1981-10-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, Canada has always been known as a compassionate country and has helped out many times in world crises by accepting its share of refugees, as in the case of the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, Vietnamese and others. Now 30,000 Polish refugees located in camps in Austria need help desperately. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the government heed the urgent appeal for help from the Canadian-Pol-ish Congress, the refugees, and the foreign minister of Austria, and immediately increase its quota of Polish refugees to Canada and send aid, in the form of warm clothing and food and medical supplies to the refugees in Austria.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by members of both other parties, in this case seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That in memory of the events which began in Hungary on October 23, 25 years ago today, this House express its abiding opposition to the continuing totalitarian suppression of real freedom in Hungary and in all other countries so controlled, its sincere gratitude to those thousands of Hungarians whose reason for coming to Canada was so tragic and whose contribution to Canada has been so great, and its deepest sympathy to all those who lost family and friends in the valiant fight for freedom and against totalitarianism, and whose sacrifice free people must never forget.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that this motion has support from all sides of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the minister responsible for housing indicated that if members of the House of Commons had hardship cases related to the renewal of mortgages, and difficulties in getting mortgage interest rates that people could afford, they should send him details. I have approximately 190 cases here which I want to send over to him. Therefore, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House direct the minister of housing to contact each of the families whose names I have provided today, and between now and Monday assure that in no case will they be forced out of their homes as a result of exorbitant mortgage interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RELIEF SOUGHT FOR HOME OWNERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House deplores the procrastination and the delay of the Minister of Finance in providing help for persons losing their homes because of mortgage renewals. Is the minister waiting until the crises vanish, until the homes of hundreds are lost and the women and kids are freezing in the snow, before providing relief?


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 23, 1981


S O. 43 AIR SAFETY FINDINGS CONTAINED IN DUBIN REPORT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will know of the 1977 directive issued by his officials which said that no punitive action should be taken against airlines for safety violations until full consideration had been given to the possible embarrassing and political implications to the minister. The Dubin inquiry has also exposed the fact that recommendations to prosecute airlines were not carried out because of a concern about embarrassment to the minister. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House direct this irresponsible and incompetent Minister of Transport, who places his own political safety before the safety of thousands of air travelling Canadians, to withdraw this 1977 directive and then resign.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity affecting thousands of farmers in Canada. Apple producers in British Columbia's Okanagan Valley, together with apple producers in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, are experiencing a critical cash flow problem as a result of disastrously low prices for 1980 apple crops. This problem is intensified by high interest rates and by the protracted failure of the Agricultural Stabilization Board to finalize the terms of the 1980 crop deficiency payments to which these Canadian farmers should be entitled. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House directs the Minister of Agriculture to act immediately to disburse stabilization deficiency payments respecting the 1980 apple crops to Canada's apple producers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That in view of the announcement by the minister of housing, Mr. Cosgrove, to intervene personally to assist those Canadians faced with the dismal prospect of losing their homes because of high mortgage rates, and in order to give the minister a final chance to do something about the housing crisis that exists in this country, this House notes that the minister's office telephone number is (613) 996-5132 and that all Canadian families seeking assistance from high mortgage rates-


Mr. MacEachen:: That is absurd.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mark Willson Rose: -should call the minister's office, collect, at (613) 996-5132.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I seek the attention of all hon. members of this House respecting an urgent and pressing matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That today this House commemorates the rising of the people of Hungary against oppression during October, 1956, by expressing its sympathy to all of those who lost family and friends during the struggle for independence and by acknowledging the great contributions people of Hungarian origin have made to the development and cultural heritage of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, after many years of enduring intolerable conditions on Indian reservations in British Columbia, and out of a sense of complete frustration, a group of British Columbia Indian women this summer staged a protest sit-in at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regional office in Vancouver. These women were protesting what they firmly
October 23, 1981

believe to be the indecision, inaction and mismanagement of the department in British Columbia. So far the only result of this protest has been that 53 of the women were individually charged and now have to face the crushing costs of court appearances. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately furnish the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with a reference to investigate all charges of mismanagement and inefficiency relating to the operation of the British Columbia regional office and direct the committee to report its findings to this House.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, hundreds upon hundreds of people from the Hamilton-Wentworth area recently signed letters pleading with the Government of Canada to do something about the high interest rates which are devastating our farming communities. These are 1,100 letters collected by the Wentworth Federation of Agriculture which I am now sending to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-young lady, he is sitting right over there-and there are another 500 of these letters on the way to my office. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the Minister of Finance pay attention to these 1,600 voices from my area as they add their pleas to those of many other Canadians concerned about the crisis in the agricultural sector due to this government's high interest rate policies.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The minister might raise a point of order after question period. We have to finish the motions under Standing Order 43 just now.


UNITED NATIONS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Tomorrow is United Nations day. At the same time Canada has just honoured General Burns, the commander of
Oral Questions
the First United Nations Emergency Peacekeeping Force, with the Pearson Peace Medal. In honour of United Nations Day, in honour of 25 years of United Nations peacekeeping, in honour of General Burns, the Canadians who have given their lives to United Nations peacekeeping and the many Canadian Armed Forces men and women who have served United Nations peacekeeping, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House express its best wishes to General Burns and record its recognition of the fine service by Canadians in United Nations peacekeeping forces, and that this House affirm its faith in and support for the United Nations and its endeavours.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question, I am sure not unexpectedly, is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Given the situation where the government's minimum figures show that approximately 800 Canadian families per week are losing their homes to high interest rates, the minister indicated yesterday, and I want to quote him accurately, that he would attempt to respond to those cases where there is genuine concern that homes would be in jeopardy. Does this undertaking include, in addition to those 800 families who will lose their homes this week, next week and the week after, families who are already in jeopardy, that is, families whose homes are subject to foreclosure or power of sale action? Second, what is the exact mechanism established by the minister? Is there a special Zenith telephone number, is it open during the weekend and during hours that would accommodate Canadians in all time zones?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member would quote exactly from Hansard. I will read my answer of yesterday:
I will attempt to respond to those cases which are brought to my attention, those cases where there is genuine concern that homes would be in jeopardy before the other financial institutions respond to the Royal Bank initiative or the budget. I would be happy to receive any case from any individual Member of Parliament who is genuinely concerned there is a hazard that the home will be lost.
Those were the words that I used yesterday. I draw to the attention of the hon. member the newspaper clippings that were dropped on my desk. They do not by themselves indicate the text that I just quoted. First, I indicated that I expect
12112

October 23, 1981
Oral Questions
Members of Parliament on all sides of the House to have made some attempt individually and shown some effort to assist people by contacting the mortgage holder. In referring items to me, I would appreciate it if Members of Parliament could assist by identifying the mortgage holder, the date, and the person whom they contacted in an attempt to assist, before referring the matter to me.
I will therefore have to return these newspaper clippings that were given by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. They do not illustrate the question of genuine hardship. Indeed, on a number of the newspaper clippings where the question is asked, "Will the new monthly payments force your family to move or rethink your budget," there is no answer to that question. Therefore I have no indication that the questions are genuine.


CASE OF INDIVIDUAL AHOP HOME OWNER
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the minister will already have received the petitions tabled by the Leader of the Opposition last week. I would not expect that the minister's answer yesterday would lead Canadian home owners to believe that the only access they have to the minister is necessarily through a Member of Parliament. I hope the minister was not implying that.
If he wants a specific example, may I ask the minister to explain why, this morning, his office, and the official designated presumably by his receptionist, did not return five telephone calls from Carol Rogmans, head of a single parent family, and an AHOP purchaser, whose CMHC payments eight days from now will increase from $294 a month to $652 a month? After leaving five unanswered messages, she telephoned the office of the Leader of the Opposition where, I assure him, there is a genuine concern for people like Mrs. Rogmans. Is there, in fact, a mechanism for people like this Canadian? Or was yesterday's answer simply a grandstand play to save the minister's political skin?


Paul James Cosgrove: I answered that question in my first answer. I indicated I wanted the Members of Parliament to illustrate a genuine concern and to give me the background, the particulars of the case, the mortgage holder, the attempts, the demonstration that the member says he has just shown me in helping people. Members of Parliament have a responsibility to Canadians, as I do. I expect you to help Canadians, as I am attempting to help Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
William Herbert Jarvis: What can a member do if a minister will not reply, with all his staff and officials, to five phone calls from someone in a desperate situation like this? I
do not want the minister to think I am angry; I am outraged. But that is not going to help people like this; my outrage is not going to help these 800 Canadian families. I should like to ask the minister most seriously, will he consent to a House order later this day, establishing a special committee of the House of Commons, adequately staffed, with full facilities, to commence work this week to respond to the plight of Canadians like Carol Rogmans? Will he consent to that later today?


Paul James Cosgrove: Since the middle of August, Madam Speaker, I have indicated I have been attempting to respond to individual cases. I have met with large groups of people submitting petitions on their own behalf and on behalf of other Canadians. I have met with representatives of the industry. I have given advice to the government. More than that, yesterday I offered that if Members of Parliament, in using all of their personal resources, the resources that the Government of Canada and this Parliament gives to them, after using all of the resources of individual members, are unable to get any help from the mortgage holders, who are the people who have the major financial responsibility, my office will attempt to respond to individual Members of Parliament. I expect something more than just a phone call, and something more than just the press clippings that are produced to me, like this one, without any details whatsoever. That is not a genuine attempt.


RENT INCREASES FACING TENANTS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: My question is also addressed to the minister responsible for housing. The consumer price index shows that tenants are facing the largest rent increases in ten years, and that the worst is yet to come. With vacancy rates at zero in some centres, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation warns that the average Canadian tenant looking for accommodation in new buildings may face rent increases of 100 per cent over current levels in the next 18 months. In view of the minister's offer to aid personally home owners faced with mortgage renewals, what system does the minister propose to aid tenants hit by sky high rent increases? Will the same opportunities for ministerial assistance to cases brought forward by MPs be extended to tenants as well as property owners?


Paul James Cosgrove: In
answer to a number of members I indicated my concern about tenants. In addition to reviewing the problem of rollover situations, I have given advice to the government about the difficulty facing the rental sector, as well as home owners. That advice has been given to the government. When the government presents its total financial plan, its budget to this House of Commons, you will have the opportunity to see what is the government's response.
In addition to that, this government, unlike the previous government, moved to do something about the tight rental situation by giving, for example, tax credits to encourage the construction of new rental accommodation, to take the pressure off the market so as to alleviate the price in the rental
October 23, 1981

market. In addition to this, last year we increased the amount of social housing by 5,000 units, and this year by an additional 2,500 units, unlike the report offered by the previous government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark, that said they should get out of social housing totally.


FORECAST OF DROP IN HOUSING STARTS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. The minister's top housing bureaucrat, the president of CMHC, said that Canada's growing shortage of rental accommodation will become an even greater crisis than that now faced by property owners facing mortgage renewals. Yet, using the forecast of CMHC, next year the level of housing starts will be 135,000, only 60 per cent of the number required to meet the demand for housing. The minister repeatedly claimed that this year starts will be 170,000. Why is he bragging about underproducing homes by 50,000 starts?


Paul James Cosgrove: On the
contrary, Madam Speaker. As I indicated yesterday, one of the first things the government did upon assuming office in recognition of the difficulties ahead was to reintroduce the capital cost allowance to increase the amount of starts in the multiple area. This is why, since the government has taken office, the amount of multiple starts on a quarterly basis has increased in Canada. It is also why during the last month, recognizing even an increased hazard, I have given advice to the government which I hope will be reflected and apparent through the financial plans presented to the House in the budget.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, regarding the Dubin report on air safety. In view of the indictment in yesterday's report that senior transport officials "resist vigorous enforcement action even in the most blatant cases" and have "demoralized the enforcement specialists", and that Justice Dubin specifically asked the minister to intervene directly because there is no confidence whatsoever that existing management will correct the situation, will the minister relieve Mr. Owen, Mr. Arpin and Mr. McLeish of their duties until the minister can show to the Standing Committee on Transport that there is a working or functioning mandate to protect public safety in the air?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I said yesterday the essence of what I believe on that report. It is an excellent one; Volume 2 is an excellent one. I accept the substance of the report, and after discussions with
Oral Questions
my officials we accept most of the specifics of the report. That is clear.
Another thing I said yesterday was that we would bring up in two or three months' time a progress report on each of the recommendations, or blocks of recommendations, of Justice Dubin. Again it will come out very clearly as to what is to be done. However, there has been a philosophical debate on the spirit of enforcement.
My department in the past has been more lenient, tending toward education, convincing and proselytizing, or whatever one wants to call it. Justice Dubin recommends a much firmer implementation of rules. This is accepted by my department now, and clearly it will be done. But this is not black and white. There are nuances. I suggest my hon. friend read recommendation No. 69 wherein Justice Dubin said:
The enforcement policy should recognize the respective roles of detection, conciliation and imposition-
It is a question of balance. After having gone slightly too much to that side, we must not go too far to the other side either. That again will be done.


CONDEMNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, Justice Dubin said that transport quality at headquarters resists enforcement action which has led to unsafe practices. The minister talked about philosophy and nuances. Justice Dubin pointed out such things as aircraft flying in Canada, haywired up with outboard motor gas tanks, and a commercial airline trying to take away a passenger's seatbelt to keep a door shut which was flapping back and forth.
In view of the statement that Mr. McLeish made, to the effect that as long as he is air administrator of Transport Canada he will not change the approach to enforcement, will the minister relieve at least that one official of his duties until he can demonstrate that he is willing to change his attitude, particularly in light of the documentation by Mr. Justice Dubin in his two reports that the administrator has, with full knowledge, allowed unsafe situations to continue to exist?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend reminds me of the gentleman who was travelling on a ship and, upon being told that there was trouble with the engines, decided to go to the captain's cabin and shoot the captain as a safety measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not intend to do that. My department recognizes that mistakes have been made in the past, and it is willing and eager-and the minister will make very sure that this is done-to rebalance the methods of enforcement. This will be done, and very vigorously indeed.

October 23, 1981
Oral Questions


SCREENING OF LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST AIR CANADA
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I do not know what relevance the shooting of the captain of the ship has to what Mr. Justice Dubin has said. I think it may be more relevant in a parallel situation.
Mr. Justice Dubin's findings that Transport Canada management make safety inspections, and I quote, "ineffective", and has rendered safety analysis, and again I quote, "useless", hardly inspire confidence in the travelling public, particularly myself, as I have to travel from here to northern British Columbia.
On February 20 this year, while the minister was in charge of DOT, his director general of civil aeronautics prevented court action against Air Canada, a Crown corporation, because "this particular case risks serious embarrassment to the minister". That is quoting the director general. Does the minister agree that he should be protected from embarrassment when public safety is involved, or will he make a recommendation to scrap at least the DOT-Air Canada committee's power to screen possible legal actions against Air Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously I do not intend to enter into the details of all the case studies that the judge brought up. My hon. friend is an intelligent man and he knows that in all these matters there are different versions of what really happened. 1 do not intend to rehash the past. I do not think that it is in the national interest or in the interest of aviation to do that.
The important thing is that, on the basis of the premises, which I am not debating, Mr. Justice Dubin came out with a set of 75 new recommendations added to those in the previous report-on which, by the way, I have already acted in line with what Mr. Justice Dubin recommended. I do not intend to rehash that. I take the recommendations in the report, and that is what is important. These recommendations will be implemented.


HOUSING
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for CMHC. There are some 6,179 AHOP mortgage renewals coming up in the region of Peel alone. The minister has promised to intervene personally in cases of severe hardship. Can he tell us what his plans are to deal with the AHOP owners who face increases from 8 per cent to 20 per cent on first mortgages, and to 19.75 per cent from nothing on second mortgages. All 6,179 will become due before April of 1982. Can the minister assure us that he will be able to handle all these cases when I refer them to him?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the implication of the hon. member's question is related to the undertaking I made in the House yesterday. I would point out, first of all, that I was talking about the interim period, until such time as the government's budget is presented to the House.
I would also indicate to him that last year, one month after assuming responsibility for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the first thing I did was to address the situation of those in AHOP who needed additional help. As a result of that, for the last two years we have given increased subsidies to those people under those programs. I recognize the difficulties they are facing. In light of the representation made by those people months ago, and knowing the difficulties they face, I can assure the hon. member that they are people who have been considered, and that forms part of my advice to the government.


ABANDONMENT OF AHOP HOUSES
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, as usual the minister's answer does not solve the problem. I should like to ask him why he has not acted on the AHOP situation when the problems were brought to him well over a year and a half ago? I would advise him not to fall back in his answer on the handout offer of $60 per month which he made to the AHOP people. That is a smokescreen, considering that 40 per cent of the units built in Peel, some 2,737, have already been abandoned as of July 31, 1981.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would be repeating myself if I said that, one month after the difficulty of the AHOP owners was brought to my attention, the government moved to continue the original program which was designed to encourage and assist people of a particular income level to get into home ownership. We did that. I admit that the escalation of interest rates above 20 per cent within the last two months presents a much different picture. As the result of that I have looked at the situation, and have given advice to the government.
I would say to the hon. member that there is another problem with the AHOP program in some areas, and that is the de-escalation of property values. Sometimes this causes people to look at their situation and conclude that, if property values are not going to increase, irrespective of interest rates, they do not want to continue to try to build equity in a property. That is another reason why some people left those programs.


REGISTERED HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. Hundreds of young Canadians are today building a fund for their first home through the Registered Home Ownership Program, which has a maximum limit of $10,000, with a maximum contribution of $1,000 per year.
October 23, 1981

The minister knows that $10,000 would not be enough for a down payment on a home today. Has he made any representations to the Minister of Finance to increase the maximum ceiling in this plan?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the point made by the hon. member is one that has been brought to my attention by a number of people in the last couple of months. It is one of many, many representations that have been made to me and to the government.
On the point that the program would not help people at all and would not even provide a downpayment, I would draw the attention of the hon. member that there are some parts of Canada where real estate can be acquired, freehold, at modest prices.
For example, when I visited London last Sunday, I was told that under a community services program there was a large community where the price of homes now for sale is somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000. I would argue that the $10,000 would make a very good start toward a down payment on those types of homes.


