1980-11-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: 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 present Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) is also responsible for the environmental ministry and in addition is burdened with constitutional reform duties, and in view of the fact the former government recognized the tremendous importance of the ministry of science and technology by regarding it as a separate entity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That the Prime Minister give immediate and serious consideration to elevating this vital portfolio to its rightful position by appointing a new minister who understands the urgent need in Canada for massive reform of outdated and inadequate programs, and who will have the sole responsibility for science and technology unencumbered by other diversions.


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.


FINANCE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the October 28 budget has imposed new sales tax regulations on manufacturing firms that assemble or package goods, and whereas the new regulations will impose financial hardships on some of these firms in that they have already quoted prices and sold goods to be delivered after January 1, 1981, when the regulations come into effect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to allow at least a six-month lead time for the imposition of this tax to give these firms time to adjust their prices accordingly.


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.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Alberta government refuses to end extra billing by physicians and therefore gives its blessing to the 37 per cent of Alberta doctors who extra bill their patients; whereas Premier Davis of Ontario merely muses publicly about the unacceptability of extra billing but refuses to take any measures whatsoever to end the practice; and whereas former Justice Emmett Hall in his review of our medicare system has said that extra billing by physicians inhibits reasonable access to services and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House direct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to ensure that the federal government, in her own words, "re-establish control of the medicare program", as she argued so passionately during her brief period of exile from her department, or state categorically that she is content to let the practice of extra billing continue in order that a two-tier health care system can rise from the ashes of what was once a program in which Canadians had confidence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous

November 26, 1980
consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter.
Whereas, under the Canadian Constitution, relations between Canada and foreign states fall within federal jurisdiction; whereas the Canadian government has always been flexible in allowing the provinces, especially Quebec, to take part on their own behalf in many international meetings because the agenda included matters of provincial jurisdiction; whereas the agenda of the Dakar summit lists topics of federal, rather than provincial jurisdiction; whereas, by its attitude, France is once again interfering in the internal affairs of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That if France persists in interfering in our internal affairs, the Canadian government consider resorting to economic sanctions such as unfriendly surtaxes on French wines, cheeses, perfumes and other products.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Despite the fact that the state of Massachusetts banned the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation over a year ago, and although the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and her officials indicated to the health and welfare committee in July of this year that they were aware of this serious problem and were studying it, no report is yet available. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That in the interest of the health and welfare of Canadians, this House direct the minister to table the report on urea formaldehyde foam insulation within the next week.


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.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an urgent matter regarding a government railway passenger car travelling Ottawa-Toronto the night before the Grey Cup game, returning Toronto-Ottawa the evening after the Grey Cup game, and the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has clamped a lid on the identity of the occupants of the car, that such names have been forbidden entry in railway records and that railway personnel along the entire route were denied knowledge of those on board. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the Minister of Transport reveal forthwith the names of any and all members of the cabinet or other persons making use of this Grey Cup special in order to remove the sinister air of secrecy surrounding same; that the minister examine the whereabouts during the time that the car was being used of the Postmaster General of Canada; and Finally, that the government instruct the Postmaster General to order his private secretary not to use rude or crude language or hang up telephones when called by members of Parliament, as was done today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43 which is urgent and pressing. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) recently announced before the committee that it is the intention of the government to shift $100 million of costs related to policing the provinces to the provinces and municipalities. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the House instruct the government to abandon its proposal to shift up to $100 million in police contract costs to provinces and municipalities which are not now served by a provincial police force, as these additional costs would further erode the already weakened financial position in which the western provinces particularly and the maritime provinces find themselves as a result of the budget and energy measures of recent date.


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.
November 26, 1980


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since Canadian National Railways plans to cut back on its express service by up to 40 per cent nationally, which will affect many communities which do not have reasonable, low-priced alternatives, since in northern Manitoba the cutbacks will mean an abandonment of service in many communities which do not even have road access, meaning that essential goods will cost much more for those residents, and since section 262 of the Railway Act gives the federal government the authority to intervene to ensure that the railways provide suitable accommodation for traffic offered, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Minister of Transport immediately intervene in this matter by charging CN as being in contravention of the Railway Act, and by ensuring that parcel service is continued to Manitoba's northern communities.


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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake Epp (Proveneher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. The question relates to government policy. At the time the joint committee studied the constitutional proposals known as Bill C-60, the committee had the opportunity to hear a number of expert witnesses give their opinions and views on the bill. In fact, the committee heard a total of 11 so-called expert witnesses at that time. Will the Prime Minister advise whether it is government policy to deny parliamentary committees the right to hear expert witnesses and whether it is government policy to deny Canadians who are expert witnesses to appear before the constitution committee.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, there is no policy in this regard. Our intention with regard to that committee is that it should do its job, particularly regarding the substance of the proposals before it, to wit, the patriation of the Canadian constitution, the acceptance of an amending formula and the insertion of a bill of rights. Within its time framework the committee is master of its own
Oral Questions
procedures and it should get on with the job rather than bog down in procedural debates for fear that it would have to debate the substance.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Prime Minister says that the committee should be, and is master of its own proceedings and agenda, yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, in replying to the committee yesterday, said that it should be up to the House to decide the matter of the scheduling of the expert witnesses. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, since many of the umbrella groups which have appeared before the committee have shown that there are serious flaws in the proposed package that is before the committee, is it the fear of the government that, if such experts were allowed to appear, additional and more glaring deficiencies of the proposed resolution would be made public to Canadians at large?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think you will recognize that the tenor of the question indicates the wisdom of the rule that we not comment in this place on what is going on in committee until the committee makes the report. I think the hon. member has given a good illustration of why that rule should be adhered to.
As to his suggestion that we are not willing to hear witnesses, I point out to the hon. member that although I do not have the exact figure, it seems to me there are more than 200 submissions which have been made. There has been ample occasion for Canadians through these submissions to indicate their points of view. What the opposition seems to fear is that it might have to make up its mind on the substance. That is why they seem to be spending so much time on this kind of preoccupation that is raised now by the hon. member.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, again my supplementary question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This party has no fear as to the substance of our position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am pleased that the Prime Minister has indicated that there are 200 groups or individuals who want to appear before the committee. As a result of the government's timetable, they will not be able to appear. That is the point. They cannot appear, nor are they asked now by the government to appear. They are denied the right to appear by the very policy which his government has adopted through its members on the committee. In view of that policy and the manner in which those members voted yesterday to deny Canadians the right to be heard, will the Prime Minister now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to a vote or some proceeding that took place in the committee.


An hon. Member:: No.

November 26, 1980
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member was asking a question about policy but then he proceeded to comment on a vote that took place in the committee. I would ask him not to do that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I am relating my question to policy. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will now reverse the government policy of denying expert Canadian witnesses the right to appear before the constitutional committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously did not listen to my first answer. I said there was no government policy in that regard. I indicated the government policy was to have this matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Members of Parliament know well the subject matter which is before them.
As to the legality or otherwise of certain procedures, the hon. member knows that some provinces have taken the matter to court. If the provinces want to bring in expert witnesses to explain legal subtleties to the courts, they can always do that. But what we are asking for, Madam Speaker, is that this House essentially pronounce on three things: patriation of the Canadian Constitution, the insertion of the bill of rights and an amending formula. 1 wish the Tory opposition would get on with the job.


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE-OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT ADVICE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In replying to my colleague, the Prime Minister said that the committee should get on with its job. Our problem is that the committee has been hampered in getting on with its job by the government majority on the committee. That is what prompts our concern.
The Minister of Justice has said that he is prepared to provide the committee with the legal advice of his officials. Given our experience with respect to Bill C-60 and the advice we received and given the testimony last night by Mr. Justice Clyne that the bill was badly drafted and would not stand the test of law in Canada, will the minister now give the House an assurance that he will provide an opportunity for the parliamentary committee to hear independent, expert advice and not the bad advice he has been getting?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam speaker, it is clear that Parliament is called upon to pass pieces of legislation and if they are not lawful they can be reviewed by the courts. I have testified 17 hours before the committee, and the committee members have had all possible opportunities to question me as well as my advisers about the legality. During those 17 hours, there were very few questions on the matter of legality,
and the committee members seemed satisfied with answers.
my
When I appear again before the committee, I shall still be willing to answer the questions put to me. However, as stated by the Prime Minister, if the legality of any legislation is to be challenged, it must be done before the courts. Since some provincial governments have started court proceedings, it does not belong to me to make any comment on their submissions. The federal government will be represented before the courts and will assess the legality of the action taken by the sovereign Government of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, far from satisfying the committee with his evidence, the minister made the committee and the people of Canada more apprehensive about what he proposes with this bill of rights. In view of the fact that at least four departments of the government, including the department of the minister's seatmate, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, are now seeking their own legal advice with regard to the impact of the bill of rights on mobility and the effects it will have on these various departments, is it the view of the government that what is being provided to these four departments, independent legal advice, is to be denied a committee of Parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we intend to enshrine in the constitution non-discrimination clauses and mobility rights for all Canadians. Every department will have to look at the legislation they administer to make sure that it conforms with the desire of the Parliament of Canada that there shall be no discrimination and that the mobility rights of Canadians are protected. Of course, we have to look at the present legislation to make sure that the laws of Parliament passed in the past will be in conformity with the charter we will be giving Canadian citizens.
* *
*


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: 
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I refer the hon. member to my answer in the House last week. There is no way by which Foothills can act other than under the provisions of a law which is in effect in this country, namely the Railway Act. I have told the House, however, that Foothills has indicated that, as far as compensation is concerned, Foothills is ready to work out compensation arrangements on the basis of the bill introduced by my colleague, Senator Olson, which has not yet been passed by Parliament. Foothills voluntarily agreed to follow the rules proposed in that particular bill. As far as I can see, nothing has happened which is contradictory to what I indicated to the House or what Foothills had indicated publicly before.
As far as giving directions or orders to Foothills is concerned, I have no power under the law to give any such orders.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. As I indicated two weeks ago, my constituents watched as riot police occupied their land against their will. I refer to the minister's statement in the House last Friday, when he said that "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".
1 should like to ask the minister the following question. If that is his intention, then why not use clause 75(1) which allows mediation to take place, so that a proper settlement can be reached instead of using the arbitrary figures in the Railway Act of 1919?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I have said that my information is to the effect that the company has indicated they are ready to pay compensation on the basis of Senator Olson's bill. 1 fail to see the problem raised by my hon. friend if the company has agreed to pay compensation on the basis of the bill proposed by Senator Olson.


Sidney James Parker: My final supplementary question is also for the minister, Madam Speaker. I should like to remind him that Foothills is expropriating Canadian land so that it can export Canadian gas to Americans for their use. Our people are being subjected to laws which date back to 1919. 1 have contacted Senator Olson, who gave us the very commitment which the minister gave us in the House, and asked him to negotiate on that basis-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question.


Sidney James Parker: Will the minister instruct Senator Olson, who is in charge of the pipeline, to ask Foothills to negotiate on a fair and equitable basis?


Marc Lalonde: I certainly have no power or authority to instruct any of my colleagues, but I will be very happy to raise the problem which my hon. friend has pointed out with
Oral Questions
Senator Olson. I also understand that my friend has spoken to Senator Olson who has indicated that he had the commitment from Foothills that they would pay compensation on the basis of the bill he had put forward. I will draw to the attention of Senator Olson the question raised by my hon. friend this afternoon, but I am happy to see that he himself has taken the initiative of talking to Senator Olson.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. A couple of days ago in the National Assembly, Mr. Ryan appealed to the federal government leader asking him to confine himself to patriation and an amending formula and to meet again with the provinces before sending his address to London. In view of the circumstances and of these objections and considering the wisdom and the interest shown by Mr. Ryan, is the Prime Minister prepared to discuss Mr. Ryan's appeal and to support it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must regretfully inform the hon. member that I have not heard Mr. Ryan's statement. It is certainly most welcome. I must remind the hon. member that for about the past ten years, I have been proposing such a solution, namely, to patriate the constitution with an amending formula. Several provinces have repeatedly refused and, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Ryan also. That is why we have decided to try another approach. Had the provinces, a few years ago or even this summer, indicated their agreement with this, perhaps our position would differ and the resolution before the House would be different. But the hon. member realizes, I am sure, that Mr. Ryan's proposal would be unacceptable to Mr. Levesque, to Mr. Peckford and to several other premiers who are purely and simply against patriation unless we are prepared to satisfy their specific demands, which in essence means more power for Quebec, or Newfoundland, or Alberta, or B.C., and that, Madam Speaker, is the crux of the problem. Now the provinces are saying that they would support patriation, but the last ten years have shown us that if we had proposed patriation of the constitution, they would have been against it unless they were granted offshore rights in one case, cultural sovereignty in another, and so on. 1 remind the hon. member for Joliette that we must be realistic and consider what has happened in the last few years.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary. Madam Speaker. I am sorry that the Prime Minister questioned the good faith of the provinces by adding today that he is convinced they would say no to a simple patriation with an amending formula.

November 26, 1980
Oral Questions
The second question that 1 should like to ask is this: since the Prime Minister has said that Mr. Ryan's recommendation was welcome, this is already a step in the right direction. In any case, it is the first time we have heard the Prime Minister say in the House of Commons that Mr. Ryan's recommendation would be welcome. The leader of the Quebec Liberal party also indicated to the federal government that it would be wise to wait until the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of the constitution, since some provinces have already expressed the wish to ask for such a ruling.
Under the circumstances, would the Prime Minister be at least willing to give an affirmative answer to the leader of the Quebec Liberal party by postponing his address to the British parliament until he learns how the Supreme Court will rule on this proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must repeat to the hon. member that I am not questioning the good faith of the provinces. I will state to him the position made publicly by the provinces during the week of September 9. They said: Patria-tion is out of the question until you accept certain things. Mr. Peckford talked about offshore rights, Mr. Buchanan mentioned federal jurisdiction over fisheries, Mr. Levesque talked about communications as a whole and sovereignty in this area, and so on. They said this publicly, and we have taken the position that since the provinces are determined to try to extend their powers before giving to the Canadian people what they have wanted for 50 years, namely, a Canadian Constitution, negotiation is impossible.
I would prefer that the hon. member ask supplementary questions if he does not agree with what I say. In this case, this statement was made publicly on television in September, and I know what 1 am talking about.


