1981-10-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The minister responsible for housing offered to intervene personally to assist Canadians faced with losing their homes due to excessively high interest rates. I have received, and I am still receiving, calls and letters asking for help from constituents in just such a predicament. Details of each case are being forwarded to the minister for prompt action by him. In light of the fact that these pleas for assistance are urgent and real in nature and they undoubtedly represent only a small percentage of home owners in serious trouble, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the minister, hearing through Members of Parliament from Canadians in dire straits, now acknowledge the gravity and magnitude of the situation and pressure his government to stop passing the buck to the banks, accept its responsibility, and prepare an immediate plan of financial assistance for home owners.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. There continues to be widespread anxiety regarding the government's acceptance of responsibility to thousands of Canadians who were lured by government incentives into insulating their homes with urea formaldehyde foam. The Minister of
State, when parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, stated as follows:
-the government anticipates that its provisions will be made known in late November-
Last week nearly 300 residents of the Kitchener-Waterloo area met to discuss the effects of UFFI on their families' health, on the costs of removing foam from their homes, and on the inability to sell their contaminated dwellings. On their behalf I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urge the government to announce the date in November when it will make good on its moral responsibility for the victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Tuesday last the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) promised she would table in this House a list of recommendations from the report entitled "Obstacles" which the government had publicly claimed to have implemented, and since the minister has not yet carried out her promise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to table in this House, forthwith, the list of 56 recommendations from the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped which the government claims have been put into effect but which no one knows very much about.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 30, 1981


S O. 43 VIA RAIL CALL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I rise on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have expressed their absolute opposition and dismay to the elimination of one fifth of Canada's rail passenger service, and to the callous way the government moved unilaterally to dismantle VIA Rail's transportation service. In view of the government's refusal to grant the people of Canada the right to be heard on this most important matter, and given the lack of clear and definitive policy on rail passenger service, I move, seconded by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark):
That this House instruct the minister to rescind the order in council, and that a special select parliamentary committee be struck to hold full public hearings and to establish thoroughly a clear rail passenger policy and a clear VIA mandate so it can function on a sound financial and legal basis.
In support of this motion, I hereby submit for immediate consideration to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport, the findings of a special Progressive Conservative task force on rail passenger service, entitled "The Last Straw", which hopefully all members will agree to have appended to Hansard of this date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas, even though this is the year of the disabled, the Trudeau government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -is building its transportation policies on the backs of the disabled, particularly wheelchair Canadians-for example, it plans to remove one fifth of the rail lines in Canada, a mode of travel used widely by the disabled-and by not even providing a "Washington Chair" as required equipment on Air Canada flights, which would enable the severely disabled at least to get to the washroom, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House urges the government to continue the rail services and to provide a "Washington Chair" on all Air Canada trips lasting two hours or more.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise seeking the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. On Wednesday, October 28, in Toronto, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined three guiding principles for this country to follow in order to combat our number one economic enemy, inflation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais):
That collective restraint, equity for all, and growth be the guiding principles of this Parliament and of all three parties in this House to reduce inflation in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, while half of all Canadian native languages are in British Columbia, three of these are presently extinct and the remaining 27 are also in danger of extinction unless something is done to protect them.
My colleague in the B.C. legislature representing Victoria, Mr. Gordon Hanson, who is in the House today, has been fighting for the establishment of a native language institute for British Columbia and has received widespread support from Indian bands, churches, unions, and university departments.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That members of this House recognize the vital importance of language to culture and social wellbeing, and that we endorse the proposal for a native language institute for the province of British Columbia, with a commitment to work with the British Columbia government toward its early establishment.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
October 30, 1981	________________COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the executive interchange program adopted by the energy minister, whose executive assistant is also on the payroll of the government-owned oil company, Petro-Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this novel program be extended to the private sector so that executive assistants could be supplied to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce by Chrysler Canada Ltd.; to the Minister of Communications by Rogers Cablesys-tems Ltd.; to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by B.C. Packers Ltd.; to the Minister of Finance by the Royal Bank of Canada; and to the newly appointed Minister of State in the other place by those companies participating in the uranium cartel, so that these ministers can also avail themselves of unbiased and informed advice in the national interest.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was, in a previous incarnation, the co-chairman of the Unity Task Force; and whereas the railroads of Canada, which he now wishes to begin to dismantle without consultation, played such a vital role in unifying our nation, and in particular British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of Transport and the cabinet reconsider their action on VIA Rail cutbacks and take the advice of those learned members of the other place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
DEBATES________________________


S.O. 43 ARTS IMPACT OF FEDERAL TAXES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed by this House to include in his upcoming budget at least the majority of the recommendations contained in the 1977 Disney Report entitled "Federal Tax Issues of Concern to the Arts Community in Canada" so that that community will at long last be able to begin to believe that their government cares about the survival of the arts in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and request the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion.
In 1977, when the hon. member for Shawinigan was Minister of Trade and Commerce, his department gave a $1.5 million grant to the multinational corporation Gulf Canada for the purpose of refitting its Shawinigan plant in the hon. member's riding. Considering the fact that the agreement is to terminate this year and that Gulf Canada is threatening to sell its plant without any guarantees for its 350 workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That immediate action be taken by the federal government to protect these jobs and that in future, the federal government obtain better guarantees for
these special grants.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 30, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. Yesterday Statistics Canada reported a 28.3 per cent decline in building permits issued for the month of August which, of course, will reflect a sharp decline in housing starts. At that trend, we are heading toward approximately 135,000 starts for the year, which represents a shortfall of 85,000. I might add that this confirms the predictions of the secret document which the minister has tried to disown. What advice does the minister have for Canadians who are now facing this critical housing shortage, which he finally recognizes as a housing crisis?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to respond to a question from the hon. member for St. John's East since the House reconvened. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his new post as housing critic.
At the outset, I would like to say to him that I have been aware of changes and trends in the industry. I would indicate to him that on my last visit to his city, for example, I had the privilege of participating with the minister of housing for Newfoundland in the start of some social housing. That is one of the things the government has been able to do, to assist not only the supply of housing but also in the question of affordability. In both those cases I think we have demonstrated that we are of assistance.


FORECAST SHORTAGE OF ACCOMMODATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I wish I could be gracious and return the compliment and congratulate the minister on his performance. Obviously I cannot do that because we are in a serious situation, largely as a result of the inability of the minister to respond to this crisis in the housing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to reflect the concern of many people in this country. The figures released by Statistics Canada yesterday indicate that there is a crisis. We are facing a zero vacancy rate by 1983 in the major markets of this country. Indeed, we have almost arrived at that point now.
According to his own document, this shortage will create a black market situation in which families will be forced to double up. It will bring on a Soviet Union kind of housing situation in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what we are facing. Non sequiturs of the minister in this House will not serve to address this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Was that the question, or does the hon. member now want to pose his question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I will now ask my question.
Given the fact we are facing zero vacancy in the major markets of this country-metropolitan Toronto is down to .4-I ask the minister, since he has met recently with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, what advice he received from them, and more important, what advice has he offered his colleague, the Minister of Finance?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could assist the hon. gentleman if he is indeed looking for some opportunity to congratulate me for work in this ministry since I came into office. I would like to point out, for example, that the statistics he referred to are out of date. The starts across this country, not only for the month of August but September as well, are higher than the figures to which the hon. member has referred. As a matter of fact the average is somewhere in the region of 180,000. They are not the figures which he selectively used in one sector.
If the hon. member is looking for some good news, he should bear in mind that starts since last year have increased from a low seasonally adjusted average rate of approximately 150,000 to the latest reported figures for the month of September, which show approximately 180,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised. In this House the minister tried to discredit a document he himself signed and submitted to the cabinet, so it is not surprising that he would now try to discredit a report released yesterday by Statistics Canada.


EFFECT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES ON INFLATION IN INDUSTRY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister can enlighten the House. Since the Minister of Finance has indicated that high interest rates are the only means of bringing down the rate of inflation in this country, can the minister tell the House how this policy of high interest rates can reduce the rate of inflation in the housing industry?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in my first response I indicated that in starting this new term the government did a number of things to address the industry, which we recognized was facing difficulty and would face trend difficulties. For example, in his budget last
October 30, 1981

year the minister reintroduced capital cost provisions to assist on the supply side of housing through the MURB provision. That step taken by the government, which was abandoned by the government of which the hon. member was part, increased housing starts this year by an additional 20,000 units. In addition to that we have addressed the needs side or the affordability side by increasing co-op and non-profit social starts, to which I referred, and I talked about one project in the hon. member's city. We do appreciate that there are difficulties for the industry, and we have taken steps.
Returning to the comments of the Prime Minister earlier this week in metropolitan Toronto, the objectives are, on the one hand, to introduce growth in the economy while, at the same time, being sensitive and sensible with our steps.


HOME OWNERS FACING SHARP INCREASES IN MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the minister responsible for housing. It is supplementary to those of my colleague. I want to put to the minister a question which is on the minds of many Canadians today. Both he and the Prime Minister have stated that the budget will address the problems only of those people who are "in dire straits". Is the minister saying to those people who are not in dire straits, those who are facing sharp increases in mortgage payments over the next few years, that they will simply have to adjust their personal budgets to these very significant increases because of circumstances which are totally beyond their control?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to respond to members of the official opposition when they raise questions pertaining to housing. For example, on September 20 on the CBC the hon. member for St. John's East indicated that, in response to what we all understand to be difficult times for the industry, he was promoting massive government intervention. I take it that is not the position of the hon. gentleman who has just raised this question. As a matter of fact, in debate with me last weekend his point was that we had to show restraint and that there had to be a tailor-made response to an individual problem. I must admit I find it difficult to answer members of the opposition because I do not think they have their act together.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister will get it straight; I am not asking the question for myself; I am asking it for those people who are faced with this problem and see the very fabric of our society changing because of the problems created by the government of which this minister is part. These are problems respecting interest rates and mortgage rollovers. The minister should not be answering me but answering those people who are watching.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for housing is the minister who has
Oral Questions
taken the full brunt of the problem of very substantial mortgage payment increases these home owners face. Will the minister explain to this House how he can continue to be part of a government headed by a Prime Minister who displays the height of cynicism by asking these very same people to tighten their belts while we still have government spending increasing at runaway rates?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I can best answer that by contrasting what this government has done with what the previous government did while the hon. member's party was in office and had responsibility for the same kind of problems. I urge that this government continue, for example, to address supply. We have reintroduced the capital cost allowance which the previous government dropped. This government will continue to address affordability and those people who are impacted the most because of these problems. We have increased social starts through co-ops and MURB. Those are two very good examples of how to tailor a sensitive and sensible response to the situation.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address some questions to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister said he will cut more trains unless more people use them. Will the minister tell us how he expects more people to use the trains after November 15 when he is slowing down schedules so that it will take 14 hours longer to go from Edmonton to Vancouver, including an overnight stay in a hotel, and with an average speed between Sydney and Saint John of 19 miles per hour? Will he explain to the House how that will encourage more people to ride the trains?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this morning the CBC really made news of that matter. Yesterday I was asked what was going to happen in terms of the future of railway transportation. I said it would all depend on the use that people make of trains. I felt I was reciting a banality equal only to the comment of someone who has lost an election, such as I did in 1972, and, when asked why he lost, says it was because he had fewer votes than this opponent. I thought I was saying something extremely conventional.
This morning it became almost an announcement that there would be future cuts in the system. I want to emphasize very strongly that this is not so. In fact the 20 per cent reduction that we are making is to prevent that, and to strengthen the 80 per cent that remains. What my friend will see in the future is

October 30, 1981
Oral Questions
much more concentration on giving good service in order to attract clientele. That is what will happen.


ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister still has not explained how more people are going to use trains which travel at a horse-and-buggy speed. I raised this with the minister yesterday. Has he, or will he consider as an option or alternative to abandoning these passenger routes using the Amtrak system of accounting for VIA Rail instead of the costing order of the CTC, thereby saving $164 million based on 1980 costs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I always hesitate to tackle in debate my hon. friend who is obviously an expert, internationally recognized as such. I am only a minister. When he says that about Amtrak, it does not take anything away from the fact that the same phenomenon of route reduction is also occurring in the United States. Therefore there must be some fundamental reasons for the phenomena we are now witnessing.
On the subject of costing order 6313, the financial relationship between VIA and the railways, CN and CP, I have said before that there is a task force on the subject and that the president of VIA has views on the subject. There is a debate on this subject at the moment. I was quite willing to bring this to the transport committee in order to get the enlightenment of the members of that committee. However, that debate on the costing relationship between VIA and the railways is not of such magnitude, of such economic proportions, that it changes fundamentally, if we are going to give VIA the proper equipment, the necessity of transferring money from the deficit of operations to the capital budget of VIA. That is the fundamental need.
The choice cabinet had was to have five years of uncertainty, five years of agony, and five years of debate on the subject. We assumed our responsibility and we said let us have the confrontation, let us have the debate, let us have the flack now because in the very best interest-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister conveniently forgets, in his protestations about wanting to appear before the transport committee, that it was his government that refused an order of reference to the transport committee the other day. Since the minister knows of the details of the strategy that were spelled out in a secret cabinet document prepared by the Minister of Economic Development,
a document entitled "Priorities for Federal Government Economic Development Policies and Expenditures to the mid-1980s", I should like to ask the minister if he will confirm that the first priority for the new transportation strategy contained in that document includes termination of the Crow rate, recommendations for reduction of CN Marine subsidies, reassessment of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, greater cost recovery for federal services like dredging, navigation and icebreaking, and that there be more cost recovery to the user-pay principle?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The reasoning of the cabinet is very basic. The demand for transportation facilities in Canada, transportation equipment, railway equipment, better airports and so on, is so great that even if my colleagues in cabinet were to give me substantial amounts of money, which they have, we still need to make the best possible use of what I would refer to as the old money. This is what we are now trying to do. I will indeed get some new money for transportation, but at the same time, my marching orders-and I am a consenting adult-are to get the best use of the money immediately available. That is what I will try to do to the best of my ability. I have already discussed with the ministers of the maritime provinces a new approach to federal transportation support-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON MEGAPROJECTS IN ALBERTA
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has been two months since an energy agreement was signed with Alberta. As the minister knows, there is still a delay in the Alsands project north of Fort McMurray and the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake. Is the minister or officials of his department carrying on negotiations with representatives of these two projects? Does the minister still support the construction of the two megaprojects? If negotiations are being carried on, could the minister inform the House when he will advise the House on these negotiations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, officials of the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have been meeting with officials of the concerned companies. Those discussions are proceeding well. However, I cannot state any particular timetable for the conclusions of those discussions. Both governments are trying to expedite those discussions. Obviously, in some instances, the companies themselves have to do further work and further examination of their forecasts.
October 30, 1981


