1981-11-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given the unanimous request of the Senate Committee on Transport asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to rescind his July 27 decision to terminate 19 per cent of VIA Rail passenger services, and whereas the Senate transport committee has invited the Minister of Transport to appear before it to explain his actions, a request which the minister has so far ignored, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House directs the Minister of Transport to accept immediately the invitation from the Senate transport committee asking that he appear promptly before the said committee to give evidence and answer questions regarding his regrettable decision to terminate VIA Rail passenger service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, 25 years ago today, on November 4, 1956, the General Assembly of the United Nations in special session adopted a resolution to resolve the Suez Canal crisis by the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force under the command of a great Canadian, General Burns. This resolution, sponsored by the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, in the name of Canada, marked the beginning of United Nations peacekeeping forces and won for its author the Nobel Peace Prize.
Pursuant to Standing Order 43 I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House recognizes the contribution made by those Canadians who have served and continue to serve in these United Nations peacekeeping forces, and particularly those who lost their lives, and that this House renews its commitment to the United Nations effort to promote world peace.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, the attitude of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) toward changing the Foreign Investment Review Agency is resulting in keeping vital foreign investment out of Canada which, in my constituency alone, accounts for approximately 80 per cent of present industrial jobs created by American and British capital. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce clarify immediately whether or not he intends to proceed with serious curtailment of foreign investment in Canada, particularly American, and in relation to border areas such as Leeds-Grenville that the minister confirm immediately a government policy of discontinuing the practice of halting legitimate American investment at the New York State-Ontario border which has made him known as the minister of industry for northern New York State.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
S.O.	43 WELFARE

November 4, 1981


CARE OF NATIVE CHILDREN IN MANITOBA-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is definitely of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas native children in Canada are the victims of a hodge-podge of disgraceful approaches to child welfare, whereas in Manitoba alone 60 per cent of all children in care are native, and whereas an agreement for a native child welfare program was reached last spring between the Four Nations Confederacy and the governments of Manitoba and Canada but is yet to be implemented, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Social Development and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to act so that this program be given immediate cabinet approval and funding in order that native children in Manitoba receive the high quality care to which they are entitled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, in its reckless VIA Rail cutbacks the government has forgotten to consider 500,000 acrophobiacs in Canada, those people who have a fear of heights and who have to rely mainly on trains for travel. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House instructs the government to rescind its July 27 order in council which mindlessly cancelled the lifeline of transportation for these 500,000 Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Last week, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the creation of a Canadian agency to aid the textile and clothing industry, which will be responsible for co-ordinating up to $250 million in grants to the industry, and have its head office in Montreal. Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois):
That this House congratulate the Government of Canada on the action thus taken to aid the industry, its Canadian workers and their communities.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the government's interest rate policy where Canadian interest rates today are 4 to 5 per cent above American rates is preventing the purchase of new capital machinery to make our industry more productive. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who was so persuasive in this House when he was finance critic for the Liberal party about the devastating effect of high interest rates on business, today on motions explain to this House how his high interest policy is now enabling business to be more productive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REPRESENTATION CONCERNING TAX POLICIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the balance of trade in manufactured goods between Canada and the United States continues to deteriorate under Liberal incompetence in economic affairs, especially relating


to trade and commerce, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That in the forthcoming budget, if it ever arrives, tax policies not be pursued which would put Canadian industries in an even less competitive position compared with their American counterparts than presently unfortunately exists.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas a number of scientific studies available to the ministries of Agriculture and Health and Welfare indicate the health and environmental danger posed by the substances known as chlorophenols, and whereas a recent study commissioned by Local 1-85 of the International Woodworkers of America in Port Alberni, B.C. reports that workers exposed to these substances show a significant increase in the incidence of symptoms of ill health, believed to result from their proximity to these substances in their workplace, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the Ministry of Agriculture, in co-operation with the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, be instructed to exercise its mandate under the Pest Control Products Act and ban the use of these substances for the treatment of all lumber so that Canadian woodworkers are no longer exposed to these
poisons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Madam Speaker, whereas yesterday in Longueuil a young policeman of twenty-six, Michel Vincent, lost his life while protecting the interests and the rights of his fellow citizens against any kind of transgression, and another officer was
Oral Questions
seriously wounded, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont):
That this House send a message of condolence to the family of Michel Vincent who died yesterday in tragic circumstances while protecting our rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT OF GATT ON BEEF IMPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, since the Canadian negotiators at the Tokyo Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade accepted agreements that are now causing Canadian cattlemen to operate below the cost of production throughout all of 1980-81 by agreeing to a formula allowing beef imports relative to human population growth, and a guaranteed minimum level of importation based on figures collected when our cattle populations were at an alltime high, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Government of Canada refer this issue to a special standing committee so that the government might in turn accept the responsibility for the damage caused by the actions of their negotiators.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). I have in my hand a document entitled "A Top Secret Cabinet Document" that was sponsored by the Minister of State for Economic Development who happens to be in the other House. My question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce centres on this document which sets out as a top priority the redeployment of Canada's human resources from one area of Canada to another. Would the minister indicate if he, as the minister in the other House suggested, agreed to this proposition, and if this is, in fact, part

November 4, 1981
Oral Questions
of the industrial strategy that he has told us is on the way and will be introduced shortly?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we want to increase job opportunities for Canadians, particularly in the areas where they live. I appreciate that my hon. friend is in effect trying to build up interest for our forthcoming announcements in the area of industrial strategy. I hope my hon. friend will be patient and hear the announcements and I hope that he will have the same level of interest but with a higher degree of support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOBILITY OF LABOUR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who apparently is confirming that his senior minister has, in fact, revisited Walter Gordon's 1957 proposition of depopulating various areas of Canada to the general disadvantage of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again if I may direct my question to the minister about the suggestion that the cabinet should actively seek ways to reduce the impediments to mobility and adjustment caused by unions, professional associations and provincial practices. Would the minister indicate, first, if that is one of the reasons that his government is so adamant in having a mobility clause put in the government's Charter of Rights proposition? Second, how does the minister propose to denude or depopulate the various areas of Canada? Third, what has the minister in mind when he says that he wants to counter the unions, the professional associations and the provincial practices that restrain the type of movement that he has in mind?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not accept or confirm the premise with regard to my hon. friend's question that what he has is a document that represents a decision or policy of the Government of Canada as such. In any event, I think Canadians generally feel that we should strengthen the common market in this country, which means maintaining and strengthening opportunities for Canadians to have job opportunities in every part of the country. I think this is a healthy idea, even though, as far as I am concerned, the focus has to be on strengthening opportunities for work in the regions where Canadians make their homes.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As
the minister is undoubtedly aware, the document submitted by his senior minister to cabinet makes virtually no reference to FIR A whatsoever. Would the minister indicate where this puts his proposition with respect to FIRA? Is it no longer a priority? Has he been overruled? In short, is it true that he has absolutely no clout in cabinet whatsoever? Is it absolutely true?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not believe it would be wise for my hon. friend to put forth the premise in his question that whatever he has in his hands involves a document reflecting a decision of the Government of Canada as a whole. The position that we stated with respect to FIRA was that stated in the Throne Speech. As I have said before, and I shall repeat here, we are presently discussing the timing and the manner of dealing with what we said in the throne speech in this regard. I only remind the House of the very strong comments with regard to this matter that were made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday. They are comments worth repeating and worth remembering.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question also directed to the same minister. The minister's policy and statements with regard to government intervention and foreign ownership are clearly contrary to the philosophy in this cabinet document on economic development, at page 19, if he wishes to refer to it. They are clearly identified as one of the key reasons why there are high interest rates in the country today. Is the minister's contribution to the very high level of interest rates the main reason why his approach to industrial strategy has been shunted aside by his cabinet colleagues?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, interest rates have come down some three percentage points since their record high level in August. I am sure all of us, while continuing to be concerned about the issue, look forward to and hope for continued movement in that area. I am not accepting the premise of the hon. member's question that what he has in his hand reflects in any way the decision of the government as a whole.


Mr. Clark:: Perhaps they did not tell you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What he is talking about as my policies are the policies put forward by this party during the election and confirmed in the throne speech. They are policies with which I
November 4, 1981

am pleased to be associated because they are policies the majority of Canadians indicated they support.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear from this document that the statements and the philosophies which the minister has been following, not just since he has been in the office he holds now but for the last ten years, have led to the present high level of interest rates in the country. In my presence about a year and a half ago the minister said that if interest rates went above the prevailing level, at that time of some 13 to 13.5 per cent, he would resign.
He has also said that this document does not necessarily represent government thinking at this stage. If in fact it represents government thinking and is accepted by his colleagues in government, will the minister resign both for that reason and for the reason he stated 18 months ago, that if interest rates went above the then prevailing rate he would resign?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Resign, Herb!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the policies I support are in favour of or have in any way contributed to high interest rates. The hon. member's question is essentially hypothetical, but I think I will say now, as I said before, that in any event whatever happens in terms of government announcements it is incumbent upon people such as myself to stay here and fight to ensure that the group on the other side do not get in office again and have another chance to damage the economy as they already started to do before they were thrown out by the Canadian people.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Human Rights Commission found in May, 1980, that the federal government was guilty of shortchanging some 3,000 public servants, mostly women, by approximately $9.5 million. Since the report of the conciliation board brought down yesterday argues that this point is correct and indicates that equality should be provided, why has the minister waited 18 months to provide the equality due Canadian women? Why does he not pay them the money they deserve?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Well answer it this time.
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: I have given very satisfactory answers. We have moved in every possible way that we could up to this point to eliminate what has been called a discriminatory practice. This so-called discrimination against women is actually against female dominated groups in the general services group. Let me cite an example. In the laundry services group there are 36 women and 35 men. We recognize that the contract to which that group is subject in 22 different pay zones and seven subgroups across the country is a basis of claim for discrimination.


Miss MacDonald:: How about deputy ministers?


Donald James Johnston: The conciliation board report which was handed down yesterday was referred by the Public Service Alliance to its membership for ratification, which it has to do in accordance with the terms of its constitution. In the meantime we have indicated our support for the minority report which would have the effect of eliminating discrimination and in fact of providing a common pay plan, a 17 per cent increase in 1981, and a 10 per cent increase in the next year. In fact it is a 26-month contract. I do not see how the hon. member for Oshawa can say that we have not done everything possible to revolve this difficult situation.
I might also add that with respect to the retroactive period which terminated at the end of the prior contract, namely, in December, 1980, a human rights tribunal was constituted and that issue will be determined by the tribunal, namely, what is the proper interpretation of Section 11 of the Human Rights Act.


REQUEST THAT CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT BE ACTED UPON IMMEDIATELY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister is clearly the biggest sexist in the country. Listen to that answer! He knows that I wrote to him in June, 1980, after the ruling of the Human Rights Commissioner, and he wrote back saying that he would resolve the issue as "expeditiously" as possible. That was 18 months ago. Canadian women working for the Canadian government are still waiting for his action.
I ask the minister again why he is waiting to act until further meetings take place? Why does he not accept the majority recommendation of the report that came down, and why does he not provide some equality now?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa and his party are notoriously generous with taxpayers' money. The interpretation to be given to Section 11 of the Human Rights Act is something that a tribunal must determine. We have made offers of settlement. We made a proposal to the Human Rights Commission that would have cost the taxpayers $13.8 million. The Human Rights Commission suggested that a

Oral Questions
human rights tribunal be established. No counter proposal was made.


John Edward Broadbent: You should take action.


Donald James Johnston: The conciliation board has made a specific proposal which has very far-reaching implications, with respect to the application of that act. Is the hon. member saying to us-


John Edward Broadbent: Get equality.


Donald James Johnston: Bear in mind, Madam Speaker, the point I made at the outset. We are talking about female dominated groups; we are not talking about women. I resent very much any accusation that I am a sexist. I would point out to the hon. member for Oshawa that I happen to be the father of four daughters and have a vested interest in-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that was most touching. I happen to be the daughter of one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Only a minister who seemed proud of the fact that he had four daughters could laugh at an obvious slip.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Your "slip" is showing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to say-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I hate to break up the good spirit of the House but we must have question period.


John Edward Broadbent: The point is clear, Madam Speaker, that the government believes in equality for women only if it does not cost the government a cent. That is the point. The minister made that clear in his answer. I would like him either to confirm or deny that. As I understood him, he said that it would cost money to provide equality. Is he saying to the women of Canada that they cannot expect equality from Liberals if it means the government must pay for it?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I was not laughing at the hon. member's "slip".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I simply want to point out that the hon. member does not understand the issues at all. With respect to the proposals which we made, we have attempted to increase salaries in the female dominated groups in amounts averaging 13.8 per cent and 35 per cent in the first half of the agreement.
I think that was a very generous offer, Madam Speaker. It has nothing to do with the marketplace, I might add. It has to do with trying to resolve the difficulty of having subgroups and 22 pay zones with 13 levels of pay spread right across this country of which some are female dominated, namely three, with four being male dominated. It has nothing to do with the equality of women, because in each of these groups there is a very substantial male representation. In the largest group it is one third male who will benefit also from this increase; in another group it is 50 per cent male, and in the other group, as I mentioned, it is 35 male and 36 female. I can hardly see how the hon. member for Oshawa can make any accusation with respect to discrimination against women in the proposals we have made.


INDUSTRY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have ladies go before gentlemen in the question period.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has been "Olsonated". At page 37 of the Olson memorandum to the cabinet the major recommendation is this:
-the redeployment of Canada's human resources from areas or industries with low rates of productivity or returns into resource or resource-based and high productivity and high technology industries or areas.
That is the main recommendation; in other words, to shift people from areas with high unemployment to other areas. Is this the government's final solution to the unemployment problem in provinces such as Newfoundland, regionally deprived provinces with as high as 17.8 per cent unemployment? Is it the government's policy to move the people from there, whether they wish it or not?
Does this new policy explain the fact that DREE assistance has been cut back 50 per cent in Newfoundland? Is this the explanation for the cutback in transportation assistance? Is this why the minister would not give a grant to the St. John's dockyard when he gave $40 million to Vancouver, grants to Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick? Is this the minister's final solution to the problem of regional deprivation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, first of all in the premise of my hon. friend's question he in effect admits that what he is quoting


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 4, 1981

from is not a statement of government policy. He talked about somebody's alleged proposal to cabinet.
Second of all, Madam Speaker, in my hon. friend's own question he gives the answer to what he is trying to assert, that it is not correct that this government is working in a way that is adverse to the interests of the Atlantic provinces in general, and Newfoundland in particular, because he himself in his question put forward a range of announcements we made to enhance the economic development of the Atlantic area.
We are also taking steps to enhance and expand the economic base of the province of Newfoundland through a number of measures, one in particular being what we are doing to bring about the development of the offshore resource area. On August 27 I announced the federal government's program to ensure to Canadian workers and companies in Canada a full and fair opportunity to take part in those projects, and this will mean a whole host of opportunities for workers in Newfoundland, something my hon. friend did not bother to think about in the fortunately brief period he was in office.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whose answer to the hon. member for St. John's West indicates why he is the weak sister in cabinet.
Recently Cal Knudsen, the chairman of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., reported that three B.C. newsprint producers are spending about half a billion dollars of private capital to build three newsprint machines. Mr. Knudsen, whose company has just laid off 1,400 workers, reported that these new machines will start up at low operating capacities caused in part by government funded expansion elsewhere in Canada. Since the cabinet document referred to by hon. members specifically underlines the need for a "good climate" for private capital investment, why does the government continue to rain on the private sector's parade by funding competitive projects? Why should taxpayers pay for projects which may put themselves out of work?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the hon. lady's question demonstrates why it is said that when Conservatives are asked to form a firing squad they take their guns and form up in a circle. My hon. friend from Newfoundland has just complained that this government is allegedly not doing enough to enhance the economic development of eastern Canada. His colleague is saying in effect that we are doing too much.
I do not think there is in any way anything wrong with working co-operatively with the industry and the provinces to help bring about the modernization of the pulp and paper industry in this country generally, and in eastern Canada particularly, because we have said that we are also willing to discuss a similar program with the western provinces and industry. For her to say what she is saying, reflecting on the very great and sound achievements for the pulp and paper
Oral Questions
modernization program in its present form, it shows why, instead of making the contribution the Conservatives should to national unity, they are doing just the opposite.