PATRIATION-REPORTED PRESSURE BY CANADA ON UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister, who I am sure will be aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs seriously misled the House last week when he denied that pressures were being brought to bear on the government of Britain by the Government of Canada with respect to getting its constitutional proposals through. I say that in light of the report which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Edmonton Journal in which Sir Anthony Kershaw, chairman of the select parliamentary committee on foreign and commonwealth affairs, confirmed in a telephone interview that Ottawa is putting extreme pressure on Westminster to rubberstamp the Trudeau formula for patriation of the British North America Act. Who is responsible for this extreme pressure? What does the government feel about the propriety of this act? Why does it feel it has to resort to this kind of tactic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that that question should be addressed to Sir Anthony rather than to me. I can state quite clearly that there has been no extreme pressure or no pressure at all. Indeed, I would find it undignified that any member of this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members opposite do not understand the meaning of the word "dignity", I suggest they look it up in their dictionaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 would not want this government to be in the position of begging anything of the United Kingdom. We think it is their duty to respond to a joint address of both Houses of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is as simple as that. That is the way it has happened in the past. They have no more right to look behind an act or resolution passed by this Parliament than the government of any other country would have a right to look behind the composition of some delegation we would want to send to an international meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may try to refer me to Sir Anthony, but when he denies stories of extreme pressure being brought to bear on British parliamentarians by the Canadian government, indeed he is accusing these people of lying. That is what the question is all about; that is how far he has gone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There have been statements issued by Sir Anthony which indicate that there are Canadian officials operating in London-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -who are bringing pressures to bear on British parliamentarians. That story is backed up by a number of British members of parliament. It is backed up by George Foulkes, the Labour member for South Ayrshire-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is getting a bit long, and I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the House by putting her question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who are these Canadian officials who are making these threats and giving warnings to British parliamentarians?


An hon. Member:: The Peckfords.
November 26, 1980


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Whose direction are they acting under? If they are not being directed, what steps are being taken to see that they are publicly and quickly reprimanded for the steps they are taking in interfering in the British parliamentary system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the only officials 1 know who are trying to put pressure on the British government are a few officials who were appointed to London by some provincial governments. Mr. Loiselle, appointed by the Quebec government, has said that he is attempting to do that. We take the view that this is pure colonialism, and no person in my government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and no official responsible to this government has the authority to beg anything of the British Parliament in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary, whose office I phoned earlier today in order to give notice of the subject matter I would be raising this afternoon.
During the month of September, 1980, 15 metric tons of the pesticide Vitavax was shipped to Nepal and India as a donation through CIDA. I would like to know why the department is shipping this potentially hazardous chemical to Third World countries, considering that at present there is a judicial inquiry being held in Manitoba into the death of a farmer exposed to Vitavax. His death has been attributed by the medical examiner to Vitavax. Also it has been alleged by Uniroyal, the company involved, as well as federal government departments, that the Manitoba farmer did not read the label properly and did not use the proper clothing. If Vitavax requires such extreme caution in handling, how does the Department of External Affairs imagine that agricultural workers in India or Nepal could handle it safely? Has the department informed the countries involved of the potential health hazards of Vitavax?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, like many of us I have read the clippings attributed to the hon. member in the newspapers this morning which amplify what he said at the Standing Committee on Agriculture yesterday. He suggested that Canada has done damage to the people of the Third World by sending them some pesticides which we see fit to use in Canada.
Oral Questions
I take exception to the incredible question which the hon. member has raised. By way of consequence the hon. member has suggested that the Canadian government has such a policy toward the Third World countries. He has suggested in a very paternalistic way that the people of India and Nepal are not sophisticated enough to use properly the pesticides which we use in Canada. Is the hon. member suggesting that there should not be rural electrification because of the possibility of electrical shock? What exactly is he suggesting?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, what I am suggesting is that the darned government be realistic about the realities in Third World countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Father knows best.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary concerns the effectiveness of Vitavax in agriculture. Today in Saskatchewan there are 500,000 pounds of rapeseed treated with Vitavax which has a germination rate of 10 per cent. 1 wonder if the Department of Agriculture advised the department of foreign affairs to inform Nepal and India that the rapeseed only has a germination rate of 10 per cent, and that if Vitavax is used extensively in those countries, there could be a famine. I wonder how the government would explain that reality.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, it is essential to clarify the fact that the reasoning of the hon. member is based on the conclusion that the death of a farmer in Manitoba was directly connected to the use or misuse of Vitavax.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Talk about germination.


Monique Bégin: That death has not been connected to the use of Vitavax or products containing lindane. This fact should be established first and an inquiry is under way right now. The hon. member should tell the whole truth, including the fact that the liver analysis showed only six parts of lindane per billion, which is inconsistent with the conclusion that the person was a victim of an overdose. One must not draw conclusions based on a single fact with no correlation to other known facts which would apply to the sending of pesticides to the Third World. I believe that this is unacceptable intellectually.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the death of the Right Hon. Jules Leger, whom I have personally always considered a great Canadian and whom most Canadians have

November 26, 1980
Oral Questions
always admired for the many years he gave to our country, can the minister say whether his department is considering issuing a commemorative stamp in his honour?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 am happy to confirm that the Canada Post Office will issue a commemorative stamp in honour of the Right Hon. Jules Leger on March 5 of next year, which will be the anniversary of his appointment as Governor General.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He will be aware that yesterday former British prime minister James Callaghan said that the British parliament would likely act on Canada's request "unless there was some legal challenge in the courts of Canada which betrayed a taint of illegality".
In view of the growing number of distinguished Canadian experts on constitutional law, such as the former deputy minister of justice, Mr. Elmer Driedger, and Mr. Justice Clyne, who have raised serious doubts about the constitutionality of the government's action, is the Prime Minister personally prepared to take action to resolve these doubts by asking for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada so that once and for all Canadians can be satisfied, in Canada, that the actions being proposed by the Prime Minister are both legal and constitutional before he asks the British parliament to take those actions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, many times since I have been in this House the opposition has demanded that this or that bill be referred to the Supreme Court. My answer generally has been that the courts should be brought into the subject when some citizen refers the matter to the courts, and this is what the Minister of Justice answered earlier. Let us patriate the constitution, let us have a bill of rights, and if some citizen or province feels aggrieved by that action and that it is, to use the words of the hon. member, "tainted with illegality", the place to plead that would be in front of the courts.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that three provinces have indeed taken the government to court on this matter. In view of the fact that three provinces have taken the matter to court to obtain a decision on the legality and constitutionality of the government's action, will the Prime Minister now reject the advice given to him in the infamous Privy Council office document, which stated:
There would be a strong strategic advantage in having the joint resolution passed and the U.K. legislation enacted before a Canadian court had occasion to pronounce on the validity of the measure and the procedure employed to achieve
it. This would suggest the desirability of swift passage of the resolution and U.K. legislation.
Will the Prime Minister give the Canadian people the assurance that he will allow the courts to adjudicate and to make a ruling as to whether or not what he is doing is legal, so that if it is illegal or improper it would be possible to prevent this action from being taken, instead of having it passed by Westminster where it is beyond the reach of the Canadian courts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the essence of much of what we are doing is, of course, to carry out the intention expressed by this House with unanimity last May when we all agreed that the constitution be patriated with an amending formula. 1 point out that the party opposite approximately a month ago moved a motion in this House proposing patriation with an amending formula.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Which you defeated.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the essence of what I have proposed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You voted against it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the essence of what 1 proposed to the premiers in a letter which I sent to all of them as long ago as January, 1977. Indeed, that is the essence of the proposal we had before us in Victoria when Premier Robarts, as he then was, suggested that we set aside all this debate on the division of powers and get on with patriation and an amending formula, things which were essentially of interest to the people.
This idea has been before Parliament, the Canadian people and the premiers for at least ten years in its present form. What I have argued in answer to an earlier question is that the provinces have always said no, that they would not permit this to be done unless we gave them this or that power. It is in the face of that kind of deadlock that we have indeed acted unilaterally with the support, as hon. members will know, of at least some provinces, and certainly of many Canadians, to get on with the business so that we could have a constitution made in Canada which could be amended in Canada by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTATION OF OIL FROM SAUDI ARABIA-INSTRUCTIONS TO PETRO-CANADA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday in the House I asked the minister to elaborate on a question which I had put to the Prime Minister, and which he did not answer very fully, in connection with the Saudi Arabian oil contract. My question today is: Has the minister instructed Petro-Canada to obtain more precise terms
November 26, 1980	COMMONS DEBATES	5093
Oral Questions


MEXICAN OIL IMPORTS-AVAILABILITY OF CHEAPER CANADIAN CRUDE
[Stage Direction]
on the deal with Saudi Arabia than the government was able to get from Mexico?
I remind the minister that the contract with Mexico did not provide Canada with any control over timing, price, volume or quality. All these elements were under the control of the Mexican government. Has the minister given instructions to Petro-Canada so that this situation does not arise again?
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my officials are reviewing the situation. We have already discussed that, and I will have other discussions with them. I will meet the chairman of Petro-Canada in the coming weeks and at that time I will have the opportunity to tell him what conclusions my department has reached about that offer from Saudi Arabia concerning oil products.
Meanwhile, there are no ongoing negotiations, no representations are being made to Saudi Arabia, but if such representations were to be made later on, we should obviously see to it that the contract is really negotiated in the best interest of Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister has forced eastern Canadian refiners to take the Mexican oil, somewhat to their reluctance, because it is more costly and more difficult to refine. At the same time there are 50,000 barrels of shut-in heavy oil in western Canada, which is the same amount we have agreed to purchase from Mexico. Why has the minister forced these eastern Canadian refiners to take this oil from Mexico when the government has done nothing to seek assurance from those refiners to take similar qualities and quantities of oil from western Canada? Surely if we had done that, our balance of payments, our costs and our security would be much better under control than they are from buying this oil from Mexico.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend seems to be rather ill-informed about the situation, especially with regard to western heavy oil. In the last two years, eastern Canada has increased quite considerably its consumption of western heavy oil. But the fact remains that there is a problem, which my colleague is doubtless aware of, because of the difficulties encountered in the transportation of western oil to eastern Canada. Very often, an exchange must be made whereby oil is shipped from Saskatchewan to the United States, while eastern Canada takes in American products. With regard to the decrease in the American demand for heavy oil in the last few months, we have taken steps to reduce the Canadian tax on heavy oil in order to restore American demand, and according to my conversations with western producers in this regard the results are most encouraging.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same minister. He indicates a problem in which the government has had to reduce its tax in order to try to firm up very weak, or lack of, markets for Canadian heavy oils, much of which is locked in the ground in Saskatchewan and Alberta. As the minister knows, these oils are of the same quantity and quality as the Mexican Maya oil that we are now importing. As a point of clarification, can the minister explain to the House what benefits there are to Canada in paying approximately $38 per barrel for inferior Mexican crude, when at the same time we have a Canadian source of supply at less than half the price?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again my colleague seems to be badly informed. The oil we import from Mexico includes some heavy oil but also a considerable amount of light oil of the same quality as that imported from other countries. Concerning western heavy oil in particular, I would remind him that the transportation systems for this product are limited: it is not easy to transport it economically by pipeline or other means to eastern refineries. So, at this time, it is erroneous to claim that western heavy oil producers are suffering because we are importing oil from Mexico. Once again, 1 remind him that a hefty proportion of the imports from Mexico include light oil.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I agree with part of his answer. However, he will remember that originally with respect to the Mexican contract we anticipated 80 per cent would be isthmus crude of a quality which is acceptable and comparable to other imported crudes, and only 20 per cent would be the inferior Maya oil. Now it appears that those proportions will be almost exactly reversed and we will be getting up to about 80 per cent of the inferior crude, even up to 100 per cent because we have no control over that contract.
In view of the fact that we are going to get all of this inferior crude, does the minister not agree that that will act to weaken already soft markets, as he pointed out, for Canadian heavy oils, and does he not think it time to instruct Petro-Canada to renegotiate the Mexican contract?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not know exactly to what anticipation my hon. friend is referring. There was no such anticipation on the part of this particular government. I know that when his party was in office for six months it did not bother to talk to the Mexicans.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Wrong.

November 26, 1980
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: As far as the percentages are concerned, my friend knows very well that the figures he mentioned do not reflect what is happening at the present time; the relationship is more like 55 per cent.
As to the last point raised by my friend, I want to remind him that I have consulted with the producers of heavy oil in the west, particularly people in Husky Oil, and their view is that the market is going to firm up. It is quite encouraging to them that we have reduced the levy on heavy oil, and this will allow them to gain a substantial part of the market which they were serving.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At this moment of grief and concern for so many people, not only abroad but also in this country, I wish to inquire into recent press reports that the government is prepared to facilitate the access to Canada as landed immigrants of those Italians tragically victimized by the current earthquake disaster, people who, because of tragedy, are literally refugees in their own country. I presume this is a question which is of concern to all of us in this House.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, what we can do most importantly in the aftermath on this disaster is, first, to assist Canadians to make contact with any relatives they may have in the affected areas. I will be instructing my regional officials to meet with Italian organizations across Canada so that we can use our communications system and immigration offices in Italy to trace relatives so that news about their whereabouts and well-being can be obtained.
Second, we have instructed our embassy in Rome to provide for the immediate processing of all applications for immigrant status of those who are in the affected provinces. We have been working with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the RCMP to waive requirements for the normal medical and security checks which can then be conducted in Canada.
Third, we have provided for means whereby those who are homeless or left affected can be given visas into Canada on a temporary basis, provided that their relatives here will give them assistance when they arrive, and we will take their word on trust.
Those are the immediate measures we have implemented. We assume after contact with the Italian government and with Italian organizations here that if there are other ways we can provide assistance, we will be more than happy to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, our party would also strongly support the last question and answer.
My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns pay and pensions for homemakers. Although our party has long advocated universal Canada Pension Plan coverage for all housewives, we are concerned that the minister's recent proposal for voluntary payments into the pension plan further discriminates against poor women. Will the minister explain whether women raising children on welfare will receive increases so as to be able to pay into the Canada Pension Plan, as she has proposed? Second, how can low-income earners, who cannot find the money for groceries, pay premiums for spouses? Third, why can we not have a system which treats these women as first-class citizens with a right to Canada pension at age 65 rather than welfare?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, if we can reach a consensus that opening up the Canada Pension Plan is a good thing, the proposal is to allow those people who can and want to contribute to do so. I acknowledge the problem of women in the lower economic groups who will not have enough money to contribute to the pension plan which is built on employer-employee contributions. I will continue to put forward the proposal that it is valid to address the problem of women and pensions by the nature of the programs existing in Canada, improving each of them to encompass women. Generally speaking, the Canada Pension Plan applies to the average Canadian worker. If we can reach an agreement, we will open it up to those housewives who want to contribute to it. That will be one avenue which will permit many more women, although not all, to build a pension in their own name.
With regard to the problem of mothers on welfare referred to by the hon. member, we intend to look after them through the GIS. This will, we hope, give those who live alone, many of them women, the full amount to take them above the poverty line. That is another program, another fight, which we are carrying on at the same time.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister who seems to condone inequity in a program which really discriminates against low-income women. Given the fact that the minister proposes in this plan to treat housewives as self-employed persons, yet over four million Canadian women, and some men also, who work long hours in their important jobs of rearing children, receive no pay, no benefits, and could not pay premiums under this scheme, will the minister consider a "pay for homemakers" allowance, with a tax back provision for higher income families, to recognize the important job of homemaking as essential, to include low-income women and, in fact, allow all women to become
November 26, 1980