STATUS OF COLD LAKE PROJECT
Jack Wendele Shields: I have a supplementary for the same minister, Madam Speaker. The government has a $40 million stake in the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake, a project scheduled to proceed within a year of the energy agreement being signed,-actually a year since last June. Is the minister carrying on negotiations with Imperial Oil? Does he see the $40 million that the government has invested in this project at stake at this time? Or will the project proceed?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we arc very keen on getting both the Alsands project at Fort McMurray and the Cold Lake project proceeding. The negotiations are being pursued by the officials. I have had an opportunity to discuss both projects with the heads of the corporations at various times in the last few months. We certainly hope we will reach satisfactory conclusions soon with regard to those two projects.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who has just returned from Prince Edward Island. With the recent signing of the third and final phase of the P.E.I. Comprehensive Development Plan, the federal government appears to have served notice that it intends to take over some programs on the Island previously cost shared between the two levels of government but administered by the province of Prince Edward Island.
This new approach has forced the government of Prince Edward Island to eliminate some 160 public service positions. Will the federal government try to lessen the blow to provincial public servants who have been laid off by making a real effort to hire those same public servants when the federal government assumes control over programs previously administered by the province?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for DREE is not here today, and I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs is also not here today. However, I have certain knowledge of the subject, and I would be pleased to make the information available to the hon. member. First of all, the action of the federal government taking over the direction of certain aspects of spending in the province has not accounted for lay-offs of the kind that the government of Prince Edward Island is trying to justify.
Last week in Prince Edward Island the Minister of Veterans Affairs pointed out that the total number of employees that might be affected by the direct involvement of the federal government would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35, 45 or 50 of these employees. It is because the government of the island has not made sufficient provision for placing
Oral Questions
employees whom it knew would be laid off in any event as the program winds down toward the end of a 15-year period which expires in 1984.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question, there may indeed be opportunities for some employment in other sectors by reason of the federal government's involvement. However, I have no specific knowledge in that regard. I expect the minister for DREE will be addressing that question, together with his counterparts in other ministries, who have responsibility for certain aspects of the over-all program in Phase Three.


ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board obviously does not have the facts. Since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is not present in the House today, and he has not been in the House for question period since Parliament reconvened, I will direct my question to the Acting Minister of DREE. The federal government seems hell bent on obtaining as much political and partisan credit as it can get from expenditures of the federal government in areas of provincial or overlapping jurisdiction, by controlling more programs itself rather than having those programs administered by the provinces.
Following the recent signing of the P.E.I. Comprehensive Development Plan, has the federal government identified the specific programs in the DREE area that it intends to take over from the province? Has it looked into this matter? Has it addressed the problems? Has it identified the programs it plans to take over and, if so, what are those programs?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member opposite I might shed a little light on the question that he asked. The number of positions that were terminated by the government of Prince Edward Island was 161.1 indicated publicly, as have my colleagues in the various line departments, that for the number of programs directly affected where direct delivery of programs will imply a reduction in employees, that reduction amounts to between 38 and 51 positions. Unfortunately the government of Prince Edward Island has chosen to lay off individuals who, from the beginning of the plan, were never cost shared and were clearly in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is a question that it must answer.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has given his word to the Native Council of Canada that he will meet with them to discuss matters that he will be discussing with the first ministers next week. Will the Prime Minister indicate

October 30, 1981
Oral Questions
whether he intends to keep his word, or is that another promise to be added to the already long list of broken promises?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in this particular case the fact that I have not met with native leaders yet is due to causes which the hon. member knows well, such as the fact that we have suffered several weeks of delay in getting on with the final stage of the constitutional debate. I always indicated to them that I intended meeting with them this fall. That will still be the case, but I find it more useful to meet with them after we have settled this constitutional matter in a way that they will know what role they will be able to play in the next stages. The hon. member will recall that in the resolution before the House provision is made for meetings over a period of two years with the native leaders. I am waiting for that resolution to be accepted to give effect to that undertaking.


TIMING OF MEETING
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Native Council of Canada clearly understood that the Prime Minister's word related to a meeting with the Native Council prior to his meeting with the premiers next week. They will now know that his word is like the snow-it goes away in the spring.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is hardly a question. That is a comment which is very far from the truth.


Mr. Paproski:: Then why are you answering it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How can the hon. member say that the native people know that? They did not know when I would be meeting with the premiers any more than the hon. member. The agreement was that we would meet sometime this fall, and I say that I will keep that agreement. Whether it was to be before or after the premiers' meeting was never discussed with the native leaders. The hon. member knows that. He is just making up things, as he often does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether press reports are true that Her Majesty's portrait will not be included in a new series of postage stamps to be issued next year?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


David Michael Collenette: If this is true, can the Prime Minister assure the House that such a change does not reflect government policy heralding the diminution of the role of the monarchy in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I realize the monarchy is not a subject which interests hon. members opposite, but I know that on this side-


Mr. Andre:: At least blush!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You hear the groaning, Madam Speaker. We are not groaning on this side. They are goaning over there.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You are whining.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: People on this side were concerned by an article which was shown to me, appearing in this morning's papers, that indicated the 1982 stamp program has not been given final approval. That is true, and that is why the Post Office will have to publish its first stamp in January without an absolute figure on that stamp as to the amount of cents that the stamp composes. But as to the final decision on whether the Queen will appear on any stamp in 1982-


Mr. Stevens:: A fill-in stamp.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the article says that this decision will be made later this year. I can tell the House that that decision has been made, that there will be a Queen on the stamp in 1982.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Mitchell:: Now, how about the economy?


HOUSING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a question which is more important to some people in Thompson. My question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC. It may not be important to Liberal backbenchers, but it is important to the people of my riding. Last week CMHC sent out eviction notices to a number of people who are on strike against INCO Metals. These people are willing to pay partial payments of their rents. This practice is acceptable to private landlords in Thompson. I hope it is acceptable to the minister responsible for CMHC.
In light of the fact that CMHC has over 50 per cent of the rental accommodations in the city of Thompson, will the minister assure the people of Thompson that there will be no evictions as long as there are reasonable partial payments of rents? Will he assure us that in Future CMHC will not send out eviction notices only five days before eviction takes place, in the winter climate?
October 30, 1981


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, this is the first notice I have had of the points raised by the hon. member. Quite frankly I am surprised that any eviction notices went out, because in mid-September I instructed the president of the corporation, attending present discussions on housing and the representations which were made by the public generally, that no notices should go out. I am happy to take the representations to heart. I will bring them to the attention of the corporation immediately.


STAY OF EVICTIONS SOUGHT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the CMHC office in Thompson, Manitoba, dated October 21, 1981. It demands payment or eviction by October 26. It is a form letter; just the date and the amount are filled in, so obviously it is not something new. Could the minister assure us that if these people make partial payments, which is reasonable under the circumstances, they will not be evicted? It is a matter of immediate concern to those people.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I indicated the immediate response I would take, that is, to have the president of the corporation contact the local branch and that any notice of eviction would be stayed for the time being. I will take the representations and convey them to the corporation to take a look at the situation, if indeed it is as alarming as the hon. member pointed out.


EAST COAST OFFSHORE EXPLORATION PERMITS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister recently concluded his third agreement on oil pricing and taxation with a producing province. He is presently attempting to reach similar agreements on offshore oil with the governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Could the minister indicate to the House, in light of these talks, what is happening on the deadline for submitting proposals relating to the new east coast offshore exploration lands in Atlantic Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, certain exploration permits were being considered for issuance by November 10 on significant blocks of land on the east coast. However, the government of Newfoundland requested that we extend the delay for issuing those permits until the conclusion of our discussions in February. In the spirit of compromise and good faith, and in order to advance the discussions and the negotiations, I have decided to extend the delay for consideration of those permits until February 28 and thus fully answer the request made by members of the government of Newfoundland in order to accommodate them in our discussions.


Mr. Clark:: That would be a good date for VIA Rail.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


QUERY RESPECTING STABILIZATION PAYMENTS TO APPLE GROWERS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Agriculture which I will try to compile into one. The minister will be aware that the apple crop in 1980 was overly large and that stabilization payments should have been made then. Also he will be aware that in the winter of 1980-81 there was a tremendous amount of winter kill on the trees. First, when will the stabilization be paid for the 1980 crop of apples? Second, will he put any program into place to assist orchard growers who lost up to 40 and 50 per cent of their trees in the winter kill of 1980-81?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that we make no payment for losses which can be covered by crop insurance. If I understand correctly, there may be reason to pay in one of the provinces where such coverage was not available to farmers.
Yes, we have submitted figures for the stabilization payment for the crop production year of 1980. I think our submission is around $20 million. Yes, it will be considered very soon. I met with the Canadian Horticultural Council this morning to discuss that figure.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the acting minister of justice because the Minisler of Justice is not in the House today. I know the hon. member is aware of serious problems which are experienced by residents of the west end of Vancouver because of the presence of prostitutes and pimps on their streets. He knows that the residents have organized themselves into a group called "Concerned Residents of the West End," to protect themselves. We are talking here about passion in the parking lots and clients in the churches of the residential neighbourhood. The hon. member is also aware that the people in our area feel that the prostitutes have turned the neighbourhood into a sexual marketplace, as the residents constantly write me.
In light of the need for stronger federal legislation to deal with this problem, why is it not on the agenda for the federal-provincial justice ministers' meeting which will be held next week?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the question of the hon. member. I have had the opportunity to enter into

October 30, 1981
Oral Questions
discussions with some of the concerned citizens from the west end of Vancouver on this very important matter. As the hon. member points out so correctly to this House, they have indicated that their neighbourhood is in the process of being destroyed and that action must be taken to stop this intent.
I understand that representations have been made to the provincial government of British Columbia, which is concerned with the law enforcement provisions. Our department has this matter under very active consideration at this time. It is a matter of very grave concern to our government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the acting minister who, of course, as the justice minister, has failed to bring forward any answers. This is not an issue of provincial jurisdiction or municipal jurisdiction; it is strictly federal, and it should be on next week's agenda.
In the past the justice minister has said that the opposition to changes in the Criminal Code comes from women's groups. Would he please tell the House which women's groups have indicated that they oppose measures which would deliver the residential neighbourhood of the west end back to the people who live there and away from the prostitutes and pimps who now control it?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The
question, Madam Speaker, refers to the statements previously made by the minister. I am not aware of those statements, and because he is not in the House I therefore cannot respond to them. However, I do wish to reiterate the fact that our government and the minister are concerned about this situation, and will be taking measures.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who will know that yesterday the government just lost its second case relating to the unauthorized reception of foreign signals from foreign satellites, with the result that the government's communications policy is left in tatters in that area. What is he going to do next?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out, first of all, that this is a prosecution which was not launched by the government, as such, but by the CRTC.
Obviously, it is a question of importance. While I am most sympathetic to the desires of the residents of Newfoundland to
receive PBS, as are many hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and I think we must find some way of seeing that they do receive this type of signal, the decision itself will undoubtedly be appealed, once we have had the opportunity of examining it because, if the initial reports that have come to me are correct, it has far-reaching implications.
The implication would be that any cable undertaking in this country could simply bring in whatever signals it wanted from American satellites and rebroadcast them over the Canadian system. That, in itself, may not be an unfortunate result, when one is looking at the PBS system, but there are a number of other signals on the American satellites, and the proliferation of such signals would endanger the continued existence of the Canadian broadcasting system as we know it. There are a number of other signals which are perhaps not as desirable as the PBS signals. I could mention the three pornographic channels that exist at the moment on American satellites.


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the minister will be aware that the FCC in the United States is deregulating and is prepared to liberalize its policy with regard to international reception of signals. Second, he will be aware that provincial governments have called upon him to begin negotiations with the United States to allow for the reciprocal reception of signals off each other's satellites. Third, he will be aware of the fact that the Therrien Committee, chaired by a member of the federal government's CRTC, recommended exactly that.
Is he now prepared to open discussions with the United States to allow for reciprocal reception of at least a limited number of each country's satellite programs?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, our interest, of course, is in seeing to it that all Canadians receive access to approximately the same number of signals no matter where they live in the country. The major initiative in that regard was taken last year when the CRTC authorized the CanCom organization, which is headquartered in Whitehorse, which is in the riding of the hon. member's House leader. That system itself is making available on satellite four television signals right across Canada-one from a Vancouver station, one from an Edmonton station, one from a Hamilton station, and another one which is basically a French language station-plus eight radio signals. Therefore, vast progress has been made in a very short period of time, making a larger number of signals available to Canadians in every part of the country.
On the question of extending what is commonly known as the three plus one rule, which is really the only subject of discussion at this moment, I do not believe that anyone in this House would want to argue that we should have a completely open sky policy in this country and that we should allow all Canadian cable companies, for instance, to rebroadcast every signal that is available off air or coming in from the United States satellites. On the question of three plus one, we have
October 30, 1981

already approached the American authorities and we have had discussions at the very preliminary state, and we will be continuing those discussions.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the environment. Can the minister confirm reports of dangerous levels of dioxin being found in Lake Ontario fish; would be comment on any hazard there is to drinking water now or in the future; and could he inform the House what steps the government is taking to impress upon the United States President and Congress that they cannot continue to allow their chemical companies to poison Canadian fish, Canadian lakes, Canadian drinking water, and Canadian people?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, there are, indeed, recent indications of detection of higher levels of dioxin in the Great Lakes. It is not entirely clear whether these represent increased levels, or whether it is simply that the sophistication of our detection procedure is now such that we can detect quantities which we were not able to detect in the past. It is a matter of great concern to us.
I met earlier this week with public action groups which are concerned about this issue. We have jointly agreed that it is very important to come together with the province of Ontario to co-ordinate our strategy for responding to this problem. I will be meeting with the officials and the minister, my colleague in the provincial government, within a very few days. We believe that it is possible to continue the very strong representation we have been making toward the United States in relation to this problem. The problem is not, we believe, that there are any new sources of entry of dioxin into the Great Lakes system.


Some hon. Members:: Enough!


Mr. Crosbie:: A lot of acid gas, is all it is.


John (Moody) Roberts: Hon. members across the aisle may not be concerned about the situation of the Niagara River and the content of dioxin in the lakes, but I can assure them that it is of very great concern to very many hon. members in the House-unfortunately, not so many on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Stop talking about it and answer the question.


