1980-07-11

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the very serious loss of trees from forest fires, and the fact that reports yesterday and today indicate further outbreaks of forest fires, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That this House requests the Minister of the Environment to initiate consultations with his appropriate provincial counterparts with a view to co-operating with them in fully utilizing Canadian firefighting facilities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CABINET COMMITTEES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Prime Minister has tabled a list of cabinet committees which reveals the existence of a committee on western affairs. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That, in light of the government's record on western issues thus far, this House directs the chairman of the western affairs cabinet committee to advise the House as to when the committee will have its first meeting, and whether:
(a)	the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will appear before the
committee to explain his energy policy, and
(b)	the committee will appear before the Minister of Transport to describe to
him a grain elevator.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that Rockwell International of Canada has announced a lay-off of 300 employees at its Chatham plant and 200 employees at its Milton plant, a further indicator of the serious problems facing the Canadian manufacturing sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the government immediately introduce a transitional assistance program to assist the more than 22,000 auto workers in Canada that are now on indefinite lay-off.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


RECOGNITION OF CANADA'S OLYMPIC ATHLETES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I trust that the House will give this motion enthusiastic support.
In view of the fact that many of Canada's young athletes who have agreed to support the government's decision to boycott the Moscow Olympics over Russia's insatiable appetite for expansionism have trained for years in preparation for the event to represent their country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Government of Canada prepare appropriate recognition of all these athletes and their supporters, of whom we are so proud, to show that all Canadians recognize their dedication not only to their sport but their loyalty to their country and its principles of freedom.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, the urgency being the fact that the British Parliament is about to consider a matter affecting this country.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Wes-ton (Mrs. Appolloni):
That the new and first made-in-Canada constitution reinforce its insistence on religious liberty by including the desire of the Canadian people that successors to our present Canadian Queen may be an adherent not only of the Protestant but also of the Catholic or other religious faiths.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*
[ Translation]


EXPORT TAX-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a very important matter.
Considering the growing concern of some provinces because the federal government might levy a tax on energy exports; considering the refusal of this government to disclose its true intention in that connection which has at the same time given rise to a very negative response from Quebec and British Columbia; considering finally that the behaviour of the government on the point is unacceptable for the orderly progress of current discussions on constitutional reform, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That this House unanimously urge the responsible minister to state the intentions of the government in that connection before the federal-provincial conference to be held in September, 1980.


Madam Speaker:: Such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
July 11, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Minister of Public Works, responsible for Canada Mortgage has stated in this House that the AHOP program is 95 per cent successful, and whereas areas such as Brampton, Mississauga and Kitchener have vacancy rates of up to 50 per cent through mainly quit claims and abandonment; and whereas Canada Mortgage is now marketing these vacant units for up to $11,000 less than was paid for the homes originally, causing untold concern to those who have stuck with this ill-conceived program, and whereas they have to refinance these homes with first and second mortgages over the next year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House urge Canada Mortgage to guarantee the people living in AHOP homes that they will not be penalized in the refinancing of their homes since the value today is much less than will be their total financial obligation.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, in view of the news today that the New Horizons program for many has become a personal Lost Horizon for the special assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who yesterday, in a fit of pique, summarily fired her special assistant for writing a memo to Liberal members advising them of their own legislation; and since on the face of it an injustice has been done to this faithful servant of government who received only two days' notice of this callous dismissal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That Parliament immediately direct the minister responsible for the status of women, the Lochinvar member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, to immediately investigate this matter and report back to this House that political embarrassment and not sexist discrimination was the reason for this merciless move by the minister responsible for the welfare of all Canadians.
July 11, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
One of my constituents recently has been informed that she will not be eligible for a spouse's allowance. Her husband died just four months before she reached the age of 60. He was 68 years old at the time of his death. She is now expected to live on a widow's pension of some $127 per month. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the unjust pension law that relegates my constituent and many other Canadians to a life of extreme hardship and poverty, and that this House urges the government to implement immediately legislation making every Canadian, regardless of marital status, eligible for a pension at the age of 60.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Immigration and Employment. It pertains to the ministerial permit issued last month to Giuseppe Calamusa.
Armed with the knowledge that Mr. Calamusa had been convicted on three occasions in Italy of serious criminal offences between 1961 to 1965, aware of the fact that Mr. Calamusa came to Canada illegally in 1968 and has been deported on five occasions, aware of the fact that in 1975 he was charged with counterfeiting in Toronto, that in 1976 he skipped bail and that in 1977 he was convicted and imprisoned, my question to the minister is this: how can he exercise
Oral Questions
his discretion in such an unjustifiable way, especially in light of the fact that the trial judge recommended his deportation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He was tap-dancing.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, he does not even tap-dance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: In your hotels?


Lloyd Axworthy: If hon. members would like an answer to the question, as the hon. member knows, under section 19(2) of the act there is, and always has been, an opportunity for those who have had records to be admitted to this country. In Mr. Calamusa's case he was deported, as the act provided. We did provide a permit for him to return to the country, based on compassionate grounds, namely, there would have been a split in the family because three of his children are Canadian citizens and one of them was very seriously ill.
Those, I think, were proper grounds to allow the gentleman to come back into the country until his affairs could be established and an opportunity given to him to prove whether he was prepared to rehabilitate himself. Those were the grounds upon which the decision was made.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of the illness to which the minister has referred with respect to one of the children. But I ask the minister, what hard evidence did he take into consideration in deciding that the medical treatment this young man could have received in Italy was not as effective as it could be in, say, Winnipeg where he now resides?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in this case we took into account all kinds of evidence. To repeat, I would say the evidence demonstrated that in terms of the position of the family, to maintain the unity of the family and to provide an opportunity for that family to establish itself in this country, based upon the claims and representations made by many people on behalf of the Calamusas who had spoken on their behalf, including the city council for the city of Niagara Falls, we felt that on balance the family deserved a chance.
Mr. Calamusa did adhere to the requirements of the law, and was deported. There is a permit but if there is any indiscretion beyond that, then he would be asked to leave. But in this case, I erred on the side of compassion and judgment.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the minister took the point of representations made, because I would like to ask the minister what representations were made by Mr. Joseph Bova, a campaign worker for the minister, on behalf of this particular person, and did Mr. Bova know this Mr. Calamusa prior to the time that he moved to Winnipeg in June of this year?
2792

July 11, 1980
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, quite to the contrary. When the family made their appeal to me, along with others, I contacted Mr. Bova, who is a highly respected member of the Italian community, to ask his judgment and his advice and to see whether he would use his services to obtain employment and accommodation for the Calamusas if they were to resettle. He offered to provide those services as part of his contribution in helping that family make a good place in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


METHOD OF DEPORTATION OF MR. CALAMUSA
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister and follows the questions raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge. I want to pursue the method in which the deportation order against Mr. Calamusa was carried out.
Will the minister confirm that Mr. Calamusa and his family were driven over 100 kilometres from Winnipeg to the U.S. border by two Canadian immigration officials in government cars, and will he confirm that the officials took the Calamusas across the border, waited for them and then returned them to Winnipeg, all at the taxpayers' expense?
[DOT] (U20)
Can he tell me why he was deported to the United States, and not back to the country from which he originally came illegally? Is all this action standard procedure of the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this is standard procedure and has been going on for an awfully long time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is unfortunate that members opposite have not taken the opportunity to inform themselves of the proper procedure under the Immigration Act. One of the requirements under that act is that when a deportation order is issued, the Canadian authorities are required to carry out that deportation order and to accompany anybody to the point of debarkation, whether it is an airport or a point of entry. That is the proper procedure, and it was followed, Madam Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: As I understand it, Madam Speaker, standard procedure regarding deportation and re-entry through a ministerial permit is to have the person in question pick up that permit at the nearest Canadian consulate, which in this case was Minneapolis, some 500 miles away. Why was standard procedure waived in this particular case?


Mr. Trudeau:: Because we have a heart.


John Horton McDermid: And is it just a coincidence that the Calamusas moved from Niagara Falls to Winnipeg for employment, or was the main reason to be close to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and in fact did he
receive this job in Winnipeg before he had his first hearing with the minister, or after?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would repeat that it is standard procedure to provide this kind of travel to a point of debarkation. The ministerial permit then is simply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: If members opposite want proper answers they will have to allow me the time and the opportunity to give them. I really cannot hear them over their talking. The proper procedure is to allow those who are given a deportation order to be given a permit that they can then present upon re-entry.
As far as the work here is concerned, I see nothing wrong in someone trying to get away from a climate in which he had received adverse publicity, prompted by both the media and politicians, and start in a new place at a new time. That was the reason they came to Winnipeg, because there were people there who were prepared to help them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. The OECD report released yesterday, in Paris, a survey of the economies of all the western countries, said:
-what is needed is a combination of policies directed at reducing underlying inflation, enhancing productive potential and reducing energy dependence.
Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement, and could he outline for the benefit of the House the government's policies with regard to those objectives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I have not read the report. I will be happy to take the advice of the hon. member and read it.


Bob Rae: It is nice to know that the economic affairs of the country are getting the full attention of the Prime Minister at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It is reassuring to all members of the House. This is just amazing: the government is prepared to spend its entire time on constitutional affairs and nothing at all on the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
uly 11, 1980


Bob Rae: It is just amazing. Talk about compassion! I would ike to address a supplementary to the Prime Minister. The rowth rate in Japan in 1980 is predicted to be nearly 10 per ent, and the growth rate in Canada is going to be minus three-quarters per cent for 1980, according to the OECD.
Japan's budgetary deficit is substantially larger than Canada's, on an over-all basis, but the fact is this is the case because it invests in industries in order to carry out some of the objectives that are stated in the OECD report. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce a budget which will provide for productive investment in energy, housing, capital works and skilled trades which, while it may temporarily increase the deficit, will have the effect of stimulating growth and providing employment for Canadians.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have heard about the effects of stimulative deficits. The hon. member knows that we already have a very large deficit in the accounts of this country. If he is arguing that we should increase the size of that deficit, I would just advise him that the Minister of Finance is preparing a budget for some time next fall and he will have the answer then.


Bob Rae: A final supplementary. Yesterday, the minister responsible for housing stated that the government was considering cutting the community services program which is involved in providing funds for basic infrastructure and other community services in towns and cities across the country. What is the logic of that kind of restraint, when the only effect it can have is to increase unemployment and reduce the ability of our municipalities to provide services for our citizens?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All forms of restraint are difficult for somebody. Yesterday, in an answer on this subject, I said the government was putting its restraint measures into effect but would not do so on the backs of the unemployed. The hon. member is coming forward with an argument in defence of the municipalities, which are within provincial jurisdiction.
It is certain we have been transferring large sums of money to the provinces and municipalities for various schemes. They are in a much better financial position than the federal government is, and if we are to exercise restraint it has to be in part at the expense of our large transfers to provincial jurisdictions.


DETERIORATION IN CURRENT ACCOUNTS BALANCE-REASON THEREFOR
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to address my question to the acting minister. The OECD reports that Canada will be the only country of the seven major industrial nations to show a deterioration in its current accounts balance in the coming year. Canada's current accounts deficit is expected to be $7.4 billion during that period.
Oral Questions
This is based on a forecast that our merchandise trade surplus, which is running at an annual rate of $5.3 billion for the first six months of this year, will drop to only $2.5 billion for the next 12 months.
Does the government agree with this abysmal forecast? To what does the minister attribute this drastic reduction forecast in our merchandise trade surplus, and what urgent action does the government plan to redress this problem?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, it is hard for anybody who is not a fortune teller to agree or not with forecasts, whatever their source may be. As far as the economic problems now experienced by the western world are concerned, the government is now developing an industrial strategy which we hope will ensure a better economic future for our country.


John William Thomson: Would the acting minister accept the proposition by OECD, that member countries should continue tight fiscal and monetary policies to contain the inflationary impact of the oil shock, and that what is needed is a combination of policies aimed at reducing underlying inflation and enhancing productive potential?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member wants to elicit from me the basic principles of the Minister of Finance's next budget, and it is not my job to give such information.


FOREST FIRES
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister.
In view of the serious loss of trees due to recent fires, and since fresh outbreaks are being reported, has the hon. gentleman consulted with his provincial counterparts with a view to co-operating with them in trying to reduce the loss of this valuable resource? Is he aware that a fleet of 12 to 14 Canadian-owned planes which are well equipped for fighting fires has been grossly underutilized?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I will take

July 11, 198
Oral Questions
notice of the hon. member's question and see that he gets a complete answer as soon as possible.


USE OF UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT IN FIGHTING FOREST FIRES
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of, and does he support the policy of his department whereby, while Canadian firefighting planes sit idle, his department is licensing American planes to come in from Michigan to fight fires in Ontario?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, if my friend would like to give me specifics on that, I would reply immediately. As a general proposition, it is well known that we favour Canadian operators.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board announced yesterday a salary increase of 9.5 per cent for public servants in the senior executive and deputy minister groups, in view of the fact that the government's most recent offer to members of the clerical, regulatory and data processing groups was 7 per cent, and since the senior executive salary range is from about $35,000 to $65,000, while most clerks-85 per cent of whom are women-are making a piddling $12,800 per year, is the minister now willing to improve the government's offer to the clerks to bring it closer to the same dollar value gained by the senior executive group, or at least to a reasonable level comparable with inflation in order to live up to the government's throne speech commitment to treat working women equitably?


REDUCTION IN FEMALE STAFF OF DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, 1 think the government should take the lead in this area. My supplementary question will be to the minister of unemployment-the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


John Horton McDermid: You were right the first time.


Sidney James Parker: I think so. In view of the minister's pretensions as a champion of equality for women, and in view of his vaunted employment strategy for women, will the minister tell the House why he has allowed the women's employment division of his department to degenerate from five officers to one, and why he has no intention of filling the recently vacated position of chief of the women's employment division?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing degenerate going on in our department at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that every department and every commission has had the experience of a restraint program which has been applied by past governments but that positions and person-years are available in this area. I have instructed, as part of that restraint program, X budgeting. It came to my attention a few weeks back. I have asked to have them restored.
As to why the position is not being filled, the present incumbent has taken sick leave, and the position is open until such time as it can be filled. She is away for a period of time and we have to determine whether she will return to it or whether we have to start the normal recruitment procedure to find a replacement.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the increase for the senior management group announced yesterday is very reasonable, and less- as I indicated-than the amount suggested to us by the advisory group on executive remuneration. This group still lags substantially behind the private sector.
I have also said-and the hon. member knows-that the policy of the government is to establish comparability with the outside sector. That being said, the group in question has opted for the conciliation route. The conciliation board, I understand, is likely to be appointed in the very near future. I am sure that a successful and fair resolution of that particular wage negotiation will take place in the relatively near future.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I want to pose some questions to the Minister of I Employment and Immigration with regard to the Calamusa I case.	I
I was interested in the minister's allegation that the proce- I durcs followed in this matter were standard procedures, and 1 think the House would like to know exactly what standard procedures are. I wonder if the minister would confirm for the House that it is his position and that of the government that it is standard procedure to provide a government car to take a deported person out of the country, hand that person a ministerial permit and then wait and drive that person back from the point outside the country to the city in Canada from which that person was originally driven in a government car. Is that a
[July 11, 1980

[procedure which is available to all persons deported and lallowed special permits?
I Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immi-
Igration): Madam Speaker, it is a requirement that we provide (transportation for those who receive deportation orders.
I Mr. Clark: Madam Speaker, I think the minister will have I to realize that he has to answer for both his comings and [goings in the House of Commons.
I


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I Mr. Clark: Madam Speaker, we would like to know whether I he is saying that it is standard procedure for the Government I of Canada to provide immediate transportation back, to have I the car or other vehicle wait until the person has been deposit-led for a few moments-in the United States, in this case-and I then to bring that person back.
Is that a practice which is available to every person in a situation similar to that of Mr. Calamusa? Is it standard procedure to drive a person out, to wait and to drive that person back?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he might be far more preoccupied about his comings and goings at this stage. They might be more politically sensitive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I simply point out that it is a requirement under the act that we provide transportation to the point of debarkation. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would want the Government of Canada to provide common courtesies and to provide transportation back, but there was no transportation across the border.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, unless I misunderstand what the minister has said, we now have an admission by the minister that in this case Mr. Calamusa was driven from Winnipeg to the border, that the Canadian government vehicle waited and that he was then driven back. In other words, the standard procedure was extended from driving to the point of debarkation to encompass a practice where the person was driven back.
Are we to understand that that is standard procedure available to all individuals who have been deported and allowed a special permit? I would like it clarified whether the drive back is now part of the procedure. That is a special two-way limousine service.
Second, the minister indicated that he had received a number of representations from a number of individuals, in his answer to my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge. I wonder if he would, in light of the quite unusual circumstances involved in this case, be prepared to lay upon the table of the House of Commons a list of all those individuals from whom representations were received in this particular case.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question, 1 think the Leader of the Opposition, having been a member of a government for a short time, would realize that there is a requirement for some degree of confidentiality when advice, opinions and representations are received. If, however, the Leader of the Opposition wants to seek out those who did make representations and asks for their permission to make those documents public, I would certainly have no objection to that.
But the representations were made by a number of individuals. This file has been with us for a while. We wanted to take a decision. There were many representations made public, including one from the city council of the city of Niagara Falls, as well as others. A number of representations were made and I think it is my responsibility to accumulate those and make a decision based upon them.
As far as the first part of the question with regard to travel arrangements is concerned, they depend entirely on the circumstances of the case.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I called the Minister of State for Science and Technology to have him briefed fully on fusion energy processes. He is not here today, as I was assured he would be, so I will address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the important and even urgent situation involving alternate energy development to reduce our dependency on petroleum, and recognizing the need for non-polluting energy sources, I was concerned and distressed to hear the minister's response and attitude on the question of Canada's participation in fusion development during this week's estimates committee hearings.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the role of such a minister, who is a lawyer, to prejudge complex scientific research projects and to direct policies contrary to the wishes of eminent scientists and institutions, such as the National Research Council, when such personal decisions could seriously jeopardize Canada's future energy needs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was very unfair to the Minister of the Environment when he accused him of being a lawyer. I suggest he should look up the curriculum vitae of my colleague.
As to the question of nuclear fusion, the minister testified before the parliamentary committee, at which time he expressed views on advice from officials. The government is reviewing these matters on a continuing basis. No decision has been taken by the government that interest would not be

July 11, 198C
Oral Questions
shown in the issue of nuclear fusion. It is a matter that the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are following. We are following developments in this field, but at present, as the hon. member knows, no specific budget has been allocated.
We are talking in terms of an energy process which is generally agreed to be decades down the line. It is a matter where, as a first priority for Canada, resources will be allocated. I want to assure the hon. member that the government will be following developments in this respect very closely. The matter may be reviewed at a later stage.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, if that is the case, there must be some misunderstanding by the newspapers of Canada today. Maybe this is a matter of confusion. Vice-president Mondale's office is not confused: an official in his office stated:
Magnetic fusion programs are moving along very well, in our opinion. So well, in fact, that ... it is time to move magnetic fusion out of the pure research stage.
So it is more than just speculation. Would the minister agree that if Thomas Edison had had such ministerial guidance prior to his 1,000 experiments leading to his noted invention, he would have been told that the light bulb could not be invented and all of us today would have been operating in the dark, like Liberal science policy?


An hon. Member:: Election promises.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to advise my hon. friend that he might check whether or not Vice-president Mondale is a lawyer. He might be, and the opinion of Mr. Mondale might not be of much more value in that respect. So we have to check.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the minister confirm to the House that the Employment and Immigration Commission has approved amendments to the unemployment insurance regulations which will enable wives of fishermen to claim unemployment insurance benefits?


Some hon. Members:: Of course.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that in fact the employment commission has authorized that the wives of fishermen will now be eligible for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, ^ I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is aware of the application made for thel acquisition by Cargill Enterprises of Maplewood Poultry Processors in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Is he in a position to advise me and the House of the present status of that | application?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 
Alexander Bell Patterson: I am sure the minister was aware-he alluded to the fact-that there had been a change of mind. It included not only the union representing the workers, but the turkey producers themselves and the government of B.C.
In view of the fact that this has put out of work 135 employees in the immediate area, and is threatening the viability of the turkey producing industry, would the minister assure us that he will continue, on a very urgent basis, to try to reach a decision so far as the application is concerned?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member is also aware of the fact that my department ran the plant for approximately three weeks to make sure the poultry were processed. We are prepared to move back in there if necessary, if we are sure that some other potential buyer might be available for that plant. We will have meetings with my officials later. We are very concerned about the employees. We are also very concerned about the processing facilities being operational.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to put my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Recognizing that these are difficult economic times, I am sure everyone in
July 11, 1980

the House appreciates the difficulties being faced by small businesses across the country.
Small businesses were encouraged in April when the minister indicated he would bring in a small business development bond this year. In a press release on June 13, he indicated again that the bond would soon be introduced in the House. At this stage it would appear unlikely to be brought in this session. In view of the fact that it will take two to three months for the banks to implement this piece of legislation on behalf of small businesses, this government might have the distinction of implementing policy after it has expired. Would the minister please indicate to the House when the small business development bond will be introduced?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, in his question the hon. member referred to the fact that the Minister of Finance has already had, in a new release, the opportunity of indicating what guidelines will govern that technique. I can assure him that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice will give urgent attention to the preparation of that legislation. The minister did indicate, when he tabled the ways and means motion in April, that he wanted that legislation, once it was tabled, to be discussed sufficiently to acquaint the House with the details of its application. In addition, the Minister of Finance still intends to make that information available to small businesses as soon as possible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a short question, Madam Speaker. Is it true that the minister is now considering excluding operating capital from this piece of legislation?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the terms outlined in the news release recently put out by the Minister of Finance will govern that instrument, and nothing has changed since that press release was issued.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is a fact that human resources and the management of those resources is as critical as financial and capital resource management, and training and development are essential components of human resources planning. Given the support in the Lambert commission report and the d'Avignon report and many others, including the latest report from the Comptroller General, can the minister confirm that in these days of new systems, new programs, new techniques and
Oral Questions
skills he is seriously considering the appointment of a comptroller general of personnel so that the government can maintain, and possibly improve, the quality of the public service, and that among the many responsibilities of this comptroller general of personnel would be responsibility for putting into place a new policy on personnel training and development?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, first let me thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his interest, support and advice in this entire area. The consideration of the appointment of such a person to such a post is something which is a recommendation of the Lambert commission and the D'Avignon commission.
Accordingly, in my direction of the review of these recommendations 1 will be bringing forward proposals for my colleagues with respect to the appointment of such a person to such a post. This government shares, as I am sure do all members of this House, the view that human resources are more important than financial resources in managing the affairs of this country.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. About ten days ago the minister told one of his colleagues that he would, within the next few days, have a proposal to put before the prospective purchaser of Nordair. Has that proposal been put before the prospective purchaser, and can the minister give the name of the prospective purchaser? What action has been taken on the proposal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I certainly did not say it in that way. I said that we had in the department established a number of criteria or objectives which had to be achieved. Later, outside this House, I said that we would be in touch with one of the potential acquirers, the group led by La Societe d'lnvestissement Desjardins, to find out if they could satisfy the objectives which we had in mind to achieve. That process is going on now. I should have a report on the conversations held in the next very few days.


