamentally it was a matter of Parliament being asked to consider a budget; Parliament had to make a decision on the fiscal position of the government over the next year. This morning I indicated that if the orders in council giving instructions to Petro-Canada to negotiate with Esso Resources was available today, I would table them. I now have them in French and English. If the House agrees, I will table those orders in council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the suggestion of the minister to table certain orders in council. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is so ordered.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise today very bitter and very deeply angered as a member of Parliament from western Canada who sees an issue that is before the Canadian people which creates a division that is unnecessary. It begins with premises that are true and reaches conclusions that are false.
We do not have an energy crisis in this country. We have enough coal to supply petrochemical needs for 300 years. We have in the oil reserves of western Canada enough supply for several hundred years. What we lack in this country is a systems policy, not energy. The energy is there. There is a struggle between the federal government and the provinces. With the tactics they are using against the will of those who want to put systems in place, they are destroying the fabric of this nation, the will of those at the grassroots to make a commitment to energy security. Even with our abundance of coal, which is the envy of the world, we have a struggle of politics going on which is not only denying Canadians energy, but causing an excessive loss of jobs and capital as well.
I use the example of one tar sands plant. If one plant were to close and to stay closed for the projected life of the project, it would involve a loss of some $290 billion to Canada. That is what is involved in the ripple effect through the Canadian system. Of that amount, 40 per cent would go into the province of Ontario. There would be an enormous loss of jobs, not in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia but in consequence of the raping of central and eastern Canada against its security of supply, the assurance that there will be oil and petroleum products for the driving of cars, heating of homes and the industrial sector.
I wish to place on record what it would mean if Alsands were to receive its full documentation and endorsement from the federal government. It would put some $800 million into
the province of Ontario in the area of iron and steel production, $370 million for the fabrication of machinery in the manufacturing basin of central Canada, $325 million into Ontario for other forms of manufacturing and processing, $740 million into Ontario and Quebec in relation to financing through banks, trust companies and the like for capitalization of these megaprojects. It would involve another $370 million in trades and services and an additional $7 million in spill-over effects with regard to employment.
I become very annoyed when I hear the tone of the debate which tries to create the impression that there was a disagreement and an inability to work out with the province of Alberta an energy package, leaving Canadians in a desperate position. The truth is there was never a serious attempt by the present federal government to deal with the province of Alberta. The Alberta energy minister said the first two occasions there was a visit from representatives of the federal government it was a milk and cookies occasion, a get acquainted party. There was never a document on the table, never a discussion, never a piece of paper in front of them.
When the minister comes before Parliament and recounts the number of times he went from Ottawa to Edmonton or someone came from Edmonton to Ottawa, he wants Canadians to believe those were negotiations and that, because there was no resolution, Alberta failed. The truth is that since being re-elected last February, the federal government has not placed one proposal before the province of Alberta. With their sinister attitude, they try to create the illusion that they are being denied an agreement after all the efforts they made. The truth is otherwise. Their first two missions were simply to get acquainted with the staff of the two energy departments.
This proclamation is before us because the minister said an agreement could not be reached. He further said it was not the federal government which was placing conditions on the negotiations. That is a rather sinister view when you think of the conditions Alberta is placing on this. The province of Alberta is saying that if you are going to deal, you will deal with us on the question of petrochemical energy. We have seen the tactics of this government.
During the last first ministers' conference, a document was leaked indicating that the province of Alberta should be divided from the other three western provinces, that it should be isolated. They wanted to create an enemy at which the other provinces could point. With regard to the Atlantic provinces, they wanted to isolate Newfoundland from the other maritime provinces so it could be pointed at as the enemy.
What are they doing in their energy negotiations? They are trying to separate tar sands oil. Why? When that is removed from the negotiations, they can of their own free will do what they want with the energy package. Obviously in their negotiations Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have every right to say to the federal government that if it wants to talk energy, come and do that, but if it wants to divide up the pie, go home. They have every right to tell them to go home if they are not bargaining fairly. The minister comes here lily white
November 21, 1980

and clean, stating that it is the provinces which are making the conditions. I agree, they are putting on a condition. The condition is, if you cannot bargain fairly, don't bargain at all.
Then what do we find? We find the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) spending 40 days and 40 nights in the dessert of Arabia. For what purpose? For $40-a barrel oil.