John (Moody) Roberts: The point, Madam Speaker, is not that there is not so many new sources of entry of dioxin, but more probably that there is leaching to the water system from the old sites of dioxin disposal, particularly in relation to the Hooker chemical
Oral Questions
plant. On that point we have been making continuing representation to the Americans, and we have assisted in the legal process in the United States to try to ensure that those problems are corrected. We will continue with that kind of effort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question, directed to the Prime Minister, relates to a matter with which he will be familiar. In the interview given by his new Minister of State, Senator Jack Austin, to The Vancouver Sun on October 15, 1981, the new Minister of State indicated that he, personally, in his then capacity as deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, initiated those international discussions which led to charges being laid in Canada in relation to the uranium cartel.


John Carnell Crosbie: When is he going to be charged?


Charles Joseph Clark: He said that he could not elaborate on his role because of the government's gag order.
I have two questions for the Prime Minister. One, would he agree to suspend that gag order as it relates to a member of his ministry; second, would he make a reference that would allow his new minister to testify before an appropriate committee of Parliament so that we can determine his exact role in the establishment of the uranium cartel and, consequently, his fitness to serve in the ministry of Canada, and the reasons as to why he was not named among the unindicted co-conspirators?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that what he calls a gag rule is a rule which was brought down to prevent United States law from having-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -extraterritorial effects; in other words, to prevent United States law from acting with compelling force in Canada. That is the gag rule of which the hon. member disapproves. We believe then, and we believe now, that it is important to protect Canadians from being summoned by a writ of the United States government to do things in this country which are legal. We believe that is the proper position to approve.
With respect to why Senator Austin was not named, surely the question should not be addressed to me. It should be addressed to those who conducted an investigation over a period of several months, with independent counsel, and who

October 30, 1981
Oral Questions
brought out a report which indicated that certain actions should be taken and certain procedures should be followed, but they did not involve Senator Austin. It was an inquiry carried out by an independent tribunal, and I do not believe that it is up to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition or myself to second guess that work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Right Hon. Prime Minister would not want to have among his ministers someone over whom a cloud of suspicion hangs, as it does in the case of Senator Austin.


An hon. Member:: There are a dozen of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps some of the hon. members on the government side do want to have that sort of suspicion hang over the ministry, but members of this House of Commons do not want that to occur.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a chain gang.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is quite specific to the Prime Minister. It relates to our ability as a Parliament to judge the fitness to serve in the ministry of Canada of a new minister of the Crown, and to look into the question of the role of that individual, then in the Public Service of Canada, in the uranium cartel. Would the Prime Minister authorize his minister, Senator Austin, to speak with absolute freedom about all aspects of his personal involvement in the uranium cartel?
Would the Prime Minister then make an appropriate reference so that a committee of this House of Commons, which is concerned about the propriety of actions of ministers, could examine Senator Austin, could learn all of the facts of his involvement, and could answer the question as to why people who were inferior to him in the Public Service of Canada are listed as unindicted co-conspirators, but Senator Austin is not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can answer unequivocally that in so far as I know there is no cloud of suspicion over Senator Austin.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's what you think.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members want to make some form of accusation, they can do so. But we know that the commission of inquiry into the whole of uranium matter and the matter of the cartel came up without any indication that Senator Austin had acted reprehensibly in any way. So in so far as any sincere member of this House is concerned, that should indicate there is no cloud of suspicion. If the hon. member opposite wants to invent a cloud of suspicion and then justify that suspicion by saying that we will then go fishing into people's past lives, I suggest that is not a very democratic way to proceed. An objective inquiry took place. The inquiry found no cloud of
suspicion. If the hon. member still sees a cloud of suspicion, let him make an accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, Senator Austin has made an admission. He has also indicated that he is not free to speak fully because of the gag order. That was his testimony. Will the Prime Minister of Canada make arrangements to allow his minister to speak freely and tell the whole truth to a committee of this House of Commons?


John Carnell Crosbie: Remove the gag.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that Senator Austin made an admission. Yes, he made an admission that he was deputy minister at a certain time in history. That is known. The commission of inquiry looked at the actions of the government and of its officials at that time and found no cloud of suspicion.
What does the Hon. Leader of the Opposition mean when he says that Senator Austin made an admission? The Leader of the Opposition could make an admission that he was Prime Minister for a short time. But what does that mean? Does he mean that he was guilty of something, apart from not knowing how to count?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the importation of uranium mined in Namibia by a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited. In September the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed concern that the importation of uranium from Namibia, whether or not it was legal, would legitimize the South African presence in Namibia. In light of that, and if the minister goes along with that, could he tell the House why he allowed Eldorado Nuclear to import uranium mined in Namibia?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there is no infraction of any national or international law, nor any policy of the government that has been established with respect to the action to which the hon. gentleman refers. Therefore, when the hon. member asks me why I do not stop the importation of uranium from Namibia, I cannot because I have no authority to stop it.
October 30, 1981

As I indicated in the interview to which the hon. gentleman refers, we are concerned about such a situation. But at the same time the hon. member has to take into account that settlement attempt by the contact group of five is proceeding very well. This is a much better way to deal with Namibia's problems than concentrating on this one incident.


LEGISLATION SOUGHT TO BAN IMPORTS FROM NAMIBIA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the minister is quoted as saying in a CBC television interview that, whether or not it is a question of law, he is still very concerned about the morality of the issue. In light of the United Nations resolutions of 1970 and 1971 concerning Namibia and South Africa's presence in Namibia, and in order not to violate the spirit of those resolutions, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now prepared to introduce legislation into this House that would prohibit the importation of any goods from Namibia?


Mark R. MacGuigan: No, Madam Speaker, that is not policy at the present time. As the hon. gentleman has correctly indicated, I am concerned about the morality of the situation. The law does not always immediately adjust to morality, and we are in a situation now where there is a reasonable chance of proceeding to a settlement of the Namibian problem in a very short time.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, October 29, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. It was may understanding that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) would announce some time this week that Members of Parliament from this party and from other parties would have the opportunity to lay wreaths at different cenotaphs on behalf of the federal government.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order. He has a question which he might want to raise during question period, but it is not a point of order.
Order Paper Questions COMBINES



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COMMISSION REPORT ON URANIUM CARTEL

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already left the House but perhaps someone could answer on his behalf. In replying to a question posed by my leader with respect to the uranium cartel, you will recall the Prime Minister said that the combines investigation report threw no shadow of doubt nor any other suggestion of wrongdoing concerning Senator Austin. As all hon. members know, we have not seen that report.
My point of order is to ask the Prime Minister to table that report so that all members of Parliament, based on the evidence, could judge for themselves whether any reference to the senator of a questionable nature is made in that report. In short, as the report has now been referred to in debate, I suggest that under the rules the requirement is that it be tabled.


Madam Speaker:: The rule that applies in the House is that if someone quotes from a report, then he or she is obligated to table it. However, I am sure the Prime Minister will take note of the hon. member's request, and it is up to the Prime Minister to decide whether to comply with it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the pleasure to table on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in both official languages, the initial response of the federal government to the "Obstacles" Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.


O2I0) QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,506, 2,722, 2,752, 3,029 and 3,227.

October 30, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware that the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada at its June session passed certain matters related to government on the subject of pensions, abortion, a bill of rights, human rights, industrial development and native land claims and (a) if so, what is the government's policy on the subjects (b) if not, will it contact the Anglican Church of Canada for copies of such resolutions to consider the policies written therein?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Justice, Regional Economic Expansion and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
(a)	On the subject of pensions, the Synod recommended that its national executive explores whether or not government pension and welfare payments discriminate against married couples, and it requested its officers to take action, if appropriate. It is the view of the Department of National Health and Welfare that the pension programs it administers do not discriminate against married couples. The guaranteed income supplement is paid at a higher level to a single pensioner than to married pensioners, but this is considered to be a legitimate reflection of their relative cost of living.
(b)	Not applicable.
In so far _s the Department of Justice is concerned: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable. We would, of course, be pleased to receive copies of the resolutions relevant to the department's mandate and would give them consideration.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economical Expansion is concerned: (a) and (b) The Department is aware of the resolutions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church. The text of the resolutions however is not available since it has not yet been published.
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: (a) and (b) No. The department would, however, be pleased to receive a copy of the pertinent resolution(s) for comment.


Mr. Beatty: For each year since 1975, by province, how many fetuses were aborted at (a) 21 weeks or over (b) 13 weeks or over?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The tables below give the number of therapeutic abortions authorized under the current abortion legislation and performed in hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees. These tables are tabulated by province since 1975.
The gestation period referred to in tables I and II is the interval between the onset of the last menstrual period and the expulsion or removal of the fetus. The area refers to the
residence of the women who obtained the therapeutic abortions.
The data for 1980 are not yet available.
Table I
Number of fetuses therapeutically aborted with gestations 21 weeks and over
Area	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979Newfoundland	1	2	-	1Prince Edward Island	-	-	1	-	-Nova Scotia	10	16	5	10	11New Brunswick	2	3	1	2	2Quebec	19	22	54	42	33Ontario	31	19	37	31	23Manitoba	2	2	6	4	-Saskatchewan	12	2	1	4	6Alberta	11	14	26	12	13British Columbia	20	14	17	17	25Yukon	1	1	-	-	-Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	-Canada	109	93	150	122	114
Table II
Number of fetuses therapeutically aborted with gestations 13 weeks and over
Area	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979Newfoundland	64	138	168	174	166Prince Edward Island	13	8	11	7	10Nova Scotia	290	382	367	400	314New Brunswick	95	99	82	95	84Quebec	963	1,060	1,004	1,028	1,054Ontario	4,409	4,109	3,882	3,910	3,873Manitoba	394	367	421	500	277Saskatchewan	290	165	126	146	205Alberta	948	1,064	1,226	1,317	1,363British Columbia	1,681	1,724	1,704	1,888	1,752Yukon	23	11	19	14	14Northwest Territories	9	26	23	31	17Canada	9,179	9,153	9,033	9,510	9,129
Note: 21 weeks and over included.


Mr. Cossitt: For each year since Confederation, on a national accounts basis, what was the (a) spending (b) revenue (c) surplus or deficit of the government?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The federal government revenue, expenditure and surplus (or deficit) on a national accounts basis from 1926 to 1980-81 are shown in the list below. Figures were not compiled for the years prior to 1926.
Federal government: National accounts basis
Surplus or
Revenue	Expenditure (S Millions)	Deficit (-1926	389	-321	681927	404	-336	681928	449	-344	105
October 30, 1981

Surplus or
Revenue	Expenditure (S Millions)	Deficit (-1929	418	-362	561930	293	-389	-961931	249	-409	-1601932	233	-387	-1541933	266	-380	-1141934	316	-409	-931935	332	-453	-1211936	422	-459	-371937	485	-476	91938	437	-524	-871939	481	-483	-21940	884	-1,024	-1401941	1,523	-1,550	-271942	2,042	-3,765	-1,7231943	2,469	-4,412	-1,9431944	2,611	-5,320	-2,7091945	2,466	-4,298	-1,8321946	2,632	-2,877	-2451947	2,776	-2,089	6871948	2,717	-1,952	7651949	2,699	-2,215	4841950-51	3,340	-2,470	8701951-52	4,237	-3,715	5221952-53	4,790	-4,575	2151953-54	4,753	-4,599	1541954-55	4,643	-4,735	-921955-56	5,164	-4,794	3701956-57	5,849	-5,196	6531957-58	5,504	-5,606	-1021958-59	5,486	-6,263	-7771959-60	6,307	-6,560	-2531960-61	6,500	-6,815	-3151961-62	6,858	-7,355	-4971962-63	7,062	-7,466	-4041963-64	7,541	-7,728	-1871964-65	8,549	-8,153	3961965-66	9,312	-8,719	5931966-67	10,260	- 10,024	2361967-68	11,189	-11,336	-1471968-69	12,696	-12,621	751969-70	14,815	-13,837	9781970-71	15,734	-15,823	-891971-72	17,820	-18,075	-2551972-73	20,614	-20,812	-1981973-74	23,987	-23,801	1861974-75	30,763	-30,810	-471975-76	32,642	-36,560	-3,9181976-77	36,095	-40,323	-4,2281977-78	36,148	-45,541	-9,3931978-79	39,744	-49,369	-9,6251979-80	45,157	-54,472	-9,3151980-81	52,847	-62,711	-9,864
Note: Figures for 1926 to 1949 relate to calendar years while Figures from 1950-51 on are on a fiscal year basis. As an indication of comparability, the 1950 revenue, expenditure and surplus were $3,020 million, $2,370 million and $650 million respectively compared to corresponding 1950-51 Figures of $3,340 million, $2,470 million and $870 million.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Ed Webster of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Toronto was telephoned on August 20, 1981 by a member of the staff of the office of the Hon. member for Leeds-Grenville as a result of an inquiry from a constituent and, with reference to the constituent, did Mr. Webster state "Mr.... can drop dead" and, if so (a) is it government policy to permit public servants to refer to citizens in such terms (b) is it
Order Paper Questions
government policy to permit public servants to make such remarks to members of Parliament or members of their staff when they are requesting information?
2.	Did Mr. Webster also state that he resented "political pressure" being placed upon him and is it government policy to consider an inquiry to a government department by a constituent as something a member of Parliament should not follow up on to obtain legitimate information and does the government construe this as "political pressure"?
3.	Did Mr. Webster receive a telephone call following the incident on the same day from the Hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and, in the course of this conversation, did he (a) admit that he said the constituent could drop dead (b) say that he resented the constituent contacting the member's office on the grounds that he had no business to do so because the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had been working on the matter for some time (c) allege that the "political pressure" was being sought by the constituent and did he condemn the constituent for calling his member of Parliament?
4.	(a) Is the government aware that the member for Leeds-Grenville pointed out to Mr. Webster that every Canadian had the right to call his member of Parliament at any time (b) was it also pointed out to Mr. Webster that he was a public servant who should serve the public rather than make abusive statements about them?
5.	(a) What is a complete record of Mr. Webster's history in the Public Service (b) has Mr. Webster ever been given a course in public relations and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, will the government provide such a course for Mr. Webster to prevent further incidents of this kind?