LOTTERIES
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that $750,000 have accumulated in interest on the unclaimed Loto funds, will the minister begin issuing scholarships and internships, funds for our young athletes in need, before they leave for the United States, and also

July 11, 1980
Oral Questions
to help culture and art, because the Secretary of State was complaining there was not enough money in his coffers?
Has the minister decided to stop funding Hockey Canada and will now fund the CAHA? Finally, has the minister allocated the $1.2 million for the native peoples' sports program?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I presume the question is directed to me, although I do not believe the hon. member indicated that it was. The subject of it would suggest that it was.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Good guess.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In answer to the series of questions asked by the hon. member, I will attempt to deal with each of them as best as I can remember them. First of all, in relation to the accumulated interest on the two cheques which have been forwarded by the corporation which is running the provincial lotteries for the provinces, each in the amount of $6 million, they have been left as uncertified cheques at our request so that the interest could accrue to the benefit of the worth-while causes pursued by the ten provinces. It is another example of good federal-provincial relations on behalf of this government.
In giving that $750,000 to the provinces, I have to take a back seat to the hon. member's policy, which I am obviously following. While negotiating the handover of the lotteries, he gave the provinces $58 million in revenue which we previously had. I certainly look like a piker in comparison, considering the $750,000 gift to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: You always did.


Mr. Lambert:: You always were a piker.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will never be able to live up to the generosity which the hon. member achieved. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the interest is accruing to the provinces because those cheques have not yet been cashed. In all probability they will be cashed before long, but 1 wanted to be in the position of having all the provinces understand that we do so without prejudice because of the incomplete agreement which does not even indicate the term of the agreement which was achieved by letter without a federal-provincial exchange.
With regard to assistance to athletes in training, if that is what the hon. member means when he refers to scholarships, a policy is under way and a great number of first-class athletes are receiving and have received letters recently on their support for the coming year. In relation to the scholarship question, attendance at university, as the hon. member knows, some provinces such as British Columbia have moved in this direction. The federal government does not at the moment have a policy, nor does the CIAU, the universities' organization.
I believe the hon. member had a question-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I suppose hon. members opposite appreciate complete answers, but I think I shall have to cut the minister off.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my question has nothing to do with the Loto agreement. My question was to the minister of sport. I was so excited that you recognized me that 1 forgot to mention the minister.
My supplementary question is to the minister of sport. The question I raised has nothing to do with the Loto agreement. It refers to the $750,000 in interest on the unclaimed Loto funds, money which is unclaimed by the winners. It is this $750,000 in which I am interested. What does the government intend to do with this money?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for clarifying the particular money about which he is speaking. One of the unfortunate aspects is that it is not yet clear what money, if any, will be left over from lottery funds. It is unclear for two reasons. One reason is that some money was held because of unclaimed prizes. The other reason is that in the haste of the previous administration, the interim government, to give away the lotteries to the provinces, they broke agreements with a large number of wholesalers and, as a consequence, there is very considerable litigation against the government. Those funds are being held to see whether or not they will have to be paid out in settlements because of the way in which the members opposite broke contracts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are a complete dingbat.


Mr. Nielsen:: Unadulterated rubbish.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works in his responsibility as minister of housing. It concerns the very serious situation which the lumber sector of the wood converting industry and the construction industry throughout the country currently face.
Is the minister's department at this time seriously considering the proclamation of a bill which was passed by this House in 1973 in support of the establishment of a mortgage exchange corporation?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of the question asked by the hon. member. I might say that we are cognizant of the turndown in the industry generally. However, I am encouraged as a result of the information on starts for last month, which are back up to 151,000. This is comparable with the starts in March and April.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it would appear the minister is not aware of that particular legislation. It was hailed at the time it was introduced as the solution to many problems in the housing industry, particularly with regard to high interest rates.
uly 11, 1980

As the minister is studying this bill and giving it consideration, would he, in his answer-I would accept it in written form-tell me what possible objection there could be, and what lobby there would be against the proclamation of such a good measure?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I intend to do that for the hon. member. Of course, high interest rates do not seem to be quite the pressing problem they were about three months ago.


PUBLIC WORKS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of all the speculation about the future of Cartier Square-from zoos, to galleries, to concrete canyons and skyscrapers-would the minister tell the House if the public will have an input long before the NCC makes any final decisions on the future of this very vital section of real estate right in the heart of the capital district?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am happy to confirm to the hon. member that the public has already had quite an opportunity for input. The committee of Cartier Square interest groups has made representations to me directly as minister, to the chairman of the National Capital Commission, to the city, to the local school board and to local school officials. Many people have had input into the design and consideration for the use of the square up to this point.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, would the minister guarantee that, with all these other proposals and rumours of proposals, regardless of what is finally decided there will be an adequate playing field as part of the development of that area?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am happy to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the major considerations of the commission and most public authorities involved, including myself. We are looking at alternate proposals with the objective being that there is an adequate playing field. But the specific location is not known at this time.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of his absence, I shall put it instead to the right hon. Prime Minister. As many
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
official documents of the Quebec government prove beyond a doubt that only such contractors as have their head offices in Quebec can tender for projects financed jointly and often mostly by the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion, while the province of New Brunswick opens its doors to all comers for such projects, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us how, with regard to the freedom of movement of persons, goods and services it will be possible to put an end to that type of balkanizing discrimination through the constitutional reform?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that he has raised an extremely important question indeed. All provinces are in the process, directly or otherwise, of putting up non-tariff barriers. Naturally, a province cannot expect to benefit simultaneously from free access to the whole Canadian market when it suits it, and when the prosperity of its industries depends on the rest of the Canadian market, while in other cases denying to other provinces free access to its own market. That problem is fundamental and I am very happy that the right hon. Prime Minister has made a priority of it in the constitutional review.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has given notice of a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the question of privilege of which I gave notice yesterday I am unable to put today as I have not yet received the final printed copy of the final report of the committee prior to its making its report.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the ability of Parliament to act on an undertaking that was given in the question period during the exchange between myself and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I asked the identity of persons making representations in the case in question and the minister said I should seek them out and if I could secure their agreement to have their names published at the table of Parliament that would occur. Obviously the only way I can seek them out is if I know who they are.
I presume the minister, having given that answer, is prepared to identify those people to me privately so that I may seek them out and in order that we might proceed in an orderly way in the House of Commons. 1 wonder whether the minister could advise the House if I can expect to receive that full list today?

July 11
Tabling of Documents


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will take the position of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as notice and see what will be made available.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I was hoping to be recognized before that point of order in the dying minutes of the question period to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to which I have given him notice. May I proceed? No order of the day has been called.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is telling me, if I understood him, that he now wants to put a question to a minister. I must reply that the question period is over and, of course, I cannot recognize the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Maltais.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I would like to table in both official languages notice of ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, and ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration thereof.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have no question about the propriety of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) moving this motion, as he has done at this time. However, obviously his actions raise some very serious questions on a Friday afternoon as the House is two or three hours from adjournment as to what has developed in vital negotiations in the country that might cause the minister to act.
I am sure there would be agreement on this side of the House-and I have not had an opportunity to consult with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party-for the minister to take a moment or two to indicate what reasons have led him to follow the action he has just now followed.


Yvon Pinard: The I
right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has no valid I point of order under the rules. Standing Order 60(1) is quite I clear. When a minister wishes to give notice of a ways and! means motion, he has only to follow the procedure used today| by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). There is nothing in the rules whereby the minister! should make a statement or this House or the government! should agree to any kind of debate on the reasons for this motion or the impact of the motion. Eventually the notice of motion will be followed by the motion and legislation based on
the ways and means motion, and at that point the House of______
Commons will have ample opportunity to discuss the substance H of the provisions included in the notice tabled today. Ofl course, I appreciate the political concerns of the Leader of thcl Opposition. But since he rose on a point of order, 1 submit he| docs not have a valid one.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, the member as government House leader is quite right in his dissertation of the rules. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had asked whether or not the House would give its consent, and I assume there would be consent given at this time for an explanation by the minister.
The minister could, as my friend knows, make a statement on motions. Will he make a statement on motions? If there is a requirement for unanimous consent to do that, wc arc prepared to give our consent. We know what the rules say. What we are talking about here is a matter of some import, and it is a matter of extending a courtesy here in the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon in respect of a matter that has caused the government to move in what must be a most unusual way. That is really the point.
Having said that, would the government House leader be prepared as a matter of courtesy to consider allowing one of those processes that would right now permit the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to make the statement that obviously the Leader of the Opposition and other members would like to have made?


Yvon Pinard: I admit the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Baker) knows the rules. He asked that we be courteous and agree today to something that would please his party politically. Often we would also like the rule to be waived and the opposition to show more courtesy so wc could dispose of legislation more rapidly. It is obvious, Madam Speaker, that all the Leader of the Opposition or his House leader have to do is to look at the notice of motion that is self-explanatory and they will then get the answers to their questions. As far as wc are concerned, 1 regret to say I am not in a position to give him the consent he is asking for today any more than the opposition, I am convinced, is in a position to

July 11, 1980

give us consent to dispose without debate of several legislative items now on the order paper.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in a state of some disappointment. It arises from a motion which I introduced today under Standing Order 43 requesting that the government give recognition to the young athletes who would have participated in the Olympic Games in Moscow.
My privilege is that I did not hear any nays, but obviously Your Honour did. It is absolutely inconceivable to me and astounding that any member of this House would not see fit to recognize the dedication and work that these young athletes have put into preparing themselves for this event. In support of their country they have agreed to forgo the opportunity to participate.
How on earth can we expect the young people of this country to have any faith in the future, in the purpose and in the direction of the sort of government we provide for them if we are not prepared to support them in the same manner that they have supported us? I do not believe that these young athletes should be subjected to this sort of treatment by this House as a result of a muffled no spoken from behind a hand.
If there are members of this House who would deny these young people recognition, whether it be in the form of a pin, a plaque or whatever, then they should speak out and let the young athletes know who is denying them that right. But I do not believe our young people should be subjected to this sort of treatment. If there are members of this House of Commons who feel that way, let us hear who they are so that our young people can be aware of the sort of people they are dealing with in the House of Commons. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that there was no dissent among members of this party.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to repeat to the hon. member that the Chair is the sole judge of whether there were any nays to a motion proposed under Standing Order 43. I can assure the hon. member that there were nays to his motion. The Chair is not in the habit of identifying them at this particular point in the procedure.
A number of motions have been proposed under Standing Order 43 which deal with congratulating a group or an individual. I believe that my predecessor was rather more strict than I about accepting this kind of motion under Standing Order 43. I am afraid that I will have to look into the number of motions designed to congratulate one group or another. I am sure the House understands that if no rules are set in this respect, there is no reason why we should not congratulate
Privilege-Mr. Clark
everybody in Canada, even every citizen for the simple fact of being a Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 would therefore ask hon. members to restrain themselves in respect of motions which deal with congratulations. Some of them can be accepted but I shall have to look into the matter.


MR. CLARK-TABLING OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION-IMPOSITION OF LEVY UNDER PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. I will have to ask your indulgence and I shall naturally resume my seat if you find there is no privilege.
1 want to speak about a matter which has to do in a limited way not with the rules of the House but with the courtesies of the House and the kind of consultation that makes not only Parliament work but that makes relations between the private and public sector and between the federal and provincial governments work, and which will be conducive to matters being proceeded with in a fair and positive fashion.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) after the question period, without any notice to us and to my knowledge without any notice to the provinces, to industry or others in Canada, tabled a document which indicates the determination of this government to move immediately with a very significant new refinery gate tax. This appears to have not only been announced today without consultation with any of the people seriously affected, but it seems to be an action taken unilaterally at a time when there is negotiation in process regarding energy pricing between the producing provinces and the federal government. It has been taken unilaterally here in Ottawa in the very week in which we began discussions on a constitution which will succeed in finding an agreement only if there is an atmosphere of fair play on both sides.
Certainly many of the provinces of Canada who met in good faith with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) earlier this week in Montreal will not believe they have been treated in good faith by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources considering the way he has acted regarding this unilateral and very expensive tax he has announced today.
It is difficult for us to determine quickly the exact impact of this tax. It seems to be somewhere between five cents per gallon and 12.5 cents per gallon. 1 would remark in passing that since February 18 the price of gasoline at the pump in Canada has risen already, including this announcement today, far in excess of the 18 cents per gallon proposed in the budget which was defeated last December.
This tax, which is proposed unilaterally and which has been dropped upon the House and the country as a surprise on a Friday afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and

July 11, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
Resources, will apply as well to heating oil and a number of other commodities previously exempted.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I raise the matter not because there is a rule to which I can appeal but because there is a spirit to which 1 can address myself. There is a spirit of co-operation in this Elouse that calls upon ministers to adopt a practice that we try to follow and I would say that generally ministers on the other side try to follow, that of giving advance notice about matters which will have serious repercussions for the country.
The action taken today is bound to jeopardize the energy negotiations going on between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada. It is bound to jeopardize the constitutional discussions going on in Montreal and which are scheduled for Toronto, Vancouver and later, Ottawa. As recently as this week this House gave unanimous consent to moving forward quickly on veterans' legislation, Bill C-30, but this action has been put in great jeopardy the capacity of Parliament to operate in such a co-operative fashion.
I simply raise this matter with you, Madam Speaker. I cannot address my appeal to any particular rule except that of courtesy, the rule of intelligent conduct in this House and the advisability of proceeding in a way that will allow the House of Commons to function co-operatively. The spirit of co-operation must carry through so that relations between the federal and provincial governments may proceed in good faith, and so that the word of the Government of Canada can be taken as being valid rather than something to be changed and undercut by a surprise announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, without warning or consultation, of a very severe tax imposed by way of an undebatable action in the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has risen on a question of privilege and he admitted at the outset of his remarks that it had absolutely no basis and that he was strictly appealing to parliamentary spirit and courtesy. However, I believe that if he truly respected this institution, he would at least make sure to abide by the rules. On occasion, House leaders meet to discuss the procedure to be followed, and I must admit that until now, I have been getting along quite well with his House leader and that we have had positive results during this first part of the session. However, in this case, he is not raising a valid question. He is using or abusing the rules of the House to debate a question which is certainly important, but there are other occasions provided under the Standing Orders for him to discuss this important issue. Next Monday, the Leader of the Opposition knows quite well-


Mr. Huntington:: You are abusing the whole chamber.


Yvon Pinard: 1 beg your pardon?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are abusing the whole chamber.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that next Monday will be an opposition day. He will have all the time needed during the weekend to consider the ways and means motion which was tabled today. If he so wishes, he can include in his own motion the issue of energy and discuss this matter properly according to our procedure. However, I believe that it is not quite honest to appeal to parliamentary spirit and courtesy and thus abuse the Standing Orders in an attempt to discuss a ways and means motion, which is not debatable. Standing Order 15 provides that we do not have to make a ministerial statement. If the minister wanted to make a statement, he is clearly free to do so. He decided not to, as is his privilege, and the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of it.
The procedure adopted today is absolutely appropriate and normal. It so happens that this is a matter of particular interest to the Progressive Conservative party. However, this is not a reason to force the minister into a statement. Once again, meetings are provided which make it possible for the parliamentary leaders to discuss the means to bring about a discussion on various subjects, in an orderly way, in compliance with our standing orders and in a parliamentary spirit. However, Madam Speaker, I submit that in order to elicit this courtesy, to promote this parliamentary spirit, one should not abuse the standing orders as the Leader of the Opposition has just done for five minutes by debating a matter which certainly is not a question of privilege; he has simply made a political statement when he had absolutely no right to do so.
That, Madam Speaker, is what is wrong with the present situation. They try to solicit our courtesy and our co-operation by making ill use of the Standing Orders and this is inacceptable. If the Leader of the Opposition had good reason to proceed in this way, Madam Speaker, I would say no more. But once again, I insist, since the beginning of this session by way of meetings with parliamentary leaders, we have succeeded in making significant progress. We have been able to initiate parliamentary task forces which will benefit Parliament, and in a parliamentary spirit. We have reached a major agreement with respect to supply by providing a few days of Committee of the Whole, in a parliamentary spirit.
We have adopted somewhere between 15 and 20 bills which were technically urgent, always in a parliamentary spirit. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition makes ill use of the Standing Orders in the name of parliamentary spirit by raising a question of privilege which clearly it is not, to debate in an absolutely inappropriate manner a notice of motion which was tabled in accordance with the Standing Orders and at a time when the House still has at least one week to convene before adjourning for the summer and when the opposition will be given an opposition day which will allow it to address itself to this matter of energy.
July 11, 1980

Madam Speaker, this is what I am rising against at this time and I cannot accept that the opposition leader, in the name of the parliamentary spirit should appeal to our sense of courtesy while he himself is not going by, not respecting the Standing Orders of the House to make his point.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, there is no question that technically under the rules the minister can do what he has done. That is not what we are challenging here; that does not seem to me to be what is at stake. But what is at stake is that for the second time in the life of this Parliament this government has introduced budgetary matter via the back door. That is precisely what we are talking about here.
On April 21 we had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) making an economic statement of which he did not even have the courtesy to give me notice. Today we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) informing this House that the government as of midnight tonight, July 11, will impose a tax on oil. This is not a matter of future speculation-but a matter of government fiat, of which my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell), did not have any notice whatsoever, that this government intends to amend the Petroleum Administration Act by imposing a tax on oil produced in Canada and on oil imported into Canada.
We are getting a budget by strip-tease here, Madam Speaker. We are not getting a series of economic policies; we are getting dribs and drabs thrown at the Canadian people from time to time. I think it is quite extraordinary on the part of the minister to introduce aspects of a budget. Will there be a cost of living credit to offset the effects of this increase in price? Will there be an energy tax credit, which even the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) offered? It was a paltry one, it was too late, it was insufficient, but at least it was there.


An hon. Member:: You voted against it.


Bob Rae: Will that be there? What will be the effect on inflation? What will be the effect on fairness? I say that it is quite extraordinary that in the middle of the day on a Friday-


Marc Lalonde: What is wrong with Friday?


Bob Rae: The minister asks what is wrong with Friday. I work on Fridays just as hard as he does.


An hon. Member:: We work harder.


Bob Rae: But 1 think we can take judicial notice of the fact that there are many members who live in the west of Canada. It is unfortunate that this is a problem which the minister will never have to face, but western members are not always able to be here on Fridays because of obligations in their constituencies. The minister knows that perfectly well. The point of the matter is that 12 hours prior to the imposition of a tax, we are
Privilege-Mr. Clark
given, without any notice, an indication in this form. I think it is quite an extraordinary way to run the affairs of this country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was today unable to answer questions in relation to basic, fundamental economic policies of the government because he said that he had been too busy to study what was going on and what was being produced by the OECD. The Prime Minister is too busy to know anything about the economy. Now we have a minister of energy who, 12 hours prior to the imposition of a new tax which will have a dramatic effect on relations between the provinces and the federal government and a dramatic effect on the consumers of Canada, is telling us that this is the kind of tax he plans to introduce.
There is no question, Madam Speaker, that the minister can do this. There are many things governments can do.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What do you mean? There is no order here.


Bob Rae: But the test of fiscal honesty and the test of governmental responsibility is not whether or not you can do it, but whether or not you ought to do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Previous governments have fallen despite the size of their majorities because they abused their majority, abused the courtesies of this House and abused the basic fundamental notion that, if taxes are to be introduced into this House, those taxes have to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons prior to the time that they are introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Bob Rae: It is quite amazing to me-


Marc Lalonde: You do not know your parliamentary rules.


An hon. Member:: Tell him kings have lost their heads for that.


Bob Rae: The minister said that I do not know my parliamentary rules. I have said to the minister that he can do this; the rules do provide for it. What I am telling the minister is that that is not the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is simply reprehensible.


Bob Rae: The question is whether or not the minister ought to do it. I know that the minister will say today, just as he said yesterday in answer to a question about the pipeline, that he is not embarrassed by any changes in the government's position. There is a simple reason why the minister is not embarrassed, and that is that this is a government that has no sense of shame.
This is a government that was prepared on April 21 to introduce a budget without telling anybody about it. This is a

July 11, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
government that on July 11 is prepared to introduce a substantial tax at the refinery on oil and on the importation of oil without telling anybody about it, giving us no notice at all and trying to bootleg it into the House of Commons. This is a government which does not deserve the respect of any serious minded Canadian, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 will recognize a few more speakers on this question. However, 1 do want to remind members that they must debate the point of privilege and not at all enter into debate about the fundamental question and the ways and means motion which has been tabled today.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in joining in this debate, touching on my leader's question of privilege, I only want to add a few thoughts. I was going to make the point that has already been made by our colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) that this is, after all, a budgetary matter that we now have before us.
I would like to re-emphasize what the hon. member said, that we are bit by bit circumventing the entire budgetary process provided for by the rules of this House. I feel that in considering my leader's question of privilege, it must be borne in mind that the rules are very clear. If this is a budgetary presentation, then under Standing Order 60(3), and I quote:
When such an order is designated for the purpose of enabling a minister of the Crown to make a budget presentation, a motion "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government" shall be proposed.
We are dealing today with something that could have a tax consequence of something like $1,200 million. To suggest that that is not something of a budgetary nature is most strange.
In a question directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday, I mentioned that we are in the odd position where it is now 27 months since the last wholly passed budget has been received in this House. As has been indicated, there was a mini-budget in April brought into the House, not in the normal fashion but as part of a throne speech debate. In doing that, the rules of the House were circumvented. At least there was no proper budgetary debate where the government was required to show its budgetary program, including expenditure levels and, if you like, the revenue levels such as we are now having brought forth today.
Let me emphasize this point. The precedents of not only this House but of Westminster are very clear in saying that there is a budgetary procedure that must be followed, partly for reasons of secrecy. Think of the odd position we are now put in. The stock exchanges of this country are open literally from coast to coast. Normally announcements of a tax nature such as the minister has indicated are not made until after all exchanges are closed, possibly to avoid unfair advantage as far as investors are concerned. We have literally dozens of listed petroleum companies which will be influenced by this announcement. Their shares are trading on the stock exchanges of this country. We have a minister and a government so anxious to avoid the normal procedures of this House that they are willing to take the risk of having a misuse of this information with respect to the trading of shares of dozens of companies on the stock exchanges of this country.
Let me also draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to an exchange that took place between this minister and my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) the day before yesterday, July 9. At page 2700 of Hansard, in response to a question put by my colleague from Joliette, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
Madam Speaker, my officials have not been instructed to draft any type of legislation on the subject.
That was referring to the import tax on all forms of energy which my colleague from Joliette raised in the form of a question. Two days after we were flatly told that the minister's staff had not been asked to draft any type of legislation on the subject, we are faced with a ways and means motion proposing an amendment to the Petroleum Administration Act that will give the government the power to raise the refinery gate tax by as much as $1.75 a barrel. As I indicated, we use roughly 700 million barrels in this country, which means the tax could amount to $1.2 billion. Relating the matter to the energy consumer, we are talking about a possible 12 cents increase per gallon of gasoline.
This is a budgetary matter and I think the question of privilege raised by my leader should be sustained.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I want to make one very brief point which was suggested earlier by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). According to Standing Order 60, the government has the right to introduce a ways and means motion to this House. The Standing Order reads:
A notice of a ways and means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting by a minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
A number of people on this side of the House have stated that the main issue of concern here is the future of the parliamentary system-whether a minister should be consulting others before bringing in more tax measures.
The point I want to make is that we in this country are now in the process of some pretty intensive energy negotiations between the producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government. It is very unfortunate for the future of those negotiations and for harmony in this country to have the federal government do this, I suspect without consultation with either of the producing provinces. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us on this when he rises to speak in a few minutes, but I suspect there was no consultation with the two provinces although the negotiations are already very sensitive and difficult. The government have introduced a tax at a stage which is very sensitive in the negotiations. That is very damaging, very bad and a serious practice for this government to follow.
The other point I want to make why we on this side feel that this is such a bad practice is that there are currently under
uly 11, 1980