REQUEST THAT MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LEVEL OF SAVINGS BE RAISED
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The points raised by the minister do not answer my question. Secondly, they are certainly the exceptions in Canada. The people who are saving for homes today are costing the government very, very little. I am again asking the minister will he urge the Minister of Finance at least to double the present maximums, which would be more realistic in the light of today's prices for homes, and to provide for a catchup? Let us give the young people a chance to have homes in the future.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to the question I indicated that I could not, of course, go into the specifics of the advice that I have given to the Minister of Finance. I do not want to deal with specifics. Of course one of the difficulties, or one of the objectives, when giving any particular advice, is that we attempt to respond equitably to all people. For example, I have had questions of difficulties, prospective difficulties, and difficulties now faced by renters; and in all of the advice that we give we have to attempt to provide equity not only in the housing sector but also equity as between people facing problems with housing and those who are facing difficulties with employment, and so on, about whom we have heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


CHARTER PROPOSALS ON LANGUAGE RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I was shocked to read this morning that the government might amend and weaken the charter proposals on language rights by making them compatible with Quebec's Bill 101. Would the minister tell the House whether the government intends to back off its proposal with respect to language rights and, if so, what is the justification for such an about face?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister said was that if there is any suggestion to improve on the charter, it will be welcome. What we are trying to do is very simple. We want to make sure that Canadians who speak English and move to Quebec have the right to go to English schools. In return, we want to have the constitutional right, for the first time in the history of Canada, for francophones in the nine other provinces to have their schools. If the words in the charter can be improved, that is fine. The goals are well known. We think it is about time that we had equality in schooling across the land for Canadians who speak English in Quebec and for Canadians who speak French in the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. For thousands of unemployed forest industry workers, yesterday's "stand pat" interest rate announced by the Bank of Canada, and predictions of 19.75 per cent stable interest rates for the rest of the year, equal the stability of the grave as Canadian woodworkers face a two-front attack by the Government of Canada. Many of those workers, like tens of thousands of other Canadians, cannot afford to renew their mortgages or build homes because of the government's carbon copy of United States policy, and now they, in their thousands, find themselves thrown out of work as dozens of mills close down, some permanently, again because of government policy and the decline in housing starts.
When is the government going to stop this two-front assault on Canadian woodworkers who now face over 37 per cent unemployment in the western plywood sector, a sector which is 85 per cent dependent upon the Canadian housing market? When is the minister going to recognize the state of emergency which exists in our hundreds of lumber and plywood-based communities, and what is he going to do about it now?

October 23, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I found one question in the speech which the hon. member made, namely, when are you going to stop the two-pronged attack? I suggest that there is no such two-pronged attack in the policy of the Government of Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I see that the policy of the government is that, once it has driven woodworkers from their homes and they do not need money for their mortgage payments, it will drive them from their jobs as well.


FORESTRY
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Under Standing Order 43 yesterday I raised the question of mounting pressure in the United States. The governor of Oregon, a number of northwestern Congressmen, and two associations in the American lumber industry are putting pressure on the Reagan administration to impose quotas on imports of lumber from Canada. I would like to know, and thousands of Canadian woodworkers particularly want to know, what response the minister is giving to this matter, and what action he is taking to lobby the Reagan administration to protect our jobs in the United States.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we are certainly aware of the situation described by my hon. friend. We are raising this with the American authorities to point out that the Canadian situation does not in any way justify such action. We will be continuing our efforts to do whatever we can to see that it does not take place.


DISASTERS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works. On Saturday, September 26, a $20 million fire destroyed the Riverport Seafoods Ltd. plant which employed more than 600 people. The fire also completely destroyed the federal government wharf adjacent to the plant.
I therefore wish to ask the minister, since I immediately informed him of this disaster, whether his officials have as yet completed their surveys of Riverport. Since there is a need for continued docking space for the 23 ships in that area which are company owned, as well as privately owned, and operate out of that port, when does the government plan to rebuild this much needed facility?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if, indeed, the hon. member has brought it to my attention, the officials of my department have not as yet brought that matter to my attention. Had the hon. member given me notice of his question today, I could have been in a position to respond to him today; but having now been put on notice of the question, my attempt will be to respond to him this day.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I regret that the minister was not informed, because 1 did notify him on the Monday following the $20 million fire.


Mr. Nielsen:: And he doesn't know about it.


ROLE PLAYED BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but in his absence I would direct it to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, since he has a related responsibility in this particular field. Riverport Seafoods Ltd. was a major employer in this area, and there is concern that high interest rates, and a slackening demand for fish in the United States, which is creating extreme difficulties for Canadian exporters, could result in excessive delays in the plant being rebuilt.
I therefore ask the minister, in view of our high unemployment rate, whether any of his officials have been in contact with the management of this company to determine their future plans? If so, has he indicated to them that all possible assistance under his department will be made available, for rebuilding, and what, if anything, was the response?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am not acquainted with contacts which have been made on the issue of rebuilding. I know that the question of rebuilding the wharf has been the subject of discussion. We are getting an assessment of the costs and the conditions. I might say to the hon. member that our role in this matter is to advise DREE, if DREE is involved, or other federal departments, as to the availability of fish in order not to increase the overcapacity problem which is pretty general on the east coast.
In spite of the warnings which I have given over the years, companies have expanded beyond what the resource could carry. I am not saying that this is the case concerning Riverport. Obviously, the company will have to make its own decision, and they have not had formal contact with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to my knowledge.
October 23, 1981


AGRICULTURE
Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, I must confess that I am having voice problems because I have neglected to eat my apple a day.


Roméo LeBlanc: Watch your Adam's apple.


Frederick John King: However, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister and the parliamentary secretary, if he is present, are very much aware of the hardship which has resulted from months of delay in authorizing deficiency payments to the Canadian apple producers following the disastrous prices achieved for the 1980 crop. They also know that the national average price achieved for the 1980 apple crop was 6.85 cents per pound, which is comparable to 11 cents, the five-year average. In this circumstance will the parliamentary secretary undertake to ensure that the minister fully understands that deficiency payments to Canadian apple producers, under provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, must now be despatched without any further delay?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I must take the question as notice, and I will immediately bring it to the attention of the minister.


An hon. Member:: Where is the parliamentary secretary?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sure that we will have an answer by three o'clock this afternoon.


DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENTS
Frederick John King: Would the hon. gentleman also take the following question to the minister? This question is also directed to that minister, who knows full well that the protracted delay in making stabilization payments to the farmers has been due to outdated methods of calculation, to a large extent. This, together with totally unrealistic tonnage limitations, is responsible for much of the unhappiness which presently surrounds the functioning of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
Will this question be conveyed to the minister? Will he assure this House, as soon as possible, that active steps are being undertaken to upgrade and update the way in which this act fulfils its role in keeping Canadian agriculture viable?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Bis, Madam Speaker.
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, on numerous occasions in this House, has indicated very clearly that one of the reasons we are suffering from high interest rates in Canada is increased inflation. He has directly connected the two of them. I wonder if the minister could indicate what part has been played in the government battle against inflation by such government programs as the increase recently in the excise tax in Canada, the proposed increase in the price of postage stamps, beginning in January, and the extraction from the Canadian public over the next 5 years of some $50 billion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put together in his question a number of separate policies, but obviously he has referred as the main point to the energy agreement between the province of Alberta and other provinces and the Government of Canada, which has obviously resulted in higher energy prices and will continue to have that effect, even though the price in Canada will be lower than world levels. I believe his party certainly has subscribed to the necessity of higher energy prices, for very important national objectives. There is absolutely no doubt about it, that increased energy prices contribute to increases in the cost of living. That is clear. What has happened in other countries is that these energy price increases have been absorbed by the population in an effort to meet the challenge posed by energy price increases in the world.


RATE OF RETURN PAID ON CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, the minister will recognize that in the course of that absorption to which he makes reference, inflation increased, and what we have are three specific illustrations of inflation producing policies of this government. One of the other problems that confront people who are renewing their mortgages, the minister will recognize, is the competition that lending institutions have with respect to the availability of funds. Can the minister tell this House how he has contributed to the availability of funds with respect to lending institutions when he has competed with them by setting a rate of 19.5 per cent for Canada Savings Bonds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have already dealt with that question earlier in the session and have recognized that by putting a limit on the amount of CSBs that could be bought by an individual an adverse effect might occur. But since that time mortgage rates have lowered, and I do not regard the CSB rate at the moment as an obstacle to the flow of additional funds into the mortgage market.

October 23, 1981
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. At the opening of the Gagnon airport on October 13 of this year, the people of Gagnon submitted a paper to me and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in which they criticized the quality of services provided by Quebecair, and again yesterday the town of Schefferville sent another telegram to the member for Manicouagan, stating that Quebecair had practically stopped all services in that area. Considering the fact that air transport is an essential service in our area, is the Minister of Transport prepared to provide full information on the services of Quebecair and Regionair in the northern towns in the riding of Manicouagan and also on the middle and lower North Shore, and would the Minister of Transport ask the Canadian Transport Commission to check the routes and rates for the type of airplanes used in this area, with a view to preparing specific recommendations for future use, all this in order to assist people who need air transport since there is no alternative means of transportation and air transport is thus an essential service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, actually I think we have acted in the best interests of the honourable member, who represents a vast territory, by considerably improving local airports. We also have a study on aviation operations on the North Shore which should come out in a matter of days or weeks. As to the representations made by his constituents to me through him I think that they should also be addressed to the Canadian Transport Commission. In fact, I think this was done and subsequently the Canadian Transport Commission held a public hearing in Sept-Iles a few months ago, if I remember correctly. And why go to the commission? Because it is largely up to that body to look after the licences it grants, and when carriers do not operate effectively the commission takes it into consideration when licences are up for renewal and also when granting new licences. So, while the hon. member should certainly continue to listen to the representations of his constituents and pass them on to me, I would suggest that he might concentrate his efforts, and he has done so most of the time, on the Canadian Transport Commission.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns Bill C-48 and some of the provisions in that bill.
The minister is aware of representations from the Canadian Labour Congress, in particular, regarding the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund, which they feel is totally inadequate to compensate fishermen, and recommendations to the minister to have that fund changed in that it should become a first recourse to fishermen. I should like to ask the minister in regard to compensation related to offshore drilling whether he will now make representations to the Minister of Transport regarding the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund, and also to his government, particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to see that Bill C-48 reflects that concern of fishermen about offshore oil pollution, and that a fund be set up within Bill C-48 that gives compensation firsthand to fishermen, with that fund claimed from the polluters?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the issue has been one of very considerable communication between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and myself. In fact I have given, as an example of the way an enlightened approach could be taken, the pollution claims fund administered by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, where the changes made have gone a very long way to meet the concerns of fishermen and plant workers, and generally to protect those who are earning their living from the sea.
On the question of drilling under the provisions of Bill C-48, again we have had many communications. I think the bill was very substantially improved as a result of those representations and those made by members on both sides of the House. Certainly I will continue to exercise this type of enlightened communication with my colleague, if and when it is required.


NECESSITY FOR FISHERMEN TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, those on this side of the House, and particularly members of this party, really do not think there has been very much enlightened discussion on Bill C-48. It still requires court action for fishermen to claim compensation for what has been claimed by a Norwegian study to be inevitable offshore pollution because of oil rigs. I would like the minister to give some idea to the fishermen on both coasts of what his role in C-48 has been. He seems to have been particularly silent. There is no jurisdiction in that bill which gives the fishermen any confidence that the minister of fisheries is really protecting their interests, and the interests of offshore fishermen and shore workers is particularly important to the Atlantic maritime provinces. We would like to see some assurances in Bill C-48 that the compensation fund can be accessible to fishermen for what may be very, very serious economic implications to the fishermen of Canada.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the intention of the co-operative approach which I have used, for example, with the Minister of Transport, is exactly to avoid duplication, and in fact to make sure that those who expose the fisheries to industrial dangers are very conscious of what they are doing. Obviously it will take some time before we develop the sort of regime we have in
October 23, 1981

transport by regulation. I think, by use of the claims fund, we have given the fishermen very considerable protection. I will take this approach in the case of Bill C-48, but at no moment have I abdicated my responsibilities under the Fisheries Act, and if I am not satisfied with the protection the fishermen are afforded under the Fisheries Act, there are powers held in reserve.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but he left the House before the end of the question period so I would like to have an opportunity to question him on Monday.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will appreciate the fact that under the energy agreement with the western provinces the government will realize upward of $60 billion over the course of the next five years.
The minister also knows there has been a commitment made by the government to the Western Development Fund, which we now learn has been cut by half, to the amount of $2 billion. People in western Canada have given up on any thought that there will be any money forthcoming. They now have a new appreciation of the meaning of the word eternity.
With respect to the announcement regarding the Western Development Fund, will the minister tell us precisely when we can expect it, and when the consultative process will take place with western governments so there will be an announcement of this paltry sum to western Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member would describe $2 billion to $4 billion as a paltry sum.


An hon. Member:: Where is it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that is a good illustration of his sense and how seriously we ought to take him.


An hon. Member:: You spend that in a week and a half.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In direct answer to the question, the parameters of the Western Development Fund were set out in the budget last October. If the hon. member will refresh his memory by looking at the budget he will realize he has misstated the facts in his question today.
I have already indicated that the Western Development Fund is still in existence. If there is to be any further
Business of the House
announcement made to change or confirm the fund, it will be done in the budget, as it was done last year.


MONEYS AVAILABLE IN FUND
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The amount of $2 billion is a substantial amount of money, but it is paltry when compared with the amount of money being taken out of western Canada. That is the point I was making. To use a golfing term, the minister and the government are caught "in a bad lie" with respect to this fund. He knows that. We had estimates tabled in the House of Commons last February indicating $350 million allegedly going to the Western Development Fund. There has been no precision with respect to that amount of money. When may we expect that? Should we expect it during the next fiscal year, or just before the next election?


An hon. Member:: The next election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the hon. member's question when he talks about precision. He might put some precision into his questions so I may answer them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the ninety-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates to the exchange which took place yesterday between myself and the government House leader with respect to Remembrance Day. Since that time we have had a fairly positive statement by the Minister of Public Works concerning the budget date.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance would stay for a moment. Despite my request that the minister stay to respond to my point of order, Madam Speaker, he has left the House. He is still behind the curtain.


An hon. Member:: He is hiding.


Erik Nielsen: He may be hiding.

October 23, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Flis


Mr. Kempling:: He is getting out of the kitchen.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps if the Minister of Finance-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order he must raise it now, regardless whether the minister is in or out of the House.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Finance obviously heard me raise the point of order and call his name three or four times. Nonetheless, he chose to leave the chamber. My point of order was based on the exchange yesterday between the government House leader and myself with regard to members planning their constituency obligations next week. I know the government House leader cannot give a reply now as to the date of the budget so I will have to put the question again next week. There seems to be a clear indication from the Minister of Public Works that we might have been accommodated since he announced the date of the budget as November 9. I hope that is true.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance who is unavoidably absent at this time, is aware that I intend to discuss with him some time during the next few days, the request presented to me recently from the members of the opposition. So I do feel that at one of the upcoming meetings of the House leaders, which are the best place for discussing and deciding on this type of question, 1 shall be able to report on the matter to the hon. member.


PRIVILEGE
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion under Standing Order 43 proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley). He clearly tried to mislead the House when he said that he had agreement from all three parties on his motion. When I gave him my agreement, it was an agreement from the member representing Parkdale-High Park, because I do have a large Hungarian constituency. I made it very clear to him that he did not have the agreement of all-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This explanation is not necessary. That motion was dealt with by the House. Since it did not get unanimous consent, we have to consider that it has been dealt with.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, what I did say was "members of all parties". I did not say "parties".



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the Annual Report in both official languages of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.


PETITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition signed by some 2,375 people in my constituency, primarily of the city of Melville and the town of Ituna, concerning the discontinuance of VIA Rail on the CNR main line which runs through our constituency. They are asking that the rail line and the passenger service be maintained and also be improved as a service to the people of my constituency.


Madam Speaker:: Motions. The hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe; stand. The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore; stand. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra; stand. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe; stand.
Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?



POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I have noticed in the last couple of days the Chair has been calling the names of only the three members who have motions standing under this item on the Order Paper, notwithstanding that in two instances there are several items standing in the name of a particular member. For instance, the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has several motions standing in his name. The case is the same with respect to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).
I would not want to see our getting into a practice whereby we simply lump all these items together. In saying this I mean no criticism of the Chair. I know that the Chair wishes to save as much time as possible in trying to lump these motions under a single name, but I believe the practice is that each of the items should be called. If that were the case, then one could follow what the Chair is doing. However, in the case, for instance, of the last four items under the name of the hon.
October 23, 1981

member for Vancouver Quadra, who is not in the House today, he might wish to rise on one of those, and he would not know on which one to rise. I suggest to the Chair that at least the name of the hon. member in whose name the motion stands should be cited seriatim as we go down the list. I am not suggesting it is necessary to read the whole motion but at least to repeat the hon. member's name so that I and other members can follow the list of the motions seriatim.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with due respect, I do not want to make the decision for you but I merely wish to comment on the point raised by my colleague. I believe it would be easy to correct the situation. I know he has no intention of taking the government by surprise and asking the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) on Monday or Friday or any other day to move his motion for concurrence of the committee's report and thus bring about a debate. As a result of our talks I understood that the government would be given advance notice, and if that was the case his point of order is irrelevant. You would be given advance notice, Madam Speaker, so that the member for Vancouver Quadra could rise and move the appropriate motion concerning one of the four reports on the Order Paper. So unless it is my colleague's intention to play a trick on the government and take it by surprise, I fail to see how his point of order could be relevant in the circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the intervention by the government House leader did not deal at all with the point I raised. I am simply suggesting very respectfully to the Chair that the proper practice-it has always been so in the past

is for the Chair to call each of the items in order. In the last couple of days I have noticed that they have been lumped. I do not like to see our getting into loose practices, and I believe they should be called in order.
As far as the comments of the government House leader with respect to tricking the government are concerned, I have been sitting here and taking lessons from him since he has been sitting in the House, and I consider him the expert in the trickery department.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: As far as I can recall, it would certainly not be the first time that I called a motion in the name of a member, knowing full well that there were three or four motions under that member's name. They have already been grouped. This is a practice I follow almost automatically when motions start to accumulate under a member's name. However, when I call a member's motion, he is perfectly free to say he would like to discuss this or that motion. He may rise and I could then give him the floor. I have no objection to calling the member for Vancouver Quadra four times in succession, if that is the wish of the House, but I felt that having called on the member for Vancouver Quadra, he was perfectly free to
Order Paper Questions
say at that time: "Yes, as a matter of fact, I would like to discuss such and such motions listed under my name". I can do that, however, and if he insists, I will!



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER 26   FORESTRY UNEMPLOYMENT IN FOREST INDUSTRY

['Agreed.']
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent attention, namely, skyrocketing unemployment in Canada's forest industry, which has neared the 18 per cent mark and shows no signs of abating, and the shutdowns and lay-offs in the forest industry that are the result of current economic policy, which means disaster for the communities that depend on the forest industry for their livelihood.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member gave me notice of his intention to seek the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter of the high unemployment situation in Canada's forest industry. I must remind the hon. member that applications for debate in similar situations have been made in the past, and in this regard I want to quote one of my predecessor's statements which I extract from Hansard for February 13, 1978 at pages 2786 and 2787. He said, and I quote:
In terms of individual communities and industries, the Chair has often been in a difficult position when attempting to adjudicate upon these matters because the terms of the Standing Order, as such, are to give leave or an opportunity to hon. members to bring matters of a crisis nature before the House which would not otherwise come before the House. Yet, it is not envisaged that that rule ought to be used to bring what are considered crises from individual constituencies or industries before the House.
In addition, as I said on October 14 last, economic problems are of a continuing nature and do not justify the allowance of debate of an emergency nature. The hon. member is no doubt aware that there are four allotted days remaining in the current supply period. I am sure there will be those opportunities and many others for him to bring this important matter before the House. Therefore, I regret that I cannot comply with the hon. member's application.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,411, 2,612, 2,706 and 2,803.