The truth is that since he was elected he has spent more time in the Middle East than he has spent in the province of Alberta. Elon. members opposite try to put forward the view that we will not negotiate. What an unfair and sinister position for a government which will not take the time within the provinces of its own country that it takes in dealing with energy matters on some foreign soil.
I see that the time is up, Mr. Speaker. May I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 6, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: that Bill C-228, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today represents two aspects of the Income Tax Act which should be familiar to members of the House because since 1970 I have been opposed to the second feature of the bill and have repeatedly filed private members' bills in order to get rid of that aspect of the Income Tax Act.
The first feature is one which I, as well as a good number of my colleagues on this side of the House, have attacked in one way or another since about 1977 when it was added to the Income Tax Act.
The first clause deals with the requirement of the Income Tax Act that a person cashing bearer coupons on Canada Savings Bonds shall furnish on the application for deposit a social insurance number. If that person should fail to do so, the
Income Tax Act
bank, trust company or encashing agent must retain 25 per cent of the interest coupons and remit them to the Minister of National Revenue. There that interest collected shall be deemed to have been levied and paid or shall be available for the person involved to apply in a subsequent taxation year for reimbursement. However, there is a "Catch 22" aspect to this in that it is a requirement of another section of the Income Tax Act passed in 1966 that every income tax return shall contain a social insurance number and that the income tax authorities are empowered to reject such a return unless completed in a form satisfactory to the taxation authorities.
This meant that an elderly person who did not have a social insurance number or a child of 12, for example, who owned some Canada Savings Bonds by way of gift or any other means was not able to cash interest coupons and recover their value because that person did not satisfy a bureaucratic requirement with regard to social insurance numbers. There are a few members in this House who were present in 1964 when the late Prime Minister Pearson solemnly stated in this House under questioning that social insurance numbers would not be used for any purpose other than for social security reasons. In fact, he answered questions of the former leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, particularly on the subject of income tax, and he denied it would be used for income tax purposes.
The first thing that happened was that in 1966 there slipped through-not surreptitiously or anything; I suppose in the press of events-a requirement that for identification purposes the social insurance number would be required on every tax return of a private individual. That should have been an alert, but unfortunately too many people somehow or other took it to be a reasonable request. However, that was only the opening of a door.
Since that time there have been requests for social insurance numbers by department stores when applications for charge cards were made, by oil companies for credit cards, by the Department of External Affairs for passports and by any number of other organizations, including midget hockey teams. Recently I learned that in the province of Alberta a government department was requesting social security numbers for children in a musical group, all about the age of 12, who were going to travel outside the province on a government grant. Fortunately, after one telephone call the minister in charge of that department decided that this was a lot of bureaucratic nonsense and reversed that decision right on the spot. There has been abuse. Is this country going to accept the principle that everyone must have an Orwellian identification number? The armed services got away from their district service numbers allowing one to identify what kind of serviceman a particular individual was, whether he belonged to an eastern district or whether he was in the army, the navy or the air force, by substituting social security numbers. 1 object, and so do my colleagues. I know that the hon. member for Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), formerly the minister of state for the Treasury Board, had indicated he was going to

November 21, 1980
Income Tax Act
introduce legislation restricting the use of social security numbers.
Elowever, that did not come to pass. In November, 1979- and my colleague from Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) will elaborate on this-the previous administration indicated there was to be a study on their use. That was affirmed and extended by the present administration. The report should have been in by November 1. It has not been tabled. It may have been made to the government, but it has not been tabled.
In any event, I have, through clause 1, moved to delete those two subsections. They are amplifications of the original section 234 dealing with ownership certificates, but in addition to the ownership certificates there was the question of the social insurance number. It was a stupid thing because the minister of the day tacitly admitted that if the person concerned wanted to give any sort of social security number, whether his, hers or someone else's, it did not matter. So long as there was a number, the banks and cashing agents did not have to withhold anything. When and if a cross audit would catch up with it, God only knows. Since that time several of the banks have indicated that they will not abide by those regulations, and they are not doing so. If the section is being disregarded, it is in disrepute, and the only thing to do is to strike it from the record. I am sure the present administration will decide to strike it from the record in the Income Tax Act. So I hope that hon. members can support that aspect of it.
Now with regard to section 237, it has to do with a failure to show a social security number on an income tax return which need not be then accepted by the income tax authorities. So far as I am concerned, if I have a social security number and I voluntarily put it on my tax return, that is my business. It is my number for my private use. Since when has income tax been part of social security?