David P. Smith: If the hon. member has a complaint about a public servant he would be better advised to communicate directly with the minister concerned rather than attack publicly an individual who has no equivalent vehicle by which he may defend himself. For this reason the government will not answer this question or any question similar to it.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost of the cabinet meeting held at Mount Orford, Quebec in the fall of 1981, including transportation to and from, accommodation, food, beverages and the cost for the staff of cabinet ministers and of the Prime Minister and any others in attendance?
2.	For what reason was the meeting not held in Ottawa and would it not have been at a considerably less cost to the taxpayer?


David P. Smith: 1. There has not been a cabinet meeting held at Mount Orford, Quebec, in the fall of 1981.
2. Not applicable.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,667 and 2,692 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Madam Speaker:: Order Paper questions Nos. 1,667 and 2,692 will be deemed to have been made orders for return. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Returns tabled forthwith.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of applications currently before the Defence Industry Productivity Programme (DIP) and what are the names of the companies?
2.	What are the names of the companies currently being considered for rebates under the Programme and what is the dollar value of each rebate?
3.	What is the length of time each company has been waiting and on what date will they receive an answer?
4.	What was the total amount of rebates considered by DIP in the (a) 1978 (b) 1979 fiscal year, and what are the names of the companies who received a rebate?
5.	What is the total amount of rebates awarded so far in the 1980 fiscal year, and what are the names of the companies who received a rebate?
Return tabled.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What number of Soviet diplomats, restricted to the confines of the National Capital Region, asked for special permits to travel in other parts of Canada in the past (a) six months (b) year (c) two years (d) three years (e) five years?
2.	In each case (a) what was his/her name and position (b) how many times did he/she apply (c) was the application (i) approved (ii) rejected?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thrusday, October 29, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 21 (Mr. Wilson) and 22 (Mr. Waddell).
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the government under the Right Hon. Joe Clark would have enabled thousands of Canadians to become involved with Petro-Canada today in a meaningful way. The people would have got a share of the profits in their own pockets to spend as they chose. The developers and producers would have had an incentive to go out and search for oil and gas knowing their findings and successes would not be expropriated by the government and given to one of their competitors, as will be done under Bill C-48. They would not have been denied a fair profit. The Crown would also have got a fair share. The companies, the people and the workers have confidence in the Right Hon. Joe Clark. They have no confidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: That is not parliamentary language.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Last evening the Chair asked the hon. member to refer to members by their constituencies and not by their names. I again invite him to do so.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The companies, the people and the workers have confidence in the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: They have no confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Without confidence there is little or no investment, and we see that occurring in Canada with our money going out of the country. When there is little or no investment there are few or no findings of new oil and gas. This also means few or no jobs, and that is why we have almost one million people unemployed.
The right hon. member for Yellowhead believes in and practises free enterprise. The present Prime Minister does not believe in free enterprise. He believes in socialism, collectivism and government monopoly, and has no intention of letting free enterprise work or function. Under a Tory government Canadianism would be more meaningful with more ownership of industry by rank and file Canadians-not only the rich, the everyday worker. There would be more investment in Canada and less Canadian money going out of our country with more jobs for Canadians. This would all be done under a free enterprise system.
Free enterprise built this country and free enterprise today is being slowed down by the barnacles of socialism being tacked on to it by the present government. The Tory government would have built up this country before, but the next time we have a Tory government we will have a free enterprise system. Free enterprise is being discouraged in Canada today. Even the Prime Minister gets on the radio and tells us free enterprise has failed. Free enterprise has not failed. If there has been any failure it has been because there has been too much socialism and collectivism attached. These barnacles slow down free enterprise. There is no better incentive in the
October 30, 1981

world than enabling someone to make a profit through hard work, but this government is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate I think it would be wise to remind hon. members of what, in effect, Motions Nos. 21 and 22 would do if carried by the House as a suitable amendment to Bill C-48. The reason I say this is that I think often in debate in this House we get away from actually dealing with the motion before us.
If I may take a few minutes I would like to refer hon. members to Clause 27 of Bill C-48. This clause actually deals with what is called the Crown's share as anticipated by the government in what it calls the Canada lands. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has pointed out, Canada lands occupy approximately 40 per cent of the entire territory generally known as Canada, including offshore east coast, offshore west coast, the lands in the territories, the waters in areas such as the Hudson Bay and, of course, the Arctic and Beaufort Sea. It is a huge area. As we know, it is an area that is, in terms of the world's potential for oil and gas, if you like, one of the most attractive. There may be literally billions of barrels of oil and the equivalent of gas to be found in this area. The debate taking place today, especially as it relates to the Crown's share in those lands, is extremely important.
It is for this reason that I would first of all like to remind hon. members of the tremendous contrast between the effect of Motion No. 21, which is the motion of my colleague the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), and the bill itself. That hon. member, in effect, is saying that rather than have the federal government or the bureaucracy stepping in and arbitrarily taking 25 per cent of the Canada lands interests which a Canadian company-and I emphasize that-or a partly Canadian-owned company and partly foreign-owned company, or for that matter a foreign company, owns in these Canada lands, it would be better to change the measure to ensure that the only time the Crown can come in with a grab is when 50 per cent of the entire oil or gas play is not owned by Canadians.
In short, let me put three propositions. The first proposition would be when you had an entirely Canadian-owned company with not a share being owned by a foreigner. Let us assume, for example, that one of our pension funds owns the shares of the company. As the Crown proposes this clause, the clause which my colleague for Etobicoke Centre would like to amend, the Crown wants to grab a 25 per cent interest away from those Canadians. The Crown is, in effect, saying that, irrespective of the fact that the company is already 100 per cent Canadian owned, the bureaucracy, the federal treasury, wants to lift that 25 per cent interest out of the pockets of those pensioners whose funds hold the shares of that Canadian company. That is the one extreme.
The second proposition is when you have a company, let us say, such as Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil at the present time is
Canada Oil and Gas Act
approximately 70 per cent owned by its parent in the United States and almost 30 per cent Canadian owned. In that case, the government is saying that if Imperial Oil or Esso have certain interests in the Beaufort Sea or off the east coast, or on any of these Canada lands, it feels entitled to grab 25 per cent of what these companies have.
What my colleague from Etobicoke Centre is saying is that it is unfair. It is a retroactive grab. It is a grab that is not only unfair to the Canadian companies, as I hope members will agree, it is also unfair to companies such as Exxon which came to this country in good faith and developed those reserves, showed the potential that is there, only to find that 25 per cent of its interest is taken away without compensation. What my colleague is suggesting in Motion No. 21 is that it would be preferable for the Crown to simply say, in that case which I have cited, that it will take up to a 20 per cent interest, say, in what Imperial owns on the assumption that it is not willing to give up part of that 70 per cent block in Imperial Oil that it presently owns.
I suggest that if hon. members review what I am saying they will agree that is a fairer approach; it is more positive. In effect, it says to those who are now foreign concerns that we acknowledge they have brought these reserves into reality. They have demonstrated the potential of these reserves. These reserves are their assets but we are not going to steal those assets from them unless they fail to Canadianize to the extent of 51 per cent or more. If a company fails to make itself 50 per cent Canadian owned, we feel the Crown should be able to take over an interest which would be equal to whatever its deficiency is.
For example, in the case which I have cited, it would be a matter of saying to Imperial Oil that if it wants to retain that 70 per cent ownership, the Crown would be entitled to take up to 20 per cent of what it has. In turn, that will ensure that at least 50 per cent of the play is in Canada.
The other extreme, of course, is 100 per cent foreign ownership. If this company is 100 per cent foreign owned, it should be given the option to make itself 51 per cent Canadian owned, or if it does not wish to do that, it may be subject to a 25 per cent, or in our example even a 50 per cent, interest by the Crown itself. That is our party's position and I think it is a reasonable one. It is a position that is understandable and it is pro-Canadian as opposed to being anti-foreign. I believe this is a system which international investors would acknowledge as being not only equitable but fair. It is fair in the sense that these companies are not being confiscated without being given any option.


Mr. Waddell:: No grants, then?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me turn now to the other extreme, which is Motion No. 22. In this motion you have the other end of the socialist alliance that is now governing this country. The party that pretends to be the Liberal Party is really the governing party in the name of socialism in Canada. The party which is

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
led by the vice-president of Socialist International, the New Democratic Party-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a great organization.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -is not only the rump, but as my colleague across the aisle from me often says, it is the red rump to the Trudeau government. It is the wing of the alliance that breaks the ground for the socialistic government it supports so ardently. I suggest Motion No. 22 is an example of breaking new ground. The 25 per cent heist, if you like, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the government is proposing is not enough for the NDP. They would like to see the government grab 50 per cent. Why should it stop at 25 per cent? Is that not typical of the socialists?
I suggest socialism is nothing less than the most selfish creed that has ever been brought into the public domain in history.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is for the good of the people.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The energy critic for the New Democratic Party, which is led by the vice-president of Socialist International, has said they do it for the people. What they do not clarify, Mr. Speaker, is that that may be the way they try to sell socialism to the unsuspecting public. But the truth is it is their own selfish interests that they are selling. Of course, that interest is raw, naked power in the name of the people. In fact, it is the socialist dream to have more intervention and more bureaucratic friends obtaining juicy jobs from the blood, sweat and tears of Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do you want a loan for your bank?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe we have before us in this bill a situation in which the government is proposing to steal property retroactively. It is nothing more than stealing. It is stealing property that has been won under the rules and regulations which the government saw fit to set for those who wished to participate in our oil and gas exploration and development. It is property that is owned by these concerns and is now proposed to be stolen retroactively by the government.
Some members of the government say they are now willing to give compensation for what it steals. I would refer the hon. members to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, issue No. 49 for Thursday, May 14, 1981, wherein the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said with respect to this question of compensation:
The government then is fully satisfied that, as a balanced whole, the regime proposed in Bill C-48 is in every sense equitable.
Once a socialist says something like this, we know in his heart he realizes that it is not equitable. That is exactly what the minister goes on to explain. Having said it is equitable, he then says:
Nevertheless, to dispel any contrary concerns and arguments which may remain on the part of those who have been critical of the 25 per cent Crown
interest provision, we intend to provide reimbursement of actual exploration costs already incurred.
In this spirit of compromise then, we shall introduce amendments to provide for ex gratia payments in respect of 25 per cent of the geological, geophysical and drilling expenditures made up to December 31, 1980, in respect of any oil or gas discovery that results from a well spudded prior to that date and which qualifies to be declared a significant discovery prior to December 31, 1982. The qualifying expenditures will be determined on the same basis as those eligible for inclusion in the calculation set out for the progressive incremental royalty in Bill C-48.
These payments will be made out of the Crown share of production.
I notice that startles you, Mr. Speaker, because that is the ringer. The government is not going to pay the money upon seizure. It is going to say that if, as and when it gets something out of what it has taken, it will then give some of it back. The government says these payments will be made out of the Crown's share of production, that to reflect the value in time of qualifying expenditures, they will be escalated at the rate of 15 per cent a year up to December 31, 1980, and the government shall then pay 250 per cent of this escalated value of eligible expenditures as a first claim on the commercial production attributable to the 25 per cent Crown share. In short, what we have here is a partial payment being offered to those who will lose, say, 25 per cent of what they now own on Canada lands.
I emphasize once again that this may be conjured up by the government in the public sense as something that affects only foreign concerns. That is not true. Let us consider my example of a pension fund which has chosen-and some of them have- to invest in the oil and gas potential on our Canada lands. They will lose 25 per cent of workers' money invested to try to identify and bring resources into production, hopefully in some later year.
It is like some government official taking 25 per cent of the Canada Savings Bond a person has just bought. Let us say a person bought a $1,000 bond. What the government is doing is taking $250 of that. The person involved might say, "That is theft; I just bought it; how can you take it from me?" The government would say that the Parliament of Canada empowered it to do so. Then, feeling its neck a little the government would say, "Well, maybe we should give you something back". What does it do? It says that to the extent there are coupons payable to the government on the $250 it stole, the government will clip those coupons and give the person perhaps 5 per cent of what the government had already taken, without any compensation whatsoever. That is what the government is proposing.
Our socialist New Democratic Party friends support the Trudeau socialist version of their creed in this House, but they get all warmed up and say, "Let's even take 50 per cent of that bond; let's take $500 and not just $250 of the poor soul's bond". I would like them to explain to some of their union friends how the workers in various companies whose pension funds are at stake in what I am referring to would feel if they were properly told by the socialists of this House that the stealing proposed would also include the very pension funds
October 30, 1981

many of those workers are counting on in years to come for their retirement. That is what these fellows are up to.
I am a little surprised that he did it, but I suppose our Prime Minister is always full of surprises; he went to Toronto, of all places, the other day and at a fund raising dinner told some of the faithful who were able to show their faces at that meeting that basically their creed was to take from the rich and give to the poor, a Robin Hood type of approach. However, what he did not explain is that, in true socialistic fashion, it is not just taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it is always less 10 per cent for our bureaucratic friends. That is what is going on here. It is stealing from one section of society, in many cases producers-they are the ones producing wealth, identifying reserves and bringing oil and gas into production-and saying, "We want to pass it through our bureaucracy so that some of our fat cats can get a little fatter living off what we have stolen from other people".
I think we should not lose sight of what is the bottom line of what the government is doing. At one time we had one of the healthiest oil and gas industries in the world. Oddly enough, that was one of the few sectors of our economy that was healthy. Through retroactive grabs such as the one we are now dealing with in these two motions, this government has so startled not just foreign investors-because that is the way the government tries to sell this-but also our own oil and gas investors that we find today 10,000 wells being drilled in the United States in which Canadians are participating, compared with 5,000 wells being drilled in this country. In other words, our activity and our know-how is being devoted twice as much to bringing oil and gas into production in the United States as in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to him has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The other day I raised on a point of order a request that the Chair consider dividing Motions Nos. 21 and 22. That is recorded in the Hansard of a few days ago. The Speaker has ruled that Motions Nos. 21 and 22 can be debated together, which obviously is happening and quite properly. It is quite a proper ruling. The Chair also ruled that if Motion No. 21 were voted upon and it failed, that would cause Motion No. 22 to fail as well. I submit it is quite obvious, after the speech of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), that there is quite a difference between Motions Nos. 21 and 22. Whatever can be said of the speech of the hon. member-a very moderate speech-he certainly outlined the difference between the two motions. It is there to see.
What I am asking is not so much that Your Honour make a ruling right now, unless you are prepared to do that, but that the Chair at some point consider my submissions and make a ruling as to whether it is prepared to accept a change in the voting so that Motions Nos. 21 and 22 can be voted upon separately. I venture to suggest that there probably would be agreement on all sides of the House.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on my colleague's point of order. I can well understand his embarrassment. He does not like to see these two motions brought together so that we can debate and contrast the thrust of what he is proposing with the pro-Canadian motion we are proposing. I think the hon. member has now realized the stark reality as to how absolutely naked he stands before this House in what he is suggesting. He now suggests that he would prefer to have our motion dealt with separately so that people can speak only about the nature of what we are proposing and at a later date hon. members can speak about his Motion No. 22 and vote separately on them. It is patently obvious that the hon. member is embarrassed about the grab he is proposing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I reply to that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Perhaps the interpretation of the Chair might clarify the point. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has raised a point of order concerning voting procedure. I stated on October 21 that Motions Nos. 21 and 22 would be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 21 disposing of Motion No. 22. As a result of the hon. member's presentation I am now convinced that the House should vote on Motions Nos. 21 and 22 separately, with the question being put first on Motion No. 21. Motion No. 21 would amend several lines of Clause 27, and Motion No. 22 would amend one of the later lines of the same clause.
For the benefit of hon. members, I refer to Citation 772(2) of Beauschesne's fifth edition which reads as follows:
Amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. If the latter part of a clause is amended, it is not competent for a member to move to amend an earlier or antecedent part of the same clause. If an amendment to the latter part of a clause is negatived or withdrawn, it is competent to propose one to an earlier part.
Therefore, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 will dispose of Motion No. 22. A negative vote on Motion No. 21 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 22.