ay some very sensitive negotiations on a constitution for this ountry. The issue that is the most sensitive of all is the issue f the division of powers and resources in our constitution, how uch power should go to the provinces and how much to the ederal government when it comes to resources and the reve-ue from those resources.
Here we have a government in the middle of those negotia-ions that, I assume without consultation with the producing provinces, has brought in a tax that is going to result in hundreds of millions of extra dollars from resources in those two provinces going to the federal government. This is very damaging indeed to a feeling of good will for the negotiations that just finished their first week in Montreal and will go on for two more weeks in Toronto and Vancouver.
For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I think you should look very positively on the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, because what the government has done today is sown more disharmony in this country as well as more division and mistrust, and in essence has again pitted the east against the west. This is very unfortunate. I wish the government would learn to stop doing that type of thing. They often wonder why they do not do better in the west. They often ask why the west is unhappy. Here is one example why western Canadians are unhappy with the federal government.
The government have brought this in in the midst of negotiations on oil. The Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta will be meeting in about a week or two. The government of Saskatchewan is involved as well. We are also in the midst of negotiations on the constitution where resources, energy resources in particular, are the most sensitive of all issues between the ministers. Bringing in this tax is bound to sow more disharmony and disunity in this country.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak briefly on this question of privilege raised by my leader concerning a matter which again is an indication of the fundamental contempt for the parliamentary process which this government so often shows. I am not going to try and get into the merits or demerits of this tax proposal, but 1 will try to emphasize in a most graphic way what is going on here.
I hope the people of this country, on a Friday afternoon on a summer day, will be tuned in to what is going on here. How many will appreciate that in the election a few short months ago there was something called an 18 cents tax increase which was supposed to produce $2.5 billion? What the minister has done today outside the House is produce, according to my calculation, a $1.25 billion tax increase with no reference to the members of the House of Commons. Members cannot ask questions about the implications and the effect that that tax will have. It is almost one half of what the 18 cents provoked across this country a few short months ago.
We have tried to make this point before but unfortunately the neophyte government House leader has not got the point
Privilege-Mr. Clark
because he does not understand what Parliament is all about. There is a minister in Montreal trying to set up a new constitution in an atmosphere which frankly, Madam Speaker, has sometimes in this House been very positive because of things which have happened in the last month or so. But how can those ministers go back to wherever they are supposed to meet on Monday-1 suppose it is Vancouver-and crash on the table and talk about natural resources, powers and/or faith and confidence when something like this happens on a Friday afternoon?
This is so fundamental, I was frankly amazed. The minister has problems and he has to lay them on the table so we can ask questions. I am a member from Atlantic Canada, which has no option in terms of imported oil. We have no alternative. This oil refinery tax is going to be undoubtedly $1.75 and up on, perhaps, thermal generation for our electricity. I do not know that. Are there going to be any refund tax credits as we had in our budget? I do not know that either.
What I want to do, Madam Speaker, is try to impress upon the Chair something fundamental. The whole reason for Parliament was the taxing power to try to restrict the King from fighting the Wars of the Roses, with the King going off on the crusades. The lords and nobles used to meet behind the castle walls and try to make sure that they would not have to give so many horses, so much gold, so many troopers or so many wenches to get-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -to get the knights to go off and fight in the wars and the crusades. Then the nobles said: "Listen, Mr. King, there comes a halt." 1 mean, that is the whole reason the commoners-they were not commoners, we all know that, they were the lords and the nobles. But the thing began because there was a House of Commons and they said they were commoners because they were common in terms of the divine right of the King to do what he wanted to do.
That is how the whole thing started, but let us come down to something a little closer to constitutions. I say this seriously. There is no doubt that the government can do what it has done, just as King George III could do what he did. He could do what he did, but look what he did!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Look what he did, Madam Speaker. Taxation without representation of those 13 colonies provoked something pretty fundamental which has forever changed the geographic landscape of this continent and the world.
I am not saying today that because of this motion there will be that same kind of provocation and fundamental change in the composition of Canada. But there is a fundamental difference between having the power and the numbers to do what you legally can do and yet trample on the thoughts and the fears, the apprehensions and the sensitivities is of those affected by what you legally can do. That is what is going on here.

Privilege-Mr. Clark
I quite agree with the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) when he says that in view of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) did in April when he presented that budgetary document, a budget by strip-tease-I do not know if it is strip-tease or mummified, but I won't get into that-
Some hen. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Keep your shirt on!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has been here a long time and he should know. It is a tragedy that some of those members opposite did not sit in the opposition a little longer to find out what the frustrations are and what some of the sensitivities are.
It is ironic. This Parliament was supposed to rise a week from Friday, or perhaps two weeks from Friday. 1 must say I am prepared to get out, but I am also prepared to stay. As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and someone else said, it was not a flag debate, it was a pipeline debate. Why is it always pipelines and gas which sometimes bring out the parliamentary struggle? It was a parliamentary debate on pipelines in the hot summer days back in the fifties which fundamentally affected not only the Speaker of that day but also the parliamentary rights of the government.
I know we have just come through an election and we have this new Parliament which we frankly all expect may work for two or three years, but who knows? I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that this type of parliamentary contempt on taxing provisions may be legally within the rules but absolutely tramples on the rights of parliamentarians in this House. There are backbenchers on the government side who will be just as horrified to find out the implications of this taxing bill as any members on this side, as well as the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we talk about privilege and we all know members who abuse the privileges. We have sensitive egos from time to time and there is not a member here who should not have an ego that sometimes gets sensitized. But I go back to King George III and taxation without representation. We have the representation here, but what is the good of representation in the formal institution of Parliament if it is never consulted? That is the problem, Madam Speaker. My privileges as a member of Parliament representing a constituency in Atlantic Canada are grievously affected if I go home tonight, meet a person on the street and he or she asks me: "What is that tax going to do to me in terms of my processing plant? Am I going to be able to produce apple juice next year? What will it do to my heating bill next year in terms of thermal generation? Because I only have $10,000 from a war pension, do I get a tax rebate because I do not have an income of $12,000?"
Madam Speaker, my rights as a member of Parliament are fundamentally infringed upon because I cannot give an answer
July 11, 1981
to any of those questions. I did not know about this tax until I found out today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps it is good that this is coming up early in the session so that somehow we can try to get some common sense through to the other side. Madam Speaker, there is not a single member here who can answer questions from some of their constituents on something fundamental like taxes. If we cannot answer questions on taxing policies affecting gas, oil and heat, is that not a privilege affecting my duties as a member of the House of Commons?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear from the opposition members that they do recognize that the step which has been taken today is a step which fully and completely respects parliamentary rules.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Marc Lalonde: What has been introduced today, under the rules of this House, is a notice of ways and means, the standard way in which adjustments of the nature made here are made in this House. When such ways and means motions are introduced they become effective immediately, but they are tabled in this House, indeed for debate, to enable the House to consider and debate them. I think every member from the opposition side has had to recognize that the procedure which has been followed here is not only the regular one but the correct one to follow in such circumstances.
I am sure that when hon. members have had time and have taken the trouble to read the notice of ways and means, they will realize that the facts do not correspond to some of the assertions or statements that have been made.


Charles Joseph Clark: What happens to the heating bill of widows in Atlantic Canada?


Marc Lalonde: This is not an additional $1.75 a barrel. It deals with an increase of SI to $1.75 of the Syncrude levy that is collected, and has been collected for years in this country, in order to pay the so-called international price for synthetic oil. This is what this does. It is not providing for figures like the 12 cents per gallon that has been mentioned. Again, if hon. members bother to read they will realize-


An hon. Member:: How much?


Charles Joseph Clark: What will it cost the widow in Wolfeville?


Marc Lalonde: I see the loser Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is unable to control himself again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition makes the statements he does because he does not know the facts, I am sure. He will realize it costs half a cent a litre. That is what the hon. member would have realized had he bothered
uly 11, 1980

o read the ways and means motion. That is what this motion 'oes.
The point about the impact on federal-provincial relations is aised by my hon. friend. Again I suggest that if he goes back o the ways and means motion, he will realize that this is far rom hurting the west or alienating the west. Where does the oney go? It goes to pay for the Syncrude levy. It goes in part
0	the Syncrude and Suncor plants in northern Alberta, and he rest goes to the government of Alberta. This is money oing to Alberta.


An hon. Member:: All of it?


Marc Lalonde: Of course. That is what the Syncrude levy is sed for. It is used to pay for the synthetic oil at the interna-ional price level; the additional income goes to the companies, nd then it goes to the government of Alberta in terms of royalties. So there is nothing at all here that is damaging to federal-provincial relations.


An hon. Member:: It is not in the notice.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: I am on a point of order, I am sorry. There is nothing at all damaging to federal-provincial relations and nothing at all that is not being done according to the standard rules.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister rose in answer to a question of privilege raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) is seeking the floor on a point of order.
1	have to hear what he has to say. The minister will be allowed to complete his intervention after this.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the reason for my point of order is that the minister has issued two documents, both of which, in my view, are capable of two completely different interpretations. The document which has been released as a ways and means motion is the one that we saw. We had to go outside in order to get the press release; the minister did not have the courtesy to give it to members of Parliament. They are not sufficiently important. However, the minister is making statements about the press release; he is not making statements which relate directly to the wording of this particular motion.


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has only to read the notice of ways and means.


Bob Rae: Read it out.


Marc Lalonde: It is on the table. What that ways and means motion means is an increase in the Syncrude levy, which is at the present time at $1, to $1.75. That is the effect of this ways and means motion.
Privilege-Mr. Clark


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It does not say that.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry if my hon. colleagues again have not understood it that way, but that is the effect of that ways and means motion. It is amending-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Marc Lalonde: This ways and means motion has the effect of amending the Petroleum Administration Act to increase the Syncrude levy from $1 to $1.75.


Mr. Kempling:: Where does it say "Syncrude"?


Bob Rae: The word "Syncrude" does not appear in the motion.


Marc Lalonde: The word "Syncrude" does not appear in the motion, but it did not appear in the previous motion. My hon. friends should refer to all motions dealing with the Syncrude levy. This ways and means motion has been drafted in exactly the same way, I suggest, as the previous ways and means motion establishing the levy at $ 1.


Charles Joseph Clark: How were they introduced?


Marc Lalonde: It is a question of drafting the ways and means motion properly for the consideration of the House and the consideration of the people of Canada. Again, I am sorry if my hon. friends are reacting very quickly. They very quickly have concluded wrongly the effect of this measure. I regret that they have been misled in that sense and that they have reached the type of conclusion they have.


William James Kempling: You did the misleading.


Marc Lalonde: I regret that it has led to this misinterpretation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps you should have followed the rules of Parliament.


Marc Lalonde: This ways and means motion is clear. If my hon. friends have misunderstood and misread it, I regret that, but this is clearly what it means, and this is what it is doing.


Bob Rae: Read the motion.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend is very obsessed with the idea of reading it into the record. It will be printed in the record. My hon. friend did not even bother to read it when he was intervening.


Bob Rae: Read it now. I was reading it when I was intervening. Read it now.


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, the effect of this-


Charles Joseph Clark: It is to poison Parliament, federal-provincial relations and energy negotiations.


Marc Lalonde: -is just to increase the Syncrude levy. It is going to benefit the oil companies operating in the tar sands,

July 11, 198
Privilege-Mr. Clark
and it is going to benefit the government of Alberta, which will see its royalties increased and its returns increased. It will mean an adjustment in the price of gasoline by about half a cent a litre, the procedure which has been followed in this case is the procedure which should have been followed. That is the way to respect the rules of this House, and I submit to my hon. friends that they will have ample opportunity to debate this as they are debating the budgetary measures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When?
An hon. lVIember: What budgetary measures?


Marc Lalonde: As such, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has not only abused the rules of the House but also that he has not been helpful in getting the proper understanding of what is being done here to the people of the country. Consequently, I submit, Madam Speaker, that there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like the minister to read the motion into the Hansard record. The minister says that the motion he tabled will be printed in the record. It will be printed in the order paper, but nobody outside Parliament sees that. I have taken a copy of his own motion across to him, and I simply ask that he read the motion into the Hansard record right now while he has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: You are wasting our time.


Charles Joseph Clark: That has just begun, Yvon.


Madam Speaker:: If there is unanimous agreement in the House that the minister read the motion into the Hansard record, I would tend to allow that just now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not agreement in the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: We cannot consider two questions of privilege at the same time. Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) want to continue his intervention?


Charles Joseph Clark: Read your motion.


Marc Lalonde: Anybody can read the motion; it is in the record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It says that it is expedient to amend the Petroleum Administration Act to increase the levy to $1.75, but it is from $1 to $1.75.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It does not say that.


William James Kempling: You are gutless.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. colleagues, I submit, are not recognizing that this is being done in a way that is completely ini order.


Mr. Wilson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the minister does not want to mislead the House, because he has just said that there is a question here with i regard to the motion. He states that the notice of ways and means calls for the levy to be raised from $1 to $1.75. That is not what is said in the notice of ways and means. The notice off ways and means says, "in any month shall be in such amount not exceeding $1.75". It is quite clear from this, without knowing the background of the notice, that the total increase in the tax is $1.75.

I think it would have been very helpful had the minister brought to the attention of the House that which is presented in this press release which has been released outside the House and which does state that it is from $1 to $1.75. That is what has caused the confusion and the commotion in the House this1 afternoon. I think it is important that the minister acknowledge that the increase is from $1 to $1.75, but that is not what is stated in the motion.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have you the courage to stand up and read it, Marc?

| Translation)


Madam Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, prior to the luncheon recess the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. lalonde) made the statement that the funds derived from the proposed additional levy, as outlined in his notice of ways and means motion, were to be paid to the province of Alberta.
I am sure that the minister would not want to mislead the House in this respect. 1 should like the minister to acknowledge the fact that these funds in no way go to the province of Alberta, that Alberta will never touch a cent of these funds. These funds, in fact, are to be paid into the petroleum compensation revolving fund to compensate the producers of synthetic crude for the difference between the domestic price for oil of $14.75 a barrel and the price at which he has presently frozen the payments to the synthetic crude producers of about $35 a barrel.
July 11, 1980


Mr. Collenette:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


John William Thomson: I would appreciate the minister clarifying-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to entertain the point of order from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would ask that you clarify the situation. Are you going to rule on the question of privilege as outlined by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark)-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David Michael Collenette: -or are we, by some spurious points of order, going to have a debate on the substance of the ways and means motion of which the minister has given notice?


Madam Speaker:: I am listening to at least another hon. member, and then I will decide whether I will rule.


John William Thomson: Would the minister please clarify for the House that in fact the province of Alberta will not receive one cent of these funds that will be paid into the petroleum compensation revolving fund.


Marc Lalonde: I rise on the point of order, Madam Speaker. I would certainly not want to mislead the House and I am sorry if my statement this morning might have led the hon. member to the wrong interpretation. Indeed, as indicated, the funds go to the petroleum compensation revolving fund and those funds serve to pay for the cost of oil from Syncrude and Suncor.
That fund also contributes to the payment to Alberta of other royalties, capital and operating costs of the companies. So what is coming out of the revolving fund, out of the Syncrude levy fund, goes to the companies to pay their operating costs and the Alberta royalties.
I apologize if I misled the hon. member this morning in this respect. The money pays for the corporations and for the royalties. Part of this money goes to the government of Alberta in the form of royalties. Again, on the point of order, I regret that I may have misled hon. members this morning.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, in fact-


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you trying to shout everybody down?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.
Privilege-Mr. Clark


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. members please resume their seats. I will entertain a point of order from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, as I understand what is at issue here, it is the right of the minister to give notice of a ways and means motion.


An hon. Member:: You weren't here this morning.


David Michael Collenette: I was here this morning and I heard the whole debate. What we are operating under now is almost a statement by a minister with questions from either side. That is the way in which it is proceeding.


Charles Joseph Clark: Stop lecturing the Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: 1 understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was speaking on a question of privilege, that he was interrupted once or twice on points of order, perhaps by the hon. member from Calgary. I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you clarify the procedure which we are now under. Are we on statements by ministers with questions coming from either side, or are we talking about contributions to a question of privilege?


Miss MacDonald:: He made a statement in the House.


David Michael Collenette: I submit, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member for Calgary South has already contributed by way of a point of order on the minister's contribution to a question of privilege. If you intend, Madam Speaker, to recognize another member as you said a moment ago, then surely it should be a different hon. member.
I hope you will rule on the right of this procedural debate, because we are not on statements by ministers. We are on the whole question of tabling a ways and means motion by the minister.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has asked me to clarify the procedure we are working under. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but I will recognize him if he has a further point.
We are debating a question of privilege. From both sides of the House I have allowed and entertained points of order. That is what I just did, because 1 would not, of course, be able to allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to speak twice on the question of privilege. He was answering a point of order, and I have allowed points of order on both sides of the House in the course of this debate. So we are not on statements by ministers; we are still debating a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, 1 would not want the minister to mislead the House into believing that in fact any royalties were being paid to the province of Alberta out of the petroleum compensation revolving fund, because there can be

July 11, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
no royalties until there is a profit on the Syncrude projects and there is no profit. I would like the minister to acknowledge that there are no royalties and no moneys being paid out of these levies to the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see in this discussion on the question of privilege that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has at least had the courage to correct one misstatement which he made. Perhaps before this debate is through, we will have the minister carry out the procedures more properly than we have seen today, in the spirit of trying to make this House co-operate, as my leader mentioned earlier today when he entered this debate.
When my leader put forward the question of privilege this morning, it was not so that the minister would automatically come to the House and make a lengthy statement. We know that he is operating under narrow legalistic terms; nobody has been arguing that point. What we have been speaking of is the question whether or not Canadians, through their Parliament and through the people whom they choose to represent them in the democratic process to which surely we all adhere, can be legitimately informed of the way they are to be taxed. Surely that is the question which is at stake here.
Surely this is the matter which will be troubling members of Parliament as we attend in this place and a great number of Canadians to whom we in this chamber are accountable in explaining to them what it is they will be required to pay in the way of taxation. I know that there will be many people asking questions of me and others about this new form of taxation, which will probably bring in something in the vicinity of $600 million in government revenues beginning tonight. Many people are going to be asking, "What does this mean to me personally?" What does it mean to people, particularly older people, not to mention the widowed elderly people who are single, people about whom many of us in this House have previously expressed concern? Faced with a new form of taxation, what will it mean to them in the way of additional costs for home heating fuel? That is something which I would like to be able to explain to my constituents as I go out tomorrow, next week or whenever it may be. We have not had that kind of explanation from the minister.
Obviously, it is a budgetary measure and something which should be dealt with in the way we normally tackle budgetary measures, but we have not had that chance in the House. That in itself, unfortunately, will be interpreted by many people in the country, whether it is a narrow legal interpretation by the government or not, as a failing of this House and of the members of this House to be able properly to explain the reasons for the new taxation.
What will it mean to people in one part of the country, such as the Atlantic area, who will suddenly be faced with higher costs for home heating fuel and who have no means of substitution with the oil-fired furnaces which they now have? What do you say to those people?


Eymard G. Corbin: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is all very well for the hon. member from New Brunswick-what is his riding?


Eymard G. Corbin: Madawaska-Victoria.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria does not care about the older people and the poor people in his riding, but I want to tell him that I care.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: He may think that this does not mean anything in the way of additional costs, but I can tell him from a personal point of view-


Eymard G. Corbin: Tell it to Premier Hatfield.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: -that it means a great deal of difference to my mother who lives in Cape Breton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: She does not have the chance to convert to other forms of home heating fuel. This will be an additional burden on her and on many hundreds of thousands like her throughout the country.


Eymard G. Corbin: You are not dealing with the fundamental question.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria does not seem to understand the fundamental question. The fundamental question is whether he is accountable and whether I am accountable to the people of this country for what we must tax them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That is the question. If the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria does not understand that Parliament, in the final analysis, is accountable for the way in which it raises taxes-


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the question of privilege.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: -and spends the money of the people of this country, then he has no fundamental understanding of Parliament. I would say to the hon. member that those things should be taken into consideration. It is not necessary to do so under the narrow legalistic rules which the government all too often tries to use in order to wear out the humanitarian approach which it should use in its introduction of measures. Certainly it may not be necessary, but surely it is the civilized and decent thing to do when you are living in a free democratic society in which you are accountable to the people.
July 11, 1980

I say to you Madam Speaker, that what we have had here today is a blatant ignoring of the kind of tradition in which we have been schooled for generations, in fact, for hundreds of years as the British parliamentary tradition has evolved over the centuries. It is one which I think will not only bring shame on the minister, but unfortunately could serve to shame the whole institution of which we want so justifiably to be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I am tempted to wonder what the previous member for Prince Albert would say about this procedure if he were in the House today.
I want to be very brief on this point of privilege. I am concerned, as is the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), with the fact that the government is once again trying to sneak in budgetary measures quickly, without adequate warning, notice and proper debate. I am particularly concerned because I had a chance to see the minister very briefly today. As my party's energy critic, I would have appreciated knowing that this motion was coming and would have appreciated getting some notice of his press release. Perhaps then the attitude on this side of the House might have been quite different.
This is not only a financial matter but it does, of course, concern energy. The delicate nature of the energy negotiations and constitutional negotiations in this country has been brought up by many members. I would remind the minister through you, Madam Speaker, that I represent a constituency in a province where the cabinet of that province is meeting with the cabinet of the province of Alberta. I know this is not the time to state my views on that, but I would say to the minister that these are ominous times, and this is a forewarning of some very difficult things that we are all going to have to deal with out in western Canada. I say that very seriously to the minister.
That is why on energy matters, the minister has got to be very careful that he gives the House the widest opportunity for debate and adopts the fairest procedure. Otherwise it will be perceived not just in this House or by members defending these thousand years of traditions of Parliament, but will also affect the very contemporary, difficult problems that we have in the west in dealing with what are almost separatist tendencies. I would ask the minister to remember this in his future actions.


Mr. Malone:: We just want to separate from Lalonde.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I am ready to make a ruling on that question of privilege, but if the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) insists, I could hear him, because he was one of those who rose before I began my statement. Does the hon. member insist?
Privilege-Mr. Clark


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: I
appreciate your courtesy, Madam Speaker, and I will attempt to be brief.
I think it will be useful before you make your ruling for us to go back for a moment and remind ourselves of what it was the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said at the time he rose. He asked not that the minister be compelled by the House or that he be compelled by you to give any explanation of what he was doing, but he asked as a matter of courtesy that there be unanimous consent in the House to allow a minister to make a brief statement simply to explain this measure that he was putting before Parliament.
As so many members have pointed out, no one in this Parliament, certainly no one on this side of the House, was given any advance warning of this very major announcement which the minister was making today of a half-a-billion dollar increase in taxation which will affect the lives of every Canadian.
Common courtesy and tradition in this House dictate that when ministers are making statements of a major policy nature they have the responsibility to indicate to members of the opposition, to the official critics in the opposition, what their intention is in making those announcements so that we do not get major announcements sprung on us without any warning. There is nothing in the rules which requires that, Madam Speaker. No one on this side of the House has insisted that the rules did require it, but parliamentary convention and common courtesy demand that this be done.
There are rules in this House, both written and unwritten, which are important to each of us. I think it is essential that the government go beyond the strict interpretation of the rule book and that it acts with the sort of courtesy that it expected at this time last year when the government was then the opposition. At that time our prime minister, the current Leader of the Opposition, insisted that every minister in his government should extend that courtesy toward the House of Commons.
In Canada today we are talking about constitutional renewal to make the constitution work. We are talking in this House from time to time about the need for parliamentary reform to make Parliament work; in other words, what can we do to change the rules to make it function more effectively. If the truth were told, no change in the constitution and no change in the rules of Parliament would guarantee that Parliament was functional again or that federalism was functional again. What is necessary is that there be a change in attitude on the part of the leadership of this country.
Confederation could be made to work today if the government opposite were prepared to want to make it work. Parliament without a single change in the rules could be made to work today if there were a disposition on the other side of the House to share with Parliament the governance of this country.