more independent with the chance to pay Canada Pension Plan premiums in their own right, not through their husbands?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I have fully understood the question. If the hon. member is asking about what is called the "salary for housewives" paid through a state program, my answer would be that it is not for the state to judge whether women wish to be full-time housewives or have paid employment as well. We decided on that a long time ago.
As the hon. member knows, the income tax structure provides tax privileges to housewives and others in a similar position. I believe that is the proper route. It is for women to choose whether they want to work full or part-time outside the home, or full-time at home. That is not for us to decide.
As to the problem of pensions, which the hon. member mentioned at the beginning of her question, I think it is valid, and far more pragmatic than trying to attack all the problems at the same time, to tackle that-au fur et a mesure-when we can make progress on one front. We can begin by opening up the Canada Pension Plan to permit many housewives, average Canadians throughout this country, to build a pension in their own name. I believe this proposition is valid.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Since we are faced with conditions which appear to discourage Canadians from embarking upon air travel in Canada, such as more stringent ticket practices, more strict reservation requirements and cancellation penalties, I wonder if the Minister of Transport, who I believe is aware of these problems, is prepared to contact the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission and request them to address themselves to these anomalies, to see what can be done to promote Canadian air travel within our own country.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: I am quite prepared to do that, Madam Speaker.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a press release from her department, it was indicated that a report into the health hazards of urea formaldehyde foam insulation would be completed by the end of November. Today we have two statements. On the one hand, we have an official of her department saying that the study will be complete by December 10; on the other hand, a member of the study group
Oral Questions
has stated that he has no way of knowing when it will be completed. In view of the seriousness of this matter, can the minister tell the House when we can expect that report?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the report and recommendations of the committee on the study of urea formaldehyde foam insulation will be ready around December 10. This is a small delay of about ten days compared to the original target date, which I find valid. By the way, the committee did meet with officials in Washington and added to their review the recent United States findings.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The American group recommended to the U.S. consumer products safety commission that they ban it completely in all of the United States, not just Massachusetts. However, one of the members of the study group in Canada has stated that he sees no reason why we should be guided by a U.S. study. Is it the policy of this government to risk the health and safety of Canadians for the sake of scientific nationalism?


Monique Bégin: The answer is obvious, Madam Speaker-of course not. I am sure the hon. member will agree we should not prejudge the report. We will read it when it is received. I am sure the advisers outside of government will give the best advice to Canadians.

[ Translation)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would appreciate if he could elaborate somewhat on the conclusion of his response to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands concerning the French-speaking nations summit in Dakar, and also today's press reports that France would support Quebec behind the scenes. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether he had an opportunity last weekend, when he met the Prime Minister and the President of France, to discuss the matter and impress upon the French that this is a purely domestic problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, I have been made aware of that news item, apparently by Agence France-Presse, in which there are contradictory indications as to France's position. For instance the following quote:
-President Giscard d'Estaing emphasized that it is not for France to comment on the issue of Quebec's representation, which . .. should be settled between Ottawa and Quebec.
It seems to me this is the right position, and I look no further. There is something else in the news item that appar-

November 26, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. S. Robinson ently contradicts this, and were it to be the view of the French government, 1 would be in total agreement with the hon. member that it is for this country alone to settle the matter of its representation abroad, just as it is for Senegal and France to decide how they are going to be represented abroad. But for the time being, I repeat that I question the authenticity of the report, because it is contradictory in content. As far as I am concerned, I shall look no further than France's correct attitude, that it is not for France to comment on the matter of Quebec's representation.
*
* *


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the tabling on Monday of this week of two bills, C-45 and C-46. It has to do with the commitment made by the government some time ago when tabling Bill C-43, the freedom of information legislation. At that time the government indicated it would be prepared, in the spirit of Bill C-43, to table cabinet discussion papers at the time bills were to be tabled in this House. 1 believe that no such discussion papers were tabled in the House at the time Bills C-45 and C-46 were tabled.
Perhaps the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) can confirm that the government does indeed plan to make public the discussion papers in question in line with the principles of the freedom of information legislation. Second, possibly the Secretary of State can indicate when the government will finally be prepared to bring this important bill before Parliament for second reading.
[ Translation]


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question as to when we intend to proceed with Bill C-43, 1 have discussed the matter on several occasions with the government House leader and he would also like to proceed as soon as possible. Had the official opposition been a bit more co-operative in the last few days, we might have had second reading of this bill and referred the whole matter to the relevant committee, and this would have allowed us to make progress with regard to this piece of legislation which 1 personally consider crucial. The opposition House leader has not yet informed us how much time he wants to spend on the issue and how many speakers wish to take part in the debate. I remind the hon. member that when the opposition House leader introduced his bill in the House last year, all parties, including ours, which was in opposition at the time, agreed, in view of the importance and urgency of the bill, to have only one speaker from our side in order to ensure rapid progress on that piece of legislation. I certainly hope that the opposition House leader will soon come to the same type of agreement so
that we may make rapid progress in the consideration of this highly important bill.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader looked across at me as the minister was speaking and raised his eyes heavenward in despair with respect to the answer that had just been given to a question that was not asked by the member. The hon. member put it clearly, and I think it is a perfectly supportable position that he put. He asked, where are these discussion papers in the spirit of freedom of information? That question was not answered. I am interested in the answer to that question. I do not know if there is any consultation over there at all, I am beginning to wonder. It may have escaped the hon. member that the freedom of information bill has been on the lips of the government House leader for a few days with respect to its priority. I understand it has priority today. I sometimes wonder why we did not bring it in with priority over some other legislation we have been dealing with. I wonder why freedom of information, some work with respect to the economy and a whole host of other areas, has not been given some priority by this government. They stand up now and say we have no agreement with the government as to how many speakers we are going to have. Why should we have agreements with the government? These bills come and go on their merits. The fact is that our Bill C-15 on freedom of information was so meritorious that the opposition themselves, and now the government, decided that one speaker would deal with the few defects that were there. I cannot guarantee that this bill is of that nature. I can guarantee it will have the debate that it deserves.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I planned to rise on a different point of order, but perhaps I could relate my remarks to this subject first. To put it very simply, the order of business for the House for today, tomorrow and Friday has been determined. The order of business for next Tuesday and the rest of next week has been determined. Monday, which is a government day, is free. I suggest therefore that the order of business on Monday be the freedom of information bill. 1 am satisfied, on behalf of my party, and 1 think members to the right would agree, that if that bill is called on Monday it will be given second reading before the day is out. I hope the government will take that seriously.
I have another point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member has another point of order I would appreciate if he would rise later on with respect to it. We will deal with this one if everyone agrees.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I do not mind if the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) disagrees with me or reflects upon what I say, but certainly I ask him
November 26, 1980

not to reflect upon my facial movement in the house. I know he did it, as usual, in the best of spirits.
I think part of the problem was that in the confusion at the end of question period, with members leaving, the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) was engaged in a conversation; I then alerted him to the fact that the question was being addressed and, perhaps, the purport of the question of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was lost. 1 regret that we were sidetracked a little.
As to the question of the business before the House today we know what is before the House, it is the Petroleum Administration Act. We also know that the government House leader has outlined certain priorities for the government, one of them is the access to information legislation. When that measure comes before the House it will be discussed in the usual way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise again on the same point of order. May I point out to the parliamentary secretary that we will not be sitting tomorrow afternoon, which is when we usually receive the Thursday bill of fare for the next week. Why not tell us today that the order of business on Monday will be the second reading of the freedom of information bill?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, at this stage there have not been discussions among the parties, and I think, perhaps, we should wait until a bit later. I am not in a position to state what the position on Monday will be but there will be discussions over the next few days, 1 am sure, between the parties and a decision will be arrived at.


Walter David Baker: With respect to that matter, there is some implication that our party will not agree to deal with the freedom of information measure in one day. That is quite right. We do not agree to deal with freedom of information in one day. I want to make that clear publicly because of the difficulties I have had before, not with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) from whom I have had very little communication. But so the government House leader will know, if he is counting on one day's debate for his legislative program, I have a number of speakers, as I said earlier, who want to deal with the bill on its merits or demerits with a view to improving it. I want it clearly understood that there is no agreement to get that bill through in one day.
I also want to indicate to the government House leader, the House, the minister and my friend from Winnipeg North Centre that I undertake that all speeches with respect to this legislation by our members will be to improve the bill. We do want to lift the government up, even by its own bootstraps.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, on this same point of order. First of all, 1 hope the Secretary of State will answer the first question which I asked. Perhaps 1 might just repeat that under the spirit of Bill C-43 cabinet discussion papers are to be tabled at the time a bill is tabled. The minister will recall, in fairness, that he did, indeed, table the cabinet discussion papers on Bill C-43. Since that time three bills have been tabled, two of them, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, on Monday of this week. No cabinet discussion papers were tabled with
Business of the House
those bills. My question very simply was: when will we see those cabinet discussion papers in line with the spirit of the new legislation?
Second, I want to indicate my regret at the decision of the Conservative party not to expedite this bill in one day and to get it into committee where the bill can be properly studied. I think that is an unfortunate decision.


Francis Fox: In the first place, Madam Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out himself, as far as Bill C-43 is concerned, we have issued the cabinet discussion papers on which the government policy on information has been based. 1 will have to check the precise terms that have been used. I am under the impression that we are committed not to table the said papers in the House, but to make them public. I should like to have the opportunity to review the situation. However, 1 understand that there is a whole series of such discussion papers which have been made public without having necessarily been tabled in the House. However, I should like to check what was the nature of the commitment. I believe it was to make those papers available, and I think that the Privy Council will be in a position to give to the hon. member a list of papers which are now avilable as a result of papers or bills being tabled in the House.


Madam Speaker:: I think that we can dispose of both questions raised on the same point of order, namely, the publication of some papers. Hon. members know that their private arrangements or agreements concern only themselves and are not covered under our rules. Consequently, 1 cannot compel the minister to table such papers. Anyhow, 1 think that he got his answer during that short exchange.
The second question raised has to do with the order of business of the House in the next few days. This is a question which should be discussed at the appropriate time; hon. members now have their answer.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my other point of order also relates to House business, but it is one concerning which we have had discussions, and 1 believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council will be able to deal with it.
When we discussed the other day the order which provides for the House not to sit tomorrow afternoon, it was our understanding that even though we are sitting only in the evening the usual adjournment debate, or late show, would take place. The officers at the table have said to some of us that because of the way the order was worded we would have

November 26, 1980
Business of the House
to adjourn at ten o'clock. But 1 believe there is an understanding that a late show will take place tomorrow night.
One of the problems had to do with when members could be informed of the questions that would be scheduled. I think we are agreed that that could be done by five o'clock this afternoon.
Since there is agreement among the three of us, perhaps that could be made an order of the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, so that it could be made an order I would like to say that we concur. I think it is an excellent idea.


David Michael Collenette: Agreed, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The House agrees. It is therefore so ordered.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, in relation to the discussion we have just had, we neglected-obviously because we are not sitting tomorrow-to announce the business today, and should inform hon. members that the President of the Privy Council informed me a minute ago that we will be dealing with the Judges Act, which is Bill C-34, on Monday next.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ahead of freedom of information?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, did I hear correctly that we will be dealing with the Judges Act ahead of freedom of information? What is the matter with this government? We had a great argument a few moments ago when the Minister of Communications complained that we cannot deal with these bills expeditiously; he will want to go outside the chamber and blame that on the opposition. I want the public to know that the government prefers to deal with the salaries of judges first, over freedom of information, and I think that throws a lie, if I may use that phrase, or casts a pall over the kinds of things we have been dealing with.
Is there any chance that the government will change its mind with respect to that order of business prior to Monday? If the parliamentary secretary would tell me that, it would be very helpful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I join in this protest vigorously. Every time we have had a lineup of business, including business such as the freedom of information bill and the bill regarding judges salaries, I have received from the government the commitment that the freedom of information bill was to come first and that the Judges Act was to come later. The other day when we were dealing with the Post Office the problem was to get it out of the way so that we could get on to freedom of information and judges salaries later. For the parliamentary secretary to stand up now and tell us that on Monday we are not going to deal with freedom of information but a bill to raise the salaries and pensions of judges is making a travesty of this place, and it is quite a reflection as to the government's priorities.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I was trying to be helpful in view of the previous questions put by the hon. members. It seems that they are willing, likely and liable to make political points out of the order of business, and I can only say to my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, that he knows that the government is flexible on all matters.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, yes, like the committee.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member made a representation on the floor of this House a minute ago, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. All such representations are taken into consideration. Basically I was trying to be helpful to the House by informing it of information I had just received.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have always made it abundantly clear in this House and in my constituency that the delays in the construction of the Alsands plant in Fort McMurray and the plant at Cold Lake in my opinion were caused by the lack of an oil pricing agreement between the province of Alberta and the federal government. Last evening the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) clearly questioned my integrity when he said the following about me:
The disappointing thing-
He was referring to me.
-is that he did not say in the chamber last night what he said in Fort McMurray last Friday before his constituents.
The hon. member claimed that he read something.
Also I read the comments he made in Fort McMurray last Friday night.
To my knowledge the comments I made in Fort McMurray last Friday were not printed, and I suggest that the hon. member should have to produce my printed comments.
The hon. member said that I laid the blame squarely upon the government of Alberta. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's is clearly accusing me of saying things which I have not said. This undermines publicly my credibility as a member of Parliament. However, more important, it undermines my position in my community and thereby interferes with the job I do. Because of the communication gap which exists between northeastern Alberta and this House of Commons, my constituents depend on me to carry back to them clear and precise messages and to repeat to them the things I say in this chamber. The hon. member continually spreads falsehoods and half-truths. This particular member seems to have done this on a number of occasions in a misguided attempt to feed what appears to be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me I heard a word which is not very parliamentary. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase his sentence. I do not think an
November 26, 1980

hon. member can use the word "falsehoods" when referring to what another hon. member says. 1 am sure the hon. member would want to rephrase that comment.