Mr. Rose:: On that same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is usual after the Speaker has made a ruling for an hon. member to ask only for clarification.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify the fact that my colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was attempting to have the votes on Nos. 21 and 22 separated. In no way was he urging that the separation occur for the debate, as was suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That was settled when the ruling was made.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that the speech by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) indicates the deep con-

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
cern that he, members of this House and people across this country have as a result of the government's proposed national energy policy. The policy creates more questions than it answers. In fact, I do not know what it answers. For a good many Canadians it will mean a much higher oil and gas bill with only negative results with regard to the objective all Canadians hoped for, energy self-sufficiency by 1990.
I speak as a maritime Member of Parliament. I wish to indicate a concern about my area of Canada. It is similar to that so ably expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) about his part of Canada. What the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) expressed in this House yesterday about our part of Canada is also true for me.
It is absolutely essential that we strive to reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990 so that prospective developments can occur in Atlantic Canada. When we talk about the national energy policy and this bill which conceives it, we must realize that there can be no national energy policy until the federal government arrives at some type of positive agreement with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
This bill will make it more difficult for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to develop obvious energy possibilities off their coasts. I refer specifically to the Sable Island development off Nova Scotia, the Hibernia and other finds off the coast of Newfoundland. Before we can talk about any type of national energy policy, we must know that an arrangement has been made between the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in relation to what will happen to those potential oil and gas developments.
We do not see anything positive happening. In his speech, the hon. member for Red Deer pointed out that the current casualty report shows that over 131 drilling rigs will leave this country this year, leaving behind 471 to do the type of drilling that is required if we are to hope for anything like energy self-sufficiency. Also, the development of the lands of western Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon must be considered if we are to realize the energy self-sufficiency for which we all strive.
If Canada were a socialist country, and God knows no one would ever want that, there might be some possibility of this policy working. The government would have total control over the economy as is the case in Russia and Poland, if that is any recommendation these days. In this country the engine that drives the economy is the free enterprise system. It is only by working within that system that we can hope to achieve the elusive goal of energy self-sufficiency.
The approach of the Clark government was to harness the free enterprise system in such a way as to provide incentives to the oil and gas industry to develop our potential resources. The approach of the Clark government with regard to the east coast of Canada, the continental shelf, was to regard it as an extension of the resource development of the provinces where there was potential for oil and gas. If that had been followed through, the free enterprisers of Canada would now be moving into the energy sector in an attempt to find the resources that
are there. Rather than clarify the situation that exists, we have created complicated oil and gas regulations.
The government has said to those involved in the energy sector of this country: "We are an island unto ourselves." The reply to that has been: "We will go elsewhere to do our business in order that we can make a profit." The profit motive continues to be the driving force behind the free enterprise system. It is that force which keeps business here or sends it elsewhere. Today it is going elsewhere.
The reason there is absolutely no hope of ever attaining energy self-sufficiency in this country by 1990 is because of what this government is doing to Canadians in the oil and gas industry, not to the bogey-man or the multinationals, but to the individual Canadian who is the backbone of the oil and gas industry in Canada. What we are saying to him is: "You will have to make a decision to leave your country if you want to make any profit. If you stay here, we can almost guarantee that you will have to close your doors or go bankrupt if this policy goes into effect." That is what we are saying with this kind of legislation.
Some of the people involved in the oil and gas industry of Canada came down here to try and talk with politicians. They were not big fellows; they were not multimillionaires. They were fellows with trailer-truck operations and things like that. They were people who are necessary for the oil industry to remain healthy. They told me: "Unless this government does something that is positive, that reflects the free enterprise spirit that has built the oil industry in western Canada, we are finished; we will have to go to the United States or somewhere else."
That is not the kind of decision which means they can pick up their things and go to the United States today, returning in six months from now when the government realizes what it is doing to the industry and then trying to put their operation back together again. For instance, when 131 drilling rigs leave this country, do not expect them to come back next week or next month unless we change the legislation that is now before us. There is no way. Their commitment has to be for five years. No matter what we do with his package next week, next month or next year, once that decision to leave has been made, they are gone. We are then in deep trouble, as we are right now, and it is obvious.
I go back to the general election of February, 1980, to the period between December and January. I think of the debates that took place at that time, and I recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was then leader of the opposition, telling Canadians what a terrible thing the Clark budget would do to them. Mr. Speaker, if only they were given the opportunity today of returning to the Clark budget they would elect every member of the Progressive Conservative Party that supported that budget. There are no two ways about that. It was the best deal Canadians were ever offered. Unfortunately, Canadians were so mesmerized by the false advertising, the big lie, that they believed that they were going to be ripped off. The rip-off
October 30, 1981

started as soon as this government was elected and it continues. It is happening now, it will be happening tomorrow, it will be happening the next day. At the time of that election, it cost me and every other Canadian something like $18 to fill the gas tank of their car. It costs $28 today. By the time this government sees the people of Canada again, it will cost something like $75 to fill that same gas tank.
I go back to the people I really feel sorry for, people who will not drive their cars and who will turn to alternate forms of energy, if the Minister of Transport does not destroy all other forms of transportation. He is certainly taking rail transportation away from most Canadians as an energy efficient alternative to highway transport. But what will happen to the poor individual who has to heat his or her home? With the Clark government, there was built-in protection for those people as far as heating oil is concerned.
With this policy, this government will see a great many individual Canadians freeze in the dark. There will be no alternative for them but to freeze in the dark when you look at the escalation of heating costs already. We are not Florida. Regardless where people in this country live, they have to heat their homes nine months of the year. At this moment in time, most Canadians depend upon oil to do that heating. As far as heating oil prices are concerned, it is a terrible atrocity that has been afflicted on individual Canadians. There is no concern shown them. There is no built-in protection for the individual Canadian, especially for the one that requires assistance the most. I am not talking about the person on welfare. I am talking about the person who is not on welfare and who lives a lifetime saving, with none of our system geared to assist him, the Canadian who tries to maintain himself in dignity on a fixed income, but who discovers what a terrible atrocity is being visited upon him and others like him by this government with its so-called national energy policy.
I feel sorry for them because there is no chance at the moment for them to get back at this government and to teach them, as they can with their vote at the ballot box, what the electorate do to people who promote and propagate the big lie. Unfortunately, they will have to suffer. As members of this House, we should do everything we possibly can to assist them and to give them whatever protection is possible.
I say to my colleagues here, regardless of party, that if this institution is going to be responsible to individual Canadians, we will have to show them that we are concerned about the terrible commitment that this government is trying to make in its special deal against them. We have to see to it that this matter is rectified. We have to see that at least that part of the Crosbie budget that provided the individual, low-income Canadian with some special protection with regard to home heating fuel is put in place.
Prince Edward Island is totally dependent upon oil for the production of energy for all the people who live there. We have to provide some cushioning against these escalating increases of oil costs similar to what the Clark government again was negotiating with the Atlantic provinces. This is to protect a province like Prince Edward Island that is totally dependent
Canada Oil and Gas Act
upon oil for its energy production, especially for its electricity. Nova Scotia is converting its energy use from oil to coal just as fast as it can produce new coal mines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) had the floor. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to speak to the important matter before the House relating to energy and the Canada lands. I want particularly to speak about the back-in provisions in Bill C-48 which the government is trying to impose upon the industry and the people of Canada.
I have been a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for two years. I have followed very closely the direction of the government, particularly in regard to its energy policy. I must say with a great deal of disgust that I have seen a decline of the industry. There are oil wells in the constituency of Assiniboia, most of which are low production wells. I have seen a decline of that industry from a once buoyant industry to a situation where it is flat on its back.
One might ask whether this will change with the new energy agreement. I wish I could say that I am very optimistic about the future outcome but I cannot. If we look at the broad facts before us in the entire energy policy of the government and the proposals in Bill C-48, we find that the outcome is very simple. When we were defeated two years ago the situation in energy was that the consumer was paying approximately $1 per gallon for gasoline. I am using my own constituency as an example; I am sure it varies in different areas of Canada. Today the consumer in my constituency is paying $1.84. The increase in the price of gasoline under the energy policy is 84 cents at Estevan, Saskatchewan. When I fill up my car at the pump it costs me approximately $32.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Get a Honda or a Volkswagen.


Leonard J. Gustafson: If the hon. member in the NDP would listen he would learn. The two levels of government receive $20 out of a $32 tank of gasoline; that is, the Saskatchewan government and the federal government. I am paying $12 for the gasoline in my tank. Under the guidelines, the new agreement, and the $16 billion projected program, over the next four years the provincial government of Saskatchewan will receive $5.1 billion, the federal government will receive close to $4 billion,

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
and the industry will receive approximately 37 per cent. As I say, the industry is flat on its back. People are out of work. People from the Estevan-Weyburn-Radville area are driving down to Williston, North Dakota, to work in the industry there. How can we expect, even under this new agreement, the industry to rebuild? I want to tell Canadians that the consumer has accepted the tax load of paying for the debts of 12 years of Liberal government in the country. This tax load is too great. It will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We cannot impose such a tax load upon an industry without breaking it.
What is happening in the Canada lands? I can give example after example of what is happening in my own area. People are out of work, but 220 oil rigs were exported to the United States of America in the name of Canadianization. Who were we Canadianizing? I talked with people working in the Williston oil basin, people working in Austin, Texas, as well as Canadian boys and girls from Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Estevan and Weyburn with expertise in this field. The finest fleet of drilling rigs in the world has been exported to the United States. We lost 220 oil rigs, approximately 100 service rigs and 1,000 truck loads of equipment in a 24-hour period through the port of entry just south of Estevan. They were exported to the U.S.A.
We in the Conservative party are all in favour of Canadianization. We believe in that principle. However, in the mad rush on the part of the NDP and the Liberal coalition to nationalize the oil industry, which has been going on in this House for the last two years-
An hon. Mlember: Bill Davis.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I see one of the hon. members of the NDP looking over here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why am I sitting here then?


Leonard J. Gustafson: A situation has been visited upon the people and consumers of Canada which is absolutely unbeneficial to the economics of the country. What has this attack brought? First of all, it has been an attack against the industry, and I covered that to some extent. At this point we do not have a policy in place which will turn this around. I would like to say that I was optimistic about what I saw, as I am an optimistic person and I would like to see that happen. But it is not there. In commenting on this area, one of the major oil companies stated it believes we will lose another 100 oil rigs before this situation levels out.
I think it is important that we draw the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the people of Canada and this House to the very critical situation which lies before the people of Canada resulting from the national energy policy. There is an attack against the industry, but there is also an attack against the consumer. I mentioned this a little earlier. What were people paying and what are they paying now? There has been an increase of almost 100 per cent.
Do hon. members remember the 18-cent excise tax and what a joke it was going to be, what a terrible thing the Conservatives were forcing upon the people of Canada?


Walter David Baker: How could I forget?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Now they are looking at 84 cents. It is a shame, and there is no change in direction. I suggest that it is a direct attack against the economics of Canada. It is not enough that we have problems with high interest rates? We have problems in the area of agriculture and practically every other area. In my riding there has been a good example of what this government has done concerning VIA Rail. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to Fillmore, Saskatchewan and announced, as an election promise, that he was going to double track from Winnipeg to Vancouver. He did it, all right; he took the train off the track.


Walter David Baker: Oh, hear that, Jean-Luc?


Leonard J. Gustafson: There was a complete change in direction of policy and promise. The same thing has happened with the energy policy.
I said earlier that we certainly agree with Canadianization. But do not drive Canadians out of Canada. If one examines the investments of small Canadian companies, one will find that the greatest percentage are investing more than 70 per cent of their investment money in the United States of America. They are drilling for oil there, not in Canada. That is the kind of Canadianization program this government has put into position.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They have invested in the big Bermuda.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I want to suggest that this program is not working. The hon. member who just spoke up was very active in the Berger hearings. He will also do something for the people of western Canada that they will not soon forget. They will remember they could have had a pipeline that was pumping oil from the north into western Canada; now we might have to use icebreakers to clear a passage for oil, bringing it around a very expensive route. I hope he remembers that in about three years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That will be the end of the ten-year moratorium.


Leonard J. Gustafson: This energy policy and Bill C-48 will not work. What about the back-in provision? Confiscation without compensation is exactly what we are talking about in the back-in provision. Companies which would otherwise invest in Canada are losing confidence in this fair country of ours. If we are to turn this direction around, we must restore confidence in the investment community in this country.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that this government has the will or the intention to do that. This government is bent on nationalizing the oil industry at the expense of the consumer of Canada, at the cost of the industry, and we, the taxpayers, are paying a big price.
October 30, 1981

What about the taxpayer? Is it fair that the government should take a $30 tank of gasoline and state that it will take $20 in taxes from that $30 tank of gasoline? We know that the cost of energy around the world is high. The Prime Minister is continually saying that and drawing comparisons. However, I want to tell hon. members that a $30 tank of gas should really cost only $10. That is the cost of the actual gasoline. The rest is tax. The $20 is going to the treasury departments of the two governments to pay for 12 years of inept spending by the government in this House. In the next four years, this tax will generate $52 billion for the government.
It is not, should I say, a popular move to stand in the House and defend a big oil company or any oil company. At the same time, the government will blame the oil companies for charging the people of Canada such an exorbitant price for gasoline when, really, two thirds of the cost of that gasoline is going to the government.