Therefore, when I move to strike 237(1) and 237(2), I do away with the obligation and necessity. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has not indicated anywhere in her legislation that an individual has to apply for a social security number. But section 237 of the Income Tax Act says one has to do so. The provision has become distorted. It has become a case of the tail that wags the whole dog. The initiative is now with the Department of National Revenue to decide who shall apply for a social security number, and 1 move to strike that out. However, my colleagues wish to discuss this matter further.
I want to turn now to something that as a lawyer 1 find dastardly and absolutely wrong. I gather that a similar feeling is felt by the council on uniform legislation, or a like body, in that, under section 239, the Crown may move either by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction if there is to be prosecution of an offence under the Income Tax Act. The decision as to whether it will be by indictment or by summary conviction is made by the Attorney General of Canada, not by the minister of national revenue, which, in effect, means it is
the director of public prosecutions who makes the recommendation to the deputy attorney general, and that is the authority. Unfortunately, offences under section 239 against the Income Tax Act include a false return or an evasion of a return and destruction of records, the disposal of books, acquiescence or collaboration in the making of false returns, all the offences one can think of under the Income Tax Act including one which is so general that there is no way of escaping it, namely, "wilfully or in any manner evading or attempting to evade compliance with this act or payment of taxes imposed by this act." That is, in fact, a difference of opinion with the taxing authorities. If I have a difference of opinion with the taxing authorities and I say that I will not pay those taxes, that is my interpretation and I am "wilfully or in any manner" attempting to evade payment of taxes imposed by this act. The taxing authority says that the act imposes these taxes, and I say, no, I am evading that by my interpretation. That is a wilful act and I am then guilty of an offence. In addition to any penalty provided, I am liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than 25 per cent or to a fine and imprisonment. But subsection (2) says:
Every person who is charged with an offence described by subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada be prosecuted upon indictment and, if convicted, is in addition to any penalty provided, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two months.
That means the judge has no option. In practice it means that if the director of prosecutions decides that the Crown attorney will move by way of an indictment and there is a finding of guilty, or even an admission of guilt because often the facts are there, a mandatory jail sentence is imposed regardless of how severe or otherwise the judge considers the offence to be. That is wrong. We throw too many people into jail as it is. It is the court which should decide whether or not a person goes to jail, not a functionary of the Department of Justice. My amendment gives scope to the judge on the penalty and it is the judge who will decide. There is none of this business of going by way of indictment. Gracious me, there is a section in the Bank Act which provides for prosecution by way of indictment. I wanted to strike it out but was told that a recommendation would come forward for the government to do away with proceedings by way of indictment under these acts. This is not the Criminal Code. It is a civilian act along with the Bank Act. It is civil statutory law. We have to take a much more civilized and just stand. This business of moving by indictment is subject to abuse. Political motivation may determine that a certain individual will go to jail. We have seen occasions where the choice of whether the government moved by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction seemed to be based upon political capriciousness. If somebody desires to get even with a certain prominent citizen, to make an example of him, or just to get at him, he can move by way of indictment. His crime may be no worse than that of the neighbour down the street who lives at a much lower profile. One will be subjected to proceedings by way of summary conviction and the other by way of indictment. They are no more than offences against statutory law, and that section should be repealed.
November 21, 1980

Many hon. members have not been exposed to this particular facet of our statute law, so I commend it to them. Often within the confines of private members' hour anomalies or injustices in various statutes are pointed out to fair-thinking people, and parliamentarians, as fair-thinking people, say we must do away with them. It is in this spirit that I offer this legislation to my colleagues in the House of Commons, so that they will accept it in the spirit of fair-mindedness toward their fellow men, and do away with these anomalies, injustices and in so far as the social insurance is concerned, some rather silly results.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the bill presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I should like to begin by paying tribute to his motives in bringing to the attention of the House what he considers to be anomalies in existing legislation. His motives deserve the recognition of the House, but as I think he will see in a moment, in several respects there are real differences between his approach and his understanding of the income tax amendments and mine.
Bill C-228 proposes three amendments to the Income Tax Act. One of them does not require any extensive discussion, that is, the first clause of the bill to repeal subsections 234(5) and (6) of the act. Those are the sections which relate to persons cashing bearer coupons, warrants for interest and dividend payments without listing their social insurance number on the ownership certificate. Where this number is not given, the person paying the interest or dividend must deduct 25 per cent of the amount as a withholding tax. This deduction is credited against the recipient's personal income tax owing for the year.