Jack Wendele Shields: You are referring to the word "falsehoods"?


Madam Speaker:: Yes.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you. As a new member, I find that some words pop into my head-words I would like to use but cannot. Perhaps "association with the truth" would be better. However, it seems that the hon. member is continually misquoting members of this House in an attempt to feed what would appear to be a very insecure ego.
I humbly request that Your Honour direct this misguided member to withdraw his remarks and apologize.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is obviously responding to an invitation made to him by the other hon. member to debate apparent inconsistencies in some of his statements. That clearly is debate. Because the hon. member invoked a question of privilege, 1 had to listen to him. I believe he made his point, but he does not have a question of privilege.

[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have been informed that, in answer to a question during the oral question period, when I announced the issue of a stamp in honour of the Right Hon. Jules Leger, I mentioned the month of March when I wanted to say October. I want to make this correction to Hansard and to make it very clear that the stamp will be issued on October 5, 1981.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, during the question period the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) made some comments which I should like to have the opportunity to check in Hansard to ensure that 1 heard his words correctly. I would like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege on that matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 227, 785, 863, 1,561, 1,564, 1,565 and 1,578.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78, under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program (SIAP) or any successor program under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP), what was the number and total value of contracts (i) between $1,000 and $20,000 (ii) between $20,001 and $100,000 (iii) between $100,001 and 400,000 (iv) between $400,001 and 1,000,000 (v) $1,000,001 or more (vi) in total?
2.	For the same years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the department under the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program (SIAP) or any successor program under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP)?

November 26, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program
(1)	(II)	(HI)	(IV)	(V)	(VI)$ 1,000	$ 20,001	$100,001	$ 400,001	$1,000,001	To	To	To	To	and	TotalYears	$20,000	$100,000	$400,000	$ 1,000,000	Over	$(a) 1974-75	73,610.00	715,711.27	4,403,066.28	5,714,857.15	71,608,017.74	82,515,262.44(b) 1975-76	38,751.50	679,931.38	1,473,939.60	5,346,343.88	73,944,948.92	81,483,915.28(c) 1976-77	-	745,649.00	1,711,591.09	3,257,755.45	104,656,204.06	110,371,199.60(d) 1977-78	109,887.95	558,202.23	1,900,057.36	3,300,476.79	26,365,806.90	32,234,431.23(1)	(ID	(HI)	(IV)	(V)	(VI)$ 1,000	$ 20,001	$100,001	$ 400,001	$1,000,001	To	To	To	To	and	TotalYears	$20,000	$100,000	$400,000	$1,000,000	Over	$(number of con-	tracts)	(a) 1974-75	4	13	28	8	15	68(b) 1975-76	2	12	8	8	13	43(c) 1976-77	-	12	11	5	8	36(d) 1977-78	8	8	12	5	6	39
2.
Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program
($000's)
1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78Newfoundland	$ 2,635	$ 2,158	$ 1,115	$ 1,206Prince Edward Island	21	62	-	21Nova Scotia	6,288	5,335	11,121	3,647New Brunswick	6,503	7,808	15,271	8,824Quebec	14,418	22,207	23,401	24,322Ontario	4,636	6,040	9,660	12,071Manitoba	-	194	-	-Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-Alberta	-	275	246	-British Columbia	10,499	13,921	7,186	4,515Total	$45,000	$58,000	$68,000	$54,606
government in the national capital, to grant land or the right to use land for the extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club arterial road or any part thereof through lands owned or controlled or used by the National Capital Commission.
In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned: Public Works Canada has never reached an agreement or met with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or with any other local government in the national capital to grant land administered by Public Works Canada or the right to use such land for the extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club arterial road or any part thereof.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Has the Department of Public Works, the NCC or any other department or agency made any agreement with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or any other local government in the national capital, to grant land or the right to use land for the extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club arterial road or any part thereof through lands owned or controlled or used by any government department or agency?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works as follows: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: By virtue of an agreement dated July 1, 1976, between the National Capital Commission, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and the city of Ottawa, the NCC has agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club bridge crossing of the Rideau River. However, no agreement has been made with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or any other local


Mr. Gass: 1.	For each of the past six fiscal years, what were the quotas for (a) Canadian (b) American fishermen in the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine area for (i) cod (ii) haddock (iii) scallops?
2.	What prices were paid in each of the past six fiscal years to Canadian fishermen who participated in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank fishery for (a) cod (b) haddock (c) scallops?
3.	What will be the quotas for Canadian fishermen in the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine area for the 1980-81 fiscal year for (a) cod (b) haddock (c) scallops?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	(a) and (b)
(i) and (ii) See list I.
(a)	and (b)
(iii) There were no quotas set for scallops in the Georges Bank or Gulf of Maine area.
2.	See list II.
November 26, 1980

Order Paper Questions
3.	See answer to question 1.
Year	Cod	Haddock	Gulf of Maine (5 Y)	Georges Bank	<5y)	Area 5	Canada	USA	Canada	USA	Canada	USA74	(4)	8677 mt	4820 mt	16590 mt	(4)	75	-	9000 mt	4820 mt	19000 mt	-	76	175 mt	7800 mt	4519 mt	20000 mt	1200 mt	4450 mt77	80 mt	4915 mt	3350 mt	16630 mt	1260 mt	4735 mt78 <'>	80 mt	4915 mt	4855 mt	22000 mt	3900 mt	16100 mt79 <2>	182 mt	11,198 mt	5943 mt	29017 mt	5933 mt	22321 mt80	192 mt	11,808 mt	5950 mt	29050 mt	6800 mt	25700 mt
(l) In 1978, the U.S. Fisheries Management Council declared the American fishing year to run from October through September.
121 American fishing year is Oct. 1 /78-Sept. 30/79.
Since haddock fished in 5Y and 5Ze are from the same stock, quotas are set on the whole stock i.e. Area 5.
*41 No directed fishery.
Cod
1974	Q	V (0Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	120 mt	$	42,026Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	1374 mt	$	481,2021975 Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	86 mt	$	28,414Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	1847 mt	$	610,2411976 Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	80 mt	$	33,833Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	1751 mt	$	740,5101977 Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	106 mt	$	49,49,498Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	6173 mt	52,882,542	1978 Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	384 mt	$	188,617Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	8903 mt	$4,373,053	1979 Gulf of Maine (Area 5Y)	378 mtt4)	$	224,801Georges Bank (Area 5Ze)	6012 mt|4) ..4-	$3,575,413	
Canadian Catches of
Haddock			Scallops	
Q	v (1)	Q<2)	v (1)198 mt	$	102,925	462 mt	$	240,158	6113 mt	$17,369,51279 mt	$	33,410	1358 mt	$	574,308	7491 mt	$23,759,96691 mt	$	51,714	1354 mt	$	769,453	9695 mt	$31,604,80026 mt	$	15,577	2909 mt	$	1,742,834	13081 mt	$39,473,445641 mt	$	357,209	9968 mt	$	5,554,847	12189 mt	$57,454,6755261 mt<(l) * * 4>	$	3,360,546	9208 mt	$63,482,376
(l) Based on average annual price paid to vessels >
25 tons in Cape Sable Island statistical district.
<!) Weight of shucked meats.
Based on average annual price paid in Yarmouth.
(4) Preliminary figures.


Mr. Howie: What are the guidelines employed by Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. to determine whether contracts for the construction of buildings, roads, repairs to buildings and renovations will be called (a) by advertisement in newspapers (b) by invitation only (c) without tender?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. is subject to the provisions of the government contracts regulations issued pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and, accordingly, the following guidelines with respect to the calling of tenders reflect these provisions:
(a)	With few exceptions, tenders are called by advertising in trade papers and newspapers.
(b)	Tenders would be invited only in a case where the scope or complexity of the work requires a particular degree of expertise or experience. In such a case, the requirement would be advertised in trade papers and newspapers and firms would be invited to submit their credentials for prequalification. Only suitably qualified firms would be invited to tender.
(c)	Tenders would not be called where the need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest or in the rare case where only one firm is capable of performing the contract.


Mr. Howie: To the knowledge of the government, how many automobile dealers terminated their business operations in the last year for which statistics are available?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: Statistics Canada does not possess information on this subject.

November 26, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: What are the guidelines employed by the Department of National Defence to determine whether contracts for the construction of buildings, roads, repairs to buildings and renovations will be called (a) by advertisement in newspapers (b) by invitation only (c) without tender?


Ursula Appolloni: The Department of National Defence is subject to the provisions of the government contracts regulations issued pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and, accordingly, the following guidelines with respect to the calling of tenders reflect these provisions:
(a)	With few exceptions, tenders are called by advertising in trade papers and newspapers.
(b)	Tenders would be invited only in a case where the scope or complexity of the work requires a particular degree of expertise or experience. In such a case, the requirement would be advertised in trade papers and newspapers and firms would be invited to submit their credentials for prequalification. Only suitably qualified firms would be invited to tender.
(c)	Tenders would not be called where the need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest or in the rare case where only one firm is capable of performing the contract.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Was there a delay in dredging the Miramichi River in New Brunswick and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what is the status of the project?
2.	Were tenders called in the spring or summer of 1980 and, if not, for what reason?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.	There has been a delay of approximately one year to the commencement of dredging in the Miramichi River.
(a)	The delay resulted from a decision to cancel the tenders called during the summer of 1979 because the bids received exceeded the department's estimate.
(b)	The project was retendered on October 21, 1980.
2.	Tenders were not called in the spring or summer of 1980 because there was no advantage to commencing the project in the summer or fall. It is preferable to begin the dredging in the spring because of environmental factors.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to the unanswered questions on the order paper. I will not take the time of the House to list the numbers of the questions involved because there are quite a few of them. They pertain to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, in particular, to Claudette Nadeau, the
president and general manager of that corporation, and to Yvon Gariepy, master of the Royal Canadian Mint. What I cannot understand is that on October 21, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) said that he had signed the answers to all those questions and had sent them to the Privy Council office.
I assume the Minister of Supply and Services would not mislead us; I have never known him to do so. I am sure that if he subsequently found he had misled a committee of the House, he would have said so, and therefore I am assuming that his words, as they were uttered at that time, are accurate.
1 assume, therefore, that at least as long ago as October 21, and presumably before that, these answers were signed by the minister, as he said, and sent to the Privy Council office for transmission in the usual way to the House of Commons. However, they have not reached us. What has happened to all these questions in the Privy Council office for well over a month, probably a month and a half or even longer? In other words, who is sitting on these answers? What official of the government has given instructions to the Privy Council office that these questions not be answered in the House, and why have such instructions been given-or have they been given? I assume they must have been given because the normal procedure, if an answer goes to the Privy Council office, is not to hold it for a month, two months or three months before the House receives it. Time and again we have received assurances from the parliamentary secretary, who I assume has been giving them in the best of faith, that he is doing all he can to expedite answers to questions. If that is the case, surely he could tell us now why these questions, according to the Minister of Supply and Services, have been sitting in the Privy Council office with no one attending to them, and why they are not being sent on to the House.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would be quite willing to shed some light on the question. The hon. member was quite correct when he stated that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on October 21, stated:
-I have signed that reply and that the replies will be tabled in the House within a very short time.
Subsequent to that, I should inform the House, the hon. member put down on the order paper further questions dealing with the same subject area. At the same time, the minister was reviewing the answers after having signed them and is providing additional information for the hon. member when these answers will be tabled. So far as the Privy Council office is concerned, in order to be fair to the questioner and to the department providing the answer in matters like this, we prefer to table all the answers dealing with the same subject matter at the same time.
So while it is true that the initial answers were prepared and signed by the minister and are being added to, to help the hon. member, answers will be forthcoming to the rest of his questions. I hope to be able to table the whole series of answers to the whole series of questions ranging from question No. 994, which was the earliest I believe, to question No. 1,595, which
November 26, 1980

was the most recent question on this subject put by the hon. member. I hope to put all of those down and give answers to them in the House at the same time, if that is satisfactory to the hon. member.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the forthrightness of the parliamentary secretary but I must bring out the fact that his statement is completely demolished by the fact that the government has answered four of the questions already. So his contention that they were waiting to answer them all at once is hardly appropriate or accurate. Therefore, I suggest to him that he has been misinformed by someone, either by his superior, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), or by someone in the cabinet, because although he has named correctly the numbers of the unanswered questions, they have answered four or five others, so there was no question of waiting. The four or five other questions were answered after the minister said, "I have signed them all." So they were not held back, four or five of them got through. Perhaps it was because the other answers are too embarrassing to the government where it involved, perhaps, the use of public funds for purposes for which they should not be used.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to prolong this debate but we do not want to give the impression of being surreptitious in the answering of these questions. Once we realized that more questions were coming, we felt it would be better to hold back all of the answers so that the hon. member could have all of the information at once. I think he will recognize that to table one or two answers on a particular question might shed light on only one aspect of the total subject being considered and that we need the full dimension or the full scope of all the answers to accurately reflect both the intent of the questions and the intent of the government in answering them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary if he could see whether the answer to question No. 1,640 can be brought down soon?