Walter David Baker: I think he has a point.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is time these figures were made public to the people of Canada, that the people understood exactly what is happening and what it is they are paying for when they are filling the tanks of their cars with gasoline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: It will be interesting to see just how the industry will take up the challenge. And a challenge it is, because the industry is faced with competition. I know many people who have companies in the Estevan area. They have crews of men working in the service and supply industry in our area. They have been forced to seek work in Williston and across the line. In numbers, they daily commute from that area in half-ton trucks, doing business on the other side of the line.
There are 22 million people in Canada. We have a country which is rich in natural resources. Surely to goodness, we must have the will, the common sense and the businesslike approach which will take into consideration production and productivity. We should say to the people of Canada that we can now provide enough of our oil to supply our own people. We do not have to go to Mexico, pay exorbitant prices, and then charge the taxpayer and consumer of Canada because of the inept action of the Government of Canada.
I place this bill before Your Honour and say that from witness after witness appearing before the committee one of the main complaints was that this government is not being fair. In the history of this country, the government has never had a 25 per cent back-in provision; in other words, a provision where the profits of another person or company would be confiscated. That is very unfair.
I ask that the government and the minister reconsider this provision, and that the minister change his direction in this area before it is too late for the industry and the consumers and people of Canada.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make in this debate. I hope to make my maiden speech on the budget. I have talked this over with my colleagues in caucus and they have assured me that they will still regard me as a maiden then! However, no one knows when the budget will be brought down. The last word was November 12, but we were not told whether it is November 12, 1981, November 12, 1982, or November 12, 1983.
The last two weeks have been very interesting and in some ways very entertaining. My hon. friends to the extreme right have to be commended. Over the last two weeks they have really done a splendid job. They have carried out an act that I did not think could be sustained like that for two solid weeks. Without even cracking a smile, hon. members have stood in their places, waved their arms, pointed their fingers and almost cried, complaining about socialism. I must say they have done a beautiful job of it. They have talked about blood on Liberals' sleeves and about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) being a crypto-socialist. They have talked about confiscation and about robbery. To keep all of that going for two weeks without even cracking a smile, they deserve some kind of an actor's award. They have done so well that I might have believed them.
I am a socialist, of course. I might have taken some heart that this bill was socialist and believed them until I looked at some of the provisions in Bill C-48. Among other things I find that we will be giving 93 cents of every dollar to Canadian oil companies to spend on development. Oil companies get the 93 cents whether they find oil or not. If they find oil, however, and only if they find oil, the government takes back 35 cents, comprised of 25 cents in equity and ten cents in royalty. This 93 cents comes from the taxes of bus drivers, women who clean buildings, factory workers and all the other people who cannot dodge income taxes.
My leader asked the Prime Minister in the last few days about people who earn, say, $50,000 or $100,000 who can dodge paying their taxes, but his questions were brushed off. The money for oil exploration comes from people who cannot dodge their taxes, basically the wage or salary earner in Canada, the ordinary working man. Those are the people being taxed to give Canadian oil companies 93 cents of every dollar that they invest. If we are lucky, the country will get back 35 cents out of the 93 cents. If the working people are lucky, they may get some of that money back in education and health care.
These poor, starving oil companies are getting a free gift of only 58 cents out of every dollar spent on projects which will net them unlimited profits as the years go by and oil shortages increase. This is a subsidy oil companies are receiving from the bus drivers and other people who cannot dodge income tax. Hon. members to the right call it socialism. There is a phrase "socialism for the rich". If that is what they mean, what the former leader of our party called the corporate welfare bums, then what they are saying is true. Nevertheless, I must admire my hon. friends for talking about the subject for two weeks,

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
calling it socialism but never mentioning that they and their friends are the beneficiaries of what they call socialism, at the same time pretending it is a great crime, that it is confiscation. It is a kind of confiscation, but it is not a confiscation of something that oil companies created. They did not create the tundra, nor did they create the Beaufort Sea. One hon. member even admitted that the oil is worthless while it is under the ground and under the sea. But all of a sudden, if the government wants to tax it, we hear their cries of confiscation. It is a kind of confiscation of the hard-earned tax money of the ordinary working people of Canada which will make the rich richer. It is a wonderful act my friends on the right have carried on for the past two weeks.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have listened to the remarks from the red rump. I have listened to the remarks of the socialists on the left. What they are trying to do is take our freedoms away.
All one has to do is to look at Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Poland is a prime example. The people there have lost their rights. They have lost their spirits. Socialism has not worked in Poland and it will not work here. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party have expressed the views of the Canadian public. They have expressed the true spirit of Canada. The Liberals and their socialist alliance are expressing the views of the Kremlin and related socialist countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Kremlin?


Erik Nielsen: Do not laugh. It could happen here.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Motion No. 21 provides a logical solution to this expropriation act.
I am used to expropriation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) knows why I am used to it. The Department of Transport took away 18,000 acres from people and then taxed them for that right. I think the minister could express a view on that. I think the minister knows the government goofed. He was not there, so he can duck out.
We are discussing a geographical area representing 40 per cent of the area of Canada. An area that size cannot be treated lightly. How are we treating the original citizens of this country? Are we looking after those citizens through this bill? We are expropriating their rights. We are taking away the rights of the original citizens. That is serious. Even under the provisions of Motion No. 22 it is not 25 per cent the government wants to take, but 50 per cent. These percentages are being taken away from the aboriginal people of the country. The rights of the few who are left in the territory will be taken away.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Whose rights?


Thomas Scott Fennell: You know whose rights.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not native rights.


Thomas Scott Fennell: This act does nothing more than give this government the right to expropriate on behalf of another Crown corporation. Like all Crown corporations, it will end up in the red, losing money and wasting the funds on itself rather than spending them for the good of Canadians. This bill does not help Canadian corporations, nor does it help anybody in the country. Even with this 25 per cent donation which the territories are giving to these people, a proper rate of return will not be provided compared to a rate of return which would be provided by the private sector. I would like to know what right the government has to expropriate the property of Canadian-controlled corporations. This is nothing more than a retroactive tax on Canadian citizens.
This bill also affects pension funds. Pension funds are involved in investment in energy in Canada and the amount of investment is large. Admittedly, while pension funds are being built up they are not taxed. They are exempt from tax. This is a hidden 25 per cent tax which will be imposed on pension funds in this country.
I think it is an absolute disgrace that our senior citizens have problems. We will have far greater problems when those born during the time of the last baby boom become senior citizens. Who will have to pay the bills? The bills better be paid by the private sector because the government is running out of money.
I ask this government to reconsider carefully our motion. There should be no expropriation of any corporation that is 51 per cent or more Canadian owned. Nor should there be any expropriation of a foreign corporation which makes an agreement to become Canadianized, that is 51 per cent owned by Canadians, through pension funds or investment by Canadian citizens.
Consider the shareholders in the pension fund of Imperial Oil, for example. Thirty per cent of Imperial Oil is owned by Canadians either through pension funds or money of individual citizens. While that is not a large amount, these people are being taxed through expropriation under Bill C-48. Will this government please consider this motion and look at it in light of what it is doing to Canadian citizens? It is inequitable and unfair.
My colleague the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) stated earlier that if there is only 30 per cent of Imperial Oil that is Canadian owned, then take 20 per cent; but work out some arrangement which will encourage foreign corporations to Canadianize, rather than a method that is blatantly dictatorial. This cannot all be done in one fell swoop; it must be worked through over a period of time.
Free enterprise with foreign capital debt will assist this country to develop our oil. The Canadian government has run out of credit. It has run out of dollars, and its great friend, Dome, has also run out of money. It is now sitting on the edge of the fence praying to God that oil is found in one of the three
October 30, 1981

or four holes or however many it drilled this summer, in order to relieve some of its financial woes.
What we are not looking at in this bill, and what we have not appreciated in this entire National Energy Program discussion, is the small Canadian producer. We have not considered the service contractors. It is time this government started paying attention to the majority of Canadians, the little guy who makes his living from small business. How will this government hurt these people? Perhaps in one respect it has done them a favour. The government has forced them to go into the United States; it has forced them out of Canada. What is that doing for Canada? It is driving our funds away, driving our money out of this country and creating an imbalance in capital flow. By following this entire National Energy Program, as exemplified by Bill C-48, we are hurting the Canadian citizen.
The climate is entirely wrong in Canada today with this present government's policies. Will the government please change the legislation in order to attract the Canadian entrepreneur who wants to stay in this country, who wants to succeed and to benefit from our great riches? All we are doing is driving this country into what the government calls Canadi-anization, what I call nationalization or socialism, or, to go one step further, communism, where the state owns everything. This is all being done by degrees. Hon. members can make all the noise they want but they will not change the situation or the dangerous route we are following.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker that this measure permits the government to commit a criminal act, namely, straight, direct robbery. The citizens who elected this government would go to jail if they followed this practice. This government is above it all. It can do whatever it wants. The government laughs at these people. I hear hon. members laughing at them every day. The Minister of Transport laughs at them because he is taking their transportation away. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) laughs at them. He is taking away their opportunity to listen to good programs from all over the world. Perhaps I should take that back as I understand he is relenting on his original stand.
I have been involved in the private sector all my life. I have done something that many people in this chamber have never done, namely, I have met payrolls. That is difficult to do when you are a small-business man starting up in this country. But there is an opportunity to meet payrolls in this country and there is an opportunity for people like ourselves to create industry here. Why is this government so dedicated to stopping that? Hon. member should just go out and try to raise capital in Canada for a small oil company. First of all, your foreign markets are cut off. Secondly, interest rates are so high we cannot afford to borrow money from the banks.
The government has eliminated opportunity for Canadians, and that is why I am angry. I am damned annoyed at what this government is doing to the citizens of this country. It should be making it easier for them to raise funds wherever they can in order to create labour wherever that is possible. The government should not be destroying incentive for the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
entrepreneur. I know how damned hard it is to raise money, but today it is impossible for small oil companies to do so.
What is happening? Small oil companies have only one route to follow; they are being taken over by the larger companies, and one reads about that every week in the newspaper. The government is eliminating the little guy. In this country you have to be a multi-multi-millionaire to exist. The little guy does not have a hope. The entrepreneur is prepared to give up something in order to create labour. I believe it is now time for this government to be prepared to give up something in order to create labour and solve some of the problems in Canada.
This bill with this 25 per cent hidden tax removes any real incentive there is left for Canadians to invest in Canada or to raise foreign capital. My recommendation to the people is that as long as there is the hostility in the atmosphere created by this administration, they should not invest in Canada. I have talked to many people over many days about a great deal of things, but one question keeps coming up; why bother investing in Canada with the rate of return that has been created by this government? This government is taking over two thirds of the revenue received from every barrel of oil. It thinks it is going to attain energy self-sufficiency. This government is on its knees praying to God that somebody will hit enough oil in some of these expropriated lands that we will have enough oil to look after us in 1990. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it will have to do more than pray, because it takes a lot of money to achieve that. It takes more than prayer to accomplish things in this world; it takes hard work. You have to get your hands dirty and your brow must sweat.
I do not see any point in investing in Canada. I think it is a tragic thing for me to have to stand in this chamber and say that. I think it is tragic that we are at the point where there is such a hostile atmosphere that it is not wise for Canadians to stay here.
The one benefit which will come out of the National Energy Program is that American and foreign banks are flooding into Canada because of our fantastic interest rates. They are all getting charters. I am not against this; I am merely pointing out that this is the only group which will benefit from the National Energy Program. I believe in competition, Mr. Speaker, but the foreign banks will benefit because no Canadians will invest. People who are investing are the ones with depth, going into the company paying a 20 per cent return. But that money is flowing straight out of the country again. They definitely will be beneficiaries. Many of these banks are coming into Canada for that reason alone. Their head offices may be on Bay Street in Toronto, but the administrative offices are in Calgary where the action is.
How long can small companies continue to borrow at these rates and still exist? There is no future for investment in this country. The government should be thinking of trying to attract funds which have gone out of this country back to Canada where they should be invested.

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I know the Liberal government will not listen to us on Motion 21. I am fully aware that they will do nothing about it and will just bulldoze it through, as they do everything else. But I plead with them to be considerate. They are imposing a tax on Canadian citizens and on pension funds throughout this country.
I would like to reiterate that the territories we are concerned with are hopeful of becoming provinces one day. This act automatically treats them as have-not provinces. The federal government, which wants to take a quarter of their money away from them, and the socialists to my left who want to take 50 per cent, will be creating have-not provinces. Before this bill is passed we should consider the territories and the poverty they will suffer under this bill even before they become provinces.
I am concerned that this country grow, particularly in the north. If these territories are turned into poverty areas before they are even permitted access to provincial rights, no one will be attracted to that region. This bill will remove their future provincial rights and the rights of the original settlers of that part of the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about the native people?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I was asked about native rights. The majority of people in the north are natives. We have a great responsibility to prevent their rights being taken away. We must also give them something in return.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You want to give it to the oil companies.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would rather give it to the natives of the north more than anyone. That is my priority. The government is not worried about them.