DOCTRINE ESPOUSED BY FORMER LIBERAL MINISTER
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Some years ago a prominent Liberal by the name of Walter Gordon, who is widely known as the philosophical mentor of the minister, propagated the odious doctrine that the federal government should move people out of Atlantic Canada to the industrial centres of the country, rather than help create opportunities for jobs in their own region. This top secret cabinet document on federal economic priorities for the 1980s, which I have in my hand and which the minister has not repudiated, calls for "a large-scale shift of people from areas with low rates of productivity to high-productivity areas of the country." Will the minister rise to his feet now and assure the House, and through the House the people of Atlantic Canada,, that he will personally Fight against the federal government's declared goal of resurrecting the odious Walter Gordon doctrine?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is not the declared role of this government. In fact the evidence demonstrates that we have been working to increase job opportunities in every part of the country, and we have certainly been doing this with respect to Atlantic Canada. This is demonstrated by the fact that the most recent figures show that the population of Atlantic Canada has gone up, the first time this has happened in many years, and it has gone up because of the work we have been doing through federal government policies to support private sector activity and to create the jobs and the environment which has brought people back to Atlantic Canada, something they would not have thought of under Conservative policy.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the same minister. Volkswagen decided to locate in Barrie, Ontario, at no federal cost other than duty remission which would have been granted anywhere else in Canada. The minister, by his interference, and in conjunction with his Quebec cabinet colleagues, pressured Volkswagen to locate in Quebec, thus the company nearly went to the United States. Only a $9.2 million Ontario grant saved that plant. Does the minister realize he has no cabinet clout left, that he has created unnecessary tensions between Ontario and Quebec, and that by his actions the Volkswagen incident has not gone unnoticed but has damaged future foreign investment in this country?

November 4, 1981
Oral Questions
Will the minister now admit to this House that he has no real industrial strategy and, again as my colleagues have said before, will he resign, taking his government interference with him?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I said in the House on July 6, Madam Speaker, the duty remission program sought by Volkswagen meant a contribution from taxpayers all over Ontario and all over Canada in the millions of dollars. In fact, now that we have announced the actual program, it is clear that the additional contribution from taxpayers amounts to some $10 million a year on top of the existing duty remission from the existing program, of $15 million. I say that under those circumstances it is the duty of the government to make sure that all suitable sites were looked at before a final decision was made to grant this duty remission program, certainly in terms of suitable sites in areas suffering high unemployment and slow growth. If we had not been willing to do that then we would not have carried out our responsibility to the taxpayers and to all the people of Canada.
It so happens that without the decision we made for this duty remission program, that plant would not have been located anywhere in Canada and all of Canada would have lost its substantial economic benefit. It is our efforts that brought this to Canada, not the dithering of my hon. friend.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last week the minister confirmed that higher levels of dioxin had been found in Lake Ontario. The minister must recognize by now that dioxin presents a serious health hazard when it is consumed. The minister also indicated that he would be meeting with his counterparts from the government of Ontario to discuss joint strategy in an attempt to solve this problem. Has the minister done that, and when can Canadians expect to receive some concrete action from the minister?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question would elicit a complicated answer. There has already been a considerable degree of action. The dioxin problem is certainly not a new one. We have acted in co-operation with a variety of groups, particularly in relation to possible legal settlements in relation to the Hooker chemical plant, a site which we believe may be the cause of the entry of dioxin into the Niagara River system. We have supported those groups both with information, with expertise with witnesses, and in some ways with financial assistance. It is not by any means a new concern. It is a concern on which we have already acted.
It is not entirely clear whether dioxin levels are increasing. The sophistication of our detection techniques has increased to the extent that we are now able to detect traces of chemicals and poisons that we would not have been able to trace in the past. The evidence we have so far is that dioxin levels are diminishing.
As a result of new information we have, we feel there is a new situation which requires the co-operation of the province of Ontario with the Government of Canada in making representations to the United States and also in setting new levels and new standards in relation to the Niagara River. We have already begun that process by meeting with private and public action groups, those who are most concerned, and in a few days we will be meeting with officials of the government of Ontario.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of the Environment. I would be the first one to agree that it is a serious problem, but the minister does not seem to be taking the problem as seriously as most people are. In light of that, would the minister agree to setting up an all-party committee of this House to investigate the dioxin problem, which can report back to the House so that we can deal with the matter effectively?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I really cannot comprehend the misinformation in the hon. member's mind when he says that we have not been taking this very seriously.


Neil Young: That is in Hansard. You made the statement last week.


John (Moody) Roberts: If the hon. member would look back at the record, he will discover that over the past 18 months we have been in the lead in undertaking research in the Great Lakes waters in relation to this matter. It was a result of the actions of the Department of the Environment that the dioxin levels, which had escaped detection in the past were detected. It was a result of our scientific work that this problem was first brought to the public's attention. And it is a result of the efforts we have taken over the past 18 months that we have been able to bring together the various groups and governments in a concerted approach to the American government. The hon. member is simply talking through his hat when he says we have not been active in relation to this problem.


Neil Young: You are the one. You do not know.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member should know the facts better than that.
November 4, 1981


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. A number of my constituents are following very closely the progress of the freedom of information legislation which deals with the access to documents or files concerning the persons named therein and which are now unavailable to them. Could the minister tell us whether the bill now before a committee of this House will be passed at third reading by Christmas?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, a bill on access to information is a very important matter. As the hon. member pointed out, the bill is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the House. I expect the committee will finish its consideration of the bill as soon as possible, and I share the hon. member's hope that the bill will be enacted before the Christmas recess.


EFFECT OF GATT ON CATTLE PRODUCERS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, quite by coincidence I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since beef producers across Canada are losing on the average more than $100 per calf compared to prices one year ago, and because the most important factor leading to that decrease has been as a result of mistakes in information and judgment by the Canadian negotiators responsible to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce at the last round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Tokyo, how does the minister intend to compensate for his errors and reflect proper justice to Canadian cattle producers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in any negotiations there are aspects one can look upon very favourably, and there are other aspects that are open to question. I do not accept my hon. friend's premise. Even though I was not the responsible minister at the time, I think that on balance the results of the GATT negotiations were a good deal for Canada generally.
If I am not mistaken, the confirmation of the results of the GATT negotiations was in the hands of the hon. member for St. John's West when he was minister of finance. I suggest that the hon. member for Crowfoot direct his question in caucus to the hon. member for St. John's West.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for industry, trade and high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: They will let you speak next year, Cousineau.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member should address the minister by his proper title.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the commissioner of finance for the city of Windsor, Ontario, Mr. E. A. Agnew, today confirmed that the city of Windsor, with an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, can no longer afford further capital expenditures as a result of the government's high interest rate policies and the dismal performance of the automotive industry, for which the minister himself is responsible.
Because the policies of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have caused unprecedented unemployment in Windsor and across Canada, unprecedented bankruptcies across Canada and in Windsor, and unprecedented hardship in Windsor and across Canada, as the Member of Parliament from the Windsor area how can he, in view of these facts-and they are facts confirmed by the commissioner of finance for Windsor-justify continuing to represent the government as a cabinet minister and to represent Windsor as a member of Parliament-I repeat in view of his dismal failures in his responsibilities?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. friend, as I said in an answer a few moments ago-he should have got the copy when they were passing around the questions before question period-that interest rates have gone down some 3 points since the highs of August. We all hope and anticipate that there will be further progress.


John Carnell Crosbie: There weren't any high interest rates before you came.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The chief problem at the present time facing the Canadian automobile industry is the weakness of the American market for automobiles caused by economic policies which my hon. friends would love to put into effect if they had the chance. As I have said, and I will say it again, one reason that I am very active in defence of my constituents and the Canadian people is that I do not want to let them have the chance to put those Reaganite economic policies in place.
Finally, I know the people of Windsor remember, although my hon. friends do not, the work that I did on behalf of the government to maintain the thousands of jobs at Chrysler plants in Windsor and at Chrysler affiliates across Canada through our arrangements there, and the designation of Windsor and other communities under the Industry and Labour Adjustments Program. I am very happy, whenever the time

November 4, 1981
Oral Questions
comes, to put my efforts and those of the government to the test in Windsor.


An hon. Member:: Resign!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I know that the results will be the same as in past-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, for the less favoured areas of Canada, such as the province of New Brunswick, it has been confirmed now that the policies of this government are transparently favouritism toward areas of Canada other than those less favoured areas.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean?


Fred Alward McCain: I would have to say, Madam Speaker, what this means is that the thought process of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Fred Alward McCain: -the thought process of the Liberal inventors fossilized around 1957 under the Hon. Walter Gordon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Does that mean there will be less equalization money, less money for cost-shared programs to New Brunswick, and is that the vehicle by which it will compel people to move, and subsidize their movement? My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend, in his premise to the question, is completely out to lunch. The approach which we take to the development of New Brunswick is exemplified by projects such as the Mitel plant brought about through the efforts of this government, meaning close to a thousand jobs in a high technology area, and efforts like the project I announced earlier this week to bring about the expansion and modernization of the Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Company which will bring hundreds of jobs directly and a lot more indirectly to the New Brunswick area to an industry that has great promise in terms of offshore development.
This is the approach we are taking, exemplified by action which will mean more jobs, high skilled and high technology jobs in the province of New Brunswick. It is something I am sure my hon. friend and his party would not have been able to do in the unlikely event that they had continued in office.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, a 20-page document leaked to me today confirms that the government intends to jail food store owners who refuse to sell or advertise their products in metric units.
My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This document also confirms that store owners face heavy fines and confiscation of weighing equipment. Will the minister, who is directly responsible for the Metric Commission, stand in this House today and say that he is permitting this to occur, or will he intercede on behalf of the business community in Canada and rescind the order in council that makes this possible?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I do not share the pessimistic view taken by the hon. member. We know perfectly well on this side of the House that the Canadian business community is a responsible one, and that when we were developing our metrication policy we received the co-operation of the private sector which assisted us in setting up the schedule for its implementation. We are convinced that retail grocers, like all other representatives of the various sectors of the economy, will be able to follow the guidelines we have established in that regard.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it arises from a few words in a statement just issued by R. H. Campbell, President of Black and Decker Canada Inc., located in Leeds-Grenville, announcing the lay-off of 150 people. Those words were:
Orders have fallen due to weakening consumer demand, declining housing starts and retailer-wholesaler reluctance to invest in inventory-the direct result of the current soft economy in general, and high interest rates in particular.
Will the minister comment on this statement by Mr. Campbell of Black and Decker Canada Inc. and indicate when the government will stop sitting still while thousands of people lose their jobs and inflation gallops on and interest rates remain disastrous? When will the government implement measures to deal with these serious lay-off problems, rather than have us sit here and listen to him boasting about his accomplishments, which are very much in doubt?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to thank my hon. friend and his colleagues for giving me an opportunity to put the facts forward

about my accomplishments and those of my colleagues on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We are still waiting for your resignation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If I am not mistaken, Black and Decker is one of a number of foreign-controlled companies in this country which has followed an example which I think should be multiplied, that is, to operate on a world product mandate basis for specific product lines. I think the problem my hon. friend has outlined in his question is not solely related to the Canadian economy but to the American and world economy.
We certainly have to improve the situation, and this is what we are doing. The Minister of Finance has talked about efforts he is making which we look forward to being reflected in his budget.
Certainly the Black and Decker situation is linked not solely to the Canadian situation but to that of the United States economy and world economy. The situation in the United States economy is linked with the policy my hon. friend and his colleagues on that side of the House would desire to put into place if the Canadian people ever gave them the chance, which I do not think they will.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he seems to have "warmed up", we must take advantage of it.
Not too long ago the Canadian footwear industry made representations to the minister with a view to establishing a policy that would protect and ensure the survival of the industry in Canada and also provide opportunities for increasing production. In view of the prevailing economic situation, could the hon. minister tell us today in the House whether he intends to give a positive reply to the Canadian footwear industry and whether the desired increase in production could be realized next year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of completing our discussions in cabinet on our policy for the footwear industry. I am sure we shall be able to issue a statement in the very near future.
Oral Questions


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the general fear of a nuclear war and the fear of a new arms race between the super powers, and the fact that the world armament market into the Third World is at its height, and the fact that Canadians and millions of people around the world are protesting against this, and lastly the fact that members of all parties in both Houses have a very deep concern about the question of disarmament, would the minister tell this House how the government is preparing for the special session on disarmament to be held at the United Nations next June?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has always been one of the leaders in the search for world disarmament. We intend to continue in our devotion to that cause.
As the hon. gentleman correctly pointed out, there is a special session on disarmament which will be held under United Nations aegis next May and June.
We have begun our preparation for that session and we will be consulting widely with the Canadian public. We hope to receive advice also from the standing committee in Parliament. We will certainly continue our traditional policies, including the policy which the Prime Minister enunciated several years ago, of suffocation.


FUNDS TO ESTABLISH PEACE INSTITUTE
Robert Joseph Ogle: I am happy to hear that the minister has some positive suggestions to put forward. I am sure he will be open to other suggestions which will come from various parts of this House, including the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Would the minister be able to instruct the government, as a symbolic step, not to buy the 138th fighter airplane, but use the funds for that last fighter to set up a peace institute in Canada and fund university chairs and foundations which would study the causes of war and underdevelopment, and how we can maintain peace?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly share our hon. friend's devotion to the cause of disarmament. We will do everything we can to advance it on a mutually acceptable basis and to encourage peace as well as peace institutes.
Our policy, however, is not a single track policy. It is not one of disarmament alone because, as the hon. gentleman well knows, to be effective disarmament has to be a two-way street. Therefore, until such time as disarmament is mutually agreed

November 4, 1981
Oral Questions
to by the great powers, it is necessary for us to maintain our support for our NATO alliance, and part of that obligation is to equip ourselves adequately with aircraft. It is that obligation which we are fulfilling. One cannot be simple-minded about the search for peace. Peace is not attained only by protestations of peace; it is also attained by being strong.


IMPORTATION OF PLEASURE BOATS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In a response to an Order Paper question I see that in 1978 Canada imported $31 million worth of pleasure boats, and in 1980 $46 million worth. Canadians can build boats. Why has the minister allowed this to happen?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is asking a remarkable question for a member of a party which is supposed to be in favour of the private sector moving untrammelled by government intervention. The hon. member's question is quite contradictory to the thrust of his leaders on the front bench.
One has to look at this issue in terms not only of imports but also of exports. We have some very strong Canadian domestic and export markets, and one has to look at that in the light of those export figures. I will be happy to go into the question further and get back to my hon. friend, if he wants to give me specific details of the situation concerning him.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He has been telling us today about all the jobs he has created. I would like to ask him why, after every meeting he has had with the United Auto Workers of McDonnell Douglas, another 500 are laid off. Has he taken their suggestions and examined them-I refer to such suggestions as work sharing-and is he prepared to take any action on those very worth-while suggestions?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are in fact examining the suggestions of the UAW with respect to the McDonnell Douglas situation, and specifically with respect to work sharing. I am working and discussing the situation with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to see if we have a federal program which can provide a basis for that approach.