July 11, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
Members on this side have pointed out that we have a responsibility toward the people of Canada, certainly toward our constituents, to explain to them the profound new policy announced by the government which becomes effective tonight, and which according to the government House leader Parliament should not have a chance to talk about before we go home for the weekend.
All the Leader of the Opposition did when he got up to intervene was to ask for a statement from the minister, which would have taken a minute at most, yet the government House leader, as the minister of energy was getting up to give that statement, jumped up to cut him off and prevent the minister from making that statement. I am sure that the government House leader's motives were honourable and that all he wanted to do was to expedite the proceedings in the House. But I say to him that the proceedings in the House would have gone on at a much more rapid and expeditious pace if he had shown that courtesy to Parliament and if he had been prepared to allow that brief statement to be made.


Erik Nielsen: Parliament is a nuisance to them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: At the very same time as the minister was tabling his notice of motion in the House of Commons, his officials were releasing a press release in the gallery which gave the substance of what we wanted to know. What was it that the minister was doing there? What was the purpose of this new policy? What would be the effect upon the Canadian people? Surely if Parliament is to have any function at all, it is essential that Parliament be entitled to have the same information which is made freely available by the flacks on the minister's staff to the press gallery and to other groups outside of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, indeed, no rule of the House of Commons compels courtesy on the part of any member of Parliament, and certainly not on the part of the Crown. But common sense, parliamentary tradition and the need to have some respect for the people of Canada and for the representatives of the people of Canada should compel every minister of the Crown to treat the House of Commons with the same sort of courtesy which they would expect if they were on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I hope will make your task easier. We are at the stage of notices of motions. I tabled the motion and I understand, and the other parties recognize as far as 1 can see, that it was correct and proper to do that. Once we reach "statements by ministers", if it helps the House 1 will be ready and available to answer questions. I submit that under this question of privilege we have covered a lot of the substance of the matter, but if there are further questions to be asked, then I will be available and will be happy to expedite matters by answering
any questions that may be raised, so far as I can answer them, when we reach "statements by ministers".
I submit that there is no question of privilege here as such, Madam Speaker, but I am ready to help the House proceed and will be available when we reach "statements by ministers".


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief on the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am delighted that he has accepted the suggestion I made an hour and a half of parliamentary time ago. The only question in my mind is what bloody-mindedness in the head of the government House leader, what motives on the side of the government, caused them to waste an hour and a half of the time of Parliament before acceding to this simple request.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is unwilling to take a good lesson of parliamentary courtesy. Indeed, the time lost was used by his party, and I feel that the time taken up to now was to obtain some explanation from the minister who had the opportunity to speak on this boring question of privilege, who answered questions already put by some members opposite and who is trying to straighten things out, because actually, the Leader of the Official Opposition has enough experience to realize that what was going on was not so much a debate on a question of privilege as questions put to the minister.
The minister merely wanted to straighten things out and co-operate by answering more specific questions, if any, during the last hour and a half. 1 have much more respect for the members of his party than he has shown today. I do not consider that time has been wasted. They have made their point and explained what they had in mind, and questions have been put. That will spare the minister having to make a statement of an hour and a half. In fact, there is no reason why this debate should last more than a few minutes after the minister has expressed his views and answered a few questions.
To my mind, what we are doing right now is demonstrating that we can be courteous, as the Leader of the Official Opposition wanted us to be, that we have respected our rules, and that if the time spent on discussing the matter, which the Leader of the Official Opposition qualified as time wasted, was indeed wasted, then his party is responsible for it because, as far as we are concerned, time spent on the energy question is not time wasted, it is important time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as I understood the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, he said he was prepared to make a statement and answer questions if this was the wish of the House.
uly 11, 1980

I wish to make it clear that, so far as this party is concerned, hat is our wish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Under the circumstances, it would make hings easier if I gave a ruling on the question of privilege on * hich we have spent enough time this afternoon. If I were to ispose of the matter, we could then proceed with orders of the ay. Hon. members could then deal with the matter they want to discuss in the House today.
I recognize that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) may have felt impelled to rise on a question of privilege on what could in fact be a serious grievance. I can understand that he should have tried to get a statement for his information and guidance. I do understand that his grievance can have some importance; still, I am sure hon. members will also understand that I am faced with a serious dilemma, in that all the interventions we have heard during this debate on the question of privilege clearly established that the question of privilege was in no way founded on a breach of our rules. The Leader of the Opposition indicated so himself. There was no breach of our rules, but rather one of the common courtesies and customs in current usage in this House, and on that I agree with him. I should perhaps read the Standing Order which authorizes the minister to do exactly as he did, namely Standing Order 60(1) that stipulates, and I quote:
60. (1) A notice of a ways and means motion may be laid upon the table of the House at any time during a sitting by a minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
The minister has then clearly chosen a valid procedure, as was his right. It is not up to me to choose the procedure, it is up to the members of this House, and the one that was indeed chosen is in accordance with the Standing Orders, and if I may remind hon. members, none of the participants in the debate has denied it.
I note in passing that one of the objections raised was that this occurred on a Friday afternoon, or more precisely on a Friday morning. I remind hon. members that any day of the week is appropriate for debating issues in the House, whether it be Friday, Monday or Wednesday. Every day, in my opinion, is appropriate, so obviously I did not entertain that argument.
One of the grievances was to the effect that the minister did not make a statement. There again, I must remind hon. members that it is open to the minister to make a statement or not when tabling a ways and means motion. He decided not to do so and I have the impression the debate on the question of privilege came very close to what it would have been had the minister made a statement, since he had to give so many explanations on what had happened. However, if later on in our proceedings the minister should rise to make a statement, we shall see what will happen then.
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
As to the question of all the courtesies that should be extended to the House, hon. members will also understand quite easily that is it is not up to me to discuss them, any more than I have any say in the agreements reached by the leaders of the various parties in the House. It is entirely up to the members and party leaders in the House. I am bound by the rules which say very clearly that what the minister did was in order, which rules the House in its wisdom gave itself. For the benefit of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I should like to say that I am bound by the written rules. Customs and practices are a different matter. Of course, I always consult the precedents, out I always consider them in terms of the present Standing Orders.
So I cannot find that there is a question of privilege despite the fact I recognize the grievance was perhaps very important. I suggest that we proceed now with orders of the day.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise at the earliest opportunity after the minister's tabling of the notice of ways and means motion to raise a point of order which shows, I believe, that the notice of ways and means motion is in fact out of order, and that the minister cannot, through this mechanism, impose a tax as of midnight tonight. 1 think it is a point of order that has to be discussed and decided on today because of that implication.
The reason for that, Madam Speaker, is quite straightforward and simple. The notice of ways and means motion purports to amend the Petroleum Administration Act in regard to the charge imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of oil processed in the country.
The relevant section of the Petroleum Administration Act is section 65.12, which states that there should be imposed, levied and collected on, in part, (a) each barrel of domestic production and, in part, (b) each barrel of foreign production, and then it reads in the same language as the notice of motion and continues as follows:
-in any month after the month in which this part comes into force, a charge in such amount not exceeding one dollar a barrel as may be prescribed in a tariff of charges for that month made by order of the governor in council.
This act was not introduced by a ways and means motion. It is not a taxation bill but is a statute of Parliament to establish a program for subsidizing synthetic fuels in the country and to establish a fund outside the purview of parliamentary examination, outside the estimates procedure, outside the normal checks and balances available to the people through their representatives-a revolving external fund, by statute, without ways and means associated with it. The act describes this charge as a levy.

July 11, I98(
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
The then minister of energy, mines and resources, who introduced the bill, Hon. Alastair Gillespie, describes the bill at page 2314 of Hansard for January 27, 1978 as follows:
The bill also authorizes the funding of this program by a levy on all crude oil refined in Canada and oil products imported to this country.
He quite carefully described it as a levy. At no time in the discussion of this act or anywhere in the act is the word "tax" mentioned. It is not a tax measure at all. It is a statute of Parliament to set up a separate fund to fund a program agreed to, I believe, by all parties in the House. In any event, it was agreed to by Parliament. It is not a tax measure whatsoever.
Ways and means is described in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, section 516(1), page 174, as follows:
A ways and means motion is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already taxpayers.
That is the definition of ways and means. It is the way in which taxes are changed, not the way in which statutes are changed. The statute has a limitation of $1 on a separate fund. I maintain that the government cannot through this procedure seek to alter the statute. I agree with the government House leader that under Standing Order 60(1) a minister can introduce a ways and means motion. My point of order is that this is not a proper ways and means motion and, therefore, must be ruled out of order. The proper procedure of introducing a bill with first, second and third reading is necessary to change a statute to amend that section of the act.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Maybe it would be better if I recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) first so that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) could answer afterwards. The hon. member for Edmonton West has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, the objective of my argument has been ably argued by my colleague, but I wish to draw your attention to a parallel situation in which I suggest the government would not in any way dare move by way of a ways and means motion, and that is to increase the charges under the Canada Pensions Act.
Under the Canada Pensions Act, contributions made by employers and by individuals go into the Canada pension fund. The Government of Canada does not contribute one split penny to the Canada pension fund. It is a fund apart. I suggest, in fact I strongly argue, that if it were to be the purpose of the government to try to increase the levies upon individuals and their employers with regard to the Canada pension fund, which they are going to have to do before too long, it would not be by way of a ways and means motion. There must be an amendment to the statute. In fact, it is within the power of an individual member of this House, in my submission, to so move to bring forward a bill to increase those
charges. It does not affect ways and means of the government in any way whatsoever.
In this particular instance, this is a levy upon the production of certain categories of petroleum products. The revenues from that go into a fund. The government contributes not one red penny to it, one green penny nor blue penny not one iota The Petroleum Administration Act, among other things, pro vides for the levy. It provides for the accumulation of the moneys and it provides directly as to the distribution of those moneys. I repeat, the Government of Canada docs not contrib-| ute one penny. This is not a tax.
The definition of a ways and means motion clearly confines it to a tax or a duty. There is excise tax, customs duty, income tax. A ways and means motion is simplified by certain requirements. I was part of the procedure committee when these amendments to our Standing Orders were brought in. 1 recall the former government House leader from Rosedale wanting this provision to simplify tax changes so that a minister could stand in his place and give notice of the ways and means motion which would then be debated on a date subsequent. Once having been adopted, a bill would be brought in to put into effect that tax change. However, this is not a tax.
Therefore, I submit that the government has to go back to the drawing board. The method adopted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the wrong procedure. In saying this, I do not want to in any way prejudge what he was trying to accomplish. I simply say he has gone about it the wrong way. Since when in this House has the end ever justified the means? We have been most conscious about avoiding that. There is no way the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or any of his colleagues in cabinet can justify using a budgetary procedure to move to amend a statute that is not concerned with taxes. I respectfully submit. Madam Speaker, that the procedure adopted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was entirely out of order.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the argument raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is interesting but unfortunately it is neither fundamental nor accurate. I think that in order to understand correctly-I believe the hon. member had the hiccups and I excuse him, and so does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), Madam Speaker.
In order to understand correctly the point which is raised, I think it is essential to proceed with an intelligent reading of Standing Order 60(1) which is very brief. I would like to have it put on the record, and I quote:
A notice of a ways and means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting by a minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
Madam Speaker, on page 174 of Beauchesne's in citation 514 et seq Standing Order 60 is explained under the heading "Business of Ways and Means." Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition does not feel well and he can be excused if he wishes to leave because as far as I am concerned
July 11, 1980

1 am discussing a serious matter which might be above his head but I would like to be able to make my point as did his colleague. I did not interrupt him out of respect for Parliament and I expect the Leader of the Opposition who brought the matter up this morning, to extend to me the same courtesy.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the ways and means procedure is provided to allow government to increase the burdens upon the people. This morning in introducing a notice of ways and means motion in accordance with our Standing Orders the minister expressed the government's intention to eventually legislate an increase in the burdens imposed upon the people. This expression of "burden upon the people" is not picked out at random, Madam Speaker, and it certainly was not coined by the two members who raised a point of order; it is taken from Beauchesne's on page 174, citation 514(1) which clearly states that when making a statement concerning the budget or the business of ways and means, at that time a notice of ways and means motion must be introduced if the burdens upon the people are to be increased.
A little further, we find citation 516 which was quoted previously by the member for Calgary-Centre (Mr. Andre); he read citation 514 (1) which is quite right but he should also have read citation 514 (2) and I quote:
Therefore no motion can be made to impose a tax-
-which in this case means, according to section 60, paragraph (1) and according to the interpretation given by the authorities of the business of ways and means, that an increase of the burdens upon the people could be done only by-
-no motion can be made to impose a tax, save by a minister of the Crown, unless such tax be in substitution, by way of equivalent, for taxation at that moment submitted to the consideration of Parliament-
-this is not the case here-
-nor can the amount of a tax proposed on behalf of the Crown be augmented, nor any alteration made in the area of imposition. In like manner, no increase can be considered either of an existing, or of a new or temporary tax for the service of the year, except on the initiative of a minister, acting on behalf of the Crown; nor can a member other than a minister move for the introduction of a bill-
It seems obvious to me, Madam Speaker, that this morning the minister proposed an amendment to an act which implies an increase in the tax burden imposed on the people. And the first paragraph of the ways and means motion mentions that it is expedient to amend the Petroleum Administration Act to provide that each month, effective midnight, July 11, 1980, the charge imposed, levied and collected: (a) on each barrel of domestic petroleum, and so on. So, Madam Speaker, very clearly the government intends in fact to impose a charge on the people, to raise a tax and if this requires amending an act other than the Income Tax Act it does not mean that automatically it is excluded from proceeding through a ways and means motion.
Section 60 and others following as well as its subsections, because there are several, must be read and interpreted not
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
only in light of their literal meaning but also of their spirit. It is the only section in our rules which allows and describes the procedure to follow to impose levies on the people. The present rules of this House do not provide for any other procedure.
So we want to increase a tax and there is no other way- indeed, hon. members did not suggest any-which would allow us to increase that tax except the one used by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this morning. Finally, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to refer to citation 530 on page 177, again in Beauchesne, and to consider the following:
No augmentation of a tax or duty asked by the Crown can be proposed to the committee, nor tax imposed, save upon the motion of a minister of the Crown;
The definition is already extended further in my opinion. First, the author talked about increasing the charge upon the people, and he is now talking about taxes or duties. Only a minister can move such a motion. It is specified that this should be done by a notice of a ways and means motion.
-nor would an amendment to extend the imposition of a tax to persons enjoying an exemption therefrom be now permitted.
I am trying to understand the point raised earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who said that the government cannot increase the tax in this case because there is already a statute in existence which provides a tax and which is not the Income Tax Act. If this is what he was saying,
I do not accept his argument because it is not essential that the provision which the government wants to change be included in the Income Tax Act for the government to use the procedure provided in Standing Order 60(1), which deals with notices of ways and means. I respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, that the only means at our disposal to increase a charge upon the people, as it is stated in Beauchesne, the only means to impose an additional burden in the form of a tax or duty, the only legal and regular means provided by the Standing Orders is to table a notice of a ways and means motion, which is eventually followed by the motion accompanied by the bill based upon the ways and means motion, and in practice, it is only at that time that the bill can be debated, even though we have had today a preliminary debate to the one which should have been held or would have been held once the bill had been tabled. 1 therefore submit that the procedure we have followed is quite in order, that it covers exactly the increase required by the minister, and that there is no other legal means to achieve this purpose. I submit that simply amending the Petroleum Administration Act would have been insufficient in this case and that we should have had to table a notice of ways and means, otherwise the members of the official opposition would have risen to object to our procedure for amending the text of the statute.


Walter David Baker: On that last point, Madam Speaker, the government cannot argue there is no
2816

July 11, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
other way to do what they want to do. Surely there is another way, the proper way, and that is to amend the statute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is what Parliament is here for, or that is what I thought Parliament was here for. So that argument falls completely to the ground and I hope you will not be moved by it.
As to the point that the discussion here today is, in a sense, preliminary to a debate because at some time the government may bring in a bill, it is certainly that. If the government brings a bill down, there will certainly be debate on it. We are talking now about an important point of order, the question whether or not the government of the day has moved appropriately under the law.
Madam Speaker, of all the decisions you have been asked to make, this is likely to be the most judicial. The position as it has been put before the House by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is very clear. The government can, of course, put down a ways and means motion-if they have legal authority to do so. In this case they have not, except under the terms of the Standing Orders of the House. We are not arguing the right to do it. We are arguing whether or not it is lawful in its terms, and it is clear on the face of the document that this is not a tax but a levy. It is a levy for a fund, not for the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a different thing. That is the one point you have to come to terms with, Madam Speaker, and it is very important to the House.
It is not by accident that we have established rules of practice here which require in certain circumstances, when it is appropriate and lawful for it to be convenient to the government to table a ways and means motion, that they can table a ways and means motion that is effective.
Equally, when the government enacted the Petroleum Administration Act in the first place, it chose the method by which it would make the levy. The levy would be made by an act of Parliament, and the only way the government can change that levy, under these circumstances in any event, it not being a taxing statute, is by another act of Parliament. That is the question as simply, clearly, and succinctly as I can possibly put it.


Mr. Fox:: It is clearly wrong.


Walter David Baker: This is important for a number of reasons. An announcement was made today which I am sure has had a tremendous effect on the market. It is an announcement which, under these circumstances, I suggest is inappropriate. Surely the law officers of the Crown could advise the minister differently. Surely they could have done that, but much more fundamental than that is the position in which you, Madam Speaker, find yourself because this motion is to take effect tonight at midnight, assuming it is right, proper and legal, which it is not, in my respectful submission.
This decision of yours is one which should be reserved but really cannot be reserved, and I think the House has to accommodate Your Honour. The House should be prepared to accommodate you so that you can make that decision, and make it today. If Your Honour feels that it is appropriate, I think the House would be agreeable that the sitting be suspended until such time as you have had an opportunity to consult with your officers, because of the fact that it is a Friday and we are heading to an effective time at midnight. I hope the House would be agreeable with respect to that matter. It is for you to decide as to whether you need the time, but that is not the main reason I rise.
The main reason is clearly that there is one way, and one way only by which the government can act with respect to the Petroleum Administration Act because the government chose it originally when it brought in the act. It chose not to move by ways and means but to move by statute, a statute which imposes a levy, which is not a tax. A tax is the only thing subject to a ways and means motion. By statute is the only way this government can appropriately and lawfully move. It may be inconvenient for the government, but it is the only way it can move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has raised a very important procedural- if not constitutional-point, and I am pleased that instead of the rather heated discussion we had earlier about courtesy versus discourtesy we are now having a calm and collected discussion about this serious point. I also feel that it is a difficult one for Your Honour and that you will have to give it very serious consideration.
If I may come to the conclusion of my argument first and then go back and try to point out how I arrive at that conclusion, I would say that the question before us is whether the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) put a title on this piece of paper that it is a notice of ways and means motion makes it a notice of ways and means motion. I have the feeling that the case is very strong for the fact that what the minister is proposing is an amendment to a statute and that the way to bring about that change is by giving notice of an amending bill. The difference which faced the minister, of course, is that we have a certain tradition around this place to the effect that an amending bill's provisions do not come into effect until that bill has been passed and the corresponding statute has been amended. However, the other side of that tradition is that a notice of ways and means motion, which is an amendment to a taxation statute, can come into effect immediately or, as usually is the custom, at midnight that night.
As I look at it, and 1 am following the argument put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, what we have before us is the Petroleum Administration Act, which has in it certain provisions for charges, and the government, through the minister, wants to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. It seems to me that the only way he can do that is by giving notice of a bill to amend the Petroleum Administration Act.
July 11, 1980

He could have given that notice today. We would find out about it when we got the documents tomorrow but, of course, such a notice could not carry the provision that the tax be in effect at midnight tonight.
On the other hand, by calling it a notice of ways and means motion he can make the tax become effective at midnight tonight, as has been done times without number. So the question is whether it is a rose because we call it a rose or whether it is something else. The minister put the title on it, and he stood up under "tabling of documents" and said he was tabling a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. If it is a notice of ways and means motion, then the minister had the right to table it under "tabling of documents", and he had the right to provide for its coming into effect at midnight tonight. However, if it is not a notice of ways and means motion, despite the minister's naming it that, and if it is an amendment to a statute which is other than a taxation statute-a statute which has in it certain charges-then the only way he can do that, unless he has some kind of unanimous consent, is to introduce a bill to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. In my view it is as simple as that.
There is no argument about the right to table a notice of ways and means motion under Standing Order 60(1). There is no argument about the right of the government to give notice of a bill, with the concurrence of the Governor General, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, but what Your Honour has to decide is whether the minister can turn what is an amending bill to a statute into a notice of ways and means motion simply by putting those words at the top of the piece of paper he gave to us.
I think there is a good deal of merit to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said. He said that Your Honour should be given time to consider this important point, whether that means that we recess for a little while or go on with some other business while Your Honour wrestles with this very important issue.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I concur in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said as to the importance of the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), but I also noticed the caution with which the hon. member approached this subject, covering both sides of the argument.
I submit that the official opposition is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Hansard will show that the whole argument this morning was that this was a tax or that this was a budgetary measure which imposes a tax on people. We heard all these arguments this morning. On the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, the argument is that this is not a tax, that this is something called a levy, a charge, or something else. I submit that the opposition cannot argue both sides of the street at the same time. In effect what we have here is a ways and means motion, as the government House leader has indicated quite clearly, which fulfils all the conditions provided for a proper ways and means motion under
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
the rules of the House, and the government House leader has cited authorities in support of his point of view.
I submit that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states that this ways and means motion amends the Petroleum Administration Act, he can make an argument that that is not in effect changing a tax. As the hon. member well knows, there are taxation provisions in all kinds of legislation, not only in the Income Tax Act or the corporations income tax act, but in all kinds of pieces of legislation there are taxation elements and taxation provisions. This ways and means motion provides for a specific charge, a specific levy which provides the funds necessary for the government to indemnify the companies which are exploiting the tar sands by paying them the difference between the unique Canadian price and the international price, whatever that price might be at that time. At present the levy, the charge, or the tax is not providing adequate funds to provide that indemnity to the companies, and the ways and means motion put before the House raises that tax-


An hon. Member:: This is not a w^tys and means motion.


Marc Lalonde: -it raises the tax from $1 to $1.75. As such, by whatever name my colleagues wish to call it, it comes under the provisions of our rules as a proper ways and means motion. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that the procedure which has been followed here, upon the advice of the law officers of the Crown, is the proper procedure to be followed and that consequently, in my view, the point of order is not well taken.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker-


David Michael Collenette: We are all on the same point of order, and Madam Speaker has recognized me. But I will defer, if you want to let someone else speak before me, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: You were recognized. Go ahead.


David Michael Collenette: 1 was only trying to be courteous, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Thank you.