An hon. Member:: What share do they own in Imperial?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Look at the negative effects on the economy of Canada and at the shrinkage in manufacturing resulting from the National Energy Program and Bill C-48. These measures, along with the exorbitant spending of this government over the last 15 years, have resulted in shrinking the manufacturing facilities of this country, as well as the processing and contracting facilities, including housing.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) during the previous election campaign made the statement that if any injury or significant disadvantage is experienced by any group, he would remove the burden in the subsequent budget. I hope he remembers his own words when he considers the next budget. This bill, Mr. Speaker, does nothing more than compound the inflation spiral by siphoning off this money to a Crown corporation which does not give the same benefit to a Canadian citizen. All it does is increase the price of fuel oil, gas and heating oil. Under this bill there are absolutely no benefits received by the citizens of this country.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, this being the ninth anniversary of the election of 1972, I rise with some considerable pleasure to speak to the House. Madam
Speaker was one of the class of '72. I understand my friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), went the other way in 1972, and I have the impression that sometimes he wishes it was 1972 again.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not at all.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That was the election where we lost by two seats. It could have been one of the best governments we ever had, under Mr. Stanfield.
I would also like to mention that the maiden speech given by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) indicates a person is let off scot free during a maiden speech, but only one time. I noticed that he tried to have it and keep it too, but I did enjoy his speech. I very much favour short sermons.
I would like to speak today on Motion No. 21 put forward by our party, and Motion No. 22 put forward by the New Democratic Party. The hon. member from Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) is very quick to claim credit for taking away the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, but he is not so quick to take credit for causing the tankers to show up in the Strait of Juan de Fuca because there is no pipeline through which to send Alaskan oil. However, that is his problem, not ours. The NDP have a lot to say on this issue. They are suffering under the rather serious handicap of having western membership and eastern leadership.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have the problem. You have western membership and no leadership.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I can appreciate the extremes to which they go when they have to send missionaries from Etobicoke to run for seats in Vancouver.
I will now discuss Motion No. 21 and the difference it is going to make. This bill represents a rather serious incursion by the government into private industry. It is very serious indeed.
I would like to point out some of the problems we would have by an incursion of the government into not only the marketplace, or industry, but almost every aspect of Canadian life. With respect to investment, it is questionable whether this is really investment and we hope to stop this through Motion 21. It is borrowing the resource and paying for it some other time. I would not go so far as to say that the government is stealing from the industry, as some of my colleagues have stated. But they are taking it without the owner's permission.
I understand the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day was headlined "Caring and Sharing . The government would rather the industry take care of the resources and the government share them. That is how we came to Bill C-48, so the government could get in on the sharing part. Although the government would like to share in the success, if the company loses money it will turn it back to the industry and give it 100 per cent of the losses.
I might point out some interesting figures which were released mainly by government agencies. The first one I would like to mention is the current gross fixed capital formation in
October 30, 1981

government investment, and it has gone down steadily since 1960 as a percentage of gross national expenditures. In 1960 it was 4.1 per cent; in 1965, 4.4 per cent; in 1970, 3.7 per cent; in
1975,	3.8 per cent; and in 1980, 2.8 per cent. That is a percentage of gross national expenditure, so that means excluding inflationary figures.
[DOT] (M50)
If we were using inflationary figures, we all realize it would be a sum of billions of dollars going steadily upward. However, when we look at that, we can see that government fixed capital formation is not working out any more than government funded research and development is, which is, interestingly enough, in the same schedule issued by the Department of Finance in April, 1981, showing that government funded research and development increased from 0.62 per cent to 0.65 per cent between 1960 and 1965 and since then went down in 1975 to 0.48 per cent and in 1980 to 0.46 per cent. Despite the great claims of various ministers, the research and development program has not been producing. It is getting to be more and more miserly.
What I am putting across is that the funds which are being expended by the government are more and more getting to have less and less to do with the future of the country. They are just current transfers of payments to individuals. They are not hooked to something that is really good for the country, such as investment in plant, in training or in research and development.
Trends in government employment are of some interest and, I believe, illustrate again the point I am making. The percentage of government employment as compared with total employment in 1961 was 22.1 per cent. That figure went steadily up each and every year since then until it is now 24.3 per cent. However, if we look at government wages as a percentage of total wages, we find a rather peculiar situation. In 1961 government wages as a percentage of total wages paid in this country were 19.4 per cent. In 1965 that figure was 19.7 per cent; in 1970, 23.1 per cent; in 1975, 24.3 per cent; in
1976,	24.9 per cent; and in 1977, 25.1 per cent. Hon. members will notice that while there has been very little increase in the number of people employed, there has been quite a substantial increase in the amount of money spent by the government in wages. This indicates simply that the fat cats are getting fatter and fatter as the years go by. I do not think this is really what the government or the people of Canada are looking for. This may be why surveys taken in Ottawa about mortgage problems come up almost blank. This is the fattest of all fat cities. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is here to agree with me. I imagine he would. There are very few people in Ottawa who have financial difficulties. There are many people everywhere else who have.
It is clear that the government has tended in the past 20 years to decrease its spending on capital and on research- these are two types of activities which can be viewed as akin to investments-and to increase demand on the economy's available work force. Moreover, the work force which the govern-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ment is employing has become more expensive, whether because of higher salaries for similar work or through alterations in the type of work performed for government. The change is clearly one away from investment and toward increasing current consumption.
I would like to talk for some time about federalism, the fiscal arrangements we have and energy taxes. After all, is that not what the motion is all about?
There are two events-one is now in process; that is, this event, and the other has just concluded-which are going to alter substantially the fiscal structure of the Canadian confederation. The first of these events was the settlement between Ottawa and the oil producing provinces of their disputes over the production and pricing of oil and gas. The second is the current renegotiation of intergovernmental transfer programs and specifically discussions about the amendments to federal-provincial arrangements and the Established Programs Financing Act. As the recent energy pricing disputes are best understood in the context of fiscal renegotiations, I will talk about them first.
Fiscal renegotiations between levels of government are not normally the cause of great strains within a country. Even less frequently do they penetrate the public consciousness. In Canada, however, they have become, and will be for at least the next five years, a focus of a great deal of the constitutional debate. Please let us not think that the constitutional debate will end Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. There will be years of debate on the Constitution, no matter what the results are on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next. The details of the settlement which will come about after the renegotiation of the fiscal arrangements will affect not just the economic structure of the country, and particularly its tax structure. In addition, the negotiations and the process whereby a resolution is achieved will themselves profoundly affect the politics of this country. In essence the federal government is embarking upon a course which will almost inevitably bring it into serious conflict with a number of provinces. Given the current strains on confederation and the existence of a government in Quebec which wants, at the least, a dramatic restructuring of the country-and, indeed, Quebec was promised that by those occupying the government benches during the recent referendum campaign in Quebec-there is clear potential for a major crisis which will be fought over this issue.
With its very large deficit the federal government faces a serious dilemma. It has very large obligations stemming directly from the regional equalization role it performs as well as from related regional transfers. At the same time the government is unwilling to raise visible taxes to any degree. This is no doubt hampering the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) a great deal. In several election campaigns the government has built up the expectation that it will never raise taxes. It simply imposes taxes in a way that is invisible. We do not pay a high price for gasoline because gasoline is more expensive; we do so becasue there is a much higher tax component. Every gallon is taxed far more than it was two years ago.

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
As the federal government views the problem, its crux lies in the fact that Ottawa has responsibility for alleviating regional disparities which have been made more extreme, in large part because of the explosion of the value of the west's resource riches while having relatively little access to the additional revenues generated. In short, the central government wants a drastic rearrangement of fiscal priorities to facilitate the current level of transfers from richer to poorer provinces without bankrupting the federal government, and to ensure that Ottawa's visibility as a provider of services is as great as its visibility as a collector of taxes. This is a problem any government faces. Everybody wants to be Santa Claus, and up until the present time the government has been able to perform that role because of the increases which sprang, for a time, from the inflation which was rampant and has been rampant for the last 12 years in this country. However, for a time it expanded the tax take of the government quite considerably and naturally. Then indexation of taxation took place; this restricted the amount the federal government stood to gain from inflation, and immediately it began to get into fiscal trouble. The federal government had by then developed the idea that it need never raise taxes but could go on spending more and more money. With the indexation of taxation the government was unable to do so. I thought that its only alternative was.to go into debt, so it proceeded to do that rather than face the problem honestly and try to move toward having our income and our outflow of funds equalized.
In two months it will be two years since the Crosbie budget did its best to put this country on a sensible economic path. It does not appear possible for the Liberals to do anything except run expenditures up with the taxpayer's dollar. They now have an additional bonanza in the energy agreement which will supply them with some $50 billion in the next few years. The government looks upon this as found money. Suddenly they have inherited this money and now, I expect, they will look for ways to spend it. We would prefer that they pay some attention to the Economic Council of Canada. Perhaps the council s statement in its recent paper on fiscal arrangements should be read into the record at this time. It reads:
-but the federal deficit problem cannot be solved by transferring the problem to the provinces. Not only do those economic trends indicate inadequacy of such an approach, but also council projections show that the coming decade will require investment at an unprecedented level in Canada, probably as high or higher than the peak periods of investment reached so far this century. This means that all governments will have not only to restrain their spending but also to raise taxes. Only then will they be able to encourage the financing of investment activities of the sort required. Given the difficulties with restraint, the different levels of government will want to shift the burdens of any increase in taxes to each other. The political ramifications of policies calling for increased taxes inevitably lead in this direction. But this exchange of burdens goes nowhere toward solving Canada's economic difficulties.
As these talks begin in the next few weeks, I would strongly recommend to the Minister of Finance that he remember that what one gets away with in one area is simply imposed in another. If they are going to squabble over the tax dollars, they must remember the pot is only a certain size and they have to share it. I have complained about the ever-increasing
government intervention in private industry and the problem of increasing labour costs of such intervention.
I would like to conclude with a quote from a famous analyst of bureaucracy, namely, Max Weber. He identified one characteristic of the bureaucracy early in this century in this way:
Bureaucratization offers above all the optimum possibility for carrying through the principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective considerations ... The "objective" discharge of business primarily means discharge of business according to calculable rules and "without regard for persons."
This has a danger. It is an attractive way to do things. The only problem is that it does not work very well. Nobody is ever to blame. The blame is shared. The bureaucracy assumes it as a whole. Things go on, Ottawa gets bigger and fatter, and the people pay more and more for less and less. I hope this motion will come to a vote fairly soon. I thank the House for its kind attention.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 21. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
I believe the Chair indicated, following the point or order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), that a negative vote on Motion No. 21 would require a vote to be put on Motion No. 22. For this reason, the vote on both these motions will be deferred until the time has been agreed upon with the House leaders. The House will now proceed to Motion No. 23.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 28 by striking lines 13 to 17 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"former lease under which significant or commercial discoveries of oil or gas were made on or before October 28, 1980 or in respect of any interest that succeeds that former lease".


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 23 deals with the exemption of certain properties under the Canada Lands Act. Where production has occurred prior to December 31, 1980, these lands are to be exempted from the back-in provision. As everyone knows, the only production we have on Canada lands today is Norman Wells and the gas
October 30, 1981

production at Pointed Mountain. In effect there are two properties.
The position of the Conservative Party is that we do not believe in any form of confiscation. We do not think this back-in is right. What we are proposing in our motion is that at the very least those companies which have gone out in the Canada lands and have made a discovery of oil or gas should be exempted from that back-in provision. After all, they have spent money, gone out and proved up an asset. I think it is fair that anyone who has discovered oil or gas on Canada lands prior to December 31, 1980, should be exempt from this back-in provision. It is confiscation in any form, but it is that much more so in this case if a discovery has been made on the land. That is the intent of Motion No. 23.
When speaking on Bill C-48 the other day, I attempted to describe what self-sufficiency means in Canada, what we are looking at over the next 10 to 20 years, and the formidable job ahead of us if we are to approach even any kind of oil self-sufficiency in Canada. In my previous speech I said that Canada is looking at a shortfall of a million barrels of oil a day. I attempted to describe what an immense job it will be for Canada to try to find a million barrels of oil a day.
There is another aspect of Bill C-48 that I want to address this afternoon. In my view, the impact of Bill C-48 will have a devastating effect on many other aspects of economic life in our country. I am concerned that when we talk about Canadi-anization, and let us assume it is Canadianization and not nationalization-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I would not normally do this. However, as I read the amendment before us, it seems to be virtually the same as the Liberal amendment brought in with this bill. After the hon. member has told us about Canadianization, and since I have to reply to him, I wonder whether he could give us some guidance on how he thinks this amendment differs from the Liberal amendment.


John William Thomson: If I have any time left at the end of my speech, I will be happy to try to do that.
I should like to return to what I believe to be the broader aspects of Bill C-48 and their impact on Canada. One question we should consider is where we will find the money. Energy self-sufficiency is a nice goal. It sounds nice, it is a nice phrase. But where will we find the money? Not only will we be required to find money to finance one million barrels of new oil production per day, but we will have to find money for a lot of other things in the next 20 to 30 to 50 years in Canada. Do we think we can get it all by ourselves? Can we generate all this cash by ourselves in Canada?
I was interested in a talk given the other day by Mr. Ed Neufeld, the senior vice-president and chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada. The title of his talk was "Who will Finance Canada's Economic Growth in the 1980s?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Canada Oil and Gas Act


John William Thomson: I am not sure whether hon. gentlemen on my left really care, but the Conservative Party cares about financing Canada's economic growth. It is important to us because it means jobs and incomes for Canadians. Mr. Neufeld said that we would need $1.4 trillion in the next decade to finance our growth. It is beyond my comprehension-$1.4 trillion. This is a staggering sum of money. The Canadian government spends $65 billion a year. What is that in terms of $1.4 trillion? Is it 20 or 200 times that amount?
Mr. Neufeld also said that of this $1.4 trillion, $300 billion will be required in energy and energy-related areas but that huge amounts will also be required in metal mining, pulp and paper, transportation, chemicals, the steel industry, and so on. He went on to say that the rapid development of investment in technology will be the single most important element for achieving Canada's productivity potential. Where will we get $1.4 trillion? I guess much of it depends on the ability of Canadian business to generate its capital requirements. Mr. Neufeld also said that business will have to raise $900 billion of this $1.4 trillion. What does this mean? It means that Canada must have a healthy private sector industry to generate that cash flow.
He went on to indicate that individual Canadians will have to put up $400 billion from their savings in the next 10 years. This means that Canadians should be able to save, to go out and to work. They should have adequate incomes. They cannot be taxed out of existence, or they will not have any money to save and reinvest in their own country.
He went on to say that the government will be required to put up $60 billion. Finally he said that we would need something in the order of $60 billion to $100 billion of foreign investment to achieve our productive potential. We will need foreign investment, and we must recognize this. Business will have to put up $900 billion, so we need a strong entrepreneurial society to go out and create that cash flow. Individual Canadians need an opportunity to invest in Canada. They need the incomes and jobs to create that investment. We need foreign investment capital.
How will we encourage the foreign investment capital we desperately need when the legislation before us this afternoon is put into effect? Has the government thought about that? Does it care? I presume that it does not really care. We will not have any access to foreign capital. We will not get it. People will not invest in Canada. They do not want to invest in a country which will confiscate their assets. Would any hon. member invest in good faith in a country the government of which would come along and steal it?


Mr. Irwin:: They will invest anywhere they can make a profit.


John William Thomson: I hear the hon. member opposite. He should not kid himself. That is exactly the point-there is no return on the investment.


Ron Irwin: Then why did they make those profits on Wall Street?