John Horton McDermid: He is more surprised than anyone in the House. Look at him. He will never talk to you about it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want also to say that some of the other work we have done with McDonnell Douglas in relation to the CF-18 has prevented the number of lay-offs from being even greater, even though they are caused by an almost total decline in sales in world markets of the McDonnell Douglas civilian aircraft for which the plant is making wing components. We are very concerned about this. We are working with the company to try to find other types of work to be done in the plant. We are attempting not just to stabilize employment there but also to bring people back to work.


RESULTS OF DOME PETROLEUM EXPLORATIONS IN BEAUFORT SEA
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday evening Dome Petroleum reported on its Beaufort Sea exploration results which the company states are, and I quote, "positive confirmation of major oil potential". Could the minister comment on these exploration results and on what implications they might have on Canada's goal of oil self-sufficiency by 1990?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, Dome Petroleum released figures yesterday which are indeed very encouraging. They are public. Such forecasts seem to indicate the possibility of large oil reserves which would be available on a commercial basis in the years to come. I want to mention that in our forecast of oil self-sufficiency by 1990 we have not provided for any particular reserve in the Beaufort Sea or offshore, so any announcement like the one made yesterday-and others will come in the future-indeed ensures that we will have self-sufficiency in this country by 1990.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, November 3, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

November 4, 1981


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule today on a matter raised as a question of privilege by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). On October 28 last the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) raised a point of order, and subsequently the hon. member for Yukon raised a question related to that as a question of privilege, and I intend to deal with both at the same time.
For the benefit of hon. members, I think I should review the circumstances as recorded in Hansard for Wednesday, October 28 at pages 12267 to 12269. In the first instance hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) asked the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the following question, and I quote:
-can the chairman inform this House on the status of earlier discussions to convene the committee? Does the hon. member not think it would be a positive step to widen the terms of reference of the committee to include the Atlantic coast and British Columbia, rather than having only Ontario and Quebec?
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rose and gave an answer to the question. Following that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants was given the floor for a supplementary question which he directed either to the President of the Privy Council or the chairman of the standing committee, and a reply was given by the President of the Privy Council.
Shortly thereafter the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked the following question:
Will the chairman of that committee tell us whether he has asked for a reference of the VIA Rail question to the standing committee-
That question was a bit different from the question I quoted a moment ago, and I think hon. members will want to note that. As noted in Hansard, both the chairman of the committee and the President of the Privy Council rose, and the latter replied.
On a supplementary question the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition repeated his question, at which time the President of the Privy Council, followed by the chairman of the committee, responded.
Upon reviewing the circumstances I feel that there are several points of procedure which must be clarified. There can be no doubt, as numerous precedents indicate, that questions to chairmen of committees are in order when such questions relate to procedural matters. Hon. members will appreciate, however, that the scope of questions permitted is quite narrow; for example, dealing with whether a meeting is to be held, a committee will be convened, the time of meetings and other questions of a similar nature. I refer hon. members to Beau-chesne's fifth edition, Citation 366, and to Hansard for January 15, 1971, page 2442; March 16, 1973, page 2293; and May 20, 1970, page 7126. Those precedents are quite similar to the matter we are discussing today.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
It therefore follows that if chairmen of committees may be asked questions, then they have the right to answer questions-as well as the discretion; that goes without saying.
On this point Erskine May, in his nineteenth edition at page 327, states:
-a member may not seek by means of a question to the chairman to interfere in the proceedings of a select committee by suggesting a particular subject for inquiry (although such subject fell within its order of reference).
If we were to apply this reference to the situation last week, it appears that the questions were asked in such a manner that they could have been construed as dealing with House business in general and, as I indicated on that day, if the President of the Privy Council wants to interpret the question as being related to the business of the House, it is not for the Chair- that was confirmed by some hon. members-to say that it is not related to the business of the House. As it happened, however, two members stood to reply, and I indicated last Wednesday that I did not choose between them, but in each case one member seemed to defer to the other. At any rate, both hon. members responded which, from what we can read into the questions asked, seemed to be the desire.
Therefore, I must rule that the proceedings of last week's question period relating to the questioning of a committee chairman on the business of the committee he chairs did not infringe upon our accepted parliamentary practice and, consequently, I Find there is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege but a reason to clarify the status of that particular question.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, there is an ancillary point which you might wish to consider with respect to that whole situation. The practice has been for the Chair to recognize members on this side of the House by their ridings when they rise. Indeed, the backbenchers on the government side of the House are recognized in the same fashion by the Chair. However, my recollection is that when ministers rise, the Chair does not specifically recognize the minister by name.
I submit there may be a dangerous practice arise where instead of the Chair recognizing the minister by his office, the operators of the sound system are invading-and I say that with no derogation intended-the prerogative of the Chair. When a minister rises, the operators of the sound system are going to activate the microphone. Because a minister is standing in the House, the operators of the sound system are going to activate that microphone before activating the microphone of a private member.
I strongly suggest to the Chair that consideration be given to adopting the practice of recognizing ministers by their office. If that practice would have been followed, the choice would have had to be made by the Chair in recognizing the question directed toward the chairman.
I also have a brief point of order to direct to the President of the Privy Council, who last Thursday-

November 4, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could I reply to that before the hon. member raises the point of order. I will recognize him immediately after.
I am very reluctant to follow the suggestion which the hon. member is now making. The only kind of intervention the Chair could make in the circumstances would be to say to a minister or chairman of a committee: "You may not answer that question." That is the only kind of intervention I could make. The microphone operators would of course follow if I interfered and indicated that such a person in the House may not be authorized to answer a question, but rather another one.
I think bringing in the microphones at this point is not terribly helpful. I would certainly think twice before changing the long-standing custom of this House of ministers rising to answer if a question is addressed to them. However, they do not always rise when a question is addressed to them. Another minister may rise because he feels it is his responsibility. I think that breaking that custom should only be done after very serious reflection.
I do not think the microphones are terribly relevant to what happened the other day. If I had felt I could intervene because I could interpret the question, and the problem was that the question had a double interpretation, it was not up to the Chair to interpret the meaning of that question. Therefore, I had to leave it to the relevant persons to determine if they wanted to reply or not.
In this case both replied. In a sense, everyone was satisfied because the House got a reply from the President of the Privy Council, who felt he was answering with his responsibility for government business. The chairman of the standing committee answered because he felt that the question, the one posed by the Leader of the Opposition, was more specific and he could answer it, and he did. Everyone was satisfied. I think we should wait until another incident occurs to see whether there is a problem with the microphones. At this point I am reluctant to change the custom.
I will now recognize the hon. member on his point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the whole point is that the selection was not made by the Chair but by the operators.


Madam Speaker:: In answer to the hon. member for Yukon, I feel the selection was not made by the operators of the microphones but was made by two people on the floor of the House. They decided to answer the question. I do not feel that the microphone operators had a major role in this particular incident.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong the matter of the microphones nor would I raise any question on a matter on which you have already decided. I have been seeking to review the record of Hansard in light of your statement after your decision that both members on the government side of the House, the chairman of the committee to whom the question was directed and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), had the right to speak. The House will recall that a
private member, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), was allowed to speak only after permission to speak was given to him by the President of the Privy Council. It was at that point the President of the Privy Council took his seat.


Madam Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition is really discussing the ruling. That point was considered in my ruling. I apologize, but I cannot hear the right hon. member on that.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that after reading your remarks in Hansard I want to serve notice now that I may raise a further question of privilege dealing with this whole question of the electronic selection of who is going to be heard and who is not.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, last Thursday the President of the Privy Council indicated the business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, but was reluctant to indicate the business for Thursday and Friday. If Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, continues today we are in a position of not knowing what the business of the House will be for tomorrow. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would at least tell us today one more day's House business so that we can do some preparation for tomorrow.


Mr. Pinard:: Unless otherwise notified, Madam Speaker, tomorrow we will continue to deal with Bill C-48.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from material referring to myself and appearing in the third report of the commission of inquiry concerning activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, commonly known as the McDonald commission.
I realize a member is required to bring a question of privilege to the attention of the Chair immediately on becoming aware of it. A while ago, Madam Speaker, I advised you in my written notice that although this report was issued some time ago, only late yesterday did I have the opportunity to read as far as page 341 of the third report and discover what I believe is a clear question of privilege appearing therein. I can only hope, Madam Speaker, that you will take my word as an hon. member of this House that, had I known about this sooner, I would most definitely have raised it before now.
The section of the McDonald commission report to which I refer deals with Question No. 2,332 placed by myself on the
November 4, 1981

Order Paper of this House in 1975. It concerned allegations by Igor Gouzenko that he received no government pension from the time of his defection in 1946 until such pension was instituted by the government of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker in 1962. The first part of my question as quoted by the McDonald commission was as follows:
What are all the reasons that a government pension was not given to Igor Gouzenko from 1946 up to the time the government of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker took such action in 1962?
The commission report then proceeds to quote from the answer given by the solicitor general of the time, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand). It states in part "from 1946 to 1962 Mr. Gouzenko was looked after entirely by the Canadian government." Further on page 341 of the McDonald commission's third report the following very significant words appear:
We have reviewed the history of the matter carefully, as it is disclosed by RCMP files. The story, in almost every aspect, is a crystal clear one. It is not true that from 1946 to 1962 Mr. Gouzenko was looked after "entirely" by the Canadian government.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, falsified information was given to me as a member of this House. I realize, Madam Speaker, that I also must establish that a question of privilege can extend back to a previous session of a previous Parliament. I believe this is made clear both by rulings made by yourself and by your predecessor Speaker, Mr. Jerome. I also quote from the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, page 161, wherein it is
-a contempt committed against one Parliament may be punished by another-
I refer to certain references contained in Erskine May and, particularly, a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Jerome that clearly indicates, I believe, that I have a prima facie case of privilege. These references pertain to the giving of false information to this House, in this particular case by a cabinet minister.
It is clear from precedent and previous rulings that even though the false information may have been given to the House by the former solicitor general, without his knowing that it was false at the time, nevertheless a minister must assume responsibility for what he presents in the House which indeed may often have actually been drafted by others. In this regard I refer to page 966 of Hansard of November 9, 1978, where Speaker Jerome states as follows:
Nevertheless, it has been quite a generally accepted extension of that doctrine of ministerial responsibility that when serious dereliction of duty by an official of a minister takes place, the minister is expected either to assume responsibility for that in the House or, alternatively, to advise the House of the appropriate disciplinary measure which has been taken.
To sum up, Madam Speaker, I am alleging that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct me in the performance of my duties to the extent that the minister's answer to question No.
Privilege-Mr. Young
2,332 was not drafted on precise statements of fact. The law of privilege in this regard is stated in Erskine May, page 136, nineteenth edition. This was quoted by Speaker Jerome in a favourable ruling on a question of privilege of a somewhat similar nature raised by the member for Durham-Northumb-erland (Mr. Lawrence) on November 9, 1978, as appearing on page 965 of Hansard:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt-
Shortly thereafter, Madam Speaker, in Speaker Jerome's ruling the Chair again quoted from Erskine May as follows:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House, forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees-
On December 6, 1978, Speaker Jerome ruled further in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, and I quote this sentence:
Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
I, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I contend that my privileges have been breached by falsified information presented to this House. Further examination of page 341 of the third report of the McDonald commission will note that not only was this the case but, also, the additional point that the answer as prepared by the officer in charge of the RCMP counterespionage branch was further falsified by others, publicly unknown at this time, before it was presented to the House of Commons by the minister.
I respectfully request, Madam Speaker, that you investigate this matter that I have just raised, including the precedents outlined in Erskine May and previous rulings by Mr. Speaker Jerome. If it is found that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would reserve my right to move a motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I will take this matter under advisement. I gather from the statement which the hon. member made to me that I need to look into it at more length. In the light of what the hon. member stated in the House, I will examine the question and rule on it much later. Perhaps other hon. members would like to speak to the matter later, but I will take it under advisement.

November 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Wenman MR. YOUNG-ANSWER OF MINISTER RESPECTING DIOXIN LEVELS


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the response of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to my question today in which he stated that dioxin levels in Lake Ontario had declined. On October 30, 1981, as reported at page 12347 of Hansard, the minister, in response to a question from the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), said:
-there are, indeed, recent indications of detection of higher levels of dioxin in the Great Lakes.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member does not have a question of privilege. He is obviously debating the question. There are differences of view as to the facts, but that is part of debate. I cannot hear his comments under a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, the practice and procedure of the House of Commons provide that we have question period, and immediately after question period we go to the Speaker's report. The Speaker reports and we deal with points of order that relate to the Speaker's report and then we move immediately to privilege. That was the procedure followed today.
I am suggesting that my point of order in fact relates to the Speaker's report and, therefore, I wanted to place the question at that time. I will, therefore, proceed at this time, but I would hope that in the future this is the course that will be followed.
At this point I would ask Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The order in which deliberations are related in Hansard is the order in which they are heard. I am now hearing the hon. member and his comments will appear in Hansard at this point.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, my point of order is that I would now ask the indulgence of Madam Speaker to allow the Clerk of the House to read the private member's public petition that has now been ruled in order and which is standing in my name as of yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member requires unanimous consent for the Clerk of the House to read the petition. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I respectfully submit to you that unanimous consent of the House is not required in order to have a petition read. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that the Chair has a discretion to
grant that permission in order to have a discussion of the matter to which the hon. member is speaking.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, it is 67(8).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if I might-would you activate my microphone? I want to say something.
I have proven my point then.


Madam Speaker:: There is a quotation from Beauchesne that has guided the Chair:
Petitions are not read at length in the House, unless by special consent.
It has been the custom of this House that only through unanimous consent has the Chair allowed the Clerk at the Table to read a petition. The hon. member referred to my discretion. I shall read to the hon. member Standing Order
67(8):
No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required; or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
If I recall, the matter referred to in the petition concerned a matter which, if I am to use my discretion, I would say need not be dealt with in such an urgent fashion as to take precedence over the normal business of the House. As I said to the hon. member when he raised the question of privilege previously, under Standing Order 67(8) we could, on several occasions, have urgent debate as is permitted under Standing Order 26.
In order to differentiate between the meaning and intent of the two Standing Orders, it must be quite clear to the Chair that the matter is so urgent as to take precedence over the normal business of the House. As several petitions were presented to the House dealing with the matter dealt with in the petition presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, I do not feel I could determine that the matter is so urgent that we must hear it and have discussion on it now.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker quoted two precedents. The issue at hand is whether or not the petition shall be read at this point. The precedents you quoted indicated that petitions are not read "at length". In other words, petitions may be read, possibly not by unanimous consent. If one wants to read them at length and expand upon them, it is not allowed because that would be "at length". Otherwise, either a simple majority or the discretion of the Speaker would in fact apply.
The second precedent to which Madam Speaker referred related to Standing Order 26. There is a very important difference between Standing Order 26 and a private member's public petition. I am speaking now of an order and of a vehicle which is open to private members. It is extremely important to protect the rights of private members in the House. This instrument of petition is the only almost direct, representative
November 4, 1981

way an individual Canadian has of being heard in the House of Commons. This is the difference between it and Standing Order 26. This is why it is so important that this particular vehicle be protected and be understood in our procedure.
Therefore, I ask Madam Speaker to consider the representation, perhaps over a period of time, as it relates to "at length" and the question of unanimity, as well as to recognize the valuable instrument which in fact a petition represents in the long tradition of democracy.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I recognize that that is the function of petitions. It is to allow individuals some access to the House. I am basing my decision today mainly on practice because the wording of the Standing Order in fact, I am told by the experts with whom I have studied this question, refers back to the time when the courts were not equipped to deal with matters individual citizens would like to bring before the courts and, therefore, petitions were heard in the House of Commons in lieu of being heard by the courts. Somehow the wording of the Standing Order has continued to be what it was, referring to circumstances which are not prevalent today. Therefore, the custom of the House has been to allow petitions to be presented to the House with brief statements on the part of hon. members presenting the petitions. But only through the use of unanimous consent have we allowed petitions to be read by the Clerk.
Even more important, the matter of discussing petitions, I do not know of any precedents when petitions were discussed; they might have existed. But I insist that we cannot use the vehicle of petitions, which is a legitimate one, to present the views of citizens before the House of Commons, to supersede the normal business of the House and to go into urgent debate such as would be allowed under Standing Order 26.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise at the earliest opportunity on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deans:: I am seeking the floor on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I am on a question of privilege; it supersedes a point of order.
I rise at the earliest opportunity to ensure that an incident is recorded in the official debates of the House which Madam Speaker did not notice because your head was bowed and you were looking at your Standing Orders and obtaining advice from your Table adviser. While you were doing that, I heard you make an inquiry of your Table adviser; you were asking for a section of the Standing Orders. I had it and I wished to assist by rising and informing the Chair of the section number
Point of Order-Mr. Wenman
of the Standing Orders. I asked that my microphone be activated. I know that the operator heard me ask because he shook his head and made a gesture of helplessness because it had to be your decision that the microphone be turned on. I know I was heard by the Hansard reporter because I am too close not to be heard, even without the microphone. I hope those words will appear in today's official record of the debates in the chamber because it proved precisely the point I gave notice of a few moments ago and will now be raising tomorrow.