October 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Malone: 1.	(a) Did grain boxcars No. CN-420234, CN-475620, CN-478854, CN-425876, CN-481247, CN-487524 and CN-484457 arrive in Rosalind, Alberta on April 1, 1981 to be filled with grain (b) were they already filled with grain and, if so (i) at what location were they filled (ii) how many miles did they travel from where they were filled to Rosalind, Alberta where they were expected to be refilled?
2.	Are full grain boxcars or grain hopper cars on CN rail lines sent to elevator sidings to receive grain to find they are already fully loaded and, if so (a) how frequently and what is the reason for the error (b) is the cost absorbed by the railway company or by the farmers directly (c) is CNR taking measures to alleviate the problem and, if so, what measures?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(i)	Vegreville and Lamont, Alberta.
(ii)	1,660 miles.
2.	(a) Rarely. In this instance the error was the result of
elevator and yard congestion at Vancouver. On March 28, the date the cars were switched, Canadian National had 912 loaded cars of grain in Vancouver terminal; the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool elevator was 97 per cent full; and due to the congestion, the day shift placed the seven cars in an empty storage track at the elevator. The night shift, with instructions to lift all empties, placed the seven cars on a train of empties for return movement and spotting in the field. Once the error was discovered, the cars were returned to Vancouver where they were subsequently unloaded on April 11.
(b)	The cost of the extra transportation was absorbed by Canadian National in this case.
(c)	Canadian National is continually striving for the elimination of this type of error.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence issue a contract in the amount of $144,000 to Canadian Media Corporation for the acquisition of media time and space and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) what was the total amount of media time and space (c) what was the corporation's commission?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services awarded two contracts to Canadian Media Corporation, one on behalf of National Health and Welfare and the second one on behalf of the Department of Labour for the acquisition of media time and space.
(a)	(i) for the purchase of media time and space in support of Canada-France agreement on social security advertising program.
(ii) for the purchase of media time and space in support of the National Plan of Action advertising program.
(b)	(i) $16,000 for the placement of print advertisements
in support of the Canada-France agreement on social security,
(ii) $128,000 for the airing of television commercials in support of the National Plan of Action advertising program.
(c)	(i) None.
(ii) None.


Mr. McKinnon: Was Field Aviation Limited, Toronto granted a contract for $4,200,000 to repair and overhaul aircraft components and accessories and, if so, which components and in what number?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes, Field Aviation Limited was awarded a contract in the amount of $4,200,000 to furnish the following services to DND during the period April 1, 1981, to March 31, 1984.
(a)	Preparation of major equipment allotted to Aircraft Maintenance Development Unit (AMDU) Trenton, Ontario, for storage at AMDU or its storage site, Mountainview, in accordance with CFTO C-05-010-009/AM-000.
(b)	Preservation of major equipment for storage.
(c)	Removal of major equipment for storage.
(d)	Removal and/or replacement of aircraft and aeroengine components, parts and assemblies from major equipment in storage.
(e)	Performance of work related to or associated with execution of above tasks as directed by the commanding officer, AMDU. Such work will be, in the main, performed by personnel who are on standby status pending completion of trial flights or awaiting completion of work, rectification of snags, or supply of replacement aircraft parts or components found unserviceable upon removal of aircraft from storage.
(f)	Support to aircraft maintenance as directed by NDHQ, Director of Aerospace Support Engineering.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways operate special trains to carry container boxes from the container loading facilities in the port of Halifax to destinations in Montreal and beyond and, if so, what is the size and specifications of the trains?
2.	(a) For each year 1978 to 1980, what was the frequency of the service (b) will such frequency be maintained or increased in 1981 and, if not, what is the reason for any decrease?
October 23, 1981

3.	Are steps being taken by CNR to ensure that the service will be maintained in the future if Dart Container Lines leaves the port of Halifax and the volume of container traffic decreases and, if so, what are such steps?
4.	Is the government aware of any action that can be taken by shippers or others to ensure that CNR does not decrease the frequency of the service and, if so, what is such action?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The management of Canadian National Railways and Transport Canada advise as follows: 1. No special trains are operated for this traffic. High speed freight trains scheduled on a six-day per week basis handle container and other time sensitive traffic. If necessary, additional scheduled trains are operated to handle excess traffic.
2.	No special trains were operated for container traffic during the noted time period. The frequency of the scheduled trains was maintained.
3.	Subject to demand, the present scheduled service will be maintained.
4.	CN Rail mainline freight services are designed to accommodate traffic being offered in a timely and efficient manner. As long as shippers maintain the current level of traffic between Halifax and Montreal, CN Rail will not consider cutbacks in its freight service schedules. The government is not aware of any other action that can be taken to assure the current frequency of service if traffic volumes are not maintained.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 22, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 17 (Mr. Waddell).
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a matter Your Honour may wish to consider over the weekend. I am referring specifically to the revised notes Your Honour prepared respecting motions to be put to the House in relation to Bill C-48. The practice, apparently, has been, under normal circumstances when questions have been grouped together, to put one of the motions and hold the balance over.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The example I give is that the grouping was Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and on. The ruling was that Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 seemed to offer alternatives and would be put to the House as follows: the question would be put on Motion No. 8; and affirmative vote makes it unnecessary for the House to decide on Motions Nos. 9 and 10; a negative vote necessitates the putting of the question on Motion No. 9.
I raise this point because at some subsequent date we will be taking the standing votes on a number of different motions related directly to Bill C-48. If we were to pursue the practice of receiving yeas and nays on only one of the votes, as we did last night, and not receiving yeas and nays on the subsequent votes, we would then be required, in the middle of taking the standing vote, to stop the process and to receive yeas and nays for subsequent votes which would, I put it to Your Honour, delay or at least extend the period of time for taking the vote, perhaps unnecessarily. It would also make it extremely difficult for the House leaders to sit down at some point between now and the day the recorded votes are taken and to decide on standing votes on some motions but perhaps not on others in order to expedite the business of the House.
I would like to ask if over the weekend Your Honour would consider as an alternative in matters such as this, where there is a large number of votes, that the yeas and nays be taken in every instance and that it then be recorded as to whether there is to be a standing vote subsequently. Then we would know for sure when we enter into our discussions which of the votes are to be recorded and which of the votes may in fact not need to be recorded, so that we can sort out the business of the House in a more expeditious way.


Madam Speaker:: I am not sure that would expedite matters, but I am willing to look at the suggestion of the hon. member and study it. If the House leaders agree, we can perhaps study the procedure the hon. member is suggesting and comply with it, but it will have to be looked at very closely.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, last night I gave a preview of my speech. Now comes the speech. I called Bill C-48 a sleeper. By and large the press and the public of Canada have ignored this debate. They have been preoccupied with the Constitution and their own individual economic concerns, usurious interest rates when they have to renew their mortgages. I understand that. However, there is no point in assuring the political future of Canada through a new Constitution without ensuring an increase in domestic ownership of the energy sector of this country. That is the key for our future.
Today I want to begin the debate on the Canadianization parts of Bill C-48. These clauses of the bill lie at the heart of the National Energy Program. They are the ones under a barrage of unparalleled criticism from our American friends. I want to tell the government on behalf of our party, and indirectly the United States government, that the objectives of the National Energy Program will get our support, and 1 think public support, provided the legislation is tightened up to fully

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
reflect that. These objectives need to be spelled out. I will get to that in a few minutes.
I regret to say there has been evidence in the last few days that the Canadian government is backing off the National Energy Program and its objectives under American pressure. Yesterday we heard from the responsible government agency that there is a loosening up of the rules of Canadian ownership. Yesterday in Washington the American administration laid out quite clearly to Congress their objectives in dealing with Canada over these provisions. They said three things. First, they want Canada to end the discriminatory grant system. Second, they want Canada to stop the takeovers of American firms in the energy area. Third, they want Canada to rein in the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I am sorry to say the Americans are winning this game of pressure. All one has to do is read the speech made last week by the American Ambassador to Canada, who said FIRA was reined in.
What is happening behind the scenes and is perhaps not reflected in the House in day to day questions is that there was planned by cabinet what I call an NEP II. It was to be in the budget, but it is gone. We are not going to have an industrial strategy through an expanded FIRA which would really be the NEP II.
What we are going to see time and time again over the next few months is the government backing off those principles outlined in the National Energy Program. It is a pity. I want to talk a bit about those principles. The first principle is domestic Canadian control of the energy industry. Why do Canadians want this? My amendment is related to this because it substantially increases not ownership, but Canadian control of the energy industry.
Canadians want this for a number of reasons. They do not like the predatory practices of the oil companies. This is not just the ravings of some far-out, left-wing socialist radical. The evidence is all here in government reports in Canada and in books written internationally over the past five years. The Bertrand report showed price-fixing and predatory practices over a period of years. We are not surprised at the Stoner commission hearings now going on. The oil company lawyers express outrage. The evidence is strong. This is not new. I refer to Anthony Sampson's book "The Seven Sisters" published some time ago. He is a distinguished international author. The book shows the same practices having been continued internationally over the past 50 years.
Canadians want to control their own energy industry. They want to stop those predatory practices. The Canadian people want to control their own energy industry because they want to stop the outflow of capital. The argument is often made that the involvement of foreign companies in our oil sector has been a much needed source of foreign capital. That argument is a myth. Since the 1974 increase in oil prices, there have been capital exports. The industry started the capital outflows approach with $2.1 billion between 1975 and 1979. If dividends and interest payments were added, the total outflow goes to $3.7 million in that period. These are not my figures
but figures from page 17 of the National Energy Program which show that we have been exporting capital.
Third, Canadians feel that decisions that affect the basis and scope of development should be made in Canada, not abroad. A good example is the Hibernia, which is being developed and is about ready to go. What a tragedy that the decisions will basically be made in New York, because Mobil has the leases and control of Hibernia. Canadians want those decisions made in Canada, not in New York or Houston.
Another reason Canadians want domestic control of the energy industry is that under the present system we lose the research and development technology. Last year in the House of Commons the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) showed by letters and documents that Imperial Oil is sending all its research on the tar sands projects to its parent, Exxon in New York. We have research in heavy oil and tar sands. It is the forerunner of that kind of development in the world. What do we do? We allow the foreign-controlled company to send all the exclusive contracts in research and patents to its parent in the United States.
These kinds of practices have to stop. The evidence is there.
I have cited some of it. One would have to be blind to miss it, and the Canadian people are not blind. They may be preoccupied, but they are not blind.
The second principle in the National Energy Program which is good is that there be a substantial public presence. Petro-Canada is very popular in this country. Just ask the Conservative party. You can look further, at the polls. Individual MPs send out questionnaires or householders to their constituents. I send them to the people in Vancouver-Kingsway. I asked my constituents what they thought of Petro-Canada and government involvement in the oil industry. By far the results showed that the people like Petro-Canada. They want a government oil company and they want it to be active and expanded. An article the other day in The Globe and Mail reported that sales by Petro-Canada are up in the stations they have taken over in western Canada, Pacific Petroleums. In eastern Canada they will soon be putting the Petro-Canada signs on Petrofina stations. When they do that, Mr. Speaker, the people will receive their Petro-Canada credit cards and sales will go up. People support this. This is important for us to understand.
But this government-and this is where we differ from them-has not followed this principle through.


An hon. Member:: Where do you differ from them?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend asks me where we differ from them. I will put it very specifically. What the government and the bill will do is take large American companies and replace private companies with large Canadian companies. In other words, they will take the Rockefellers and the Mellons of the United States and replace them with the Blacks and the Blairs of Canada. I must say Conrad Black wrote me a nasty letter after my last speech in the House of Commons, but I still think he is distinguished. I am sure Mr. Blair will write me a letter
October 23, 1981

after this speech, but I think he is distinguished too. The pricing decisions they take will not be any different from those of the large American firms or large Canadian firms.
When Bob Blair of Nova Corporation and these other companies get control of the production of oil in Canada, as they will through the National Energy Program and through this bill. They have control of the pipelining. When they get control of the refining, then they will be in a position to influence the distribution and price. This is exactly what the Rockefellers and Mellons did in the United States. It is exactly the pattern, and we will have the same kind of pattern in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You would rather have Marc Lalonde running it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not want to have Marc Lalonde running it. I would like to see an increased role for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the practice of the House that members refer to other members of the House by their constituencies, or in the case of cabinet ministers by their functions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Someone asked me if I liked Lalonde running it. I was not referring to the minister; I was referring to the name. I would be pleased if I could continue with my speech.
Since the introduction of the National Energy Program in the budget of October, 1980, with its grants and incentives to Canadian-owned companies, there have been a number of corporate takeovers and reorganizations that have taken place in this country. For example, there is Petrofina, Hudson's Bay, Aquitaine, Great Basin, Shell and so on. There have been some changes. Of the $6 billion in takeover costs, the Canadian ownership has increased by only 3.5 per cent. Canadian ownership of Canadian oil and gas production has increased, after all that action and everything that was promised, by only 3.5 per cent to 34.8 per cent. This means our oil and gas industry is still over 65 per cent foreign-owned. No other industrialized country in the world, Mr. Speaker, would permit that kind of situation.
My distinguished and hon. friend to my immediate right asks me what we would do. Let me tell him what the social democratic alternative would be. We would make Petro-Canada number one in the industry. We would operate it in a different way so that Petro-Canada is the leader in the industry. For example, we would try to protect small Canadian business by having Petro-Canada supply independents with gasoline. There would not be any price gouging. We would not appoint Liberal hacks to the board of directors or any hacks. On the board of directors we would have representatives of small business, representatives of the consumer and representatives of environmental interests and of native interests, so that Petro-Canada would be unlike the other oil companies. Also, there would be a substantial role for Petro-Canada in operating with northern native people in taking over and controlling some of the properties that may eventually be transferred in partnership with Petro-Canada and some of the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
native corporations I expect to be set up when land claims are settled. This is in fact a different way of approaching the issue.
Another principle in the National Energy Program is that there be an industrial strategy with real energy security tied into the whole program. Canadians want the benefits derived from energy development to stay in Canada.
The stakes in the energy play are simply enormous. I quote from an article in today's Globe and Mail by R. Donald Pollock. Mr. Pollock is chairman of the industrial policies committee of the Science Council of Canada. He says that in 1980-and he is talking about these stakes-
-the net income of the petroleum industry in Canada accounted for almost 30 per cent of the total net income of all non-financial industries-up from 17 per cent in 1972. The figure is expected to go above 40 per cent by 1990. Unless Canada can reduce the level of foreign ownership in this sector, foreign firms will have the cash-flow from Canada's petroleum resources to acquire even larger sections of the Canadian economy or to ship out profits on a massive scale.
There it is put rather succinctly. If we do not have that control in Canada, we will see ourselves open to a capital strike, which we have seen. When my friends on the right get up and talk about rigs going south, that is a capital strike. All the lobbyists and pressure on the government, the price pressure on oil, results basically from foreign companies taking capital out of Canada. What kind of energy security or energy strategy is that if we are always going to be prone to having that happen any time a government wants to have a program? I say that Canadian private industry is quite prone to invest their capital abroad too if they do not like the Canadian energy policy. The Blairs and the Blacks will take all the benefits for a little while, and then when they do not like the policy, when there is something that conflicts with their own private profit, they will take their money out too.
This is why we must have more public ownership. We do not have to have public ownership of everything; I am not advocating that. But we have to have a mix. We have to have public ownership as number one.


Mr. Andre:: You sound like a bricklayer in East Berlin.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) should listen to my speech, as I listened to his speech.


An hon. Member:: What a joke!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then he might learn something.


William James Kempling: You cannot take it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend from Hamilton as well. My friend from Hamilton is bigger that I am, so I do not want to insult him too much!
Let me tell my two hon. friends and my hon. friends opposite what other countries have done. There was always an outrage in the committee when I raised the point of why Canada cannot do the same. Oh, we cannot do that for all kinds of reasons. It would hurt the industry. The government could not do that. It would be like the post office. We are talking about the energy industry and suddenly we get the post office. Look what Great Britain has done. The British Nation-

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
al Oil Corporation first claimed 51 per cent share in all oil production and it negotiated the purchase of it at market prices. This was the corporation that was in effect nationalized by Winston Churchill-


An hon. Member:: Pardon?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -that great radical socialist. That is true. My hon. friend should look at the history of it. It was Anglo-Irani-an. I will pass it on to my friend.


An hon. Member:: The British National Oil Corporation is a different company.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The British national oil industry offers participation to joint venture partners, including foreign-owned firms, but retains control of all projects. In Norway, Statoil, the government oil company, can take up to a 70 per cent interest in any block of land it does not already hold. Statoil takes this interest after a find, but before development, and makes no payment for past exploration expenses. Compare this to the Canadian regime we are debating.
In Australia, foreign companies are allowed to explore, but only Australian and naturalized foreign investors are allowed to produce energy resources. To qualify as naturalized, a foreign company must have 25 per cent of its equity owned by Australians, a majority of Australians on its board of directors, and a public commitment to increase Australian equity to 51 per cent. I will deal with the Canadian situation in a minute, but this is one example at which to look.
Mexico nationalized its oil industry in 1938. It does not have to fiddle around with PIP grants and so on. In fact, it controls its industry fully. But one must be realistic; this will not happen in Canada at the moment. However, there is room for a great deal of expansion of public ownership. I think the government would find that there is a great deal of support among Canadians for it.
Let us look now at Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said in New York on November 18, 1980:
Do you suppose that a party proposing to reduce foreign control-
He meant foreign ownership.
-to 50 per cent within ten years would be regarded as anything but cautious to a fault?
Canada is cautious to a fault. We are going for a 50 per cent ownership by 1990. It will not be controlled, not public, but private ownership by 1990 and Petro-Canada will have a 25 per cent carried interest in Canada lands only. The previous owners are to be compensated for this back-in. This is the great radical policy about which our friends to the south are worried and about which our friends to the right get sick.
I should like to give an example of why Bill C-48 is so weak. I gave this example once before. I asked the government to reply to it or to deny it. I asked the minister in committee whether he agreed with it, and he said, "Yes". This is under
the provisions of Canadianization. If Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada were to go into a joint scheme, we would see in development in the north and offshore all these schemes under this new program. The reason for going into it is that they want the grants; there is a grant system. I will deal with the grant system in a minute. They want some very rich government grants. If my friends want capitalism, why do we have all these government grants?