David Michael Collenette: On the narrow point, the point of order of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that is, the advisability of your making a decision on the admissibility of the tabling of this notice of ways and means motion, I submit to you, with all respect, that there is no motion before the House and that you are therefore unable to judge as to whether or not what has been tabled by the minister is actually a ways and means motion until concurrence is sought. 1 would say that only the courts are empowered to do this. I am not

July 11, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
arguing the merits of whether or not what the minister has tabled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have sat here courteously while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) heckled my House leader and others. I would ask that he show some courtesy because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, we are not now trying to score parliamentary points between parties on courtesy between parties, we are on a fundamental matter relating to the governance of this nation. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the merits of the ways and means motion, that the minister might be wrong or might be right, but the point is that it is not for the House to decide. This House, and that is you, Madam Speaker, does not have the authority-


An hon. Member:: Jeepers-creepers.


David Michael Collenette: -to decide that the document tabled by the minister is or is not a ways and means motion. It is up to the courts to decide. We may be getting into a very difficult point at this time and Parliament will have to deal with it later on, and that is perhaps we should bring in some kind of law which provides for the provisional collection of taxes so that situations such as these can be prevented from arising. But I submit that on the fine point put forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, you, Madam Speaker, with all respect, do not have it within your mandate as the first among equals in this House to accede to the request contained in the point of order of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


An hon. Member:: That is garbage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to be quite brief. 1 should like to dismiss the immediately preceding intervention in this way. So far as I am concerned and so far as every other member of the House is concerned, except for the parliamentary secretary, this House of Commons is the highest court in the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will make up our own mind as to what our procedures are and we do not need any mealy-mouthed intervention from the parliamentary secretary telling Madam Speaker what her rights and privileges are in this particular instance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 think the matter has been placed before you in very simple terms. It is a very important matter we now face in terms of the admissibility of this suggested ways and means motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has indicated that because you call something by a particular name this does not necessarily indicate that that is what it is. Your Honour will, of course, have to consult the governing statute in order to
determine precisely the effect of this particular proposal which was put forward by the minister. Let me just use the minister's own words because, as has been pointed out to Your Honour, the fact is that he has, simultaneously with the tabling of this document, issued a press release in which he tried to explain precisely what he was doing. Here is what he, or some functionary in his department and under his authority, stated in the press release:
The Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources, the Hon. Mare l.alonde, today introduced a ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act-
In other words, the minister himself, by his own words, indicated that the effect of this is to amend the provisions of the act. The point by my colleague for Edmonton West is well taken that this involves a revolving fund. The minister himself in his press release acknowledged the fact that a fund is in existence and that the levies and contributions to this fund do not-and he underlines the word "not"-in any way increase the amount of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. He underlines the fact that this is a separate fund. Statutory provision has been made in this connection, and if the limits of that fund are to be adjusted and the amount of the levies into that fund is to be increased, it seems to me to be logical that the way to do it is by way of an amendment to the legislation, not by a ways and means motion.
We all acknowledge that this has an impact on the public, that the public is, in fact, contributing to a fund which is not the consolidated revenue fund. While there may be an obligation by way of a charge on the part of the government with respect to the deficit, that, I think, is incidental to the argument because it is a matter of legislation. I suggest to you, Your Honour, that this matter is of sufficient importance that you might feel compelled-and I think it is incumbent in view of the substantial amount of money which needs to be raised as a consequence of this ways and means motion and the effect of attempting to collect it being found to be ultra vires-to adjudicate upon the appropriateness of the purported ways and means motion brought forward by the minister.
The House always has the right to address itself to your ruling. But the fact of the matter is, it is imperative that you rule on the matter, Madam Speaker, and that it be brought before the House so that there can be some clarity and so that the people of Canada will not suffer from the amount of injury which they would suffer in terms of economy and from the consequences of the confusion which will take place if we do not resolve the matter this afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: I feel that it is very important for me to rule on this matter today, but I would like to have some time to consider this very important point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), as well as the arguments which have been put forward in support of that very important point of order.
I have tried to note all of the arguments which have been brought forward. 1 am sure that the clerks at the Table have
July 11, 1980

done so as well. 1 would like to have some time in order to deliberate with them as to the decision which I should render on this point of order. Therefore, if the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and others who have risen insist, I will hear them, but time is running short. If they wish to withdraw, I would like now to put someone else in the chair and retire to my chamber so that 1 may deliberate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your point, but I will only be 30 seconds. The point I wish to make is fundamental, and there is now a calmer atmosphere. Some of the more important points in life are very simple points and this is a very simple point. But it does not take away from its fundamental character.
I heard the government House leader say, I believe, although it was in translation, "This is the only way to do it". 1 want to go back and accentuate what the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) said and what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and others repeated. It comes back to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), said about the opposition having both sides of the street.
Everyone argued this morning in a heated atmosphere on a question of privilege. You ruled on that question of privilege, and we accepted it, but then we got into the specious reasoning that just because you ruled on a question of privilege, we were not supposed to raise a bona fide point of order. That, to me, is absolutely incredible, as was the suggestion that the courts of the land are supposed to dispose of this matter after tonight, when this is the highest court in the land.
But coming to the matter of both sides of the street, when this bill was introduced and passed in, I believe, in April, 1978, it was not introduced by a ways and means motion. The government House leader today in his reply earlier said that that was the only way to do it. Who is trying to have both sides of the street? When the bill was introduced it was not done by a ways and means motion, yet today the government tries to amend it by a ways and means motion.
In conclusion, there are some things that could be said, but the principle is to me so fundamental. I would hope that the law officers of the Crown, in giving you advice on this matter, Madam Speaker, would appreciate my point, that if a government, whatever its political stripe, can amend a statute which levies a charge by ways and means motions, then the Crows-nest Pass law, for instance, could be amended by a ways and means motion. I would suggest that there is not a bill that levies a charge, not a tax but a charge that is a separate fund, that could not then be changed by a ways and means motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't give them any ideas.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The government House leader prompted me to make this intervention long before the parliamentary secretary made his incredible suggestion that this place and yourself do not have the right to rule on this matter. Such a situation would make this place so inane that I do not think his suggestion is worth rebuttal. But when the government House
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
leader says that the only way to deal with the matter is the way in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tried to deal with it, when the very foundation of the bill was not a ways and means motion, then to me, through his argument, he has caught himself in his own petard.


Mr. Friesen:: Pinard.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Pinard by petard, or petard by Pinard. Be that as it may, we have a statutory levy, and the only way to change a statutory levy is by amendment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to indulge in the House, and I think that I can make my point in 30 seconds. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made the point that there are all kinds of statutes which authorize charges, levies and taxes. Each of those statutes spells out a particular form of amendment. The case which we are making here today is that the government is attempting to amend a statute which can only be amended by the introduction of a new statute here in the House of Commons, by the use of a ways and means motion.
In other words, the case which has been made by my colleagues on this side of the House and, I believe, joined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is that we have here a situation where there is a levy established by a statute, a means set out by which that levy can be changed and that statute can be amended. The government today, perhaps inadvertently, is trying to change that statute by an instrument that is not lawful as a means of changing it.


Madam Speaker:: I would like to reserve my judgment on this point of order. Rather than suspend the sitting, I think that in the interest of the House the deliberations should continue with someone else in the chair.
Tabling of documents?
Statements by ministers? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, 1 am sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would agree that it would probably be well for us to await your ruling before he makes his statement. We are prepared to hear him now, but if the point raised by my colleague for Calgary Centre is found to be accurate, he would be explaining a measure which is impossible for him to introduce. Certainly in so far as we in this party are concerned, we would be prepared to revert to statements after your decision has been rendered, if that is necessary.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, having waited that long, I can wait a little longer.


Erik Nielsen: You may not have to make it at all.

July 11, 1980
Order Paper Questions


FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS AND JUDGMENTS ACT
Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 216, 378, 731, 732, 757, 839, 855, 875 and 931.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the total expenditure on the CN Tower in Toronto?
2.	What was the total gross revenue and net revenue to date since the completion of the project and from whom were such revenues received?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	The total undepreciated capital cost of the tower was $59 million. Net book value after depreciation as of March 31, 1980, is $55.6 million.
2.	Total gross revenue of the tower from June 26, 1976 to March 31, 1980, is $25.5 million.
Total net revenue (net income before interest) from June 26, 1976 to March 31, 1980, is $6.8 million.
Sources of Revenue:
Visitors to sky pod and spade deck	63	per	centRental from broadcasters	13	per	centRent from restaurant operations	9	per	centSouvenirs and gifts	5	per	centOther	10	per	cent


Mr. Herbert: In 1978, by value of the equipment exported, to which ten countries did Canada export the most telecommunications equipment?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Ranked by value of the equipment exported, Canada shipped the most telecommunication equipment to the following ten countries in 1978:
Country	$'000
United States	369,814
United Kingdom	38,496
Turkey	14,396
West Germany	12,346
France	11,434
Malaysia	9,074
Saudi Arabia	8,950
Ireland	5,365
Italy	5,041
Libya	4,754


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the Canadian National Railways Annual Report for 1979 and with particular reference to the report by CN Express, since 1978, has there been a 41 per cent increase in the operating loss of the branch and, if so, has the minister made any enquiries of the corporation to discern the cause of this large and growing deficit?
2.	Did the operating expenses of the corporation rise at well under half the rate for the operating loss and, if so (a) how does the corporation explain this growing drain on its operations (b) what course of action is the corporation contemplating to ensure that such losses are reduced and finally eliminated?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. The deficit attributable to express operations in 1979 included special costs of $10 million associated with the introduction of a computer-based control system intended to bring about significant longer-term reductions in administrative and operating staffs. Other major programs are in place to achieve productivity improvements and strengthen market position. These will result in significant staff adjustments which are expected to bring about an overall improvement in financial results. It is clear, however, that these programs will not suffice to eliminate the deficit; that cannot be done unless express is able to withdraw from lighter density areas and make more extensive use of local trucking companies for integrated service to some 400-500 smaller communities. The potential benefits of such changes are currently being examined.


Mr. Clarke: 1. With reference to the Canadian National Railways Annual Report for 1979 and with particular reference to the report detailed by Terratransport, since the corporation has now been operating this division for over a year and has had an
July 11, 1980

opportunity to review its financial situation and the market conditions, can the corporation state whether there is any prospect that, in the future, it will be able to operate on a self-sustaining basis eliminating its operating loss and, if not, can the corporation state whether this division is expected to contribute to the operating income in a positive way or whether it is expected that it will, for the indefinite future, be a drain on the profit-making divisions of the corporation?
2. What conditions would be required for this division to make a positive contribution to the operating income of Canadian National Railways?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Internal studies conducted by CN confirm the general findings of the Sullivan Commission,
i.e. that there is no apparent future role for the railway in terms of significant business opportunities and that continuation of rail operations on the present scale holds no prospect other than for a further deterioration in the present financial performance of Terratransport.
2.	The deficit might be reduced in some measure by service adjustments; abandonment of lighter-density traffic sections; or by a major change in focus to, say, an integrated intermodal-type service. Such changes could not be expected, however, to put the rail operation on a commercially sound basis and if the rail system is to be continued as a matter of government policy, then CN must continue to seek compensation for the resulting shortfall.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Labour and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Gerald Augustine Regan: (a) Four (4) administrative consultants-total	cost $44,662.
(b)	Six (6) policy consultants-total cost $114,800.
Four (4) boards/commissions, etc.-total cost $899,300.
See reports below.
In so far as the Canada Labour Relations Board: none.
Administrative Contracts Name	Number of	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
	Contracts	Cost
Smith-Ault and Associates	1	$ 7,000Ronald Capelle Associates Ltd.	1	$ 1,800R. G. Consulting Ltd.	1	$ 32,362Ian Campbell	1	$ 3,500Total	$ 44,662Policy Contracts Name	Number of	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1978Contracts	CostJ. Wanczycki	1	$ 14,000J. Mainwaring	1	$ 22,000K. Kaplansky	1	$ 24,000Smith-Auld and Associates	1	$ 16,800
Order Paper Questions
Name	Number of Contracts	CostR. G. Consulting Ltd.	1	$ 30,000G. McCaffrey	1	$ 8,000Total	$114,800Boards/Commissions	August 1, 1979 toMarch 31, 1980R. Adams - paid educational leave F. Bairstow - wider-based	1	$321,100bargaining A. Carrothers - redundancies	I	$156,000and layoffs	1	$299,000R. Elfstrom - DEVCO explosion	1	$123,200Total	$899,300


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, what amount was paid to New Brunswick to assist in the teaching of a second language?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Under the federal-provincial agreements pertaining to the official languages in education, contributions to the province of New Brunswick in fiscal years 1977-78 and 1978-79 for the teaching of French as a second language were:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1977-	78	$1,830,5421978-	79	$1,959,365
Note: Figures reported include payments totalling $430,718 in 1977-78 and $379,953 in 1978-79 respectively which apply to both minority official language education and second official language instruction. No further breakdown is available.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	During the year (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978 (d) 1979 (e) 1980, what grants, if any, were awarded by the Department of the Secretary of State to the universities or post secondary educational institutions in Nova Scotia and, in each case, were such grants given under programs of general application and (i) if so, what were the programs (ii) if not, what were the special circumstances which formed the basis for a special grant?
2.	What was the amount of the grant, in each case?
3.	Did the department oversee the actual use of such moneys or monitor its effect and, if so, in each case, by what method?


Peter A. Stollery: 1. In so far as the
education support programs branch is concerned no grants were awarded by the department in the years in question to universities or post-secondary educational institutions in Nova Scotia.
2 and 3. Not applicable.

July 11, 1980
Order Paper Questions PENSION REVIEW BOARD


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Are all of the positions in the Pension Review Board filled and, if not, which ones are vacant and for how long have they been vacant?
2.	(a) What was the total number of review applications received by the board in the 1978-79 fiscal year (b) how many were dealt with and how many (i) were granted in pension (ii) outstanding applications were there?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	No.
Vacant Positions	Since
One position on the board	April 17, 1980.
One secretary	March 24, 1980.
2. (a)	1350
(b)	1050 (13 withdrawn)
(i)	247
(ii)	1898


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the local telephone number of VIA Rail in Brockville, Ontario, disconnected and, if so (a) for what reason (b) under whose authority (c) was the Department of Transport consulted?
2.	Was a WATTS line "800" number assigned in its place and, if so, is the government aware that the service rendered by such a line has resulted in dozens of complaints in the area?
3.	Is the government aware that the change in number has seriously decreased service to the public and that some persons are alleging that it has taken them as long as twenty minutes to get an answer?
4.	Will the government take steps to obtain the co-operation of VIA Rail in rendering a much faster service to rail passenger users in the Brockville area and, if so, what will be such steps?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows: Yes.
1. (a) To provide RESERVIA Service to the general public in localities served by area codes 519, 705, 613.
(b)	VIA Rail Canada Inc.
(c)	No.
2.	The local telephone number of VIA Rail Canada Inc. was changed on March 17, 1980, to WATTS number 1-800-2689520 with a total of 11 trunk lines connected to the central reservation office in Toronto. See 3.
3.	Because of constraints resulting from training in utilization of new equipment and new personnel, VIA Rail was not able to provide the public at the outset with the quality of service they are entitled to. This has changed and of a total of 8,165 calls received on May 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22, 5,973 calls
(73 per cent) were answered within 20 seconds and 2,192 calls (27 per cent) were answered beyond 20 seconds.
4.	See 3.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise again this week to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 970 standing in my name, which deals with the names of the cabinet committees and the functions of cabinet committees as well as the names of ministers who serve as the members and second alternates on each committee.
The parliamentary secretary will remember that in question period earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) undertook to have that information available. When I asked the parliamentary secretary about it earlier this week, he indicated he would speed up the response to this question which has been on the order paper for six weeks. In his answer yesterday the Prime Minister tabled the names of cabinet committees and members. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate the reason for the delay in giving a response to the question. We have yet to receive a description of the responsibilities of the various cabinet committees as 1 requested.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I did answer this question yesterday. I understand that the hon. member was somewhat busy yesterday and must have left the chamber at three o'clock or immediately after, when the Prime Minister tabled part of the answer he seeks. I know he was not in his seat for the late show either, so I assume he was very busy and did not read Hansard to see that I did address myself to this point and promised to make a full answer next Wednesday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the parliamentary secretary could see that questions No. 810 and 811 are answered next week as there has been some suggestion that there might be a recess. These are important questions concerning the Metric Commission. I hope they can be answered because they should be answered
prior to any recess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.
July 11, 1980



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and do pass.
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to speak at length again on Bill C-3 but 1 wish to take the opportunity once again to bring to the attention of the House the use of the variable entrance requirement. Its application to Canadians is, in my opinion, discriminatory and inequitable.
The fact that claimants now have to wait 18 months for correction of a self-evident injustice is, in my opinion, harsh and unwarranted treatment. The Unemployment Insurance Commission should be able to recommend amendment of the extension of the use of the variable entrance requirement which at present is based on statistics which are unfair and discriminatory.
The commission has recommended that the regulations change the required number of hours of employment from 20 hours or 30 per cent last year, to 15 hours or 20 per cent this year, in terms of maximum insurable earnings. We are told that this will come into effect next January. It was announced today that wives of fishermen will now be able to work for their husbands who are fishermen.
Section 58(t) of the act provides that the commission could increase or decrease boundaries of economic regions so I do not see why it could not increase or decrease certain areas of the country where the application of the unemployment insurance rate is so harsh.
I should like to concentrate on the problem of the extension of the variable entrance requirement, Mr. Speaker, on the harshness of this provision, the cost of its application and the confusion it has created for a certain group of people in Canada. The application of this requirement has had horrendous consequences for my constituents. No worker knows how many weeks work is required in order to qualify for benefits the following winter or fall. He cannot use the last time he applied for unemployment insurance benefits as a guide, because of the variable entrance requirement and because the unemployment insurance rate is forever changing. A three-month statistic is used to change the variable entrance requirement. That means that in December a statistic is used which is based on the unemployment rate in September, a time when employment is high in some areas of Canada.
Another consequence of the use of the variable entrance requirement is that at the time a claimant makes an application he has no idea whether he will have enough insurable weeks to qualify by the time the application is processed.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The variable entrance requirement is changed from month to month. An application made in October will take two or three weeks to process-depending on when the claimant attended at the office. If he went there in the middle of the month, the application will be processed by the middle of November. By that time the office will write to inform him that he now needs a different number of weeks than the number required when he originally made application in October. He then has to find an additional week wherever he can, by November, but by the time he returns to the unemployment insurance office the requirement is likely to have been changed again. The foregoing shows how confusing and harsh the commission is in dealing with claimants.
Just last year the local employment office in my area needed 15 extra people to process applications under the variable entrance requirement, and at that they were running two weeks behind. When someone has been waiting five weeks for benefits and then is told he has to wait longer for benefits to commence, it creates hardship for him.
The variable entrance requirement has created hardship in rural communities as in the case of South West Nova. One person may have to travel 150 miles to the office only to be told that instead of needing 16 weeks in order to qualify this month, he needs 17 weeks. He may go back and tell his neighbour that the requirement is 17 weeks. But the two cases are not necessarily treated in the same way, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the person who needed the 17 weeks happened to go to the office at the beginning of the month or the end of the month-or perhaps it was February and they were basing their unemployment statistics on December figures, but three months back. All of a sudden, in January, he needs 17 weeks, and now in February he only needs 16 weeks because of the unemployment rate changing from month to month.
That is a hardship, Mr. Speaker. It can be because of a different change in the month-because the applicant is not a repeater within that year and therefore really only needs the entrance requirement in order to receive benefits. Unfortunately, he should have received benefits in the last two years or else he would be penalized and would have to receive 20 weeks. Or it could be that the changes occurred in the type of area they were going from. The application of the variable entrance requirements to constituents makes the manpower office deal with an individual case instead of the unit. In other words, there is not one case that comes into an office that is exactly the same. There may be a differing element during the course of the day, the present delivery services faced with maybe seeing 20 cases and there being 20 different elements to the way a person deals with it. For instance, it could be a repeater, a new person who has come into the work force, or someone who has not collected unemployment insurance benefits in the last year.
In my opinion there is a need to state a definite time period in which claimants must work. If there are higher unemloy-ment insurance rates in some areas of the country, fine, I say
2824