Repeal of the subsections to which the hon. member referred was in fact proposed in the notice of ways and means motion tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on April 21. It is simply unnecessary to pass Bill C-228 in order to abolish that provision.
However, the other two proposals in this bill require closer examination. Both suggest a willingness to weaken the integrity of the tax system and leave it open to abuse and fraud. We all realize that throughout history the tax collector has never been a popular figure. It has always been easy to score political points by offering to weaken the tax system, but I suggest this can be a dangerous and self-defeating game. We must recognize that income tax is more than just a means of raising federal revenues. It is an important aspect of the whole effort of government to promote social justice through redistribution of income, support for the needy, and the development of the less prosperous areas of Canada. This is what is at stake when we consider the need to protect the integrity of the tax system.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. parliamentary secretary accept a question?


Roy MacLaren: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Income Tax Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know the parliamentary secretary is giving a philosophical justification for income tax, but perhaps he would go back to its origin and say that it was a special war tax. Until 1948 it was known as the income war tax act, merely to raise funds to pay for the expenses of war. How does he reconcile that tax with the support of our social system?


Roy MacLaren: Of course the hon. member is correct in drawing to the attention of the House the fact that when income tax was first introduced in the United Kingdom, prior to and during the First World War, it was regarded by some as a temporary measure. I thank the hon. member for inviting my comment in this regard. Since then, the liberal philosophy, of caring for each other through collective measures which require revenue, whether raised in the form of income tax, corporate income tax or capital gains tax, has become well established in the practices of all democratic nations. Of course Canada is no exception in that regard.
Income tax is more than just a means of raising federal revenues. At least we on this side of the House see it as the principal method of achieving the balance of social justice and equity to which we subscribe. Fundamentally that is what is at stake when we consider the need to protect the integrity of the tax system.
When we consider that clause 3 of the bill would eliminate the present legal option of proceeding against serious tax evaders by way of indictment, we see some problems arise immediately. The hon. member for Edmonton West objects to empowering the Attorney General of Canada to decide on an indictment proceeding instead of proceeding by way of summary conviction. He objects to the minimum sentence of two months in jail which the law provides for those persons convicted. The hon. member discussed this same issue at some length during the 1971 debate on the tax reform bill and again in 1973 when he presented a private member's bill on this subject. I suggest that he is no more likely now than he was then to win majority support in the House for his approach.
We are talking about measures to deal with serious income tax fraud, not just any minor attempt to evade tax payment. The kind of offences we are considering are set out in Revenue Canada's information circular on tax evasion and tax avoidance. It describes some of the factors which are considered as grounds for deciding to proceed by way of indictment. It is clear that we are talking about serious attempts at tax evasion by people who are second offenders, people who sell their assets or move them out of the country to escape the collection of taxes owing, people who intimidate others to help in tax evasion schemes, people who counsel others on tax evasion practices, people who have evaded substantial amounts of tax owing. These are some of the factors that must be considered.
If any member seeks proof that we are discussing exceptional cases, I would point to the Revenue Canada statistics which show that over the six years prior to last March 31 only 12 taxpayers have been imprisoned through indictment proceed-

November 21, 1980
Income Tax Act
ings. So the decision by the Attorney General to proceed by way of indictment is clearly not one taken lightly or routinely.
It is not a rare or remarkable situation for the Crown to be empowered with the option of proceeding by way of either summary conviction or indictment. The Criminal Code has many such instances. Agreed, it is not customary for this provision to be coupled with a mandatory jail sentence for convictions on indictment. But 1 submit that it is justified in cases such as this.
The sponsor of the bill has argued in the past that the law really means that the Attorney General of Canada has power to send someone to jail by proceeding by way of indictment. This argument conveniently overlooks the fact that it is still the court which decides whether an offence has been committed and whether conviction is warranted.