Harvie Andre: They do not want it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The reason for government grants is that the industry will not go into the area without receiving these huge grants.
Let me look first at how one qualifies for the grants and at the example of Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada entering into a project together, 50-50. We must remember that 70 per cent of Imperial Oil is owned by Exxon, the largest corporation in the world, a large multinational oil company. I use the example of Petro-Canada because it is owned 100 per cent by the Canadian government, it being the Canadian government oil company. If there were to be 100 shares in this consortium of Imperial Oil and Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil would take one half and Petro-Canada would take the other half. I said that Imperial was approximately 70 per cent foreign owned, which means approximately 30 per cent Canadian owned. If the Americans laid claim to the 50 shares taken by Imperial, they would get 70 per cent of the 50 shares, which would be 35 shares-and they would be classified as foreign shares-and the remaining Canadian portion would be 15 shares, which would be called Canadian. If we add that to the 50 shares of Petro-Canada which of course are all Canadian, then we have a project which is deemed to be 65 per cent Canadian owned. This is a Canadian ownership consortium, but in fact it is 50 per cent Canadian controlled and 50 per cent foreign controlled.
I should like to give a second example; the previous one was just a warm-up! This one will show how bad and how phony the system is. Let me take the case where Imperial Oil goes in with 70 per cent. It could be Shell, Gulf, Texaco or any foreign company. If they were put in for 70 per cent and Petro-Canada or any small wholly-owned Canadian company was put in for 30 per cent, this group would receive a production licence and grants and it would be called Canadian owned.
I will indicate how it works. Imperial Oil is 70 per cent owned by Exxon, so 70 per cent of the shares would be 49 shares or 49 per cent. These would be classified as foreign. The Canadian content of Imperial would be 30 per cent of the 70 shares which is 21 shares or 21 per cent. Petro-Canada or the small Canadian company which is in for the other 30 per cent would be all Canadian owned. It would receive 30 shares. In this project in which Imperial has 70 per cent of the action, under this scheme and this bill, 49 per cent would be foreign-controlled and 51 per cent would be Canadian controlled. This in fact is a foreign controlled play. This is Canadian ownership, and Imperial owns 70 per cent of that particular play. It
October 23, 1981

is a sham, it is a fraud, it is an illusion. I would not call it Canadianization; I would call it "Lalondization".
The government has gone to the Canadian public to try to put two things over on it. One illusion is that suddenly we are taking under public control the Canadian oil industry. As I asked last night, what is the biggest oil company in Canada? What is the biggest Canadian oil company? It is not Petro-Canada; it is Dome Petroleum. It is being put into private hands and the so-called Canadianization of the Canadian north is a shell game. We will have consortiums which look like they are Canadian but in fact are foreign controlled. This is the point of Motion No. 17.
I said that I would talk about the grant system. I want to say something about it before I conclude. It is very important to look at that system. In the past the Liberal government has used the taxpayer and the consumer to finance multinational expansion in Canada and their takeover of our energy industry. It was done by welcoming them in with virtually no controls and by giving them grants, write-offs, depletions, superdepletions and every kind of grant that we cannot get in our taxes but that these oil companies got over the past 20 years. Now the Liberals will make the taxpayer and the consumer pay to finance the buying back of the industry, not into public hands but primarily into private ones.
I should like to tell the House about these grants. I have outlined how one can get around being called a Canadian company. If one is a Canadian company, one can receive grants of up to 93 cents on every dollar in order to explore. It seems to me this is an incredible amount. For every dollar the company spends, there could be up to an 80-cent grant and another 13 cents in tax breaks. What do we receive for this? We receive a 25 per cent Petro-Canada interest. For that kind of giveaway 25 per cent goes to Petro-Canada. We get some taxes and royalties but basically we give out billions on grants.
What kind of system is this? Under the grant system we will give a 65 per cent Canadian-owned oil company in 1981 one dollar for every four it spends on frontier exploration. What equity will the taxpayer receive in return? As I said, Petro-Canada will receive a 25 per cent share of the exploration agreement and bears its proportion of the expenses as work progresses. If the well is shown to be capable of production before 1983, Petro-Canada must pay compensation for a share of the expenses prior to 1981.
Through the new grant system taxpayers put up over four times the amount the company does for exploration on Canada lands but receive only a one quarter interest in the project. For example, if the government puts up $40 million for a project, it receives a 25 per cent ownership, whereas the private company puts up $10 million and receives a 75 per cent ownership.
When the grant system is combined with tax breaks in the income tax system, the largesse for the private sector, provided at public expense, is even greater. The maximum benefit for a Canadian-owned company is an after tax and grant cost of only seven cents on every dollar spent on exploration.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
If multinational companies actively engage in exploration they are better off under the NEP. Under the old tax system their after tax cost was 37 cents on each dollar spent. Now, under the tax system combined with the minimum grant, their cost is only 28 cents on the dollar when exploration is done on Canada lands.
I could cite figures until you become tired, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have made my point. I have said that the nuts and bolts of the National Energy Program do not live up to its objective and, in my book, this is misleading to the Canadian people. It seems to me that we suffer from a singular lack of vision in this country. We are still a colony. This American pressure on the limited National Energy Program is a good example of that. I gave examples of what other countries have done which show that we are a colony. We are afraid to take action. We need a new Constitution but we also need a crusade, as it were, to get control of our own economy.
I am sorry that the government is going to back away from expanding FIRA, from an NEP II and from an industrial strategy. This is the key sector of our economy.
I referred earlier to Anthony Sampson's book "The Seven Sisters" and I should like to conclude my remarks by quoting what he said at page 311:
For the West's dependence on energy is now so fundamental and so expensive in terms of investment, that the planning and forecasting cannot be left primarily in the hands of private corporations.
That was his conclusion after a study of the industry. I say that the light of the evidence I have cited today with regard to the petroleum monitoring agency, the flawed grant system, the Bertrand report, the public opinion study-just about everything that has been written about the industry-calls for the government to have enough vision to make sure that Canadians gain control of this industry through the public sector, by and large led by Petro-Canada with the involvement of provincial Crown corporations and the small independent producers in western Canada.
If that mix were put together and this bill were amended to delete the loopholes and incredible giveaways, then there would be some justice for the Canadian people and the Canadian people would respond.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) were full of so many inaccuracies and contain so much false information and such absurdities that it would take the rest of the afternoon to straighten out the facts, and I do not know how long it would take to get that party to believe the facts.
The hon. member criticized the grant system. I must say that this party agrees with him on that. If he would like to get together with us to see if we can find a way to get the government to drop this absurd grant system and go back to a tax-based system under which individuals knew the rules and could make decisions, rather than having a bunch of civil servants processing the grants, then we might make some progress.

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
When the hon. member criticized the grant system, 1 wonder whether he was aware of just how badly it is being administered by the government to which he wants to give even more authority. Is he aware that last fall when the PIP program was announced, a number of small independent Canadian oil companies went to the government to see what they should do about the new program because they wanted to get on with exploration. They wanted to know then they would get the grants, and they were told by the assistant deputy minister of energy, mines and resources that it would be about next May. Consequently, a number of them borrowed money from their banks and then drilled exploratory wells, but they are still waiting for the grants, Mr. Speaker.
This government to which the hon. member wants to give more authority has not yet figured out how to work the system. The bankers are clamouring for their money; they are laying off staff; their employees are moving to Denver. The Denver immigration office has stated that it has hundreds and hundreds of applications from Canadian oil men-these are not these big, ugly multinationals but Canadian citizens-who are being driven out of this country by the National Energy Program, with its bureaucratic controls and grant system. Yet the hon. member wants to give the government more control. How many Canadians would that drive to Denver? How many individuals who would like to stay in Canada is he prepared to see move to Denver before he will give up the absurd notion of turning more power over to the government?


Mr. Ouellet:: Do you have the names of all these people? Produce them.


Harvie Andre: The minister is talking now. I know that these are only western Canadians. I realize that they are not real Canadians. Most of them are from the west and therefore are of no concern to a man of his stature.


André Ouellet: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member is very unfair. I asked him to give us evidence and a list of the names of these people who are lining up in Denver. He accuses the hon. member who spoke ahead of him of making a number of false assertions but I think he is even more inaccurate. I resent very much being told that I do not care for Canadians who live in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister does not have a point of order. He will have an opportunity to intervene in the debate and answer.


André Ouellet: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: I will be pleased to bring in a newspaper clipping at two o'clock which gives the man's name.


André Ouellet: A newspaper clipping!


Harvie Andre: It is a Mr. Jim Davis of the U.S. immigration office.


André Ouellet: Oh, come on!


Harvie Andre: What kind of proof does the minister need? As a matter of fact I may be able to find a personal example. On Wednesday evening a number of people who came from Hungary originally were in town to celebrate the anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. Some of them had settled in Calgary at that time and had done rather well in the oil business. I talked to three who own individual companies and they have all moved 75 per cent of their business to Denver. They felt that they had been run out of Hungary and are now being run out of Canada and they do not want to go. The evidence is there for anyone who is prepared to look.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that we need more control. This shows that he does not know anything about the oil industry. It is the most controlled and regulated industry in Canada. You cannot get a piece of land, you cannot drill a well, you cannot run seismics, you cannot bring on production, you cannot put in a pipeline, you cannot put in a refinery, you cannot put in a service station-you cannot do a single thing without getting a government licence or permit. There is nothing left to control. The government controls everything now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. It being one o'clock, I 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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the floor.


Harvie Andre: dom, some of them are deciding to go to Australia or the United States, that it is terrible that they have that freedom, that they should not be allowed to have the freedom to invest their money where they want, and that an end should be put to that freedom by nationalizing them all. In essence, that is what the New Democratic Party is saying. It is the kind of mentality which East Germany had prior to building the wall in East Berlin to keep people from exercising their freedom by leaving and walking across the border.
The New Democratic Party calls it a capital strike. Well, if an employee does not like the conditions in a company and he quits to go to work for another company, he has not gone on strike; he has simply quit. He is exercising his individual freedom. A strike is something else again. As a result of the NEP, the oil industry is exercising its freedom; freedom which, hopefully, it will not have taken away, if we are to call ourselves a free and democratic country.
Before lunch the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was asking me to provide some proof about what is happening in terms of money and people crossing the border. I would say that he would have to be blind not to have seen what is happening in Canada. If he wants the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, I ask him to read some of the Governor's speeches which point out that the exodus of billions of dollars, which is responsible for our high interest rates in large measure, is a result of the NEP, which is another interesting paradox, if you will.
The New Democratic Party spent a good deal of time this week saying interest rates are too high, outrageously high; and we agree, they are outrageously high. Then the party spent the rest of the period today saying, "We want more of the same that caused the interest rates to be high; we want more of that kind of activity", which, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, is responsible for our interest rates being two or three points above those in the United States.
The minister asked me to provide proof. I have in my hand an article from the Calgary Sun, dated October 6, 1981, which quotes from the Denver Post. It states:
-U.S. immigration is now processing 'literally hundreds' of requests for work permits from Canadian oilmen.
The Post quotes Jim Hardin-
I believe I previously said Jim Davis before; I apologize.
The Post quotes Jim Hardin, a Denver U.S. immigration official, as saying: "There's been a big rush in the past year ... we've never had anything quite like it."
There has never been anything quite like it in Denver, this mass exodus of Canadian citizens to the U.S. This is occurring because the Canadian government has made it unattractive for them to pursue their trade, to use their talents, to use their skills here in Canada, even while claiming it wants us to be self-sufficient. I do not consider that a strike; I consider that to be people exercising their freedom. I know a lot of them personally, and I know they are not going there because they consider Denver a better place to live than Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, or wherever they came from. They are going there because they want to make a living. The Canadian
Canada Oil and Gas Act
government, through its policies, has said, "We are not interested in the talents you have to offer; fend for yourselves".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Alberta has accepted the NEP.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway talked about the big, ugly multinationals. I want to read him a story contained in a newspaper which he should accept as being of high credibility, the Toronto Star, dated October 18, 1981, a column by Irv Lutsky. It reads as follows:
Here is what Larry Darling, president of Concept Resources Ltd., says in the company's latest annual report: "At this time we wish to thank the Liberal Government of Canada for its National Energy Policy.
"Without this policy, Canadian enterpreneurs might have stayed only in Canada and thus would have missed the international opportunities the Liberals so much wanted them to find elsewhere.
"Without this new energy policy, Canada could not have been self-sufficient in oil by 1990. We are now assured of success-the same success we have with the Canadian Post Office, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National Railways and Mirabel Airport.
"On a smaller scale, without this policy, Concept would not have found the Givans and Cowans wildcat wells. We would not have opened our offices in Denver and Billings (Mont.). Finally, had it not been for the Canadian government, we would not have discovered the Hailstone Dome oil field in Montana.
"Thank you, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and your Liberal party followers, for your help and assistance in furthering our cause for free enterprise."
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway applauds the 25 per cent confiscation of privately held lands north of 60 and offshore. Let me quote him a letter from a Canadian-owned small oil company, one he is supposedly interested in. This is a letter to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) which states as follows:
Dear Sir,
Paramount Resources Ltd. is a Canadian independent which has been active in the lands defined as Canada lands in the recent National Energy Policy. Paramount, as operator for a consortium of Canadian companies and individuals, has operated four drilling ventures over the past two years at a total cost of over ten million dollars, perhaps not a large expenditure when compared to expenditures in the Beaufort and East Coast regions, but certainly significant from our standpoint. The program consisted of one well at Liard D-29 costing about $8,000,000 and three wells at Cameron Hills near Hay River, Northwest Territories which cost about $750,000 each.
The Government of Canada has in place a program called The Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Regulations (SOR) 66-404 as amended. Before initiating each program, our company applied for a grant pursuant to these regulations but were advised the program was not funded and therefore no money would be available. The Liard D-29 well went considerably over budget but we proceeded anyway. By March 1980, we had expended about $5,000,000, the threshold expenditure for obtaining superdepletion allowances exactly at the time when the superdepletion allowances were cancelled. It is our understanding that we will receive no superdepletion allowances.
In each drilling venture, Paramount earned their interest from a foreign owned company, thus increasing Canadian ownership in these frontier areas. The four wells were only modestly successful resulting in two gas wells at Cameron Hills. The royalty rate, when we began our program, which we considered to be applicable was ten percent.
On October 28, 1980, the Government of Canada has seen fit to confiscate twenty-five percent of the interest we have earned, and paid for at great expense, with no restitution or compensation whatever. Apparently this government will allow Paramount to continue to pay one hundred percent of the costs of developing and maintaining this property until the property is ready to be placed on production. In addition, this government has indicated they will take forty percent of the profits of a fifty percent additional interest. As well, this

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
government placed an additional eight percent tax on any revenue from this property. All of this was done, we understand to "Canadianize".
If Paramount was a foreign corporation, we might be enraged. As a Canadian company, I can find no words to describe the rape and plunder the Canadian government has perpetrated on our company. The government has effectively deprived Paramount of all possible incentives in the past and has effectively removed the prospect of any profit in the future. Paramount would like to presume that you have only made an error and therefore will rectify this situation immediately.
That letter is signed by C. H. Riddell, President of Paramount Resources Ltd., and I think speaks volumes for this effort to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. The national energy policy and this bill have nothing at all to do with Canadianization; they have everything to do with a desire for more revenue and a desire for more direct government intervention, because this government, like their soulmates to the left here, the NDP, does not like freedom of choice to be left with private citizens or private Canadians. It wants more of it held in its hands. This government was able to convince the editorial writers of the Toronto Star that it is Canadianizing, but the Canadians down on the ground doing the work, certainly in oil and gas, frankly do not believe it. They are enraged and outraged, and some of them are moving out of this country, and all of this to Canadianize. Responsible people should not behave this way, yet there does not appear to be any way in which we can get them to behave responsibly.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker seems to be in his usual state of indecision about whether he supports Canadianization of the petroleum industry or whether he does not. It is hardly a new feature of the ambivalent Conservative position on the National Energy Program and the subsequent agreement with Alberta, and it is not surprising that we should again see that confusion today.
The fact is that the terms of future oil and gas exploration and development in Alberta have now been settled with the Alberta government, the main producing province. I find it difficult to distinguish among the previous speaker's comments whether he was even aware that this agreement had been reached. He seemed to focus entirely on the policies of the federal government as if those same policies were not now adhered to by the Alberta government. Coming from Alberta, he must, however, be conscious that the Alberta government has now committed itself to a Canadianization program parallel to that fostered by the federal government. The Alberta government has itself undertaken not merely to administer such a program but to pay for the incentives to encourage Canadianization of the oil industry as it pertains to the province of Alberta.
In these circumstances, I find it puzzling to understand what the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), is so excited about. I must infer from what he says that he believes the actions of the Alberta government are wrong, that the Alberta government reached a bad agreement with the Government of Canada. If that is his viewpoint, I wish he would just simply state it instead of implying such opposition throughout his presentation.
The previous speaker spent some time quoting from the Toronto Star. I do not know that any great purpose is served by quoting back and forth from various newspaper articles, but since the hon. member opposite initiated the process I might draw his attention to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of July 20, which reads in part:
The Conservative opposition ... wants the federal government to ease off on its Canadianization plans under the National Energy Program.
The editorial goes on to say:
They are, in fact, doing nothing more than parroting the big, U.S.-based multinationals and American politicians who wouldn't recognize their own hypocrisy if they met it stark naked at high noon.
The editorial points out the contradictions in the position of the Conservative opposition, if indeed they have any position, would be worth reading into the record, but I would rather deal with the substance of the question of Canadianization and not engage in these footling exchanges of newspaper editorials.
Before the announcement of the National Energy Program, the Canadian petroleum industry was some 72 per cent foreign owned and 78 per cent foreign controlled based on production; that is on upstream revenues. Since the National Energy Program, which is almost one year old, foreign ownership of the petroleum industry had declined about 6 percentage points to 66 per cent, somewhat greater than my colleague, the hon. member of the NDP, indicated. Foreign control has been reduced by about 10 percentage points to 67 per cent. We are gratified on this side of the House by the progress that has been made, both in the public sector by the activities of PetroCan and in the private sector which has responded with initiative and imagination to the various incentives provided under the National Energy Program.
The most significant events causing that change in ownership in the past 12 months were, of course, the acquisition by Petro-Canada of Petrofina, the acquisition of Conoco's 52 per cent interest in Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company by Dome Petroleum, the acquisition of Aquitaine Canada, by the CDC and, more recently, the acquisition of a one quarter interest in Suncor by the Ontario Energy Corporation.
Those are major acquisitions which have reduced the level of foreign ownership in the Canadian petroleum industry. They contribute, in fact, to a total sum of $6.7 billion which has been spent on the acquisition of foreign companies which are over the $100 million price range. Of course, other smaller acquisitions have taken place by companies active in the Canadian petroleum industry and, indeed, by some companies which have hitherto been participants in that most dynamic sector of our economy.
In addition to those acquisitions, the Canadianization policy has made substantial progress in terms of farm-ins by Canadian companies on foreign company lands. There has been activity as well in the formation of new exploration companies with foreign and Canadian participation. No doubt these
October 23, 1981

activities will increase when the petroleum incentive legislation is passed.
Reference has been made to the relative merits of grants under the petroleum incentives program and the previous system of tax allowances. I would remind the hon. member opposite that it is his party which wanted to remove super depletion, which is one taxation measure that was used in the past as an incentive. His government, in its ill-fated budget of December 1979, undertook to remove that superdepletion incentive from the petroleum industry.
On the broader question of taxation versus grants, there can be no doubt that the tax-based incentives program under tlje previous system benefited mainly foreign-controlled companies because those companies had the tax revenue to benefit from the tax incentives. Consequently, that former system worked against the interests of a number of Canadian-controlled smaller companies which did not have the revenue flowing from their activities that the larger corporations had. For that reason, we have turned to the system of direct grants as a more equitable arrangement from which all in the petroleum industry can benefit, particularly Canadian-controlled companies.
As we move into the petroleum incentives program as well as the agreement between Alberta and the federal government, we have every reason to expect that the present satisfactory rate of Canadianization in the petroleum industry will continue and, in some respects, probably accelerate.
No doubt farm-ins and new exploration ventures will increase as the provisions of Bill C-48 are implemented. We expect the incentives program to bring further development to ensure a greater opportunity for Canadians to participate in their own petroleum industry.
I wish to conclude my contribution to this part of the debate by bringing to the attention of hon. members the substantial progress which has been made in our petroleum industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 17 (Mr. Waddell). 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


An hon. Member:: I didn't see five members.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are supposed to have five members rising.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to Motion No. 18 in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved:: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"other than a designated Crown corporation to the extent that it holds a
Crown share or the minister holding a share on behalf of Her Majesty in"


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to note for the benefit of the House that the way the original Clause 23(5) of the bill was worded, it may have appeared that any share held by Petro-Canada, whether acquired in a private transaction or as a result of the operation of Clause 23 of the bill, was immune from reduction. The intent of the legislation, however, is that it is only the 25 per cent Crown share acquired under Clause 23 that is immune from reduction.
It is the purpose of this motion, Mr. Speaker, to clarify that point. The amended wording makes the intention of the section much clearer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 18 (Mr. Lalonde). 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. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to Motions Nos. 21 and 22 which have been grouped for debate. Motion No. 21 is in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved:: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 36 to 42 at page 15 and lines 1 and 2 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Her Majesty in right of Canada is hereby vested with and the minister
on her behalf shall hold a share sufficient to render the interest holder with a
Canadian ownership rate of fifty percent".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 22

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 40 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"fifty (50) percent share".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad some hon. members are saying just Etobicoke because pretty soon it will all be Conservative in Etobicoke and you will just have to say Etobicoke.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will speak to the motion before the House, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which will point out very clearly the distinction between what we in the Progressive Conservative Party stand for and what the socialist elements of this country, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, stand for. I am glad the hon. member has finally admitted that his party is the socialist party in this country.