Unemployment Insurance Act
make allowances. If there are lower unemployment insurance rates across the country, make allowances, but remember that when economic regions are being put together and you are coming up with an unemployment rate that one part of that economic region is so harshly treated in the use of that unemployment rate in terms of the variable entrance requirements, and repeaters, the commission certainly should be able to make some commitment to the people of that area, in other words, to give them a definite time period for which they must work and know now instead of in December.
In the month of May the entrance requirements will not be as heavy on the claimant as they would be in the month of December because of the three-month-old statistics. I have already said that the commission seems to be able to come up with changes when it wants to see the changes. Last year, eighteen months ago, we were telling the commission it could not go to 20 hours a week because it would hurt a wide group of Canadians. But we have to change this year. Members of Parliament should be told what the changes should be, namely, the people who are concerned with that element of the people. While we have an unemployment insurance program it seems to me that maybe some people opposite want to slim it down, but while there is an unemployment insurance program in operation, let it be done fairly and equitably, but it is not being done fairly or equitably.
I come back to the point of the 15 hours. It may happen in the small rural communities that a plant will be able to provide ten hours this week and ten hours next week. I ask why not combine that time and give one stamp for the 20 hours instead of putting it back to 15 hours when it is generally the case they cannot get the 15 hours if there is no fish or if the plant is not working? There are several other areas I feel strongly about respecting the way this act has come in and its amendments. We have been told by the minister that there will be a task force for 18 months. I have been told that we are reviewing the unemployment insurance program for the last three years, and yet we have amendment upon amendment and it will continue unless the commission is going to base itself on the facts which the members of Parliament are going to show them. It seems to me that this is a useless process. It is hurting the individual. The people who are more aware of it are the members of Parliament.
I am not certain whether or not the task force will be useful. We will have to wait and see. But I know that during the time period, whether it is 18 months, two years or five years, the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it stands today, basing itself on statistic regions, is not one that can be looked at across the board as being a fair application.
If one looks at the economic regions, and takes one area, for instance, South West Nova based in Moncton with Lunenburg, what does it do to Lunenburg? It gives it a higher rate of unemployment. It is a highly industrialized area. It has very few economic problems as such. But there the people will have a lower entrance requirement than if the actual facts were being looked at. You could look at another economic region where there is high unemployment, such as the one that
July 11, 1980
includes Truro, Nova Scotia. Truro is not affected by the variable entrance requirements. It is not affected for the repeater provisions because its unemployment rate is lumped in with an area that has high unemployment. I am stating that in terms of South West Nova you can start by lumping them together but the actual payout by the commission is going to be higher one way or the other. Therefore you are not really looking, if you want to put it in the minds of the opposition, at who should be receiving the benefits under this program.
When you have a program such as this you cannot have an application straight across the board without having the commission look at specific areas and define certain regions as requiring a different unemployment rate.
Each time that I have spoken either in committee or in the House I have tried to show that these provisions, the extension of the variable entrance requirements for the 18 months, are harsh as they affect certain areas. There should be a time for which today, if it is 16 weeks a person must earn, that person should know that it will be 16 weeks. In the month of December people cannot be told that it is 19 weeks based on an unemployment insurance rate of September when there is full employment. The effect on individuals is harsh. While we have an unemployment insurance program, as we do today, we cannot have provisions which are not treating all areas of high unemployment in the same way.
For the many reasons about which I have spoken in the past, 1 must say I am disappointed to see that this bill will pass the House without Parliament having found solutions to the problems which I have said have created inequitable treatment, something which I feel is unwarranted for the next two years.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words to what the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) has already said. I agree with much of what she has had to say regarding this bill. There are inequities inherent in a variable entrance program. She has mentioned that the variable entry with respect to time creates some inherent injustices. I would add, and she may have mentioned this earlier, that there is also some injustice when it is based on geographical districts. Someone who qualifies on one side of the street may be different from someone who qualifies on the other side of the street.
However, I would like to point out that the most inequitable legislation and regulation can be modified and softened if the right kind of personnel are in the unemployment insurance or manpower offices. I am afraid that that kind of human approach to people on unemployment insurance is being lost in our manpower centres today. I come particularly to the point of the regrouping of the offices, that is, the combining of the manpower offices with the UIC offices. I remember a few years ago when we were debating that legislation in this House and the former member for Timiskaming was suggesting that he remembered the times when the UIC and manpower offices were together and you could see the unemployment board, the jobs wanted board, and the jobs available board, all in the one
July 11, 1980

office. There was an attitude of efficiency in that kind of a system.
Today we have a different technology in society and the way in which the government is bringing those two systems together, I think, is destroying the manpower system. In the unemployment insurance system we have a computer-organized system really. We have a staff in the UIC offices who are systems oriented. They think in terms of systems and computer cards. The people who happen to be on unemployment insurance, the unemployed, are simply cases with which they have to deal in the course of their day's duties. However, the manpower people, particularly in the last years, have been people oriented rather than systems oriented. When you bring together the two offices, the UIC trained people and the manpower trained people, you have a collision course in those offices.
The UIC trained people, who have been systems oriented and computer oriented, are gaining the ascendancy in manpower offices. The irony is that the people who are supposed to be people oriented are computer card oriented. The poor, unfortunate unemployed people coming into the manpower offices expecting to meet a human face are being confronted with people who are systems oriented. The extent to which manpower offices in the last two years have been dehumanized cannot be measured. People coming into those offices have sensed an entirely different shift of attitude toward them in the last two years since the coming together of those two systems. That is the first point.
The second point deals with people working in the manpower offices and what happens to them as the people who have been in the UIC section have gained the ascendancy. The irony is that the people oriented officials in manpower who have had a sensitivity to the unemployed have tried counselling programs and tried to meet the needs of those unemployed, because they are not systems oriented people, are being shunted aside and being dealt with in the most Machiavellian way. The guillotine is falling on them. Think of what happens to these people in terms of their dignity and self-respect.
Let us consider the example of a manpower official who is 55 years old. He has done an incredibly good job in meeting the needs of the unemployed in the area. He has a human face. He has been trying to have a human approach to the unemployed who come to that manpower office. Now comes the golden-haired boy out of the UIC stream. Because he knows the boys at the top in the UIC system, he is the guy who is the frontrunner now. Imagine the 55-year-old man now having to compete for his own job after having been in the job for five, ten, 15, 20 years. Think of what that does to the dignity of that one official.
I can tell hon. members that the morale problem in manpower offices is facing a dimension it has not faced in years. Resignations and transfers are coming in from the manpower section. They are moving out of the system because they cannot stand the dehumanized approach that is being intro-
Unemployment Insurance Act
duced in the manpower centres. Rather than face the continuing ignominous treatment they are getting as the two systems are coming together, they transfer out of the system.
Think of the individual who is now having to compete for his own job, knowing full well that the job description has now been so redirected that the person who is already pre-chosen is going to win, and he is out in the cold. What does that do to him? This is what is happening in the system.
Money, manpower and human spirit are being wasted because of the callous way in which these two systems are being brought together. We have a manpower-unemployment insurance system which is calculated to help the people who are unfortunate now making their own employees victims of the clash that is going on in the combining of those two offices.
As the hon. member for South West Nova indicated, this motion is going to pass this afternoon, but it is going to pass in a very deficient way. It is not meeting the needs of Canadians, and we will live to regret that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other members who wish to speak in this debate, we in this party are prepared to consider the debate on third reading concluded. We made it clear at second reading, in the standing committee and at this third reading stage, that we are opposed to the bill. We want to register that opposition by a vote against it. I tell my hon. friend who preceded me, therefore, that the bill will not pass this afternoon, although it may pass when it does come to a vote.
As I say, we would like to have a vote on the motion for third reading. However, there is an understanding among the House leaders that any votes requested today will be deferred to some time next week, on a day to be negotiated. That being the case, if Your Honour will put the question, we will shout "Nay". There are at least five of us here to stand and request a recorded vote. I believe the other House leaders will agree with me that we are prepared to defer that vote to some day next week.


Walter David Baker: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I would need only 30 seconds. I do not want to delay the business of the House, and I do not want to prevent the question from being put. I just want to say-and I will be brief-that I fully endorse what the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) said and as far as we, the members of the four eastern provinces, are concerned, this is only the top of the first inning in a game of nine innings. We have no intention of quitting our fight for greater equity as we have done in the past with respect to the unemployment insurance program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

July 11, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement made earlier this day, the division stands deferred.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Francis):: The President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I understood an agreement had been reached but there seems to be some confusion. So 1 withdraw what I said.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there had been discussion about what we might do with private members' hour. The hon. member for Hillsborough is here and is anxious to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.
Order No. 4, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand by unanimous consent. Order No. 6, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand by unanimous consent.


ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough) moved: that Bill C-207, to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this year, 1980, is the centenary of the transfer of the Arctic Islands to Canada by Great Britain. In my view, Parliament could do no better than to mark the occasion by passing Bill C-207, an act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
As sponsor of the bill I shall, in the few minutes available to me, first describe briefly the act the bill is intended to amend. Second, I shall outline the nature of my proposed amendments, and, third, provide something of a rationale for those amendments. Allow me to begin with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. This act became law on August 2, 1972. It was introduced in order to assert Canada's sovereignty north of the 60th parallel, or at least to exercise Canada's extra-territorial jurisdiction over that vast region. The main legislative purpose was to control the employment of new technology in the north so as to maximize benefits and prevent disasters arising from that technology. The minister of Indian affairs and northern development at the time, now Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), moved the second reading of the bill. In doing so, he emphasized that Canadians must guard against "a trail of unsightly scars which might spoil the northern landscape for years to come."
The principal thrust of the bill introduced on that date was to prevent pollution of Canada's Arctic waters caused by shipping, land installations and commercial activities, for example, oil drilling carried out on the continental shelf. Among other things it prohibited the deposit of waste in Arctic waters, in the Arctic Islands and on the mainland, except under certain special conditions. It has a bias toward the prevention of pollution. For example, there are provisions giving pollution prevention officers authority not only to suggest or require modifications to works perceived to be a threat to the environment but also to prohibit works so regarded. The act also contemplates pollution arising from accidents and unforeseen situations and provides for civil liability in these circumstances. And it addresses the question of clean-up costs and damages.
I wish, now, to make a few general observations about that legislation in the context of my own bill to amend the act. My first observation is that the act was very hastily prepared. It followed the voyage of the American oil tanker Manhattan, which successfully completed its pioneering voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage. That voyage alerted Canada, and the Canadian government in particular, to environmental dangers in the Arctic and to the possibility of Canadian sovereignty being jeopardized. Though the act became law in August of 1972, it had been on the books for some two years before that date. Indeed, it was debated in Parliament as early
July 11, 1980

as April 16, 1970. Thus the original act, the one I am proposing to amend, effectively predated the establishment of the Department of the Environment by a couple of years, a fact which explains why the department was left out of the enforcement provisions.
The purpose of Bill C-207 is to place the Department of the Environment front and centre, where it belongs, in Arctic waters pollution prevention. The present law gives responsibility for the enforcement of the act to various ministers. More accurately, under section 26, the governor in council is empowered to delegate authority under the act. What happened was this: by an order in council dated May 14, 1971, those powers were delegated to three departments. Responsibility for dealing with pollution caused by shipping was allocated to the Department of Transport; responsibility for control of waste deposits was assigned to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. The basic problem with such a delegation is that too many departments are now actively engaged in pollution control in the north-at least five when other acts are considered. This situation has led to enormous confusion for industry, government and others. It has confused people as to where responsibility lies. By the same token, it has proliferated authority and thereby seriously weakened accountability. The resultant duplication and overlapping of authority and initiative have hampered effective action to control pollution in the Arctic and in the north generally. My bill seeks, first, to streamline administrative responsibility for the control and prevention of pollution in the north.
Second, and even more important, the bill will transfer responsibility for environmental protection in the Arctic from government departments having a vested interest in industrial development to the Department of the Environment, which does not have such an interest. Indeed, the Department of the Environment was established because the government of the day recognized the danger of assigning environmental assessments to "proponents" of development such as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the Speech from the Throne in 1970, we find the following words:
There is an inherent conflict of interest. . . between those who are seeking the exploitation of non-renewable resources and those who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment.
Yet the Department of the Environment has never been named as an administrator or even as a co-operating agency for the enforcement of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Because of the conflict of interest arising from the same people being responsible for industrial development and pollution protection, we find there is a great deal of rightful dissatisfaction with measures being taken to combat pollution in the Arctic. Is it any wonder that the government's performance to date in protecting the Arctic environment has been so severely criticized by environmental organizations, by scientists, and even by its own officials?
The most obvious example of this neglect and deficiency relates to resource exploration and development by Dome
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
Petroleum Limited and its subsidiary Canadian Marine Drilling Limited-Canmar, as it is known-in the Beaufort Sea region. The government received applications from Dome Petroleum in respect of certain projects in late June, 1979. They concerned facilities at McKinley Bay for an over-wintering harbour, at Tuk harbour for a deep harbour entrance, and at Wise Bay for a fuelling staging area.
I do not want to get into too much detail about the complexities of the environmental procedures followed in such cases. Let me simply summarize by saying that first there is the initial environmental screening to determine whether any project has significant environmental consequences. A second and later procedure is the formal environmental assessment and review, which applies to major projects and which is brought into the picture if the initial screening identifies a significant environmental impact. All this is co-ordinated by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office of the Department of the Environment. It is called FEARO. The catch is that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the federal government's principal operating arm in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. There is clear evidence that that department has been successful in getting the federal government to approve the applications I have mentioned, and others, too, without assessments as to their environmental consequences.
It has done so against the advice of even its own frontline advisory bodies. I have in mind the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee, AWAC; and the Regional Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee, RODAC. The latter, RODAC, recommended, for example, the deferral of issuance of any ocean-dumping or associated land-use permits for dredging or harbour development at McKinley Bay-I use that as an illustration- "until the initial environmental evaluation report has been filed by the company and assessed by the government". Yet that permit, and others, were issued in late August, within weeks of being applied for without such a procedure having been followed.
The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, in an excellent study by Dr. William Rees published in Northern Perspectives, sums up the situation succinctly, and I quote from that study as follows:
The over-all conclusion pertaining to EARP is inescapable. Given the "ludicrous" time-frame, skimpy data base, and direct interference from Ottawa, the best efforts of AWAC/RODAC could not satisfy the minimal requirements of a rigorous and effective screening process.
The findings of Dr. Rees are well supported in a confidential report I was able to obtain recently of the government's own Arctic Waters.Advisory Committee. That report, which I have in my hand now, is dated February 8, 1980. I do not have time to quote extensively from the report, but let me just highlight a few of its findings and alarming details. Among other things it says:
Government decision-making processes resulting in approvals for land-based support facilities, and dredging for the approach to Tuk and inside McKinley

July 11, 1980
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
Bay, did not meet the minimum standards for adequate environmental review and assessment.
Another quote which has relevance to this point is the following:
It appears that senior officials in Ottawa .. . decided to "avoid any time-consuming and administrative hindrances" in securing the necessary approvals for the proponent (Canmar).
Yet another quotation reads as follows:
Recommendations that were specific and required standards of performance from Canmar or more thorough review which might have caused delays were not implemented or were significantly altered by Ottawa to make them ineffective.
Finally:
The compromise of the environmental review processes has potentially jeopardized not only the environment but the governmental review and decisionmaking processes as well.
That is very alarming information and those are very alarming findings indeed. The message, clearly, is that the government must be able to manage the total social and physical environment in the Arctic, and it is not doing so in the face of the influx of southern technologies.
The Arctic covers over 40 per cent of the territory of our country. Although vast, it is the most environmentally vulnerable region in all of Canada. Because of the frigid climate and other physical factors, a major oil spill or a well-site blowout- just to cite two examples-would have disastrous consequences for the delicate eco-systems up there and, in particular, for the traditional lifestyle of the native peoples who live in the area. We cannot wait until the damage has been done in the Arctic. The damage may well be irreversible. Environmental screening procedures will have to be tied more closely to the development approval process. I have in mind, especially, the need to streamline the entire process so that, both industry and government can know the rules of the game by which they must operate.
At present there are some 23 pieces of legislation to regulate activities like those of Canmar, to which I have referred. The government needs to examine a process by which a "one-window" approach to legislation and regulation can be achieved. An essential first step in that direction is my own Bill C-207. I urge all hon. members to support it but, more important, I urge not just hon. members but also all other Canadians to consider very seriously the desirability of reconciling the legitimate goal of energy self-sufficiency with environmental goals. I think the two sets of goals-economic goals and energy self-sufficiency on the one hand and environmental concerns on the other-are compatible. They are parallel and can be pursued in tandem.
Bill C-207 is intended to restore the balance between the two sets of goals. We must protect the delicate eco-systems in the Arctic and respect the interests of the native people whom all hon. members keep in mind when they think about environmental matters.
Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all hon. members to give every possible favourable consideration to supporting Bill C-207.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to comment on Bill C-207 which has been brought before the House by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). As chairman of the House of Commons permanent standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development in the late sixties I, along with Paul St. Pierre, a former member of this House from British Columbia, had a fair amount to do with making sure that our committee brought forward recommendations to the government in the form of a report which I hope at least helped to push the government into action back in 1969 to implement the original bill entitled the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
1 appreciate too the underlining of the confusion which does tend to exist about who does what with regard to protecting the Arctic from various forms of pollution which may be related to industrial activity, exploration activity, or exploitation activity. One subject which comes to mind right now is the question of liquefied natural gas which is the process of liquefying it in the Arctic Islands and then transporting it through fairly dangerous waters either to the Canadian east coast or to Europe. Some Commons committee should have a look at that question. As chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, I would like to see our committee have a look at it. However, the problem is which committee of the House has the responsibility for it. Is it the committee on Transport, the committee on National Resources and Public Works, the committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or the committee which is responsible for the environment? There are at least four committees which might have a kick at that can, and perhaps it is a matter of who gets there first. In any event, it is a subject matter which I hope one of the committees of the House will consider.
However, I am not convinced, even after listening to the very well developed speech of the hon. member opposite, that what is suggested in his bill would necessarily lead to a more effective use of the manpower available in the various government departments. The question has to be put: is it feasible at this stage to move people out of transport and out of other ministries where they have other roles to a specific and sole role under the proposal of the hon. member for Hillsborough. Having said that, I will make some comments on the bill. [Translation]
The legislation proposes that the powers and responsibilities now vested in the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) be transferred to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). While recognizing the multiple nature of the various functions connected with these collective powers and responsibilities, it is convenient at this point that the matter of powers and responsibilities under the specific provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act only be covered,
July 11, 1980

namely those directly concerned with shipping in Arctic waters and now exercised by the Minister of Transport. The passing of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was due in part to the recognition by Parliament of recent progress in the exploitation of Arctic resources and their transportation to world markets.
At the time the act was passed, Parliament took a commitment to ensure that shipping in Arctic waters adjacent to land and Canadian Arctic islands would be totally compatible with Canada's responsibility to maintain the special environmental balance of waters, ice covered surfaces and land surfaces of the Canadian Arctic. In addition to the above objectives, certain powers and responsibilities were delegated to the Minister of Transport under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. These are:
First, the power under section 5(2) of the act, to require that the master of any ship report the deposit of waste or any condition of distress that could lead to the deposit of waste; second, the power under section 6(2) of the act to direct that action be taken by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada to repair or remedy any condition that results from a deposit of waste by any ship or to reduce or mitigate any damage to or destruction of life or property that may result from such deposit of waste.
Third, the power under subsection 8(1 )(e/) of the act to require the owner of any ship that navigates within any shipping safety control zone specified by the governor in council and, subject to certain limitations, the owner of the cargo of any such ship, to provide evidence of financial responsibility, in a form satisfactory to the minister and in an amount determined in the manner provided by regulations established under the act; fourth, the power, under subsection 13(1) of the act, to cause the ship or any cargo or other material on board the ship to be destroyed, if necessary, or to be removed if possible to such place and sold in such manner as the minister may direct; fifth, the power, under subsection 14(1), and subject to the provisions of subsection 26(2) of the act, to designate any person as a pollution prevention officer with such powers as are set out in subsections 15(1) and 15(2) of the act. In addition, the Minister of Transport is being required to ensure that all persons designated as pollution prevention officers are authorized to exercise the powers vested in them in the manner specified at the time of their appointment.

In addition to the foregoing powers and authority, and as a direct result of the exigencies thereof, the Minister of Transport has, through the Department of Transport, customarily been responsible for the formulation, administration and enforcement of regulations relating to navigation in shipping safety control zones under section 12 of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. These regulations relate to a broad spectrum of activities concerning the design, construction, equipping, manning and operation of ships destined for naviga-
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
tion in the shipping safety control zones of the Arctic and are designed to assure fully the protection of the Arctic environment from the potential effects of both normal ship operations and shipping accidents or collisions.
Among the seven completed regulation projects pursuant to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the major one consists of the Arctic shipping pollution prevention regulations. This set of regulations lays down the specific technical requirements to fulfil the general objectives of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and contains particular specifications with respect to the following: detailed construction techniques and materials relating to ice strengthening of ships; operational parameters for ships; construction of machinery and equipment and electronic and other navigational aids and equipment including radio and telecommunications equipment; the nature and construction of propelling power and appliances and fittings for steering and stabilizing; training, competence and certification of ship personnel for navigation in ice-infested waters; with respect to any type of cargo, the maximum quantity thereof allowed to be carried, the method of stowage; the nature, type and quantities of supplies and equipment to be carried for use in repairing or remedying any condition that may result from the deposit of any cargo in Arctic waters; the maps, charts, tide tables and any other documents or publications relating to navigation in the Arctic waters to be carried; details concerning both icebreaker support and ice routing in the Arctic waters as well as ice navigator specifications.
In short, the regulations all pertain to matters concerning the operation of ships as weli as safety of life and environment in the Arctic waters.
Two major facets of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act must be understood if the act is to continue to be an effective instrument.
First, in order to ensure the effective carrying out of the mandate, which is the core of the act, and while there are unquestionably several other concerns involved in the act, such as natural resources and energy development, sociological impact on native peoples and the environment, there is a predominent, specific need-and this is what is important and, I am afraid, what is deficient in the proposal of the hon, member opposite-for highly specialized and particular technical expertise in the fields of naval architecture, marine engineering, navigational science and vessel operation techniques. These fields of expertise have been developed over time and presently reside uniquely within Transport Canada as the result of its broad range of responsibilities in the marine transportation field. In this aspect, I am confident that members of the House would agree that it would be counterproductive to divest Transport Canada of its present mandate or to transfer that mandate to any other single department which does not possess the same over-all capability and expertise.
I also want to submit that while the Department of the Environment has a general mandate with respect to the envi-

July 11, 1980
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
ronmental issues, it has not developed and could not develop within an acceptable time-frame the operational and scientific expertise requisite for the regulation of shipping and prevention of operational or accidental shipborne pollution. As for measures subsequent to incidents of pollution involving shipping, while both the Department of the Environment and Transport Canada possess co-ordinated contingency plans for pollution clean-up, Transport Canada has evidenced the propriety of its mandate under the act by its demonstrated capability and experience.
In summary, if prevention of pollution is effectively to remain as a prime objective and concern, Transport Canada's experience and expertise dictate that it is the most appropriate department with which responsibility should rest for that part of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
The second major facet of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act which must be understood is that, in so far as it relates to ships and shipping, the provisions of the act relating to pollution prevention and safety of life at sea closely parallel those under the Canada Shipping Act. In fact this is so much so that regulations under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act refer directly to the Canada Shipping Act and regulations thereunder.
While a nominal legal distinction exists between the two acts, there is in practical terms a very close familial link between them in their origins, the areas they cover, and in the expertise required to administer them, with the result that the two acts are inextricably intertwined. It would not therefore be advisable to transfer responsibility for the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act from Transport Canada because such an artificial administrative separation could only lead to undesirable inefficiences, profligacy of resources, and possibly inconsistency of policy.
In conclusion, it is submitted that based on all the foregoing, no change in the administrative responsibility for the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is warranted and, therefore, the status quo should be maintained with Transport Canada continuing in its responsibilities vis-a-vis the act and with the Minister of Transport continuing in his delegated function vis-a-vis the act.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this subject. I have to agree with the last speaker when it comes to the matter of transferring the jurisdiction under this act from where it resides at the present with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). It seems only natural to me that all aspects of shipping should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.
Most of the technical matters with which we are dealing when discussing Arctic pollution prevention deal with things such as the design of the hull of the vessels, the methods of propelling those vessels, the quantities of the various commodities which the vessels carry, the manner in which the cargo is stored, and the types of navigational equipment which must be carried by those vessels when operating in those waters.
Those, to me, would seem to be logical areas which should come under the Minister of Transport.
If we were to transfer jurisdiction for this one area to a different ministry, then I would think that it would require much duplication. We would have vessels being inspected by people from the coastguard and people from environment. Surely this is something which we would want to avoid. It is necessary for us to pass regulations to enable inspections to take place, and that is only right and proper, but at the same time we should make sure that those people who undergo the inspections are subjected to as little duplication as possible. They should be able to get away with one inspection, instead of two inspections by two different people who would be looking at very much the same thing.
This subject is important, because if one looks to the future, to the next ten years to 20 years, the volume of shipping in the Arctic will undoubtedly increase. We can look forward to a day when there will be commercial usage of the Northwest Passage, and one of these days it will be a world major waterway. We can look forward to the development of liquefied gas tankers and oil tankers operating in the Arctic. There are evident dangers involved in this situation, so it is something to which we should address our minds.
1 believe that there is a need for better navigational aids in the Arctic. I am told that the electronic navigational aids presently in use are probably not as good as those in use on the east coast and the west coast. These aids should be upgraded, but this will cost money and take time. It is something into which the Government of Canada should be looking.
One of the areas which the Department of the Environment should be looking at in this situation is in fields such as ice reconnaissance and meteorology. If we want to put the ships through the easiest, least risky route, then we need good systems of ice reconnaissance, and to forecast weather conditions in that part of Canada.
So far we have avoided any major oil spills or pollution in the Arctic, and I hope that this will continue. I would like to compliment the public servants who are involved in inspection and regulation in the Arctic. I think by and large they have done a pretty good job and that they are continuing to do so. Most of the marine and land operators in the Arctic take a pretty responsible position because they do not want any major environmental mishaps either. Sometimes we are overly critical of these people who act on our behalf with respect to inspection in this part of the country.
Of course, such work is not completely risk free. If we want to develop oil and gas resources in the north, there will always be some risk involved. One of our goals should be to weigh those risks. We must be prepared to take some risks while at the same time we must do our best to make sure that major mishaps do not occur. Although the present system could be modified somewhat, it is a good system of co-ordinating committees that look after the interests of various government departments that have the responsibility in that area.
July 11, 1980

