1981-01-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday I raised a question in the House concerning statements made by Doris Anderson, president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which accused the minister responsible for the status of women of interfering unduly in the workings of the council by exerting pressure on the executive of the council to cancel its national conference on the constitution because it might be embarrassing to the government.
In light of the unsatisfactory answer I received, the necessity to maintain the independent nature of this council and the need for a national conference of women on the constitution, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House demands that the minister refrain from exerting any further pressure or taking punitive action against this independent advisory council, and that we as responsible parliamentarians endorse the plans of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, originally undertaken last summer, to hold a national conference of women on the constitution now scheduled for February 13 and 14.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the December labour force survey indicates clearly that since the election of this government we have lost 43,000
jobs in the goods-producing sector of our economy and that an alarming number of Canadians, 77,000, are so discouraged that they are not even looking for work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to consult the Minister of Employment and Immigration with a view to changing budgetary policy to encourage the creation of jobs in the goods-producing sector of the Canadian economy, real jobs for Canadians who need them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an increasingly urgent matter in several areas of Canada.
In view of the fact that VIA Rail trains have experienced undue delays during the Christmas holidays; that there was a shortage of locomotive fuel; that the CN gave priority to freight trains, thus delaying passenger trains in eastern Canada which were already more than 30 hours late; that emergency teams were not on duty to clear the tracks in eastern Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais):
That the House direct the Canadian Transport Commission to launch an investigation into the numerous delays and derailments that occurred between December 15, 1980, and January 12, 1981; that the commissioners recommend remedial measures to be taken during the rush period; and that the report be submitted to the House before June 1, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 13, 1981


ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the continual criticism of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women by the minister responsible for the status of women and his continual criticism of the council's constitutional proposals, proposals praised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and because of the minister's recent attempt to prevent the council from holding its planned conference of women on the constitution in mid-February, an interference aided and abetted by executive members of the council, in particular Ms. Hellie Wilson, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the minister responsible for the status of women be stripped-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
McDonnell Douglas plant so that existing jobs will be preserved and hopefully new jobs will be created.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Prime Minister be recalled from his north-south disaster tour and be given an east-west Canadian orientation tour, for:
There was a traveller named Pierre
Who flies on left-wing and prayer;
An "innocent abroad",
He blew quite a wad-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: -of that responsibility-
Perhaps I should add that he be tarred and feathered!
-that the executive members of the advisory council who aided and abetted the minister's attempted political interference be asked to resign from the council; and that this House support the efforts of the council and its president to hold the conference planned for Ottawa in mid-February of women on the constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the federal government has signed a contract with McDonnell Douglas of the United States for over $4 billion to build the F-18A fighter aircraft, and whereas McDonnell Douglas of Canada is laying off over 700 workers, with more lay-offs expected in the not too distant future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Government of Canada assure the workers of McDonnell Douglas of Canada that a portion of the Canadian work on the F-18A will come to the


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We do enjoy the hon. member's verses, but they should be kept for another time.


An hon. Member:: I am sure it is urgent and pressing.


An hon. Member:: They can't take the heat over there.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare by her silence has recently allowed steps to be taken which would commercialize the buying, selling and processing of human blood for profit by a federal Crown corporation, and whereas this action contravenes the voluntary spirit of the Red Cross blood donor program and can only serve to escalate the costs of health care even further, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House hereby instructs the CDC owned Connaught Laboratories Limited that the gift of life, that is to say human blood, is not a commodity of commercial traffic, nor is it to be processed into plasma for financial gain; and further, that this House pledges its unreserved support to the Canadian Red Cross in its desire to establish an in-house facility for the processing of human blood into plasma.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 13, 1981


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing urgency. Given that the recent CBC television program "Against the Grain" amounted to little more than the CPR version of how the railway and grain handling system in the west should be restructured; and given that the CBC should be placed on a full cost recovery basis whenever it provides free advertising, whether such advertising is paid or unpaid, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the CBC calculate immediately all program costs and overheads for the program "Against the Grain", and that a bill for advertising costs be directed to the CPR president, Ian Sinclair, for the full amount of services rendered by the corporation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Before proceeding to oral question period, I should like to put everyone under notice that I think the questions should be much shorter and the answer should equally be kept as short as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Before members applaud, they should know that the questions yesterday were longer than the answers. Therefore, I think it is in everyone's interest to keep them short.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who will know that the labour force statistics indicate that there has been a drop of 25,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since the Liberal government came to office in March. In light of that, could the minister either confirm or deny the testimony of his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that the so-called industrial policy has been dropped in priority by this government to a priority below the constitution and the energy doctrine?
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the labour market statistics which show a slight change. That is not surprising, in view of the fact that we are experiencing a normal winter month change in unemployment.
With respect to the direct question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have not seen the statement allegedly made by my colleague. I should like to look at it before I either confirm it or deny it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, briefly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
I think it's made considerable progress in terms of cabinet discussion-
He was referring to the industrial policy. He continued:
-but we've decided, I think quite rightly, to give some immediate priority to putting in place our national energy policy and the new Canadian constitution.
Is that in fact the priority of the Government of Canada? Do jobs come behind energy and constitution policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. I believe the minister was stating what is known to the House, that at present the resolution on the constitution is before committee, that it will come back, and that we are proceeding with the energy bills and the budget bills which make up what I consider to be an important part of the over-all industrial program of the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what remains unanswered is what has happened to any measures to create jobs in the goods-producing sector of the Canadian economy. Will the minister tell us why the creation of jobs ranks well behind the constitution and energy policies in the priorities of this government, and when the Parliament and the people of Canada might expect new measures to create jobs in the goods-producing sector of the Canadian economy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks about job creation. I share the importance which he attaches to that objective. I would remind him that over the past year, that is, in 1980, more than 240,000 new jobs have been created in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Temporary jobs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At present in the country we have the highest ever number of adult Canadians at work. All this has happened despite what we know today to be a recession throughout the world. In those circumstances I believe the Canadian economy has performed reasonably well in providing jobs for all groups in the community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY RESPECTING PLANS TO CREATE JOBS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. In referring to the existing unemployment

January 13, 1981
Oral Questions
situation in Canada, he called it "a normal winter month". Is the minister aware that in December of this year, compared to December of last year, there were 9,000 fewer people working in manufacturing, 33,000 fewer working in the construction industry of Canada, and 16,000 fewer working in the transportation industry?
If he is aware of that, would he indicate if he is content to see that type of fall in employment. If not, what can he specifically tell us today about what the government plans to do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously there are changes in the over-all composition of the work force in Canada from time to time, depending upon changes in the over-all economy. I acknowledge that fact. I presume the hon. member would agree that there is bound to be change of that kind and that it is healthy in a growing economy. What the hon. member ought to focus on is that despite the difficulties we are facing, not only in Canada but throughout the world, we have at the present time the highest proportion of the Canadian adult labour force working in the country. That is the overall test of employment strength in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Spaker, stripped of its gibberish what the Minister of Finance is indicating is that the shift in the work force in Canada is away from the producing sector to the government sector; that is where his employment is taking place.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would like to ask the
minister more specifically concerning the present status of the Chrysler arrangements. Seven months ago today the government entered into an agreement with Chrysler Canada and the Chrysler Corporation which anticipated that a billion dollars would be invested in the Canadian company to try to keep the company alive, and presumably keep a work force numbering directly and indirectly some 35,000 employed in Canada. Would the minister indicate whether there has been any change in that plan and, if so, what will the government do to relieve whatever the coming situation may develop into?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, there has been no change in the Canadian proposal for refinancing the Chrysler Corporation. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is monitoring the situation on a daily basis together with his American counterparts, but for the time being, no change in the original plan is being considered.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, since we have what I regard as unsatisfactory answers concerning the government's position on the unemployment situation in Canada, would the Minister of Finance, as the Deputy Prime Minister, indicate whether any thought has been given to the holding of a conference to involve labour leaders, small business leaders, industrialists, the government and provincial authorities to see if some solutions can be found for the economic plight this country is drifting into, or are we to see in the coming months total inaction on the part of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I again wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member that even though the employment rate we have is serious, the average unemployment rate for 1980 is precisely the average rate that Canada experienced in 1979.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Which was bad.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a full percentage point below what the figure was in the middle of the preceding year. I draw to the hon. member's attention that, despite the fact that the world and Canada has been going through a very soft period, the economy has performed reasonably well in the creation of jobs. Just before the Christmas break I had a meeting with the provincial finance ministers in which the state of the economy was discussed. I have an open mind with respect to the desirability of holding further consultations with respect to the future of the Canadian economy. I will give consideration to the representations made by the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. The figures announced today show that there are really 1.4 million people who are unemployed, if you include those who have been laid off and who have lost their jobs. This means that there is a misery rate, which combines the rate of real unemployment, plus inflation, plus interest rates, of 39 per cent, which is the highest ever in Canadian history. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance just how bad must matters become before the government recognizes that we are in an economic crisis and that it is time for it to change course?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am relying upon the statistics issued today by Statistics Canada which show an
January 13, 1981

unadjusted unemployment rate of 810,000. That rate in itself is serious enough, and I do not see why the hon. member must add to the situation through his own statistical emanations or creations.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister has done more for complacency in his short term in office than Bo Derek has done for the number 10.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: The Liberal party announced during the election campaign that it would introduce an industrial policy at once. In the Speech from the Throne they said that vigorous industrial policy would be a paramount objective of the government. In the budget the minister said that details would be announced soon. In January the minister said that the program would be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, I think we would all be happy to hear it.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I do have a question, and it is quite straightforward and simple. Why is it that just at a moment when the economic crisis is worsening the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has announced that the government's entire industrial strategy and its industrial policy was being shelved for an indefinite period of time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I disagree entirely with the suggestion made by the hon. member, that the government's industrial strategy has been shelved. I reminded his colleague yesterday during question period of the large sums of money which have been included in the budget planning for the next several years for investment and economic development in Canada within a framework of expenditure restraint. I would also advise the hon. member that in the budget statement I made provision for a special fund to be applied to manpower development and industrial restructuring, and I hope that announcements on that subject will be made very soon.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Bob Rae: The minister says he hopes the announcements on that subject will be made very soon. He made exactly the same statement in his budget speech three months ago. We always have to wait with this government.
Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister said that thousands of Canadian workers have been laid off in several Canadian communities generally and on the North Shore in Quebec in particular. I have in mind especially the
Oral Questions
lay-offs in Schefferville and Sept-Iles. I should like, therefore, to ask the minister whether, jointly with the unions, he intends to set up reclassification committees and implement special programs to help the workers of these isolated communities and thus assure them of a basic income security.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet last week with Mr. Brian Mulroney, who is the president of the company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Would you like me to repeat that, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lloyd Axworthy: I met with Brian Mulroney last week, Madam Speaker, to-


Mr. Andre:: And today you are a lot smarter.


John Horton McDermid: Your party does not want you and neither do we.


Lloyd Axworthy: -to discuss the decision by his company to close the plant at Sept-Iles. He very cordially agreed that we should establish a committee composed of officials of my department to work with company officials and union officials to provide for alternative means of retraining, employment and relocation. I believe that committee is now in place. It will provide any assistance possible to the workers of that area.
In addition, I repeat what the Minister of Finance indicated, that the government is preparing a program to deal with the particular problems of industrial dislocation. We hope to be able to make an announcement on that program within the next few weeks.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the continually sustained high interest rates that producers across this country are facing as well as small businessmen and farmers. Judging from the minister's actions lately, I do not know whether he understands the impact that these high interest rates are having on producers in this country. I should like him to let us know if he does.
Secondly, is he serious about the small business development bond which was introduced approximately 13 months ago in

January 13, 1981
Oral Questions
this House and supported by himself nine months ago through a ways and means motion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am indeed serious about the small business development bond. It was originally introduced a year ago last December and subsequently reintroduced in April. It will be before the House for approval shortly when the income tax bill is debated. In the meantime the benefits are open to small businessmen in Canada.


An hon. Member:: They are not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have been taking advantage of them.


An hon. Member:: They are not.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: The banks will not take them.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I am sorry that he is not aware of the tremendous confusion there is in the country surrounding this measure. The fact is that many people who might have had an opportunity to take advantage of this bond have not been able to because of many of the confusions that surround it. I ask the minister very seriously if he will undertake to enact this legislation immediately so that people can understand what it is all about, and the banks in particular, because they do not know what it is all about. The branch banks in local areas do not know what it is all about. Will the minister make sure that they understand it and will he encourage them to use it?
Finally, Madam Speaker, will the minister extend the use of the small business development bond to unincorporated businesses and farmers who have not been able to take advantage of it? Will he also extend the period beyond March 31? People do not know what this program is all about and have not had an opportunity to take advantage of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must say that I do not share all the concerns expressed by the hon. member. There is no reason why the banks should not understand what it is all about, because in the very early stages, officials of my department and bankers had discussions. In fact, as a result of these discussions we were able to make certain adjustments to the program. Likewise, it is quite well known to the small business community in Canada through the organization that is headed by Mr. Bulloch, with whom I have had discussions about this particular bond.
I will consider the hon. member's views and see whether any of the difficulties he alleges exist, because it is my purpose, as it is his, to make this program available as widely as possible during the period in which it will be in effect.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. This past week the Bank of Canada sold about $1 billion worth of securities to keep interest rates at the current record high level. With the Canadian dollar up about 1.5 cents from its low point, with U.S. interest rates down, with bankruptcies and unemployment up, can the minister explain why the Bank of Canada has followed this deliberate attempt to keep interest rates high when they had the clear option to let the interest rates go down?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman knows it is not customary to comment on particular transactions made by the Bank of Canada in the market. I would draw to his attention, however, that it seems to me it has been the objective of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in pursuit of his policy, to attempt to moderate fluctuations in the bank rate. It does not seem to me to be very profitable to have the kind of wide swings that have been experienced in the past year. I am sure that if what the hon. member alleges is the case, it is undoubtedly not done deliberately to prevent rates from going down but to moderate these fluctuations; or, in a sense, to ensure that when real drops occur, they last and are not temporary and followed by an upswing. That is really what the purpose of the action would be.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is quite an explanation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is too subtle for you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I did not understand that gobbledygook that we got back from the Minister of Finance. Interest rates in this country are too high. We want to see them down to somewhat lower levels than these very high levels we have today.
My supplementary question is to ask the minister whether the Governor of the Bank of Canada discussed or sought his approval for this transaction-not a particular transaction, but a very important indication of policy on the part of the bank to hold rates up at these very high record levels?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked for interest rates to be lowered. He will be pleased, as I was, to have observed that the bank rate has decreased on the last three Thursdays on which the auctions have taken place. He can take some small satisfaction from that development.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the other part of his question, I regularly meet with the Governor of the Bank of Canada on a weekly basis and at that meeting we discuss the current situation.
January 13, 1981

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry the motion I presented yesterday under Standing Order 43 was not agreed to by both sides of the House. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and deals with the problem now affecting the Iron Ore Company at Sept-iles and Schefferville. Can the minister tell the House, first, what discussions he has had with the president of the company, Mr. Brian Mulroney, and to what extent the company is willing to become involved financially in helping the workers affected directly by those lay-offs; second, what concrete and direct steps his department can take to rescue as many of the people laid off as possible; third, whether or not he has met his colleague from DREE to see what else their two departments can do to help; and, fourth, whether he intends to deal with the Iron Ore problem the way he is handling the Chrysler situation, that is, whether he intends to help the North Shore workers officially and substantially as he is doing for the Ontario workers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in an earlier answer, I did meet with the president of the Iron Ore Company. We discussed measures that could be taken jointly to provide for the relocation of those workers affected by lay-off. There is a committee that has been established to survey what can be done to meet the representatives of the unions and the company and to undertake those measures that we can apply, such as mobility, retraining and other forms of job opportunities.
I can also report to the House that I have met with my colleague, the minister responsible for DREE. We discussed the situation on the North Shore and once we receive a report from officials we are prepared to respond with any special measures at our disposal, similar to those that were applied in the Windsor area. I hope we will shortly have in place the new industrial relocation program, so that there will be a large variety of federal measures that could be applied directly to that area as soon as possible. We hope that an announcement of that program will be made within ten days to two weeks.


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS-CREATION OF JOBS FOR CANADIANS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. What action does the government propose to take to require that McDonnell Douglas in Toronto create jobs in Canada for Canadians commensurate with the billions of dollars that we are spending with them in order to acquire the F-18?
Oral Questions


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, we are now reviewing the tenders submitted to McDonnell Douglas concerning the structural parts of the F-18. The government, jointly with this company, will be in a position to announce the decisions made in this matter within a few weeks.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether I received an answer to that question. Might I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance directly related to the problem of jobs. The auto industry is not responding in the way anticipated. Nor is the number of jobs being created in Canada as it was indicated there would be over the last few months. Therefore, can the minister tell us whether he has considered setting up a parliamentary task force to review within a short period of time the state of the industry, the * effect of the decisions being made in the United States on the Canadian marketplace, and specifically, the creation in Canada both of research and development and job opportunities?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, like everyone else in this House and in Canada, the hon. member should be aware of the major problems now facing automobile manufacturers both in the United States and in Canada as well as in other countries. He should also be aware of the negotiations now going on, such as the take-over of AMC by the Renault group in the United States and the present discussions between the Renault group and Canadian officials concerning the two AMC plants in Canada. He should also be aware that when the Japanese minister of industry and international trade was in Canada yesterday, the Canadian Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce raised the matter of possible investments by Japan in the Canadian automobile industry. This industry is now experiencing extremely difficult times. Madam Speaker, and we do not have any magical answers under our pillow, as the hon. member seems to think.


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS-ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE AT WORKERS' MEETING-GUARANTEE OF F-18A WORK CONTRACTS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to follow up on what my colleague just asked concerning the McDonnell Douglas situation. I shall direct my question to the parliamentary secretary.
Workers who were laid off by McDonnell Douglas held a meeting recently in Mississauga. Not one representative of the government saw fit to attend, although an invitation was issued. Why did no one attend to show interest in their
6136

January 13, 1981
Oral Questions
concerns? Why did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce send a telegram but did not send a representative from the government? Surely a Toronto member of Parliament or the member for the area might have shown some concern for the workers' plight.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, concerning this meeting of the McDonnell Douglas workers during the Christmas recess of Parliament, the hon. member knows that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was not able to attend because of his accident. As for other government representatives, I cannot reply to this question since I was not myself invited to attend.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, that is sweet comfort for those 700 workers who have been laid off.
My supplementary is again for the parliamentary secretary. Who has the final say in awarding contracts in Canada for the construction of the F-18A? Does the Canadian government have any input? If so, will the government guarantee that McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd., which has the trained work force, the facilities and the know-how, will obtain the work which was promised by the company before it was awarded the contract?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, obviously, the government has a role to play as concerns the economic fall-out from the F-18 program, since the Canadian government is a contracting party to the purchase of the F-18 from McDonnell Douglas. The decisions concerning the awarding of contracts for the structural parts have not yet been made. Discussions are now going on between McDonnell Douglas and representatives of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other departments involved.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning offshore resource exploration. Yesterday the minister assured the House that there are as many oil drilling rigs active in Canada this very month as there were in January one year ago, notwithstanding reports that many are leaving Canada. I would like the minister's assurance that oil and gas drilling activity off the Atlantic coast will be maintained in 1981. Can the minister comment on a report that Mobil Oil has delayed plans to move a semi-submersible rig from the North Sea to the Sable Island area off Nova Scotia because of the government's energy policies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat the statement made yesterday emanating from Oilweek magazine, that as of January 6 there were exactly the same number of rigs operating in Canada as there were last year and slightly more were operating than in 1979. 1 hope not only that the activity will be maintained on the east coast, but that it will be increased this year.
As far as the specific problem raised by the hon. member is concerned, I had the opportunity of discussing this issue with the president of Mobil Oil I believe a few weeks ago, in December. He indicated to me that the problem had nothing to do with the National Energy Program, but that there were some problems in terms of the mobility and adjustments of their rigs involved in offshore activities around the world. He indicated there would be a slight delay but he expected the rig in question to be in action some time in the spring.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments but they are in conflict with the report aired on CTV in Halifax. However, I will ask the minister again with respect to Mobil Oil's operations offshore. The company has said, and there have been published reports, that it is concerned with the dispute between the provinces and the federal government over ownership of resources. What is the minister doing to resolve this dispute? In particular, has the minister any intention of referring this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada as indicated in "The National Energy Program", where it is stated that the government is anxious to have this dispute referred to the courts or to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to know that the hon. member is supporting such a possible reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has offered the opportunity to agree on the terms of reference to governments of the maritime provinces and the government of Newfoundland. Unfortunately, the government of Newfoundland has not yet responded positively to any of our approaches in this respect.
As far as the first part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I would rather believe the president of Mobil Oil than a CTV report.


An hon. Member:: That is a change of heart.


Marc Lalonde: I am telling him what the president of Mobil Oil told me during the course of our conversations some time in November or December.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expan-
January 13, 1981

sion, but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On July 23, 1980, a disastrous fire destroyed the National Sea Products plant in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, causing a direct loss of 305 jobs. The plant represented more than 50 per cent of the economic base of the Lockeport area and the payroll for 1979 was approximately $2.5 million. I am sure the minister is well aware of the facts of this case. They were made known to the government on August 27, 1980. In the interim officials of National Sea Products have provided government officials with detailed plans for a new plant at Lockeport. Is the minister in a position to indicate when a DREE grant will be made available to assist the company in re-establishing this much needed facility?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the minister is well aware of the hardship this loss has imposed on the community of Lockeport and the Nova Scotia office of the department has looked into this matter quite carefully. A proposal will be made to the advisory board of the department within the next few weeks, and shortly after that the minister will be able to give a decision to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for that response. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, since I believe he is also involved in a matter of this type.
Prior to the fire, the National Sea Products plant purchased some groundfish and sold bait to some 30 other companies from as far away as Liverpool, Queens county to Chebogue, Yarmouth county, representing most of the Nova Scotia south shore. Is the minister aware that the 30 companies directly affected are served by some 522 boats, which are mostly inshore boats, employing 1,257 fishermen? Will the minister encourage officials to speed up the application for this construction grant as expeditiously as possible and give it top priority, since the impact on Nova Scotia's economy is more far-reaching than appears on the surface?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Obviously, Madam Speaker, any loss of sales encountered by fishermen is seen as serious by my department. However, in relation to this type of application, our job is to indicate if the resource can justify a plant expansion or if just a replacement of the existing capacity can be justified. We did indicate to DREE that we felt there was no room for expansion in this area. There is already a fair demand for the fishermen's product. However, we did indicate that we are ready to recommend a replacement of the capacity which existed before the fire. That was our job. We have done it. I hope this problem is resolved very soon.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


SKILL-TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Figures released today show there are 368,000 young people out of work, 45 per cent of all the unemployed. The rate of unemployment among young people is more than twice the rate for those over 25. The economy is not expanding. In view of these facts, will the minister consider an early aggressive program to train many of these young people in the skilled jobs in short supply of labour in this country and for which there is a great need?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the proposal put forward by the hon. member is a very valuable one. It is being carefully examined by the parliamentary committee of which he is a member. 1 look forward to the recommendations to be made by that committee, which I understand will be meeting very soon to bring forward an interim report. As well, we are looking within our department at additional training measures which could be introduced during the next calendar year and which would provide the very incentives the hon. member talks about.
I would point out to him that our economy, like other economies, is going through a very tough period. There is a general recession throughout the industrialized world. However, job creation within Canada is still the strongest of any of the industrialized countries, and we created well over 280,000 jobs last year. In particular, the growth rate of employment for women was at 6 per cent, the highest record of any country in the industrialized world.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, a program to train people will take some considerable time to start. Despite the minister's claims regarding job creation, there is more unemployment at the present time than in any period since the dirty thirties. It is not much consolation to the 368,000 unemployed young people to be told that 200,000 others have found jobs. Will the government give serious consideration to an expanded job-creation program so that young people who want to work will be able to, rather than being unemployed and possibly drawing unemployment insurance?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct some of the statements of the hon. member. We have about the same unemployment rate that we had this time last year. In fact, the unemployment rate in this country has been stable over the past three or four years. Furthermore, the employment ratio of workers to number of jobs available has been rising substantially. That does not give us any satisfaction because we would like to create even more work. That is why this government reintroduced a number of job-creation programs and why the Minister of Finance in his budget indicated that additional moneys will be set aside for new industrial programs, including major incentives for training and job

January 13, 1981
Oral Questions
creation. As I said earlier, we hope to be able to announce those measures within a very short period of time.


HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a statement on December 17, the minister announced a ban on the use of urea formaldehyde as a means of insulation because of the serious danger it posed to health. I might say this came about five years after the same concerns were expressed by authorities in the United States at the federal and state level. What advice does she as minister of health have with regard to the 60,000 Canadian homes which already have this material installed, many of which had it installed under the government's CHIP program?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: For the moment, Madam Speaker, in view of the serious allegations contained in the preliminary report submitted by the experts to the government regarding this insulation material, it has been decided to advise Canadians that a moratorium on the use of the aforementioned chemical will be in force until the presentation of a final report by the committee of experts, at which time we will obviously review our decision one way or the other. For the time being Canadians who have used this product for home insulation purposes and who have developed the symptoms mentioned in the press release should check with their physician if their condition seems to warrant it. As stated in the press release they can also contact the officials at any office of the federal Department of Energy or the National Research Council or even of my own department all across Canada who will let them know what steps should be taken to stop possible leaks of this insulation material in their homes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. According to reports, in 33 per cent of the 60,000 Canadian homes which have urea formaldehyde installed as insulation, it was installed under the government approved CHIP program. In other words, up until the time of the ban it was approved as an acceptable material under CMHC standards. Is the minister prepared to offer any advice, consolation or compensation, either under the CHIP program, through CMHC or under a special program, for those 60,000 Canadian homes which have this insulation material, especially those which had it installed under a government program approved by the minister, and, indeed, subsidized by the government?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 would prefer to await the final results referred to by my colleague who answered the hon. member's last question. When we have the final report as to what are the implications as a result of the use of UF, 1 expect to be in a better position to answer directly the question of the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It would have been addressed to his understudy, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who seems to be still recovering from the Christmas break. A few weeks before Christmas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a S4.2 million emergency assistance program to assist the native fishermen of British Columbia in light of the very poor fishing year experienced on the west coast during 1980. Indications are that there were over 62 bankruptcies registered by fishermen with Royal Bank branches in recent weeks. What program does the minister have to offer by way of economic assistance to fishermen, hard pressed by poor fishing conditions and low prices in the past fishing year, to help them through these bleak winter months?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the House by linking two problems which are really quite different. As the hon. member knows, it is rather difficult for many Indian fishermen to get the normal commercial loans because the houses in which many of them reside are community property and, as such, cannot be put up as collateral. For this reason my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in continuation of the long-standing policy of helping native people get involved in the commercial fishery, particularly on the west coast, announced this program.
As to the other question with respect to the difficulties experienced by fishermen in light of the poor season they have had both in salmon and in herring roe, we are monitoring the situation. We have indicated that where loans are guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act time should be made available for fishermen to reimburse and that reimbursement of the capital part of the loans should be delayed. In fact, we have asked commercial enterprises to show understanding for fishermen who traditionally have been very good credit risks, as the records of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act show.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the minister would suggest that non-native fishermen should mortgage their homes, as many have had to do, in order to tide themselves through these difficult periods.
January 13, 1981

I want to ask the minister if he in any way consulted the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development before the other minister announced his program, and, in particular, is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans aware of the fact that members of the Indian Fisheries Assistance Board, a board which still sits in consideration of programs in support of native fishermen, were not even consulted by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development before he announced this $4.2 million emergency relief program?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I know there were conversations between officials of my department and my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I certainly would have supported and do support assistance to native fishermen who, in fact, have seen their participation in the west coast fishery somewhat eroded in the last couple of years. It is to prevent this erosion of the licences held by Indian fishermen that I have changed the policy and that I do not allow back payment by non-Indian fishermen in order that they may assume holding of licences.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment.
In view of that statement made yesterday by the American Secretary of State designate, General Alexander Haig, during the Senate confirmation hearings, can the minister confirm whether he will arrange to meet with his American counterpart as soon as he is in office in order to inform him of Canada's concerns with regard to the action which should be taken in order to eradicate, as soon as possible, acid rain pollution from the United States?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member that I do intend to arrange a meeting as soon as possible with my American counterpart in order to discuss joint problems such as acid rain. However, Mr. Reagan has not yet indicated who will head the Environmental Protection Agency and I do not think I can meet with my counterpart, the Minister of the Interior, until Congress has approved that choice. It is therefore somewhat difficult for me, at this stage, to indicate precisely when such meetings would be held, but I want to assure the hon. member that, in view of the situation in the United States, I do intend to make arrangements as soon as possible.
Privilege-Miss MacDonald


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. AXWORTHY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is seldom that I rise on a question of privilege. This is only the second time I have done so in the eight years I have been a member of Parliament, so you will understand the seriousness I attach to the question of privilege I address to you today.
Yesterday the minister responsible for the status of women was charged by the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women with manipulation of the council's plans when he used his ministerial office to exert pressure on the council's executive to cancel an upcoming conference on the constitution.
The Advisory Council on the Status of Women was established in 1973 to provide independent, objective advice "to the government and to the public on matters of interest and concern to women and to advise the government on actions that the council deems necessary to improve the position of women in society". The council was carrying out that mandate when it made plans last summer to hold a national conference on the constitution to deal with a broad range of women's issues in various constitutional jurisdictions.
That conference, which was originally slated for last September, had to be rescheduled for February of this year. The conference plans were already well advanced and have only been called into question following a meeting last Friday between members of the executive committee of the council and the minister. It was at that meeting, the president now charges, that the minister exerted pressure to have the council change its plans to hold a constitutional conference for fear of possible embarrassment to the government.
The council's terms of reference, as spelled out by the then minister responsible for the status of women, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), on May 31, 1973, as reported at page 4282 of Hansard, ensured that the council would report to Parliament as well as to the minister responsible by making its recommendations and its reports public. In this way it was assumed that the advice and recommendations proffered would be both independent and objective.
In this respect the council is comparable to other councils which offer independent advice to government. 1 refer to councils such as the Economic Council of Canada and the International Joint Commission. I know of no occasion when a member of Parliament has felt it necessary to raise a question of privilege based on government interference with the work of these two bodies or, indeed, of any other council, commission or consultative body which offers independent advice to government and Parliament.
It is my contention that in interfering with the plans presented to the government "on actions that the council deems necessary to improve the position of women", in this case the

January 13, 1981
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
holding of a constitutional conference on women's issues, the minister interferes not only with the council but also with the privilege of members of Parliament to receive and to question the government concerning that advice, as promised in the statement by the then minister responsible for the status of women on May 31, 1973.
I mentioned that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is comparable to the Economic Council of Canada or the International Joint Commission in the way it proffers advice to government, but it is clear that it is not comparable in that it is the only such body whose recommendations are interfered with by the minister responsible, and whose members are manipulated. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women is subjected to different and, I would say, discriminatory treatment, which is a further affront to members of Parliament and to the privilege of members of Parliament, particularly women members of Parliament.
In reply to questions put by me yesterday concerning the accusation made by the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women that the minister and the government were attempting to influence the council into cancelling its proposed constitutional conference, something which I am sure the minister knows the executive committee on its own cannot do, the minister replied that the president's statements were "not accurate or proper". In other words, he refuted her charge. Since then the president has reiterated her stand with charges of manipulation and with the statement that, and I quote:
Mr. Axworthy's attempt at influencing the council marks the first time the government has interfered with the independent government-appointed organization.
We have two entirely contradictory views of what happened in that meeting of last Friday when members of the executive of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women met with the minister. We have the statements of the president of the council and those of the minister. Parliamentary rules dictate that I must accept the word of the minister with respect to his non-interference in this matter, except for his suggestion of regional conferences, but I feel that he is being less than honest with the House in detailing the role he played in this matter, that he has misled the House, and that indeed there is a possibility he may have deliberately misled the House, given the initial and subsequent statements by the president of the council.
This is no mere tempest in a teapot. It is a very serious matter when the president of an extremely prestigious council feels it may be necessary to tender her resignation because of recent manipulation of their organization by a federal cabinet minister. I feel it is a serious question of privilege and of my rights as a member of Parliament that there should be two such contradictory positions on this matter and that we, as parliamentarians, do not have sufficient information on what transpired at the meeting held last Friday with the minister to determine what type of influence the minister exerted. Those of us who are interested in maintaining the integrity and
independence of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women should have the right to be more adequately informed on the nature of the pressure which the minister has been charged with exerting on the council.
If you find, Madam Speaker, that I have a question of privilege in this matter, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the matter of the statements made in the House on January 12, 1981, by the minister responsible for the status of women respecting directions given by him to the executive of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and the significant discrepancy between the minister's assertions and those of the president of the council, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I too treat the statement made by the hon. member with a great deal of seriousness. I only wish that she would follow her own advice, that is, to make some effort to obtain the proper facts and information before she makes the kinds of charges she has just been guilty of suggesting. She has asked for third party confirmation as to who is right.
If I might, I should like to read into the record of the House a statement which was issued by the executive committee of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women just today. It states:
The executive committee of the CACSW is appalled by the action of its president, Doris Anderson.
The executive committee in December expressed concern about the timing of the constitutional conference.
Because of the successful presentation before the joint committee and the distribution of research papers on the constitution to the women of Canada, the issue of the entrenchment of rights had been properly and thoroughly dealt with by the advisory council.
Sensing that the timing of the planned February conference was no longer opportune, and feeling strongly that the conference ought to be rescheduled, the executive committee of the advisory council sought a meeting with Mr. Axworthy-
I underline "sought a meeting".
-to discuss the matter with them.
Mr. Axworthy agreed that the issues might get a better airing at a later date but stated that the decision was the council's to make and added "we can live with it either way''.
"It was clear, after speaking with the minister" said Win Gardner, senior vice-president, "that the issues we wanted to discuss at the conference, such as jurisdiction over divorce and social services, would not be on the government's plate at that time and that therefore attention would be greatly diverted from these important issues".
"At no time was cancellation of the conference even considered", said Win Gardner. "The matter of rescheduling is to be brought before the full council meeting next week, and the executive committee will of course abide by its decision".


An hon. Member:: Author?


Lloyd Axworthy: That was a statement which was issued by members of the executive committee. The hon. member asked for confirmation. I suggest that unless she is prepared to say that the other members of the executive committee are not telling the truth, she will simply have to say that her statement and her allegations are wrong. I would ask her to withdraw the
January 13, 1981

statement from the records of the House because it really is unfounded.
I should like to state further that so far as I am concerned, this is primarily a matter between Mrs. Anderson and the members of the council and the executive committee. Mrs. Anderson had her own desires or ambitions overturned by the executive committee. She obviously felt compelled to take some fairly extreme action to deal with them. It is a matter which should be resolved by that council and by the executive committee.
I should point out to members of the House that on the matter of the constitutional conference, if I am guilty of interference, it was I who suggested originally to the advisory council that the conference be held. It was my suggestion and recommendation that the conference be established. The conference was cancelled by that council on the decision of its president and executive committee last fall. They decided to reschedule it. I believe they had a meeting amongst themselves earlier on to discuss the timing. They came to me as the minister to ask for my opinion and advice, and I gave it to them. I said to them that whatever choice they made, it was up to them. At no time was pressure applied, or manipulation. Those are words used by Mrs. Anderson for her own reasons. I would not attempt to manipulate that council which is an independent body. I respect its opinions, and we as the government respected them when the council made its representation on the constitution and the charter of rights, and we have responded to it.
I would simply say to you, Madam Speaker, and to members of the House, that for the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to take the one-sided opinion of one person and to make the kinds of charges she has made without any further investigation, without making any effort to see if there was another side to the case, is really an abrogation of my privileges. I would go to the extent of saying that she resorted to grandstanding-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would not say this is a laughing matter. I do not think it is a matter which should be used for partisan reasons. What is really at stake is the integrity of that council, and that is a question which should be decided by that council and should not be brought into the forum of partisan politics as the hon. member has done.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, it comes right down to this: do we accept what the minister said yesterday that the statement of Mrs. Anderson, the president of the council, is inaccurate, or do we accept the minister's assurance to us that he does not make any attempt to interfere with or manipulate the council, particularly the executive committee of that council? If I am asked which I accept, there is no doubt in my mind that I accept what Mrs. Anderson has said because she is the person who has credibility in this country. She is the person, despite being a Liberal appointment, who has had the guts to stand up
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
to the government and to stand up to the minister over the past several months.
On three occasions the minister publicly stated, once in Montreal, once in Saskatoon, and the third time elsewhere, that he was not happy or satisfied with what the council was doing in its work on the constitutional proposals. He said it was getting "bad legal advice". He did everything possible to undermine the work of that council in preparing its work for the constitutional committee of the House and Senate on the constitutional proposals of his own government. His whole record in the last several months is one of undermining the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and particularly its president. He would dearly love her to resign. He wants to get someone in there as he has some of the vice-presidents there now who are total patsies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: That is what he wants. I shall name one in particular because I named her when she was appointed to the council. She was moved out of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) office, put into the council as a mole-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -to keep an eye on the president of the council. She was there to make sure-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Everyone knows this, if the minister does not. No one wanted her on the council, not a single member. She was put on it because the Liberals wanted to have a mole there whom they could trust to do their bidding-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: The minister knows who I am talking about, as does everyone in the House.


An hon. Member:: Who?


Pauline Jewett: An otherwise very agreeable person, except in this connection, and her name is Hellie Wilson, and we all know that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pauline Jewett: The minister is apparently denying the statement made by Mrs. Anderson and repeated in The Globe and Mail today. He says she is inaccurate. That is why this matter should go before a committee of the House to get to the truth of it.
1 have also other evidence which I will be glad to bring before the committee to investigate its accuracy, namely, that when she was away for a day last week, as I think she said- this was after the minister had agreed to the conference being held and had booked a room for it; do not forget, Madam Speaker, the minister had already arranged for a room to be booked for this mid-February conference and he did that back

January 13, 1981
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
in December, he agreed to be their luncheon speaker-all this was done.
One day last week when the president of the council was away, the mole took it upon herself as acting president, as reported in The Globe and Mail today, to meet:
-Mr. Axworthy and later reported to Mrs. Anderson that the minister preferred that the conference be cancelled.
Miss Wilson also called back press releases sent out earlier in the day to announce the conference dates.
Those press releases were all prepared before Mrs. Anderson left town, and they were to have been sent out. It continues:
All releases were intercepted except those that arrived at the offices of The Globe and Mail and a television network. These were picked up later in the day by a messenger.
That was done at the minister's bidding; that was done by an acting president for a day of that council. The other members of the executive committee were talked into supporting it because they too are loyal Liberal supporters of the minister, and one from his own city who is particularly loyal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am having some difficulty here because I am afraid the hon. member is stating things which should be followed by real charges.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The minister has made a statement, and the hon. member should not doubt the statement of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: She could disagree with it, but she could not put it in doubt. I am just asking the hon. member if she could choose her words more carefully because I am wanting to get up nearly every minute to tell her that she is going beyond what is parliamentary. I will now ask her to proceed.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be unparliamentary. 1 am, as is the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), really very upset by this interference with an independent council. If this were to happen with the Economic Council of Canada, every member of this House would be up proclaiming and protesting about it. But I shall do my very best to wind up by keeping within the guidelines Your Honour suggested to me.
I shall wind up by saying that the advisory council must be an independent advisory body. That is what it is designed to be and to do. What has given most of the women of this country joy in the last year and a half has been the fact that the president of that council was independent; it has given every woman in this country joy. As the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) said, it has made possible a first-rate presentation to the constitutional committee, probably one of the best given to that
committee. It has made possible all kinds of research that the previous chairman or president of that council never undertook. It has had all kinds of influence for the good of the women of Canada.
Since this must never be repeated, this political interference, I would ask that the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, which I would have gladly seconded, should be accepted by Madam Speaker so that the matter can be thoroughly cleared up and never repeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will be brief in my intervention on this matter. I must say that I find it quite remarkable that a minister of the Crown should stand and conduct himself in such a way as we have just witnessed in relation to a public servant who reports to that minister and, to the best of our knowledge, still apparently holds his trust, not having been dismissed from her position by the minister. I cannot recall a situation in which there has been similar treatment of a public servant by a minister of the Crown here on the floor of the House of Commons.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But what I want to pick up on is the suggestion of the minister that what is at issue here is simply a question- if I am quoting him correctly, and 1 believe I am-between Mrs. Anderson and the council. That is not at all what is at issue here. The issue is the relation and the conflict between an agency which was established to bring issues to the attention of the public of Canada and of the Parliament of Canada, and whether or not that agency has been allowed the unfettered ability to carry out its mandate, to carry out its responsibilities, to speak and act as it is authorized to speak and act, without intrusions by a minister of the Crown, without the kind of manipulation which has been alleged by the president of the council.
Today the minister brought in a statement allegedly prepared by the executive committee of the council. Apparently he has not discussed the matter with the president. I presume, had he discussed the matter with the president, it would have been courteous for him to have so indicated-he now indicates that he has done that. I am surprised that he did not indicate it at that time and did not indicate to us what action would flow from the discussion between himself and the president. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has indicated, the point is that when this matter arose we had two conflicting versions as to what had occurred in relation to a recommendation made by a public body and actions taken by a public body, part of whose purpose is to bring before the government and before the public certain matters relating to public policy and to women in Canada.
Now we have a third matter before the House of Commons raised by the intervention of the hon. member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has now added new allegations of
January 13, 1981

fresh manipulation by the minister in the activities of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
It has been argued that we must accept the word of the minister on this matter. Parliament is in the dilemma that it must also accept the word of the president of the advisory council. Now we are in the further dilemma that we must also accept the word of the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam whose statements on these matters are at least as credible and as deserving of being accepted by members of the House of Commons as the statements of the minister of the Crown.
First of all, there is a very real question as to whether an agency which can function effectively only if it is independent has had that independence interfered with by the minister. Also there is the very real question that we have before the House of Commons a conflict in the recording of the role of the minister by the minister and by certain members of the advisory council on the one hand, and by the still serving president of the advisory council on the other hand. Finally, we have a conflict between the testimony of the minister who is a member of this House, whose word we are supposed to accept, and a member of the House of Commons, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, who, by the rules of the House, made statements we are bound to accept.
In the circumstances, and having regard to the precedent which can flow and to the damage which can be done to every independent agency that is to bring matters before the public of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -having regard to the dangers which can flow if that kind of manipulation occurs and if that kind of manipulation is allowed to continue, I would suggest that the privileges of members of the House of Commons are very seriously affected by the allegations which have been made here. The best way to resolve the question would be to refer it to a committee.
I recall that earlier, when the minister had questions raised on which he felt some confidence, he volunteered they be referred to the appropriate committee. Now he stands in the way of a similar reference. If he is absolutely confident of the position which he stated on the floor of the House, then I believe it would be wise for him to do now what he did earlier when the propriety of his conduct was called into question, and have the matter referred to the appropriate committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I must say that on its face I do not feel there is a question of privilege. It seems to me, on its face, that we have a difference of opinion as to what took place and what actions or what implications flowed from what took place. But the interventions on this particular question were made very seriously, and charges were quite serious. I do want to look into it, and I will rule on it at a later date.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-624, to amend the Criminal Code (Greyhound Races).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Raymond Dupont: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to extend betting through a pari-mutuel system in Canada by amending section 188 of the Criminal Code to include greyhound races.


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


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health-


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. minister allow me to proceed with other motions before this one that will probably require more time?
Would the House agree to our proceeding with questions on the order paper before going on to the hon. member's motion? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 34, 1,286, 1,628, 1,734, 1,739, 1,757, 1,771, 1,773, 1,780, 1,782, 1,836, 1,858 and 1,861.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

January 13, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is it the government's intention to take steps to increase ministerial and parliamentary control over Crown corporations in order that they will be more responsible to the people of Canada and, if so, what measures will be taken?
2.	Have there been instances of Crown corporations refusing to carry out orders of ministers of the Crown and, if so, will this situation be changed?
3.	Will it be government policy to allow Parliament to have much more control over the operations of Crown corporations than in the past?


David Michael Collenette: 1. The government is actively reviewing, at the present time, a policy for the direction, control and accountability of Crown corporations.
2.	No.
3.	In reviewing a policy of control direction and accountability for Crown corporations, the government is actively considering Parliament's role.