Mr. Lang:: You are against Canadianization.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am glad the hon. member refers to Canadianization. I am going to point out to him a means of achieving Canadianization without the tremendous cost entailed in the Canadianization-nationalization-approach the federal government is following in Bill C-48.


Mr. Chenier:: Tell us about Petro-Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Progressive Conservative approach is a very simple approach.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Simple and simplistic.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have supported the objective of 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry. When we were in government, we administered the Foreign Investment Review Act to that end and, during that period of time, my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), administered and was moving toward a broader energy program which would do just that as well; but the very fundamental difference was that we would encourage Canadian ownership, we would encourage investment by Canadians and we would not take the negative approach of discouraging foreign ownership.
The different means of achieving this is the very key to the motion we are debating right now. It is a very important motion in relation to its impact on broader economic factors, particularly the level of interest rates in this country, and I want to come back to that later on in my remarks.


Roy MacLaren: Don't hurry.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says "Don't hurry," because he does not want to hear about the link between his approach to Canadianization-nationalization-and the impact it has on interest rates in this country. He has walked out because he cannot bear to hear the truth.


Mr. Kelly:: He has heard it before.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The motion on the Order Paper in my name is a means by which we could maximize Canadian private sector investor involvement in the development of oil and gas on Canada lands. We would ask the operator of any project on Canada lands to seek out the maximum Canadian ownership. In fact, we would provide an incentive for the operator to seek out the maximum Canadian private sector involvement in any project or consortium. To the extent that we would not be able to achieve 50 per cent Canadian ownership, at that stage we would ask the Crown, either through Petro-Canada or another Crown corporation, to take up the shares necessary to achieve the 50 per cent Canadian ownership objective.


Peter Joseph Lang: Is this the newest flip-flop?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This would be using the Crown corporation in the traditional Canadian way. If the private sector is not able to achieve a national objective, at that stage the Crown corporation comes in and achieves that objective. In this way we would encourage Canadian ownership. We would maximize the development of projects in the north and off the east coast, and again we would use the Crown corporation in the most appropriate way, as opposed to imposing it on every development in the north.
Let me come back to that because there is a very important difference in that there would not be the same level of confiscation. There would not be confiscation in the approach we would take. It would be done through encouragement of the private sector, which historically has been the way in Canada. What I want to do is to set out the current approach of the Liberal government to the development of Canada lands, because it is within the over-all context of government control and ownership that we must view this whole matter. Under this bill we know that the Crown corporation will have the right to take 25 per cent of every project in the north. We also know that under this bill the Crown corporation would be able to convert that 25 per cent ownership interest at no cost to a working interest when the production stage is reached and after a considerable amount of money has been spent on its behalf. Again let me underline the fact that this would be at no cost to the Crown corporation.
During the exploration stage the government and the Crown corporation would have access to all confidential information produced by the consortium, again at no cost to the government or to the Crown corporation. During this period the Crown corporation would have a vote on all decisions taken by the consortium. That means it would have a vote on any exploration work and any decisions affecting future develop-
October 23, 1981

ment. Again let me underline the fact that it would have that vote without any financial responsibility. How many instances can hon. members opposite cite to me in which an operator can be bound by the decision of a non-participating-in a financial sense-participant? There have been no other indications of this in my experience in business. The decision by private sector investors as to whether to proceed with a development can be swung by someone who does not have to participate in the costs of that development. I see an hon. member opposite looking at me in a very puzzled way. I looked at this matter in a very puzzled way at first too.


Mr. Thacker:: But he will never understand it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is another situation in which the Crown corporation can participate at no cost, and that is in the acquisition of the shares of any consortium the Canadian ownership of which falls below 50 per cent. The consortium would have an opportunity to increase the Canadian ownership rate to 50 per cent but, if it does not, the Crown can come in and acquire that shortfall at no cost. It is the combination of these free benefits that I maintain will reduce the level of development in the north.
There is another element which I think is important but relates to a future amendment. Let me just refer to that now. The government can designate, without any justification or reason at all, and not on the basis of a shortfall in the performance of an operator, the Crown corporation as the operator and ask the initial operator to move all his equipment out. The government could put the Crown corporation in as the operator without paying any compensation to the private sector at all. The Crown corporation would then be in a position to bid against private sector participants in various parts of the north. With the knowledge the Crown has gained as a non-paying participant in a number of these developments at the exploration stage, the Crown can bid against other operators in the north. It has the advantage of having that free confidential information.
In addition to all this, the government is in a position to control the degree of development in the north by ordering three individual drill holes in one particular year. These can cost upwards of $50 million each. Regardless of the impact that it may have on any program that is in place, there is no recourse to that. When a discovery is made, the government can designate when it is defined as being a significant discovery, when it is commercial and, if it is commercial, when it goes into production.
Finally, the government can issue a production order which states when production is to begin, the rate of production, the purchaser of the production and the price at which that production will be sold. All this is at the discretion of the minister. It is against that background that we have to look at the intent of the bill and the intent of the motion which I am putting forward.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
When you look at this broad degree of control and broad degree of ownership position provided under Bill C-48 and at the same time the imposition of a 25 per cent ownership on the private sector investors, you can clearly see that the broader impact and force of this bill can hold back the rate of development in the north. It will not encourage the rate of development. It is that that we on this side are most concerned about.
We believe we must move ahead with development of the north. As I said many times, we have been waiting for over ten years for this legislation to come forward. We had hoped it would come forward on a basis that would encourage rather than discourage development.
We have a degree of confiscation here without compensation for the future. I believe that will withhold development. That is the main thrust of the objections that we have to this motion. This proposal in Bill C-48, if it is not amended, is punitive and negative.
The minister has said on a number of occasions that there will be compensation for the retroactive back-in of 25 per cent on discoveries such as the Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea, where work has been done and oil and gas have been found. This will be on a retroactive basis, but there will be compensations. If we look at the degree of compensation related to the level of exploration expenditure that has taken place to date, accelerated to some extent according to the amount of inflation that has taken place, it has no bearing at all on the value of the oil in the ground.
The reason I make this point is that there is a considerable amount of other exploration expenditure which has already taken place in dry holes, fields that will never come onstream. There will be no compensation for that. An oil or gas company which goes into the north, where the risk is high, the environment very difficult to operate in and where costs are very high, does not expect to Find oil and gas in every drill hole they put down. However, when they do find oil, they expect to get proper compensation for it. The compensation formula put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is totally inappropriate and inconsistent with the costs and the ongoing value that has been developed in those fields.
There is another element in this which we must look at. It is not a philosophical element at all but a straight practical argument. Over a period of time the Government of Canada will take 25 per cent control in any project in the north and in the offshore. As the size of these projects increase, the cost to the federal government of their ongoing commitment to invest in the production stage of these projects is going to be immense.
There is another element here. Because of the size of these projects, which will be in the $8 billion, $9 billion, $10 billion range and even higher as time goes on, the 25 per cent ownership position of the government will become the dominant position. Very few private sector investors will be able to afford 25 per cent or even 20 per cent participation in any of these projects. What is going to happen is that the decision-

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
making, not just for one hole here or one hole there but for all the fields across the northern part of this country, will be dominated by one player, the federal government.
Time and again in the development of the oil and gas industry in this country, we have seen a diversity of decisionmaking, a competitive nature in the industry and the ability of different elements in the industry to develop different types of technology in competition with each other, so as to make those important discoveries which in some cases have totally bypassed other members of the industry.
Let me draw attention to the West Pembina field, a very important discovery, one of the largest oil discoveries in Canada in recent years. That was the second discovery in the West Pembina field. The first one was at about 5,000 feet. No one thought there was anything farther down other than one company which had some technology. It went down the other 5,000 or 6,000 feet to the 10,000 or 12,000-foot level and made the largest oil discovery in recent years. That is the nature of the industry. If we had one dominant factor in the industry making all the decisions, maybe the West Pembina type of decision would not be made.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: An hon. member asks why not. The reason is there will be one dominant factor in the industry in the north that will be influencing very heavily all decisions. If that 25 per cent holder does not decide to go down, he can swing the vote. That is the fundamental difference. If you have a spread of ownership and decision-making, those decisions will be made.
That is how Hibernia was discovered. Two other companies had spent a lot of money but could not find anything there. Another company came in and said that if they did such-and-such, they would find it, and they did. We need that diversity of opinion if we are going to have development of this industry proceed.
As I said, our opposition to this bill is not just philosophical, although the debate does point out a very strong philosophical difference between the two parties and the little red rump at the end here. We believe the approach that we have put forward in Motion No. 17 will strengthen the private sector, strengthen the industry as a whole and strengthen the over-all development of our oil and gas resources in the Canada lands.
There are other problems we have to recognize. There are problems I related in the broader picture I presented about the greater control of the government in Canada lands and the burden placed by that control and ownership position of the government on the private sector. I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to develop all those points if I am going to hold myself to the topic of Motion No. 17.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I may have the hon. member's attention, the motion before the House is Motion No. 21. Does he know which motion he is speaking to?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I was given the wrong number by one of my colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's comments have been relevant to the motion. He just happens to have the wrong number.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Behind Motion No. 21 is the broader, philosophical approach to the whole question of Canadianization. Many people have asked what is the difference between the approach of the Conservative party on Canadianization and the approach of the Liberal party on Canadianization? As I said in my earlier remarks, when we were in government we accepted the 50 per cent objective of Canadianization in the oil and gas industry. I shall also remind members of this House that we made no attempts, contrary to what many members have said, prior to the 1979 election to weaken the operations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I was in cabinet and I had some involvement with the operations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. During that time we were trying to improve the operations so that it would not be the stumbling block to investment, which has been the case since our time in government and was the case before our time in government. At no time were the operations and general intent of the Foreign Investment Review Agency undermined. I believe before and during our time in office the statistics show the operations were about the same.
We feel there is a positive way of achieving Canadianization and a negative way in achieving Canadianization. We have chosen the positive way. It involves greater encouragement to job creation and to investment in this country. It does not entail the very powerful negatives we have seen develop over the last few months.
Let me give a few clear indications, apart from the very clear differences under Bill C-48, how we would proceed on Canadianization. We would encourage Canadian ownership. The budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) would encourage Canadian ownership of companies through the Canadian stock investment plan. This plan would provide a shelter for Canadian investors against capital gains of Canadian-owned and controlled companies. We felt this would strongly encourage investment in Canadian companies, and would have a very positive effect on the Canadian ownership position in the Canadian oil and gas industry.
The proposal we put forward on Petro-Canada, a proposal that was made public shortly after the fall of our government in December of 1979, provided for a broad Canadian private sector involvement in that company. It also provided for Petro-Canada itself to go out, as part of its mandate, and buy a Canadian subsidiary of a multinational oil and gas company. We did not tell them they had to do that; we said that the new board of directors might find it was appropriate for the company to do it, and that they might find it was within their financial means to do it. We provided the financial means during the course of the proposal on Petro-Canada.
Another way we encouraged Canadian investment in this country was through two amendments on the treatment of

October 23, 1981

capital gains and on registered retirement savings plans. One of the amendments allowed farmers to take $100,000 of their capital gain on the sale of a farm, place it in an RRSP and use the RRSP funds to invest in the Canadian economy. This, again, would have provided a strong incentive to the acquisition of Canadian common shares.
The key approach we would follow would be to encourage Canadian ownership through incentives. We would use the private sector, both companies and individuals, to participate fully in this process.
In contrast, the Liberal approach has been a more negative approach. In Bill C-48 they impose their 25 per cent ownership, and not full compensation for that ownership, on projects that are under way. They would not take the risk that the private sector had taken in bringing the project to the exploration stage.
The Liberals have proposed a tightening of, and a greater intervention in, the activities of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We do not know where that stands.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has said that is still in the mill. Other sources have said that that proposal has been pulled back. We do not know where it stands. We do know, however, that the existence of those proposals is casting a cloud over future investment in this country.
I believe the government must say one way or the other where they stand on that issue. Until we have that proposal dealt with one way or the other, it is going to have a negative effect on investment in this country. If there is a negative effect on investment in this country, there is going to be a negative effect on job creation. When we have 8.2 per cent unemployment, 900,000 people unemployed in this country, and expectations are that the number will increase further as we go further into the winter, we should not be deterring investment and we should not be deterring the creation of jobs in this country. Finally, the Liberals have interposed a much greater degree of state involvement through the operations of Petro-Canada.
In my earlier remarks, I said that Petro-Canada was perfectly eligible to go out and buy the subsidiaries of non-resident oil and gas companies. What we saw in the acquisition of Petrofina was the sloppiest acquisition that I have seen in my 18 years of experience in the investment business. A year ago September the shares were trading at less than $60 a share. Somehow or other, rumours got out that Petro-Canada was going to buy Petrofina. So what happened during that period? We had periodic run-ups in the value of those shares to the point when at $90 per share they said, "Yes, we are going to buy this company." What price did they say they would pay for it? Not $90 per share but $120 per share, more than twice the value of the company when those rumours started to occur and when Petro-Canada started the negotiations with Petrofina. This is what I mean when I say it is the sloppiest operation I have seen in my experience in the investment business. That sloppiness has cost Canadians, through the increased amounts of money that have been sent out of the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
country to create jobs in Brussels, many valuable tax dollars which could have been much better spent in this country.


An hon. Member:: Consumer dollars.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister said in defence of the price paid, "We only paid a premium of $30 over the $90 and that is consistent with the premiums that have been paid in other takeovers in North America over the past year." Again the minister misled the House, as I said a minute ago, because the premium he paid was not $30 over $90, but $60 over $60, the price at which the shares were when the negotiations started. That is costing us money.
That is why we said in the approach that we put forward on Petro-Canada a couple of years ago that we wanted Petro-Canada governed by private sector disciplines so they would not waste the tax dollars of people in this country. They would have been more careful-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You wanted to dismantle Petro-Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, sir. I hear the old myth surfacing once again. The hon. member said that we wanted to dismantle Petro-Canada. That was back about five years ago, in the early stages of the development of Petro-Canada. The former minister of energy can set the hon. member straight on that. When we were in government, we said that we would help Petro-Canada to grow and to be a powerful, profitable, large company in the oil and gas industry. This is what the proposal we put forward was to do. It would have been a stronger and more effective company in the oil and gas industry. It would have done more to create oil and gas development than the company which is being run by the government at this point in time.
I should like to return to the point at issue which I was discussing before I was interrupted by the Groucho Marx opposite. The key of the Liberal approach is more government ownership and more government intervention in the economy. Basically, it is negative in its direction.
The approach put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party would have led to a more positive investment environment in Canada, to more job creation, to a stronger Canadian dollar and to less inflation. This is the key. If it leads to less inflation, it will lead to lower interest rates. There is not a man or a woman in the country who does not believe that we need lower interest rates. This is the approach we would take if we were in government today. Canadians are becoming more and more anxious to see the Conservative party on the government side of the House so that it can make decisions which will create jobs and reduce the onerous level of interest rates.
I want hon. members opposite to listen carefully to my remarks. The Liberal approach clearly results in a negative business climate. I do not think there is a man or a woman in business in the country today who would say that the business climate is good. Yesterday I had occasion to speak with a man who said that the business climate in Canada is the worst he

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
has seen in his 16 years since returning here. This is a major complaint. It is the sort of comment with which we are faced. On top of that, the government is imposing a negative attitude.


Norman Kelly: How do you explain the GNP?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am glad the hon. member mentioned the GNP. I ask him to repeat his question in approximately three weeks' time. It will be down the next time the numbers are out, it will be down in the following quarter, and in the quarter following that.


Norman Kelly: What about today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are in a recession now.


Norman Kelly: I am talking about today, not three weeks from now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The GNP is down today. The hon. member is looking at the early part of this year. I ask him to bring himself up to date. He should bring himself into the real world and not read history books. The real world today has 8.2 per cent unemployment. In the real world today, there are 900,000 people out of work. The real world today has 21 to 22 per cent interest rates. We are in a recession.


Norman Kelly: You are all hot air.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We will see who is all hot air. The government has weakened the economy through its proposals in Bill C-48 and its proposals on Canadianization. It is the cause of the problems today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) blamed it on the Federal Reserve Bank, President Reagan, the gnomes of Zurich, and the international monetary community. The problems today are being caused by the government. Hon. members opposite on the back benches should get after the members on the front benches. Perhaps they do not want to do it in Parliament because they would not want to be seen attacking the government. I hope they are doing this in the privacy of their caucus, because the country requires some independent thinking. We are not getting it from the Minister of Finance. There is great cost to the approach of the government on Canadianization, both through Bill C-48 and its other measures.
It makes me sick to hear the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party. Time and again members of that party say that we must reduce interest rates. They demand that interest rates be dropped. At the same time they propose policies which will force investment money and jobs out of the country into other countries of the world and will force up interest rates. This is totally inconsistent and irresponsible.


Ian Deans: Do not believe him, Mr. Speaker, just because he said it. It is not so.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the hon. member will let me, I will develop the point I made in question period the other day. To the end of June this year, there was an unidentified outflow of capital-


Ian Deans: Who reappointed Gerald Bouey?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A number of individuals have sent out money in amounts too small to be identified by Statistics Canada. The outflow of money has amounted to $8.4 billion, which is Five times the average figure for the same item in the 1970s. This is causing interest rates to be held up. I want the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to listen.