Those are my few comments on this bill. 1 think, by and large, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is being administered reasonably well but we must continue to monitor it as more and more shipping goes through Arctic waters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation)


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, as proposed by Bill C-207, does not seem to correspond to the nature and objectives of the act. The suggested transfer of the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is doubtless founded on an erroneous interpretation of the act considered solely from the point of view of pollution prevention.
In fact, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was conceived as the perfect tool for protecting and managing our resources. Administering the whole therefore requires a multidisciplinary approach. The act, as formulated, aims at serving the exceptional needs of the north. On April 16, 1970, the hon. Jean Chretien, then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, described this act to the House as a legitimate and necessary extension offshore of the jurisdiction of Canada over an area which concerns Canada only, in his opinion the act should continue to reflect the past policies of the successive governments of Canada to protect Canadian interests north of the 60th parallel, for the natives living there, for the untapped resources we want to develop there for the benefit of all Canadians, and for the natural quality of the land and water that cover more than 40 per cent of the Canadian territory. In expounding this theme, Mr. Chretien stressed that the effect of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act would be to have people understand that the northwest passage should be open to ships from all countries, providing on the other hand the necessary conditions to protect the fragile environmental balance of the Canadian Arctic and to set out clearly for all countries the requirements under which Canada, as a coastal state and because of its exceptional responsibilities to safeguard the northern environment, would welcome foreign ships in its waters.
In passing the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Parliament supported the point of view that that act is not only a legislative instrument for the prevention of water pollution but also an instrument of resource management to help in the pursuit of a complex set of objectives, including national security and sovereignty as well as economic expansion-the answer to the social and political aspirations of the residents of the north, as well as the development of the transportation technology to support those objectives. Such a major thrust
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act requires, of course, a broad variety of expertise and experience in the responsible agencies. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must first enforce the sections of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act not dealing with navigation since it has long been the responsibility of the department to meet the particular and varied needs of northern Canada as a whole and he had already put in place the necessary administrative and judicial provisions. Parliament recognized the direct relationship between the act and all maritime transportation in the north by appointing the Minister of Transport to share the responsibilities of implementing the act with the Minister of Indian /vffairs and Northern Development.
In the decade just ended, since the passage of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, we have seen many changes and considerable progress. One of the more striking examples is, of course, the huge effort by industry, supported and regulated by the government of Canada, to explore and develop the vast hydrocarbon potential in the Arctic waters; the discoveries in the Beaufort Sea and in the waters which surround the Arctic Islands, as well as very promising indications in the offshore areas of eastern Arctic have shown the importance of these resources for the future of Canada. The development of the Nanisivik mine on Baffin Island has given us an idea of the potential for mining development in the north.
These developments and potential for future economic development in both Canadian and American jurisdictions have brought about increasing pressures for the creation of a more effective and economically viable transportation infrastructure to get the oil, natural gas and minerals of these new facilities to the market. The Canadian Arctic waters have therefore acquired a significant importance for a variety of new interests, and this increased importance has brought about a greater awareness of pollution due to accidents. Regulated prevention of such accidents has therefore become more critical than when the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was first passed.
On the other hand, the aspirations and political and social requirements of northern residents have become more complex and more important. Through this legislation, the minister is able both to manage the basic resources and to reconcile this objective with other orientations such as independent energy sources and the development of natural resources. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his officials are now negotiating a variety of claims made by groups which represent the native people of Canada. Several of these claims concern the control of the territories now governed and regulated under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. For instance, the Inuit have always based the whole of their society and economy on the harvesting of wild life resources which depend directly or indirectly on the Arctic waters, and any regulation concerning these resources must

Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act therefore be considered relevant to the final legal settlement of the claims presented by the Inuit to the government.
Another important goal which is being disputed now in northern Canada is the tendency towards decentralization of powers from the federal government to the governments of the territories. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been encouraging for a long time the development of both governments of the territories, directing the process from the start when the north was completely dependent on Ottawa, through the establishment of legislatures in both capitals of the territories, namely Yellowknife and Whitehorse, and through the decentralization of many ministerial responsibilities in favour of the areas to which they have applied up to date and it is now considering actively other steps towards the ultimate goal of establishing responsible governments north of the 60th parallel, as soon as it is feasible, while protecting the rights of all residents of the north. While considering native claims and the decentralization of legislative powers which are crucial and complex matters, we should endeavour very cautiously not to upset the present balance. We should certainly have a specific approach to that matter of power-sharing between the federal departments which are active in the north, in order to avoid complicating matters which are already very complex.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is now responsible for a wide variety of social, economic and legal realities in the north, including the management and the development of resources and for negotiating any change in those realities, is heading the department which is best able to assume that role, because of the scope and variety of his experience and of his competence in dealing with problems related to matters of a very complex nature which are sometimes interrelated and conflicting. In his capacity as minister currently responsible for the government of northern Canada, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is also the most able to establish and enforce regulations and standards in those areas.
During the ten years since the enactment of the legislation, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has viewed the act as a tool for managing the tremendous resources contained in Arctic waters and the biological, physical and human resources that depend upon them. In co-operation with the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which share responsibility for enforcing the act and attendant regulations, the increasing uses of resources have been carefully managed as an interconnected whole. By definition, Arctic waters pollution prevention is a basic objective of that managing effort.
However, the sound managing of resources with a view to obtaining the maximum possible uses, both immediate and long term, without endangering the rights and aspirations of
July 11, 1980
northern residents, is the over-all objective, of which pollution prevention is but an aspect. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that amendments to the act could be suggested in light of the experience gained over a decade of careful and highly successful management. However, removing the responsibility for implementing the act from groups that developed it does not appear to be an appropriate change.
The skills offered by the Department of the Environment in the various aspects connected with the management and protection of the environment are unchallenged, and the assistance and advice of its officials, whose reputation is well recognized, is always invaluable. However, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also has these skills, acquired in recognizing and meeting the unique needs for managing and protecting the exceptional Arctic environment. Those specialized skills in the disciplines connected with the environment combine with other pertinent disciplines to enable the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to face complex multidisciplinary problems. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act indeed covers such a question and should therefore continue under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as originally provided for. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the three members representing our great Canadian north, who already are familiar with the problem, the complexity of relations between the various groups, the people and the central government, would wish to deal with people already aware of and in the north, rather then newcomers who would have to start from scratch.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted my colleagues and I understand there is agreement that private members' hour be considered as terminated at this point and that we revert to statements by ministers in a few moments, if necessary, after the ruling by Madam Speaker.
If we return to statements by ministers, I will have something to say first before the minister makes his statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have spoken to him this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I was told that Madam Speaker is ready to render her decision. However, if she is not ready, we will go on with private members' hour. I was told just a few moments ago that she was ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion is created by the reference made to reverting to statements by ministers. I think if we revert to routine proceedings, it will fill the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we revert to routine proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 11, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: 1 will now rule on the point of order that was raised earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The hon. member raised a point of order to say that the procedure followed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was not the correct procedure.
The hon. member says that the ways and means motion proposes to amend the Petroleum Administration Act which was not initiated by a ways and means motion. The hon. member is probably aware that the parent act was in fact initiated by both a ways and means motion and the notice of motion for introduction with an accompanying royal recommendation. But he is, of course, correct when he says that the provision of the parent act which is now to be amended was not covered in the original ways and means motion.
There has been considerable argument about the legality of the particular procedures which the minister is choosing in the present case, but the House will know that the Chair can never pronounce upon issues of a legal nature, it can rule only on questions of order. Therefore I must return to the precise point of order involved in this issue, that is to say, has the minister acted within the ambit of the standing order in tabling a notice of ways and means motion. The substance of that motion, or the effect of that notice, can be of no concern to the Chair. Hon. members will be aware that our records will show that there are many ways and means motions which were never adopted.
I therefore must find that the procedures followed so far have been in order. However, this does not preclude the Chair from entertaining further points of order in connection with the matter at further stages in the process.
I want to close by thanking hon. members for their careful attention and assistance to the Chair in this difficult point of procedure.
The House had agreed that we would revert to statements by ministers after this ruling. It is the pleasure of the House to revert now to statements by ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.
Price of Petroleum


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would seek agreement to revert to statements by ministers. Of course under the standing orders you have the required discretion to limit the proceedings, taking into consideration the interventions made up to now. As for us, we fully agree that the House should have the opportunity to ask questions of the minister. We hope that after some discussions with my colleagues, the proceedings will not be extended past six o'clock and adjourned even before if possible.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the discussions that we had. It is our hope that that is not so either. It is difficult to predict, as my colleague knows, because we have not yet heard the minister's statement. However, I want to assure you, Madam Speaker, that there will be nothing to protract any proceedings inordinately that may follow out of this statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my contribution to this not being prolonged is simply to say that we agree.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: In any event I would have to obtain the unanimous consent of the House in a few minutes not to see the clock. I will hear the minister but in a few minutes I will have to interrupt him for that reason.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, to make things easier for you, perhaps I could point out that it is already five o'clock. Perhaps you might seek the unanimous consent of the House so that we can proceed?


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that the Chair should not see the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have the unanimous consent of the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am glad the House agreed that we can take some additional time to debate and discuss this notice of ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. This should give time to the House to examine all the aspects of the particular motion and its implications.

Price of Petroleum The motion itself reads:
That it is expedient to amend the Petroleum Administration Act to provide that, effective midnight, July 11, 1980, the charge imposed, levied and collected on
(a)	each barrel of domestic petroleum received for processing or consumption in Canada, and
(b)	each barrel of foreign petroleum or petroleum product imported into Canada for processing, consumption, sale or other use in Canada
(c)	in any month shall be in such amount, not exceeding one dollar and seventy-five cents, as may be prescribed in a tariff of charges for that month made by order of the governor in council.
As the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) noted before in his point of order, this amends a similar provision in the Petroleum Administration Act which contains similar features.
Pursuant to that ways and means motion, I have today sent a notice to all refiners in the oil industry in general advising the industry of the tabling of this ways and means motion. According to parliamentary tradition and precedence, I am asking the payers of the levy, essentially the refiners, to remit on this basis pending parliamentary approval.
As was usual in the past when such increases have taken place, if approval is not obtained, we have a ways and means motion asking the House for increases in payments by the public or parts of the public. If approval is not obtained by the government from Parliament, the excess money collected will be refunded.
With regard to the increase in the levy, as I indicated this morning when we were debating the question of privilege and we had the opportunity of going a little outside the strict ambit of the question of privilege, the impact is to increase from $1, which was set at the ceiling in the Petroleum Administration Act, to SI.75 the charge on every barrel of petroleum, domestic or foreign, that is processed in Canada.
The charge itself is put in the amendment, as in the act, as a maximum. It is set by order in council on a monthly basis according to the necessity of providing the necessary funds to cover the petroleum compensation revolving fund about which I would like to say a word. The petroleum compensation revolving fund represents a charge on the consolidated revenue fund. As I indicated in the debate on the question of privilege, it is used to pay the additional price that is paid to the two companies in Canada, Syncrude and Suncor, which exploit tar sands and produce oil from the tar sands. At the present time that charge is the difference between roughly $37 and $14.75.
As hon. members know, those companies are now producing at a record rate, for which we are very happy. We hope this type of production will continue in the future. After having met some difficulties in production in the latter part of last year and the beginning of this year, Syncrude is now announcing record production and the Suncor plant is producing at full capacity.
The fund at the present time is in the red by roughly $75 million. In order for the fund to break even at the end of this fiscal year, it will be necessary to add this additional charge of
July 11, 1980
75 cents a barrel. It is expected that at the end of the fiscal year the fund will have broken even. It is then a matter for the government to adjust the levy according to the needs for the fund in order to ensure that the revolving fund is not unduly in deficit.
As hon. members know, this process has been in operation since at least July, 1978. Various adjustments have been made to it since. Adjustments were made in July, 1978, January 1, August 30 and November 1, 1979, and April 1, 1980. In the space of the last two years, there have been five different adjustments to this levy rate in order to collect the funds necessary from the general consumption of petroleum in order to raise the money necessary to compensate what is owed to Syncrude and Suncor.
Certain questions were raised in the debate this morning about the impact on the provinces and the oil industry. I want it to be quite clear that by this particular measure there is no impact on the industry or on provincial revenue or expenditures as far as that is concerned. There is an agreement at the present time with the oil sands companies to the effect that the government is paying the international price for their production. A couple of months ago, I served a notice of intention to invoke a force majeure clause under the agreement with Syncrude and to invoke a general clause for review of the fees with Suncor. I also indicated at that time that while our negotiations were being carried on with the producing provinces, the tar sands companies would continue to receive the international price. This has been going on since notice was given. It will continue until there is a resolution of the present discussions that are taking place.
One thing is quite clear. The companies under any account or regime will be receiving appreciably more than what is being paid for conventional oil even if they were not receiving the international price. Therefore, there will continue to be a need for some form of revenue collection by the federal government in order to raise the funds necessary to pay to those companies the difference between whatever price will be arrived at for conventional oil, and what price will have to be paid for tar sands oil.
As far as the provinces are concerned, in this particular case the province of Alberta, whatever royalty is owed is owed under the terms of the agreement, whether the federal government has the money in the fund for it or not. If it does not have it in the revolving fund, it has to get it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and pay it out of general taxpayers' money.
A point of order was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary South about payments to the government of Alberta. I have checked and it is true that up until now Syncrude has not paid royalties to the government of Alberta. The accounting is not completed but it is expected that this year Syncrude will be in a position to start paying royalties to the government of Alberta.
With regard to the second plant, Suncor, that plant pays to the government of Alberta 1 3 per cent of its revenues. 1 am told this is roughly equivalent to about $5 a barrel on its
July 11, 1980

production on the basis of a world price of $37. I am sorry if there was some misunderstanding on each side in this respect, but at the present time some royalties are being paid to the government of Alberta out of the tar sands production. It is out of the Suncor plant, not the Syncrude plant, but it is expected that it will come out of the Syncrude plant during the course of this year.
As this is purely a levy, tax or charge that goes into the revolving fund, I want to point out that no impact on the market should be felt because it does not change the position of any company at the present time. Syncrude and Suncor will continue to receive exactly what they were receiving this morning and yesterday. There has been no change at all by this ways and means motion in the financial position of any particular firm in the oil industry.
I can understand why some misunderstanding might have arisen this morning out of a bare reading of the ways and means motion. Some concern was expressed about the impact of this measure being felt more in the east than the west or more in the west than the east. I want again to reassure my friends that this measure has no differential regional impact. It results in an increase of about half a cent per litre in oil products, wherever they are in Canada. There is no difference at all in terms of its regional distribution. The charges are exactly the same everywhere, and as I indicated it means that the revolving fund, the fund for the tar sands production, is going to be put back in a self-financing position rather than being in the red and even at the risk of exceeding the maximum of about $200 million which I believe has been provided for under the revolving fund.
There was a danger that if the House had adjourned this fund might have exceeded the limits of its borrowing, or, if you wish, its deficit. This is the reason it was felt that in case the House were to adjourn in the next couple of weeks or couple of months-before September, let us say-steps should be taken to ensure that the fund would not find itself in a position where it would have exceeded its authority in terms of maximum borrowing.
I do not wish to take too much of the time of the House since I understand the leaders of the various parties in the House have agreed that we should try not to sit beyond six o'clock. 1 shall be happy to entertain questions after various members have spoken. I am glad to see that we are recovering the time that may have been lost in the debate on the question of privilege and I apologize if there has been any misunderstanding arising out of the bare reading of this particular motion. I regret any misunderstanding which may have occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, may I thank the minister for his statement and wonder what kind of day this might have been had it started differently. However, although acknowledging that the minister has, some five or six
Price of Petroleum
hours too late, come around to making this statement, 1 should point out it does not really excuse the procedure and approach which have been used, unless, of course, it leads to the change of behaviour which we all hope for. I think this should be re-emphasized because it really goes to the heart of what this institution is about and to the heart of how the public views Parliament and the respect in which it is held.
The procedure was abysmal. What has happened, apparently, is the imposition of a tax in excess of $500 million. It is a very significant tax with a significant and important impact on the economy of Canada. Imagine the outrage if the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) were to introduce an income tax change of that magnitude using this kind of procedure, or a sales tax change, or an excise tax change, or any kind of change involving in excess of $500 million to be taken out of the pockets of consumers in one way or another and redistributed by government in accordance with the law or its own will. That is a very significant step.
There are long traditions-hundreds of years of tradition- setting out the proper way to deal with that kind of imposition by the Crown. Proper procedures were simply not followed today, in spite of what the legal, fine print might say. If, in fact, that is to be the procedure and approach-to do whatever the fine print allows you to do-then we are in for a very chaotic two or three years within which not much will be accomplished.
We as a party-and I believe the NDP too, if my memory serves me right-agreed with the establishment of a tax in the first instance. There is no question that back in 1974, when the Syncrude matter first came up, it was a tax. It was not a levy. A tax was imposed to subsidize the Syncrude plant to give it the difference between the domestic and the world price. That was a tax which had a ways and means motion attached to it.
Subsequently the government and the then minister of energy, the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, decided, for whatever reasons-perhaps because the government wished to create the impression it was holding down expenditures-to take this significant government expenditure out of the consolidated revenue fund and put it aside into a revolving fund. It no longer showed up in the blue book of estimates and no longer showed up in the monthly accounts. It no longer automatically increased government spending, which was the reality of the situation, and this enabled the minister and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and others to claim that in a period of restraint they are holding down expenditures. That was the rationale for establishing this revolving fund outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund and defining it as a levy as opposed to a tax.
1 am very clear about this. I can refer the hon. member to discussions in committee where, whenever I attempted to use the word "tax", the deputy minister, then Mr. Gordon Mac-Nabb, corrected me. He would say: "No, no, no, it is not a tax, it is a levy." We agreed to that procedure. We agreed because there was a limit of a dollar which seemed reasonable. But it has been raised, and raised very significantly. It has been raised to $1.75. The impact of that is significant. It warrants

July 11, 1980
Price of Petroleum
debate; it warrants discussion; it warrants a procedure quite different from the one we saw today.
The impact at the pump? Two and a half cents. That is no big deal, but the impact at the furnace of two and a half cents is a big deal for a lot of people. The impact on Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which use oil to generate electricity is a big deal. There would be a significant impact there. The people concerned deserve to be notified by their federal government. They deserve an explanation, in advance, from their federal government.
There is no reason for this kind of covert approach. As a matter of courtesy the province of Alberta deserved to be notified. No one was notified, certainly no one in this House, certainly not the public. Suddenly, at twelve o'clock on a Friday, there is a new tax, a new procedure is implemented, a new levy, a new impact. It is very significant. We deserved to be notified.
Madam Speaker, I also have to draw attention to the real tragedy with respect to energy in this country. It is recognized that the energy situation is mixed in with the constitutional situation where there is a jurisdictional problem. There are tremendous problems in terms of price, constitutional authority and revenue distribution around the country. They require tact and diplomacy in order to be resolved. In a couple of weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Alberta will be sitting down hopefully to resolve the issue. This will require good will from the government opposite. It willalso require good will from the producing provinces. And good will is not engendered by the kind of cheap shots one finds in this document. For example, talking about the levy and the funds therefrom, the press release says:
It contributes to payment of Alberta and other royalties, capital and operating costs.
Now, that is not technically incorrect. But, Madam Speaker, the minister, if he were so inclined, might also have said that it contributes to the profits of Petro-Canada as an owner of Syncrude. It contributes to the salaries of people who are employed in that plant. It contributes to the economic benefit of the people in that part of the country. He could have said all those things. But, no, he tried, and in his remarks again he tried, to leave the implication that somehow this is a levy being imposed upon the whole country which the government is forced into and which is going into the already bulging coffers of the province of Alberta.
That is simply not true, and that kind of cheap shot, which he never ceases to grab an opportunity to use, is hardly going to make it easier for the Prime Minister and the premier to arrive at an agreement, which 1 assume everybody in this House and everybody in the country wants. I assume nobody wants a donnybrook, a fight or a constitutional crisis, but that is what is going to happen if this approach is continued to be used and if those kinds of cheap shots are continued.
I wonder what the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are thinking about now when they are faced
it
with electricity rates going up significantly as a result of this levy. Do hon. members not think there might have been a little goodwill engendered had they been warned, telephoned or told about this? It is almost a motherhood statement to say one should consult and advise and let one's peers or contemporaries who are affected know, yet that fundamental and simple thought does not seem to occur to hon. members opposite.
I was curious about the language used by the minister in his opening remarks. He said that the words of the motion are similar to those which are in the Petroleum Administration Act. They are identical. Are we now to see a different procedure again from that which we have discussed and argued? The language there seemed to imply that the government is attempting to develop some new alternative. If that is the case, I hope the government will have the good sense and common courtesy to discuss it with those on this side of the House who have responsibilities in that area, and perhaps we could get on with what the public out there expects us to do, and that is to debate and discuss rationally and act in a way which is to the benefit of the country. We should not carry on with this ridiculous procedure of bringing in new government collections through this back door procedure. These collections will have a horrendous impact.
Before closing I have to say again that another 2.5 cents a gallon has come along. There have been increases; we are going to be getting more, presumably. That underlines the absolute necessity of a coherent energy policy from this government soon, and a budget soon. Because it cannot be said often enough or loudly enough that we recognized what was happening and put in the December 11 budget provisions to help those who are affected and to help those in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island who generate their electricity from petroleum, those on low incomes and those who use heating oil to heat their homes. None of that has been forthcoming from the other side of the House. All we have had is two and a half cents here and two and a half cents there.


John Horton McDermid: Sneaky by degree.


Harvie Andre: Sneaky by degree, and the over-all impact of I that is far more horrendous to the consumers of Canada than would have been the case had the December 11 budget been adopted. It is time, for the sake of Canada, to put Canada ahead of pride. I know the government will have to do some flip-flops in order to do the right thing for Canada, but it should take the embarrassment and do the flip-flops and the right things for Canada. The country needs it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who just spoke, says that the minister should put Canada ahead of pride. I would like to see him put Canada ahead of private profit. To be frank, whether this is a tax or a levy does not really concern me. What it means is one-half cent per litre or two and a half cents per gallon, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre said. It means taking it out of the average person's pocket and putting into the pockets of oil companies.
July 11, 1980

That is what it means. It means transfering $500 million away from the average person to the oil companies.
Look at who owns what we are talking about. It is Syncrude. In Larry Pratt's book "The Tar Sands" he sets out the ownership of Syncrude. That "poor" company, Imperial Oil, owns 31.25 per cent. Gulf, that other "Canadian" company, owns 16.75 per cent. Cities Service, that other "small" outfit, owns 22 per cent. Ottawa took 15 per cent, Alberta took 10 per cent and Ontario took 5 per cent. At page 176 of his book Pratt says that the three companies have 70 per cent ownership and, interestingly, Imperial Oil has just enough equity to out-vote the three governments combined. It was a pretty rotten deal, and we are paying for it out of the taxpayers' money.
This is what this debate is really about today. As I understand the minister, the price of oil in Canada is $14.75 a barrel. The international price-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-is upwards of $38 a barrel. However, the companies in this deal, Syncrude and Suncor, were to get world prices. That was the deal negotiated for them.
The minister brought in the force majeure clause, but according to his words today they are still getting somewhere around $37 a barrel. Who is paying the difference between $14.75 a barrel and $37 a barrel? The Canadian taxpayer is paying it. Tonight at midnight he or she is going to pay an extra $500 million or so, an extra half cent a litre or an extra two and a half cents per gallon.
1 hate to say "We told you so". One does not like people who say "We told you so", but Tommy Douglas when he was the energy critic-


An hon. Member:: The Husky Oil director?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In 1974 Tommy Douglas said that the government should not go into this deal, that it would suffer for it and that prices would go way up; and that is what is happening.