Serious tax fraud is one of the so-called white collar crimes. It represents an effort by more prosperous persons with substantial tax liabilities to evade payment of their taxes. There is a view held by some that white collar law-breakers should receive lenient treatment in the law. That cynical view would be confirmed if Parliament decided to drop this provision in our laws. The possibility of a mandatory jail term-even one of only two months-must serve as a powerful deterrent for those who might seek to defraud the treasury in this way. Too often a fine is regarded merely as a cost of doing business.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly the third proposal in the bill now before us. It would end the requirement for taxpayers to report their social insurance number with their tax return. It is difficult to see what such a step would accomplish, apart from weakening Revenue Canada's ability to collect income taxes that are owing and to ensure the fair and efficient administration of the Canada Pension Plan and the unemployment insurance system.
The advent of electronic data processing has opened up a whole new world of concern to many people. Large quantities of information about individuals can be stored in various computer data banks. One of the chief concerns about the social insurance number is that it might be a handy key which would allow the pooling of information about an individual from a number of these data banks without his knowledge or consent. However, the problem here is not really the social insurance number. Computer technology allows the linkage of information without using the SIN-for example, by using name, address or birth date. The SIN is a handy target for criticism, but the real issue is the problem of data linkage itself. Our concern should really be with that, and not with the secondary issue of the social insurance number.
Under part IV of the Human Rights Act proclaimed on March 1, 1978, Parliament established a method for controlling the unauthorized exchange of personal data in federal information banks. Perhaps these provisions can be strengthened. Certainly more should be done about the data banks on individuals which exist in the private sector and how this information can be used.
There is legitimate concern about the proliferating use of the social insurance number in a wide variety of applications that do not relate to the administration of social security programs and the tax system. But none of these problems is met by the proposal to exclude use of the SIN from income tax returns, and much would be lost by this proposal, which would weaken Revenue Canada's ability to carry out its responsibility to protect the integrity of the tax system. We must remember, too, that information from individual tax returns is used to establish the individual's rights under the Canada Pension Plan and to determine insurable earnings for purposes of the unemployment insurance program. Mr. Speaker, both of these programs depend on the social insurance number. If the SIN cannot be used on income tax returns it will simply compound the number of information returns that Canadians will have to make to the federal government. The administrative cost and the nuisance would be multiplied.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on his pursuit of his private member's Bill C-228. I would like to read the explanatory note which sets out why there is cause for concern. It states:
The purpose of this bill is to repeal certain provisions of the Income Tax Act relating to social insurance numbers, and the consequences of failing to obtain such a number for entry on tax returns. At present, there are thousands of Canadians who do not possess social insurance numbers.
The parliamentary secretary did not address himself to that part of the bill. As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, it was a bureaucratic decision that implemented this in the first place and this afternoon we heard a bureaucratic answer. It was not something that was compiled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) at all. This bill calls attention to the serious consequences that a taxpayer faces with the abuse of the SIN number. When the SIN was introduced in 1964 it was not meant for this purpose. There is legitimate concern about government abuse of the SIN.
The Conservative government, in a release dated November 26, 1979, took positive action in this area. That release stated:
Finance Minister John Crosbie and Revenue Minister Walter Baker announced today that the government intends to drop the requirement that persons cashing bond coupons must provide a social insurance number or pay a 25 per cent withholding tax.
The minister of justice in the Clark government, in a release dated February 1, 1980, announced that he had ordered a special study by Canada's Privacy Commissioner on the use of social insurance numbers. This study was continued under the present government. On May 23, 1980, they announced that the scope of the special social insurance numbers study by Canada's Privacy Commissioner would be expanded to include those federal government institutions to which part IV of the Human Rights Act applies. We were to have received this report on November 1. I hope it will be tabled very shortly.
Obviously the government of the day was concerned about what was happening about the abuse of social insurance numbers or they would not have continued the study and
November 21, 1980

extended it for another three months. Concern has certainly been expressed by Canadian citizens over the past number of years about the abuse of the SIN by government departments and invasion of privacy. As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, children are now required to submit a social insurance number when they register to play football and hockey. That is a lot of darned nonsense. I hope the report will make recommendations to put a stop to that.
To show how difficult it is to send a letter to a serviceman, a recent article stated, "It may take SIN to get that card to a serviceman". Apparently, if his social insurance number is not on there he might not receive his Christmas card. Mr. Speaker, what kind of nonsense is that? I hope the government study which should have been completed by November 1 will be available to all members in the very near future. I hope it will eliminate nonsense of this kind, about the need to put a social insurance number on a Christmas card.