Ian Deans: I am listening.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Interest rates are being held up in an attempt to get money back into the country to replace the outflow caused by people who do not have confidence in the policies of the government, policies which are being fully supported by the NDP.


Ian Deans: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It pushes the government to increase the impact of these policies. What is happening to the relationship between Canada and the United States? This relationship is being severely damaged. The other night I commented on the fact that the relationship between Canada and the United States is at its worst level since 1812. The reason I made that statement was that many times over the past years we have been concerned because the United States has not paid too much attention to us and has ignored the fact that we are up here. The United States is taking action with regard to its problems on the worldwide basis. This has a negative impact upon us, which the Americans do not understand. The United States has been passive, but it is the First time I have even seen a United States government threatening to take active, aggressive action against Canada in retaliation for the problems created by our government.
We cannot afford to ignore our largest neighbour and trading partner when it starts thinking that way. The government is, in fact, ignoring and provoking the United States. Hon. members of the government, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), went to the United States and made provocative statements, which encouraged the retaliatory action which is being proposed down there. I wonder why the government wants to provoke the United States Congress? Does it want to create an outside enemy to deflect attention from the problems in the country? I am less concerned about the actual actions taken by the administration or the United States Congress. I am more concerned about the signals this will send out to many people in the United States who have interests in one form or another in Canada and to individuals in Canada who may decide to move money outside the country. This is what concerns me most. It happened earlier this year, and the government has shown no intention of reversing its decision.
As I said, this has had a very important effect on the high interest rates that resulted from protecting the outflow of capital. That is the problem we have to fight. But there is
October 23, 1981

another way, a positive way of using the private sector, Mr. Speaker. It is a much more efficient way than using government. We would encourage development, we would encourage investment, and we would encourage the creation of jobs at a time when that is so important.
Which way should we be going? I ask members on the government side to tell me why the approach proposed in Motion No. 21 cannot be considered. It is a more positive approach to Canadianization than the negative approach that the government has taken.


Mr. Evans:: Give us specifics.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a very clear and specific provision in Motion No. 21, and I hope the hon. member opposite will speak to it. I ask hon. members opposite to tell us why they think this motion is not appropriate. I asked the minister, and he said that we have a difference of opinion on it. I have given him my reasons why I think the approach taken in Bill C-48 is not appropriate, so I think I am entitled to expect that hon. members opposite will tell me why they think Motion No. 21 is not appropriate.
Members on the government side and in the NDP have said that Norway does this. Norway is not Canada, Mr. Speaker; it is a country that consumes about 15 per cent or 20 per cent of its oil and gas reserves. We in Canada import 15 per cent or 20 per cent, while Norway exports about 80 per cent of its oil. It can afford to take a different position and to risk that the private sector will cut back its involvement in the industry. Norway can afford to turn off development and take more aggressive attitudes than we can. We cannot afford to take that position. We need the oil.
If the government were serious about the objectives of self-sufficiency in oil, it would not bring Bill C-48 forward in its present form.
That is the basis for Motion No. 21, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will receive an adequate response from hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this very important motion, Motion No. 21, and to connect it with Motion No. 22. The motion is concerned with the development of our resources to the maximum, in the most efficient manner, and with the least amount of intrusion by government.
Without these amendments, the government will continue to govern in an inequitable way. One industry will be singled out for unfair treatment.
Essentially what we have to deal with is the theft, by confiscation, of 25 per cent of northern lands, irrespective of who did the initial development and exploration work. No matter what private company, Canadian or international, did the work, by writing a regulation, the government has established that it can claim 25 per cent of whatever is produced without paying any compensation. No other industry in
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada is subject to such harassment by the federal government.
I cannot help but believe that this is a reflection of the bias of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). It shows his disdain for western Canada, a disdain which is reiterated in his speeches and his personal attacks on the regions of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Sick!


Arnold John Malone: An hon. member opposite says "sick". I would like to share with him something that I believe to be far worse. Just two nights ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources spoke in Sherbrooke, Quebec. A report of that speech reads as follows:
Lalonde said a stronger threat to Canadian unity than Quebec nationalism could soon be posed by the growing wealth of Alberta.
Canada, he said, could one day become a country with one rich province imposing its whims on the other nine if Alberta uses its billions to take control of foreign companies and the federal government does not maintain its role of enforcing the sharing of wealth between rich and poor provinces.
The other nine provinces would eventually be at the mercy of Alberta's every fancy, he said, and a wave of (Alberta) nationalism of unprecedented strength could rise up if the federal government held back now from showing its teeth. "We don't pay enough attention to this threat" Lalonde said, "but it's a real one, it's there."
I submit that it is wrong to pick out one province and say that it is a threat to national unity. It suggests that that province is not willing to share. It flies in the face of everything that has been talked about with regard to the Constitution in the last 15 months. Federalism cannot work when the major player, the federal government, singles out one region and tries to draw the anger of the rest of the country against it.
The fact is that Alberta has a product that is worth world price, and it has negotiated with the federal government to sell that product at 75 per cent of its value within the next five years. To date, Alberta has contributed $30 billion to confederation by selling its product at less than world price. I submit that no other region in Canada can make such a claim.
The government claims that it will Canadianize the oil industry. This industry is located essentially in one region of Canada and that is not central Canada. When the government uses the term "Canadianize", it twists the language. It is really referring to a program of nationalization. This proposal was made in the same year that the government gave a guaranteed loan of $240 million to Chrysler Corporation and in the same year that it took Massey-Ferguson close to its breast to help it out. The unique difference between these multinational companies is that Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler are located in central Canada, while the oil industry is located away from the centre.
The people across this land do not mind the objective stated in the new energy program if it means a greater degree of Canadianization; but we do not have Canadianization, we have nationalization. We have nationalization of that industry which is located away from the centre. It was very much

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
reflected in the speech which was made the day before yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was speaking of the province of Alberta. He said that we do not pay enough attention to that threat, but it is a real one and it is there. It shows the mentality of those who are now governing that they believe not in federalism or in a united Canadian family, but, rather, in a situation where they have power and control. They keep hoisting up the words, multinational oil companies, multinational oil companies, multinational oil companies", as if they wanted one to believe that those were evil words which would somehow produce the same kind of reaction as might appear on the face of a ten-year-old when he is told to clean out the bird cage. They believe the "multinational oil companies" are bad words.
The people of western Canada want to ask what it is that is so awful about our multinational oil companies that the federal government needs to come in and confiscate 25 per cent under the titles called Canada lands, and what it is that makes the government want to take over multinational oil companies and run them as it runs post offices and other institutions. However, when the multinational is Chrysler Corporation or Massey-Ferguson, the government is out there licking off the dollar bills and handing them out, hoping they can save this good company.
If we want to have a greater degree of Canadianization, so be it. Let us take a look at Canadian industries and multinational industries and set up a program. However, any time the government starts to be selective, choosing one industry which affects one region and then virtually promising in the House of Commons that it will not touch any other industry, that this program will not apply to any other industry, then its program of selectivity is one that is foul and wrong-


An hon. Member:: Fouled!


Arnold John Malone: -and ought to be resisted by every Canadian.
I see the parliamentary secretary wincing at that. He has been wincing long enough, with many of our oil rigs leaving and having left the country, heading for Denver, for Australia, for Oklahoma, for Texas, and all of the other various oil centres in North America.
When we talk about the vast number of oil rigs which have left because of this program, those of us who represent western constituencies, believe that when we talk about a rig leaving, everyone understands it as well as we do. Throughout this past year, I became conscious of the past that when we say a rig is leaving, most people outside of the oil producing regions do not really understand what we are saying. I believe they imagine that there is a truck with a derrick on it heading out of the country, that we have lost a truck, an associate driver, and something called a derrick which is being pulled behind. The fact is that when one loses a rig, involved in the move are about 16 liner trucks loaded with batteries of equipment and tools, compressor stations, extra power plants and the rig itself. The total cost of moving a single rig is in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars, nearly $500,000. Far more than 100 of those rigs, with all the men and equipment that go with them,
have been driven out of the oil-producing parts of western Canada. They are heading off to the United States to drill wells and generate jobs there. Why? It is all in the name of some government in disguise which says that it is going to produce great national security and energy.
These Liberals on the other side have no representation in western Canada, with the exception of two members from Winnipeg. Perhaps it would be fair for me to remind them that when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first came to power, there were 56 elected Liberals west of the Manitoba border. Now there are three: two in the federal government, and one in the Manitoba legislature. That is what their policies have done to their respectability as viewed in the west. The fact is that they all had this notion that somehow they would tell Canadians that they were going to Canadianize, using all of those words that the Gallup polls told them to be pleasing. The truth is that they have considerably lowered our potential to produce oil and they have greatly reduced our possibilities for self-sufficiency by 1990.
Oh, how I wish there could have been a number of those Liberals with me when I saw some of these hard-working, private, Canadian business people at the auctions this past year, selling off their equipment because they had gone bankrupt. Oh, what a message they would have received! I know the risks that some of those young fellows took, having grown up on farms, having bought trucks, drilling rigs, and compressors, working virtually 24 hours a day, day after day, through Saturdays and Sundays, finally getting little fleets of five or six trucks going. There they were, somewhere in the middle of their lives, having everything auctioned off.
With the lack of confidence in the new energy program, what did we have? We had a sale taking place where one could hardly get a bid. Relatively new oil equipment was being sold for virtually the same kind of prices at which one could buy older farm trucks. It was a crying shame. There was certainly no need for this at all.
What we have is a situation where the government has given itself the power to come in and claim 25 per cent of all discoveries of oil on lands north of 60, irrespective of who does the work and the exploration or makes the discovery. Moreover, irrespective of what company does the development, the federal government can come in and give a licence to its own chief agency, PetroCan. I submit that all of that will do nothing other than cause a tremendous depression in the development of our high north.
I know that many people hold the view that our energy future is secure because of the fact that we will always be able to find some more oil. I believe that we have the potential for security for a great length of time into the future. We have a 300-year supply of oil at least which is extracted by way of the compression of coal, forcing it by liquefaction into oil. We have a tremendous potential in our tar sands and we also have a great potential that is yet untapped. However, what is not realized, and what the Canadian people are not fully aware of is that the oil of tomorrow will not be nearly as cheap as the oil of today. Those who do not know the industry, believe that
October 23, 1981

somehow the way one finds oil is to hunt around, drill a hole, and that a lake of it lies underground. They believe that once one has found that pool, put the pipe down and put the pump on, the price of oil should be the same from the day one discovers it, allowing for inflation, until the pool is dry. That is not the situation.
Oil is found underground in a tertiary formation. It is in a sandstone rock, similar to one's bathroom sponge. The newspapers or the media describe the first oil which was discovered in western Canada, the Turner Valleys or the Leducs, as blowouts, gushers or high pressure wells from which oil shoots up several hundred feet into the air. There was oil all over the derricks, the men and the vehicles around. It was very cheap then because once the pool was discovered, the pressure of the oil forced the weight of the formations of the earth to shoot that oil up into the air. The pressure of the oil just pumped it horizontally to the refinery. That lasted for perhaps as long as ten years. Then, approximately five or six years ago, along came the rocking donkey head pumps. We then went into the period during which hot salt water known as brine was pumped down into the formations. That is the stage at which most of our oil wells are today. Those of us near the oil industry use a term all too loosely, I submit, when we say we will be out of oil in eight years' time. What we are really saying is that we will be out of the present methods of extracting the oil by that time. The truth of the matter is that when we say we will be out of oil eight years from today, there will still be 75 per cent of the original finds in the tertiary formation. It will not be in the big holes in the tertiary formation, it will be confined to little, minuscule holes, and new methods of getting the large volume of oil out will be required. This is what is generally referred to as enhanced recovery. You have to use a solvent such as Varsol, or some kind of solvent, to loosen it up and get it to flow. All of our future oil will come from enhanced recovery offshore, from the north slopes, from the tar sands or in situ. Every one of those shows a sharp upswing on the chart in terms of cost. Any of the clauses in the present legislation that discourages incentives will cause a dramatic downward pressure on our ability to develop a find, because the costs are going to rise sharply as we move rapidly out of the period during which we have enjoyed free running oil into a period when we will have developed or enhanced oil through the use of some solution, or else we will have to explore many more distant regions, which will not allow for the kind of development we would all like to see.
With regard to the whole question of Canadianization, the government, knowing that Canadians like the word "Canadi-anize" and do not really like the word "multinational", uses these words selectively, with the feeling that somehow they must obtain control of the industry. If it is a question of ownership generally across the industry, industry has already indicated the degree to which it would favour such a position. If it is to be selective ownership, we wonder what the motives of the government are.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
More important, Sir, the government does not need the kind of control it speaks of. Today the government controls the industry as it did last year, the year before and five years before that, in so far as drilling is concerned, where you drill, when you drill, when you bring a well or field into production, also in so far as all the environmental controls are concerned, where the pipelines will go, who will build them, and what strengths of steel are to be used. It also controls refining, the quality and the amount to be sold on the export and on the domestic markets. This is all done through the National Energy Board and through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. All the necessary controls are there, and if they are not, they can easily be put into place.
It is not necessary for government to own the industry and at the same time to write the rules with respect to that industry. What we have today is quite literally a case where the referee is one of the players in the game. In those lands north of 60, the federal government is fully knowledgeable about every formation and hole that has been drilled by an oil company. This information is all banked in the National Energy Board's closet, or library. It is fully aware of all that information. It owns an oil company and is able to compete. When any company, be it Ranger Oil, or whatever it might be, puts down a hole-and most often those exploration holes are drilled by wholly Canadian-owned companies-a full profile of the hole-whether it is dry or otherwise, whether there is gas or oil below, the kind of formations that are encountered-is mapped and sent to the National Energy Board, so the government has a complete map of all Canada's drillings.
The same minister who is in charge of all that information is also in charge of the energy company, namely, Petro-Canada. I submit that the way this game is played is simply not fair. One company has access to all the information, and on that basis an inequity exists. In view of the existence of that inequity, I think it is important that we accept the proposed changes in the amendment in Motion No. 21 in order to eliminate this situation of inequity, which is obvious, especially north of 60.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 21 contains a very important element of Bill C-48 which we are addressing today. I want to read it just to emphasize how important the subject is. It states:
Her Majesty in Right of Canada is hereby vested with and the Minister on her behalf shall hold a share sufficient to render the interest holder with a Canadian ownership rate of fifty per cent.
The key words in that, of course, are "a share sufficient to render the interest holder with a Canadian ownership rate of fifty per cent".
This motion really addresses what we consider a very fundamental part of Bill C-48, a very fundamental and significant element of this particular bill. The subject of Canadianization is a subject that I think intrigues all members of this House and all people in Canada. As a result, during the committee stage of this bill a great deal of time was spent discussing this particular issue, the implications of it and the possible roots of implementation.

October 23, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Essentially, the question is: what does Canadianization mean? To my way of thinking, it means we have a Canadian corporation involved in the development of oil or gas, we have Canadian capital being used for that development, and we have Canadian jobs. In other words, Canadian people are the ones involved in the development of this particular product in the north, with Canadian people being given the opportunity to earn those incomes and gain their livelihood in this way. I do not believe anybody questions that or doubts the importance or relevance of it.
The concern arises from what we effectively have in Bill C-48 as it now stands. Do we really have Canadianization? My concern is that we are getting involved here in something called "double speak". We call it Canadianization, but in fact what we have is nationalization. The reason for that is very simple. When I talked about Canadianization, I was talking about Canadian companies, Canadian content, Canadian capital and Canadian jobs. That is what we are after. There is no need to make any further change. That is the goal we have and that is what we want to accomplish.
As Bill C-48 stands at the moment, the government is not content to take over 25 per cent ownership of a U.S. company out of the United States or 25 per cent of a European company. It is more concerned with what it is in fact doing, that is, taking over 25 per cent of Canadian companies. I begin to wonder right away how that could possibly be called Canadianization. Surely there is a confusion of terms. What we will actually and effectively end up with is nationalization, and nationalization is the fundamental principle we should be discussing and considering very carefully.
When I spoke on Bill C-48 in the past, I said it is a fundamental and important bill. It is the start of a whole lot of future activity in the north, and it is the start of an opportunity for many people in that part of the country who up until now have not had access to some of these jobs. Very often they are faced with high unemployment and with very few options from which to choose.
I think it is fairly commonly accepted that if you want to accomplish something that is difficult or something to which there may not be immediate acceptance in the arena of politics, the popular thing to do, something that is done very regularly, is to create what we call a straw man, an enemy. Often that enemy is not a real enemy but a figure of speech or somewhat of an illusion. I think that is what we are involved with right here, the creation of a straw man. The government's purported goal is Canadianization, but it creates a straw man by saying everything is owned by multinationals and foreigners. It is a laudable goal. Why would the government turn around and take 25 per cent of the Canadian corporations? If we look carefully, we can see that what it is really after is not Canadian content in industry, it is not Canadian content in opportunity, it is not Canadian content in capital but a real grab at control. Its justification for this is twofold. The first one is its need for a window on the industry. It has to see what is happening in the oilfields, what is happening to development
in the north. The second one is to have some control in the direction of that development.
I think that what we are ending up with and what is the real purpose behind Bill C-48 is nothing more than control of the industry. If the government really wanted Canadianization, it would leave Canadian companies alone. It would not take 25 per cent of their interests in their lands.
What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is that if the government can apply this philosophy, this straw man approach to this industry, why should it not do the same to other industries in our country?
Canada is involved in many industries. Look at the forest industry, for example. Anyone who has anything to do with the federal government knows the importance of the forest industry, otherwise we would not have all these papers. Canadian people have an interest in the forest industry, so why not apply the same philosophy there? Why not take 25 per cent of that industry, if the government's argument is valid?
How about the newspaper industry? I am sure the government has quite an interest in that industry because I am sure that quite often there are comments in the newspapers about members of the government that they would rather not see. Why not apply the same philosophy there?
Why not do the same in agriculture? Surely we have an interest in food production in our country. Why not apply the same philosophy in this industry? The fact is that we are not talking about Canadianization, Mr. Speaker; we are talking about control of an industry and its direction.
If the government were really interested in Canadianization, it would accept the motion brought forward by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) because it does address the matter. It calls for 50 per cent ownership. It calls for 50 per cent control. Therefore, that motion should be acceptable.
We can see, after discussing Bill C-48 over the last few days, the dangers incorporated in it. These dangers cause me great concern because of the effects it may have in the north for a long time to come. We have talked about ministerial discretion. We are talking about nationalization today under the guise of Canadianization. The government has demonstrated a real ignorance of what is happening in the north and has turned a deaf ear to the concerns those people have about Bill C-48. In fact, we did not even go up into the north.


An hon. Member:: Where were the Tories when we needed them on the committee?