David Michael Collenette: I will look into that, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: We have not yet had the agreement of the House that the remaining questions stand. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is notice of motion No. 24
Motions for Papers
standing in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), dated July 11, 1980, which reads:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the contract entered into between the government and the Canadian Media Corporation to perform its duties as agency of record for the government.
The hon. member referred to it last week. He has had to go to committee and he asked me to see whether or not something could be done about that. Has the government formed any intention with respect to that matter, whether it is an order or otherwise, because there was-1 would not want to call it an undertaking-an expression that there would be some answer immediately with respect to the propriety of that matter?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I hope to table the reply to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 24 next Wednesday afternoon if all goes well.
While I am on my feet, and if the House does not mind, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is concerned about question No. 1,449 on the order paper. So that he can read the record in Hansard, let me indicate that this is a shared reply; I am awaiting the other part of the answer, and 1 hope to table it soon.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 hesitate to rise once again, but this can be done only on a Wednesday when the House deals with notices of motions for the production of papers. Briefly I refer to motion No. 2 which 1 put on the order paper on April 14, almost eight months ago. It deals with a request that the government produce correspondence, documents, etc., in regard to the Taschereau papers between the Prime Minister's office and/or the Privy Council office and the Public Archives. Particularly it refers to the letter or the correspondence of Mr. Michael Pitfield with the Public Archives when, on someone's instigation, he was instructed to return these papers and have them resealed for a further ten years, whereas in reality they should have become public property at the end of the 30-year limit.
These papers concern the national security of the country. They contain a very great deal of information which Canadians have the right to know. I am sure some members of the House know something of the content of those papers, as I do and as 1 am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) does.
Members on the government side talk a great deal about freedom of information, though they will not bring in the bill, as was pointed out by my House leader. Nevertheless, they do talk about freedom of information. Why then, can we not have such a simple request as this answered? Will they give us the information as to why they are hiding the Taschereau papers for a further ten years, or will they simply stonewall this matter, hoping that nothing will happen and no one will raise any points of order? The ten years will go by, and if they happen to be in power-and God knows 1 hope they are not, for the good of the country-they can bring in another stonewalling for a further ten years. This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. I should like the parliamentary secretary to tell me
5104

November 26, 1980
when notice of motion for the production of papers No. 2 will be answered with a very simple yes or no.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is difficult for me to put a date on anything. I did put a date on motion No. 24 in reply to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). On this particular one, I will undertake to look into it and try to get the answer as soon as possible.
I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Shall I revert to motions to hear a motion by the hon. member for Hillsborough?


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: As Madam Speaker will know from the notice I gave earlier today, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to seek leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing what 1 consider to be a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announced closing of ten of the 15 Canadian National Express terminals in the Atlantic region.
The closures will throw out of work over 250 CN employees and inflict substantial hardship on the many small business people, farmers, fishermen, and members of the general public who depend on CN Express for small parcel delivery to, from and within the region.
In conclusion, the matter is of pressing and urgent necessity because irreversible steps are being taken immediately by CN to terminate the employment of these employees and to contract with a national trucking company to replace, most inadequately, the services now being provided by CN Express.


Madam Speaker:: I received notice from the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) in exactly the terms he just stated in the House. There is no doubt the matter the hon. member is seeking to put before the House is a very important and very urgent one. However, the Chair cannot ignore the provisions of Standing Order 26(5) which read in part as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
As early as next Tuesday, December 2, an opposition motion can be set down, if the hon. member so chooses, for debate in the House under supply procedures. In addition, the following six days have been set aside for the consideration of supply in Committee of the Whole. Pursuant to a special order adopted on April 29, 1980, members of the opposition have the opportunity to name a department or agency they wish to consider while in Committee of the Whole.
It seems to me that there will be ample opportunity for the hon. member to raise this matter in the House. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is scheduled to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport later this afternoon on his estimates. The hon. member can then question the minister at length.
For those reasons I regret I cannot accept the hon. member's request for an emergency debate at this time.


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-6, an act to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Government House
November 26, 1980
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
November 26, 1980

General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th day of November, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 52(3) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2917, be revoked.
He said: Madam Speaker, first a word of explanation in order to clarify this matter. Earlier, I moved that the order in council with relation to the fixing unilaterally of oil prices by the federal government be challenged and be revoked. This motion deals with the fixing of gas prices, but essentially it concerns the same act, the Petroleum Administration Act.
1 should like to begin by making the position of my party very clear on this issue respecting both oil and gas. We say that the national energy program brought before the House when the budget came down is basically flawed; it is a flawed program. In time people, especially progressive people, will find more and more things to criticize in this program.
We feel there are two major flaws in it. The first arises through the government's failure to introduce an industrial strategy or economic restructuring of the economy either in the budget or the national energy program. Later on I will talk about the fact that there has not been any industrial strategy at all. When I say "industrial strategy", I mean making Canada a country which manufactures at home its own resources, instead of being a shipper of raw resources or a vast mine for foreign countries.
Such a move requires real industrial strategy, planning, concern and commitment. My party is committed, but apparently the government is not. I will be discussing that matter in more detail later in my speech. The second major flaw in the national energy program and the budget is that there is no cushion in the form of subsidies on the impact of higher energy prices on low and middle-income people. Canadians will come to realize very shortly that as the price of gasoline and heating oil begins to rise many segments of the population will need help to pay the higher prices. They will not receive that help from the government.
The third flaw is that the Petroleum Administration Act, this Draconian measure, has been invoked too early. My party would prefer to get back to the original principle of co-opera-
Petroleum Administration Act
tive federalism and obtain agreement with the provinces. Instead, the federal government is unilaterally invoking this serious act. I would like to quote from a speech made during the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act in this House on October 31, 1974, by the Hon. Donald Macdonald, the then minister of energy, as reported in Hansard at page 914:
While it is the government's earnest hope and desire that the price of oil from the producer provinces will always be determined at mutually-acceptable levels by agreement with those provinces-
The government is most hopeful that the exercise of such powers will not be required.
The minister was referring to the powers of oil price restraint, and saying that he hoped these powers would not be invoked, that, instead, there would be agreement. Alberta has not acted unilaterally in this matter without the permission of the minister. I have no brief with respect to the claims of Alberta. Personally, I believe it is wrong that so much wealth should be concentrated in one province. Nor do I have a brief with respect to Alberta's actions since the budget and since the invocation of this act. By that I am referring to Premier Lougheed's announcement that he would cut production. Such a move is bad for Canada and bad for Alberta. I do not have any sympathy at all with the recently announced private boycott by Alberta businessmen on Ontario goods. It is wrong and shortsighted. The government did not have to invoke this act. The government could have continued on with the price regime which had been de facto agreed upon, and the minister admitted as much in the House just the other day. There was no dispute of that price regime by Premier Lougheed.
The government could have merely set out the limits of its tolerance in terms of price increases by Alberta. If Alberta overstepped those limits, then the Petroleum Administration Act could have been invoked for good reason. My party is not against the act in principle, but we would prefer to see it used as an emergency measure when all else fails. If the government could not get agreement with the producing provinces, then it would be required to act unilaterally and invoke the Petroleum Administration Act, but only in cases where the action by a province would have a drastic effect on oil prices or on the principles of co-operative federalism. The act should only be invoked along with a very progressive policy which is fair and can be seen to be fair in all areas of the country. Such is not the case now.
Many of my colleagues have indicated in the House that the budget and the energy policy of the government are not fair to the north, to Atlantic Canada or to western Canada. It seems to me that Canada has the worst of all possible worlds. It has higher oil prices, angry provinces, no cushions or help for the lower or middle-income people and no future job strategy for the country.
As a Canadian who lives in western Canada, 1 would like to say a few words about the alienation of that part of the country. This topic has been very much a part of the debate and part of the news of late. By invoking the Petroleum Administration Act the federal government is seizing revenues from western resources. It is seizing a larger share of oil and gas revenues. If one were to approach this matter logically one

November 26, 1980
5106______________________________________________
Petroleum Administration Act must ask, "Should the provinces have control and ownership of the resources?" The answer is yes, because it is in our constitution, although the section needs further clarification.


Mr. Siddon:: Does Dave Barrett agree?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will tell the hon. member what Dave Barrett wants in a few moments. If he would listen, he might learn something.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I am listening.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I put the second question to the hon. member in order that he may think about it for a little while-when he does take the time to think. It is, "Does a resource become so valuable that the federal government should interfere with provincial control of that resource in order to distribute it more fairly?" Premier Lougheed once said that the government would not interfere with the oil industry if it were in Ontario, but that is only one side of the argument.
I have thought about this matter a great deal, and I believe the answer must be, "Yes, the federal government can interfere". But the government must interfere only in an extraordinary situation and it must be perceived as acting fairly. This situation will come up again. I say this to my friends in the Atlantic provinces, who will have to make some of these basic decisions and face these issues when and if, as I hope, gas and oil are discovered in large quantities off Newfoundland in the Hibernia field.
I would like to quote from a speech made by Allan Blake-ney, the Premier of Saskatchewan, at the annual conference of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council in Halifax on October 25, 1976:
-we in the west and you in the Atlantic region must face the fact that political power in Canada is now and for the foreseeable future concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.
Neither the Atlantic region nor the west can expect the federal government- whatever its party stripe-to take the initiative in introducing the basic structural reforms that are needed to encourage more balanced regional development. ... Westerners feel aggrieved by recent efforts to change the rules of the confederation bargain, that is:
-to change the rules on who should benefit from natural resources, which
were supposed to be our source of wealth-
-to change the rules on tariffs and transportation.
The west, like the Atlantic provinces, because of its dependence on natural resources, is subject to chronic instability of prices and markets and wild fluctuations in local economic circumstances.
And like the Atlantic region, the west is dependent on an efficient transportation system to move its goods to distant markets, and it suffers, as you do, from the anomalies and inequities that are so much a part of our freight rate structures.
In that speech Premier Blakeney was dealing with some of the real grievances of the west, not the negative grievances raised by members of the Conservative party in recent speeches. He was dealing with the real western grievances concerning transportation tariffs and so on. A poll was released this week by the Canada West Foundation, representatives of which testified yesterday, I believe, in front of the joint committee on the constitution. That poll shows some interesting results. The voices of western Canadian grievances
are not in reality represented by what I call the fascist oil company types. The people of western Canada support increased federal government and provincial government action in the energy sector. They support that. I think that is important. Seventy-eight per cent agreed that oil companies are making excessive profits. Forty-eight per cent disagreed. Only 38 per cent agreed that the federal and provincial governments have enough control over the oil companies. Seventy-four per cent agreed that too much of the money Canadians spend on oil leaves the country by way of oil company profits. Seventy-four per cent believe that the federal government should increase its involvement in exploration and refining. Even in western Canada there is a feeling that the federal government has a role in exploration and refining, and that it can become involved in what is otherwise a provincial resource.
Canadians living in the west want very much to remain part of Canada. However, they feel they are getting a raw deal. Sixty one per cent of the people disagreed that the federal government has made a genuine effort to overcome the problems of discrimination against the west. Eighty four per cent agreed that western Canada gets ignored because political parties depend on Ontario and Quebec for most of their votes. Sixty five per cent disagreed that western Canada derives so few benefits from being part of Canada that it might as well go it alone. Ninety per cent prefer that the western provinces remain part of Canada. That is a sampling of opinion which shows overwhelmingly that Canadians living in western Canada want to remain a part of Canada. But they do feel they are getting a raw deal. Lawyers have the expression "justice must not only be done, but it must seem to be done". In western Canada they do not feel justice has been done in the sense of the federal government dealing fairly with the issues, such as tariffs, transportation rates and a host of other things.
I can tell you how deep the feelings go, Mr. Speaker, even on what would otherwise be little things. Here is an example. Canada played Mexico in a soccer game as part of the World Cup series. More countries participate in the World Cup than in the Olympics and 108,000 people watched that game in Mexico City. Yet hardly any notice was taken of the World Cup in eastern Canada. The CBC televised the game at an awkward hour. Football, or soccer, as it is known here, is very important to the average individual in Vancouver. That is just an example of a little thing people complain about. These little things build up into bigger things, such things as transportation, tariffs and other matters.
Another interesting poll was published in the Edmonton Sun. On November 13, 1980, this question was asked: how satisfied are you with the performance of Joe Clark and the Conservatives in the recent dispute between Ottawa and the provinces? Satisfied: 45.5 per cent. Dissatisfied: 54.5 per cent. It is clear, too, that westerners do not like the attitude of the Conservatives, which is a completely negative one in this constitutional debate.
November 26, 1980

I stood up in this House and asked the hon. member from Richmond, who is chattering away here, why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) does not deny the remarks made about a western parliament by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition heard this. That is no way to deal with the problems in western Canada. In fact, that is a negative way of dealing with them. The Conservative party has been negative in dealing with this problem. I suggest that instead of talking about separatism, the Conservative party should do something positive about the grievances of western Canada.
Many members from this part of the House come from western Canada. I can tell the member what we have been doing. We have been standing up in this House and asking for a federal-provincial development fund. We have stated that we do not like the fund outlined in the budget. It is patronage and we do not want any more of that. We do not want any more in money, such as the $4 million going to Mr. Axworthy and some Ottawa people. We say, get the provinces involved and co-operate with us in the west. That is what we want.
Second, we supported the government and, indeed, pushed the government, telling them we wanted more public ownership of the oil industry. It took guts to say it because that is a national policy. But the people of western Canada will support that stand, I tell hon. members to take a look at those polls.
Third, instead of saying who was in bed with whom, we have taken the stand in the constitution committee that the constitution will go through, although we disagree with a unilateral move. We have decided that we will fix up the bill of rights, we will fight for women, the native people, and we will get a better amendment. Not only that, we will get an amendment which will nail down the control of the provincial governments and give them power over resource revenues. That is very important to my province. I am proud to go before that committee to stick up for that kind of result for the west. That is what my friends in the Conservative party should be doing. They should be working positively to keep Canada together.
In the event the Liberals across the way are thinking they are going to get off lightly, I shall now return to some remarks made by the minister.