POINTS OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I ask you to consider something with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). The question, as I understand it today and as I understood it perhaps a week or a week and a half ago, was whether or not unanimous consent is required for a petition to be read. I am sure Madam Speaker will recall that at that time I intervened in the discussion in an effort to understand more clearly the ramifications of one section of the Standing Orders and the references in Beau-chesne at page 213. I wonder whether Madam Speaker would be kind enough to take into account when you are considering this matter further, as no doubt you will be, the references on page 820 of Erskine May's nineteenth edition, wherein there is a very succinct reference to what might be considered for immediate discussion in terms of a petition.
The question which has arisen here over the last two weeks is not whether there should be immediate discussion, but whether or not the petition might be read. But unfortunately as things seem always to occur, a confusion reigns between discussion stage, which may ultimately be allowed, and the request for the reading of the petition.
I have come to the conclusion from reading Beauchesne that Madam Speaker's ruling, although I must confess I am not entirely happy, is within the bounds of Beauchesne inasmuch as it indicates that a petition, having been presented, which is the case, and having been in order as to form, may with unanimous consent be read by the Clerk. However, I suggest that Standing Order 67(8) creates an ambiguity or confusion. I ask respectfully whether at some point in the near future Madam Speaker might give consideration to providing us with some guidance as to how these matters are to be interpreted by the House.


Madam Speaker:: This is why I am allowing a discussion on this matter. I will take that suggestion and try to clarify the meaning of that Standing Order.

November 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Wenman


MR. WENMAN-APPLICATION OF RULE OF URGENCY IN READING OF PETITIONS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate and await your decision on that with great pleasure. I will now move to the second part, not to the reading of a petition but in fact to the possibility of discussion. I should like to refer to Beauchesne, Section 698(1), which reads:
In case of urgency, a petition may be immediately considered but the grievances must be such as to require speedy and urgent remedy.
Based upon this ruling and upon your ruling in Hansard of October 21, 1981, I respectfully ask that you now rule on this matter in the only way possible because of the fact that thousands of middle class working people, working to pay our expenditures in the House of Commons, are threatened with losing their homes. Surely this should, in my opinion and in the opinions of many hon. members, constitute an urgent grievance requiring a speedy remedy.
I therefore submit that this housing crisis is a case where the Speaker can and must use her prerogative as an impartial arbiter, and her wisdom in determining the urgency of acting on behalf of the many private members who have presented similar petitions to this House for the people of Canada in order to bring this matter either into immediate discussion or have it referred to a committee, so that the true interests of democracy in Canada can be served.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that you use your discretion on the urgency rule.


Madam Speaker:: The first point I want to make is that the petition has not been read; therefore, the House does not know what it contains and it is very hard for the House to discuss the petition if it does not know what it is all about. The hon. member did not receive unanimous consent to have his petition read. I will quote to him from Bourinot at page 239:
Petitions may be at once read and received by common consent, chiefly in order to refer them to a committee; if a member objects it cannot be done ... but the grievance-
That is the point we have discussed.
-must be such as to require speedy and urgent remedy.
I think I have said that I am using my discretion to determine that the matter raised in the petition did not justify an urgent remedy. That is my decision, if the hon. member is asking me to use my discretion.
At any rate, the petition has not been read and therefore the House does not know what it contains. I cannot see how we can go to the second phase and have it discussed. I therefore cannot receive the suggestion of the hon. member and ask for
the consent of the House that the petition be discussed, as it has not been read.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I agree with your decision completely, Madam Speaker. The reason the petition has not been read in this House is because you must use your discretion. The petition was received yesterday in this House; it was received by you and found-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have said that I used my discretion and felt the matter did not justify an urgent remedy. That is really a ruling and it is the decision I have now informed the member of several times. I would ask him not to comment any further on it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to lay upon the Table of the House of Commons certain petitions from individuals across the country who are deeply concerned about the impact of high interest rates upon their ability to keep the homes they have spent their lives acquiring.
I should say in relation to at least one of the couples who signed, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Harte of Chippawa, Ontario that it is my understanding that they have faced in the last two days, or will face shortly, the immediate prospect of the loss of their house. That speaks to the question of urgency. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the prospect of losing a house for which they have laboured long is a matter of the utmost urgency to Canadians. It is not a matter which allows for judicial recourse; the only recourse they have is to this House of Commons. They, along with some 525 other citizens of the region of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Peninsula, have asked that I lay upon the Table one petition in their name.
In addition to that obviously urgent case of Mr. and Mrs. Harte of Chippawa, Ontario there are undoubtedly other signatories of that petition who are facing similar personal urgency in their lives.
I want to lay upon the Table a petition signed by 31 residents of the community of London in the province of Ontario; a petition signed by 13 residents of the city of Kitchener-Waterloo in the province of Ontario; 41 signatures attached to a petition from residents of the city of Stoney Creek in the province of Ontario and 235 signatures on a petition, all residents of the city of St. Catharines in the province of Ontario, many of whom, as in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Harte, are facing a situation of the utmost urgency brought upon them by the imminent prospect of losing a home for which they have laboured all their lives with an eye to maintaining that home.
November 4, 1981

Unquestionably this is a matter of great urgency to them for which no judicial remedy exists.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise to lay upon the Table a petition signed by some 600 residents of the province of New Brunswick and from across Canada who are adding their names to the over 13,600 names on whose behalf I have laid a petition before this House to decry the cuts in VIA Rail services. They join the thousands of citizens of this nation who nightly fall down on their knees and pray to God that justice in this country will be done and that this government will be stopped from preventing them from joining and being able to visit their relatives and families across this nation by virtue of a decision arbitrarily taken by the government.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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. 1,775, 2,724, 2,994 and 3,025.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that as of the date this question was asked, the estimated expenditures for the calendar year 1980 are as follows: (a) $750,400,
(b)	$695,200, (c) $475,500.


Mr. Beatty: What has been the cost of metric conversion to the (a) retailers (b) Canadian taxpayer?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned, the following response is applicable: (a) The Retail Merchants Association of Canada and the Retail Council of Canada have advised Metric Commission Canada that the cost of metric conversion to retailers to date has been minimal except for retailers involved in the three retail food scale pilot area programs. Otherwise, it has been only necessary to purchase items such as tape measures and/or metre sticks. Some additional minor expenses have been incurred by retailers for staff training, the development
Order Paper Questions
of supplementary promotional materials and for extra advertising space to accommodate dual measurement units. Such costs are usually too low to justify a separate accounting system.
With respect to scale conversion in the three pilot cities, the cost of converting retail food scales was generally the most significant cost. The average cost of converting scales varied with the type of scale. Modern electronic digital scales have a built-in conversion capability and were usually converted at no charge. For mechanical scales in good condition, the cost varied from $100 to $400 per scale depending on the make, model and the type of conversion chosen. Automatic labelling and prepackaging scales are only used in large supermarkets. This type of scale was converted at a cost of $800 to $900. Individual retailers have not made detailed cost information available to Metric Commission Canada, but informal estimates based on scale population and the expenses stated above would place the cost, when spread over the population of the pilot areas, at less than $1 per capita.
The issue concerning the cost of scale conversion in the three pilot cities is complicated by the fact that many retailers chose to purchase modern electronic scales to modernize equipment and increase productivity rather than to convert inefficient and/or obsolete mechanical scales. Many scales of this type could no longer compute prices due to the changes in food costs which had increased the price per pound of food products beyond the limits contained on most scale charts. Some retailers may consider the cost of upgrading their scales as a conversion cost because it happened coincidentally. However, such additional cost would have been incurred in any case at some future date to replace obsolescent weighing equipment. It should also be noted that special federal tax and import duty concessions are in effect to lighten the cost of metric conversion of retail scales for retailers.
Offsetting the cost of new scales for those retailers who have chosen to purchase them have been the many benefits accruing to them due to scales which are significantly more productive, more accurate and result in less down time for repairs. No studies have been carried out to determine the offsetting value of these benefits but some retailers say the costs of modern electronic scales are recovered in less than a year.
(b) The cost to the Canadian taxpayer of operating Metric Commission Canada from 1971 to March 31, 1981, was $37,084,990. In addition, contributions under the workers' metric tools assistance program for the same period were $5,858,597.
With respect to the costs incurred by business and industry, the Canadian government's policy is that the cost of conversion is borne by those converting in the majority of economic sectors. Each company and organization which has implemented metric conversion has been guided by their appreciation of their own short and long-term interests. Each sector and unit of the economy has been invited to identify the opportunities for change and to bear its own costs, just as it has or will reap the benefits arising from the change. The costs of conversion are one time costs whereas the resulting benefits continue with

November 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
long term savings to manufacturers, distributors, retailers and consumers/taxpayers.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources spend public funds on a contract connected with "paleomagnetism of an Ordovician ophiolite sequence and the intrusive dike suite" and, if so (a) what are the details, including the name of the person or firm awarded the contract (b) was the amount of the contract $21,742 and, if not, what was it?
2.	What is an explanation of (a) paleomagnetism (b) Ordovician (c) ophiolite sequence (d) intrusive dike suite?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. (a) The contract entitled "Paleomagnetism of an Ordovician Ophiolite Sequence and the Intrusive Dike Suite, New Brunswick" was awarded to Morris Magnetics of Lucan, Ontario. The work consists of the collection of rock samples and measurement of the residual ancient magnetism recorded in these rock types in order to study an aspect relating to the geological formation of the Appalachian mountain chain. It is expected that this investigation would shed light on how the Appalachians were formed and, in turn, the types of mineral and hydrocarbon deposits that could be found in these mountains.
(b) Contract value $21,742.40.
2. (a) Paleomagnetism-a study of ancient magnetization as recorded in the rocks.
(b)	Ordovician-a geological period with age boundaries of 500 to 440 million years before present.
(c)	Ophiolite sequence-a type of rock structure of the Ordovician age (a critical period when the Appalachians were formed) that has good magnetic signals.
(d)	Intrusive dike suite-a type of rock structure of a younger geological age than the ophiolite and characterized by its wall like appearance across the earth's strata.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government prepare studies of the impact on the economy of the 1981 strike by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and, if so, what were the results of the studies?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: I am
unaware of any studies prepared by the government yielding precise quantitative estimates of the impact of the 1981 postal strike on the economy. This, however, does not means that the government was not aware of the various possible impacts of the postal strike on the one hand, and the cost of a speedy settlement under CUPW's initial bargaining position on the other.
The strike did generate losses for some sectors of the economy. However, a speedy settlement on CUPW's terms could have had a serious inflationary impact on the economy. The government sought an appropriate balance in this difficult
situation. The process of negotiations between the government and the CUPW culminated in a successful resolution of the dispute which was fair to all parties concerned.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?



POINT OF ORDER


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request clarification from the Chair. Approximately two years ago-and I could obtain the reference from Hansard as I have it in my office-Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled in regard to a question of mine that it be put back on the Order Paper as a result of the fact that the government had acted as Speaker of the House of Commons rather than as the government and quoted from Beauchesne in support of why it would not answer the question.
This happened again yesterday in connection with question No. 3,236 on the Order Paper which the government answered. Again the government stated that, in its opinion, Beauchesne prohibited my question. I contend it is not the government's prerogative to do that; it would be the prerogative of the Chair to rule my question out of order. I think the question should go back on the Order Paper until the Chair does rule it out of order.
The government went further, however, and said that even if the officers of the Table ignore these rules and allow the question, it will not answer it. I contend, Madam Speaker, that in effect the Table is the Speaker and that we are now in a position where we have the government criticizing the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is not permitted under our rules. The government has said, in effect, that even if the Speaker of the House of Commons and her officers are derelict in their duty, it does not care and will do what it wants anyway.
I think this is highly out of order. I would request in accordance with Speaker Jerome's ruling, if Your Honour agrees with it, that question No. 3,236 be put back on the Order Paper. It is the privilege of the government not to answer if it does not wish to, and I know that; but it is not its privilege to present a ruling from Beauchesne, as it has done a number of times in this session. It is certainly not the government's privilege to criticize the Table and the Speaker of the House. That is out of order under the rules of the House.
I therefore ask that the question be put back on the Order Paper and that the government be held in contempt and forced to withdraw its criticism of the Chair.
November 4, 1981


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, there has been no criticism of the Chair nor has there been any criticism of the Table officers. It was pointed out to the hon. member that he should read Citation 363 of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed.
That in no way shows lack of respect for the Chair or lack of respect for the Table.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Read what comes after that.


David P. Smith: It simply refers the member to that section in Beauchesne.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this point. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) is absolutely correct. I do not recall the date of Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling either, but it was that the question being resubmitted should, indeed must, be accepted and replaced on the Order Paper.
If you intend to rule in favour of the hon. member for Leeds,
I will not make the request that you put the matter over until tomorrow when I could then have an opportunity of referring the Chair to that precedent. If you intend to rule against the hon. member for Leeds, I would ask that you put the question over. Because unlike the parliamentary secretary's interpretation of the manner in which that question was answered by the minister, I too believe the answer directly reflects on the authority of the Chair and on the integrity of the Table officers. It does not lie within the responsibility of any minister of the Crown, directly or indirectly, to deign to tell the Table what they can or cannot do, and in effect make a ruling that only you have the authority to make.
That was precisely what happened in the case that was before Mr. Speaker Jerome, and precisely what the answer in this particular instance was in respect of the question raised by the hon. member for Leeds. If you have any doubt, or if you are not going to view the submission of the hon. member for Leeds in a favourable light, I would ask that you put it over until tomorrow so I can refer Your Honour to that rather lengthy ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome.