Mr. MacKay: Did the Department of (a) Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) Agriculture (c) Finance (d) Energy, Mines and Resources (e) Employment and Immigration (f) Regional Economic Expansion (g) Fisheries and Oceans (h) Labour prepare regional impact studies on the effect of the Tokyo Round of tariff reductions, as embodied in the June 2, 1980, Ways and Means motion and, if so, what is the title of each study?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the following departments as follows:
(a)	Industry, Trade and Commerce:
Industry, Trade and Commerce, in co-operation with other departments, participated in a continuing evaluation of Canadian interest in the MTN, both from a sectoral and regional point of view. Although the publication of the results did not specifically identify regional impacts, this can be derived in large measure through an appreciation of the relative importance of various sectors of the Canadian economy to the particular regions of Canada.
(b)	Agriculture Canada:
No. However, departmental staff worked with the interdepartmental negotiating team to prepare information on the agricultural impact included in the press package released.
(c)	Finance Canada:
Consideration of the regional impact of the tariff reductions agreed to in the multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) was an integral part of the government's on-going decision-making process. One of the Canadian objectives in the MTN was to achieve a mix of gains in foreign markets and concessions in Canadian tariff and non-tariff barriers which would represent a reasonable result from the point of view of the different Canadian
provinces and regions. In order to assist in identifying regional interests the government consulted closely with provincial governments throughout the MTN. Consultations took place, for example, through the Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee and the office of the Canadian co-ordinator for the MTN as well as by means of a federal-provincial conference on the MTN.
(d)	Energy, Mines and Resources Canada:
No.
(e)	Employment and Immigration Canada:
No.
(f)	Regional Economic Expansion:
DREE did not prepare a regional impact study of the effects of the Tokyo Round of tariff reductions. However, information concerning possible sectoral impacts was used in combination with other factors in a study which was focused on the larger issue of industrial adjustment.
(g)	Fisheries and Oceans:
No.
(h)	Labour Canada:
No.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Human Rights Commission, at its September meeting, review the matter of the ten year residency in Canada requirement before security clearance can be obtained for admission to the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, did it recommend to the armed forces that it use its discretion to waive this provision in the case of outstanding applicants and will the armed forces now adhere to this revised approach and (a) if so, will it begin to do so immediately (b) if not, for what reason?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and National Defence as follows: at its September meeting, the Canadian Human Rights Commission approved the settlement of a complaint which involved the ten-year residency requirement, but it did not review the security clearance policy of the armed forces, or the application of that policy.
In regard to that portion of the question which referred to the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission that the armed forces use its discretion to waive the ten-year residency in Canada provision in the case of outstanding applicants, the Department of National Defence advises that the following is already in effect: Canadian Forces recruiting officers are instructed to regard the ten year residency requirement as a bench mark in considering applicants for enrolment in the forces. Policy already permits granting of security clearances to candidates who do not fulfill the ten year residency providing they can furnish the Department of National Defence with sufficient information to permit a reasonable assessment of loyalty and reliability.
January 13, 1981

(a)	and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Canadian Armed Forces been operating Sea King helicopters for many years and, if so, for what reason did the Department of National Defence place a $250,000 order with Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada Ltd. for publications in support of the CHI 24A Sea King helicopter?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes. The Sea King helicopter has been operated by the Canadian Armed Forces since 1963. This contract is part of a continuing process to provide maintenance and personnel with up-to-date technical information on modifications to the helicopter and its systems. This information is essential to maintain flight safety standards. In the case of the Sea King the contract provides for the technical writing, engineering validation, editing and actual printing of amendments to 35 publications incorporating all revised engineering data accumulated during the period April 1, 1979, to December 31, 1981. The helicopter is expected to be in use for another 15 years.


Mr. Murphy: 1.	Were free-lance translators and interpreters employed by the government's translation bureau on contract during the period August 21 to November 9, 1980, and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the total cost?
2.	For the same period, what was the total number of words translated by free-lance (a) translators (b) interpreters?
3.	For the same period, what percentage of the total number of words (a) translated (b) interpreted by the bureau was done by free-lance personnel?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Department of the Secretary of State: 1 and 2. It is not possible to determine the numbers of free-lancers involved with precision as more than one contract can be handled by the same contractor. Between August 21 and November 9, 1980, the Translation Bureau contracted out 9,496,435 words of translation, at a cost of $997,125. Interpretation contracts totalled 440 days at a cost of $94,600.
3.	During this period free-lance translators handled 30 per cent of the bureau's translation and 37 per cent of its interpretation workload. Under normal circumstances, the bureau would contract out some one million words per week, or ten million words for the period in question, and approximately one-third of its interpretation work, or some 400 interpreter-days over this ten-week period.


Mr. Stevens: For the current Fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Post Office Department for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Canada Post's expenditures for the current fiscal year are as follows: (a) $529,274, (b) $2,011,506, (c) $848,420.


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


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a)	Air Canada has spent $20,000,000 on advertising around the world during the calendar year 1980.
(b)	A very small portion of this Canadian budget (less than 1 per cent) has been spent on purchasing advertising in controlled circulation magazines which are, in effect, "free", for they are delivered free of charge through the mails to selected areas of Canada, (e.g., Quest, Homemakers', etc.).
(c)	No other advertising has been placed by the company's advertising department in free or subsidized publications. However, local offices of the airline across Canada may, from time to time, place advertising in local free or subsidized publications for sales solicitation purposes.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of Northern Transportation Company Ltd. for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: (a) Approximately $3,500 for fiscal year ending December 31, 1980, (b) None, (c) $1,300.


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


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned: (a) None, (b) None, (c) $32,000.


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


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises: (a) $10,100, (b) $49,000, (c) $28,000.


Mr. Herbert: Did the government make a Financial contribution to the Pointe-du-Moulin historical site at lie Perrot and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to whom (c) what were the conditions of payment?

January 13, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
(a)	$500,000.
(b)	Department of Cultural Affairs-government of Quebec
(c)	Submission of invoices by the Department of Cultural Affairs and the provisions of the agreement annexed to order in council P.C. 1973-1178 of May 18, 1973, which stipulated in section 3 (1) the following conditions of payment:
Section 3(1)
Subject to this agreement and to the monetary appropriation by the Parliament of Canada, the sum total of Canada's contribution to the development of the sites shall not exceed $500,000 from all sources, to be allocated as follows:
(a)	a sum not to exceed $435,000 for the cost of materials, equipment, manpower and other on-site expenditures incurred by the development project;
(b)	a sum not to exceed $20,000 for the development by Quebec of a master plan for the development of the sites; and
(c)	a sum not to exceed $45,000 to defray a portion of the administrative and research costs incurred by Quebec.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what date was the pamphlet entitled "Institutional Co-operation - Canadian Universities and the Developing World", issued by the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	What amount, by country, was allocated under the program advertised in the pamphlet to assist Canadian universities and colleges in (a) Asia (b) Africa (c) the Caribbean (d) Latin America?
3.	For how many projects did the contribution from Cl DA exceed (a) $50,000 (b) $100,000?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. May 30, 1980.
2.	1978-1980	1980-1981(a) Asia	212,603	1,233,350(h) Africa	521,695	3,481,682(c) Caribbean	670,443*	244,268(d) Latin America	366,2483. 1978-1980	1980-1981	(a) 9 projects	14 projects	(h) 1 1 projects	8 projects	* Caribbean and Latin America	combined.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Does the Department of Transport issue a Daily Public Affairs Media Monitoring Service to members of Parliament involved or interested in transport matters and, if so, what is the cost of the service?
2.	How many persons in the Department are involved in following such clippings?
3.	Who prepares the transport daily word story type comments and what is its cost?
4.	Is the material prepared for the use of the department in any event and, if so, for what reason?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yes; a copy is provided to members of the Standing Committee on Transport. There is no charge for the service.
2.	One.
3.	One clerk, CR-4; cost $17,000 plus a pro-rata share of the department's Xerox charges.
4.	Yes-to give the minister and senior management a brief synopsis of transport matters affecting, or of concern to, the general public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: That, in relation to 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion following the notice I gave last night. 1 had the opportunity last evening to expose briefly the reasons why the government had to take this position at this time. I, as the government House leader, would have liked to see that bill referred to the standing committee on energy before the Christmas break. Even if there was no such agreement, we were expecting this bill to be referred to the committee before December 19, hoping that the committee would have had an opportunity to hear witnesses and look at the bill, at the same time hoping that the House of Commons would be able to deal with some of the other business that must be dealt with on an urgent basis. But such reference was not made and we had to face the reality that now, it being January 13, we still have this bill on the floor for second reading. In fact, today is the fifth day of debate on the second reading stage of this bill.
Yesterday, when 1 spoke to my colleagues on the other side, 1 still thought and hoped that we could come to an agreement on a reasonable length of time required to dispose of second reading of this bill. 1 suppose my hopes were too high. 1 could not obtain that agreement, which is why we are forced today to move the motion about which I am speaking.
There are four reasons why I feel this motion is well founded under the circumstances. Essentially what we are discussing in Bill C-48 is only a part, although an important part, of our
January 13, 1981

national energy policy. Yesterday, when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was speaking she said at the beginning of her remarks that in her mind she was speaking not only on a single bill but on a part, an important part, of the government's national policy on energy. I said that 1 agreed with that view. But if we follow that view we must admit that many days so far have been used by members on both sides to discuss the energy policy of the government, including Bill C-48.
The energy policy of the government was outlined clearly when the budget speech was read, and six days of debate followed the budget speech when most members spoke on energy. Then there were two special debates of three days each on the proclamation to put into effect some parts of the Petroleum Administration Act. Altogether this required six days of the time of the House of Commons. So, if we look at the six days which were used during the debate on the budget, plus the six days that were used in the debate on the proclamation, which I just mentioned, we are up to 12 days, when members on both sides had an opportunity to speak on energy. Then we brought in Bill C-48, which is one element of the energy policy, and so far four days have been taken up speaking on the second reading stage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, that is the first reason why I think we are justified at this stage in asking the House to limit debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-48.
The first reason of the four I am talking about is that this is only a part, an important part, of our national energy policy. In fact we are not bringing an end to the debate, we are allocating one additional day, and the bill will be studied at length at the committee stage and then will be reported to be studied at the report stage and at the third reading stage.
The second reason why I think it is important for us to move this motion today, as I just explained in my first reason, is that so far 12 days, plus the four days on second reading, which total 16 days altogether, have been devoted almost entirely to speeches related in some way to the national energy policy of the government.
The other reason why it is time to refer this bill to committee is a very realistic reason. If we consider that we already have on the order paper some 40 items of business to deal with, and if we take into consideration the fact that the government has the responsibility to deal with the economy, energy and constitutional matters, there is absolutely no way that a reasonable government can afford to allot more than four, five or six days at a maximum on one particular stage of a bill. I sincerely feel that if we did not interfere at this stage, assume our responsibility and exercise leadership in ordering the business of the House, we would be failing the confidence which was bestowed upon us by the population of the country.
It is very easy for me to stand up and argue that this motion has been introduced to maintain the respect of Parliament and our responsibility to Canadians. If there is no agreement to the length of discussion on one stage of a particular bill, then we must exercise leadership and impose a limit on the time for
S.O.	75 c
discussion of the second reading stage so that the bill may be sent to committee and so that the House may be in a position to deal with other urgent business such as the 40 items on the order paper which I have mentioned.
Among those 40 items are other bills which relate to energy, and members on both sides will have further opportunities to make their views known with regard to the energy policy. There are also bills relating to the constitution and to the economy. It is only as a result of the attitude of the opposition parties that we are following this procedure. I cannot blame any individual members who have spoken on energy. I wish to be realistic, and I am sure hon. members will admit that so far there have been many opportunities to speak on this issue and that there will be many more opportunities over the next weeks and months both in the House and in committee. No member will be in a position to complain that the government was not reasonable and did not allow him or her to express his or her views on such an important matter.
If hon. members will be honest with themselves, what we are discussing is a limitation of time on a single stage of a single bill which represents only part of the total energy policy which has been discussed for more than 16 days now and which will be discussed at length over the next weeks and months.
Standing Order 75 with its three parts, A, B and C, is available to the government under such circumstances. Politically, it may not be very good for members of the opposition to agree to a time limit on the discussion of the stages of a bill. Perhaps they are even relieved that I have taken this direction. I have no reservations in doing so because I believe my action is in the interest of the people of Canada. Hon. members have had many opportunities to express their views, and I respect the fact that these opportunities should be available. In spite of the fact that we have imposed Standing Order 75C, hon. members will still have an opportunity to make their views known in committee.
Yesterday an hon. member of the opposition presumably received the approval of his leader to ask of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) during question period when hon. members would be able to hear witnesses on the government's energy policy. The minister's reply was to the effect that we should send the bill to committee so that witnesses could be heard. What we are attempting to do by this motion today is to put some order into the working of this place and assume our responsibility. If in the future we do not obtain agreement to reasonable time limits on the discussion of a particular bill, then it will be impossible for this House to function and we will be forced to use Standing Order 75c more frequently than has been the case in the past.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from that naked threat to begin the parliamentary term 1981, I cannot recall a procedural argument which would rival in its absurdity the defence which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has uttered for imposing closure. Just to recap it, Mr. Speaker, his argument is that if a general subject matter has been discussed frequently in this House of Commons, then that is justification for the

January 13, 1981
S.O.	75c
Government of Canada to stop and to limit arbitrarily the discussion of the details of a specific bill brought before this House. Surely that is absolutely absurd and absolutely unacceptable, not only to this Parliament but to any member on this side, and it should be unacceptable to any member on that side of the House who believes in democracy, if there are any who believe so.
What we are seeing here is the development of a very clear pattern on energy policy, and it is the same pattern which is being applied to constitutional policy. The government misleads Canadians as to the purposes of its proposals and then, just as soon as the parliamentary debate begins to reveal the real motives and the real results of government policy, Parliament is cut off.

That is what happened in the case of the constitution. The government said it wanted to put an end to British influence in Canadian constitutional matters when, in fact, the Liberal party wanted the British to settle questions which the Canadians themselves should decide. When the debate revealed the truth about its proposals, the government imposed closure in a futile effort to hide the truth from the Canadian people. And now, the Liberal government is trying once again to use the same trick in the case of energy.

On the first day of the parliamentary session the Liberal government announced that it would use its majority to stop parliamentary debate in an attempt to conceal from Canadians the damage this energy policy will do to the country. That is not only a contempt of Parliament, it shows contempt for the people of Canada and for the basic interest of this nation, and it is a betrayal of any concept of democracy. Instead of seeking the consent of the people in an open, honest way, this Liberal government tries to hide the facts from Canadians.
Let us look at this bill which Parliament will not be allowed to debate, Bill C-48. It gives the minister private powers which are perhaps the most extensive arbitrary powers ever granted a minister in this country outside wartime. Clause 12 allows the minister, alone, to decide which friend he would like to award with an exploration agreement, without calling for any other proposals. By clause 44 and clause 45, the minister, alone, may order a company to drill an oil well, whether or not that drilling makes sense. By clause 55 the minister, alone, may decide that a company is not behaving in the way that the minister would like it to behave. The minister may then, as a result of this bill which Parliament will not be allowed to debate, take away that company's permit and cancel its holdings. That is an invitation for abuse. It invites political patronage, arbitrary decision-making, and blackmail of an industry by a minister or by officials who want to force that industry to act against its own interests and to act in a way that might conform with some computer model that some economist with no understanding of the real world has dreamed up.
There are some 86 detailed clauses in this bill, a bill on which we have had less than 12 hours' discussion. Thirty-two
of the 86 clauses of this bill give the minister or the government power that is excessive and power that Parliament cannot control. It is no wonder the government does not want Canadians to know the details of the bill. It is no wonder this Liberal government cuts off debate on a bill with such provisions. Given the nature of this extraordinary ministerial power, this motion today means double closure because Parliament today is being forbidden to debate what Parliament tomorrow will be forbidden to review.
What this does is take public policy-policy decisions which should be a right of this Parliament and of the public of Canada to review, and gives them to the minister. It gives him the power to act alone, the power to practise patronage, the power to practise blackmail, the power to intrude deeply in the industrial activities of the nation and lets him do it without any parliamentary accountability, without any parliamentary scrutiny and without any parliamentary review. That is the kind of proposal that this minister and this government want the Parliament of Canada to accept, with the most severely limited debate. That, sir, is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who believes in parliamentary democracy.
1 point out to the House and to any others who are concerned about the balance between the public and the private sector, who are concerned about the aspirations of this government, that a situation which gives that kind of excessive power to one minister-to Marc Lalonde, of all people-a bill which gives that kind of arbitrary power to Marc Lalonde may focus today on the energy industry but, sir, it will lead to other industries later, at other times in the life of this country, and of the life of this government which is determined to use and abuse its powers regardless of the dangers to the country. That speaks of the private powers which the government does not want to advertise at all.
Let me deal now with the pretended purpose of this bill, which is government advertising that I believe to be false. The government pretends that its energy policy has as its purpose the increase of Canadian ownership. Instead, this policy is forcing Canadian companies to leave Canada, and therefore, this policy which Parliament is denied the right to debate is damaging Canadian ownership, is not helping Canadian ownership.

The government claims its energy program will promote the development of Canada. In fact, its program is driving jobs and investments out of Canada. For instance, this year Canadian Hunter will be spending in the States from $50 million to $100 million it had intended to invest in Canada; Home Oil has now stated that its main priority will now be to spend up to $1 billion on the purchase of an American energy company; Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas has cut back its exploration budget here in Canada by $220 million; and Union Oil has slashed by half the $70 million it had planned to spend in Canada. This means that Canadians from coast to coast will
January 13, 1981

be losing their jobs. The mere fact that drilling rigs are moving out of Canada could mean 55,000 fewer jobs here in Canada. Yet, it is impossible to discuss the matter here in the House of Commons of Canada.

The government pretends that its program will make Canada secure in energy. Its program does the opposite and that is why ministers do not want to discuss it in this country. Their program makes Saudi Arabia secure, it makes Mexico secure, it makes Venezuela secure, it makes Texas secure, but it exposes to the ravages and uncertainties of the world. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brusnwick and the province of Quebec. Those five provinces are dependent today for part of their oil on foreign sources.
If the government continues on its way and continues to push through without parliamentary debate the kinds of measures that are in this bill, then the province of Ontario will soon be depending on foreign oil, that cannot be counted on, to heat its homes and fuel and its industries.
We have here, Mr. Speaker, a deeply dangerous bill, an immensely complicated bill and one that involves confiscation by the Government of Canada. It is a bill that involves deep intrusion into the affairs of the private sector of Canada. It is a bill that is already driving small Canadian companies to take their savings, their jobs, their expertise and to leave this country. It is a bill that hands to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that extraordinary power to interfere in the decisions made by investors across this country. It is a bill that demands debate in this House. If there has ever been a bill which required this Parliament to consider it, it is one which extends, to the extent that this does, the discretionary power sought by the government. Instead of allowing Parliament to debate this matter, however, this Government of Canada is gagging the House of Commons and is trying to stop the people of Canada from understanding what is at stake in this deeply damaging energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the motion that has been presented by the government House leader because, in our view, this is not the way to run the Parliament of Canada. Whatever may be the views of the various parties or the various members of this House on Bill C-48, it is an extremely important one and it deserves adequate discussion.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) seems to be concerned that we spent as much time as we have already this session on the subject of energy. He must know, as all members of the House know, that this is one of the most serious issues facing Canada-indeed, facing the world-in this decade. If time has to be spent on the subject of energy and all its aspects, then I suggest that is quite appropriate.
I recognize the impatience that the government House leader feels about debate that goes on and on. I recognize his sense of frustration when he cannot get agreement from the
S.O.	75 c
two opposition parties to shorten debate. I should like him to know, however, that there are times on this side of the House when we are tired of some of the things we hear from the other side. We are getting awfully tired of the way in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stands up, day after day, and tells us there is no real economic crisis in the country, that anything that is wrong is due to external forces, and that members of the opposition are wasting the time of the House in raising these issues.
There is nothing we can do about that, Mr. Speaker, but keep on raising the issues and keep on talking. I suggest, however, that for the government House leader to be in the position that because he is tired of hearing a debate on a certain bill, therefore it should come to an end, is not the way to run the Parliament of Canada.
I know that there are those who argue-and no doubt we will hear that argument in the debate today and probably see it in editorials, if the press comments on this day's debate- that there is a case for organizing and ordering our debate in this House of Commons instead of just letting it go on and on in some capricious way. I quite agree, but I suggest that when we have a rule that permits an unlimited second reading debate and when a debate starts that way, it is, in effect, changing the rules in the middle of the game for the government to make use of Standing Order 75c.
The government supporters would probably say that the rule is there to be used. I would remind government supporters that rules 75a, b and c were brought in back in 1969 after very extensive debate only by the use of the 1913 closure rule. Rules 75a, B and C do not represent the consensus of those who were in the House of Commons at the time those rules were passed, and they certainly do not represent the consensus of Parliament today.
I would also point out that every time any closure rule is used, either 75c or the old 1913 rule, it does damage to the atmosphere and the spirit of Parliament.
I use this opportunity once again to say that I believe we have to find a better way. The better way that I have in mind is one that I have proposed quite a few times, but I am going to take the opportunity to suggest it again today.
I believe that instead of this haphazard, ad hoc, capricious way of the government stepping in to stop a debate, the continuance of which it does not like, we should have a set up under which, at the start of the session, the government is required to give to Parliament the titles of all the bills it proposes to introduce. I think we should have the wisdom and maturity to agree that for most of those bills a time limit on second reading would be in order-say a time limit of two days.
There are two categories of bills on either side of that main body that I think we have to consider. There are some bills that are so routine, so housekeeping in nature, that they hardly need any time on the floor of the House at all. They could be referred without debate to committees.