An hon. Member:: You are partisan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says I am partisan. Yes, I am partisan. I am partisan for western Canada and for my province. It is about time that he got partisan, too. But let me refer to remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). He had this to say: "I think it is time the members of the House, and Canadians in general, grew up with respect to the role of Canada in international affairs." The minister is not here today, but his parliamentary secretary is. He is the man with the bow tie, although he does not have it on today. I ask him to relay what I am going to say to the minister. Canadians have grown up in their attitude to foreign affairs. Canadians are proud of the role Canada plays when it gets back to its proper and active role in foreign affairs. Canadians do not need lectures from the minister
Petroleum Administration Act
telling them to grow up in their attitude to international affairs. I suggested the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should not have gone to Saudi Arabia. Instead, he should have been here dealing with the serious problem of Alberta. The minister can disagree with me and tell me that he has important things to do. That is fine, but it is my position that he should have been here and that he was remiss in running away. If he were doing something when he was away, that would be a different matter. But yesterday in the House, he did not know anything about Arabian oil. He said very little about North-South relations, although I am sure he knows a lot about it. Why did he go away? In my opinion, one should not go away when the government is losing control of a situation. The country is slipping into a crisis and the Prime Minister should be around to deal with it. He cancelled trips and stayed around during the Quebec referendum. In many ways, the situation facing us now could become a serious crisis.
The minister said he had to bring in the Petroleum Administration Act and that he had no other choice. I have already gone over my position in that connection. I said he could have negotiated; he was not obliged to do what he did. For some years there has been a tendency in the Liberal party to use a sledge hammer to kill flies. The War Measures Act was a good example. The government should be very careful in picking a fight with Alberta and in trying to bring Alberta to its knees because it could bring the country to its knees as well.
I want to refer now to remarks made by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who is the Conservative energy critic. He claims to be concerned about the impact of this program on the average man and woman. I thought it was a joke for a moment that the Conservatives are so concerned after bringing in a budget which was going to raise prices of oil and gas even more and give a large chunk of money to the oil companies. They made what I call "the Harvie Andre deal". If you read Jeffrey Simpson's new book on the Clark government, you can see that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I wonder when the day will come when hon. members will choose to refer to each other in a more comfortable fashion than by name. For the fourth time the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has referred to individual members by name. I know there is no slighting intention in doing that. However, I am forced to uphold the traditional rule that members should be referred to by their constituencies and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would do that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I was referring to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) in terms of title which may be distinguished from referring to his name per se. I would ask Your Honour to rule right now. We are in the modern world. We have television in this House of Commons. People think we are silly when we refer to the hon. member for blah-blah-blah rather than use that member's name. I invite Your Honour to

November 26, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
rule that the tradition be changed so that we can use the proper names for members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 am prepared to abide by Your Honour's ruling either way.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to substantiate the comments you have just made. We do have rules. The hon. member may have some arguments as to why the rules of the House should be changed. However, this is not the time or the place for such a debate. We are debating the Petroleum Administration Act. Perhaps we can take the hon. member's concerns under advisement.
There is a procedural committee of this House. There has been talk by many members regarding parliamentary reform, such as limiting speeches. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) objected last Friday afternoon to the reading of speeches in the House during private members' hour. These may very well be legitimate concerns, but the rules of the House are there to be observed and obeyed. 1 hope we do not debate this matter now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I can aid you, Mr. Speaker, I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We can dispose of the matter. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct, this is not the time. Under our rules, we are not in the position to debate it now. The hon. member has pointed out that in the case of some members, this may be something the House would like to go to eventually. This having been said, we better stay with what we have now and what we have is a requirement that hon. members refer to one another by their constituencies.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Rome was not built in a day. I was dealing with some of the speeches I heard in this House. In particular, I listened to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). I will not mention his name. He sits opposite. He expressed the view which I have heard many Liberals express during this debate, namely, that the Liberals are fortunate that they are in the middle. Suddenly they are fine, things are fine, and the policy is right because they are in the middle.
I wish the hon. member were in his seat today. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will relay my message that that is the muddle middle. In modern politics, which is something else that is coming out of the west, the muddle middle is gone. People want parties to take a position today. They want them to define their positions. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). He is in the muddle middle about the marijuana issue. I do not know how long he will get away with that. I do not think it will be much longer. That is the kind of new politics we will see coming out of the west.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan also suggested that provinces such as Newfoundland cannot protect themselves from the large multinationals and, therefore, the federal government must do that. I again point out to him that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec in their relationships
vis-a-vis the multinational oil companies have a much better record than the federal government.
One problem with western alienation is that all the really exciting action, with the exception of the bilingualism legislation, since the sixties has happened in the provinces. There has been nothing from the federal government. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan further suggested that we in the New Democratic Party should be in favour of this policy because we, above all parties, believe in the strongest of strong central governments. Speaking for myself, I would like to see my party, and I hope it will, move this way.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech.


Frank Oberle: You call that a speech?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am saying that the people of this country want the power moved closer to the people, which is the provinces, or even to the local level. When the New Democratic Party formed the government in British Columbia, they established community resource boards which brought the government and the welfare system right down to the local people. That is the future in politics. In any event, I want to talk a little about the gas policy while we are dealing with it under this part of the motion.


An hon. Member:: Good. We have been exposed to your gas all afternoon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have been exposed to your gas policy and your oil policy. The problem with the oil policy is that it sold our oil at cheap prices. We in the NDP are worried that the same might be done with natural gas. Yesterday a report came out from the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy. The author of the report, Bruce F. Willson, had this to say at page 93:
-this country can probably expect a natural gas deficiency within five to ten years, if not sooner. Such shortages will have devastating effects.
We are now selling cheap gas. Later we will have to import expensive gas from such places as Algeria. Last spring we debated the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline. That is a microcosm compared to our other problems. American companies are now saying that the pre-build pipeline, when built, will only operate at 40 per cent capacity. The pipeline in my province of British Columbia only operates at one-half capacity.
In our scramble for gas exports, we have overbuilt our pipeline capacity. Last December the National Energy Board approved eight applications for more exports. Only half have been taken up by the Americans. Clearly they do not want our gas now.
Look at the Canadian government policy. We have this fancy energy policy. However, we must look at the reality of it and see what they have been doing. The government has been
November 26, 1980

encouraging drilling and giving up to 92 per cent in tax write-offs. As a result of the drilling and finding of gas, there has been pressure from companies which have a cash flow problem. They have to sell the gas. The government is overbuilding pipelines, hurrying through the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline, even at the risk of expropriating people's property with police state methods and archaic laws, as was pointed out in question period today by my colleague for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). Then the policy comes out. It advocates that Canadians switch to natural gas. That does not give you much confidence in a gas policy dealing with exports and problems with exports.
The government overbuilds pipelines, continues to follow a strange policy. With regard to the pre-build, for example, the government said it had the support of the President of the United States. When we said he might not be there next year, they said no. They said they had the support of congress. When we said the congress might change, they said no. Now the government is in the difficulty and is never going to see the Alaska highway pipeline built. They rammed that bill through Parliament. I personally brought a lawsuit against the cabinet on this thing-


An hon. Member:: How are you doing with it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The member asks me how I am doing. Very well. The case has been set for trial and I hope that we will be able to subpoena some senior government people. They can wait with bated breath.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Is it before the courts?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, it is before the courts, which is why I am limited in what I can say about the case.
I might tell hon. members that the government is so together on it they even technically defaulted on their pleadings, that is, they forgot to appear. We could have obtained a default judgment against them, which would have stopped the pipeline. They finally got through to Ottawa and received some instructions. That case is continuing.
I want to quote from the energy paper at page 36:
Producers will not suffer any reduction in the price which they currently obtain for their exports or their domestic sales, except for a small loss due to the taxation of pipeline fuel. In setting the export price of natural gas in the future, the price will be adjusted to take into account this tax.
I say that the minister of energy was really misleading us with that statement. He knew, or should have known, that he could not increase the price of natural gas to the United States. He brought in a gas tax of 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet which is to go into effect in February. On November 15, he announced that there would be no export tax on gas. What does that mean? In effect, it means that the money, the $300 million from Alberta and $50 million from British Columbia, will have to come out of the pockets of the people in British Columbia and Alberta, rather than being passed on to the Americans. This means that no sooner is the ink dry on the
Petroleum Administration Act
figures in this document, the national energy policy, the paper is cracking. Those figures are wrong. The minister said there would be $3.6 billion gained by the province of British Columbia from gas revenues. That is wrong. It took a few weeks to see that it was wrong. Actually, it will be less than half that. This, in the eyes of the province, discredits this paper with respect to gas policy.
With respect to another more populist level, if I can call it that, in terms of gas conversions, what people are asking in my constituency is: can they convert their oil furnaces to gas furnaces. It holds out a promise, but it is an imperfect one. There is no protection to people from the CHIP insulation style rip-offs from contractors. The minister refuses-I talked to him about it yesterday-to finance the program through utility companies like B.C. Hydro and Quebec Hydro, which would enable low income people to receive subsidies over the years from hydro to pay for conversions. It does nothing to help senior citizens or to deal with their problems. Since it is a taxable grant received as a result of converting one's furnace to gas, will it come off their GAINS program or their old age pension program? There are always concerns which remain unanswered. In Quebec, the minister's own province, two-thirds of the people are tenants. This policy does nothing for them. It does not even approach the problem. Again, the Liberals walk the muddled ground. The reality of this energy program is far different from the illusions.
The real flaw in the program, and I will conclude with this, is that if you look at a worker in St. John's, in Toronto or Vancouver, you will see they are unified. They have something in common. They have economic concerns. Suddenly they find their heating cost will double next year-zap, their price of gasoline will double. They can cope with these increases if they have a secure job. That is what I mean when I say that the greatest flaw in this policy is the failure to give back to the people some cushion, some guarantee that they will have jobs to pay for the increase, when you are raising energy, oil and gas prices by so much. This is what people are concerned about.
The Arctic pilot project is a good example. Here are the great words of this policy and here is the reality in the Arctic pilot project, under which Petro-Canada and other companies will ship gas from Melville Island in the Arctic, in foreign built ships, manned by foreign crews, and then export it to the United States. That is what is happening in terms of policy. That is the reality, which is what the workers of this country are worried about. They do not see any industrial strategy which would provide jobs for their children and their children's children.
Mr. Speaker, an old Scot once told me that the only way capitalism works is when you have 12 men looking for the ten available jobs. It seems to me that when you really get down to this policy what the government is telling Canadians is that they do not have a right to own their own home, they do not have the right to a job, they do not have the right to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.


An hon. Member:: That is socialism.

November 26, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is socialism. That is what we stand for and that is what we support.
Canadians know that this country has great potential. They know they can own their own homes. Canadians know they can and should have a job and that they can live a good lifestyle. They are prepared to make some sacrifices. They know that the price of oil and gas must go up. They are prepared to make some sacrifices but they demand that they be fair, just like the provinces demand that the federal government act fairly toward them. The ordinary people in those provinces demand that the government act fairly, that the great mass of people do not bear the burden of these oil and gas prices as is the case under this policy. This policy is a sham when we get down to the average person. That is why we in the NDP have brought forward this motion today to challenge the government, to ask for the revocation of the Petroleum Administration Act and to debate its energy policy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to participate in this debate. I cannot resist asking one question of the member opposite. He indicated he would permit questions and I think technically he does have a minute left. The question I wish to ask calls for a very short answer.
He was telling us how much guts the NDP had in the energy area. Those were his exact words. Then he said that people in the west expect parties to take positions nowadays, and that was going to be characteristic of what would happen from now on so far as the NDP was concerned. This is a debate about energy prices and that is what I will talk about. The Conservatives had the misfortune, when they were in government, to be exposed, to lay out their prices. We have laid our prices out for the next four years, which is what 1 will be speaking on. I would like to ask the hon. member, who stands as his party's spokesman on energy, what is the price schedule the NDP stands for? Would he have enough guts to take a position on this before the Canadian people if the NDP were in power, if socialism were prevailing, with Premier Blakeney looking on and being quoted so favourably by the hon. member? 1 will talk about the four energy prices, the four gasoline prices for each of the next four years. What are the NDP's prices?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would need 40 minutes to reply. But I can give you three words: lower than yours.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hope Premier Blakeney is listening since the NDP has not been very forthcoming with regard to their price schedule. Now they have made it clear that if they were in power the provinces would find prices controlled by the federal government. The hon. member has indicated as much. He has also indicated that their prices would be lower than the prices set by this government. I do not think that is very realistic, and that is what I want to deal with in the time before royal assent is called for.
As the hon. member opposite was speaking, I listened for something with which I could agree because he is an agreeable fellow, but the only thing with which I could agree was his
idea that it would be better not to be operating under this act unilaterally but to be operating by way of agreement with the producing provinces. It has been the objective of this government to try to reach agreement with the producing provinces. The hon. member opposite says that he would not have given up hope of agreement. But at a certain point the government did give up hope and proceeded unilaterally. It proceeded unilaterally for a peculiarly Canadian reason and a peculiarly Canadian objective. Of all the countries in the world we are the one, and maybe the only industrialized country which can set out a schedule of prices for the next four years to help in a meaningful way with the industrial strategy which the hon. member himself regards as so valuable. We can tell the participants in the Canadian economy what energy prices will be over the next four years.
What other country can do that? Italy, a country recently wracked by disaster, is a complete importer of its oil. It cannot have a debate like this and set energy prices as we can. Other western European countries cannot do so, but we in this country can, and should.
The NDP spokesman warned the Canadian people-and I thought it was very forthcoming of him-that energy prices do have to go up. It is worth nothing, even though we have a measure of control, that energy prices must go up. They must go up, for the very good reason that energy costs are going up. As we all know, our present energy mix with respect to oil is derived from three sources. One is imports, and one is high cost non-conventional sources. In those two categories we do not have very much choice about the price. We pay the market price or we do not get the product. We pay the necessary exploration, production and transportation costs for the nonconventional sources. Canadians have to understand that we do not have much flexibility in that regard and that those resources have to be paid for on the basis of a demonstrated cost. The third source, over which Canadians as a nation do have control, is the conventional energy source. We know that is declining, but it is a major part of our energy mix now.
It is a part over which the country has control constitutionally and to which this legislation is addressed. Naturally, we would have preferred, and it would have been better, to be operating on the basis of agreement. I do not think hon. members opposite can demonstrate any fault on the part of the government for our inability to reach an agreement. The hon. member tried to blame it on the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been travelling outside the country-on very legitimate public business-but he knows perfectly well that if the Prime Minister had been present in the House or in the country, that would not have changed the preference expressed by Alberta not to embark upon face to face ministerial or prime ministerial negotiations at this time but to have exchanges by officials. That is Alberta's preference. In view of that, I do not see how the hon. member can criticize the Prime Minister's trip or this government for moving unilaterally to establish a framework within which an industrial strategy can unfold, a strategy which he indicates he welcomes as much as this government does.
November 26, 1980

The Conservatives do not have the luxury the NDP does of refusing to tell us what would happen if they were in government because they had that opportunity, and last December they set out in black and white-and 1 will refer to it-how much a gallon of gasoline would cost in Toronto under their policy in each of the next four years. In the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) the national energy program was described, and in that program we also set out a price schedule of what prices for gasoline would prevail in my city during each of the next four years.