Madam Speaker:: I certainly would want to look at the ruling because I am not conversant with the facts that justified that ruling. I would want to look at the ruling before saying anything about the question that was raised. It does seem to me that, the question having been printed in the Order Paper and having received an answer, an answer is an answer; but certainly I would not want to say that the answer is adequate or inadequate. However, I will look at the total situation, including the precedent to which the hon. member has referred.
Canada Oil and Gas Act MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 56 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 56 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF LATEST SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56- Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the province of Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Motion agreed to.
David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that it would be helpful to this House if, when the parliamentary secretary rises and says that notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. so and so are acceptable or not acceptable, he would allow time before asking whether they stand for hon. members to consult to see whether it is one of their own motions. In that way, especially if the government says it will not produce the papers, a member would have time to see if it is his motion and then ask that it be transferred for debate. I think it would be more convenient if in the future he would say: Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. member for such and such a riding or constituency, rather than blasting through it so quickly that nobody knows what is going on.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's suggestion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 3, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conserva-
[Stage Direction]
November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
tion Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 25 (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing Motion No. 25 last night at adjournment time and I want to continue that discussion now.
There are major differences between a totalitarian government and a democratic government. One of the most conspicuous differences is that a democratic government has respect for private property and the ownership of that property, while a totalitarian government does not respect private property or private ownership of that property.
A very definite example of that is the communist march into the Ukraine when thousands of Ukrainian people, who loved their lands, farmed them and produced, lost that property. The communist regime took-took, extracted and expropriated- not leaving them enough even to live. That is characteristic of a totalitarian government.
A democratic government respects private property, and I want to deal with that particular point now. While in the charter of rights the present government did not include the right to own property as one of our rights, I am sure the vast majority of the people of Canada would want that right recognized, not necessarily in a charter, but as a basic principle of this country. We do have the right to own property.
With the right to own property comes the right to make decisions in regard to that property. This is the point that bothers me with this particular piece of legislation. By this legislation the government is showing no respect for the ownership of private property, and that is a serious charge. When the government can seize 25 per cent of the assets or discovery of a company and then hand them over to a Crown corporation, that does not show respect for private property.


An hon. Member:: It is stealing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, it is stealing, as my hon. friend says. It is similar to what the communists did to the people in the Ukraine when they expropriated their lands, taking more than a just or fair share. Those people were not even left enough to live on.
There are better ways of doing this and I want to suggest a better way. It is easy to criticize and I want to suggest a different method. I would hope that this government, in a democratic country, a country that has been built through basic free enterprise principles, would now endeavour to administer the country under democratic principles. This method of seizing 25 per cent simply by taking it and handing it over to a Crown corporation is not democratic, in my view. I dealt with that last night and I want now to go to another point.
We know the Crown requires money and I agree that the Crown requires a share of the development of our resources. But this share does not have to be expropriated, confiscated or stolen from the people. That is not at all necessary. The government could do in the Northwest Territories with those
millions of acres something similar to what was done in the province of Alberta, and probably elsewhere in Canada, under the free enterprise principle. I hear members periodically making derogatory remarks about the Heritage Fund of the province of Alberta. I want to tell them that the Heritage Fund was built through free enterprise principles. That fund was built through the sweat of the work of thousands of people. That is why the people of Alberta value it so highly. It was built up through their own sweat and blood. How did they do this? They allowed foreign money to come in, but the foreign companies bringing in the money had to work according to the rules of the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. Those companies did that and were able to make a dollar as well. They applied for a lease of land. If they got a lease three miles by three miles in some part of Alberta, the southeast corner, nine square miles, and the company struck oil, the government would not come along and say, "We will take that away from you."
What happened was that the company went to the site carried out seismic and engineering work to find out how much oil was there. The company would dig a well or two, whatever minimum number was required and production would commence in the event of an oil find. If a company wanted to keep the balance of the nine square miles, it had to pay money into the coffers of Alberta for the privilege of keeping it. However, if a company wanted to let five or seven square miles go, it could. That land would be put up for auction. Other people or companies could bid on the land. This produced millions of dollars for Alberta's coffers and it was produced by private enterprise, not by taxpayers' money. People could drill wells and if they struck oil, they knew they would have ownership of it.
What about the people's share? The companies paid royalties and these royalties went into the coffers of the Alberta government. That money belonged to all of the people of the province. This method brought the province from a have-not province to a have province. In addition, federal income taxes were paid on any taxable property or any taxable income.
That method is the orthodox method. This government could do the same thing by including in this bill a lease option of, say, nine square miles, or even 16 square miles. Drilling could take place and the federal Crown would get its share from royalties and income taxes. Parts of the nine or 16 square miles not used could be put up for auction. Why does the Government of Canada not investigate how the Heritage Fund was built up? The Heritage Fund did not suddenly come out of the sky. It came as a result of hard work and careful planning, giving everyone a chance to make a dollar and get a square deal.
Instead of doing that here, we are favouring one particular Crown corporation. Favouritism does not pay off. There will be no credibility if one continues to favour one branch of the oil industry over another. I have nothing against Petro-Canada, but why does it not stand on its own feet and make its
November 4, 1981

own money instead of trying to seize through the back door 25 per cent of the holdings of a company which used its own money?


Mr. Waddell:: Its own money?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Then the government simply expropriates or grabs its share and hands it over to Petro-Canada as a gift. Petro-Canada spent no money. All companies should pay taxes and they should be paid on total taxable income. The government decides the deductions. That is done in every other industry. No company should have special favour. All companies should pay their share of running this country, but Petro-Canada is given special consideration. It does not put up any money; it gets all its money from the taxpayers. In addition, Petro-Canada gets an asset on which a company may have spent $1 million.
What does the record say about Petro-Canada? In the public accounts of Canada we find $440 million under the heading "capital stock". The figure shown as the total amount invested is $1,444 billion. But how much of that was given back to the people of Canada? If hon. members look up the answer in the book, they will find that nothing was given back, not one penny. The system is take, take and take.
The socialists can say that the people of Canada have an investment of $1,444 billion, but let the people try to get one penny of it. The way this is being done now is wrong. There is a better way, the democratic way of doing things.
I urge the government not to carry out this totalitarian way of doing things. If it continues to do that, this government will lose whatever credibility there is left. We are a democratic government. Why do we not get our Crown money through democratic principles, accepted principles, instead of through stealth?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the specifics of Motion No. 25,1 cannot resist the temptation to refer again to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), my very good friend to the left who has participated hard and long in the continuing debate on Bill C-48, mainly as the selfappointed spokesman for the native people of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Someone has to.


Dave Nickerson: That is right. The hon. member suggested that maybe in conjunction with Motion No. 25 we examine certain NDP amendments put forward in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). I think that is a very good idea. As I understand it from the press, we will not be in a position to read NDP amendments put forward by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq in time to come. As I understand it, very shortly the Liberal Party's loss will be the New Democratic Party's gain. What the member is waiting for is an offer to join the cabinet. Judging by the quality of the people already serving in the cabinet, that move would not make that much difference.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
My intention at the present time is to keep my remarks to the specifics, the rather limited scope of Motion No. 25, which addresses itself to the time at which the election should be made whether or not to transfer Crown interest into a Crown corporation. Clause 31 of Bill C-48 says that this transfer should take place prior to the authorization of the system for producing oil or gas from any Canada lands, etc. Our amendment would change that to read that "the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, prior to the commencement of the terms of an exploration agreement for relevant Canada lands, may direct that the Crown share be transferred to a designated Crown corporation."
I submit that there is a vast difference between those two views, or those times at which the election should occur.
In speaking to this, I would like to refer to the practice in the province of Saskatchewan. This province has a philosophy not dissimilar to that of my friends opposite and to that of my friends to the left. They, however, seem to address the problem in a more responsible manner. When dispositions of mineral rights are made within the province of Saskatchewan, the Crown, in right of that province, can elect to take a share in those particular mineral rights. They do it at the time of the initial exploration. They do not wait until a uranium deposit or some other deposit of minerals has been proven and then come in and take it over. They do it in a gentlemanly manner, as far as possible, for the government of Saskatchewan, and in the businesslike way of getting in on the ground floor.
If you are going to be fair with people and honest with business in the exploration field, surely that is the time when the election must be made. I do not believe it is fair to wait until the work has been done, the gamble made and paid off and then jump in. When a prospect is first granted under the terms of an exploration agreement, the Crown and the geologists within Petro-Canada should make an assessment at that time of whether or not they want to participate. If they do, that is a good time to get in on the ground floor, when the initial expenditures are minimal. If they do not wish to participate, then not much has been lost by the Crown.
I submit that participation at this early stage would have good effects because it would prevent Petro-Canada from acquiring the exploration rights to so great an area that it would not know what to do with it. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) spoke to this last evening. He cited the number of acres which would come under the control of Petro-Canada. It would be a phenomenal amount of ground. Petro-Canada's resources would be spread too thin to be able to work that area properly and put sufficient exploration money into it. If it had to be selective at the beginning of the venture and if it had the proper expertise on staff to select the most favourable areas, it should be able to work in partnership with the private partners in that particular exploration agreement to the benefit of all concerned.
I hope that hon. members on the other side would think a little and take note of what happens in the province of Sas-

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
katchewan; then maybe they will accept the amendment we have put forward.
I can think of many circumstances where our suggestion would be to the advantage of Petro-Canada. For instance, if they were to participate in the early stages at a location adjacent to other land holdings they have, the information which could be obtained through seismic work and other exploration methods would be invaluable to them. As I have stated, the Crown would not really lose anything by making that election at an early time.
Under Clause 32 of the bill, the Crown share, although not transferred to the Crown corporation, would remain intact until Clause 32 came into play. That comes into play when the authorization for a system of producing oil and gas from Canada lands has been granted. It is not until that time that it is mandatory that the Crown share be transferred to another owner. If it is not transferred to Petro-Canada or another designated Crown corporation by that time, it has to be disposed of under the terms of Clause 32(2).
This is the case commonly envisaged under this legislation. It is to be put up at public tender and disposed of only to those corporations which, under Clause 23 of the bill, meet the required standards of Canadian ownership. Therefore, the Crown share is not being lost to Canadians. It will have to be transferred to a corporation with a very significant degree of Canadian ownership.
Rather than Petro-Canada having all these interests over the so-called Canada lands, it would be better served to make selective acquisitions and have the remainder disposed of to Canadians by a process of public tender. I believe that is a process which is used in other jurisdictions.
The second subclause of our amendment refers to the necessity of having a proper working agreement between the Crown corporation-Petro-Canada in most cases-and its partners in any particular area under which the oil and gas rights have been granted under Bill C-48. A working agreement such as this is imperative. It should be concerned with the manner of distribution of costs. Petro-Canada should undertake, as should every other partner, to put up its fair share of the costs under an agreement which is enforceable by law.
I envisage many difficulties if Petro-Canada were to enter into an agreement and then refuse to put up their fair share of the exploration costs. There is nothing the other partners can do. They may write a letter to the president of Petro-Canada but he may well say that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) will not give them any money, but maybe it will pay the partners when the government raises taxes again. The partners will be required to finance Petro-Canada's share of the exploration program, as well as their own.
This agreement should also decide, as is common practice in the industry, who is to be the operator of the program and how another one should be appointed if the partners are dissatisfied with that operator. I note that in the legislation the minister retains the overriding authority to designate, if he wants to,
Petro-Canada to be the operator. In my submission, a working agreement should be established so that the operator of the program can be determined in the normal manner of the industry.
I think it is essential that Petro-Canada should be subject, as much as possible, to the normal practices which oil companies have developed over many years to facilitate joint operation.
The third subclause deals with the matter of arbitration. I am rather surprised at the leniency of my colleague who proposed this motion but I think the reason he did this is that he wanted to be so reasonable that there would be no possible way hon. members opposite could ever vote against this amendment. This subclause says that if by mutual consent Petro-Canada and the other partners are unable to come to an agreement, then this matter be decided by arbitration. It goes so far as to leave with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the responsibility for drafting rules under which this arbitration might take place.
I think that is extending to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a great deal of discretion. That is something he likes very much and something which in this one particular instance we, in order that hon. gentlemen opposite will not turn down our ideas, are prepared to extend to the minister. However, I would like to make it known that within the areas in which Petro-Canada will be operating on the so-called Canada lands, which I usually refer to as offshore provincial and territorial lands, there are already arbitration acts or, in the case of the territories, ordinances which decide how matters of arbitration should be brought to bear where matters cannot be decided by the parties through an agreement, or where within such agreements some arbitration proceeding has not been laid out, decided upon and consented to already.
It would be my opinion that when it comes to arbitration in a commercial manner such as we envisage here between several oil and gas companies and another oil and gas company which happens to be Petro-Canada, the provincial or territorial arbitration acts or ordinances should apply. However, here we are giving the minister the leeway and the discretion to decide otherwise, should he so wish.
In my opinion, the amendments we have put forward in Motion No. 25 are reasonable and sensible and would be in the best interests of the Crown, Petro-Canada and the private oil and gas industry. I very much hope that they can be accepted by the government.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few brief comments, if for no other reason than to echo those of my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who is probably in a better position than any of us in the House to make a critical assessment of the clauses of Bill C-48 we are presently debating.
November 4, 1981

He knows probably better than any of us-certainly most members of the House-what it is like in a colonial atmosphere, and I make no apologies for using the term "colonial" when I refer to our northern territories and certain territories in the northern parts of our provinces. The hon. member knows what it is like when a company, a government agency or an agency of any kind operates with special privilege or under special licence and not in competition with other companies in an area, and not as a competitor but as a regulator. He knows what it is like when a company like that becomes not only an economic entity but also assumes the role normally played by certain minor governments, such as municipal or regional governments.
What the hon. member said is not farfetched. I experience the same thing in my constituency. I could name a few single industry towns in which there are literally two classes of citizens. There are those who work for some department or agency of the government or those who work for a Crown corporation, and then there are the ordinary people who just simply happen to live there and find work in a small service industry, in trapping, in farming and so forth. They live in the same area but do not enjoy the same privileges enjoyed by people who operate with special licences in such areas.
I recall when the British Columbia government decided to build a dam on the Peace River. Engineers came. All or most regulatory provisions were waived because this project had to go ahead. Environmental conditions especially were waived, and we barged ahead. Engineers were flown in from Vancouver and all over the world to settle there and begin this project. One of the managers of the project became the municipal leader. He told the government what he required for the work force in terms of schools, paved streets and water and sewer, and there was never any problem. I happened to be the mayor of a town just 40 miles away from there, and my town was competing for many of the things which are the basic essentials required to make a town or city liveable. Incidentally, these are things that people in central Canada have been taking for granted for the last 100 years. We in the producing and new frontier areas of the west still have a lot of catching up to do. I am talking about essential municipal services. I travelled to Victoria to compete for some of the dollars that were available to put these services in place but, of course, I did not stand a chance. The people from B.C. Hydro had their connections through their minister and through the premier, and the roads were paved and water and sewer facilities were installed.
One fellow came up with a rather unique idea of building a new school. It was a brand-new concept for educating young children. It was a type of open air concept. The school was built like a tent. It is still there for anyone who wants to go and see it. What a brilliant idea! I think it was the manager's wife who had the idea and sold it to the premier. The school was built-at great cost to the taxpayer-and, of course, it did not work. The problem was that when the dam was finished and all the engineers, social planners and all those fellows with all the weird ideas left the community, the people who had settled
Canada Oil and Gas Act
there and lived there for the previous 50 or 60 years were stuck with paying the bill for all these schemes of extravagance.
I was taken with the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, because he knows and can tell of similar experiences. However, this probably takes us away from the motion, which really has to do with the Crown share and when such a Crown share should become active. It must first be pointed out that it is one thing for the agent of the minister to go north, to back into economic schemes, be they foreign or Canadian, and confiscate a 25 per cent share. We have heard enough about that. We are being criticized by our trading partners all over the world. Companies appeared before the committee and told us how seriously they consider this Draconian measure of simply confiscating private assets, whether they be of a fiscal nature or intellectual capital accumulated with respect to a lease in the north. However, it is quite another thing to keep that asset sitting without actually making it active.
In other words, for the moment we are nothing but a silent partner. We go in, we look at the books and see what is going on, we tell them to keep their exploration efforts going and to spend millions of dollars to do all the things which will ready us eventually for drilling and oil production. As we all know, in most cases that point is never reached. Exploration efforts result in dry holes. In many areas it is discovered that there is no potential for oil and gas.
Until the point of production the agent of the minister remains a silent partner, but it is then the desire of the minister to accelerate the production of the oil and gas because, after all, we have a deadline of 1990 to meet. The agent of the minister will have looked at the books and charts and seismic results, and then he will decide, "Here is an area we really want to get at". He then serves notice on the company that he wants to start producing, and he tells the company how many wells to drill. He sets out a time frame within which the drilling has to proceed, regardless of the company's financial position and regardless of the constraints which are usually placed on a company with respect to the market. Money has to be raised somewhere, but the minister simply says, "You will now go ahead and drill." He will not be required to ask any questions related to the liabilities of the business. Once the production certificate is ordered and issued, according to this bill the minister will then become an active partner. All the front end work will have been done, and we will know that all that is necessary is that a hole be punched in the ground. Oil will come out, and then we will become active partners.
You would have to put yourself into the shoes of a businessman. It is not necessary to go up north to do that. Suppose a person wants to start any kind of a business anywhere in Canada. The government may come in and say, "You can start this business, build your little store on the corner, but I will be your silent partner without contributing anything to the cost of the building or the preparation of business. You do all