January 13, 1981


[Stage Direction]
At the other end of the spectrum there are serious and controversial bills to which the application of closure of any kind, I believe, is wrong. I say, as a spokesman for one of the opposition parties, that we would be prepared at the beginning of a session to agree to a time limit on a great body of bills at second reading if, at the same time, we were given the right to say we will give you these five or six bills and send them to committee without any debate because they are routine and housekeeping in nature, on the understanding that in return for the five or six that we are prepared not to debate at all, there will be another five or six crucial bills which the opposition chooses, and on which there would be no curtailment of time at all.
When I have made this proposal on previous occasions the question has arisen: what about bills which the government might not know about at the start of a session but might bring in later on? 1 say those bills have to be in a category that the opposition can debate them as it wishes. Oppositions are not always unreasonable. A while ago we had an urgent request for a bill having to do with the environment. The case was made to us that it was important. We had only heard of it for a few days and we put it through in a very short space of time.
The business of what we do with bills that come in late is something we can handle in a responsible way. But I press again my idea that we plan the whole session. We know what the rules are, and those rules having been agreed upon and laid down, should be followed. As I say, I am prepared to go for a general limitation on most bills provided that we have the right to trade off five, six or eight bills without debate, in return for five, six or eight bills of our choosing that we insist should be debated without time limit. I think something like that could be done with estimates as well.
At any rate, what I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that those of us who are opposing this motion are not persons with a negative approach who want to stop everything and block Parliament all the time, but we have ideas as well as to how this place should be made to work. 1 think that along the lines I have suggested, or along similar lines, a better way could be found than this business of the government House leader stepping in when he gets tired of a debate and is frustrated because he cannot get the opposition parties to agree, and so changes the rules in the middle of the game.
This is an important bill in a very important field, Mr. Speaker. It is an issue which will concern us greatly throughout the 1980s in Canada and around the world. I think it is pretty shortsighted and unfair to Parliament for the government to bring in this motion at this time.
When the two hours of this debate are over, Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party will be voting against this closure motion.
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate. First, I welcome the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)
who, unlike the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), has made constructive suggestions to the House which I think should be looked at by all House leaders later in the session. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre obviously made these comments in good faith. He recognizes an argument can be made that the opposition does perhaps tend to prolong debate unnecessarily as an argument can also be made that government acts too hastily.
The government is not acting hastily at this particular point in time. The member for Winnipeg North Centre talks about the frustration of the government House leader (Mr. Pinard). It is not a question of frustration, it is a question of getting the government's program through Parliament. That is what Canadians want.
Since we have come back after the last election, we have heard criticism, week in and week out, from the opposition that it wants action on the economy, on energy, and on the constitution. After a reasonable period of debate and second reading of this bill, which I emphasize is only one aspect of the government's energy program, the opposition criticizes us for moving the debate along and putting it before the rest of the members in committee.
It is quite appropriate that we move it at this time. We have a number of other matters coming before the House. We have the constitution, and other budget and energy bills. There has been this discussion of parliamentary reform. But 1 ask both the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the member for Winnipeg North Centre how they expect us to deal with parliamentary reform if we are bogged down with lengthy debates on every single piece of legislation which comes through?
I want to draw to the attention of hon. members of the House the whole question of second reading debate. It is my understanding that second reading debate exists to establish whether one is for or against a principle involved in a particular piece of legislation.
In the United Kingdom, second reading is dealt with in a much more efficient manner than it is here. In fact once the motion is put, debate continues until all speakers have exhausted their arguments, and then comes the final question. I believe this procedure was suggested for the Canadian House of Commons about 13 years ago. The Special Committee on Procedure which sat during 1967 to 1968 recommended that second reading motion be debated until the question was put, that is, it could go on all night until all arguments were exhausted, as it is done in Westminster. However, this suggestion was rejected by members of the House at the time. Nevertheless, I hope we can take a serious look at this proposal. It has had all-party support.
A distinguished former member for Halifax-East Hants, who was deputy speaker at one time and is now an eminent member of the bench in Nova Scotia, Mr. Robert McCleave, commented along the same lines, and his remarks can be found in Hansard at pages 905 and 907 for March 16, 1972.
January 13, 1981

I welcome the spirit in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made his interjection. 1 would hope we could look at the whole aspect of parliamentary reform, including second reading debate, later on in this session.
As I said before, the opposition argues for decisive action on the part of the government. In fact the NDP is so exercised about matters that it is declaring a state of emergency for the economy. Yet, when we try to proceed and try to make more time to debate other economic matters-


Bob Rae: Like what?


Mr. Waddell:: Name one!


David Michael Collenette: -or when we try to make more time to debate other matters dealing with energy, then we receive objections from the opposition. I do not think this is a very constructive approach to take at all.
There is no doubt in my mind that Canadians like the National Energy Program. It is one which is receiving wide-ranging acceptance throughout the country.


John Horton McDermid: Canadians like it?


An hon. Member:: You are dreaming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I have tried to be my usual conciliatory self this afternoon but I see that I am still getting members upset. They have a knee jerk reaction to every pronouncement made on this side to defend what is probably, and has been described as, the most nationalistic, most Canadian policy to emanate from this House of Commons since the war. That comment was made by a former member of this House, Mr. Max Saltsman, who sat on the NDP benches for a number of years. He said that this was the boldest, most nationalistic piece of legislation which has been brought forward in Canada since the war, and I fully subscribe to that.


An hon. Member:: He believes in state ownership.


David Michael Collenette: There is no doubt there is wide-ranging support. The only significant opposition to the National Energy Program and to this Bill C-48, now under discussion, comes from the multinational oil companies. It was either the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who yesterday accused the official opposition, in particular, of being the mouthpiece for the multinational oil companies and the oil industry in general. I think their conduct this afternoon, together with the comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, surely shows that theirs is not a position which is favoured by most Canadians. They are true to form arguing the interests of a narrow, well-defined, privileged group in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
S.O.	75 c


David Michael Collenette: I am talking about the multinational oil companies. Yes, they have contributed much to this country, but they have done very well by the riches of this country. But when the Government of Canada comes along and says, "Look, the situation is such that you are making perhaps exorbitant profits or benefiting too much from the situation at hand", then we receive all kinds of objections from the oil industry.
It is quite apparent that the oil industry is using them very effectively-and I say using because it comes through in arguments made by the official opposition. Members of the official opposition, I think, are somewhat misguided in their views on this particular subject. It makes me sad that members of this House would be so blind as not to see that they are defending a narrow, privileged group which is being asked to share fairly in the economic wealth and growth of this country.
We are not talking about confiscation. We are talking about sharing and fairness. It has been an accepted principle in Canada, Great Britain and the United States over the past 50 or 60 years that you pay according to your ability to pay. That is all we are asking of the oil industry in this case. Indeed, that is all we are asking of the producing provinces, that those which have wealth are expected to pay taxes. If an individual sees his income grow, he expects to pay taxes accordingly. We are saying that one taxes wealth where it exists.
I have no compunction in agreeing with and supporting strongly the arguments made by the President of the Privy Council in bringing forward this time allocation motion. It is not closure. The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) in his booming voice talked about closure. It is not closure. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-and I quoted this when we discussed this matter last June-said on December 7, 1979, as reported at page 2149 of Hansard:
I have only done this because there is no end in sight to the debate, none whatsoever.
1 do not think Canadians should be shortchanged by a short-range government and a short-range opposition.
I think that says it all.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I express regret that the tone which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tried to set with respect to this debate, which is important from the point of view of Parliament, has been desecrated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette). He did not address himself to the question at hand, namely, whether it is appropriate in these circumstances, given the importance of the measure, to deny the members of the House on all sides the right to speak.
I cannot allow some of his comments to stand on the record. For example, he said my party stands for a privileged group in Canada. He tried to imply, as the energy minister tried before, that we are backing the multinational oil companies. As thick as the bone in his head must be, I want to try to drill it into his head that the people who will suffer as a result of one of the

January 13, 1981
S.O.	75c
most ill-conceived energy policies in the history of this country will not be the multinational oil companies. They can take care of themselves. They are the strong ones, they are the big ones.
It is likely to be the smaller independent Canadian companies which suffer from the foolishness of this government. It is happening in the province of Ontario now, and spreading to the province of Quebec where workers in the manufacturing industries, the supply industries in those provinces who would be the beneficiaries of a healthy petroleum industry in western Canada, are going to suffer. It is not going to help the closing of plants in Ontario or Quebec.
Is there anything in this policy to which one can point, indicating that a consumer in Atlantic Canada will benefit, being subject to the ravages of the prices for oil from Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela, prices far in excess of those asked by Canadians in other parts of Canada? I have not seen that. Those who work in the oil industry, and I do not mean the multinationals but the Canadians employed on the rigs, are the ones who are suffering. The rigs are now going south because of the uncertainties and some certainties created by this national energy policy.
I speak now as a member for Ontario. This is the most wilfully wrong approach to development this country has ever seen. The government has sown the wind and it will reap the whirlwind. The country will be divided as a result of what the government has done. Instead of being able to marshal all the resources, federal and provincial, to achieve self-sufficiency on the one hand and fighting the economic problems on the other, we have developed, augmented, and increased the sense of regionalism in this country. That is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with Canadianizing the oil industry. However, it is wrong for the government to cast such uncertainty on the business community that ordinary Canadians who work in it will suffer from that uncertainty. That is what is wrong and that is why I say the parliamentary secretary is so absolutely wrong. If he believes what he said is true, he is misguided. I feel I have to tell him that.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said we had debated for too long. He implied that the opposition held up this debate. When this debate ended last night, ten members of the official opposition, my party, had spoken, and ten members from the government party had spoken, the same number. Who is holding up the debate, if indeed it is being held up? Three members from the New Democratic Party had spoken. Who is holding up the debate?
At ten o'clock last night we had exhausted about 12 hours of debate. By our traditions, that is not very long in the parliamentary sense. Including yesterday, the last day in which we debated the merits of the substance, we had used four parliamentary days.
The case which the government House leader made with respect to delay, frustration, his efforts and those of others, has been absolutely destroyed by the statistics related to this debate. He went on to say that we had six days of budget debate. That is true. However, a budget debate can range over
a whole host of subjects, not just energy. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the budget debate. It was not an energy debate, as he said. We had six days on the proclamation. It was almost by consent and agreement that we had six days on the proclamation. That was not holding up the House. There was understanding and agreement between us as to what that debate would entail.
There is no case today for closure or allocation of time. The only difference between allocation of time and closure is that when we debate allocation of time they have to give us at least one day. They do not have to do that with respect to closure. A rose by any other name is still a rose in my book. They are both distasteful. One is merely less distasteful than the other.
What concerns me more, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre touched on it, is the statement made by the minister at the end of his speech. He served notice on this House of Commons today and threatened the members of this House that if we do not do what he wants, if we do not kowtow to the cabinet, or if we dare to continue to debate matters of importance, he by himself is going to cut us off. Because our relationship with him is good on a personal level, that relationship, which ought to exist, ought not to be foreclosed in advance with respect to subsequent pieces of legislation.
This House operates well if attitudes are good and sound. The atmosphere in this House has been soured by allocation of time on the borrowing bill and closure on the constitutional matters. Now there is allocation of time with respect to this bill after a very short debate. This matter is of fundamental importance to members of Parliament from every part of this country.
One of the problems of this whole system and what may lead to these debates is the fact that there is no opportunity under our existing rules for private members of Parliament to deal with the things which are important to them and to their constituents. Our committee structure is a shambles. Ministers do not have to answer questions. If they move from one portfolio to another, they cannot be asked questions on their former portfolios. The question period is inadequate. I suggest it would be well for the government House leader not to turn his mind to foreclosing in advance long debates, as he did today.
Today the government House leader issued a naked threat. Rather, he should turn his attention to how the raw power of government, and majority government in particular, can be balanced in some way by the ability of this House to hold government accountable for its actions. That ability is woefully lacking under our rules and procedures. It will not help ameliorate the worry in the mind of the government House leader-and I have been on both sides of the House-if threats are made, as he has made them today, in advance about what is going to be his attitude. I think this is a very sorry day for Parliament, and I oppose this motion with all the force I can muster.
January 13, 1981


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words in this debate on time allocation under Standing Order 75c with respect to the oil and gas bill which is before the Elouse.
I think moving on to the vote on this bill is essential at this time. It is clear that this bill is one of the most important in the National Energy Program, perhaps because the provisions of the bill relating to oil and gas land regulations in the Arctic and the east coast offshore have been waiting longer than perhaps any other piece of legislation to be put before the House. I think it is important that we move ahead with this bill.
The minister and the House leader have made it clear that there will be several pieces of legislation-I am not sure whether the number is five or six-under the National Energy Program, and this one has been waiting for a long time. We should be getting on with it. It is a highly technical bill which requires expert witnesses to come before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in order to deal with its technical aspects.
Opposition members such as the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) have asked that the national energy package be put before a committee so that we can get on with the calling of witnesses, people from the industry and people from government departments, to look at the various aspects of the bill. By moving this bill into committee now we will have an opportunity to do that.
It seems to me that this bill is related to a great extent to the supply of energy and to providing a firm basis upon which oil exploration and development can take place in the Arctic and off the east coast. We now hear that there is more interest in the west coast offshore as well, so it is important that we get on with this bill at this time.
There are other aspects of the National Energy Program to which this bill is related, and those aspects are also important. It is important that this bill deals with the Canadianization of the industry. This bill would allow the federal government to have a 25 per cent carried interest in oil and gas exploration and discovery on Canada lands. The bill requires a 50 per cent Canadian ownership.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) talked about a wrong-headed policy. The national energy policy provides for reasonable and moderate increases in the price of energy during the first four or five years of the policy and then a more rapid escalation during the last five years of this decade, at the same time providing incentives so that consumers will moderate their use of oil through conservation and substitution. There will be bills coming before this House during this session of Parliament relating to conservation and conversion from oil and gas. All these bills must be dealt with. It seems to me that if we spend more than what will be about five days on just one bill at the second reading stage, we will never get to dealing with the several other bills which are also important to the implementation of this policy.


[Stage Direction]
There have already been some 23 speakers from all sides of the House. We are into the fifth day of debate. This procedure will allow us two more days of debate, and at second reading it seems to me that that should provide an adequate opportunity to explore most of the aspects of this bill. Of course, in committee the bill will undergo very intensive study.
The Tories naturally are opposed to anything which increases Canadianization.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Absolute nonsense.


Harvie Andre: Try to be honest, Maurice.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The 25 per cent carried interest will cause hours and hours of debate in the committee, and that is to be expected. The same thing happened with respect to the Petro-Canada bill. The Tories are gradually accepting Petro-Canada after four or five years, and I am sure that they will agree that Canada should have a carried interest of 25 per cent in the Arctic and offshore in the future. However, certainly at this stage they will oppose that in the committee. That is to be expected, but surely we should get on with the vote on this bill.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton talked about the raw power of government. It is interesting that during the years since closure has been in existence that power has been used more by the Progressive Conservatives than it has by the Liberals, and certainly the Liberals have been in power more years than the Conservatives.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) spoke this afternoon about oil rigs leaving the country. He was in the House yesterday and heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) responding to a question from the opposite side and saying that exactly the same number of rigs were operating in Canada on January 6, 1981, as were operating in Canada on January 8, 1980, a year earlier. Some 442 were operating in each year. In 1979, 398 rigs were operating.
If we go back to 1973-74, we find that the Tories were screaming for more money for the producing provinces and for the oil companies. We heard the same hue and cry at that time, that if every oil rig were to get a television camera to follow it, we would find that they were going south of the border. But if we take a look at the number of oil wells actually drilled in Canada in the 1973, 1974 and 1975 period, we find that in most of those years the number of oil wells drilled had increased slightly.


Mr. Kilgour:: That is absolute nonsense.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I will be glad to supply those facts to the hon. member across the way if he would like to see them. I think the clear message is that the Canadian people want us to get on with the implementation of the National Energy Program. There are many aspects to it-


An hon. Member:: All bad.

January 13, 1981
S.O.	75 c


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is the development of the Q & M Pipe Lines, and the conversion program. 1 never heard of any other government program announced which caused as much interest in my constituency as the prospect of converting from oil to other forms of energy, such as natural gas, the development of natural gas pipelines, and conversion to wood and electricity.
I should like to see us get on with the legislation which is before the House and with the studies which will be carried out in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works where those aspects will be fully discussed. But surely to do that we have to refer this bill to the committee for further study.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a number of times how I felt about coming to Parliament and acting as an MP, and I can tell you that one of the very unpleasant experiences I have had here is to listen to members, such as the one who has just spoken, twist the truth and make misleading statements which border on the untruth and which are misleading to the people who are listening to them. He knows this, and he should not waste the time of the House by poisoning the atmosphere and by poisoning the minds of the people who are listening to this debate. That is the sort of thing that ruins Parliament, the sort of thing that makes the people of this country lack in respect for members of the House.
A little over a year ago our government invoked Standing Order 75c, and at that time a member opposite made the following statement:
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day for Parliament and democracy when we are faced with the irresponsible and ill-advised actions of this government. They want to rule Parliament by force, they resort to every possible and conceivable trick to prevent the people's elected representatives from expressing their views and those of their constituents and putting forward sensible alternatives to this government's proposals.
The debate was on our bill for mortgage deductibility, a debate which had lasted seven days. Now the same Standing Order is invoked in this Parliament after only three and a half days' debate on a bill, and I have yet to hear any arguments such as those expressed by that Liberal member about a year ago. At that time the Liberals were screaming that we were gagging and stifling Parliament. We have not heard anything like that this time.
1 was very upset to hear the tone of the statement by the House leader who threatened that if we do not toe the line of the government, we will have more of rule 75c, not less. That is a very sad thing for Parliament after we have had rule 75c on borrowing authority, and closure on the constitution proposal. It is ironic when you think that here is a government, which is spending a great amount of parliamentary time and effort in moving toward a bill of rights which will entrench a charter of rights and which will protect the rights of people in this country, walking over the rights of members of the House without any concern for the views which are being presented and the views of constituents whom members of the House represent.
One of the benefits of debates in this House, apart from the fact that some very good ideas are put forward here, is that members opposite are forced to listen to arguments and views which might not agree with those which are being presented by their government to their caucus. It is an educational process, and it pleases me to see some hon. members listening attentively to the very good speeches which are being made on this side of the House on the very important pieces of legislation brought forward, particularly on the matter of energy.
There is a very important logic behind the rules of the House, which is that the rules enforce upon the House the discipline of listening to the various points of view presented on something as complex and technical as is Bill C-48 which will affect the development of Canada lands for years and generations to come. It is impossible to do justice to this proposed legislation in just three and a half or four days. As the opposition leader has just pointed out, we were not stretching out the debate when the government House leader served notice that he would introduce Standing Order 75C. He was the tenth speaker. We had only nine in this party, and three speakers had spoken for the NDP.
You have to ask yourself: when we have the duty to examine this important legislation being brought forward by the government, what is the government hiding behind, why is it invoking closure at this time of the debate, why is it hiding behind the argument about the impact that this will have on supply? The impact will be devastating, as is starting to come out during the NEB hearings on supply which have been rescheduled and updated because of the impact which the NEB knows the National Energy Program will have on supply in this country.
Why is the government hiding behind the argument of the impact on Canadianization? Canadianization, or the policy which is set forward by the National Energy Program, is going to hurt companies the most, the ones which it was designed to help. To me that is absolute nonsense. Canadianization, as members on all sides of the House agree, is a good thing for the country, yet the bureaucrats and the minister on the other side do not have the intelligence to come up with a set of proposals in a policy which would allow Canadianization to take place.
Over the past years we have seen a very healthy increase in Canadian ownership in this industry. That process had continued until October 28 and it was on that date that it stopped. The unfortunate part of this whole policy, in our view, is that Canadian ownership will not increase in the ordinary way through private enterprise, through independent Canadian-owned companies. It will only increase if the federal government, through PetroCan or some other state-owned company, will be forced to take over companies and increase state ownership of the industry. This will not happen in the ordinary course of events.
Why is the government hiding behind the argument about the impact of this policy on jobs in Ontario and Quebec and on investor confidence in this country? These are the important issues which we have been trying to bring out in this debate,
January 13, 1981

and which we will continue to do respecting the future elements of the energy policy. It is important that the people in the country understand them and do not allow the government to hide behind motherhood statements on Canadian ownership, when Canadian ownership will suffer, and motherhood statements on security, when supply will go down in this country. These are the things that we as the responsible opposition must bring to the attention of the people of Canada.
Let me point out that there are some very good speakers who have not spoken in this debate. At the time the government House leader rose in his place yesterday, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) were in the course of very important speeches on the impact of the international energy climate on energy in this country. In the case of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, we received the very great benefit of his long experience as a member of the House of Commons, and all also as a former minister who had worked hard and lived with the problems of devising regulations for the development of our north.
We have yet to hear from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who will discuss the impact of this program on offshore resource ownership and on the people of the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We have yet to hear from the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) who has studied very carefully the impact of the energy program as it relates to increased discretion by ministers, increased government regulation, and what this is expected to do in the development of our resources.
This bill is of critical importance to the development of our energy resources not for the 1980s but for the 1990s and the future. If the development does not take place at a proper pace and with a proper set of rules, we will waste valuable energy in this country which we will never see again. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said last night, we will be high-grading the resources of the country to the detriment of our children, our grandchildren and their children. That is why we feel we must draw out the very important elements of this policy.
If the government persists in the overbearing and arrogant attitude that "we have heard enough; let's get on with the next job; we will not listen to any more of these arguments with which we feel uncomfortable", then this government, this Parliament, and Canada will suffer seriously. The threat of Standing Order 75c being used more in the future does not bode well for Parliament. We will have a very rough time as we carry through on what we hope will be a good energy policy. But, it must be changed and completely rewritten if it is to serve the purposes of this country. That is why we feel it is important that this debate continue on and why we will be voting against the motion in the vote later today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
S.O.	75c


Mr. Jacques Guiibault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a small contribution to this debate which I find relatively innocuous on the application of Standing Order 75C I have seen in the past much more bitter discussions when the government decided to use this time allocation procedure for a particular debate. I should like to bring up again the example given by the previous speaker who quoted the words of a Liberal member when the Progressive Conservative Party, then in power, resorted to Standing Order 75c in order to limit debate. All he managed to prove was the moral of the story: every time the government applies Standing Order 75c, the opposition is outraged, calls it a gag, an impropriety, and gives the Canadian people the spectacle of a group being muzzled, of a hamstrung Parliament. Yet, in this case, the government has produced ten speakers, the official opposition also, and three NDP members have spoken on the bill. So I imagine that those who are watching us on their television sets at home must be saying to themselves, "If ten experienced members state a party's position, then, provided those members are knowledgeable and at least moderately competent, a party's views can be deemed to have been correctly and exhaustively expressed before Parliament". If our colleagues opposite, after having 13 speakers make their views known, are not satisfied that their position was fully stated, all I can say is that perhaps they did not produce their best speakers, that they were perhaps ill-prepared, because if I had to choose ten odd members of my party, I would make sure that they could, in the allotted time, put clearly before the Canadian people the views of the Liberal party on this bill or on any other.
I want to clear up any misunderstanding about the action that the government is now taking. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) mentioned closure earlier, but we all know that Standing Order 75c, which the government is now invoking deals with time allotment rather than closure, which is provided for in Standing Order 33. I would ask my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, to read over again quietly the Standing Orders to realize that we are now operating under
S.O.	75, which means that our House leader first met with his colleagues from the other parties under S.O. 75a to see whether it might not be possible for them all to agree to limit discussions to a set period of time, but it did not work. Unfortunately, it seems that our House leader, usually so persuasive, failed this time to convince his colleagues. Then on to S.O. 75b to see whether a majority of parties would agree to put a time limit on discussions.
Again this did not work, and we now come to S.O. 75c, whereby the government is putting a motion to limit discussions and asking the House to adopt it. That is to say that we have gone through a long process of negotiation with the other parties, and I am explaining in such a detailed way how S.O. 75 works so that people watching us on television who are less