Thomas Edward Siddon: How about heating oil too?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And heating oil. Across the board including heating oil, and I thank my hon. friend for mentioning it because I do not have time to give those figures.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They are very significant.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, they are, including heating oil. Energy costs for Canadian consumers over the next four years in all provinces will be $40 billion less under the national energy program than they would have been if the Canadian people had continued to support the Conservative government in power to carry out the program it had in mind for the next four years for Canadians and which it put down in black and white.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Table the calculations. That is not true.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The next Liberal speaker will provide the calculations on heating oil, but I can compare the demonstrated prices. It is too bad that the NDP has been unwilling to come across and tell us how it would deal with this very difficult problem. Comparing the 1979 budget to the national energy program of this government for Toronto at the city gate, gasoline consumers in 1981 would have paid under the Conservative budget $1.56 and will pay under the national energy program $1.36. In 1982 they would have been paying $1.75. They will be paying $1.53. In 1983 they would have been paying $2.32 had the Conservatives continued in power. They will be paying $1.71. In the fourth year they would have been paying per gallon $2.63 if the Conservatives had stayed in power, but under the national energy program they will be paying $1.95, a difference of nearly 75 cents. That represents a saving to consumers of $40 billion. Listening to western spokesmen and reading the press, one might think that $40 billion saving was coming from the money the provincial governments would otherwise have received.
However, as hon. members of this House know, such is not the case. It is not the intention of the national energy plan to reduce the take of the provincial governments substantially. In fact, the $40 billion which they would have derived from the Conservative package is virtually the same amount as they will derive under the national energy plan of the Liberal government. The province of Alberta, which has a smaller population than metropolitan Toronto, will receive over the next four years an increase of $31 billion; Saskatchewan, $3.2 billion; and British Columbia, $3.6 billion. I do not deny the feeling of
Petroleum Administration Act
western alienation. I know it exists and that it is real, but it is obviously not legitimately based on this national energy plan because the plan gives the provincial governments almost exactly the same amount of money as they would have received under the Conservative budget.
Under this national energy plan the national interest is also taken into account. Money is provided-and I cannot take the time to deal with it-for subsidizing conversions from heating oil, for participating in exploration and development, for pipeline construction and facilitation, for incentives to industry, for alternative energy developments and for many other projects which have been outlined. The budget does take account of the national interest and does provide funding at the national level to encourage these things.
If the provinces do not lose and if the nation continues to benefit and consumers get a much better deal, it is reasonable to ask who is paying for all of this. Of course, the answer is obvious if we look at what has been happening on the stock exchanges lately in the oil and gas sector. There is no doubt that the oil and gas sector is not going to derive the benefits and the profits from the national energy plan that it would have derived from the Conservative plan. This is particularly true of the multinational sector. They will be getting less. The right question is not how much less they will be getting, because the amount they will be getting will continue to represent an incentive; a reasonable question is why this particular sector has been getting so much incentive from the government, why they have been paying so little federal tax over the last 40 and 45 years during which they have been in business in Canada. I think that is a more important and a more interesting question. The answer to that question really lies in our history. This is long before the time of nearly any member of the House, and I emphasize the word "nearly".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In those days, discoveries were made in the west and it was a question of encouraging their development, so incentives were provided which, in my opinion, seemed to have been modelled on what was going on in the United States. We have felt as a country that if we did not do as well by the oil and gas sector as the Americans did in their own country, they would not come here. Because we wanted them, because there was a premium on that kind of technology, know-how and capital, we were willing to provide a very sweet deal.
Well, I think we have to look at the national interest now, as the national energy program does, and provide incentives which are realistic and which, I submit, will be effective. I do not think the multinationals want to leave Canada. I think they will continue to receive benefits which will make it worth while for them to stay here. But we have changed the incentives in such a way that it is going to be better and there will be greater incentive for participation by Canadian interests. The more Canadian a business is, the more incentives it will have to remain and develop in the oil and gas field.
5112

November 26, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act
Members of the official opposition are referring to this aspect of our policy as socialism. I think it is very important to emphasize that it is not, that there is a plan for public sector development, and that the main thrust is to encourage Canadian investors, not the state to take a bigger interest in the oil and gas field. Private investors are being encouraged to take a bigger piece, and they will have the incentive to do so. Certainly no country needs it more than we do. They get extra development incentives for proceeding in proportion to the degree of Canadian ownership.
The NDP is quite ambivalent on this question of capitalism. I remember that David Lewis, the former leader of that party, said very often in the House that there is no difference between a Canadian capitalist and a multinational capitalist- that a capitalist is a capitalist. There is a very important difference between that ideological socialist party and ourselves. We do attribute importance to Canadian ownership, participation and control in our economy, and this national energy plan contains novel, important and very real incentives which, I have no doubt, will have the effect of increasing the number of Canadians and the size of Canadian participation in the ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada. I think the NDP may have come along a little since David Lewis' departure from the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He said that in 1964.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member suggests it was said in 1964. In fact, it was said while I was a member of the House while I was present in the chamber and on many more than one occasion. This is an important distinction to draw between our two parties. As far as we are concerned, Canadian participation, ownership and control are worth-while goals, goals which will be encouraged by this national energy plan. Opportunity, one of the three keynotes of the budget and of the national energy plan, means opportunity for Canadians to play a larger role in this important sector.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time has nearly expired. I should note that Petro-Canada is also a Liberal invention. Petro-Canada is a corporation which belongs to the state and which is available to take risks and to join in partnership with the private sector where the extra, traditional Canadian government input is required to make a project work and to make sure that the resources of this country are explored and developed. After all, a capitalist, even a Canadian capitalist, has the choice of the country in which he wants to operate. If prospects seem marginal in Canada, he can pass them up and go to some other country. Well, Petro-Canada does not look at things that way. It has the mandate and the responsibility to look at everything in our country, however marginal or remote, and make sure that the Canadian interest is developed. This is a totally different perspective than a capitalist would have. That is why we need Petro-Canada, although there are other good reasons for it, and that is why the government will continue to support Petro-Canada and even to expand its role.
I wanted to comment also on the attitude of Ontario people toward the claim of the present government of Newfoundland
to have constitutional jurisdiction over the resources off the shores of that province. We all know the legalities of it. The legalities of it are settled, they are in the national domain because the offshore territory was not part of the colony, and that is quite clear. But people in Ontario recognize that so far as the economic benefits are concerned the people of Newfoundland should benefit from those resources, and if major resources are found there from which the nation can benefit, then Newfoundland should benefit first. Then we look at Alberta and we see how a province which has legal control over its resources can turn the tap off and tell the rest of Canadians, "Go offshore" or "Give in to our demands" or "Do without"; we have to ask ourselves in my part of the country whether Newfoundland, which is not in a position to do that to us, should be put in a position to take such a stand.
The Conservatives had no difficulty with it last year because they did not see it from the point of view from which we have to see it in my province. We think that if Alberta has that constitutional power and is exercising it, we should not add to our national problems by suggesting that Newfoundland should be given the same power. That is not to say they should not have the economic benefits from their resources. I think there would be strong agreement where I come from that Newfoundland should not only be the first to benefit from its offshore discoveries but should derive, on a priority basis, substantial benefits from them. If Alberta can derive extra benefits from properties over which it has constitutional jurisdiction, Newfoundland should too, so far as the economic benefits are concerned. From our point of view, it would be adding extra problems to Canada's viability if we gave a premier who does not now have the authority, the same authority as Alberta has to turn off the taps.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) this afternoon. There was one statement which made me wonder whether or not the Solicitor General and myself and a good many Canadians are living in the same country. Certainly we cannot be reading the same newspapers and travelling in the same parts of the country. He said basically that under the government's national energy plan, everyone wins, that the provinces win, the consumers win and the federal government wins. If the minister is correct in that statement, then approximately one-half of this country, in terms of size but not in terms of population, must be wrong. A good portion of the country, particularly western Canada, does not believe everyone wins under the government's national energy plan. Canadian-owned oil companies, not the multinational ones, have said to members of my party-and I presume to members opposite-that because of the energy plan we are debating this afternoon, some of them may go broke, drilling rigs will be moving out of Canada and there will be a loss of jobs and equipment in the country. I doubt very much if the minister is correct, but if he is, then these companies must be wrong. I frankly do not believe that. What the minister said really exemplifies the problem in the country in terms of not being able to communicate or not understanding each other and each
November 26, 1980

other's regions. Knowing the Solicitor General as I do, I do not believe he would have made a totally wrong and incorrect statement, since he knows the feeling of frustration and resentment which exists in other parts of the country.
Today we are debating the Petroleum Administration Act. When it was set up, I do not believe any government thought it would be used. Certainly it was hoped the act would not be used because it allowed the federal government to set unilaterally the prices of gas and oil. As I understand it, this is the first time it has ever been used in the history of Canada since this legislation was enacted. Obviously prices should be settled through negotiation. That is the Canadian way, that is the way it has been done in the past, and if our country is to be viable, that is the way it must be done in the future. They should not be set arbitrarily at any time through an action such as the use of the Petroleum Administration Act.
It is being used at this point in time because the federal government, in what appeared to be a very heavy-handed and sometimes sneaky manner from the point of view of the producing provinces or the regions of the country from which these products come, worked toward an agreement in which faith in the negotiating process and trust between the partners totally broke down. The entire process reached the point where the government either felt, as a last resort, or because of a grand design previously set down, that it must move toward this very regrettable step.
The budget set out the oil prices. It was really an energy statement rather than a budget. Out of the total of $14,920 billion in new revenue, $14,155 billion will come from changes in oil and natural gas taxes. Over the next three years, some 95 per cent of the revenue collected will come directly from the energy sector. It is my contention that the Canadian consumer will be stuck with the bill or will end up paying it through higher prices and taxes.
Most Canadians have various feelings about this particular piece of legislation. I think they must ask themselves four or five main questions concerning the thrust of the government's energy package. They should ask themselves whether or not the measure will be of help to the consumer. Of course the answer is basically no. While we know that energy prices must increase, we on this side of the House feel that sectors of society should be cushioned while the price increases are working their way through the system. That will not happen under the proposal put forward by the government.
Another question Canadians should ask is whether or not this energy proposal will increase our security of supply. At the present time the answer is a very positive no; it will not increase our security of supply. In fact, it may very well work in the opposite direction.
Another question Canadians should ask is whether or not employment will improve because of the government's energy package. Of course the answer to that question is no. Jobs will be lost in the western provinces, hence jobs will be lost in central Canada where a lot of the products used in the energy
Petroleum Administration Act
field are manufactured. Certainly it appears that we will end up with a weaker oil industry because of this energy policy.
Lastly, going back to what the Solicitor General alluded to, national unity is being strained. There is deep resentment in various parts of the country, particularly in western Canada from where I come. This resentment is directed not necessarily toward this in itself, but toward a series of things which have occurred over the past number of months.
I should like to compare the energy proposals of the Progressive Conservative Party in December, 1979, to those of the Liberal government and their possible effect in the coming year and certainly into the 1983-84 year. To compare these proposals one must decide on a benchmark, and the only benchmark in effect is what the Progressive Conservative Party was prepared to do in terms of pricing arrangements. In regard to price increases and taxes in the year 1980, from January to December, my party proposed a $4 per barrel increase; the Liberal government proposed a $3 per barrel increase, coupled with an 80-cent per barrel petroleum compensation charge and a 75-cent per barrel Syncrude levy which brings the total cost of its package up to $4.55 per barrel. Turning to the impact upon consumers during 1980, under the pricing policies of the Liberal party, the cost of gasoline will rise by approximately 17.3-17.4 cents per gallon and home heating fuel by approximately 15.9 cents per gallon. If we project this through to 1983, under the Liberal policy, or what we are operating under at the present time, gasoline prices will rise by 83.8 cents per gallon at the pumps or somewhere in the neighbourhood of 19 cents per litre, and heating fuel will rise some 77 cents per gallon.
Under the Progessive Conservative budget, gasoline prices would have risen 84.5 cents per gallon at the pumps and heating fuel, some 61 cents per gallon. Therefore, consumers would pay approximately 1.7 cents more per gallon for gasoline and 16 cents more per gallon for heating fuel by 1983 than under the Progressive Conservative proposals.
This will affect all Canadians, whether or not they are car owners, old age pensioners, home owners, regardless of status or position in our society. One of the frustrations we in western Canada are experiencing right now relates to the fact that during the last election campaign the Liberal party deliberately led Canadians to believe that over the coming years energy prices would be lower than under the Progressive Conservative budget. And this is wrong. I will illustrate this by taking my figures based on an average family of four through to 1983, because that is the fairest way to judge both programs.
Under the Liberal policy, gasoline for the family car would cost about $484 more per year at the present time and home heating fuel would cost approximately $616 more. Under the Progressive Conservative budget which was defeated, gasoline for the family car could cost approximately $495 a year more-approximately $10 a year more than under the Liberal budget-and home heating fuel would cost $488 more, some $150 less than what was proposed by the Liberals. Over all, for

November 26, 1980
Royal Assent
these two essential commodities, costs for the average family would be over $100 per year higher and over $1,100 higher by 1983 under the Liberal pricing policy than under the prices negotiated with the provinces by the Conservative government.
As I have mentioned before, prices must rise. All Canadians realize that we cannot keep our oil and gas prices at their present level. The injustice is the severe impact of these price increases on low-income Canadians who have no way of either passing on the price or making up the difference through an increase in salary. There are zero offsetting measures under the Liberal budget or energy policy, but under the proposals brought down by the Conservative government in December, 1979, there were numerous offsetting measures such as tax credits, tax rebates to farmers and fishermen and so on. The tax credit was in the amount of $80 per adult and $30 per child. There was a series of measures to help cushion the substantial rise in prices which would be felt throughout our economy, affecting everyone.
The Canadian Council on Social Development, a very respected non-partisan organization has said:
The energy price increases announced in the budget, combined with rising inflation and planned federal reductions in social spending will have a negative effect on the living standards of Canadians on low and fixed incomes.
That is one of the most regrettable aspects of this whole energy pricing scheme. As a result of the general thrust of the government's action by unilaterally imposing its will and an energy pricing scheme on the provinces, the oil industry and the Canadian public, the consumer is being asked to pay for the very large increases which will result. By the end of 1983 the cost of energy will be between $300 and $600 more than it would have been under the Crosbie budget.
What does the consumer receive? He receives two things-a tax credit and more government.
Another question which will be asked is, "Is security of supply being increased"? Of course, it is not being increased. The cancellation of such projects as the Cold Lake project and cutbacks in exploration programs by Canadian independents prove that security of supply is not being increased. This is the present situation, and it can only get worse. In Atlantic Canada-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker informed the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-6, an act to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 52(3) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2917, be revoked.
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I suppose any speaker in the House of Commons hates to be interrupted in the middle of a speech, but on an historic occasion like this when royal assent is given to the Bank Act, it does not make one feel quite so bad.
I was talking about five critical areas which most people in this country are wondering about-questions which have not been answered satisfactorily by the unilateral move the government has made. First, consumers themselves regardless of income levels are being asked to pay large increases, not only with respect to gasoline for an automobile, but for any kind of oil. From our point of view, this is wrong, because of the effect it will have on the low-income earners of this country. Security of supply is not being increased or protected. I would predict, certainly in the future, that we will find ourselves in a serious situation with respect to security of supply as we enter the late 1980s. We will find ourselves more reliant upon OPEC oil as we move along. That is an absolute shame for our country. Each year Canadian families are spending the equivalent of approximately $900 per year on OPEC oil. That money should be staying in Canada. I do not see in the energy proposals any indication that this will happen.
Earlier I mentioned that the energy proposals would not increase employment. In fact, the energy pricing proposals will work in the exact opposite fashion. In my opinion, we will not have a stronger Canadian industry, at least not for a long, long time. The industry will be severely affected by the moves of the government.
Energy development will also slow down. It will virtually stagnate and the whole question of our balance of payments will be turned around. Under this proposal, we will end up paying more and more for imported oil over what we now pay
November 26, 1980