A former prime minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, spotted the problems with the SIN back in 1964. He asked questions of the House leader at that time. He wanted an assurance for the Canadian people that any information provided in the social insurance number application form would be maintained on a completely confidential basis and would not be used for any other purposes or passed over to any other department. The Liberal House leader at the time replied that the information would be maintained in Ottawa for government purposes including the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the proposed Canada Pension Plan.
The right hon. gentleman repeated his question adding that the system bears a strange relationship to dictatorship. Certainly, the system has expanded from its original purpose back in 1964. Also, at that time we found out that the RCMP had told a commission in Ottawa that the little white plastic card bearing each taxpayer's social insurance number has evolved into an identification card and is vital to the RCMP. The RCMP was given direct access to social insurance data held by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in 1969.
Just five years earlier, the government managed to get the social insurance number established in law by promising never to let it be used for any purpose other than the necessary clerical work associated with the social insurance system. I hope the government report which was to be completed by November 1, 1980, covers these aspects and outlines plans to stop abuses of the SIN as pointed out by the former Conservative prime minister, and the hon. member for Edmonton West. Perhaps the last government speaker will indicate to the House today whether this report was, in fact, completed on November 1, and, if so, when hon. members of the House will be able to obtain a copy.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced today by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has commendable aspects, but the government has certain
Income Tax Act
concerns, and 1 would like to address my remarks to those concerns.
This bill proposes three distinct amendments to the Income Tax Act and although they differ in subject matter, all three have a common thread. They all relate to methods of protecting the integrity of the tax system, methods of ensuring that each of us pays his proper tax. One deals with a withholding tax on interest and dividend payments, another with legal recourse against serious cases of tax evasion, and the third with the use of the social insurance number in administering the tax system.
I should like to address most of my lemarks to the latter point, which proposes to abolish the requirement for taxpayers to list their social insurance number on their income tax returns. But before that, I should discuss briefly the other two proposals in the bill.
I do not expect there will be much disagreement with the first clause of the bill. It would do away with the requirement that 25 per cent of interest and dividend payments being paid by means of bearer coupons or warrants must be withheld whenever the recipient does not list his or her social insurance number on the ownership certificate at the time of payment. A similar change has been proposed in ways and means motions both by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and by his predecessor. Obviously, the original purpose of this withholding tax was to ensure that income tax liabilities on bearer bond coupons and similar transactions were met. If finance ministers of two different governments agree that it is not necessary, then I suspect it will not be greatly missed.
Clause 3 of the bill, however, has a good deal less to recommend it. By this clause, the sponsor of the bill seeks to remove from the Income Tax Act a legal sanction which is now available for dealing with serious cases of tax fraud and evasion. Under this sanction, the Attorney General of Canada has the option of proceeding in the courts by way of indictment against accused tax offenders, rather than proceeding by way of summary conviction. For persons convicted on such an indictment, the law provides a mandatory prison term of between a minimum two months and a maximum five years.
As I understand it, there are precedents in the Criminal Code for the Crown to proceed by way of indictment, rather than the more customary summary conviction route, in serious cases of lawbreaking. If the Crown were to have frequent recourse to this provision, using it not only for major tax frauds but in some of the more routine cases, there would be grounds for the kind of concern shown by the hon. member for Edmonton West. But when we consider that only 12 taxpayers have been sent to jail under this indictment procedure over a six-year period, I think it is very apparent that a good deal of discretion is used before embarking on that sort of prosecution.
It is regrettable, but true, that the fines which are levied by courts against offenders are often viewed simply as a licence fee for lawbreaking-just another cost of doing business- especially if the offender thinks the odds of not getting caught are in his favour. In these circumstances I suggest that the threat of a mandatory jail term, even as short as two months,

November 21, 1980
Income Tax Act
can be a very strong deterrent, especially for the so-called white collar criminal.
There has been widespread public concern, which I share, about the frequency with which offenders under our system of justice are sent to jail or penitentiary. But concern about the proportion of prison terms does not mean that there should be no prison terms. When it appears that fines for tax frauds are not an adequate deterrent, but are instead seen by the offenders as merely a cost of doing business, then I think we have to ensure respect for our laws by a method that will command respect.
I would like to devote some of my remaining remarks to the other proposal in this bill dealing with the present legal requirement for citizens filing an income tax return to identify themselves on the returns by their social insurance numbers. The bill would delete this requirement from the Income Tax Act.