January 13, 1981


[Stage Direction]
familiar with the proceedings in this House will understand that it is not a matter of the government suddenly stepping in with a sword to cut short discussion and put an abrupt end to it. On the contrary, it is only after long and unsuccessful negotiations with the opposition parties that we find ourselves in a situation where we must move a motion under Standing Order 75c. And even if the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest a while ago that the Liberal government is availing itself of these provisions more and more often, I think that he is way off base. Section 75c has been part of our Standing Orders for about ten years. I was here as a newly elected member when it was adopted. As far as I can remember,
S.O.	75c was used some four or five times over the past ten years, the last time very recently by the Progressive Conservative Party. That party used it once in its two short months in office, while we used it only four times over a ten-year period. Nobody can reasonably say that these powers are abused.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was here also when Section 75c was made part of our Standing Orders some ten years ago, that that section was not the result of a consensus. At that time, the opposition parties were against it, which is perfectly normal. When the time comes to amend our regulations, opposition parties rarely agree with provisions which are likely to limit their debating time or their right to speak. That is quite normal. That is why the government acted alone at the time and used its majority to adopt S.O. 75C which, in my opinion, is not yet satisfactory. Reference is often made to the practice of the Mother of Parliaments in London, England, but the way the British Parliament operates, most bills are debated for one or two days only, under previous agreements and pursuant to rules that are much more stringent than ours. Debates proceed much more promptly and the British government manages to pass many more bills in one session than its Canadian counterpart.
So it will be necessary to find solutions similar to those suggested by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, to devise more flexible agreements than the existing ones, in order to pass 25 or 30 bills in one session instead of only a few. The number of bills we have passed since the beginning of the session is insignificant. We were criticized today early in the question period by the Leader of the Official Opposition who claimed that the only government priority is the constitutional issue.
Yet, a few minutes later, when we tried to pass a tax biii dealing with oil, they refused to go along, preferring to drag out the debate. On one hand they tell us, "You do not pass important bills for the economy of the country.", and on the other hand, the opposition tries to drag out the debate to be able to say later, "Look at the legislative record of this government. They have passed only a few bills, they are no good, they failed to keep their promises."
It seems to me that because of the pressing oil problem, we should dispose of this bill without delay. Let us keep in mind that some bills had been introduced as early as December, 1977, to amend the oil tax structure, and I know that the industry is anxious to know the rules of the game. I know that not all oil company executives approve the contents of the bill, but at least all agree that it is high time they knew the rules of the game, that the House of Commons passed a bill outlining the tax system so that the industry may know how to invest. For those reasons, I shall vote for Standing Order 75c, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this motion by the government to close off debate is despicable and outrageous. It is all of those adjectives which could and should be used to describe it. But, perhaps more than that, it is tragic in a real sense that more than just this bill is involved, more than just this vitally important national energy policy is involved. It is really one more nail, if you will, one more bit of pressure on what little parliamentary democracy we have left.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had some valuable suggestions to make, in terms of trying to find some resolution to this perpetual problem of time exigencies or desires of the government and the needs and desires of Parliament. I thought-and, granted, there may not be time now to discuss it-perhaps he might have looked more deeply at the threat this type of action poses, yes, to our very democracy.
I am not a scholar of history but I am aware of some of the history of our Canadian parliamentary system and parliamentary democracy in general. There was a time not too many years ago when the executive, seeking to have a bill passed by a legislature, was required to convince that legislature of its merits. It was required to present argument, lobby, twist arms and do those kinds of things, since members sit as full-fledged representatives of their constituents, and are free to vote based on their best judgment, based on what the needs of the nation and their constituents are. The growth of parties put that to an end. It is directly attributable to the existence of executive power.
Clearly to the Prime Minister and his cabinet it is not particularly satisfying to go around and convince people of the merits of their legislation. It is much easier to be able to announce it and count on undivided, unquestioning and uncritical support. They could get that by use of the Prime Minister's ability to appoint, to promote to the cabinet or as parliamentary secretaries those who are most loyal, and most willing to punish, by sending them to the back rows, those who perhaps object or think on their own. Through that facility, successive prime ministers, not of any particular party, were able to count on the undivided support of each and every one of their members. Therefore, once an election was over they no longer needed to worry about convincing anybody about the
January 13, 1981

merits of a piece of legislation or motion put before this House.
But Parliament was still not totally without power. Parliament had the traditional ability to hold up supply until grievances were answered. It was a large power which enabled this body to hold ministers accountable in a real way. But some changes in the rules, I believe in 1964 or 1965, did away effectively with that power of Parliament, leaving members of this House with only one power-the ability to make a speech in this House, have it reported to the public, thereby hopefully affecting public opinion. That then might hopefully influence the government to alter its course or take into account the arguments presented. That is a very minor, almost insignificant power, considering the responsibilities which are supposedly vested in one who seeks election and is elected by his fellow citizens to represent them here in the national government.
Now we have this government moving against that very insignificant power which is left to members of Parliament. Even that insignificant power is too much in the mind of this government. As the government House leader indicated today, it is his intention to use 75C frequently to ensure that we do not speak too long, and to ensure that the message being presented here does not get around to the people in the countryside so that they have a chance to think about it and bring back their feelings and opinions.
Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity I ask do you still have a democracy if all that is left is once every few years, at a time chosen by the government-obviously it will choose the most opportune time-you have an election, whilst in between there is nothing else? If those of us who are elected, and we are not elected to support the majority party, are not some of the chosen few to sit on the treasury benches, if we have no say in the legislative process of this country; if we have no say in the governing of this country, and if we should not debate in this House since that might influence public opinion, I ask you is that a democracy?
When you add to that the ability and the demonstrated willingness of this government to utilize polling and advertising to mould public opinion I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is left? I ask members opposite to think about that for a while and, when they look at themselves in the mirror, to say, why was I elected? Was it to say "Aye, sir, aye" whenever the government asks me to? I ask you to ask yourselves why you were elected, and to ask if your responsibilities do not go deeper than that.
While 1 am in the mood I might do a little media bashing. It certainly disturbs me to see how the media of this country will go into a froth and rage when someone dares to cut out a pornographic scene in a movie. That is treading on freedom of the press. That is anti-democracy and it is terrible. But let the government tromp on the privileges of members of Parliament and they say, "What are you talking about? They are just members of Parliament. What do they amount to in the scheme of things? What is important is that they should not cut any pornography out of movies, that is what is important.
Public Bills
That is one small step and who knows what it will lead to in terms of tromping on the press?"
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised in a peripheral way some very important questions about this second reading debate and about the operations of the House and its rules. I suggest that the time has come when we should be looking at the fundamental rules of this House and the way in which we operate in order to determine if we are any longer a parliamentary democracy in the real sense of the word. May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Garrison diversion Unacceptability of project to Canada-Inquiry as to government action; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-Canadian Wheat Board-Embargo on grain shipments to U.S.S.R.-Interventions for next crop year; the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Consumer Affairs-Justification for certain department stores to increase finance charges.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideraton of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 17, 18 and 22 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, on a very brief point of order, 1 would like to draw to your attention what I consider to be an irregularity in an attempt to simplify things for hon. members. You will recall that on December 15 Madam Speaker referred to Standing Order 69 which states that no bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape. The bills listed on the order paper under public bills have been there now for some eight months and many of them are not printed. This causes considerable difficulty for the members when we are questioned on certain bills. I would like to make the suggestion that at an appropriate future date these bills which cannot be

January 13, 1981
Parliamentary Representation
printed be removed and put down in the regular fashion, to be called at some future date.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised on other occasions. I would hope that, before you remove those bills, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-although I understand his problem and share his concern-there will be some discussion with the officers of the House to determine what has happened to them and whether they may be expedited and dealt with. I believe this would answer the question, rather than moving them down only to have them reintroduced again. I for one have received a number of letters about bills which have been introduced in the normal way, but there is no bill to which I can refer. It would be very helpful if, Mr. Speaker, you would make some inquiries on behalf of members of the House.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and perhaps the matter could be discussed with the officers of the House. I have remarked before on the fact that there is still a notice of motion, I believe, on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for Levis, who resigned from this House some months ago. Perhaps we could look at that matter at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and confirmed by the parliamentary secretary seems to me to be appropriate. The Chair, under its several occupants or Madam Speaker, shall pursue the matter. My understanding is that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is referring to the bills which have come through the system known as the draw. In some cases those bills have not yet been printed, but are put on the order paper in block as the result of succeeding in the draw.
In any event, that does not seem to prohibit me from moving now. I will undertake that consultations will be taken up with the Table officers to investigate another method of printing these bills in order to improve the system.


REPRESENTATION ACT, 1980 MEASURE RESPECTING MEMBERSHIP IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thomas Gordon Towers: that Bill C-223, respecting representation in the Canadian House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not intend to use the maximum time allotted to me because I would like to hear from members opposite the government's intentions with regard to redistribution in the future. The purpose of Bill C-223 is to maintain the membership in the House of Commons at approximately the present level until the population of Canada exceeds 50 million.
My thesis is that we should keep the total membership in the House of Commons at 282 members. We should keep the total number at a manageable level, and 282 seems to me to be the optimum figure. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and perhaps others in the House, would like to see the figure cut back somewhat in order that members may become more effective. I question whether such a move would be acceptable to the House of Commons. However, I trust that the government will seriously look at the possibility of maintaining the membership in the House at its present level.
I do not feel that there is the demand or the necessity to increase the total membership of this House after each decennial census. The House of Commons is cumbersome and unwieldy enough as it is presently constituted. At present Parliament is a $100 million per year industry in Ottawa. There are 282 members of Parliament, 104 senators, and more than 3,200 personnel on the support staff. That works out to about $250,000 for every member of Parliament and senator, which is all paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
Maintaining the membership at the present level would cut down on costs and ensure that individual members do not become lost in the crowd. I for one feel that members of Parliament and their constituents would suffer in the long run if the membership were increased because members of Parliament would be less effective and the power of the Prime Minister and the executive arm of the government would become more powerful. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in my opinion has too much authority now.
Recently, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada said that after the 1981 decennial census he expects that 30 new federal seats will be created and that the majority will be west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. On the basis of present figures and projections which I obtained from Statistics Canada, I question his arithmetic in that he only projects five new electoral districts for Alberta. His prognostications and the figures from Statistics Canada just do not meet up. He said that on the basis of a projected population growth of 14.9 per cent in Alberta from 1976 to 1981, Alberta would get five new seats. British Columbia should have the second largest population increase in 1981, a projection of a 7.4 per cent increase from 1976 to 2.6 million. Manitoba and Saskatchewan will presumably have much lower growth rate percentages.
Using the projection of 14.9 per cent growth for Alberta for five seats, how can these projections add up to 15 more seats for western Canada? Simple arithmetic tells me that we will be lucky if we receive a third of the 30 new seats under the minister's plan, if he or the government decides that they will go ahead with the plan. Canada's approach is supposedly representation by population.
In practice, the system is not working fairly and the provincial numbers are out of whack. How it works is that as a result of the 1974 BN A Act amendments, after each decennial census, or ten-year census, the seats in the Commons are redistributed. Quebec's population is used as the base figure in
January 13, 1981

this redistribution. After each census, regardless of the population increase, Quebec automatically receives four new seats in the Commons. The number of Quebec seats is then divided into the total number of population in Quebec, and this provides a barometer for the number of constituents which will be represented by a member of Parliament. The seats are then redistributed across Canada on the basis of this figure which should be in the vicinity of 80,000 people. The problem is that by the time redistribution is implemented, the figures are stale by three or four years or, as after the last census in 1971, outdated by eight years.
This year we will have a decennial census. The final figures will not be available until 1982 or perhaps, at the earliest, in late 1981. This means that we might have royal assent to amending legislation in 1983 or 1984, or 1988 or 1989, as happened last time. Nevertheless, redistribution will be implemented using stale and outdated statistics.
A member of Parliament from Quebec presently represents approximately 83,000 people; an MP from Manitoba, 87,000; an MP from B.C., 90,000, and an MP from Alberta, 93,000 people.
With present trends continuing, by 1983, the earliest redistribution can take place, it is anticipated that the average population of electoral districts in Alberta will be in the vicinity of 105,000 people, approximately 20,000 over the national average.
Automatically increasing the size of this House every ten years hardly qualifies as reform. If we are to effect parliamentary reform we must take a long and searching look at the optimum size of this chamber.
The United States, with ten times our population, is able to conduct the nation's business with a fixed Congress of 465 congressmen and 100 senators. In the United Kingdom there are 635 members of Parliament for 60 million people.
I scarcely feel that the quality of Parliament or its workings will be improved by adding to its numbers. We should first seek to improve Parliament, to streamline it, to make it more effective.
May I suggest that we first of all examine the committee system. Most committees are mere window dressing for the government. Most committee members are given the mushroom treatment. They are kept in the dark and, every now and then, the government opens the door and throws a load of you know what on them. Some committees have done excellent work and have produced excellent results, but these are few and far between. The average standing or select committee has far too little time and far too little support staff to be effective.
Further, if we are serious about reform we should look to the Senate. The Senate, with its wealth of talent and experience, is badly underutilized. It should be a more effective and more useful appendage of Parliament. The Senate represents the compromise which enabled the four original provinces to combine federalism with the British parliamentary system
Parliamentary Representation
since it was intended to protect the less populous regions such as Quebec and the maritimes by giving them equal representation with Ontario. Later, the west was also given equal representation.
The Senate was designed to be a protector of the interests of the provinces or regions. It was intended to be a revising and restraining body to deal with possible errors or impulses of the Commons. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate will measure up to this responsibility in our present constitutional dilemma. It was to be a chamber of sober second thought and a counterbalance to the popularly elected chamber.
Lastly, the Senate was to represent property and conservatism. The interests of private property were always in a minority in a democratic society and the Senate was expected to protect those rights.
The Senate once enjoyed more political influence than today. In the first Canadian cabinet, five of the 13 ministers were senators, and two governments in the nineteenth century were led by senators. Practically every major portfolio, except finance, has been held at one time or another by a senator.
The Senate frequently confronts the impossible task of giving adequate consideration to important bills which are dumped on it shortly before the end of a session or just before a recess.
In recent years the Senate has done some extremely useful work in investigations of major social and economic issues through its committee system. Its initiatives in this area have sometimes made the appointing of royal commissions unnecessary.
The Senate can be a very useful partner in Parliament if its terms of reference and its mandate are reviewed, revised, and reformed.
There is some validity to the thesis that senators be elected, so that they are looked upon with more respect and credibility by the Canadian people.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I say, keep the membership in the House of Commons at its present level. Do not dilute the product by indiscriminately adding to our numbers.
Make better use of what we have. Make better use of the committee system in both chambers. Make better use of the joint committees which exist. Examine the Senate with a view to modernizing its functions and its role in a bicameral system of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time available to me either. I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this very important and interesting matter, which is more complicated than it appears at first glance, before us for discussion.
The question of representation and the number of members that should be elected is an important one, as is the larger question of proportional representation. It is difficult for the
6160

January 13, 1981
Parliamentary Representation
public to understand the complexities, almost an impossibility, of arriving at a system which will ensure fair representation of all parts of the country in the House of Commons. On the one hand, there is the obvious and undisputable need for representation by population, for reasonably equal number of people to elect a member and, of course, the need in a country as large and underpopulated as ours, for adequate representation. There is evidence of this in the House every day when we discuss issues that affect areas that do not have a large population.
This problem is more acute in Canada than in countries that have a population which is spread evenly across the land. In the eight years that I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker, members from western Canada have often brought to our attention the fact that until recently representation was weighted in favour of eastern and central Canada. There were fewer members from some of the prairie provinces because of the fact that their population was not great. I believe this problem is gradually being corrected in British Columbia at least, which is now termed a heavily weighted province for the purpose of determining the numbers of constituencies to be represented.
I represent what in the United States is termed an inner city constituency. It is in the centre of the city of Toronto. We who represent downtown constituencies face the problem of populations moving to the suburbs. It could be argued that the core areas of the cities are losing representation because of the suburban phenomenon. Ironically, we now face the same problem as members from the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in that we are losing representation in the city while the outlying areas appear to be gaining representation. I think the most interesting example of that occurs in the United States.
Many of the major cities in the eastern United States, including New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Detroit, are challenging the U.S. census by taking the matter to court. The reason for the challenge, they say, is undercounting. As a result they are losing representation in Congress, which is part of the same problem the hon. member has brought to us for discussion. It is a very complex one.
In a democratic country everyone agrees that similar numbers of people should be electing a representative on their behalf. On the other hand, there are areas where the population is so spread out we find people do not have the same interests. It is not unreasonable to find that people living hundreds of miles apart do not share the same interests and so feel they should have two representatives, or perhaps more. We could easily have one million people sharing one interest and have 2,000 people with another interest. There are still only two interests even though they are off-weighted by population. That problem is far more serious in Canada than it is in Europe and much more serious than in the United States, although people from the Rocky Mountain area in the United
States feel they are under represented because of their small population.
The way in which redistribution is conducted in Canada is a far more complicated process than most members of the House have ever realized. It is a complex business which has changed and is changing, so I will refer to my notes. For nearly all of our history, redistribution was carried out within very fixed bounds. We set the membership of the House at a certain number and worked from that number. One of the problems which became evident in the early 1970s was that it is virtually impossible to protect the representation of the smaller provinces, if we look at it from a provincial angle, while adding members to represent fast-growing population areas.
A surprise to me, which I am sure it will be to other members of the House, is the projected membership of the House of Commons, if predictions are correct. I do not think they will be because those predictions have not been correct so far. According to Statistics Canada population projections, the size of the House of Commons, which is presently 282 members, and before the last redistribution was 265-


Thomas Gordon Towers: It was 264.


Peter A. Stollery: It has risen from 264 to 282. After 1981 it is projected to rise to 312 members. In 1991 it is projected to rise to 342. This is a rapid increase in numbers. I see the hon. member opposite does not agree with me.


Mr. Lambert:: I do agree with you.


Peter A. Stollery: He shook his head so I have to presume he was not agreeing with me unless he was shaking it sideways, as a Bulgarian, meaning that it is okay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: I did not know he was a Bulgarian.
By the year 2000 the House of Commons would have 376 members. So from 265 members a couple of years ago, it is projected the House of Commons will have 312 members after the next election. That is a significant increase in the number of members elected to the House of Commons and it will have many implications to its operation. Many of these implications should be discussed by a committee, particularly when we see such a large projected increase in members.
It has occurred to me that suburban areas are very homogenous. I hope that aspect is considered if this matter is discussed in committee. Representation by population is very important. Underpopulated areas of the country must also be well looked after. But it is important also that a diversity of interest is represented in the House of Commons. In my opinion, that is the most important thing.
Different formulae are always being brought forward, but then someone says that for 100,000 people here a member should be elected and for 100,000 people there a member should be elected. That is fair and equitable. However, that is not the question. The question is: are differing interests properly represented in the House of Commons? That is the point
January 13, 1981

of our being here. If the country is largely an agricultural one or whatever, those interests should be more weighted. In a democratic system that must be taken into account.
People who say the definition of a democracy is the rule of a majority are less than one-third right. It has always appeared to me that the large part of the definition is that minorities must be protected. It is an instrument to protect minorities and not just the majority. That is done by ensuring, to a large degree, that the decision-making body, the House of Commons or whatever, represents a large enough selection of interests of the people in the country.
One can be accused of self-interest, but it is just an observation of mine in representing part of the great city of Toronto that in some areas there is more diversity than in others. That point should be considered. It is vital and important to Canada.
I hope that if not the bill the subject matter of it will be studied by a committee because this matter will be upon us within the next few years. 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 thank the hon. member for the opportunity of saying a few words about this important business he has brought before the House for deliberation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), I believe the subject matter of this bill rather than the bill itself should be referred to an appropriate committee so that that subject matter can be studied. In that sense 1 congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for bringing the bill before us. 1 liked parts of his speech. He knows there is one section which had nothing to do with the bill which would not get my approval. That is the section where he praised the other place. There are a lot of fine men and women over there, but the institution of a second House that is not responsible to the people of this country in my view is one for which there is no place in a parliamentary democracy. However, the Senate is not part of the bill, so one does not have to deal with it at any great length.
The main concern of the hon. member in introducing his bill, as 1 understand it, is that we not leave ourselves open to a course which will result in this place having 325, 350 or 400 members a few decades down the road. Where we would put them is one problem. Apart from that, there is the problem of the efficient operation of the place.
There is one word of assurance I should like to give the hon. member. I do so out of experience. 1 have been through four redistributions since coming here. The hon. member across the way talked about the 264 members we had a while ago. When I first came here, the membership was only 245. In each ten-year period that we have looked at redistribution, we have changed the rules. One would think that when you write a rule about redistribution, it is the law of the Medes and Persians, that it is going to be there for all time. However, every decade that goes by produces a new set of problems.
Parliamentary Representation
In the late forties and fifties, we had a problem in the prairie provinces in that we were losing members. When I came here in 1972, we had 17 members from Manitoba and that number or more from Saskatchewan. Those provinces have not lost population. They have more population today than they had then. It is relativity which comes into the picture. It is the larger populations of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta which left those provinces in that position.
We had a very interesting cabinet minister from Saskatchewan named Jimmy Gardiner. He did not like to see Saskatchewan go down so fast. In one of the redistributions when he was in a powerful position, he persuaded the government to bring in the Gardiner formula which said that no province could ever lose a number of seats that was more than a certain percentage of the total that it had. For ten or 20 years we followed that rule. It protected Saskatchewan and Manitoba and, at one point, Nova Scotia. However, the day came when that rule did not seem to be meeting the needs and we changed it again.
Away back, as we all learned in school, the House was composed of 65 members from Quebec and the numbers from the rest of the provinces were in proportion thereto. In Mr. St. Laurent's time, we changed all that. We decided on a total number of members to be divided according to certain rules of proportion. Indeed, the last time we came back to a fixed number from Quebec. This time, however, it was fixed for one time at 75 and it is to go up by four every decade.
The point I am making is that every time there is a redistribution, an immediate problem comes along. We had to save the prairie provinces, we had to save Nova Scotia or something like that, so we devise a rule which fits what we wanted to do. I think I can say quite straightforwardly that when the present system was put in, it was said it would get us over the hump, that we are not really going to go on increasing the number in this House far past the 300 mark.
I believe it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a consideration of the whole matter. It would be a good idea to start that consideration now. That is why I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) that this bill not be talked out, but that the subject matter of it be referred to the appropriate committee.
At the same time, we better look at a few other things. These are all pretty closely related to the constitutional discussions now going on. We have to look at the whole question of an assembly which is a mixture of members who represent constituencies and members on the basis of proportional representation.
This subject has been discussed by the academics from A to Z. There are those very strongly in favour of it and those who are very much against it. I do not think in this country we could go for complete proportional representation. There are now 14 of us from Manitoba. If Manitoba were on a PR basis, and if I were one of the 14 members from Manitoba, it would be much more difficult to feel one was a member in that way than for each of us to be a member for a constituency.