Albert Glen Cooper: I believe Motion No. 21 addresses the central idea of Canadianization. It would accomplish what the genuine goals of Canadianization in this bill should be, that is an increase in the Canadian content of business, capital and jobs. Self-sufficiency should be the fundamental goal against which everything else should be matched. That does not seem to be the goal of the federal government, and it certainly is not
October 23, 1981

reflected in Bill C-48 as it now stands. This measure could present a tremendous opportunity for development in the north and development of jobs in the north. It is an opportunity which has been a long time coming for northerners. When we are talking about Canadianization, that is what we should be trying to accomplish. We should not be using the disguise of Canadianization to accomplish nothing more than the nationalization and control of an industry.
I am pleased to be speaking today in support of Motion No. 21 because I feel it does address the real issue of Canadianization.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points I would like to address with regard to Motion No. 21, I would also like to say a few things about the comments of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).
The tax policies which the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre has described as being consistent with Motion No. 21, would presumably be some form of tax discrimination that would provide one tax for foreign-owned firms involved in oil exploration and development and another for Canadian-owned firms.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Encouragement!


John Leslie Evans: Well, incentives for Canadian companies that would not necessarily apply to foreign companies. That is the way you would encourage Canadians, as opposed to foreigners, to enter into these kinds of activities. I will discuss this matter later with the hon. member if I am mistaken, but if that is the concept he is following, I suggest we would be in very difficult times because of the GATT treaty, and the OECD. I wonder if the kind of policies he is describing as being consistent with Motion No. 21 would be received any more favourably by those individuals in the United States whom he described as being adamant about the adverse impact-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are misstating the whole direction.


John Leslie Evans: -of the National Energy Program than the ones now under the National Energy Program.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Twist!


John Leslie Evans: We have heard about the outflow of funds from the country. The hon. member did not provide any evidence that I heard to indicate the cause of those outflows, whether they indeed resulted from the National Energy Program. I think he quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada who said in his speech that as a result of the National Energy Program-he was talking about takeovers of foreign companies by Canadian companies-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Read my speech in Hansard.


John Leslie Evans: The Governor of the Bank of Canada had indicated that some $7 billion had flowed out of the country for takeovers. That was in exchange for ownership in compa-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
nies held by foreigners. According to the hon. member, during that period of time there was an additional outflow of funds attributable to the National Energy Program. No evidence for this was provided by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Read the speech.


John Leslie Evans: -no substantial evidence to indicate that what he said is correct. We know how much flowed out of the country to buy foreign-owned companies, which is consistent with Canadianization.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are twisting the whole speech.


John Leslie Evans: However, the hon. member was not able to make a connection on objective grounds which showed that any additional funds were caused to flee by a great fear of nationalization on the part of the industry as a result of the NEP, or any other government policies.
The hon. member talked about Norway and said that if the Government of Canada undertakes programs such as the National Energy Program, they will create a great fear, money will flow out of the country and other areas of development outside oil and gas will be affected. But then he turns around and says that since Norway has all that extra oil, it is all right for it to introduce such policies because that country has more oil than it needs. But what about the effect of those policies on other areas of development and on foreign investment in other areas in Norway? Should Norway not be worried about that and, if it is not-and Norway's policies are much more aggressive than anything considered under the National Energy Program-then why is it that Norway is still getting foreign investment outside the oil and gas area and, indeed, in the oil and gas area?
The hon. member for Crowfoot referred to development outside the Canada lands as well as on the Canada lands. He said Canadian companies were leaving Canada and simply were not interested in participating in oil and gas exploration and development in Canada as a result of the National Energy Program and in subsequent developments. To respond to that I would like to quote from The Financial Post of October 17. The article to which I refer is entitled "Prospect good for big 'new oil' flow" and reads in part as follows:
"We're trying to convince investors to stop listening to the big companies that are crying in their beer and listen to the little companies that are finding the oil," says Don Jackson, president of Sienna Resources Ltd, a Calgary-based exploration company. "Under the new regime, if you can find oil, it is unbeatable. We'll drill as fast as we can get the money."
That does not sound to me as though the National Energy Program is driving small Canadian companies out of Canada. It sounds to me as if they are saying the NEP is a very good program, that it will lead to additional exploration and development, and that they can hardly wait to get their drills into the ground.

Canada Oil and Gas Act
The article continues:
In a speech in Calgary last month, Premier Peter Lougheed defended the EPA in the face of industry criticism but said his government is prepared to make adjustments for any "anomalies" or "inequities" that might exist in the agreement for conventional oil production.
His conclusion was that there were no such anomalies or adjustments necessary, but that he would be willing to look at it. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has indicated the same thing, a willingness to be flexible, if what hon. members opposite say is true can be demonstrated, but we are hearing from the industry that it is very happy with the program. The article continues:
But, by all accounts, even now the pricing terms will create huge new reserves of conventional crude oil.
That is the area about which we have heard great cries of concern.
In their negotiations, experts from Ottawa and Alberta estimated that by the end of 1986-
That is when the pricing agreement ends.
-311,000 barrels per day of new-oil-reference-price oil will be on stream.
That is 311,000 barrels per day of new oil which is not found yet. It will be on stream from conventional sources, not tar sands, not heavy oil and not offshore.


Harvie Andre: How much is that of what we need?


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member asks how much is that of what we need.


Harvie Andre: Fifteen per cent.


John Leslie Evans: Let me go on.


David P. Smith: Peter Lougheed likes it, Harvie.


John Leslie Evans: I will quote directly from the conclusion of the article so that the hon. member cannot accuse me of misstatements. It says this:
By the end of the agreement period, oversupply isn't difficult to imagine. By 1986, according to the Alberta/Ottawa negotiated assumptions on consumption and production, Canadian consumption will have dropped to 1.58 million barrels per day from the current 1.78 million barrels per day. By that point, the planners expect Canada's production to be 1.27 million barrels per day. An additional 200,000 barrels per day from Hibernia and another 150,000 barrels per day from conventional Alberta production will have oil in search of consumers.
That is by 1986, and hon. members opposite are saying that by 1990 we will not be self-sufficient. I respect the experts in Calgary because they are the experts in the oil industry. They are the people who are drilling holes. They are not the people in the House of Commons talking to us every day. They are the people actually out there, drilling holes. They are the people to whom hon. members opposite have told us day after day we should be listening. These gentlemen are speaking to the press. They are speaking publicly and saying that the National Energy Program is not just going to work but that it will work extremely well. If it works from their point of view and creates energy self-sufficiency, then it works well from our point of view, which is the public point of view.
Let us look specifically at the role of Petro-Canada. It is said that Petro-Canada is virtually a useless agency. The United States is averse to Petro-Canada. The Americans do not like the National Energy Program. It is true that they might have some problems with parts of the National Energy Program, but I ask the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre to consider that total foreign investment in the United States is less than 5 per cent of total investment. Foreign investment in Canada in many sectors is more than 50 per cent. The Canadian people have told us clearly that they want to see that problem dealt with. They want to see their ability as shareholders and owners to participate directly in their economy enhanced.
The National Energy Program does that. It will correct a situation which has existed, and we agree with hon. members opposite that it has existed for far too long. We want to see that percentage brought down to 50 per cent and, if the private sector can expand further, we would like to see Canadian ownership even greater than 50 per cent. That is certainly my personal feeling. However, to say that another country should object strenuously to a Canadian policy which attempts to vest ownership of an industry in our own country to the point where the Canadian people own 50 per cent, and to see that strenuous objection coming from another country which is concerned about 5 per cent ownership in its own industry, is beyond my wildest imagination.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Don't look at me, John.


John Leslie Evans: It is ludicrous. Perhaps the policy is misunderstood. Perhaps hon. members of this chamber should be travelling to the United States to educate the Americans. Do they realize what their situation is? Do they realize how much foreign ownership there is in this country? There is no intention to nationalize, to seize or to take away without compensation. What we want is to participate more in our own economy and in our own future. There is nothing heinous or socialistic about that. It is just good, solid, economic common sense.
Before I stop I would like to say one more thing. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) talked about the 25 per cent back-in. The fact is that under the NEP, the Canadian public will pay up to 90 per cent of all exploration costs if, after exploration, oil is found. The Canadian government will say, "We have paid up to 90 per cent of all your costs so far; now we would like 25 pier cent ownership." For that 25 per cent public ownership, we will pay 25 per cent of the development costs in the future, and there will be some compensation through a formula, which will have been agreed upon, for some of the additional costs which will have been incurred during exploration. That is not confiscation. The Canadian people will already have paid for 90 per cent of it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why are we taking only 25 per cent then?


John Leslie Evans: There are risks associated with drilling holes. One might drill 15 dry holes and pay the cost. We want to see exploration take place. Under the proposals of the New Democratic Party, exploration will not take place. Under this pro-
October 23, 1981

posal, all the people in the oil industry, in Calgary, say, the program is going to be successful, Canadians will see exploration and development take place. We will be oil self-sufficient not by 1990, but probably before 1990. May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is four o'clock, but the Chair is not clear as to whether there might be a disposition among members to dispose of Motions Nos. 21 and 22.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 18 to 156 inclusive on the Order Paper allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-359, to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak on my bill C-359, an act to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces. The explanation of the bill is indicated in the explanatory note as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to encourage support for the reserve force of the Canadian Forces.
What I am suggesting is that reservists must be given the opportunity to train without prejudice to their full-time employment. They must be given this opportunity without fear of reprisal from their employers, without sacrificing their regular vacation and without sacrificing their seniority.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, reserve force training usually takes place in the evenings and on weekends during the year. However, the culmination of such training and an exercise to which all members look forward is the annual training exercise of two weeks' duration when the reserve unit is brought together at a specified military centre.
Too frequently reserve force members, in particular the younger members, are unable to participate in such exercises because their employer cannot or will not provide leave for this
National Defence
purpose. Many young citizen soldiers do not have enough seniority in their employment to choose their holidays at the exact time of the reserve force training exercise to which their unit is directed. I remember taking these training exercises, but I was self-employed and did not have the same problem that many of these people have with their employer. Furthermore, some members are married and have a responsibility and natural inclination to spend a holiday period with their families.
At a time when the defence of one's country is very much an issue and when we as Canadians should get as much from our defence dollar as possible, a larger and better prepared reserve force is a desirable objective.
Military experts today talk of limited warfare engagements, with the major battleground taking place in Europe or the Middle East. Gone will be the opportunity of producing fighting men for it will be a "come as you are" battle. There will not be the time, as there was in the Second World War, when men went through their training and then on to battle.
I recall my own training. At the end of the war, I was still training in the RCAF. I received my wings after the war was over. It took over a-year of training before I was qualified. We certainly will not be able to wait that period of time if another war should develop. Hence, there is a need for a better prepared and equipped reserve to bolster the fighting force if a war should break out.
Canada has an unparalleled record when it comes to the willingness and the ability to fight and defend, not only its country but also those of our allies in times of war. The success of the Canadian Armed Forces has been credited to the higher degree of readiness and training that they have received.
Canada's reserve force consists of the primary reserve and the supplementary reserve. The supplementary reserve is a list of personnel, either retired or honourably released from the regular force, who have elected voluntarily to have their names remain on the list. As long as they meet age, medical requirements, and remain current in their trade or occupation, they are liable to call-out when the need arises.
When the Korean war broke out, I was called out for a period of four months to train recruits at the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps school at Camp Borden to fight in Korea. I did not get there myself, but many of those I trained were in the Korean war.
The primary reserve is made up of four components; the naval reserve, the milita or the reserve land force, the air reserve and the communication command reserve.
Let us look at the situation in 1945. Canada had a population of 12 million and a reserve of 83,264. Six years later, with a population increase of two million to 14 million, the number in the reserve had dropped by 30,000 to 53,525. Seven years later, when Canada had a population of 17 million, we had dropped slightly more but still had roughly the same number. In those seven years, our reserve force had not increased although our population had increased by three million. By 1971, with a population of 21 million, the reserve force had
12144

October 23, 1981
National Defence
decreased to 21,869. Last year, in 1980, with a population of 24 million, there were 20,265 serving in our reserve, less than one tenth of 1 per cent of our total population. It can be seen from the statistics that although our population increased over the years, the numbers in our reserve force have been decreasing dramatically. In the past, the reserves have been an integral and imperative part of the Canadian Armed Forces and served as the training ground and back-up force to the regular forces.
Today the role of the reserve is twofold. First, to enhance the war deterrence of the Canadian Armed Forces and, second, to support the regular force in ongoing peacetime tasks and activities. General Richard Rohmer, a retired chief of the reserve forces, said:
The role of the reserves force is to augment the regular force in times of peace, emergency or war.
Brigadier General Cowan, when testifying before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, revealed the extent of their role within the Armed Forces. He stated that it is the policy of the Department of National Defence that the regular forces and the reserve force be partners in the Canadian Armed Forces total force concept.
Historically, the reserve forces have always made a significant contribution to the total strenght of Canada's Armed Forces, and have played an important role in many military endeavours in both peace and war.
The reserves provide trained officers and men for reinforcement and they have a particularly important role in internal security contingency plans. First, the naval reserve maintains a control of shipping organizations for operation and expansion in time of emergency. Second, the militia also provides trained personnel for augmenting civil emergency operations, and third, the air reserve provides light tactical air transport.
Members of the reserve have always shown a great willingness to undergo training in peacetime to prepare themselves for active duty when called upon. Because their willingness is there, we need to provide a better arrangement for the reservists so that they may participate in training and educational activities provided by the armed services.
My bill pertains primarily to the public service and Crown corporations. As hon. members know, public servants in Canada come under the Financial Administration Act. Under military leave, section 47 reads:
A deputy head may grant to an employee leave of absence without pay for a period not exceeding three years for service in
(a)	the regular forces; or
(b)	the active service forces.
Section 48 states that a deputy head may grant leave of absence to an employee who is a member of the reserve forces for any period during which the employee is required to take annual training, attend parades, assist in disaster relief, and so on. This kind of training can be with or without pay.
I remember the floods in Toronto in the fifties. My regiment, the Irish Regiment of Canada, was called out to do duty at that time because of a natural disaster. I recall also the
Mississauga derailment disaster of not too long ago when some of the forces could have been called out. They could have carried on a very heavy role had they been required to do so.
The point I want to emphasize is that the deputy head may grant leave of absence. It is not demanded that he do so, but he may do so if he wishes. In effect, the government has encouraged employers, both in the private and in the public sector, to grant leave of absence to the reservists through a voluntary approach.
I believe the federal government should now implement legislation that will make it mandatory for leave of absence to be granted, both in the public sector and to employees of Crown corporations.
In 1978, the then Minister of National Defence, Mr. Barney Danson, set up the National Employers' Support Committee, called NESC. The members of this committee are prominent individuals in the business community. The committee encourages companies in the private sector to give reservists two weeks off in the summer to take their training, but it assures the employer that the employee will not lose job progression and the two weeks will not be considered as his vacation. The committee has been highly successful in the last three years. It appears that once executives in the business community are made aware of this need, most companies willingly grant the leave for reservist training.
The problems that NESC face are usually with the smaller companies. For example, if a company only has 20 employees and four of them want to go on reserve training at the same time this may create a real problem. However, this is the kind of situation that may be worked out. Certainly it may be a problem for the small-business man, but for companies such as General Motors and others, this should not be a real problem, and certainly not in the public sector or for Crown corporations.
As I said at the outset, I propose in this bill that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) encourage that similar leave be granted outside the federal public sector, and to this end I suggest that he enter into arrangements with employers in both the private and provincial sector.
The issue of pay and pay supplements to reservists when on leave of absence is an issue that the NESC leaves up to the employer and employee to work out between themselves. The National Employment Support Committee does not involve itself in that issue.
In the United States, legislation does exist that gives reserves and national guardsmen leave without loss in pay or time. Section 6323 of the United States Code dealing with military leave, reserves and national guardsmen, states:
An employee as defined by Section 2105 of this title or an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, is entitled to leave without loss in pay, time or performance or efficiency rating for each day, not in excess of 15 days in a calendar year in which he is on active duty or is engaged in field or coast defence training-
October 23, 1981

It also provides-and I think there is an amendment-that the number of days can be cumulative, so that if you do not use up the 15 days in one year, you may use up the days in the following year.
During the 1950s and 1960s in Canada, the reserve force was investigated at various times by a committee, a commission, a study and a departmental review. Implementation of many of the recommendations of these investigative bodies dramatically changed the role, the size and the structure of the reserve.
In May, 1953, the Chief of the General Staff established a committee under the chairmanship of Major General Howard Kennedy to examine the organization, training and administration of the reserve army and make recommendations on ways of improving its effectiveness. One of the most important recommendations made by the Kennedy committee was in response to the weakened state of the reserve force which was attributed, in the committee's opinion, to apathy on the part of the public. I certainly hope that is not the situation at the present time.
In their report, they stated:
.. . that the reserve forces are not only necessary but vital to the defence of Canada and deserve the support of all citizens.
I might point out that at that time the reserves were at a level of 53,000; whereas today they are less than 19,000.
In February of 1964, the Minister of National Defence approved the formation of the Suttie Commission, placed under the chairmanship of Brigadier General E. R. Suttie from whom it gained its name. As the Kennedy committee before it, the Suttie committee stressed the need for public support for the militia. It asked for a vigorous public relations campaign to be spearheaded by vocal government support at all levels; but this was not forthcoming.
The organizational changes resulting from the Suttie commission's recommendations were sweeping and structurally disruptive. They brought about a diminution in the strength of the reserve in terms of units and personnel and reduced its capability to recruit, train and to administer itself. Many units were "mothballed", including the regiment that I was part of at that time, the Irish Regiment of Canada.
I will conclude my comments soon, Mr. Speaker, if I may have your indulgence for a few more minutes.
In mid-1965, the establishment of an organization known as the Deputy Chief Reserves was approved by the Defence Council. From this review of the reserves evolved one of the most detailed and comprehensive tasking plan ever developed in peacetime.
Briefly, the militia was divided into three categories: First, the ready reserve which consisted of individuals trained to such a degree in their particular trade that they can fill in for the regular force; second, the regional reserve, composed of units and individuals required to reinforce other units and committed to the defence of Canada; and third, the mobile command reserve, consisting of those units that would form the training
National Defence
organization needed in an emergency to reinforce the regular force.
The creation of these categories led to a fundamental change in the reserve's system of training. No longer would units proceed to summer training camps as organized entities under their own commanding officers. In future, only subunits that were part of the mobile command reserve would proceed to summer camp, where they were grouped into units of battalion size for training under regular force commanders. Training for the balance of the reserve would be conducted at local unit headquarters at regular force schools and on job training with units and organizations requiring their support in the event of an emergency. In this way, it was felt that the training resources could be concentrated upon the tasks to be peformed, rather than a general and not too extensive training of all the militia for all foreseeable tasks.
The idea was efficient from a financial point of view, but it overlooked two vital areas: first, the training of senior militia officers in the handling of their own units and men; second, the development of that "esprit de corps" so necessary for holding a unit together, particularly under trying circumstances. It can only be developed through long periods of working and training together as an organized unit.
On March 24, 1981, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was formed. The subcommittee was empowered to study the status, capability and role of the Armed Forces Reserves and report to the committee not later than December 7, 1981.
I look forward to the tendering of this report to the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I hope my bill will have some impact on their findings and on the report.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the bill I am proposing that it is to encourage support for the reserve force of the Canadian Forces. It does not go all the way but is, I submit, a step in the right direction toward making it easier for those in the public service and Crown corporations to serve in the reserves, and to encourage the private sector and the provincial public sector to do likewise, in the interest of all Canadians.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), who has had a distinguished military career, on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I wish that members on that side would not write out a 40-minute speech and try to get through them in 20 minutes. I found it very difficult to understand what the hon. member was saying. However, I promise to read his speech in Hansard and find out exactly how much sense it made.
We are pleased that at least one person on that side of the House spoke about the interest in the defence of Canada. Usually, we do not hear anyone on that side speaking about the Armed Forces, unless it is to advise us of yet more reductions that are to take place, or when they speak on their favourite subject of the unification of the three armed services.