In reading this bill, 1 found it difficult to imagine what might be the motivation behind such a change. Could it represent some sort of latter-day Luddite movement or some sort of emotional revulsion or reaction against one of the tools of a threatening new post-industrial revolution? The social insurance number is, after all, just a tool which, in itself, has no innate evil. In fact it is a tremendously useful tool which, when used reasonably, can provide great social benefits. The requirement is to use it reasonably and responsibly, not to reject it totally.
I think we have to recognize that, in our complex urban society, there exists an emotional reaction among a good many people against what they regard as being depersonalized or reduced to a number in a computer-run society. They feel the system deprives them of some of their humanity. That feeling exists and cannot be ignored. But I suggest we do not resolve the problem by denying to the computers of the Department of National Revenue the use of the SIN.
Unless we drop the use of computers entirely, the Department of National Revenue would simply have to develop letters which would not likely be as good as the highly efficient SIN system. The alternative would be a clumsy, costly, slow system in which the ordinary individuals would find their files confused with the tax returns of others of the same name. I suspect this would be even more frustrating to citizens than being identified by a number.
The usefulness and value of the social insurance number is not always appreciated. We should recognize that income tax returns provide an efficient, low-cost source of essential data for administering the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is the social insurance number which is the key link in ensuring that the taxpayer's contributory earnings for Canada Pension Plan purposes are passed on to his or her CPP file. The SIN allows information on insurable earnings to be used for unemployment insurance purposes. If we remove the SIN from income tax returns, I suggest it would simply mean switching to a more cumbersome and costly information system, with separate information returns
having to be filed for Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance purposes.
There are other examples of how the SIN on a person's income tax return is useful and valuable, not just to the tax collector but to the taxpayer. Consider, for example, the income-averaging provisions in the Income Tax Act which are designed to compensate for a sudden and irregular upswing in a taxpayer's income in a year. Under the present system, the taxpayer does not have to work out the complicated averaging formula himself on his tax return; he has the assurance that the Department of National Revenue's computer will do that job for him if he qualifies for the income-averaging benefit. But the computer could not do this without the link through the social insurance number which allows the individual's tax return to be correlated with his incomes in preceding years.
When we introduced the child tax credit system only recently, it was clear that the fairest way of measuring a family's financial need was to base it on the aggregate of incomes received by the two parents. Yet this approach would have been extremely difficult without having computer access to the reported incomes of both parents, and the social insurance number made this access possible.
Another example of the number's usefulness is that it makes it possible for National Revenue to cross-check information on incomes and earnings so as to ensure the validity of claims and to detect fraud. We have given National Revenue the responsibility of protecting the integrity of the tax system, and the social insurance number is no more than a reasonable tool which makes this possible.
Our income tax system, after all, is based on self-assessment. I suggest that the average Canadian does not resent paying his fair share of taxes as long as he feels confident that his fellow citizens are doing the same. Does anyone really think such a feeling of confidence would exist if National Revenue did not have the means of cross-checking information on tax returns?
In a democratic society that values individual freedom, we clearly have to strike a balance between the state's need to collect tax revenue and the need for personal privacy. I do not think one can really claim that this balance is seriously upset by requiring us to list our social insurance numbers on our income tax returns.
The use of the social insurance number for income tax administration is only one part of a very much wider issue which has developed quite suddenly in recent years with the advent of the computer era. The basis of the problem was very well described in the report of the Task Force on Privacy and Computers as follows:
One hundred years ago, almost everyone was virtually unknown except in his own village or neighbourhood; today, comprehensive and personal details about everyone are stored in an ever-growing number of files, from education to credit, from welfare to insurance, from taxation to criminal history. By almost every act, from acquiring a passport to buying a car, each citizen leaves a trail of data behind him; the data increases in volume from birth to death and grows ever more comprehensive.
November 21, 1980

I think that is a fair description of the situation, but it does not deal with one of the chief worries of those who are concerned with civil liberties, which is the possibility that these separate bits of information about an individual will somehow be pulled together and pooled without the individual's knowledge or consent. The social insurance number is widely viewed as the villain of the piece-the tool which enables this linkage of personal data from a number of computer-based data banks.
It is true that the social insurance number has been put into use far more widely than was envisaged back in 1964 and I accept some of the concerns of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) who drew attention to that in his remarks.