January 13, 1981
Parliamentary Representation
1 contend that a mixture of members directly representative of constituencies and proportional representation would be useful to consider. One reason is that it might solve the problem of having so many parliaments in which some provinces are represented by only one party. We have that situation right now. I do not know whether the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has resigned yet or not, but if and when he does, the province of Quebec will have only Liberals. Alberta has only Conservative members in the House of Commons. There are some Liberal supporters in Alberta, Conservative supporters in Quebec and NDP supporters all over the country.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that "hear, hear" is recorded. That fact does not get reflected in the House. I am not arguing for a particular system. 1 suppose I am on the side of a mixture. It is something that should be discussed without our being committed to a particular formula or deal.
I hope the hon. member for Red Deer will not be insulted if we suggest that we not pass this bill but rather use it as a vehicle to get the whole subject of what the representation of this House should be referred to an appropriate committee. It is going to come about anyway. I say that from experience of the last four redistributions. Why not start it now?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject, I have on the order paper somewhere a motion to deal with redistribution and the method by which it is done. It is a peripherally related matter.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, a number of points have been put forward by members with regard to representation and how we choose this House. They should go into the hopper now, not on the eve of the next election. It should not be as we did in 1974 after a redistribution. We saw a cat's breakfast served up by the redistribution commission in their wisdom. As my former colleague from Carleton said, never was there such gerrymandering, incompetence and ignorance as was exhibited by the reports generally during that redistribution. That was incompetence and ignorance as far as political representation was concerned.
In so far as this House is concerned, I am going to take another tack. 1 thought it was deplorable that in 1974 in order to again emulate the philosophy of the late Jimmy Gardiner, certain interests had to be placated. The census was in 1971 and it was about 1973 that we got the commissioner's reports. Saskatchewan was being run right down because the population had dropped, Manitoba even more. Horror of horrors, Quebec was going to lose a seat.
[ Translation]
That was unheard of, unthinkable.

Therefore, a new formula was devised, the one we have at the present time. Earlier I was shaking my head in sheer wonderment at this business of the House escalating within a matter of 15 years to 340 members. It was increasing in greater proportion than the population of Canada and so we arrived at a quotient. This quotient was then reapplied to the member some 23 years ago, there was a floor, a senatorial floor, and the formula for devising the number of seats took the populations of those provinces which were at a senatorial floor out of the general total, and then one divided the then number of remaining seats into the remaining population and arrived at a quotient. This quotient was then reapplied to the populations of the provinces, and we got the number of seats for those provinces. That is how we arrived at 264, and I think it was 265 for the proposed redistribution in 1973-74. I think the hon. member from Cape Breton was the author, or at least he was the sponsor of the plan we have now under which we go by mathematical progressions upwards. No one has yet invented columns made of rubber so that we can instal seats at the far end of the chamber. For you, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to build a recess and put Your Honour under the gallery because we will require more seats to move up to 312.
This will be fun. Perhaps we will have some balconies. That is another way of doing it. We will have loges off the galleries for hon. members. They shall be those proportionally elected members about whom the hon. member speaks. They will be up there floating, not having had to fight in constituencies. They will be a class apart.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: They will be part of the upper benches.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague, the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), says they shall be part of the upper benches. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre notes the distinction. They shall be from the other level as opposed to the other House. With the greatest of respect I think the idea deserves that kind of comment and merriment. We have laughed at some ideas this afternoon, but I think they all have to go into the hopper so we can have a really good and hard examination of some of them and then decide.
Some of my hon. colleagues may recoil in horror at my own view, which is not, as my colleague suggests, that the present membership of this House be fixed at 282 but that we apply a 20 per cent cut to the representation or by some 56, down to 225.
I can take hon. members through all the sinuosities of the committee system and in this House. Instead of having 30 or 40 people scrambling to get on speaker's lists, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) would be in his seventh heaven; he would not have to protest about too many people wanting to speak. In fact, some government backbenchers might be able to speak. It
January 13, 1981

would be known as the emancipation formula since at present they are now gagged during a second reading debate. In committee, instead of having 20 people trying to get their ten minutes, there would be only perhaps 12. Some work would be done in committee, and committees could be reduced in size. One might ask, "At what cost?" Well, I remember that there were about 135,000 to 150,000 people in my riding before the first redistribution in 1968. With less staff than I have now I looked after my constituency quite well, I thought, and so did other people. True enough, our work is now more involved. We did not have constituency offices then, but with properly trained legislative assistants or office administrators whom members do not have at the present time, and in the light of improved communications, travel and equipment which is available, members could more than adequately serve double the populations they serve now, and perhaps even better.
It is true enough that some adjustments would have to be made for some of the rural areas. We would have to pay some attention to the historical entitlements of the Atlantic provinces, but a 20 per cent cut does not disturb as much as increasing the size of this House, and in that regard, since we do not want Saskatchewan to lose any more members we will merely increase the size of the pond in which they have to swim; one would drown them just as easily that way; we will just add more water to the bath. The effort was totally cosmetic.
I think we should look at all these suggestions. I know there will be some difficulties with respect to my ideas, but I think this House would function eminently more successfully if there were only about 225 members. After all, the U.S. Senate functions very well, and some senators represent ten million or more people. Two senators from California represent the number of people there are in Canada. They have large adequate staffs. Actually, it costs less to staff their offices properly and to provide them with the appropriate organizations to service their people than it costs us. Being on the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services I can tell hon. members that there is now getting to be a very substantial expense to support each member.
Adding just one member means not just one salary but also all the attendant expenses which go with a member. Representation becomes extraordinarily expensive but, 1 suggest, not any better. Somebody at one of the Toronto newspapers today must have had his tongue in all the cheeks he possesses, both up and down, because he suggested that this House should have 800 members. He just had to be spoofing.
Without wanting to repeat myself again, I must say that I think it is an excellent idea to examine this bill. I trust there will be someone from the government side who will move to amend the motion which is on the order paper. We in the opposition certainly consent fully to withdrawing the bill and the subject matter going to the appropriate committee for consideration and report. I presume that committee will be the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. 1 would be quite prepared to second such a motion. It is my understanding that the parliamentary secretary to the government House
Parliamentary Representation
leader would be prepared to move such a motion, so I am quite pleased to yield the floor to him in the hope that that will be done. There may be others who may wish to participate, but I certainly hope this bill is not talked out and that, as agreed, the subject matter will go forward to the appropriate committee.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill before the House this afternoon because 1 think this is an important matter which needs to be dealt with in a standing committee of this House. I believe the 1974 Representation Act requires that the President of the Privy Council refer the whole question of representation to a standing committee.
Section 7 of the act suggests that this be done after the House meets. Of course, we have had an interim period of another Parliament in between, during which the whole question of representation was supposed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
1 find the suggestion of the hon. member that the whole question be investigated to be very worth while. A few days ago I received a projection from the chief electoral office of the number of seats there will be in the House after the next redistribution in 1981. The projection shows some 30 more seats. Of course, the ridings are divided up only on the basis of projections at this stage, but it seems to me we will end up with a much larger House, not necessarily with better arrangements.
The one matter I think should be considered by the committee, and in fact there is a reference to that committee now, is the question of the large rural ridings. This whole question, of course, will be studied by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections because Bill C-211 has been referred to it already. The bill refers specifically to northern Ontario, but there are areas in northern Manitoba, northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, northwest Quebec and, I believe, Labrador which face similar problems, although not identical to those in northern Ontario. The problem is that these are vast areas which are growing ever larger because of increased population requirements, and 1 think there is a need for consideration of a floor arrangement for representation of those vast northern areas in a number of constituencies.
1 certainly see the proposal for this bill going to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study to be a very worth while one. I believe the Privy Council has the responsibility of referring the whole matter to the standing committee in any event because of the 1974 Representation Act which provides for reference of the matter of representation to a committee. I hope the government will see fit to move a motion this afternoon to refer this private member's bill, to the standing committee as I think it deserves serious investigation and study as proposed by the hon. member this afternoon.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a few remarks on Bill C-223 which is now before the

January 13, 1981
Parliamentary Representation
House. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House because, like other hon. members, 1 agree it is important to consider the matter of the number of people who represent various constituencies and parts of this nation in the House. However, there are other matters to be said with respect to representation of the people of Canada in this House. While I agree that the matter should be studied, some of these other matters might be brought to the attention of members and of the public generally. First of all, we have often spoken of the subject of proportional representation. I draw to the attention of members that without proportional representation of some kind you will get the anomaly of the Progressive Conservative Party, for example, requiring 373,000 votes in the province of Quebec and having only one elected member from there, while at the same time the 357,000 persons who voted for the PC Party in Manitoba and Saskatchewan elected 12 Conservative members from there. So there is an argument for proportional representation. I am not saying I agree with that argument, but that is the kind of thing that might be discussed.
Also, there is quite the contrary view which is presented in an article printed in the Regina Leader-Post in which the writer, Edward Carrigan, writes that he believes the number of members in the House should be increased to 800. He based that concept on the basic representation which prevailed in 1867 and said that at that time the population of Canada was slightly over three million, and has now increased to 24 million. If you make a projection on the basis of these figures, you get a much larger representation. He also refers to the number and complexity of subjects with which the House of Commons deals today and the amount of money expended by the government.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment I wanted to introduce those points because perhaps they are more vital to representation from provinces like Nova Scotia and other provinces in the Atlantic region which might suffer from a move toward representation based entirely on population. I agree to limiting the number of persons who represent people of Canada and constituencies, but I think we should be mindful of the smaller provinces which require basic representation. At present under the BNA Act and relevant legislation, minimum representation is fixed in relation to the number of persons who are permitted to be appointed to the Senate. I think in the case of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, these provinces have now reached the lower limit and their representation in the House is based on the minimum requirements. In the case of Nova Scotia, the province has one more member here than its Senate representation of ten.
We have to be mindful of these considerations when we deal with matters of this kind. I do not want to borrow any phrases from the government side of the House, but let me say that what is at stake here is the quality of representation in the House. As has been said, what Canadians want is effective government, not more government. So the real responsibility is
to make members of Parliament more effective and we can do that with the numbers we have at present.
I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker, to allow a member on the government side to move the motion.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this matter before six o'clock. In no way does the government accept the premise in the bill proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), nor is the government prepared to commit itself at this time on membership in the House of Commons in the future. There is a regime at present which is in effect, and perhaps it should be changed. But the reason I rise to speak now is that there have been consultations among the parties and perhaps we could refer the subject matter of this bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We did the same thing a few weeks ago with the bill proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), namely. Bill C-211, concerning large constituencies in northern Ontario. This subject is slated for debate in general within the next year. As everyone knows, there will be a census this year. I believe the law stipulates that the boundaries commission must report within a year after the census.
This matter is of current interest in the country. With the caveat that the government does not commit itself to any figure or to any of the arguments contained in the bill of the hon. member for Red Deer, the government is prepared to agree that this whole matter should be discussed. Indeed, I could draw your attention to the Speech from the Throne in which electoral reform was mentioned. Certainly this will be an ongoing subject in the life of this Parliament and certainly in the next year. Therefore, I have pleasure in putting forward the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-223, an act respecting representation in the Canadian House of
Commons, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged,
the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
January 13, 1981

It being six o'clock. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, in relation to 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the floor. I should like to give the hon. member some advance notice; I think there are about two minutes remaining in his time.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I have just two minutes left. Prior to five o'clock 1 attempted to make the point that members of Parliament over the years have had our powers, our ability to represent our constituents, and our ability to act as legislators, removed from us step by step until the point today where we are essentially powerless. We lack even the ability to influence public opinion through giving speeches in the House which are reported, hopefully read and thought about by some people so as to influence their opinion. Let there be no mistake. That is exactly the reason Standing Order 75c was brought in in this case, just as in the case of the constitution when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) originally said, "Look, after all, all we are doing is patriating the constitution at long.last, bringing in a charter of rights and a flexible amending formula. How could one be opposed to that? No one could be opposed to that kind of motherhood thing." Some who did not think of or read what the Prime Minister proposed gave their approval very quickly. It was only after extensive debate and discussion the public realized that was not what was being proposed-much more was being proposed.
Similarly in this case of the national energy policy, Bill C-48, the propaganda says, "Look, what we are doing is Canadianizing the oil industry and trying to make us self-suffi-
S.O.	75c
cient by 1990. How can one be opposed to that?" No one is opposed to that. Those are goals which we and every Canadian accept as reasonable and proper, but anyone looking at the national energy policy, reading it and trying to understand it will recognize that in fact the national energy policy as proposed in its details by the government works in exactly the opposite direction. If, heaven forbid, this policy is implemented, there is not a prayer in the world of this country becoming self-sufficient. We will be on rationing and allocation; that is what will happen. This policy is driving Canadian independent oil companies out of the country.
A couple of members opposite talked about the multinational companies. What they do not seem to recognize is the fundamental fact that the multinationals have nowhere to go. Exxon will not let Imperial Oil go and drill in the United States, nor will Gulf let Gulf Canada do that, nor will Shell let Shell Canada do that. They are stuck here in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are stuck with them.


Harvie Andre: It is the Canadian oil companies that are leaving. The NDP likes that. They like to drive out Canadian oil companies because they happen to be privately owned and not state owned. Well, let them vote that way. We in this party believe in public ownership by Canadians, by the Canadian public, by individuals in Canada. We believe in that kind of public ownership. We do not support state ownership. We think it is an abomination. We do not want the people who are running the Post Office to run our oil industry because we do not want to freeze in the dark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, tonight visitors in the gallery may be wondering why we are discussing whether to set a limit of time on this debate. It really boils down to a question of balance between our concept of democracy and of time limitation. When do we draw the line? When can we say that a debate has lasted long enough?
On Bill C-48, according to my information, we debated for 3.5 hours on December 11, for two hours and 59 minutes on December 16, for 2.5 hours on December 17, and yesterday for three hours and ten minutes. Perhaps I understand why the Tories, the loyal opposition on the other side of the House, do not like this bill. They may not like it for a number of reasons. Therefore, the length of the debate will never be adequate.
They may not like the bill because it includes the idea that all existing permits and leases are to be converted to a new regime by the first anniversary date. They may not like the idea that new grants are to be made available in the usual case by the public tender process with ministerial discretion to negotiate final terms. They may not like the idea that terms and conditions of grants are to be designed and negotiated in accordance with perceived geologic promise and other conditions. They may not like the idea of the Crown having an interest position of at least 25 per cent in all Canada lands including all existing and future grants. They may not like the idea of a Crown corporation having the right to demand from

January 13, 1981
S.O.	75c
relevant operators geological, well or other proprietary information. They may not like the idea of a minimum acceptable level of Canadian ownership in frontier Canada oil. They may not like a release to the public of periods of confidentiality applicable to various types of proprietary information. They may not like the proposal of an operating licence being a prerequisite for carrying out certain activities. They may not like the provision for oil spill liability on the part of operators, in particular providing for absolute liability. They may not like the proposition for funding regional environmental studies.


An hon. Member:: They may not like closure.


Mr. Caccia:: The hon. member will forgive me but 1 have to do it this way. They may not like the minister setting a fair market value of production at the wellhead or extraction plant. They may not like the idea that the minister may have the authority to order production to commence and be delivered to a domestic market in quantities and at prices specified in the order. They may not like the provision for ministerial authority to prohibit a proposed transfer or assignment of interests on grounds of public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: If I were a Tory, 1 would not like it. I can well understand why they do not like the idea of a time limitation. This is why they are on the opposition side, this is why they are Tories. We happened to propose these ideas and we like them. Where it becomes difficult is understanding the opposition, especially on the part of the New Democratic Party. Do they oppose any of these ideas? Perhaps we might hear from them. All we have heard from them this afternoon was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) saying that perhaps we should have an idealistic system whereby we should have a timetable for all the bills at the beginning of a session, without really knowing the implication, the weight and the controversies each bill might have down the road, two or three or four months hence. I ask you how you can do that. It sounds like a very neat, fine theoretical idea but this is not the place for fine, theoretical ideas. At the beginning of a session you decide which bills you should debate and which bills you should not debate. You cannot divide the world into three nice little categories. That is not the way this Parliament works and it will never work that way.
What do we conclude from this? We conclude that we have debated this matter for a total of 12 hours and nine minutes. Therefore, it becomes a matter of judgment. It is a matter of judgment because there will be some who will always think that it is not enough. There will be some who think it is adequate and some who think it is too much. This will be the dilemma which this House will face every time we have Standing Order 75c before us. That is what it has been, a dilemma. It will always be a controversial question. Where do you draw the line between democratic debate and time limitation? That is where you must draw the line sometime, somewhere.
It seems to me that while we are debating this matter, and continue to debate it, the OPEC countries might again increase the international price of oil. So what are we really achieving by debating this matter on second reading after 12 hours of debate already? Why do we do this when all of us who are interested have the opportunity to look at the bill in committee? What the Canadian public probably does not know is that once we give second reading to this bill this matter goes to a standing committee for scrutiny, thorough examination and for the calling of witnesses.


Mr. Gamble:: Nonsense!


Charles L. Caccia: The hon. member says "Nonsense", perhaps he has not worked in a committee yet, but those of us who have know how thorough the work of the committee can be, if you want it to be. We know how many witnesses you can call.
So it is understandable that the Tories do not like this bill. That is why they are Tories and that is why they are over there and we are over here. There is a point where a line must be drawn. Oil and gas are too important public commodities to leave at the hands of the private sector the way it has been left until now. We have taken important steps with respect to hydro in this country over the decades. I think every provincial government is to be congratulated for having done, a long time ago, what we are now attempting to do with other natural resources. What is at stake here is the public interest. This commodity is too valuable and too essential to the Canadian public to leave to the whims of the private sector. I challenge anyone from the NDP over there to rebut this point. I will be most surprised if they do. I am very surprised they do not want to see this bill move ahead and go into committee as quickly as possible, since they know very well that is the place where the action is.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House all I can say is, Let us get on with the job. While we are debating whether or not we should conclude the debate the OPEC countries may raise the price again. We are demonstrating to the Canadian public that we cannot find the balance which is needed in this difficult time in deciding whether or not, after 12 hours, there has been adequate debate. This seems to be the very essence of the question raised by rule 75c in the debate in which we are engaged tonight.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) wanted to hear from the New Democratic Party. I am glad he raised that-since some of our members represent constituencies where there are no Liberals or Conservatives-in the west and in the resource areas. The hon. member wanted to hear from us and then, after three speakers, he does not want to hear from us. His government brings in closure, which he supports. That is the most inconsistent position I have ever heard in my life. Which is it? Do you want to hear? Do the people you represent in Davenport want to hear? Do they want to hear these views? You told us that you want to hear them. If you want to hear them, then why are you bringing in closure?
January 13, 1981

Mr. Speaker, we have had three speakers in this debate. Closure is not a question of balance or a question of judgment, as the hon. member for Davenport said. It is an extraordinary measure. 1 will speak of closure first and then I will speak with regard to what we are talking about tonight-time allocation. There have been four instances of closure since 1956. There was the pipeline debate of 1956, the flag debate of 1964, the debate in 1969 over new rules in this House and the debate in 1980 in respect of the constitution. Time allocation has been used eight times since 1971 by the Liberals and once by the Conservatives. Those are extraordinary measures. This is an extraordinary and shocking performance from the government tonight.
I listened to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who is a man whom until tonight-and I hope 1 can find a little bit of charity after tonight-I admired very much. He appears to be a very mild-mannered and intelligent minister. But beneath that mild manner there is a deep unreasonableness and there is an hysteria with respect to bringing in this measure. As his leader would say "an hysterical attitude". This closure is not necessary. He made the argument that the bill has to be referred to committee. Well, the committee is not ready yet to hear all the witnesses. He made arguments about there being other energy bills. I happen to know the government does not have other energy bills ready. They do not have an agreement with the provinces about that matter which was raised by one of the members here, the matter of grants for conversions and so on. They do not have an agreement and they are not ready with a bill. So that is not the truth. They should not say that in this House. There is not a more important subject to debate than energy. It was said by the minister that this bill is only part of the energy policy. He says we have debated the energy policy, therefore, we do not need to debate this bill. The minister is wrong there because this is different from what we have been debating. We debated the orders under the Petroleum Administration Act. The member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and I made motions in that debate. But in that debate we debated federal-provincial relations; we debated co-operative federalism; and, we debated pricing. Those are the kinds of things we debated.
We have not debated many of the different but important features of this bill. Who does the minister think he is fooling when he says we have debated these matters? There are matters relating directly to this bill which this House will never hear debated in principle because the government brought in time allocation. Such an example is the issue of offshore oil. Who owns the offshore oil, the provinces or the federal government? An hon. member of my party wanted to speak on that topic in this debate. It will be a most important topic to the country over the next ten years, but it will not be fully debated because of closure.
A member of my party intended to speak on the west coast environment. The government does not have any members from the west coast, so a speaker was appointed to tell the government of the problems there. I hate to tell the hon.
S.O.	75 c
member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) to perhaps support the government in this matter but the hon. members opposite do not want our support, they want to cut off the debate. A member of my party intended to talk on the dangers of the environment of British Columbia and the offshore.
Another member was to speak on the concerns of the fishermen about the Hibernia discovery. Another speaker was appointed to speak about the labour problems and Canadian content. We wanted to fix up parts of the bill to make it better, but the government cut off the debate. Is that logic? I wonder if the President of the Privy Council is as reasonable as he pretends. There have been 12 hours of debate on this bill.
As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) quite properly said in his comments, "It was not time enough". Closure is used only when there is a flagrant abuse of the time of the House. The onus should be on the government when it brings in closure to show that there has been abuse of the time of the House. In this case there has been no flagrant abuse. I have just listed a number of topics which should be debated, and there are a number of others.
It seems to me the way in which this Parliament should operate is the government should propose and the House of Commons depose. But this government wants to propose and depose as well. I say to the ministers and the backbenchers opposite that they are on a very slippery slope which was started by imposing closure on the Alaska pre-built debate, then the constitutional debate and now finally on this bill.
Some people have said it does not matter because they are the government. People who are watching now and who will not be able to watch when the bill goes to committee, are saying, "Well, does it really matter". I say to the people out there, because you cannot talk to the group across the floor in view of that sheer Liberal arrogance, although it might be for their own good, this debate would have petered out later this week or next week. It is an indication of the attitude of arrogance across the way. Robert Stanfield said in a speech in Victoria last year that members opposite do not really care about Parliament. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) eloquently stated earlier tonight that this is not the way to run Parliament or to treat Parliament.
Every member of this House should be given a chance to speak because that is why we are here. The people of Canada want to hear their members speak. I say to the member from New Brunswick and other members opposite who are heckling me that they are on the beginning of a slippery slope and they are showing the people of this country-and that is why they are having problems with the constitution-their attitude. The people of this country are afraid of the attitude of this government. It is not the kind of things they are doing. People are in favour of Canadianization of the oil industry. But the government will not receive the support of the people for Canadianization, for the 25 per cent backing of Petro-Canada or the very good provisions which need to be augmented and fixed up and debated in this House.
6168

January 13, 1981
S.O.	75c
It is in the interest of the government to show its intent to ' the Canadian people, but instead it goes against its interests. It is an example of Liberal arrogance. They may not care about this Parliament, but we care about what goes on here and we will stand up and fight for its rights. We will continue fighting for the rights of Parliament until they drag us out of this House.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly in support of the motion. I believe 12 hours of debate on second reading of a bill is enough in light of what the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) said on December 11, as it is reported at page 5671 of Hansard:
The broad objectives of this legislation are worth while and are certainly acceptable. One might go so far as to say they are motherhood; they are intended to increase production and Canadian ownership, as well as to provide a very stable tax environment. I agree with the minister when he says that it is important to have this legislation. We have been waiting for it for about ten years now.