October 23, 1981
National Defence
The general intent of this bill is something that we, on this side, have no difficulty in supporting! During our brief term in office, when the Elon. Allan McKinnon was Minister of National Defence, we were setting up plans to support and expand the reserve forces. Unfortunately, we were not able to carry these out in any detail. This afternoon we have been given the information by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore that since the government changed, there has been yet another reduction of, about 1,000 people in the Canadian reserves.
1 find it difficult to understand why we are dealing with this bill this afternoon in one way, and that is because the subject matter of this bill is already before the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. This illustrates the confusion opposite when it comes to defence matters. Perhaps the hon. member did not know that that was the case.
I am interested in what will happen in the debate this afternoon, whether hon. members opposite will talk out their own bill or try to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for further study. The committee already has a mandate to study it. I do not know what type of disposition hon. members opposite would like to make. I will watch very carefully.
I have referred to confusion in defence matters. 1 should like to add to that by indicating confusion and neglect in another area. 1 have the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science entitled, "They Served-We Care". Recommendation No. 4 of the report reads as follows:
We recommend that all necessary steps be taken immediately to eliminate the unacceptable delays in processing pension applications and in pension adjudications which have accumulated since 1970-
Although there are some people like the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who would like to see the government act, this illustrates that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) will just not act. The trouble in the administration of pensions has been brought to the attention of the House on many occasions. I hope this renewed interest will see the matter finally resolved.
There is some difficulty with the mechanism proposed by the hon. member in his bill, although we fully support the intent. If a number of employees in a particular branch of the public service all wanted to take leaves of absence at one time, it might adversely affect the operation of the department. One example which jumps to mind immediately is the post office. Another one would be the Northern Transportation Company Ltd., a Crown corporation. Its main business is done during the summer icefree season, a matter of two or three months. If at that time employees of that organization decided they wanted to take leave of absence, it would disrupt the very necessary service rendered. There might be some difficulty there. I was not sure whether the hon. member who made this proposal was thinking that leave of absence with pay should be
granted in all cases. If that were to be the case, it might be very expensive for the government.
I am pleased to see the hon. member indicating that he does not think that is necessary. Many people who serve in the reserve do not do it with a pecuniary interest. They do it to serve their country. I am pleased the hon. member takes that view also. If this were extended to private industry, the disruptive effects might be even greater.
The wording of Clause No. 2(2) of the proposed bill does not make sense. It is not a matter of law. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) may encourage someone to do something. He does not need legislative authority to encourage people to do things. He can do that as a matter of course. It is just an administrative matter. There is some difficulty with the way in which the bill is worded. Many of the items proposed in the bill could already be done by administrative arrangements. It is not necessary to introduce a new law into the statute books.
I am about to commit the same parliamentary error as the hon. member who spoke first. I will speak very briefly to the intent of the bill, which we have said we fully support, and then I will speak in general about the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve. This subject seldom comes before the House and I think it is worthy of some discussion.
The hon. member referred to the supplementary reserves, those who have served honourably in the regular forces and continue voluntarily to play a very valuable role. I thought the primary reserve consisted of 20,000 people, but I have been informed that it now consists of 19,000 people and is shrinking every day. As the hon. member said, it is divided into four main sections, the first one being the militia, the oldest section having beein established in 1855. In the 1870s at the time of the Fenian raids, some 40,000 men served in the Canadian militia. At the time of those troubles, or of potential troubles between British North America and the United States of America, the main defence force in Canada consisted of the militia. They kept Canada safe from becoming part of what is now the United States, if we look at it that way. Then we have the naval reserve and the air reserve. It was very interesting to see just a few days ago the last flight of the single Otter in the Canadian Air Reserve. These have been replaced by Kiowa helicopters. The single Otter has been retired after a number of years of honourable service with the Canadian Air Reserve. Also there is the communications reserve. It is a very small unit consisting of 1,500 or so people.


Mrs. Appolloni:: What about the rangers?


Dave Nickerson: They have a special place in my heart. I will speak about them in a moment.
The reserves proved their worth in the First and Second World Wars. They provided the base or platform from which large military forces could be raised in short periods of time. For instance, a military force in excess of 600,000 people was raised in World War I. Of late, military strategists have given the matter of reserve forces some study. In terms of nuclear war, the strategists thought for awhile that perhaps we no
October 23, 1981

longer needed reserves, that if a war took place, it would be fought with the people who were on the spot and already trained, with the equipment on hand. The idea was that the war would not last more than a few days. Subsequently they have changed their ideas on that. Now we see that reserve forces might well play a major role in a major conflict.
Aside from their potential uses in wartime, they can be used to support the regular forces in their peacetime duties. Now it is agreed by all strategists who have thought about this, that Canada needs a reserve force. It plays a vital role and should be properly maintained and supplied. Certainly this was our view when we were in government. Our plan was to equip and supply the reserve forces adequately.
I should like to make a brief mention of the cadets. There are some 60,000 cadets in Canada-air cadets, sea cadets and those attached to the army. In particular, I congratulate the people responsible for building up a cadet force in my part of the country, in Canada's north. There are few things that young people can do to be a part of Canada. The establishment of the cadets has had a very beneficial effect. It has taught young people useful things. It has given them a sense of citizenship. They have been given the opportunity to do something useful with their lives by joining the regular forces when they graduate from school, if they so wish. Even if they do not decide on a military career, they will have done a lot of good for themselves and, what is more important, they will have done something good for Canada.
I should also like to see the re-establishment of the Canadian officer training corps. This has been allowed to lapse, but I think it should be established again in Canadian universities; indeed, I have never understood why it was discontinued. Many of the comments I made about cadets could be repeated with regard to the officer training corps. I understand that there is certainly a critical shortage of young, trained, junior officers in the Canadian forces. We should look to the universities to train these people and, to that end, the officer training corps should be re-established.
I should like now to deal with the Canadian rangers. In my opinion, this was a very elite part of the reserve. It is about 1,000 strong and is peculiar to northern Canada. Reserve units exist in many small northern communities, some only five or ten men strong. These people have been chosen because of their special knowledge of the local area. Should we ever have to fight in the north-and I hope that will never be the case- these people could render invaluable assistance to regular forces fighting on terrain and under conditions totally unfamiliar to them.
In peacetime, the Canadian rangers could also fulfil a vital role. All kinds of things could go wrong in the north for which their services might be required. An incident which immediately comes to mind is the crash of the Russian satellite in my constituency not too long ago.
I am pleased at the way a number of distinguished officers commanding the northern region, such as Major General
National Defence
Thorneycroft, General Withers, Brigadier General Beattie, and Brigadier General Baile who is there at present, have gone out of their way to build up the cadet force and the ranger force. They have travelled from one small area to the other to give scattered ranger units the encouragement they need. In particular I should like to commend the Nanook ranger series of exercises which have been conducted in the last few years.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that although we have some slight reservation about the wording of the bill, we can certainly support the concept. We would encourage full support for a Canadian reserve force, and we hope that the subcommittee, which presently has this matter under study, will report favourably to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for bringing Bill C-359 to the attention of the House and calling for a reference to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
The hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) complained that the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore gave a 40-minute speech in 20 minutes. The usual complaint in this place is just the reverse; far too many of us make a 20-minute speech and take 40 minutes in which to do it. I congratulate the hon. member on the speediest presentation that I have heard in some time.
Even though we were not able to follow all his swiftly uttered words, I understand there is some disposition to have this matter go to the subcommittee, and therefore I shall not use up my 20 minutes. Perhaps half that time will take care of what I want to say this afternoon.
In a way, I am substituting for this party's defence critic who is a member of that committee, the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant). He had to leave for Manitoba in order to deal with a little electoral unpleasantness caused by Premier Sterling Lyon. If he were here, I am sure he could deal with many of the details of the bill. Even though a number of my constituents have spoken to me of their concern about the appalling state of the reserve unit in this country, I do not think it is possible for me to deal with every aspect of this matter, so, like the hon. member for Western Arctic, I shall make some general remarks.
I should like to outline my reservation about the reference to the subcommittee. I support the reference but I do so with some real reservations. It is common knowledge around the Hill that this subcommitee has not been very productive. As a matter of fact, this information has filtered beyond the Hill, and I shall refer to this in my remarks.
The House gave a reference to the standing committee to report on the status, capabilities and role of the Armed Forces late last winter, with instructions to report by December 15 next. It was not until March 24 that the reference for a subcommittee was passed by the standing committee. On May

October 23, 1981
National Defence
14, the subcommittee eventually met for the first time, and it was not until June 16 that it began to discuss how it would approach the subject. Yesterday it heard its first witness in public but, as it must report to the full committee by December 7, that will indicate to anyone with a slight knowledge of how subcommittees work, that it can only have about two and a half weeks left for hearings. There are still dozens of submissions to be heard on this very important subject. When the printing requirements, the time necessary for translation, the time necessary to get the committee to agree or disagree with subcommittee recommendations, are all taken into consideration, it is clear that the task is impossible. I am concerned about that, as are a number of other people.
I said that it is common knowledge on the Hill that the committee was not working well. This knowledge has spilled into the press, as is evidenced in the article by Douglas Fisher which appeared in today's Toronto Sun. I bring this up not to excoriate the subcommittee chairman but to point out that Parliament cannot ignore what is being broadcast in the media. I will quote that part of the article which shows that there is an urgent need to deal with the Armed Forces and the problems that relate to the reserve. The article reads in part as follows:
Unfortunately, this urgency has not affected the work of the subcommittee, chaired by a Liberal MP, Maurice Harquail. Two months passed before the chairman called an organization meeting. Another month passed before a second meeting in mid-June. Over the period of the summer recess the committee was briefed and cosseted by the regular force military commands across Canada. (The committee did not use this opportunity to meet with the reserve troops, sailors and airmen who may be affected by their report or who could profile all that's haywire in the current reserves. Instead, the committee will receive their written submissions and hold hearings in Ottawa under the benign gaze of the defence department mandarins. This leaves the impression the report will be an inside job-
Fisher closes this portion with a quote:
-whatever the Chief of Defence-
He does not say "wants". I think it is a typo that was left out; but I think that is the impression he was intending to leave. I am worried about this, and not just because of its subject matter. One of the things that we have noted here in this session of Parliament is the excellent work of task forces and subcommittees. We have had them on a lot of topics. We have had one on alternative energy of which I was a member, as was my colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), chaired by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). By all accounts, it was a thorough, capable-if not outstanding-job.
We have had the committee on the handicapped, chaired by the present parliamentary secretary to the House leader. We have had the North-South. They have all gotten down to work. They have done their homework, they have studied and they have reported. We know, from the length of time it has taken some of us and the hours we have put in on that work, how demanding a job it is, how complex it can be, and how long it takes. One cannot do it in two and a half weeks of public hearings if one is going to do a thorough job. It just cannot be
done. As a matter of fact, with his interest in this subject, I do not know why the subcommittee was not headed by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). Other Liberals have done thorough and favourable work as heads of these task forces and subcommittees, so 1 think that if he has that interest, perhaps he should have been the one.
I make reference to this because it is terribly disappointing, not just to parliamentarians, but also to the 19,000 or so Canadians who serve their country in the reserves. They do not do it for the money. They do not even get beer money out of it, really. They are doing it for a commitment; that is why they are doing it. I think they have a right to expect from Parliament much more than just a once over lightly kind of look at their problems. We will be letting them down unless we give an extension of the time permitted to the subcommittee and make some other arrangements. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here and I am pleased that she is. I know she must be concerned as well.
Dozens of other organizations and individuals have made submissions. They want to be heard. They have submitted briefs, they have indicated their willingness to appear before the committee, and they will not have a chance because the hearings are in Ottawa and there are only two and a half weeks left.
Let me turn to some of the other things more directly related to the bill. In principle, I support the bill before us. Perhaps the reservations about certain kinds of federal institutions mentioned by Northern Transportation Company Ltd. and by the hon. member for Western Arctic would have to be considered, but we are really referring the subject matter of the bill to the committee. Certainly, if one wanted, federally chartered companies could probably be added to the list of Crown corporations and other government agencies which might be included. However, the guidelines certainly have to be worked out. That is not our purpose here. Our purpose here is to deal not with the details, but with the principle of the reference.
If we are going to have a Canadian reserve, there must be proper training. The members have to get away sometime for training and vacations; maybe not two months, but two weeks at a minimum. They must have some training periods of reasonable length. More important, they ought to be able to train as units. This is now largely impossible because members of reserve forces, for the most part, can only train during their summer holidays and, of course, their vacations do not always coincide. That is another problem.
In addition, maybe we are asking too much of people who are already giving up one or two evenings a week and some weekends with their families in the service of their country; but, in addition to asking them to do two or three evenings a week or one or two evenings on weekends, we are now going to ask them to give up their summer holidays with their families, without any adequate kind of recompense at all. They probably will not receive the most effective training should some of the other conditions alluded to earlier take place.
October 23, 1981

I think this bill would overcome some of these problems and substantially contribute to the capability of the reserve forces. It would say, to each and every one of those people who are members of the reserves, that this country cares about what they are doing, and so does Parliament.
I would like to talk for a minute or two about the fact that there may be some debate about the role the reserves should play in Canada. We have reserves. There is no debate at all about the fact that they have been neglected, that their morale is down to zero, and that they suffer the inadequacies of poor equipment and inadequate training.
We are just about reaching Remembrance Day. We are not very far away from it. I guess my first memory of the reserves, then called the militia, goes back to the time when I was in elementary school. My elementary school principal was an officer in the Westminster regiment. We had cadets in the school at the time, and we had uniforms and all those things which probably would look out of place today. There were all kinds of other things and attitudes that we do not have today, too; but I will not go into those. When World War I was declared in 1939-


An hon. Member:: 1939?


Mark Willson Rose: -who were the first ones to march off? My high school principal and the members of the reserve who trained in what was then called the Mission Rink, which has now been torn down. We later called it the armouries, and there are all kinds of names it was called. However, the fact is that there was an active group, part of the New Westminster reserve unit, the New Westminster regiment, training there at all times. They were the first to respond to the call when the call came, when trouble came.
If we let the reserves run down, as we have been doing, then who will respond the next time trouble occurs? Some people say that it will not matter, anyway, because when they start throwing those A-bombs around at one another, it will not matter whether we have reserves; we might as well have a few guys out there with pointed sticks or big shovels to dig holes. I do not know. However, maybe having reserve units can do something to at least prevent the last resort being used. Again, we could get a lot of arguments, both within and outside my party on that one. I remember the cadets; I remember the New Westminsters. 1 remember how they responded in World War 1 and in Korea.
Almost every industrialized nation, both in the East and the West Bloc, has a ratio of three in the reserves to one in the regular forces. Our ratio is exactly the reverse. We have three in the regular forces for every one in the reserves. We are out of step or something. The Senate subcommittee on this subject suggested that in wartime we probably need 108,000 reserves. We have 30,000 on paper, and obviously that is a force, even if they could all serve, which would be too small to discharge its obligations. Besides, how many could go, out of those 30,000 that are on paper? Some would be too old, some would be too young, and some would not be suitable for
National Defence
certain kinds of combat roles, and therefore, it is a serious problem.
The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore talked about augmentation. The reserves will be used, as a policy, to augment the regular forces; but if they are not trained as units, how can they? How can they adequately augment a regular force unit if their training is individual? For instance, an example is the Winnipeg Rifles. They do not train as a formation; they train as individuals. They would never go into action as a formation or work together as a formation. People who are much more knowledgeable than I in this particular area say that this will have some alarming consequences.
If we are going to augment the regular forces with the reserve units, why do we not arm the reserve units with the same equipment that is being used by the regular forces? There are some armoured reserve units which have scarcely seen a tank in this country, with the exception, perhaps, of a Sherman tank, but certainly not the Leopard tanks which are being used over in Europe. Naval reserves, I am told, are still using four-inch guns, probably two weapons generations behind what modern naval units are using. There are probably other examples that, if you searched, you could probably find, very easily, but I do not think I need to do so in order to make the point.
We need strong support by the regulars if our reserve units are to be functional. They are doing the training, they are the professionals and the ones who will be up to date. I do not want anybody to mistake what I am saying. I do not want to malign anyone. However, it has frequently been the practice that the officers from the regular forces chosen to train the reserve units are people an inch away from retirement. I am not suggesting that some of them do not do an excellent job, and I said I did not want to malign anyone. However, I think the greater number of them used to train the reserve units should be ambitious young officers whose record in reserve training would somehow help them in their advancement. I would look for that. Again I am sure there are many officers who are about to be retired who do excellent work, but I think there should be a better balance between young and older or nearly retired officers training the reserves.
I suggest the committee should take a look at these things. Just because we are different from some countries in Europe and the United States in that we do not have conscription, as some countries do, does not mean we are all wrong, but it certainly will not hurt to look at this.
I am a little concerned that, while we do support this reference and request today, we cannot have all that much confidence that the committee, if it continues to perform as it has in the last six months, will accomplish much, or that much will happen with the reference. I am sorry to say that, but I think that needs to be said.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this oppor-

October 23, 1981
National Defence
tunity to correct the record in at least two instances and add, with reference to the last statement by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), to say that in my view it is very sad indeed that the author of the article to which he referred was not even present yesterday. It is unfortunate he was not present, as I was, because he would have heard three of the best briefs I have personally heard in a long time. The committee is working.
Another reference in the same article which he quoted said that the subcommittee on reserves had not spoken to the ranks, only to officers. I can assure the hon. member and the author of that article, and I wish he would come to the meetings before he covers them in the press, that we did speak to the "other ranks", both at Gagetown and Petawawa. In fact, at Petawawa I personally had the great thrill of being able to drive in a tank, and I assure you it was not an officer who drove it.
The other point I want to correct, and I think this is important for the record, relates to the fact that the mover of this motion, echoed by our friend from across the way, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), misquoted some figures. They both referred to the present paid strength of the reserves as being under 21,000, and said it has fallen this last year. I am happy to report-and again, if the author of that report had been at the meeting yesterday he would have known-that the present strength of the reserves as of June of this year, far from being 19,000, is 22,898. So much for inaccurate reporting.
There were many other points I would have enjoyed making on this very important matter, but as a sign that this particular government and the minister, whom I am proud to represent in the House this afternoon, are much more anxious for action
than for words, I will cut short my speech and move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-359, an act to encourage the growth of the Reserve Force of the
Canadian Forces, be not now read a second time but that the order be
discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mrs. Appolloni) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion (Mr. Robinson) (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) as amended agreed to.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House that I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 26, 1981