November 4, 1981

Canada Oil and Gas Act
the work. If you make a profit, I will become your partner. If not, you can have the business".
That is what this bill says. It is required under the back-in provision that you become a partner right away. As soon as you back in and begin your exploration work, the partners contribute equally to the cost, and share in the benefits of the work. That is what our motion proposes. It is only fair.
Unless this change is made, it will be very difficult to entice anyone to undertake exploration. They will not operate under this cloud of uncertainty that as soon as oil is found, the minister might come in and tell you to start drilling now, regardless of whether you have the resources. Only then does he come in and take his 25 per cent share.
I have spoken about this with regard to the last clause. I am very much concerned about the contingent liability the government is accumulating as a result of this back-in feature and as a result of our policy to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990. If you want to achieve energy self-sufficiency, you have to do exactly what the minister says he intends to do under this bill, namely, insist on and order the production of oil wherever it is found in a most expeditious way. When the government becomes an active partner after the production certificate has been issued, the government will then have to pay its 25 per cent of the cost of production. I have questioned the minister. He has not answered this question satisfactorily in committee or anywhere else.
What is the contingent liability if we are to assume that we are going to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990? I presume that to mean we will probably have to find a million barrels of oil a day. At present we consume roughly 1.8 million barrels of oil a day, of which we import 400,000. We know that the million barrels a day now being produced from the conventional sources in Alberta will be depleted by 1990. That means we will have to find some new areas for oil. It may be in the conventional area through tertiary recovery, which is very costly. Someone will have to pay for that production.
The minister and the government will be a 25 per cent partner. Some people have estimated the cost of regaining energy self-sufficiency in Canada to be between $300 billion and $500 billion. Twenty-five per cent of $400 billion is $100 billion, or $100,000 million. The minister has not been able to tell me to my satisfaction where he intends to get the money that is required to go into these production agreements, the liability that is associated with the order of going into production in some of these areas if the potential is there for the production of oil and gas. Is he going to go to the open market? If so, he increases pressure on the market which is already causing high interest rates and a high demand for money.
One reason for high interest rates in this country is that the government is competing on a daily basis in the money markets for funds to pay the interest on its deficit. It is prepared to pay very high interest which makes it difficult for the private sector to compete.
Is it the intention of the minister or PetroCan to go out in the private market? Is it the intention to raise $100 billion in taxes to pay the government's share for the production of this new oil? What is the intention of the government? Certainly it will not make $100 billion in profit from the service stations inherited from Petrofina. I know enough about that business to give that minister advice.
There is not that kind of money in the service station business, nor does the government have any role to play in it. It would have been much wiser for the minister to look at what the oil companies have traditionally done in the way of marketing petroleum products. They understood very well the value of free enterprise in connection with many aspects of their operation.
I know of no multinational oil company that would own its own seismic rigs. It usually hires them from private entrepreneurs. There are people who service the drilling rigs. They are entrepreneurs. Small businesses, which operate in Canada by the hundreds of thousands, rely totally on the oil sector. They have trucks, very sophisticated equipment and the knowhow to service these rigs and do the seismic work. Only when the oil is produced does the multinational oil company take it into its refineries and produce all kinds of interesting products.
The oil companies have traditionally insisted on a high component of private enterprise in the distribution of petroleum products. Traditionally in Canada only a very few service stations were operated by oil company employees. They were the Esso and Chevron dealers who stood behind the bench at the junior TV hockey club. The private entrepreneur who leased the facility from the oil company made his contribution to the small community. The oil company made sure he had sufficient incentive to work a few extra hours every day and make a few extra dollars. In so doing, they were very efficient in the marketing of petroleum products.
It was only after the government, particularly this government, decided there was something wrong with franchise agreements that the oil companies reacted. They always react to government policy. They very seldom fight because they have very little to fight with. The companies said it is now the will of the government that we have company-owned service stations and self-serve stations. They created a market demand in response to a stupid government regulation.
The oil companies produced television ads. I recall the one where a fellow drives up to the pump and says to his wife, "Did you hear the pump talking to me?" That sounded very exciting. That was the end of the private service station operator. The stations now belong to the multinational oil companies, all because the government wanted that to be so. The companies were simply reacting to government regulation.
There are a lot of unanswered questions. There are a lot of things Canadians should be aware of as we pass the clauses of this incredible bill, which has earned us antagonism and an incredible reaction from our trading partners in the western world. There is a lot the government should look at. The government should look at the amendment we have proposed in connection with Motion No. 25, because it is reasonable and

November 4, 1981

the only thing that is fair, particularly if it is the intention of the government to be a competitor in the field rather than to deregulate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed, will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House may now wish to consider Motion 26.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 26
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 34 by striking out lines 23 to 28 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"relevant interest, provided that the Crown corporation may only vote its proportionate share."


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 26 is similar in intent to Motion No. 25 in that it addresses Clause 34 of the bill as amended in committee. Clause 34 of the bill as amended states that:
The designated Crown corporation to which a Crown share is transferred-
-in other words, Petro-Canada-
-is entitled to participate and vote, in proportion to that Crown share-
-and that is fine. Then it goes on to say:
-whether or not that Crown corporation has converted the Crown share under subsection 36(1),-
Amended Clause 34 says that Petro-Canada can, in fact, sit at the table as a full voting partner in an enterprise, in an exploration play, even though it has never converted that Crown share to a working share. It has never taken the step called for under Section 36(1). Common sense would dictate, Mr. Speaker, that that is a stupid situation to have in place. It is most common in the oil and gas industry for any exploration play, any well being drilled, any piece of property being explored, for that property to be handled by a consortium of companies. There is almost inevitably a group of companies participating together in the drilling of any particular well that is undertaken or any exploratory program.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The reason for this is very simple; it is an attempt to reduce risk. It is less risky for a company, for example, to have 20 per cent of five different exploratory plays than to have 100 per cent of just one play. If that well turns up dry, the money is gone; it has disappeared. On the other hand, if it has 20 per cent of five different plays, their chance of at least one of them being successful has improved. That is the common practice in the industry. It is a practice that has built up over the years and has worked very well in terms of the interest of the industry and of the economy and society in general.
Therefore, to handle these kinds of situations where you have several partners participating in an exploratory program or participating in a play, a procedure for handling these things has built up over time. Clearly someone has to be in charge of the drilling program. That company is usually called the operator. One company is the operator of that well or of a group of wells, the operator of the exploratory program. The partners sit down and assess what kind of program should be undertaken, for example, where the wells should be drilled, whether they should run a seismic first, how deep the wells should go, what kind of testing should be undertaken. All of these decisions involve the expenditure of a lot of money and, therefore, are carefully considered. Each company has its geologist, geophysicist and engineers examining the available data so that it may come up with the best recommendation. They sit down and discuss that. There are sometimes differences of opinion, in which case a vote is taken among the partners.
There are procedures in these contracts whereby if the operator is not performing to the satisfaction of the other partners they may remove the operator, or change the operator and have another company come in and take over the operation of the well. These are the procedures that are used. These procedures are time proven, well tested, appropriate and proper methods for handling these kinds of situations.
According to this bill we now have some new invention from the gurus, or the academics in the Department Energy, Mines and Resources, people who have sterling academic qualifications but no practical experience in this situation. They say that the Crown should not only steal 25 per cent of the action, as was referred to in the debate on other motions, but, as PetroCan, it should have the right to vote. Yet it will not be a partner with all of the obligations that are called for in the terms of the other partners. The members will be sitting at the table making decisions on where the wells will be drilled, how deep they will go, and so on. But as a corporation it will have nothing at stake. It will be able to influence these decisions with nothing at stake.
Common sense dictates that if you were to enter into a deal with somebody whose vote counts as much as yours, you would want to make sure he has as much at stake as you do. Only a fool would go into a consortium arrangement with people who have the same voting power as he has but under which he would have to put up the money and they would not or under which we would have to put up the property and they would not. Such a situation is absurd.

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I humbly suggest to members of the government, members of the Liberal Party, that if they are committed to going this way, to having the state run everything, and to having the Crown corporation being the godfather of the north, the kind of modern day East India company looking after northern Canada, for goodness sakes, let them at least try to put in place some law, rules and regulations that will encourage good decision-making by this new East India Company that will be the godfather of all northern Canada and offshore areas. At least let them give some consideration to rules and regulations that will encourage and provide an incentive for intelligent decision-making by those delegates of Ottawa, those Crown corporation employees who will be sitting at the table making these decisions. If their corporation does not have anything at stake, they do not have anything at stake. Their decisions will not be as good as decisions made by people who have something at stake, it seems to me self-evident, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how to add to the argument. I cannot conceive of anybody coming up with an argument against the simple proposition that you get better decisions from people who have something personally at stake than you do from people who are, in essence, spending other people's money.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly commend to the House Motion No. 26, which brings no profound change to the bill. It merely removes that language from Clause 34 which allows the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, to vote, whether or not that Crown corporation has taken up its share. 1 hope that members of this House will consider that motion and will pass it so that if Petro-Canada is installed as a duchy, as the new East India company looking after all of northern Canada, it will at least be in a position to make intelligent decisions on behalf of Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few brief remarks to those made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) in relation to Motion No. 26, and to repeat his point as an introductory comment. It does not seem fair that Petro-Canada should act as a full voting partner in all subsequent development and production of a drilling lease or production license in the Canada lands unless it is acting as a full working partner in the undertaking.
To put this in context, I should like to deal quickly with three or four motions which we have been debating for the last few days, and with Motion No. 28, which is tied in with Motion No. 26, if we look at Clause 34, the relevant clause that we are attempting to amend this afternoon.
In Motion No. 21 my party put forward the notion that there should be no specific designation of the percentage of the Crown share of the total 50 per cent Canadian content requirement set out in Bill C-48. If we could encourage more Canadians to participate through private investment in privately-owned Canadian oil and gas companies, we would not have to allow the Crown to back in and take a full 25 per cent share. Perhaps it could get by with something less. Perhaps
there would be other cases on particular leases where the Crown share might have to exceed 25 per cent in order to ensure a full 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the relevant interest.
Motion No. 23 indicated that essentially there should be no retroactive right on the part of the Crown to back itself into discoveries prior to the introduction of the National Energy Program in the late 1980s. In other words, although the government has now put forward a means of marginal compensation for the privilege of backing in prior to January 1, 1981, it is the view of my party that exploration ventures, financed and initiated by private partnerships and consortia, should not be subject to this form of legalized theft or retroactive stealing to which many of my colleagues have referred.
Motion No. 25 was discussed prior to the presentation of Motion No. 26 this afternoon. It indicated that in the eyes of this party the Crown share, whatever its level, should be represented as a working interest, not merely a carried interest granted arbitrarily by the powers granted the minister under the bill.
Then we come to Motion No. 26 which fits with other prior motions as well as with Motion No. 28. It indicates that Petro-Canada or any other relevant Crown corporation should not have full voting status when sitting in on questions pertaining to financing, timing and management decisions pertaining to the development of a particular project beyond the point of exploration and through the production stages. We in this party do not feel that it is right or proper for the Crown operator to have 25 per cent of the say in decisions in all oil and gas exploration and production initiatives on the Canada lands, unless it pays at least a reasonable share of the cost.
Clause No. 34 which we are proposing to amend reads as follows:
The designated Crown corporation to which a Crown share is transferred ... is entitled to participate and vote, in proportion to that Crown share,... whether or not that Crown corporation has converted the Crown share under subsection 36(1), and any applicable operating agreement or other similar arrangement stands varied or amended to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.
We are proposing that the Crown operator not be given an open-ended right to a vote whether or not it has converted its Crown share to a working interest. But through a prior amendment, Motion No. 25, we have already required that every Crown share must be in the form of a working interest. I should like to look at what this clause would grant in its present form. It refers to Clause 36(1) which reads as follows:
A designated Crown corporation may convert the Crown share transferred to it to a share in the relevant interest with all the attributes and, subject to subsections (2) and (3), all the obligations of a share in the relevant interest at any time before, but not later than 30 days after, the minister gives the designated Crown corporation a notice of his intention to authorize a system for producing oil or gas from the relevant Canada lands.
A Crown operator, whether it be Petro-Canada or whatever other Crown corporation, can sit back casually knowing that it has a 25 per cent carried interest but not having to convert it to an active interest until it finds out whether or not oil or gas is discovered. Of course it has 30 days retroactively after the registration of a significant discovery. After the minister has
November 4, 1981