Harvie Andre: Read on.


Herb Breau: Certainly, I could go on just like everybody else on that side of the House. The hon. member speaks from both sides of his mouth. He has made these comments at the beginning of his speech and then he says something else at the end.
The hon. member from the NDP who preceded me said that every member should have the right to speak in every debate. Every member does have the right to speak in every debate, but is he suggesting it would make sense that on every piece of legislation on second reading and third reading every member of this House should have an opportunity to speak.


An hon. Member:: That is absurd.


Herb Breau: Of course, it is absurd.


Ian Deans: No one has said that. You do not understand.


Herb Breau: Your colleague just said it. Hon. members opposite get very upset when we try to show how absurd are their ideas.


Mr. Blaikie:: Your problem is that you cannot get upset about anything any more because you have been here too long.


Herb Breau: Members who talk about muzzling Parliament and limiting debate do not even have the courtesy to let me finish my speech. I do not intend to take up 12 hours.


Mr. Murphy:: Sit down, I would like to speak too.


Herb Breau: Between 1972 and 1974 I watched the NDP trying to participate in some way to keep a majority Parliament-


Bob Rae: How can you sleep at night, Herb?


Herb Breau: -working.


Rodney Edward Murphy: No one gives a damn about you people any more.


Mr. Hopkins:: Have some respect for Parliament.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) is interrupting the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), and I wonder if he might be allowed to continue.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much.


Herb Breau: I have watched the NDP trying to advance their position and to accomplish something, but it is only when they receive the heat that they flop. I saw them trying to support a minority government in 1972, and trying to live up to the responsibility of defending what they proposed two and three months prior. After a certain time they cannot take the pressure because they are not responsible people. What an hon. member suggested this evening was that there should be no limit on the debates, that we should wait until they peter out.
You should just wait. Mr. Speaker, I hear members hollering words that I do not find parliamentary and which I never use in this House. I would suggest they should be courteous and listen to other members as we listened to them.


An hon. Member:: Say something, then.


Herb Breau: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when an opposition member or a group of opposition members decide they want to hold up legislation, they can do so for quite a long time.
The government has to accept responsibility if it wants to manage the House of Commons properly, put a legislative program before Parliament and it has the responsibility of asking the House if it wants to limit debate. This is what the government is doing today according to the rules. It is saying that the majority in the House is making a judgment that four days of debate-12 hours of parliamentary debate is sufficient on second reading of a bill when we do not conclude consideration of the bill. It is simply to send it to committee to give members an opportunity to study it in detail, to hear witnesses and experts. After that the bill is reported to the House and there is another stage when amendments can be put and finally, the third reading debate. When hon. members opposite talk about muzzling Parliament, obviously they are either dishonest or do not know exactly how the system works.
I believe that four days of debate on second reading of this kind of bill is enough when members believe the bill is important and should go forward. Despite what the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre said, some members of the official opposition seem unsure that they can agree that this bill is important. The NDP say they are for the bill. The principles of the bill are good.


An hon. Member:: We never said that.
January 13, 1981


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Herb Breau: The hon. member now denies supporting it. One of their members just finished saying he wanted other members to speak in support of that bill.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


Herb Breau: Fine. 1 will read his speech. I want to give the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) an opportunity to speak. Despite the fact that 1 had 10 minutes to speak I will conclude now because 1 want to give him the opportunity to speak.
I support this resolution because it is fair, it is in accordance with the rules, and four days of debate on second reading of the bill to send it to committee is sufficient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is going to recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who is now entering the debate on the subject matter of Standing Order 75c. 1 might add that debate will conclude at 8.39.
After the vote is completed, the Chair will again recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on the subject matter of Bill C-48. 1 wanted to make that clear to hon. members who may find the procedure curious. It is simply that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has time remaining to him.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) for these five minutes.
I should like to put my remarks together rather tightly by saying that last night when I spoke in the debate on Bill C-48, 1 pleaded with members of this House not to regard this as an ordinary bill. This is Bill C-48, regarding oil and gas conservation regulations in Canada lands. I tried to point out to the House and I appealed to the government, particularly to the government House leader, to consider that this was not a judges bill or any one of a number of bills in a $50 billion budget, but that this is the future of Canada. The administration and management of our non-renewable resources is the most important function the federal government has because only the federal government has jurisdiction over Canada lands which comprise several times the total area of Canada, including the land at the bottom of the sea.
This discussion we have held in 12 hours has not even touched the vital principles of this bill. The vital principles require honest and sincere reflection that would take weeks to resolve. We do not have weeks so we have to try to compress the discussion.
Let me give an example. Last night I said 75 per cent of the oil and gas discovered in Norl,h America in the last 100 years remains in the ground, mostly because of bad regulations. The horrible blunder that was made in the American states to the
S.O.	75 C
south and the four western provinces of Canada is a sin that should not be repeated in the Canada lands.
This is not a partisan statement, Mr. Speaker. The future of our country is at stake. We have disgraced ourselves in the four western provinces with the type of regulations we adopted. It was so easy to accept the regulations that the Americans brought with them but when I say Americans, I mean the big international oil companies. As a result of those regulations, the Americans ended up with nearly 90 per cent of the ownership of our oil resources in those western provinces. We do not hate them for that, Mr. Speaker. It was the regulations of the provincial governments which made it impossible for small Canadian companies to grow. We front-end loaded those industries so heavily with bonuses, lease fees, permit fees, every way we could; we gouged those oil companies trying to get as much out of them as we could in the very beginning. As a result, only the big companies could carry the load, for the long pay-out.
1 can remember the day when there were 400 Canadian companies in the west. Few survived but thanks to some amendments to the regulations, a few more have grown in the last few years. In the regulations before us now, Mr. Speaker, we are repeating the same mistake that the provinces in western Canada made 50 years ago.
Parliament did not fail in 1957 and 1961. We brought in regulations that were the best in the world. They were not perfect but at least they preserved about 60 per cent of that total wealth for the Canadian people-and I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people. In the regulations finally brought out by the Liberal government in 1976, about the same proportion could be argued. We accepted the mistakes of the past and we tried to correct them.
I appeal to the House, Mr. Speaker, in God's name-in the name of Canada, do not stop us from trying to bring these ideas forward.
I have four amendments that I want to put forward in this debate. It will take several weeks to get through. I think that on behalf of Canada I have a right to make those constructive amendments. That is all I am asking. Put down this closure regulation or take the bill out entirely so as not to disgrace this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 8.39 o'clock the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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

January 13, 1981


S O. 75c
Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion there is no doubt about it, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table, Monday, January 12, 1981, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Applications Rules, 1971, laid upon the Table on Monday, January 12, 1981, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-54, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 12, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, we are going back to the debate on Bill C-48, and these are my final remarks in a speech I started last night. Last night 1 was trying to make the point to the House that the regulations before us now are turning back the clock of regulation-making in Canada by 60 years. Under these regulations we are repeating the same mistakes made by the four western provinces in the late 1920s in which billions of barrels of oil were left in the ground. They need not have been left in the ground had we had the proper regulations. These regulations have been before the federal House since 1957 when we wrote off the previous regulations which gave everything to the oil companies in the Canada lands and brought in regulations which were finally made official in 1961. Those 1961 regulations were promulgated after we received the approval of the oil companies both in the petroleum association and in the independent petroleum association. Those regulations received the support of Parliament and were the best effort of any country at that time in trying to bring in regulations that used the principles of conservation to try to get maximum recovery and at the same time to try to give the maximum value of the oil and gas to the people of Canada who own them in trust for future generations. These lands are mostly in the Northwest Territories, the islands of the north, the waters between the islands and the offshore areas as far as we can go across the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic until we meet the nations across the way. That is the international law. As 1 pointed out, these regulations assume that our sovereignty only goes out 200 miles. That is not the international law. There is no mention in it of the 200-mile limit. That is simply a conclusion drawn from the fishing rights and from the convention which is being put through the United Nations at the present time. The current international law gives sovereign rights to the state to develop the bottom of the sea as far as it can go to the nearest nation. The only parts of the world which have boundaries between them are around the North Sea. They were the first nations to realize the importance and the value of the wealth at the bottom of the sea. But we too are beginning to realize it now in Canada. The government comes to the House and tells us that 12 hours is enough in which to debate regulations which do not only involve hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth but which involve a wealth which we will have to measure in hundreds of trillions of dollars. Every part of the world knows that the most unexplored part of the world is in northern Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to maintain order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The future of Canada depends on these regulations, not the future of some CCF-NDP alliance with the Liberals. All this chatting going on with long lost friends is not the purpose of this debate in the House. 1 am talking about the wealth for the future of this nation which is in greater abundance in these northern and offshore areas than in the land, and yet we vote closure on the debate on a subject such as this when it has not even been debated.
It is not only the Conservative party or the Liberal party that has had to go through this. Last night I mentioned that, after many, many long years of delay and frustration, the Liberal party came out with regulations in 1976 which met nearly all the difficulties not met in this bill. They made a good effort so that the Canadianization of this industry could be made possible. This bill takes away the Canadianization in the Canada lands and drives out Canadian companies. It is just the opposite of what the government's purpose is. Surely a government has the right and duty to listen and should not make that mistake blindly. In 1976 this was recognized by the government, and the official opposition supported those regulations. The regulations of 1961 were just about as good. They were not perfect because no regulations are perfect, but other governments have had the same problem. I am old enough to remember a government coming into power in Saskatchewan where there was not too much oil and gas. It was a CCF government which wanted the oil industry to come to Saskatchewan because the minute that government was elected, the companies stopped their search and moved out. After six years of Gethsemane, trying to make up its mind, here was a government dedicated to the theory of socialism, a government dedicated to the principle of public ownership of our resources, faced with the reality of how to get these resources developed. Would you like to hear now the words of Tommy Douglas who was then the premier, delivered 30 years ago in Saskatchewan? 1 will quote from the official record which reads as follows:
A provincial government has three alternatives with reference to the development of natural resources. The first is that they can alienate all the resources by turning them over to private enterprise.
That is what the federal government did before 1957 to our great resources in the north. He went on to say:
The second alternative which faces a provincial government in the development of natural resources is for the provincial government to develop those resources themselves.
That is blunt enough. It is private enterprise by itself, the government not bothering it, or the government doing it completely. I will read his decision as follows:
The third alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to combine one and two. The third alternative is to say that we will allow private enterprise to come in here and look for minerals, that if they come in we give them security on two points: one, that if they find certain resources, they will be allowed to develop them and, secondly.

January 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that if they set up the machinery for developing them, they will not be expropriated. Those two categorical assurances have been given and I repeat them here, this afternoon.
1 was present in the legislature when that speech was given. 1 knew the Gethsemane that man had to go through, to give up a lifetime to a socialist concept in the face of serving his people the best way he could. He picked the alternative which the Conservative government did in 1957 for the federal lands, the Canada lands. He picked the alternative which the Liberal government did in 1976 after studying the regulations for ten years.
Tonight we are debating a bill which turns the clock back. One does not do it honestly by just handing all the resources to the big international companies, nor by a device which puts in so many front-end loading charges that it takes all the money at once and kills the goose before it lays any eggs. The only companies which can survive that type of thing, as we have found out in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, are the ones which generate capital from their own reserves or earnings. It would mean the end of all companies that were not worth several billion dollars in reserves. It would mean the driving out of small Canadian companies.
What is the use of standing up in the House and saying that we will Canadianize the north? During the days of war this government turned over the whole north to the Americans for nothing. I remember that. Also 1 remember in 1958 when I sat on the other side saying in the House that they would all be driven out, and they were. We got that territory back; 1 claimed those northern islands and those waters for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Americans accepted that claim, and George Ball, their secretary of state, knows they accepted it. Here we are many years later trying to recover the mistakes so that we can manage and develop the oil resources efficiently.
My first recommendation is to throw out this legislation entirely and redraft it. We should go back to the basic fundamental principles of the 1961 and 1976 regulations. If we do not take it out, we have no alternative but to move major amendments of principle, not of detail nor things discussed in committee. The principle is decided on second reading.
I should like to refer to the four principles which I think should be included. First, we must write in statutory form the principle of conservation. This will mean the maximum economic recovery of every field. We must write in statutory form the elimination of all front-end loading charges. No profits should be taken out of the north, no royalties or taxes should be taken out of the north, until the debts are paid off. The enemy of the government, the people and the companies is the same enemy-interest rates. Interest rates not only kill off the little guy, they kill off the big guys as well.
My third principle would eliminate the back-in proposal of 25 per cent which is a breach of contract and put in its place, in statutory form, a contractual agreement which gives the
partners fair and equal treatment variable according to the type of oil and gas they are discovering.
My fourth principle is that Canadian ownership should be a minimum of 50 per cent of all shares of any private company. All shares of public companies should be available on the stock-markets of the world for that part of the subsidiaries which operate on Canada lands, so that Canadians can freely own this country as individuals and not through some government corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add a few remarks this evening on the continuation of this debate. I do not know that I will use up all the time available to me with respect to it, but there are a few comments I feel I should make respecting this particular bill on behalf of the constituents of Essex-Kent as well as the persons across Canada who I think do not share some of the comments I heard being put forward today. In fact, I think they need spokesmen to put the other side of the coin.
I was particularly concerned today when I heard the preliminary remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the debate which was concluded by the vote a few moments ago, that is, on the introduction of the motion limiting the time on this particular debate. I was particularly concerned with respect to certain areas of this bill which he suggested were obnoxious, and I must confess that-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member unduly, but I want to bring something to the attention of the House. We have just had a motion which cuts off debate at a stage where there had been an equal number of government and opposition members speaking with respect to a bill.


Mr. Evans:: Official opposition members.


Walter David Baker: Official opposition members. I think it is a gross discourtesy for the government, having moved the way it has done, to now put up speakers to cut off the right of other speakers in the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order.	*


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I appreciate Mr. Speaker's comment. In the same vein, and with all the respect I can have for another member of Parliament, anyone who would stand and suggest that any member who in fact has come to the House in the same manner as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) should not have the opportunity to stand does not understand what this place is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: You voted for closure.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I have every right to speak in the House, as does the hon. member or anyone else.
January 13, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: We will all afford ourselves equal opportunity to speak. I will not be asked to sit down by the likes of that hon. member or anyone else like him. I have the right to be here and I will exercise that right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How did you vote on closure?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member asks how I voted on closure.
1 hope he was in the House when the vote took place because I am sure his party needed the votes for his particular thinking.
I voted with my particular party.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For closure, so sit down.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I believed in that particular vote. 1 voted exactly as my party. The interesting thing is that the hon. member who is yelling across the floor obviously does not understand the rules. He prefers to believe that in fact closure was imposed. He still does not understand the difference between closure and a motion under Standing Order 75c. I suppose if we are here for 100 years he would not understand the difference. So, there is no point in going over it again even for his benefit.
As I started to say, I was particularly concerned by the references of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to Bill C-48 and the right which would reside in the energy minister from time to time. I must say that certainly he was more specific than that, but I would not downgrade myself to the point of name calling or naming individuals in the House which 1 thought was supposed to be beyond what was allowed in the House and beyond the decorum of the House. Notwithstanding that, he suggested that he had an abiding fear that any particular minister would have resident in him the right to make the kinds of decisions which Bill C-48 makes resident in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
I question whether or not that right hon. member had an opportunity to even look at the bill before he made those charges and allegations. Remembering that in fact that kind of charge was made just a few hours ago, I took the opportunity to leaf very, very quickly through the bill in order to see whether it became abundantly clear a person who had a cursory knowledge of the bill, or at least who had perused it, would be able to find anything in the bill which controverted that and made obvious that in fact it was just not true. Mr. Speaker, in the first flip 1 found section 46(6), which makes review by the court mandatory. 1 also found section 43(5), which made review by the court mandatory when decisions were being taken which, in fact, were being disputed by the parties involved. I find it incomprehensible that a responsible individual in this House would stand up and attempt to convey the position that a minister would have boundless authority when there was such care taken in the bill to assure that there would be judicial review of these decisions. I think it unfortunate, indeed, that that kind of cry, that kind of hysteria, would be promoted when the bill speaks for itself with respect to those issues.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), 1 believe it was, who spoke just before me, was speaking of killing the goose which is laying the eggs, or before it lays the eggs. The people from Essex-Kent maybe do not understand the oil and gas industry as well as they would like. They have sent a member to this House who undoubtedly does not understand the oil and gas industry as much as he would like. They have a grave suspicion, not of the government which they are convinced is put in place to look after the best interests of all Canadians, but in an industry which has not come to Canadians, by and large, with lily-white hands, or as we say in court, with white gloves. They are still very suspicious of the actions of this industry. They are suspicious of the kinds of profits which have been taken. They are suspicious of the kinds of returns that industry seeks and claims it needs in order to continue exploration. One need only go to the television commentaries coming to us from our southern neighbours to find that they are beginning to make some rather interesting remarks. On my return from the United Nations just a few weeks ago, prior to our recess, I heard great concern being expressed in this House with respect to the number of drilling rigs purportedly moving south. I must confess I was rather concerned about that kind of report and the kind of concern being expressed by members on the other side. I was rather surprised to find, on examination, that in fact the number of drilling rigs in Canada this year exceeds the number of rigs we had in place last year.


An hon. Member:: That is wrong.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Hon. members opposite claim that is wrong. 1 am sure subsequent speakers will be able to give them the actual figures.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Some 258 at the end of the year.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests there were 258. I suggest he tune in again tomorrow when he will find out exactly how many were, in fact, here at the end of the year.
I found it abundantly interesting, and almost amusing, to find that American commentators from the mid-west were showing pictures of some drilling rigs moving out of Canada and going into the American mid-west, where they were setting up to drill in particular areas which they thought would be productive. Indeed, the people who were running the rigs were saying they were finding a higher percentage of oil-producing holes than there were here in Canada. Notwithstanding that, I found it most interesting that having moved into the United States the first claim they were making against the territorial governments was that they were not giving sufficient incentives, returns or profits to afford the companies the kinds of returns they needed. That was less than a week after they had arrived. They were trying to use a little leverage, let us say, with respect to one state versus another. They were suggesting

January 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
they were prepared to move their rigs out of the state they now found themselves in to an adjoining state unless a better deal was arranged.
I had the opportunity to do a fair amount of negotiating before I came to this place. I can understand that you always attempt to get the best possible deal. 1 can also understand why it is that Canadians begin to say somebody must speak on behalf of all Canadians and not just for a particular interest group. 1 can understand that when these kinds of claims are being made somebody must have the authority to speak on behalf of Canadians on the other side of that table, to examine those negotiating stances in order to determine that nothing unfair is being sought.
I have risen in this House a number of times and I have advised hon. members that I happen to be particularly lucky in representing an area which has something in the order of 80 per cent of the greenhouses in Canada. They are terribly high energy-consumptive types of operations. The operators are deeply concerned about the cost of fuel, heavy oils, light oils and natural gas. They are appreciative of the fact that we are moving into an era when we must have a reduction in the relative cost of natural gas versus the cost of oils. They are concerned because they recognize and remember something about sharing, which they took as rather bitter medicine in the fifties and sixties when they were asked to buy oil for those energy-consumptive industries in excess of the world price, when they could purchase oil from Canadian sources-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Peanuts!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon! member says "Peanuts"-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was 25 cents.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member yells across that it was 25 cents a gallon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A barrel!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I suggest to the hon. member there was a $2 difference with respect to the price they were being asked and demanded to pay versus what they could have purchased that same oil for, delivered in Montreal from offshore sources.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You do not know what you are talking about.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member would prefer to think I do not know what 1 am talking about. When one starts getting close to home and close to the truth there are those who argue you do not know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way they want to argue, then that is fine. But the people in my riding, the people back home are the people who use this stuff and who in 1950, 1952 and 1955 were asking questions of the federal government. They said it was correct and right and they were prepared to share with those people in Alberta who should have an industry, who were producing what they would like to have. They said they were prepared to pay more, and they did pay more. Those people
remember and they are telling me that sharing means sharing for all Canadians, not just some Canadians.
It took some time to create that industry and I suggest to you that the constituents of Essex-Kent do not begrudge what they paid in order to see that industry created. They are happy to see that industry there. But when they see the kinds of returns-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask for a clarification from the hon. member. Did he say in the years 1950, 1952 and 1955, or did he say 1960, 1962 and 1965?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, I spoke of 1950, 1952 and 1955.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was no pipeline and there was no oil policy until 1960.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of an absence of an oil policy. It is interesting indeed, is it not, that for years the opposition has sat in their places, and sometimes stood, and decried the fact that the government in place had no energy policy? They said what a terrible thing it was that the government had no energy policy. They said what an inordinately stupid government we had since there was no energy policy. Now they find an energy policy coming into place, something which they could not do themselves, and they say, "My goodness, what a terrible policy you have come up with. It is too little, too late. It is never the right thing." Unfortunately, when they had the opportunity to do it themselves, they could not. It is just unfortunate, indeed.
I would love to get into a dialogue with the hon. member who is sitting on his posterior across the way and sending out little messages, but I have only a few moments left to me and I would prefer to use my time constructively.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Be quiet.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Perhaps 1 will do him the courtesy which I trust he will give me from this point on, that of listening to what he has to say should he choose to participate in the debate.