It now is used as a personal identifier not only in a large number of federal data banks; it is also required by several provincial government acts and programs including the Quebec pension plan and health insurance plan, birth registration in Prince Edward Island, and school registration in Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The use of social insurance numbers has also spread outside government and, for example, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association uses it to keep track of all young hockey players in CAHA leagues across Canada, and the Ottawa Public Library uses it to identify its customers.
I suggest, however, that the real problem is not the existence of the social insurance number. The problem is one of unauthorized data linkage-the pooling of information from different computer data banks. Abolition of the social insurance number would not resolve this problem, because computer technology is such that there are other ways of linking up data. For example, an individual's name, address and birth data could be used to identify his file. That route may be more cumbersome and more costly but it is workable.
I am sure public concern about this issue would be greatly diminished if the public were more widely aware of their present rights on this score, and if they used the defences now available to them in respect of data banks within the federal government.
Part IV of the Human Rights Act, proclaimed on March 1, 1978, attempts to tackle the problem in five ways. I will not read these ways because I know other members want to participate in the debate.
In conclusion, it has been argued that these provisions in the Human Rights Act should be strengthened. However, 1 think they show clearly the direction in which we must move to solve the problem of loss of privacy in the computer age, not only in federal government files but at other government levels and in the private sector as well. I appreciate the concerns of the hon. member for Edmonton West who has brought this topic forward today, but we think an attempt to solve the issue by attacking the social insurance number will be only wasted effort. We would deny ourselves the use of a highly efficient and valuable tool while ignoring the real problem completely.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when I say I rise on a question of personal privilege, what I am going to say is not a reflection
Income Tax Act
on the parliamentary secretary, on his personality or anything like that. But it seems to me that there has developed a distressing habit in this House, particularly during the private members' hour when various government speakers are furnished with memoranda written in the departments of the nature read to us this afternoon by the parliamentary secretary which smack of "bureaucratese".
I learned how to speak in this House without notes from a very early date because it was a debating forum. It was not to be an exchange of predetermined memoranda from either source. What I am saying applies as much to hon. members on this side of the House as to the other side. It was not so long ago when the Chair used to intervene when speeches were read. I think reading speeches is a bad habit. Hon. members would not be tolerated on the hustings if they dared appear before their voters with a text in their hands. It is the same thing here. There is a certain tolerance given to hon. members who are starting out, but afterwards one should expect a mastery of the subject and if any hon. member cannot remember enough of the volume put before him, then the speeches will be shorter. I personally do object to having a plethora of read speeches or memoranda in this House whether it is at any stage of legislation or during private members' hour, and as I said, this applies to both sides of the House.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in good faith. What he has said has a lot to commend it. As he knows, I do not usually speak in this House from complete texts or reports. I have been here a number of years and I usually speak on an impromptu basis. As the hon. member knows, my role with the Privy Council is one which is specialized, and I am not overly knowledgeable about the Income Tax Act.
My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) tried to be here this afternoon but he had another engagement. He prepared some notes for my help. If I read them at length, I regret that it appeared it was just a pro forma response from bureaucrats to the hon. member. However, let me say to him quite sincerely that the content of his bill was examined by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Good points have been raised on this bill and we wish to respond. I take the hon. member's admonition and as one who is concerned with the rules and practices of the House I suggest the comments he has raised could perhaps be more appropriately brought up at another time when we discuss parliamentary reform and we talk about the length of speeches and parliamentary practices. Nevertheless, I welcome his question of privilege although I am not sure it is a question of privilege, but in all honesty I have tried to clarify the situation in response to him.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have some privileges here, but the privilege I had of speaking this afternoon without notes has now been lost
4976

November 21, 1980
Income Tax Act
because we have run out of time. I would have dearly loved to say a few things about this particular topic.
[DOT] (noo)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is now after five o'clock. I do not want to prohibit the hon. member from making a contribution, if he sincerely wishes to do so. Perhaps he can limit himself to a very brief intervention.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the same point. I am not sitting here with a pile of notes handed to me by any departmental bureaucrat. There are some points I wanted to make. I am unable to do so because of the question of privilege that has been raised.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, if we are going after five o'clock I just want to say that I have no notes whatsoever and 1 would fully support this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I wish everyone a good weekend?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think the Chair is expected to comment further on the matter of personal privilege that was raised. I might add that my recollection of Beauchesne is that members ought to use notes rather than read speeches. Some of us have difficulty doing that. However, in keeping with the good wishes expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have a good weekend, I would state that the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 24, 1980