given notice of intention to authorize a system for production, it can come along and indicate that it now wants to convert it to a working interest.
Turning to Clause 36(3), it reads:
Neither Her Majesty in right of Canada nor any designated Crown corporation to which the Crown share may be transferred under this act is liable for any expense incurred in respect of the relevant interest prior to a conversion under subsection (1)-
For all intents and purposes, this means prior to a discovery of a significant amount of oil or gas. It continues:
-whether that expense was incurred in relation to the exploration for oil or gas on anv relevant Canada lands or the development of those Canada lands in order to produce oil or gas or otherwise, and any applicable operating agreement or other similar arrangement stands varied or amended to the extent necessary to give effect to this subsection.
The clause refers to "other similar arrangement" with the prior operator. What we are debating in Motion No. 25 cannot be considered in isolation from its linkage with Clause 36 of the bill and its present wording referring to Clause 34, which essentially indicates that Crown partners can sit on the board of directors, among the partners, to vote without having to take an active interest until 30 days after the minister declares a discovery adequate and agrees that it shall be licensed for production purposes. The Crown operator can vote on all decisions without meeting any relevant share of the cost. This is what it comes down to-how is the government operator or the Crown corporation to pay for its share?
I should like to turn to Motion No. 28, although perhaps it is not quite legitimate in that it will be debated later on. But we in this party feel that the Crown operator should be given some advantage if there must be a designated Crown share. But we have already said that that share should not be rigidly fixed to the 25 per cent figure. We would prefer to have more private operators, more private investment capital in the venture. If there is to be a Crown share under Motion No. 28, the Crown operator, Petro-Canada or whatever Crown Corporation it may be, would have an obligation to undertake to purchase a working interest in that share, and the price of the purchase would be at least a portion of the relevant exploration costs to be set at 50 per cent of those costs as prorated to their proportion of the total partnership equity. In other words, if Petro-Canada had a 25 per cent interest, although under our amendments it could be 18 per cent or 32 per cent, it would be required to pay 50 per cent of one quarter of the total relevant costs incurred in bringing the particular lease to the point of significant discovery, licensing and production.
The point is that it is neither proper nor honest for the government to demand-in addition to all the forms of taxation it is going to assess against these operations at the consumer and production level in progressive royalties and income tax-a piece of the action without paying its share of the cost of participation.
The government would have the people of Canada believe that all this will come about for nothing and that somehow it can take away one quarter of a private production operation
Canada Oil and Gas Act
and convey it to the people of Canada without being required to pay a price for it. We would prefer that the government pay for this directly, Mr. Speaker. If the Crown operator, Petro-Canada or whoever, did pay directly to the extent of 50 per cent of the relevant share of the cost, it would have to borrow from the charter banks. In turn, the banks would probably go to New York or Bonn to borrow foreign money. That is one way in which the government can create the illusion of Canadian ownership, through the back door. In reality, however, it is offering a guaranteed rate of interest to foreign lenders and at the same time creating the illusion that it is protecting the resources for the Canadian people.
Bill C-48 does not provide authority for the government to borrow money or raise money through private contributions from Canadians. It does not invite the participation of Canadians to buy shares in the Crown corporation. Instead, it proposes to steal that 25 per cent interest. It pretends that the Canadian people will not have to pay for that interest but in fact, Mr. Speaker, the people will have to pay. They will pay through buying Canada Savings Bonds. The interest rate on bonds has been set at 19.5 per cent. This will have the effect of soaking the capital that some senior citizens have put away over the years. If you have $10,000 in the bank, a 19.5 per cent return is pretty attractive, so instead of investing in Canadian oil and gas people will be induced to buy Canada Savings Bonds which are widely advertised by the government and the banks. The government is desperate for capital and that is why the interest rate is so high.
But because the interest rates are so high, Canadians cannot afford to borrow money to invest in private sector ventures, which would have to pay 19.5 per cent or 21 per cent or 22 per cent interest in order to be attractive. I submit that is a hidden tax, Mr. Speaker; it is an inflation tax.
The government pretends that we are taking control of our own natural resources and our industry. It is trying to delude the Canadian people by calling what is really an excess tax, a high interest rate. The government is creating inflation by overspending; its expenditures are 25 per cent higher than its income. The new windfall tax levied on the production of conventional oil and gas is really a tax on all Canadians. All that people get in return are some fancy service stations which are taking business away from small independent oil and gas outlets in some parts of the country. In some small communities the corporation is also getting into the shopping centre business and the convenience food store business, thus making things extremely difficult for the existing service stations. Sometimes the Petro-Canada stations set the price at two cents per litre below that of the private operator, stays open all night and operates on a self-serve basis, taking business away from existing gas stations that have served the community and provided employment for years and years.
Petro-Canada puts up fancy signs and creates the grand illusion that we control our natural resources. This is nothing more than a charade, Mr. Speaker, because we owned them all along. The Canadian people are now being charged for the privilege of having that sign displayed. The high interest rates

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
we are being charged pay indirectly for the government's privilege of stealing a 25 per cent interest in the ownership of relevant ventures on the Canada lands.
1 think it is important that the essence of our amendments be quickly reviewed, Mr. Speaker. If the Crown is to have a relevant interest, we think it should pay for it. Motion No. 28 suggests that it should pay at the rate of 50 per cent of the relevant exploration cost, prorated to its share of the venture, and that there should be no guaranteed entitlement to a total of 25 per cent participation in oil and gas initiatives on the Canada lands.
It would be preferable if the government were to encourage individual Canadians to invest in these initiatives. In that way they could share in the risks and the profits and could help hasten our quest for energy self-sufficiency.
Motion No. 26 which amends Clause 34 removes from Petro-Canada the right to have a vote or a say in the exploration and production initiatives in the Canada lands unless it is a full working partner paying its share of the cost; it offers it a special break by allowing it to get away with something less than the full cost paid by other operators.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when I sit here and listen to members of the Conservative Party belittle and attack Petro-Canada and try to destroy it, and when I examine statistics which show how Canadians have responded to the Petro-Canada signs on gas stations, I am reminded of a turkey looking for an early Christmas. I do not think it is politically popular to do that in this country and I think the Conservative Party does so at some risk.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let us worry about that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You can worry about it, my friend. In this party we have a song about creating a new Jerusalem. It seems to me that the Conservative Party wants to create the old Jerusalem problem and the old Petro-Canada problem. If they want to do that, then they risk their own turkey necks in the process.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) said that Petro-Canada had nothing at stake in these wells and oil plays. I think that is completely wrong; they have a great deal at stake, Mr. Speaker. As the appropriate government agency, it has responsibility for helping to ensure the energy security of this country. It has a lot at stake and we have a lot at stake, but it is responsible to us. I cannot follow his logic at all. I cannot see that a corporate executive of Exxon in New York can have more at stake than does Petro-Canada in Canada; that a corporate executive for Texaco in Houston can have more at stake than Petro-Canada, or that a corporate executive for Gulf in Philadelphia can have more at stake in Canada than does Petro-Canada. How can the hon. member for Calgary Centre say that Petro-Canada has nothing at stake? It has a great deal at stake on the outcome of that exploration. It has gas stations at stake and it has production at stake.
If the hon. member would open his eyes and ears he would see and hear Canadians responding to those gas stations. They have responded in western Canada, and they will do so in eastern Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They are putting others out of business.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They will not put anyone out of business. My hon. friend believes in competition. There is enough competition in that business to allow Petro-Canada stations to exist with other gas stations.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) suggested that, and I think he used the words "they were spending our money" on this Petro-Canada back-in, and so on. I wonder if we have not forgotten in this debate that the money which has been spent by the Government of Canada, by the ordinary taxpayers-the cleaners and the bus drivers and the people to whom the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) referred so eloquently to in his speech the other night-is the money of those people who have contributed in taxes in order to give to the oil companies, which are now yelping about these mild government measures.
I refer the hon. member for Bow River, and I see him here, to the Government of Canada's tax expenditure account of 1980. I know he likes to deal with figures and has a healthy respect for them. I suggest he look at that account because he will find that the fast tax write-offs for exploration and development expenses and the earned depletion allowances alone have meant a loss of tax revenues to the federal government of $3,870 billion, almost $4 billion, for the period 1976 to 1980. Whose money is being spent up there? Whose money is that $4 billion that would have come to the Government of Canada, money that in fact has been given through these great tax write-offs to the oil companies? Where were my friends to the right when the government across the way was bringing in all these great giveaways in terms of tax write-offs, depletion allowances, super depletion allowances, earned depletion allowances, development expenses, and I think seven others? Where were they? They were not standing up saying: Don't give these kinds of allowances, that would not be capitalism." It is funny-you are anti-capitalistic if you take something from the oil companies, but if the government gives something to them, that richest industry in Canada which has drained Canadian taxpayers with all these write-offs in the past, then you are okay.
I have been listening very carefully to the many remarks directed my way and to the comments about socialism, and I have been trying to learn what capitalism is all about from hon. members to my right. I must say that I am getting conflicting messages because they tell me it is okay to give the companies lots of money but it is not very good to take anything away from them in terms of increasing taxes or taking 25 per cent. We are giving them 93 cents on every dollar up there and we want 25 per cent for Petro-Canada. Is that really so excessive? I do not think it is. We have suggested
November 4, 1981

it should be much more. I have suggested in past speeches during this debate that other countries-to be specific, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia-have much tougher regimes than this particular regime. I would like also to suggest to my friends on the right that I am getting conflicting messages from the oil industry as well. I understand this new regime is terrible on the oil industry, and so on, yet in The Financial Post of October 17, 1981, Don Jackson, president of Sienna Resources Ltd., a Calgary-based exploration company, is quoted as saying:
Under the new regime if you can find oil, it is unbeatable. We'll drill as fast as we can get the money.
Then I look over to the continuation of that article and I find another quotation from Mr. Lome Inglis of Westfield Securities who said:
By the end of the agreement period, the industry will be crying from shut-in oil,-
Is the industry suffering or is it not suffering?
There are a number of quotations from a number of other small Canadian companies. I suggest members to my right are not listening to small Canadian companies but are taking their instructions, indeed their orders, directly from the American government and from the large multinational oil companies. They are almost traitors to this country. That is where they are getting instructions, and that is what they are showing in this debate.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure you graduated from law school?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's right, unlike the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark).
In response to the hon. member for Calgary Centre, again going back to this notion that Petro-Canada does not have anything at stake, I suggest it has at stake its own responsibility. I also suggest it has at stake something bigger that my friends to the right simply do not understand, and that is that oil is now a strategic commodity, and it is the responsibility of modern government, especially in Canada, to ensure that we have an adequate supply of that commodity. That is the role of the government.
Let me quote what Bill Hopper, chairman of Petro-Canada, said in Calgary recently. He said:
"Simply put, oil is now a strategic commodity", he said. "Anyone who thinks that government intervention in the oil economy is going to decrease probably also believes in unicorns."
I take it then that the hon. member for Calgary Centre, among other things, is a believer in unicorns, because the fact is that in modern government, intervention is not going to decrease. We cannot go back to the old Jerusalem, my friend.
Furthermore, this is against the principles of the Conservative Party. I listened carefully to speaker after speaker, especially Conservative members from western Canada, and I would have thought they know better than to give the idea that the Conservative Party is exclusively the exponent of free enterprise; that there is nothing else. One hon. member said
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that this is a free enterprise country. That is a myth; it is against the very traditions of the Conservative Party. There is Suncor in Ontario, and what about Sir John A. Macdonald's aid to the CPR? What was CPR given? It was given half of Vancouver by the Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wish my friends would just relax a bit. I have listened to them for a long time. Just relax and listen for a minute. No doubt my friends to my right will get up and respond ultimately to this, but I am suggesting it is in the traditions of their own party that there has been a mix in this country between free enterprise and government aid in many ways. There was aid to the CPR through their own party, aid in building the transcontinental railway, the establishment of CBC by the Conservative Party, the nationalization or takeover of PWA by Peter Lougheed, that great free enterpriser, and the Alberta government telephone system.
One can go on and on.
The point I am making is that in modern days it is clearly a mixed economy in Canada, so to get up and berate the fact that Petro-Canada is going to be involved through a 25 per cent interest in the oil plays up in the north and in the offshore seems to me to be very shortsighted and very out of date. I do not have to belabour that point. I think it is clearly there. It is the Canadian way. This is a large country. It was not built on any ideology, although I think Canadians are basically a socialistic people.


Mr. Kelly:: Your first statement was correct.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think is was there for very practical reasons. Canada is a large country with a small population and a harsh environment. That is why we have to co-operate. That is why we have a different view of government than the Americans do in the United States. Sometimes our American friends do not understand that we have a different view. It so happens the party opposite believes some of the things I am saying, but it is a reluctant bride and it is not prepared to deal with government enterprise in a proper way. The party opposite is already making mistakes with respect to Petro-Canada. I have criticized Petro-Canada in the past. I have criticized the president when he was before the committee. When I think the government is doing a good thing, I will say so, and when I do not think so, I will say so too. I think the party opposite is starting to put hacks on the board of directors-


Harvie Andre: Which is inevitable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and starting to treat Petro-Canada in a way that it should not be treated. I say to my Conservative friends that in a modern state, with a strategic commodity like oil, our history and the nature of our country, Mr. Hopper is absolutely right when he says that anyone who thinks that government intervention in the oil economy is going to decrease probably also believes in unicorns.

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Mir. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some of the statements made by our hon. friend, the previous speaker. Certainly one is supposed to refer to members as hon. friends, but because of some of the aggravating remarks which emanated from the vacuum which he calls a mind, I do not think one can really refer to him as a friend after all.
At this moment in time I do not stand for any policy which would accommodate the disposition by the state of Petro-Canada. Let us get that clear. When the last speaker said that this government has already appointed political hacks to its board of directors, that was true. It is from that point of view that I cannot, in clear conscience and in the service of my taxpayers, refer to any individual serving a multinational company, because I do not have the privilege of being familiar with a president, a director or a knowledgeable individual. Those whom I have met I have only met on occasion, by coincidence and not by design, and anything I have to say in no way reflects these individuals' philosophies or objectives, politically or economically. I happen to believe that if there is to be a free opportunity for people to develop and to have an opportunity in this land, we cannot put in that environment a Crown corporation to which advantages are given that are denied to its competitors. In that aspect, this bill is wrong, this socialist philosophy is wrong and this country cannot thrive under that kind of structure. My instructions shall not come from New York but from my heart and with the guidance of my constituents and the taxpayers who I represent.


An hon. Member:: And Bay Street.


Fred Alward McCain: There are some, even those who have been known to be ministers of agriculture, who believe that we should be socialist in our stricture. Whether it be agriculture or oil, I do not believe that it is efficient or that it provides our consumers or the Canadian people as a whole with the best opportunity to make a living. There must be some consideration by government for agriculture. There always has had to be and there always will be.


Mr. Whelan:: All you ask for is that the government intervene. You ask for more government aid. Every time you get up and make a speech, that is what you ask for.


An hon. Member:: He has got you, babe.


Fred Alward McCain: Let us tell the whole story. I have asked the Government of Canada and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to fulfil his historic responsibilities. Those historic responsibilities of the Government of Canada, Liberal or Conservative, have been, until his advent on the scene, a policy which assured farmers of any crop that there would be a price stabilization payment available which would be a stop loss payment for the cycle in which that crop was in danger and in economic jeopardy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Stay out of their business and let them get a proper price, and they won't want any of your government money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Simmer down. Since there has been agriculture and since there has been business, there have been cyclical tendencies. It has served agriculture and the consumer well to have those price stabilization payments and to have money put into the financial structures that assist the farmer. You do not turn your back on them when they are in trouble, as this government has chosen to do.
Where is the former minister who kept Farm Credit Corporation rates down to the level that farmers could afford? Where is the historic performance of that minister of agriculture who has put bridge and emergency financing in place in times of cyclical difficulties for agriculture? Where is that minister? That minister has gone. We used to think he was a gentleman by the name of the hon. Mr. Gardiner who made things tough for farmers, but they did not know what tough was until we got that city-oriented individual from Windsor as the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: His government's position is indefensible, incomprehensible and unforgivable. The government has abandoned agriculture absolutely in its time of need, and it will reflect on the consumer in the cost of living in a serious way.
Do you have any other interjections? If you have, I would be happy to entertain them.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have something I can table if I can have unanimous consent. It is a letter from a person in Alberta, and it says "Don't quit."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Signed "Your loving cousin."


An hon. Member:: The only Liberal there.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, it would not be difficult to get about 2,000 signatures on a petition from the maritime provinces asking "Please get out of the way and let some progressive individual replace you who would act in an historic fashion as the minister of agriculture."
The problem is that the criticisms heaped upon the Liberal Party are bothering its members a little. Anything the minister can do to deflect any further discussion on Bill C-48, this insidious NDP-oriented instrument, he will do. The minister is doing his job today, even if he does not do it in agriculture tomorrow.


Eugene Whelan: We are watching.


Fred Alward McCain: I have discussed agriculture in a rather extraneous fashion. Let us come back to the oil industry. I want to come back to a phrase which was introduced to this


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 4, 1981

House by the late David Lewis. He referred to corporate welfare.


Edward Allan Miller: Bums.


Fred Alward McCain: What we are getting in this bill is an extention of corporate welfare which the New Democratic Party en masse ridiculed completely.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I agree with that.