An hon. Member:: He does not know what he is talking about.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I am still prepared to give him the courtesy. An hon. colleague is concerned about how long it has been since the alarm went off and aroused the hon. member. I am concerned that he has been here and fully cognizant all afternoon. To conclude the thought I was trying to put forward with respect to the constituents whom I represent, they see the absolute need in this country for the concept of sharing. They recognize that in the absence of that kind of sharing history will not record in 50 years from now that we successfully
January 13, 1981

created a nation, but rather that it evolved into a group of little states.
1 am proud to say that this concept of sharing has been learned and is believed in with great depth and great feeling in my constituency of Essex-Kent. It does not mean we have to be self-centred. It means that my constituents are deeply concerned about the aspirations of western Canadians, about their future as Canadians, and about corporate Canadians. I have not spoken to anyone who has suggested that any company in this land which is prepared to take the risk as, for example, in the exploration of oil and gas, should not receive a profit. But these people are deeply concerned about the level of those profits and how those profits are used.
Many people are quite happy with the state of their lives in Canada. They are happy with the progress which this nation has been able to make, and they are concerned that we will not be able to continue if, in fact, such economic disorientation takes place through the change in the value of oil and that they will no longer be able to see the kind of move forward which this nation has been so fortunate to enjoy.
So they ask their representative to come here and demand of the government that there be a co-ordinated and logical energy policy and that the policy be based on the concept of sharing. They demand that the returns which come from that product be used to prosper the entire nation, not just a small portion of the population. They demand that that policy have the over-all effect of strengthening the nation and not just a small area of the nation.
When the minister explained this particular policy, he indicated it was a strong, nationally-oriented policy based on the principle of security, opportunity and fairness and that it constituted a deep commitment by the government to a secure energy future for all Canadians. The bill underscored in his view a basic confidence in the country's ability to confront the world energy situation on our own terms and in our own way. I think it is important at this stage of the debate to repeat that comment. It is easy to lose sight of these matters as the debate progresses.
1 think it is important we once again take a look at the bill as a whole in an attempt to assure ourselves that it, in fact, answers some of these needs which have been expressed by my constituents. The bill must ensure that Canadians will have fair and reasonable access to energy. In my view one can find that in this bill. It must ensure that the producers of energy receive fair and reasonable payment for the goods they produce. I recognize there are those in this House who are arguing that this is not the case. 1 am prepared to accept that possibility, but I would prefer to hear the claim made by the people involved in the industry, which means getting this bill into committee and calling for witnesses from the industry so that we may question them intensely in order to find out their complaints.
I am satisfied that no bill brought forward by this government or any other government in its initial stages is likely to be perfect. The bills can always be improved upon, and, indeed, 1 am prepared to admit, as 1 am sure are other hon. members,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that after it goes through the committee process and comes back to the House as law we will find there is still room for improvement.
But surely our process demands that we must get it to the committee stage. That is one of the reasons I voted earlier this evening to get the matter to committee, so we could begin the process of hearing the views of the industry itself. 1 believe the industry has already had some opportunity to put forward its views. I am not convinced that this legislation before us is the product a bureaucrat or a politician dreamt up in a restaurant somewhere. Surely it came after some consultation with the industry and with Canadians who have an interest in the end product.
1 am concerned that whatever steps we take with respect to this legislation and other legislation which will follow we will in fact ensure and assure that exploration, development and production of domestic oil supplies continue. 1 am even more concerned that this continuation be handled by an industry which is essentially Canadian. 1 am satisfied that if this nation wants to control its energy future, it must do so on its own terms and not terms arrived at in New York, London or Amsterdam. 1 want to be assured that the people sitting on the boards of the companies have the interests of Canada, its direction and its future, as their main concern.
I recognize that any corporate board must consider the bottom line, which is the profits and loss statement and how their shareholders will receive their actions. I am also satisfied from having seen what has happened in the past when shortages were declared and oil destined for Canada was suddenly diverted to other areas that this kind of thing will not happen again. I am satisfied that I speak for my constituents when I suggest that this must be a primary concern with respect to this bill. I am satisfied as well that a reasonable return and a reasonable profit will see the continuation of exploration as it has gone on in the past. It may be fair from a negotiating standpoint to withdraw certain services when we are attempting to negotiate the future.
It may be fair to suggest that in fact terrible things are going to happen and everything is going to stop but I am a little more optimistic than that, Mr. Speaker. If any suspicion lies in the actions and activities of any part of this particular equation, contrary to the position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition today, I prefer to be suspicious of the other side of this negotiating table.
There has been some comment with respect to the loss of revenues and profits that is expected and the resultant decrease in exploration. I wonder why the relevant shares to be taken out of our energy exploration and the energy that is found would be viewed as unfair. The 10 per cent the federal government has received up to this point cannot be viewed as a grab. As a result of the new policy, the federal government will still receive far less than the lion's share but it will be asked to bear a higher proportion part of the exploration costs. It will also be asked to implement national policies from revenues

January 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that have been decreasing. It is a policy which at the end of the day is still going to provide the industry with what is viewed by the small and moderately-sized businessman as a rather lucrative return.
I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day the prophecies of poverty will be fulfilled.
1 am satisfied this legislation and the legislation to follow is what Canada needs and what Canadians want. I am satisfied that the use of PetroCan as an instrument is something Canadians spoke about and voted on in the last election campaign. I am satisfied that this bill and others 1 look forward to debating are the verbalization of the policies this government brought forward in the last election campaign. I am satisfied that at the end of the day history will judge we have been able to Canadianize the industry, that we have been able to get a grasp on our energy future, that we have been able to reach toward and will achieve in the not too distant future self-sufficiency, and that in so doing we will demonstrate to the people of Canada that we did not present a pie in the sky scheme to them in 1980 but a workable policy, one that was well founded and that considered Canadians first and, at the heart of it, a policy that recognized that this whole country depends upon and is based on sharing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to speak profoundly against Bill C-48, primarily on environmental grounds. I am happy to see the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Leblanc) in the House tonight. By the time I complete my speech, perhaps on Thursday, 1 hope they will have some idea of the major deficiencies in this bill.
1 should like to deal first with two concerns and to remind hon. members opposite why members on this side of the House are so concerned about the motion that was voted on a few minutes ago.
I would remind hon. members opposite that Bill C-48 was only delivered to members of the opposition 48 hours prior to the debate which began before Christmas. Prior to closure being brought in there was only time for three speakers from this party. 1 would also point out to hon. members opposite that not only does this do damage to the spirit of this place-a place that I have not belonged to for very long and a place that I find to be profoundly discouraging when closure is brought in on matters such as this-but it also damages democratic politics, something that is becoming increasingly fragile throughout the world.
I would remind hon. members opposite of a second point. It is cabinet that directs the production of these documents. Dozens and hundreds of bureaucrats and technocrats work to produce them. The only time available to members of the opposition to make a general overview of the weaknesses and deficiencies of legislation is during second reading. I find it quite confusing, as I am sure most Canadians do, to hear members on that side of the House claim there are abundant
opportunities for issues to be raised in committee. I have sat on enough committees in the year and I have been in this House long enough to know that the general view of a bill cannot be dealt with in committee because there it is considered clause by clause and witnesses are heard.
In my view it is the serious weaknesses and deficiencies of this bill that have caused debate to be closed off, not that the debate on the bill had become repetitive.
I should like to turn now to the question of the environment, Mr. Speaker. Having read the bill carefully and having read the entire "National Energy Program" carefully, 1 can say that Bill C-48 is essentially regressive and reactionary as it concerns the environment. At a time when scientists around the world are demonstrating the need for drastic increases in site specific studies, especially on the marine environment, the minister has proposed a meagre $15 million revolving fund for an area three times the size of the ten provinces of this country combined.
Bill C-48 is the greatest jurisdictional grab of the century that has taken place anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker.
We are being told this is the greatest Canadianization legislation in the energy field in Canadian history but, in fact, quite the opposite is occurring. What is taking place is the redistribution of Canada's offshore directly into the hands of the minister, the cabinet and the oil industry.
Rather than a careful scientific approach to the environment, which we might have expected, we find a clause outlining a $15 million fund for environmental studies of an area three times the size of the ten provinces combined! All of the power to regulate is given to the cabinet. I have gone over the bill clause by clause and I will advise all members of the House to do the same in order to learn how many clauses put matters in the hands of the governor in council which, of course, is the cabinet.
All the power for inviting environmental studies is at the absolute discretion of the minister. I would advise hon. members to read subsection (6) on page 28 which reads as follows:
The minister may direct payment from the relevant fund of the reasonable costs of such environmental studies of Canada lands as he determines are necessary in order to decide whether or not to authorize exploration or development under this act or any other act of Parliament.
What we have is a very limited fund, if we keep in mind the size of the area that requires pre-exploratory and pre-drilling studies. 1 would remind hon. members of the outcry that came from the scientific community regarding Lancaster Sound.
There is a great need for capital to be available for scientific studies so that we may learn what has to be preserved and how it can be preserved if we are to do anything at all in that area, let alone move large LNGs or enter into exploratory drilling activities.
If we consider the bill clause by clause, we see that a lot of power is given to the minister. He is given extremely discretionary powers. As members to my right have pointed out quite correctly, these powers should not rest solely in the hands of the minister but should lie either with an independent board
January 13, 1981

or directly with this Parliament. Lots of land will go to the petroleum industry.
This evening or perhaps the next time I have an opportunity to speak, I intend to deal with the jurisdiction that is established in this bill over the marine environment of British Columbia. In the limited time available for debate, most Canadians will never find out that the marine environment of Canada, the mammals, birds, salmon, groundfish, shellfish, kelp, beaches and estuaries are to be given over to the petroleum industry without any protection being provided for these areas or, in most instances, for the public interest.
This bill slices up a huge territorial and value-laden jurisdiction and gives it to a small group of individuals without including a clause that would protect the existing industries, the environment, the flora and fauna or the public interest.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under S.O. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: I rise this evening to emphasize some points I raised in the House last November 19 concerning the Garrison River diversion project in North Dakota.
The Garrison River diversion project in North Dakota is quite a large irrigation project. If it is completed, it is designed to irrigate something like 250,000 acres of farmland, to supply water to several communities in North Dakota and to supply recreation for people who reside in North Dakota and for people who travel to North Dakota to take advantage of this recreation. Hon. members may ask why we are concerned about it in Canada. If this project is completed, it will transfer water from the Missouri basin to the Hudson Bay basin. We are concerned over what this transfer of water will do to our fishing industry in Manitoba and the salinity which will result and flow down the Souris River into the Assiniboine River, into the Red River directly then into Lake Winnipeg and on into Hudson Bay. The chief concern is what can happen to Manitoba's fishing industry. If this project is completed, with the transfer of water from the Missouri basin to the Hudson Bay basin, will come foreign species of fish, biota which are not necessarily compatible with the fish and fish diseases we have in Manitoba. There is quite a large freshwater fishing industry in Manitoba. Estimates I have seen indicate there could be as much as a 50 per cent to 60 per cent reduction in
Adjournment Debate
the kind of fish we catch in Manitoba. In addition, with the transfer of water, we will inherit these problems with our fishing industry and they are non-reversible. We can transfer water and if we have salinity problems we have a chance to turn off the water to stop the salinity. But once we transfer water which has foreign species of fish, fish biota and fish diseases, we have those problems forever. In essence, there is really no compromise in terms of the transfer of water.
Tests have been carried out by collecting fish and fish eggs. Some have proved to be satisfactory and some have proved to be not satisfactory. Even though there are ones proved satisfactory through engineering studies, we all know that accidents can happen. Once the water comes containing foreign species of fish, we will have infinite problems. That is the concern 1 have.
Politics affect these situations. Politics are such that there should be some area of compromise. In other words, we can get together and have one position as far as the Americans are concerned and one position as far as the Canadians are concerned and reach a compromise. However, in this case there really is no compromise. If the water comes, we get the problem but in terms of an engineering solution and as far as reaching a compromise at a political level, there is really no compromise. That is why I think it is most urgent this government understands the situation and do all it can to convey that feeling to the United States.
It is clearly a federal responsibility because it is an international concern by crossing international boundaries.
I wish to quote from the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Among other things, it says:
-the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
That was agreed to by a ruling of the International Joint Commission several years ago. Since that time the Garrison project has proceeded. It has proceeded slowly. Parts of it not completed yet will transfer water from the Missouri basin to the Hudson Bay basin. My concern is that every dollar spent on Garrison makes it that much tougher to reverse. We know that as projects get nearer to completion there is impetus on the people funding those projects to see full realization of the project. Every dollar allocated, in my opinion, brings the project closer to completion and closer to the transfer of foreign fish species and diseases into Canada. Last spring there was an omnibus bill in the United States whereby funds were allocated to the Garrison project at the same time money was allocated to the problems they had in connection with the St. Helen's eruption on the west coast of the United States. Therefore funding is available to the Garrison to bring it closer to completion.
1 suggested in the House on November 19 that the federal government show some responsibility and leadership by setting up a committee of members of all parties of the House to travel to Washington at the appropriate time when the con-

January 13, 1981
Adjournment Debate
gressional committees are meeting in order to convey our concerns to the new administration. By having a committee made up of members of all parties in this House, the Americans would know this is a non-partisan issue. In addition, we would let them know in quite strong terms that Canadians are opposed to the completion of those parts of the Garrison which could cause problems in Canada.
1 urge the government tonight to accept in principle what I have asked, namely, sending an all-party delegation of members of this House to the United States at the appropriate time. I might add, in conclusion, that this was done quite successfully in the spring with regard to a fisheries problem we had with the United States at that time. I applaud that kind of initiative and hope the government will see fit to follow up on that this evening.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the government will ensure that the incoming administration and the new U.S. Congress are made aware of the very serious objections we have to the Garrison diversion project. Officials in Washington have already started to identify new contacts which will be necessary to ensure that our concerns about the project are fully understood and our interests respected. We intend to make it clear to the new U.S. administration under President Reagan, as we have to President Carter's administration, that Canada is opposed to any plan which would involve inter-basin transfer of water carrying with it harmful biota, and that we expect the U.S. to live up to its international obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The suggestion that a delegation representing all parties in the House go to Washington to emphasize to the U.S. Congress the united position of all Canadian political parties on this issue is one which the government is seriously considering. We appreciate the willingness of members of the House to act in support of the government's efforts and we recognize the value of a joint approach. We think it would be wise, however, to allow the new administration to be established in office before making any formal representations. In the meantime, the deferral of funds associated with those parts of the project which might affect Canada is an encouraging step. If they intend to proceed with some aspect of the project, the U.S. State Department will likely propose consultations, preceded possibly by a technical level meeting, soon after the Reagan administration takes office. At such time we should be in a better position to evaluate the possible effectiveness of an all-party delegation in support of other efforts to ensure that Canada's interests will be protected.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-EMBARGO ON GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO U.S.S.R.-INTERVENTIONS FOR NEXT CROP YEAR
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote a few minutes this evening to a very important issue which concerns all Canadians, specifically grain farmers in Canada. I refer to the grain embargo initiated by President Carter in January, 1980, as a result of the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan, its effects and what the government intends to do in terms of payments to farmers. There are various opinions as to the effectiveness of that embargo. Personally, I think it is minimal.
That has also shown up, incidentally, in the fact that in the crop year 1979-80, which is when the embargo was on, the United States government actually exported more grain than it had ever exported before. It exported somewhere in the neigh-bouhood of ten million tonnes more than in the previous crop year, so in terms of the amounts of grain leaving the country the embargo as such really had a very minimal effect and, if it had any effect at all, if we were in Russia we probably would see some hogs, cattle or chickens which might have gone hungry, but it certainly did not have any effect on anything else.
The question which must be asked of the present government is what will be the position it will take if we end up with another embargo. That possibility is quite distinct. I believe food will be used more and more throughout the 1980s as a weapon. It may be used as a political weapon, but nevertheless it will be used as a weapon. As the world population increases and as the production of food will not keep up, food will become very important to many countries in the world.
Russia and Poland seem to be sparring with each other over whether Russia should invade Poland and over what kind of sanctions Russia should use on Poland. My contention is that we will see another embargo. If it is not a government embargo, there certainly is every indication the United States longshoremen will embargo all grain moving to Russia. This would have a very dramatic effect on grain prices throughout the whole of the trading world. I think Canada should be giving some consideration at this time to the position we should be taking if that happens. I hope the minister is willing tonight to give us some indication of the thinking which has been done either in the Canadian Wheat Board or the department for which he will be answering this evening. On the specific question of the amount of money which should be paid to western farmers because of the embargo itself, it should be between $72 million and $75 million. That is approximately the drop grain prices took throughout the early part of that embargo period, and obviously there is not any party in this House which would consider it fair and just that the western grain farmer should carry a political decision of that magnitude by himself.
This is why the Conservative party, backed by the Liberal party when it came into power, indicated there would be payments going out to the farmers.
My question is twofold. First, in general terms what position will Canada be taking in terms of another future embargo? If it is not in 1981, surely it will come in the next few years as food becomes more of a political weapon than it has ever been before. Second, in terms of the payments which will be going to farmers, when will they be made? When will the money be paid, and am 1 correct that the amount is in the neighbour-
January 13, 1981

hood of $72 million to $75 million which will be paid to western grain farmers?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the question of restraints on the export of grain to the Soviet Onion has been raised many times in this House. It is clear that the government has one outstanding commitment in this regard, and that is with respect to the level of compensation to be paid to producers for losses attributable to the policy of export restraints. If an announcement on compensation has not been as prompt as some hon. members would wish, it is because of the many factors involved. For example, it has been pointed out that international wheat prices fell in the mid-1980s, but they picked up shortly thereafter and are now at very high levels. It is not at all clear to what extent the drop could be linked to the U.S.-led restraint policy. Nor is it clear to what degree the Canadian producer has suffered. Over all, Canadian grain exports were up 20 per cent to a record level in the most recent crop year. Senator Argue has just announced the final payments for the 1979-80 crop year which involve a cash flow to western producers of some $730 million, and the senator has indicated he will be revising the 1980-81 initial payment levels to reflect the continued trend in international prices.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let met point out that the government remains committed to compensation and expects to be able to make an announcement very soon.
With respect to the restraint policy itself, I would draw the hon. member's attention to Senator Argue's speech in Calgary last November in which he announced the resumption of normal grain sales to the U.S.S.R., along with a new export contract for 2.1 million tonnes of grain for delivery this crop year. He pointed out, however, that Canada continues to oppose the Soviet aggression which led to the restraint in the first place. Naturally, with a new administration taking over in Washington, the government will look forward to hearing its views on the future of this policy.
Evidently, this is a difficult policy issue, but I think it is fair to say that the western farmer is not at present in an unduly difficult position and that to the extent that he has lost income, he can expect to be compensated in the near future.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-JUSTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT STORES TO INCREASE FINANCE CHARGES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: The issue which I wish to raise tonight, Mr. Speaker, goes back to May 14 when I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Basically, the question was whether he would be prepared to take personal action to protect the consumers of this country against what are certainly gouging usurious rates proposed by retail companies for retail financing charges. Let me restate the problem. It was companies like Hudson's Bay and Sears which proposed, because of the government's high interest rate policy, to jack up their retail
Adjournment Debate
credit charges to roughly 24 per cent or 25 per cent. A newspaper clipping on an announcement by the Hudson's Bay Company indicates that their annual rate would effectively be 26.08 per cent a year. It is interesting to note that that particular company in its formative years had a motto which was "skin 'em alive". I notice that those interest rates seem to apply.
I asked the minister, on the broad announcement that Master Charge and Chargex, the oil companies and many of the major retail stores within this country, were making fairly dramatic increases in their interest rates, whether he would be prepared to have his department investigate and report back to the House on the justification for such usurious rates in their finance charges, and if he was not prepared to do that, whether he would be prepared to ask the heads of those companies to come into his office to express to them his serious concern about their treatment of consumers in this country. The minister's answer was very curious. He said, "It is not my fault. Why don't you ask the Minister of Finance?" On another occasion when he was asked the same question, he said, "Well, if people do not like using credit cards, they have other alternatives, such as not using them at all."
The basic problem is that in many retail endeavours you do not have a serious option to using a retail credit card. For example, to rent a car now, unless you carry $300 to $500 in your pocket, you have to use that credit card. Many people whose incomes do not warrant the use of credit cards are encouraged and pressed by the retail companies to use those cards. They are asked to charge rather than to pay cash, and in fact over a period of time we have seen a dramatic increase in persona] bankruptcies which can be attributed not only to high prices but to the use of credit cards and the very high interest charges on those cards.
My question goes back to May 14, but certainly it applies to last Sunday morning when CBC radio ran an extensive program concerning bankruptcies. It appears to me that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intends to do nothing to protect the consumers on this issue. From what I gather, his approach to it is that the way to control this easy access to credit and these high finance charges is to increase the number of personal bankruptcies in this country. That certainly seems to be the trend that is appearing. Also it seems that these companies are not the ones that get hurt when personal bankruptcies occur. I have numerous letters on my desk from small businesses and credit unions which have also been pinched by these personal bankruptcies. They can ill afford to lose the amount of money they have lost.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General, on the oil company investigation, the position on the urea-formaldehyde problem and automobile safety problems, has completely failed to fulfil his responsibilities to the consumers of Canada. Certainly I expect simply a continuation of the answer which he gave on May 14, but I thank the House for the opportunity of expressing my serious con-

January 13, 1981
Adjournment Debate
cern and the concerns of those people who brought this question forward.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental reason for high interest rates in Canada has been the actual and expected level of inflation in this country, the nexus in these circumstances being that lenders demand higher rates of return and most borrowers have been able to pay those higher rates of return for funds. The federal government places a high priority on the lowering of inflation and thus interest rates.


An hon. Member:: Elow can you possibly say that?


John Leslie Evans: Contrary to the popular belief of the NDP, interest rates are a function of inflation and not the reverse, as I have said many times before-apparently it has not been heard. I believe the monetary policy being pursued by the Bank of Canada contributes in a substantial way to the accomplishment of the objective of reducing inflation and subsequently to the reduction of interest rates. A high level of interest rates in the short run is an unavoidable necessity to reduce inflation and interest rates in the longer run. It is conceivable that the Bank of Canada could lower interest rates somewhat for a short period by increasing the supply of money in circulation, but 1 suggest that policy has a basic flaw. The basic flaw is that by increasing the money supply in the way which perhaps would be suggested by NDP policy would aggravate inflation and indeed result in much higher interest rates than are currently the situation.
The source of the recent pressure on both the foreign exchange value of the Canadian dollar and interest rates has
been the rapid acceleration in short-term rates in the United States. This has led to an outflow of funds from Canada and pressure on both Canadian interest rates and on the exchange value of the dollar. The Bank of Canada has followed a reasonable and balanced policy of taking part of that pressure in higher interest rates and part of that pressure in a reduction of the exchange value of the dollar.


An hon. Member:: And credit cards.


John Leslie Evans: High interest rates across the board naturally affect the borrowing costs of financial institutions. Financial institutions and other lenders have to borrow in the capital markets themselves. They are the very institutions about which the hon. member talks, the individual financial institutions and retail stores which have to borrow money to finance their credit operations in the capital markets.
The hon. member raised the point whether it should be 10 per cent above prime. I suggest to him that credit card operations are operations which allow the individual to make use of credit at no cost whatsoever until at least 25 days after the bill is received which, in most cases, gives the borrower up to 45 to 60 days of free credit. The institution is paying interest on that credit, but that credit is not costing the borrower anything if he pays off his bill. The hon. member indicated that he has to have a credit card to rent a car, but he has 45 days on the average after making that transaction to pay for that without paying any credit charge whatsoever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, January 14, 1981