Walter David Baker: Tommy Douglas is well oiled.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In 1973 the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources concluded that 30 billion barrels of tar sands oil could be extracted-hon. members should listen to these figures-at $6 a barrel, that the cost would be $8.80 by 1981 and that the yield in after-tax rate of return would be 20 per cent to the operators at $6 a barrel. The C. D. Howe Institute in another report in 1974 urged that Canadian prices rise to this level over the next four or five years to make the tar sands viable. That was $6 a barrel. The companies sponsored their research, and they said that that was not true. Alsands in its application said that the tar sands would really require $18 to $20 a barrel. Imperial Oil in Cold Lake in its application said $14.50 a barrel was required. That would produce profits.
These companies are not in the habit of understating their case. The Foster Research group in 1975 was doing a study for the province of Alberta and concluded that Syncrude would be
Price of Petroleum
highly profitable at the figure of $13.75 a barrel. We are paying them $37 a barrel. What a subsidy! Who are we subsidizing? We are not subsidizing the average person who is in trouble or who needs subsidies from this government. The profit of Suncor in 1979 showed a 187 per cent increase.


John Horton McDermid: Over what?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: An increase in substantial profits. I will get the figure for the hon. member. I do not have it here, but I will provide the figure to him. Let hon. members look and let them deny that profits are substantial. The report of last year's profits shows the profits of the top 500 companies in the country. Let us look at where all the money is going. It is going to private resource companies. It is going to multinational companies. Let hon. members read the figures and they will see. We are about to give them more out of the taxpayers' pocket. Shell, for example, in 1979 made $243 million in profit.


An hon. Member:: From where?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Here. They had a profit of $243 million, and they did not pay taxes here in 1978.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Disgusting.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Syncrude was making money for its backers long before production started, due to tax write-offs. So what the minister is announcing today is more subsidies for the oil companies.
The four largest oil companies in Canada-my friend wanted some figures so I will give them to him-recorded profits of $1.4 billion in 1979. That was up 55 per cent from 1978. In the first quarter of 1980, the industry's profit rose another 83 per cent.


An hon. Member:: How much capital did they expend to get that profit?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What we are doing is subsidizing. My friends to the right are great defenders of the oil companies. The whole point of this matter is that we went into a rotten deal with Syncrude. I invite members to read Pratt's book. It shows that it was a rotten deal for Canada and we are stuck with it.


Marc Lalonde: We are not.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hope we are not. We would support the minister if he changed it. I know the minister has tried, and we support that, to make future tar sands projects be run by Canadians in partnership with Petro-Can and Alberta Gas Trunk. That is what we should have done years ago. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are still dealing with an increase in the tax, whether you call it a levy or a tax, and it will come into effect at midnight tonight when all Canadians who are buying gas or consuming fuel oil will take 2.5 cents out of their pockets and put it again, largely, into the pockets of these oil

July 11, 1980
Price of Petroleum
companies which are already making record profits. It is a scandal, Madam Speaker.
Elon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I have a couple of questions to ask the minister so that I can understand a little more fully the implications of the application of this particular ways and means motion and also what we can expect in the future. I think it is relevant to the discussion.
The minister, in the course of his remarks on statements on motions has said that he has given notice of the invoking of the force majeure clause with respect to international prices. He has pointed out as well that he is continuing to pay international prices while negotiations continue with respect to an appropriate or unique price which I understand he has in mind. May I pursue this matter with the minister because I think it is important. I do not expect him to tell me what the negotiations are at present, but it is important for us as parliamentarians and the people of Canada as well as the industry itself to understand what is involved in the principles according to which the minister will operate.
I understand the minister, in the course of some of his remarks, has referred to the fact that he wants to have the price, which is based upon the operating costs, the capital investment, based upon a realistic price which will allow a profit to be made on investments by the participants in the synthetic oil investments. Perhaps the minister could make a note of these questions and answer them. 1 should also like to ask him whether or not, as a matter of principle, he considers that a certain percentage of profit is appropriate for the participants in the tar sands investments or projects. If that is the basis upon which he is operating, could he give us some idea as to what a reasonable amount of return on the investment might be in his estimation and whether or not, in the course of his negotiations and as part of his investigation of the whole matter, he will arrange, either through legislation or directly, to have the operations of the synthetic oil plants or projects investigated by the new petroleum price auditing agency which was announced in the Speech from the Throne? Will that new agency play a part in determining what a realistic or reasonable international price might be? Could the minister answer those questions now, following which I might have another supplementary question?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am available to answer the question now, if the hon. member prefers it. Before answering, however, I should like to make a comment about a point raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). Concerning the statement which was made about the fact that the levy is used to pay for the operating costs, royalties, etc., I do not see why the hon. member should be so sensitive to the fact that the royalties are going to the government of Alberta. There is nothing scandalous about this. It is part of the agreement, as I have said. I have indicated the exact amount of money that is being paid. I do not see why he should be so sensitive when this is mentioned among other facts.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister just mentioned something about extra sensitivity. I wonder if he could inform me right now whether it is his view that royalties would not be paid to Alberta if it were not for this. In other words, is he trying to tell the House that it is this particular change in the levy which allows Alberta royalties to be paid and without which royalties would not be paid to Alberta? Is that the point he is trying to make, because if it is it is totally inaccurate.


Marc Lalonde: The revolving fund is used to pay money, as I indicated in my opening statement, to indemnify the tar sands companies for their production. It is used to pay them the high international price out of which, in the case of Suncor at present and in the case of Syncrude most likely this year, some of it will go into royalties. The money that the companies get goes into paying everything, including royalties. I do not want to spend too much time on this but I do not see why my hon. friend should be so hypersensitive about the fact that the government of Alberta is collecting royalties.
About the similar or identical nature of the resolution, I did not have the exact facts of the Petroleum Administration Act before me so I indicated that it was similar. But if it is identical, it is extra similar.
As to the impact on the consumers of Canada, when the hon. member said it would be greater than the December 11 budget, that must be the overstatement of the year. The hon. member will remember that if the budget had come into effect on December 11, there would have been an 18 cents tax, and on July I another $2 would have been added which would have probably have increased the price per gallon of gasoline by about 24 cents. We are talking here about 2.5 cents a gallon or 0.5 cents a litre, as I have indicated. So I think that is an overstatement.
In terms of the specific question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), we had extensive discussions with the parties interested in building tar sands plants. The companies had started with a discounted rate of return of around 16 per cent. Since then they have raised it to about 18 per cent, and the discussion is still going on. I do not know exactly where it will end, but that is what is being talked about by the companies at present as being a reasonable rate of return. I must say that obviously you have to take into account how much will have to be paid in royalties out of this and what in the end would be left to the companies on a net basis. So one cannot conclude exactly what will be the price set, even if it were different from the international price, because then there is a matter of how much the provincial and the federal governments would take over and above what the companies would be left with. Obviously, as the hon. member knows, these are two different things.
With regard to the investigation of the petroleum monitoring agency, this agency has not been set up as such, but there is in my department, under the Petroleum Act, a division that has been monitoring, petroleum, profits and prices for some
July 11, 1980

time. The information which has been collected is available, and the department has been working on the basis of information collected under the Petroleum Monitoring Act as well as on the basis of the information provided by the companies.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate very much the report on the negotiations with the promoters of the two new projects, that is Alsands and the Cold Lake in situ plant. 1 understand that there have been discussions with respect to a reasonable rate of return. I am interested in the application with respect to the agreement and the force majeure clause involved in the present agreement with Syncrude and Suncor.
The minister has referred to the fact that Suncor is apparently making a profit. He gave some figures in the course of his statement. However, Syncrude, as I understand it, has not yet made a profit in its operations. Are the same figures which the minister quoted with respect to future operations applicable to the existing synthetic oil project?
Also, I was not talking about the Petroleum Monitoring Act, with which I am acquainted. I am talking about the new agency which was announced in the Speech from the Throne and which was promised during the course of the election campaign, the petroleum price auditing agency. It was indicated in the Speech from the Throne that this agency would be a very large agency which would be in a position to make exhaustive inquiries with respect to the industry and the oil companies. Is it the intention of the minister with respect to determining what a reasonable price would be for synthetic oil, to invoke and use this particular agency which the government has proposed to set up, or has the government withdrawn from that particular undertaking which it made in the Speech from the Throne?
I am interested in knowing what the government will use as a basis for determining a reasonable price and the general guidelines so that the people of Canada can understand how we will move off the international price, if you will, onto another price which is not necessarily the international price.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the petroleum price monitoring agency will be set up. However, it will not be in operation in time for the current discussions which have already begun and are proceeding. It is the intention of the government to proceed with the establishment of that agency in the near future. The hon. member referred to this agency as becoming a large agency. This does not need to be the case.
The idea is that this agency would encompass at least part of the functions which are now fulfilled by the division which performs the monitoring in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It would then operate as an ongoing monitoring agency and would have the powers which Parliament would legislate in this respect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I noted the very careful decision which you rendered on the point of order. I noticed specifically that you quite explicity indicated that you were not ruling on the legality of the instrument that is being used here, that you were ruling
Price of Petroleum
instead on the propriety of the parliamentary practice which is being following. The question of the legality of the instrument still remains open.
I would like to direct questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) flowing from the fact that the legality of the instrument has not yet been resolved. Can the minister tell us whether he has consulted the law officers of the Crown, either before acting as he did today or after the various questions were raised? I have three questions flowing from the point. First, in light of the unusual circumstances and the interest of the House and the country in a $600 million tax increase which may be illegal, would the minister agree to break precedent and to make available to the House of Commons the legal opinion he received from the law officers of the Crown?
Second, could the minister tell us whether the government is confident that the charge being levied, this $500 million or $600 million tax levy increase, is in fact legal in so far as the minister is concerned? Third, could the minister tell us whether the government is now actively considering some other instrument, whether it be an amendment of the act or some other instrument?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on the first question, this ways and means motion was drafted upon the advice and with the help of the law officers of the Crown. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) knows how these things are done, and they have been done through the normal process, inside the government. There has been no formal legal opinion given on the matter as such, for the good reason that this is a procedure which has been followed historically on many occasions for decades by this Parliament and the British Parliament.
I am advised that parliamentary procedure has been operating in this manner for many generations. Although the rules do not provide for ministers giving legal opinions in the House, 1 have little doubt about the propriety of the method which has been followed if, as I said, we look at the countless precedents in this country and in the U.K. in terms of the role and technique which have been used when governments employ ways and means motions.
With regard to the other instruments, if after the discussions which will take place with the producing provinces, particularly the government of Alberta, there is an agreement which requires some amendments to some pieces of legislation, obviously the Petroleum Administration Act would be brought back before the House, and there may be opportunity to make specific amendments to that act at that time. But as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, this ways and means motion is specifically drafted as an amendment to the Petroleum Administration Act.
While I am on my feet and not wanting to mislead the House, 1 referred to a ceiling of $200 million in the fund. I would like to stress that this is not a ceiling provided by the Petroleum Administration Act itself or by the law, it is a ceiling set up by Treasury Board in terms of administration. They have traditionally avoided allowing the fund to get above

July 11, 1980
Price of Petroleum
$200 million. This is how much the fund could draw in consolidated revenue if it were in a deficit position.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 have noted the minister's answer. There is no question that ways and means motions have been used to increase taxes where they were legal. The question which was before the House earlier today and which Madam Speaker felt was beyond her competence or requirement to address, was whether in fact this particular legal instrument was legal in this particular case. I gather that the minister is saying that he is persuaded that it is legal, although he has no legal opinion beyond the fact that the ways and means motion was drafted in the normal way by officers of the Crown.
While we cannot expect the minister to answer today, the House, 1 am sure, would be interested in knowing as soon as possible whether the minister will seek other advice in light of the debate this afternoon to determine whether in fact he is introducing at midnight tonight a $600 million tax increase which might prove to be illegal.
1 would like to turn to another category of questioning. The minister has admitted that the imposition which he is introducing tonight at midnight will have a significant impact upon all users of petroleum, including many people who were exempted from the impact of some of the proposals in the budget of last December. Can the minister tell us whether this government is now contemplating any particular aid to consumers of home heating oil and to low income groups who will be less able than other Canadians to deal with this increase effective at midnight tonight?
Can the minister also tell me whether he is contemplating a special deal for provinces like Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, which rely to such a heavy and expensive degree on oil-generated electricity? Is the government contemplating bringing forward some measures to help those Canadians who will be hardest hit by the massive increases that are going to take effect tonight and who are least able to deal with them?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to challenge some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. He calls this a "massive increase" but I would scarcely call a half cent a litre a massive increase.
As far as the general point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I might also point out that we have been able to obtain an extension of the present arrangement without the increase on July 1 that his government proposed of $2 per barrel. This would have meant at least a six cents per gallon increase in the price of home heating fuel, as well as gasoline. The present increase is barely two and one-half cents so there is a substantial difference.
Regarding the specific points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, he knows that this government introduced, as one of its very first measures, an increase of $35 per month in the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens. That increase, going to those who really need it all across Canada,
represents a very significant improvement in their standard of living and is a step that will compensate for this increase many hundreds of times.
As far as the other aspect of the matter is concerned, it will be discussed and considered in the context of a general energy program and strategy once we have concluded our discussions with the producing provinces. I hope to be able to announce a number of measures which will be of great significance in terms of an energy policy, at that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have two very brief questions. I have to note that the minister has now indicated that the government is planning no new help for those Canadians most hard hit by the increase he is making effective at midnight tonight.
My questions concern some of the statements he made in the course of his earlier presentation. He said notice had been sent to refineries. Could he tell the House at what point in time those notices were sent? What is germane is if people outside the House were advised before the House of Commons was.
Second, in response to something said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) about Syncrude, the minister said "we are not stuck with Syncrude," and I believe I am quoting him accurately. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, "You are stuck with Syncrude", and the minister said, from his seat, "We are not." I may have misheard, but I wonder if that is the case. Can the minister tell us whether he is contemplating any immediate changes in relation to Syncrude and, if so, can he give us an undertaking that there will be a full discussion either with the other participants in Syncrude or related projects or, if this House is sitting, with Parliament prior to the government acting unilaterally?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I may have forgotten the first point raised by the hon. member.


Charles Joseph Clark: It concerns the moment of notification to refiners.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the telex to the refiners had been sent soon after the ways and means motion was tabled in this House. I can reassure him in this respect.
As far as the second point is concerned, obviously the reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and my interjection had to do with the fact that he was implying we were, to use his expression, "stuck with the international price for Syncrude". 1 indicated that this was not the case because, indeed, I have sent notice of intention to invoke force majeure for a review of pricing under the agreement with Syncrude.
This matter is one I have been discussing rather extensively with my colleague, the minister of energy for Alberta, in various meetings. We have examined various possibilities and we are still examining alternatives. I can advise the hon. member that any step taken vis-a-vis Syncrude would be as
July 11, 1980

part of a general resolution of the current discussions and not individually, and that it would only be part of a total resolution. That is what we envisage at the present time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the oil companies are fond of saying a good tax accountant is worth a hundred salesmen but a friendly minister of finance or a minister of energy is even better.
1 have four very short questions to put to the minister. First, 1 understand that once oil is being produced in these tar sands projects, any payment made to Alberta through revenue sharing or royalties will be deductible from federal taxable income. Would the minister agree with that?


Marc Lalonde: Would the hon. member repeat that, please?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That any royalty payments made to Alberta are deductible from federal taxable income by the company.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I would need the advice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on exactly what the situation is at the present time, particularly vis-a-vis the Syncrude plant. I would hate to mislead my hon. friend. I would want to be sure I give him an accurate answer on issues of this nature. If he would give me time I shall inquire and give him the information later.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I think when giving them an extra $500 million the minister might want to find that out beforehand. I am sure he will look into it.
The second question is this. I understand that companies in these projects will be able to claim earned depletion allowances at the rate of $1 for every $3 invested in Syncrude, which will be worth approximately $170 million to them. Can the minister confirm that?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have to advise my hon. friend that all these questions are being reviewed and re-examined. We are examining this matter at the present time, and once a decision is made as to changes that might be made in various taxation aspects that the hon. member refers to, an announcement will be made.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for attempting to clarify the question I asked earlier today with respect to the implications of the levy for the compensation fund and the payment of royalties to Alberta.
I have to take issue with the minister, nevertheless, because he seems to insist on attempting to tie the two together. They are in no way connected. There is no money flowing from the compensation fund of the federal government to the province of Alberta, none whatsoever. Certainly the compensation fund is paying the companies and the companies are paying the royalty, but not all of the money that the companies receive is from the compensation fund.
This is a sensitive point and the minister may think that I am splitting hairs, but I have to take issue with this. We are
Price of Petroleum
sensitive about it. The minister has been at great pains to paint Alberta as the bad guy in this. I find that extremely objectionable.
I would refer the minister to the last two sentences of his press release issued today, which states:
It contributes to payment of Alberta and other royalties, capital and operating costs. Recovery by way of federal income tax is minimal.
That statement misleads the public and certainly the media. 1 think the minister must agree that it leads people to believe that the major part of this levy is a payment of royalty to the province of Alberta. That is simply not true. Certainly the recovery of capital and operating costs would represent, as I am sure the minister would agree, at least 95 per cent of that portion of the compensation fund which is given to the companies. I think the reason there is no recovery by way of the federal income tax is because Syncrude has not made a profit yet.
In response to some of the questions that were put today by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with reference to percentage ownership of this and percentage ownership of that, that is misleading also.
Could the minister tell the House what the accumulated losses are for Syncrude oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not have those figures at my fingertips. But I want to tell the hon. member everything indicates that the parties who invested in Syncrude have made a very good investment indeed. As a matter of fact I do not know any of them who are eager to dispose of their investment at this time. All the figures that we have, over the life of the plant, particularly if we were to continue international prices, show that the return on the investment would just be huge, and I mean huge.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, is it not true that Syncrude lost $65 million last year?


Mr. Evans:: Sure, last year.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, so what? It depends on how much money you are going to make under the life of the plant. You look at the contribution which the federal taxpayer, among others, has made to the building of those plants. It is very great indeed. The federal government has a large investment and contribution through all the fiscal incentives and fiscal advantages that are there.
It was planned all along when the project was put forward that the company would lose money for years. If you look at the figures, what is striking is that it has lost a lot less money in the last two years than was forecast. It will come into a money-making stage, which may very well be this year, well ahead of the plans made at the time when the project was put forward. If you ask any of these people who are parties to the Syncrude plant whether they would be ready to be bought back at the original price they paid plus interest, I suggest that

July 11, 1980
Price of Petroleum
you will not find a single one who would be ready to dispose of his investment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, if I remember correctly the companies put up about $1.4 billion.
My question to the minister is along the lines of the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Since we, the Canadian people, have in effect put up all the financing, or the majority of the financing, for Syncrude, and we are offering all kinds of tax concessions and write-offs, in other words, we are paying for that plant, and as the minister is saying it is going to be immensely profitable in the years ahead, my question is as follows: since we are putting up all the money, since the public is paying for this, since consumers are paying for it through the extra levies, can the minister tell us whether or not he is contemplating doing the sensible thing, which most other countries in the world have done, and that is taking a greater public ownership within Syncrude, either through the government itself or through PetroCan? The member for Exxon over there is getting nervous.


Harvie Andre: You need the money so you can help Chrysler.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member for Exxon is getting very nervous over there.
In the campaign the Liberal party made that commitment, and it is a commitment that all public opinion polls have shown that the people of this country are overwhelmingly behind, including the people of western Canada, as evidenced by what has happened in Saskatchewan.
Could the minister tell us or give us a bit of a preview of what his plans may be for taking over, in co-operation with the provinces, public ownership and control through PetroCan, or in some other way of the future oil resources of this country, particularly the heavy oils?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am obviously not in a position to reveal any details of plans which the government may be considering at the present time. But 1 want to assure the hon. member that our commitment to reach a 50 per cent ownership target by 1990 is one to which this government is very firmly committed.
Second, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that the only new tar sands plant that has been announced since this government took office has been a 100 per cent Canadian-owned tar sands plant project in which Petro-Canada is the major partner with Alberta Gas Trunk Line. This is the line that we would want to see pursued and followed with Canadian companies in particular. We hope that our proposals will encourage more and more Canadian financing and participation in tar sands development rather than leaving it mainly or essentially to the foreign multinationals.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary question, is the minister looking at an idea put forward by the Premier of Saskatchewan where a major part of increases in prices of oil are put into an energy development fund in this country so that we can use it as a fund to expand PetroCan rapidly or expand public participation in all future energy development?


Charles Joseph Clark: You voted against that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to see the minister propose it. Is he contemplating such a fund where public ownership would be increased very rapidly, the idea having been put forward by the Premier of Saskatchewan?


Marc Lalonde: In the course of my meetings with my colleague from Saskatchewan, the minister of energy, we had an opportunity of having rather extensive discussions about the proposal by the Premier of Saskatchewan. We are obviously examining a number of alternatives and suggestions. We cannot ignore the proposal by the Premier of Saskatchewan. It is obviously one that one cannot ignore. I tell the hon. member that it is one of several alternatives that the government has to consider before reaching a decision.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the minister in connection with the relation of this levy or tax to his over-all energy package. Is it the minister's intention to introduce into this House bits and pieces of the energy package every week or couple of weeks and spread the impact of the cost of the energy package over a long period of time, or is he proposing after this "sneaky Pete" attempt to gather all the parts together and present them to this House on an omnibus basis so that we can have an opportunity to understand the full impact of the energy program that will be proposed by the government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the House the reason why there was some urgency, due to the fact that by September 1 the revolving fund would have been in debt by over $200 million. That is the only measure foreseen in the area of oil and gas pricing in terms of domestic prices. Obviously I have to consider the question of gas export pricing, about which I am in discussion with my provincial counterparts in the next few days in the understanding I have developed with my American colleague. I have to decide shortly whether there should be a further increase in the price of gas exports, but that is not a matter that comes before the House as such. It is a matter I have to consider in the next few days.
As I said, I am in touch with my provincial colleagues about this. The industry has also made representations and I am in touch with the industry. I can assure the hon. member that as far as the government is concerned, we would see as the next step a presentation of a comprehensive energy plan.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, may I just clarify something about this revolving fund? Is it required under the act that the fund be brought into balance each year? In connection with
July 11, 1980

that same question, when the fund is in deficit at what stage is that charged against the Consolidated Revenue Fund? is that at the end of the year or is it after each quarter?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the act is concerned, 1 do not believe it provides for the necessity of balancing the fund. The fund has been set up as an autonomous fund to look after the additional costs of the tar sands plant. As to the point raised by the hon. member, 1 would have to inquire as to exactly what the practice is with Treasury Board and 1 will be happy to provide him with the information.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is it the intention of the minister in connection with these negotiations invoking force majeure to refer to the National
Price of Petroleum
Energy Board the whole question of the price which the oil companies, the oilsands or tarsands projects, should be paid? If that is the case, will they be regulated in the same way as utilities such as TransCanada PipeLines, Bell Canada and other such utilities? Is it the minister's intention to move toward that means of establishing the price?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is, no. We are not envisaging a public utility approach as such.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the debate has lasted a reasonable time. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who has risen again, but it being now past five o'clock the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 14, 1980