the producing provinces of this country. Coupled with that is the question of the development of technology. That will not be there. In my opinion, the highly skilled advance technology will be developed in some other country, presumably in the United States where the action will take place.
One of the great tragedies of this whole question of the inability to come to a pricing agreement and, flowing from that, the government's unilateral moves on energy pricing and their budget which devoted so much to energy, is the way it will affect Canadian companies. I refer not to the multinational companies, but to companies owned by and controlled by and employing Canadians. I presume most members have received a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) dated November 13 by a person by the name of B. M. McVicar. I wish to quote from his letter because it states far better than any of us in this chamber could describe what is happening to Canadian-owned companies in this country. 1 quote:
Such budget cuts immediately result in a drop in seismic crew and drilling rig crew and normal procurement activities. If there is a predicted 40 per cent or 200 rig drop there could be a direct lay-off of, say, 5,000 people. Indirect lay-offs amongst logging, mud company and all other ancillary exploration and production service and supply companies could total up to 100 people per rig especially if supply outlets in Ontario and Quebec are counted. Everyone will have slightly different figures for all of this but the order of magnitude will be the same. The gross budget cut dollar effects are not too difficult to extrapolate from the past personal experiences of available knowledgeable people and presumably government statistics. The net effect of your budget is immediate severe Canadian job loss or degradation which will persist and will not only include hard pressed wage earners but also those with a high technical capability for sustaining and increasing our energy capacity. Job loss will occur from Halifax and St. John's through Sarnia and Windsor to Vancouver.
Acting on your government's previous inducements to invest in Canadian industry I took it in good faith and made what was then a prudent and well advised investment, specifically Turbo Resources Oil and Gas Production Funds numbers 5 and 6. This was an act of thrift. My intent was to make provision for retirement. Your budget may have now ruined these investments and with them my retirement savings. How can I ever afford to trust the Canadian tax system to be a reliable inducement to commit investment in Canada versus elsewhere ever again?-
The saddest part of the budget is its effect on Canadian individuals and companies: Ocelot, Tri-Mac, Simmons, Canadian Hunter, Voyageur, Turbo, etc. Individual Canadians with formerly viable and sound productive properties proved reserves, new discovery and a talent for finding hydrocarbon are verging on bankruptcy.
That is the result of what the energy package which the government brought down some time ago is doing to Canadian industry. It has been repeated time and again by other owners of Canadian natural resource industries. In effect, the government has virtually taken a sledgehammer to them without any recourse other than to suffer the consequences and see the industry literally shift to the United States.
There has been talk of western separatism. I do not know whether that is a good phrase. Certainly there is western frustration. There may be a certain element of separatist
Petroleum Administration Act
feeling in western Canada. I know the frustration level is dangerously high. That has not come about through only one thing. It came about as a result of an election campaign conducted on the basis of lower prices and a turnaround by doing almost directly the opposite. There was a first ministers' conference on the constitution in which it was perceived that the federal government was acting in a very devious manner, leaking memos and doing things not traditionally in the Canadian way.
The fact that closure was imposed on the constitutional resolution is very frustrating and worrisome to people in western Canada, as it must be to all Canadians. The budget and the energy package which we talked about this afternoon is one more building block in the whole foundation and may at some point in time lead to a very serious situation in western Canada.
Westerners are Canadians. There is no question about it and there has never been any doubt about it. I have talked to some people in western Canada who have indicated that they are separatists in their leanings, but they still have a Canadian flag on their desk, in their office or in their home. It is not the same kind of separatism we experienced in terms of the province of Quebec some time ago.
Westerners are Canadians, but they will only be pushed so far. They are sick and tired of the methods being used which result in the culmination of a series of things they do not believe are necessary. They believe that given a proper input into the life of this country, they could make a very good contribution. Fortunately, a country is stronger than any of its politicians or political parties, individually or collectively. That is good for Canada at this time in our history.
In closing, I urge all members before voting to take a hard look at what is being done to the goodwill of this country and a very important industry in it. I think we are moving toward not only severely hurting it, but to dismantling it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The questions to be raised tomorrow night at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)- Canadian National Railways-Intention to abandon track in Nova-Scotia-Government position; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Canadian Film Development Corporation-Registration of Michael McCabe-Amount of severance pay; the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker)-Northern Pipelines-Expropriation of land in British Columbia.

November 26, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
PETITION TO REVOKE PROCLAMATION The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 52(3) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2917, be revoked.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my comments with regard to the present debate before the House. I know it is a well-known fact to members of this chamber that the basic principles outlined in the budget speech in October were the crux of the energy program that was to be instituted in Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada.
In it they outlined three basic objectives of that energy package. First of all, they dealt with security of supply. Second, they dealt with the opportunity for Canadians to participate in the energy industries more than they have in the past. Third, they dealt with the fairness in pricing and sharing of revenues among governments and industries in this country. The third objective is the one I wished to address myself to more particularly in the first part of my speech this evening.
When we talk about fairness I would like, by way of preamble, to state exactly what the situation is as I see it in Canada today. I think that I, along with many members on this side of the House, have expressed some concern about the level of western frustration. I am glad the member from Lisgar (Mr. Murta) expressed it that way since too often I feel that in this particular debate I have heard from the members opposite the word "separatism". That, clearly, is misleading to a number of Canadians who watch this particular program. Some of the better speeches from members opposite have come from those I would term the moderates in this realm. They discussed the feelings of alienation in western Canada in terms of the situation which I believe exists.
I visited western Canada in July as a result of a request by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to a number of Liberals in this House to undertake a tour of western Canada in order to explain federal energy pricing policies to Albertans, Saskatchewanians and British Columbians. From the open line shows I participated in and from some of the discussions I had with chamber of commerce groups in western Canada, as well as with people involved in municipal politics in western Canada, I learned first hand that I share some of the frustrations they have with central government. I have had discussions with people who live in western Canada about how they feel about the way the central government treats them.
Before dealing with that I would like to give an historical perspective of how the federation of Canada has evolved since the time of confederation in 1887. Most of us who are students of history realize that at the inception of federal government in Canada the "have" provinces were the maritime provinces. Over the ensuing 113 years since confederation we have experienced a continual evolution of both economic power and population demographic changes which have consistently moved from the eastern borders of our country to the west.
In the last several weeks I have read with interest some very good editorials, not only in central Canadian newspapers but in western Canadian ones as well. They spoke about this shift of power occurring within the country. They spoke about how we should view it from the standpoint of the opportunities it means for Canadians rather than from a sense of frustration as we try to come to grips with this problem of evolution in our country. From my perspective, as member of Parliament for Sudbury, I have some understanding of the frustration which is felt by people who live in western Canada with respect to their interpretation and the way in which they relate to central government. In northern Ontario we have had that same feeling of alienation with respect to our central government. It goes without saying that this kind of alienation, is a function of how far away one is from the centre of power. Political science documents have been written relating to this feeling. It occurs whether it is the provincial centre of power or the federal centre of power. I sensed, and I share, the same frustration as 1 think western Canadians feel about the way in which the economic structures of this country have worked in their view. I think they have some legitimate beefs. It has worked to their detriment in terms of development of secondary industry in western Canada and in terms of creating job sectors for the next generation of western Canadians. We too in northern Ontario have shared those feelings. For example, in northern Ontario freight rates work to the detriment of the development of secondary manufacturing industries. We see that 112 years after confederation we are still very much a hinterland economy largely resource oriented. Resources are shipped continually from northern Ontario to points in southern Ontario or elsewhere in Canada for further processing. I say, yes, share those feelings of frustration with respect to the feelings of western Canadians. They say, "Look, the resources are going to run out; they are finite resources. At some point in time we must have a manufacturing base in place or we must be able to develop the tertiary sector of the economy for the next generation of western Canadians." I can understand that attitude from the viewpoint of western Canadians. I share it with them from the standpoint of living in northern Ontario.
I am disturbed by some of the comments I have seen in newspaper articles in western Canada. I am somewhat concerned about comments made by some of the members on the benches opposite when they interpret that frustration level. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said it very well in Saskatchewan several nights ago when he was confronted by some members of the hard core separatist movement there. He
November 26, 1980

said it is the duty of all Canadians to fight with all their ability whenever the head of separatism arises. I do not have to say in this House how hard the Minister of Justice fought separatism in his own province.
1 think it is important that hon. members from western Canada in this debate, and in the ensuing months, should to the best of their ability calm down this feeling of western separatism. Surely if we are members of Parliament we are Canadians first and Albertans second. As members of Parliament that is the message we must all give to western Canada regardless of political affiliation.
I would like to deal now with some of the remarks 1 have heard on open-line shows which have attempted to answer some of these problems vis-a-vis western frustration with respect to our present energy program and our budget, indeed, even with respect to the constitutional debate which is presently in committee.
1 went to western Canada in July and participated in openline shows. People calling in said, "Look, suddenly we find that for the first time in our lives we have all the riches, we are becoming much stronger economically than we have ever been before. All we see is a strong federal government trying to grab the money that we feel is rightly ours." Coming back to this whole issue of fairness in revenue sharing and about being a Canadian I say to them that there has been one consistent oil policy developed as Canadians, regardless of whether it has been under a Liberal or a Conservative government. Since the time of confederation one of the major principles which has allowed this parliament to survive the 113 years has been the ability of the federal government to take the riches from the "have" provinces and distribute them-I am not saying distribute them equally across this country, but distribute them in a manner in which we can, at least, deliver a basic level of service to all Canadians. There should be a basic security system for Canadians in this country; there should be basic rights for all Canadian citizens to enjoy.


Thomas Edward Siddon: All you do is keep taking.


Royce Herbert Frith: What the member opposite has just said is the kind of remark we seem to be hearing all the time-we always seem to be taking. Clearly, that is not the case. If the member wishes to rise on a point of order I do have at least seven minutes left-


Thomas Edward Siddon: I wonder if the hon. member would receive a question on the subject of equalization and sharing?
I appreciate the genuine atmosphere in which the member is speaking. I think the reason for the frustration western Canadians feel is that in the talk about the importance of suppressing our feelings of anxiety we should not at the same time talk about what we view as discrimination or unfairness in the means by which equalization is to be administered. In other words, western Canadians want to know how the sums add up. The government opposite will not share with us what we are giving and who is receiving to what degree. Would the
Petroleum Administration Act
hon. member answer this question: does he not think western Canadians are entitled to that information?


Royce Herbert Frith: I would like to answer the hon. member's question in this way since it is a question that came up in the Quebec referendum. It came up within the last four years as a result of the threat of separatism in the province of Quebec. When we get into this whole mathematical ballgame of how much we put into confederation and how much we take out the answer is: whoever is cooking the books can give you a different answer.
I was at the Economic Council of Canada two or three years back when the finance minister for Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, gave an address. He had been making quite a few speeches with respect to how much money it was actually costing Quebec to stay within confederation. I remember that the treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Darcy McKeough handed Mr. Parizeau at that time a leather-bound edition of what Ontario's treasurer had come up with as to what confederation cost Ontario.
I want to get away from that and come back to the basic feeling of fairness in the country. I happen to believe, having talked to western Canadians, that once their level of frustration is at least spoken out, they are still Canadians first, and they still believe in the principle of sharing. The reason I am speaking in this vein is that in terms of editorial reporting in western Canada and to a large extent on the national television networks I feel we are not getting our message across. I speak not from the standpoint of a Liberal message. I refer simply to the message that a central government must give to western Canada.
Let me come back to some of the remarks addressed to me on open-line shows in western Canada. I was told that world prices prevail for almost every other commodity and asked why not for oil. Last night in his speech the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) correctly pointed out that in the late sixties copper prices were deliberately kept below the world price by the federal government in order to maintain a viable industry in Canada. In addition, exports were curtailed at that point in order to allow our Canadian industries to survive.
It was pointed out on other occasions that over the years, and particularly in the sixties, Canadians paid more for western oil than the world price. That was a conscious decision made by a central government to stimulate the oil industry in western Canada and to allow it to survive and to grow. This has been done in the past. To an extent I suppose we have done the same with respect to the cost of wheat. In order to maintain a thriving agricultural economy in western Canada, there have been times since confederation when we have paid more than the world price for wheat, and for the same reasons.

November 26, 1980
Petroleum Administration Act Therefore, when these kinds of subsidies occur, it naturally goes without question that somebody has to pay for them, and that is the principle all Canadians have accepted since the days of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Friday, November 21, 1980, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Waddell, seconded by Mr. Knowles, relating to the Petroleum Administration Act. Call in the members.
(Division No. 35)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Bosley
Broadbent
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdale Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fraser Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gurbin Haliiday
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Bcauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussieres
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Howie
Ittinuar
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Knowles
Kristiansen
La Salle
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
++NAYS
Messrs.
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Rose
Sargeant
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Wright-88.
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Johnston
Joyal
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
November 26, 1980

Messrs.
Lachance	Marceau	RompkeyLalonde	Masse	RooneyLanders	Masters	RoyLang	McCauley	SavardLaniel	McRae	SchroderLa pierre	Olivier	SimmonsLeBlanc	Ostiguy	SmithLeduc	Ouellet	StolleryLefebvre	Parent	TardifLoiselle	Penner	TessierLonsdale	Pepin	TobinLumley	Peterson	TrudeauMacBain	Pinard	TurnerMacEachen	Portelance	VeilletteMackasey	Prud'homme	WatsonMacLaren	Regan	WeatherheadMacLellan	Reid	Yanakis-123.Malepart	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Maltais	Roberts	
Petroleum Administration Act


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Order, please. The decision the House has just made also disposes of the second motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
It now being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eight o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, November 24, 1980.
At 6.12 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 27, 1980