Fred Alward McCain: We are back into corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. The taxpayer pays every single cent of that corporate welfare. While we are in that structure, we are depriving the taxing authority of the Government of Canada of an opportunity to receive revenue which otherwise might have accrued to it. We have put constraints upon that corporate structure of Canada, both Canadian and foreign, which is not going to give it the opportunity to be a tax base for this nation. Every move that has been made will cost the taxpayer money. The government has no money other than the money which comes from the taxpayer.
When these rights and privileges are given to Petro-Canada, or some other Crown corporation, it is imposing upon the consumers of Canada, who are the taxpayers, an additional price because the billions of dollars that have been spent in the off shore and distant lands of Canada-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thought they were stealing it.


Fred Alward McCain: They are stealing it from some and taxing others to pay for it. That is precisely what they are doing. Those corporations which have that money, whether it be Dome which comes under the proper characteristics for the Canadian government, or any other company, will have to charge Canadian consumers more to recover those billions of dollars which have been spent than they would otherwise have had to charge. We are giving-the word stealing is quite appropriate-


Eugene Whelan: It is not.


Fred Alward McCain: If it were yours, you would accuse the governement of stealing. You would not tolerate the idea of expropriation without compensation, and that is precisely what is in this bill. Let us take a quarter of your farm, then. You will not miss it. You cannot have a quarter of my house without a fight. I want compensation when that happens. It is all I have.
This is the only place in the world you can have expropriation without compensation, and the taxpayers will pay.
If Petro-Canada were given the opportunity to function in real competition with other Canadian companies, all the complaints would stop on this side of the House. But when you are going to put-


Eugene Whelan: That sounds slippery.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Fred Alward McCain: I am not as slippery as the Minister of Agriculture with respect to his responsibilities in his own portfolio.
However, let us get off the socialist slide. The results of socialism are evident when we look at Sweden which has absolutely unmanageable financial problems with respect to both foreign exchange and fiscal and monetary loans which are required from outside that land to keep it going. England had a socialist regime, and only this week we heard the government say that British Leyland will never open its doors again except under certain conditions. The taxpayer cannot maintain the burden to keep it operating. Let us not get ourselves into that mess.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about West Germany?


Fred Alward McCain: Yes. It is giving assistance to business. It is not standing in its way. It is allowing consortiums to produce and operate in a free enterprise structure which gives them business anywhere in the world. In this country we have a government and a splinter opposition which have defied the facts of success in every viable economy in this world and have blinded themselves utterly to the failures and difficulties occurring in socialist governments.
The government should provide for free trade, free competition, comparable tax policy, comparable opportunity for exploration and opportunity for development and consortium opportunity, but it should let Petro-Canada make its own money without the backing of the taxpayers. Let it buy its own land, lease its own lands and explore its own lands. Let it form a consortium with other companies, but let the government not put the burden on the taxpayer by giving Petro-Canada a gift of 25 per cent of somebody else's property. That will only let them compete in an unfair way. Let us not have a company managed by political hacks.
If Petro-Canada, with its funds supplied by the taxpayer, were turned loose in the free enterprise market of Canada without that support from the Crown and taxpayer, how long would it last? Under those circumstances it would not last, and therefore its existence is not justified. It should be put out on its own.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The CPR.


Fred Alward McCain: All right, the CPR. So they own half of the centre of Edmonton. When the CPR was built, the city of Edmonton might have had a half dozen wigwams in it. Because it is now in the centre of the city of Edmonton, is not the fault of our ancestors who gave it to them. The city of Vancouver had a few scows, and the railroad gave that city the opportunity to build. Otherwise, it would never have been the trading centre it is today.
Let us not philosophize and indoctrinate the people of Canada with false statements such as, "We gave them half of downtown Vancouver." What an insidious statement that is. Anyone who would just apply a little logic and who had some

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
knowledge of the development of this land would never make such a statement again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to correct an error I made earlier. It is a minor procedural one. I referred to the mover of the motion as being the Hon. Michael Wilson. It should, of course, have been:


Harvie Andre: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House may wish now to consider Motion No. 27.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By unanimous consent.


Harvie Andre: Motion No. 27
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 35 by striking out lines 29 to 34 at page 20.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 27 also deals with Petro-Canada and the role that it will play. It gives me an opportunity to address some of the erroneous remarks made by my hon. friend, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who, incredibly, has been the energy spokesman for his party. Apparently he has learned absolutely nothing.
He accuses our party of not being consistent in principle, which I think may be the way of describing it. He says that we are operating in the dark ages if we think that the private sector is worth anything or has any future. I suggest that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might learn something of value if he would speak to the former energy critic for the New Democratic Party during the period from 1974 to 1979,
the Hon. Tommy Douglas who now is a director of Husky Oil, which is a large Canadian oil company. I suggest the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might learn something and be less inclined to make the asinine statements he has been making in the House.
He asked the rhetorical question why we Conservatives are not concerned about small business, and he has somehow related that to Petro-Canada.
I would remind him of two anecdotal situations with regard to Petro-Canada. I am sure he must have received a letter recently from a Mr. Barry Peacock, President of Peacock Oil of Barrie, Ontario. Mr. Peacock, an independent petroleum marketer, has a small business. He supplies oil and gas to independent service stations under the Peacock banner in the area of Orillia, Ontario. The vice-president of Petro-Canada phoned him and said that Petro-Canada had just taken over his station at a certain location. The vice-president said that Petro-Canada has a contract with the owner of that station and that it would be supplying the gas from now on. Mr. Peacock said, "Gee, I thought I had a contract with that individual; I am sure I did". He telephoned and went to see the individual whose station supposedly had been taken over by Petro-Canada from amongst his stations. The individual said, "Well, frankly they made me an offer I could not refuse". They came in, said they were going to spend $20,000 improving the service station. They were going to put in new tanks, new pumps and new signs and give him some money for advertising locally and so forth and said they would look after any contractual obligations he had with Peacock Oil. That was the case of this great Canadian oil company that is doing things for Canadians by knocking out a piece of the business of a small Canadian independent petroleum marketer, Peacock Oil. That is a true story. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway can telephone Barrie, Ontario and ask Mr. Peacock. Perhaps he does not remember receiving the letter. He probably threw it in the garbage right away because it did not fit his philosophical leanings.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also talked about the justification for seizing 25 per cent of the privately owned assets of companies operating in the north. He said it was justifiable on the basis of tax expenditures. I remind the hon. member-I am sure he has heard it before, but he chooses to forget-that if that is a justification, then the government is perfectly justified in seizing his Registered Retirement Savings Plan, if he has one. If he has used a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan to save for a down payment for a house, based on the rationale supplied by the hon. member the government is justified in seizing a portion of the house because if he has ever had a tax deduction by virtue of children, wife, Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan or Registered Retirement Savings Plan or taken any tax deferral scheme such as that, according to the New Democratic Party that provides the moral justification for the federal government to come in and seize part of the assets acquired by taking advantage of the tax incentives provided by this government.
November 4, 1981

That is a Colonel Gadaffi kind of morality. That is a Third World, banana republic dictatorship kind of morality. It really is disgusting and shocking to hear Canadians who supposedly believe in democracy justifying that kind of behaviour.
In a sense, I suppose, politically, the members of the New Democratic Party have it made. On the one hand they say Crown corporations and government intervention are good. They say Petro-Canada is good. Then, on the other hand they say that because the government fills Crown corporations, including Petro-Canada, full of political hacks, it is therefore bad. They criticize political hacks, but they like Crown corporations. They have it made. They spend half their time demanding more government intervention and the other half criticizing the blazes out of the government for doing what it is doing with the authority it has as a result of that intervention. They cannot be separated; they come together.
If we are to have a government creating Crown corporations, agencies and bodies and making appointments, we are going to have political hacks. They cannot be separated; that is exactly what happens. How can we morally or intellectually justify creating more opportunities for political hacks while, on the other hand, become disturbed about putting political hacks into positions?
Probably the most stupid aspect of the argument made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was the question of Petro-Canada's being responsible. The hon. member said, "Of course it is responsible; it is responsible for ensuring our energy security." How can it be held responsible? What magic occurs? What magical qualities does Bill Hopper, the president of Petro-Canada, have that are denied to Bob Blair, the president of Nova and Husky, or Bill Richards, the president of Dome, or Riddell, the president of Paramount Oil and Gas? What magical qualities does a person acquire when he becomes a president of a Crown corporation which are somehow not attributable to others? Why are Canadians who are running oil companies owned by Canadian individuals as shareholders inferior intellectually, morally or in any other way to Canadians who work for the government or for Crown corporations? I wonder if the hon. member at some time could explain to me why it is that Canadians who work for private companies are morally and intellectually inferior.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They aren't.


Harvie Andre: Could he explain to me why it is that employees of companies other than Crown corporations are dishonest. The hon. member said that corporations are terrible and disgusting and that their directors are disgusting.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No. Show me in Hansard.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that Petro-Canada is necessary if we are to become self-sufficient, which means that the rest of the industry will not work and cannot be trusted.
Then the hon. member talked about government intervention. I wish he would talk to Tommy Douglas and find out
Canada Oil and Gas Act
something about the oil industry, because if he spent a little time with Tommy Douglas, he would recognize that a company or an individual involved in the oil industry cannot acquire land, cannot run seismic tests, cannot drill a well, cannot put in a pumping facility, cannot put in a pipeline, cannot put in a refinery, cannot put in a service station and cannot in fact undertake anything at all in the oil industry without getting the permission of the government or a licence from the government. If that is not intervention, what is it? The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has an absurd notion.
I am sure he is not advocating getting rid of all the provisions of this bill. He is saying he wants all those provisions, but he wants these government regulators to regulate the government because he cannot trust the private sector, even though the private sector cannot do anything without getting the permission of the government first. Intellectually, that is absurd.
With respect to small private companies the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway admonished us and asked why we are not concerned about small companies. I ask him to read my remarks of last week when I read into the record a letter from Paramount Oil and Gas, a small Canadian oil and gas company headquartered in Calgary. Its president is Mr. Riddell. The company undertook some drilling activities in northern Canada. It spent $10 million, which was a lot of money for that small Canadian company. Its biggest well which cost $5 million turned out to be a duster. The company did get a couple of small gas producers in the Cameron Hills area far from any pipeline, so they are capped. For its investment of $10 million, this company has some capped resources up there which have some value. The value is reduced now that we have the National Energy Program. However, it has some value but, if passed, this bill will confiscate 25 per cent of what Paramount Oil and Gas has up there. We will be taking 25 per cent of this Canadian company's assets.
In the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this is entirely justifiable, but every day he tells us he is concerned about small Canadian businesses. If he is concerned about small Canadian businesses, he would not so easily say, "To heck with you, Mr. Riddell and to heck with you, Paramount Oil and Gas; the Crown is taking 25 per cent because the Crown deserves it".
Motion No. 27 seeks to amend Clause 25 of the bill. Clause 25 of the bill as amended in committee and reported to the House says that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), by order, may designate the Crown corporation to be the operator with respect to the relevant interest. In other words, the minister here in Ottawa may designate Petro-Canada to be the operator. Here are the circumstances: we want our oil and gas resources to be developed. We want companies to go into the frontier areas far away from the market. We want them to spend tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on exploration, seismology and drilling wells. And then Petro-Canada will come along and take a 25 per cent partnership, carried interest, and will pay nothing but .will be

November 4, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
able to vote. If there is a discovery, under Clause 35 the minister may direct that PetroCan become the operator. The minister may direct that PetroCan take over and henceforth control all the wells and production facilities. In other words, it can spend all the money necessary without being accountable to anyone.
These companies which have taken all the risk will suddenly find themselves holding a tiger by the tail. They have to keep paying out their share of the money, but PetroCan is the operator. The company which put up none of the money will then spend the way Crown corporations spend.
The industry has a long history of dealing with the situation where an operator does not work out or the partners want to change. There is a standard contract used universally to deal with this situation. Why does the government not make use of this global experience and employ the same procedure? What kind of perverse, idiotic mentality would lead them to say that the government cannot depend on the worldwide procedure for changing operators and put in language which says the minister can direct the Crown corporation to take over as the operator?
There will be no new development in Canada's Arctic area with this kind of rule. No small businessman or multinational with any common sense would put money into a situation which carries PetroCan as a voting partner even though it puts up none of the cash. Second, this company which you have been carrying and has put up no cash can take over as the operator. It can decide if and when you are going to develop, where you are going to sell and at what price. Who in their right mind would make that kind of investment? No one.
The only people who will carry on in Canada lands are those who are there and are stuck, those who spent millions of dollars over the past few years in good faith, thinking that a democratic country like Canada would never come forward with this type of legislation. How wrong they were. They are paying the price now, but they will not make that mistake again.
We will not have the development which this country needs. The government claims it wants development. I do not believe that. It is a sad commentary on where we have come to in this country. It is very disappointing that our system works so poorly that a handful of people in the minister's office can produce such an incredibly badly thought out piece of legislation and program. It counts on the blind, deaf and dumb support of government members in this House to shove it through.
This is a sad commentary on our system. Nevertheless, we in this party keep trying by repetition, talking and going over the matter, hoping that in some magic way enough people will take their responsibility to Canada seriously and will reconsider what they have been doing thus far and vote in favour of motions such as No. 27 which negates clause 35(1) which is so detrimental to the future of this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on Motion No. 27 of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) which concerns Clause 35 of the bill. He went into great contortions to describe his concern about their being no exploration or development with such a clause in the bill, yet this clause, or one very similar to it, was in the original bill that came out last year.
The clause was put in for a very clear reason. The government has a great deal at stake in the development of any well because of the petroleum incentive program grants of a minimum 25 per cent, or higher. There have been instances in the past where the operator was a foreign-owned multinational. It would have been much more in the country's interest to see exploration or a delineation of wells carried out to prove their geological structure. Perhaps because of these circumstances that particular operator's global activities, whether it is Mobil or any other multinational corporation, would take place in some other part of the world, activities involving exploration and development. Because of our climatic conditions, often exploration can only go forward during the summer months. Canada must sit and wait while the foreign-owned multinational carries out its exploration and focuses its activities in another part of the world.
From the point of view of the individual companies, that is fine. In some cases private enterprise feels no responsibility to Canada. Therefore, this is a good safeguard. We have the capital investment through the petroleum incentive program. Perhaps in some cases the grants are even higher. Sometimes strategic well drilling in one area may go on to other structures in the area. If we lose one or even two years, it is not in the long-term interest of the country.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre stated that with this clause in the bill, no exploration can take place. When we were dealing with this bill in the standing committee, impressive figures were placed before us forecasting petroleum exploration expenditures on major Canada lands. During 1979, before the bill was introduced, the projected figure was $550 million. The projections by the department for 1980 and 1981 show those figures rising dramatically. In 1980, the first year before this bill was introduced, the expenditures were $345 million. In 1981 they rose to $630 million, in 1982 to $830 million, in 1983 to $1,035 million and in 1984 to $1,140 million.
If we look behind the hon. member's arguments, we find that the projections of expenditures and the number of wells that will be drilled in the next few years under the National Energy Program rise dramatically, doubling the 1979 figure by 1984 and almost quadrupling the 1980 figure by 1984. I do not think we should take the hon. member's argument too seriously in this regard. It is a most worth-while safeguard for the national interest to have this clause in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is not clear as to whether the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has completed his remarks. He indicates he has. Perhaps it is appropriate at this time to inquire whether hon. members wish the motion to be put.
November 4, 1981


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I had heard some hon. member indicate that possibly the time has come to put the question. It is clear the time has not come. It is six o'clock.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Accordingly, it being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) the House now stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 5, 1981