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


John William Thomson: I read a speech which was given the other day by the Canadian ambassador in New York. He said that Americans should understand that our National Energy Program is not discriminatory. "Goodness, no, we would not discriminate against foreign investment," he said. He indicated that Canada has a legitimate right to manage its own affairs. Sure we do, if we do not give a damn about what people think of us. But the fact of the matter is that the legislation discriminates against investments which are made from abroad, and the Canadian government is expropriating assets which do not belong to it. The assets belong to the companies that invested in Canadian land. The government is not only expropriating the assets of foreigners, it is expropriating the assets of Canadian companies which have invested in Canada.
The Canadian ambassador went on to say that the Americans should be tolerant of the course Canada is pursuing through its energy policies. How tolerant would hon. members opposite be if somebody walked into their living rooms and stole their property? Would they be tolerant?
I wonder whether hon. members opposite understand how difficult it is to raise capital. How many of them have gone out to raise capital for a new plant? How many of them have attempted to raise capital for the creation of something worth while? Did the hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) ever try to raise capital to do anything worth while?


Gordon Edward Taylor: She ran for Parliament.


John William Thomson: Did she ever try to raise money to drill an oil well or to purchase a drilling rig? I have been there. I tried to raise capital for 20 years and it was darned difficult. I can remember making many trips to Toronto and Montreal in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s trying to raise money for oil and gas development, for oil well drilling rigs and to expand the company. Not a dime could I raise because the banks and eastern Canadian investors thought the business was too risky. It is a lot easier to steal it than to go out and make it. The government and hon. members opposite know that. I had to go to Houston and Dallas to raise capital. I could not raise it in Canada, but I could raise it in Houston and Dallas because the people there saw the opportunity which existed in western Canada. It was too risky for Canadians.
The last company for which I worked started from nothing. It started with one rig in Estevan, Saskatchewan. The rig cost $125,000 in 1964. The company started with 15 employees. In a period of 15 years the company managed to survive through some good times and bad. It grew, and it grew on foreign capital. It did not grow on Canadian capital; it grew on foreign capital. The company was sold in 1979 to another Canadian company. At that time, it had become the largest land-based oil well drilling and servicing contractor in North America. It employed over 1,500 people, of whom 1,000 were Canadians. It is U.S. capital that made it possible. It created 1,000 jobs in Canada and 500 jobs in the United States. The company drilled a couple of thousand wells over a period of 15 years and made a positive contribution to the ecomomic wealth of Canada, but it also made a positive contribution to the
welfare of 1,000 Canadian workers. Many of those employees owned shares in the company and they took pride in that ownership.
If I were to make a single point with regard to the success of that company, it would be that the employees who owned shares, who owned a piece of that company, took great pride in the achievements and the success of that company. I cannot tell you how many of those employees valued and respected their ownership in that company.
There is a right way and a wrong way to Canadianize Canadian industry. The right way is to allow Canadians and Canadian employees to acquire shares in Canadian companies. The wrong way is for the government to do it for them. How can you create incentive and pride among employees when the government owns the asset? Answer that question. Would you take any personal pride in your home if the government owned it? Would you take any personal pride in your automobile if the government owned it? There is the difference between state ownership and individual ownership.
Hon. members opposite seem to forget that vital point. It is pride that makes people go out and work in this life. It is not a kick-in-the-ass type of philosophy that is exploited by the Liberal government.
Canada needs large amounts of foreign investment in years to come. When we talk about foreign investment, we talk about real jobs for real, live, Canadians. We talk about incomes for Canadian people. Surely that is the direction in which government policy should go.
It seems crazy to me that we should deny Canadians the opportunity to invest in their own country and that we should discourage foreign investment capital that we need in Canada to create a healthy productive economy.
How much capital is required to create one job in Canada? Does anyone know? It varies from industry to industry. I think $100,000 per job is probably a very low estimate.
I see the hon. member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Evans) shaking his head and saying that it does not cost $100,000 to create a job in Canada. I have looked at a number of figures and I believe it is a very conservative number. In any event, it is $100,000 a job. How many jobs do we need to create in Canada in the next ten years? One million? I am pointing out to you that the amounts of money that will be required to create the investment for a healthy and productive economy for this country are staggering. We cannot do this all ourselves and fulfil the aspirations of the Canadian people. We will have to rely on foreign investment capital, whether we like it or not. Canada with 23 or 24 million people, cannot live as a nation unto itself. It is beyond our financial resources. What do we do? Do we constrain ourselves and our productive capacity and contrain the aspirations of Canadians? Do we do this because we simply want to go out and raise capital to do something? What is wrong? Tell me, what is the difference between capital from Belgium and capital out of your pocket?
October 30, 1981

Does it have a different colour to it? Do you pay a different rate of interest on the money?
We have our own federal government that borrows money on foreign markets. It is all right for the federal government to borrow those funds, but it is not all right for the private business to do it. That is bad. I do not understand the logic of that.
We are playing a very dangerous game with our friends in the world in terms of foreign investment. We have not only turned off the United States, but we have turned off the Germans, the Dutch and the British. I have been there and I have listened to them. They do not want to have anything to do with Canada any more. They do not want us. They do not even trade with us. As far as they are concerned, we have failed to live up to our international obligations under the GATT agreement and they will take us to court. That is how they feel about us. I do not care whether the Canadian ambassador says, "Be tolerant and respect our policies," because it will not drill and it will not sell. They are not buying. The Canadian government will not pay the price but individual Canadians will pay it. It is not you. You will not suffer, and I will not suffer. However, individual Canadians will suffer because of this policy. You can bet on it.
It is not as though Canada were the only country in the world that needs capital investment. Do we really believe that we are all that great and that we are the only country in the world that needs capital investment today? Others should consider it a privilege to lend us money to develop our economy. Every country in the world needs capital investment, and lots of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John William Thomson: Every country in the world is trying either to improve the quality of its plants and equipment or to create new plants and equipment.
I want to conclude with this statement. All Canadians will live to regret the foolishness of the legislation before us this afternoon if it passes through the House. Every Canadian will live to regret it-mark my words.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I indicated earlier that I should like to put a question to the hon. member. With the consent of the House and of the hon. member, I wonder if I may be able to put it to him now.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


John William Thomson: My hon. friend, the hon. members for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who is more familiar with this legislation than I am, would perhaps be better able to respond to the hon. member's question. I think he will be speaking very shortly. However, I will try to answer the question, if the hon. member wishes.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I can put the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I just want to clarify a matter with regard to time. Normally the mover of a motion would have 40 minutes. The hon. member who spoke was the seconder of the motion. I assume there may be other speakers from his party who would like to speak on this motion. I understand there is unanimous consent of the House to extend his time, if he wishes to do so. I gather it is the mood of the House that he should. In the circumstances, I give the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could answer this question since he knows a lot about this subject, or he may defer answering the question. My question is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) has declined to answer the question and suggests it be put to another spokesman for his party. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might hold his question and another spokesman for the official opposition might-


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I have been granted a further 20 minutes, I would be happy to try to answer the question to the best of my ability.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 23 deals with Clause 28. The original bill deals with pioneer production. The cutoff date of the previous production, if it was before this bill came into effect, was set at January 1, 1976. Therefore, the Crown share could not come in to any production before January 1, 1976.
The amendment the Conservatives have advanced changes that date, backs off the Crown's share a little, and takes the date to October 28, 1980. Therefore, any pioneer production before October 28, 1980, would be excluded from the Crown share. Then the government, in the amended bill which is before us, backs off even further and goes ahead of the Tories to December 31, 1980. Clause 28 states:
No Crown share is reserved out of a former lease under which oil or gas was first produced, other than for test purposes, on or before December 31, 1980, or in respect of any interest that succeeds any such former lease.
That is the government's bill. My question is whether the Conservatives are talking about something different, and that may be the explanation; however, at first blush it looks as if their amendment did not even go as far as that of the government.
Before I get a chance to speak, I would like the hon. member, or another spokesman for the Conservatives, to clarify at least what their amendment states. I am just a simple, happy Tom from Vancouver.


John William Thomson: I think that I can answer the hon. member's question quickly. The amendment we have put forward deals with discoveries which took place before October 28, 1980, not production. The government's amendment deals only with
12368

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
production in place. What our amendment states is that if one found oil before October 28, 1980, then the government does not have the right to back in to those properties. The government's amendment says that if one found oil and had any production on stream prior to December 31, 1980, then one would be exempted from the government back-in. As I said at the outset, what that means is that Pointed Mountain and Norman Wells are the only two properties under Canada Lands which were, in fact, on production as of December 31, 1980. Therefore, any other discoveries which have been made, such as Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea, would still qualify as eligible for the back-in under the government amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very brief. I do not think we should leave this point without getting a further response. I can see that I have already had a good reaction to my speech when I said I shall be brief. There is some wisdom in this place today.


An hon. Member:: All the kids in the country should be crying over you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to hear from the government on this motion and to hear further explanation from the opposition. Let us deal first with the opposition. I have just been told that discoveries of oil are exempted before December 31, 1980. Does that exempt all of Hibernia? Does that exempt the Beaufort Sea? Does that exempt Dome? Am I led to believe that? 1 understand it does, it exempts all that.


An hon. Member:: It is our amendment, and it does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It exempts everything in Hibernia. This is the opposition's amendment, the Conservative's amendment.


An hon. Member:: Tory.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It exempts everything that Dome may or may not have up in the Beaufort Sea, and everything in Hibernia. It seems to me that that is a pretty big concession to the industry. I have heard of concessions, but this is really doing it.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) said that the taxpayer-the bus driver, the waitress, the cleaner and so on- had to pay 53 cents on every dollar, and that another 25 cents had better be added to that to make it 78 cents, exempting all of the pretty rich discoveries in the Canada lands. I think that if there is anything to show that the Conservative Party has totally gone into bed with the oil industry, this amendment is an example of it.


An hon. Member:: Yes, we wanted oil self-sufficiency.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to raise a point with respect to the government members who are sitting over there laughing as
the Conservative Party refights the election of 1979 and goes right back into its opposition to Petro-Canada and government involvement. I suspect the government members know-that is why they are laughing-they are getting the Conservative Party into an unpopular position in this country.
However, let me deal now with the government before hon. members laugh too heartily on this matter. The fact is that the original date on this bill was January 1, 1976. The government backed down, one of the backdowns on the changes of this bill. The reason I am somewhat bitter-but not as bitter as my friends here from Alberta-is that the government would not back down on environment matters, on native matters or on any consumer matters in this bill, but it backed down in about eight instances, that I put on the record the other day, with respect to the industry and, in one instance, with respect to representations from the government of the United States.
I would like the spokesman from the government to stand up in this debate and tell me why the government moved this cutoff date to December 31, 1980. What it means, in simple language, is that if there is any production before that date, the Crown does not get the 25 per cent share.
I have been informed that one gas field operated by Columbia Gas Development Company of Canada Ltd. benefits. Who has been twisting whose arm? What does Columbia Gas get out of it? What does the Liberal Party get out of exempting Columbia Gas? What is the point of doing this? What is the idea of exempting this one particular field? Someone has a lot of power there. Someone has a little bit of influence, unless, of course, it can be explained away. I invite a government member to stand up and explain it away. However, there is something odd in the government backing off from its original bill, extending the date forward, and exempting the operators in the Columbia Gas Development from the 25 per cent Crown share.
It is a nice windfall for the company in this area. There might be an explanation, but it sure looks and feels a little bit smelly. Therefore, I would ask the government to reply indicating why it has exempted this particular field, and why it has brought in this change to the bill from its original version when it came down to the committee.


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


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member opposite was seeking some information, and I will gladly attempt to respond briefly. The hon. member may recall that in committee, the January 1, 1976, cutoff date for pioneer production evoked some discussion. Pioneer production, of course, means the production for which oil and gas rights will remain in force according to their existing terms and conditions even after the passage of this bill. The date in the original draft of the bill came from a statement on policy made on May 19, 1976, by the then minister of energy, mines and resources on proposed new oil and gas legislation for the frontier regions.
Some hon. members of the House may recall that this legislation was given first reading on December 20, 1977, as Bill C-20. Obviously, a lot of water, or some fluid in any event,
October 30, 1981

has gone under the bridge since then. It is hardly surprising that we heard in committee a persuasive argument on this point from Columbia Gas Development with respect to the Kotaneelee gas field in the southeast corner of the Yukon Territory. We agreed that the cutoff date should reflect events that have occurred since Bill C-20 was proposed. Accordingly, we changed the cutoff date in our amendment for the determination of pioneer production to December 31, 1980. The Kotaneelee field would thus be added to the pioneer production category which I defined earlier.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am moved to enter the debate by the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), who has spoken the most feelingly and sensibly of any member thus far. His speech is one which should commend itself to all Canadians. The hon. member for Calgary South has made a significant contribution to Canadian business, albeit business in western Canada, but important business indeed to the country.
The energy industry is important. As we look ahead, we can see that we have precious few growth industries in our nation. There is a dearth of our growth industries. It seems to me there are only two in the private sector in any event. One is in the energy and resource development field, and the other is in the high technology field in eastern Canada. It seems to me that we ought to pay very close attention to members of the House and to people who are not members of the House who are making comments now on the government's approach to Canadianization and its effect on those industries, particularly the energy industry.
Knowledgeable people in Canada are saying there is nothing wrong with the concept and principle of Canadianization. I do not think there is a member in the House of Commons, looking at the principle of Canadianization and moving toward a period when Canadians will have a larger and larger slice of the ownership, however it is defined in the industries and businesses of the country, who thinks of Canadianization as a bad thing. Speaking for my own party,'that has always been our position. As an hon. member said earlier, Canadian ownership is important.
The history of the country is interesting. The Liberal Party, especially the post-war Liberal Party, was very much a conti-nentalist party. It is its conversion to Canadianization that is relatively recent.


Mark Willson Rose: That is right.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps based on some polls Mr. Goldfarb may have taken showing that Canadians are suddenly interested, the Liberal Party has made an about turn. I do not say this unkindly in terms of my friends who are in the chamber today, but I do say it is important from the point of view of the country. If we are to move to Canadianization, both the pace of that movement and the way in which it is
Canada Oil and Gas Act
made could have a significant and profound effect on the wellbeing of Canada.
A great many western Canadian members have taken part in this debate. Some say that the development of high technology in eastern Canada is the business only of eastern Canadians and that somehow or other the development of the resources in western Canada is the business only of western Canadians. Both of these statements are, of course, untrue. We are intertwined in this country by every advance and every backward step that is taken in developing any part of Canada. If a backward step is taken in the forest industry in British Columbia, it ripples across the nation. If an advance is made in the resource industries in western Canada, we are all affected by it. All Canadians have a vital interest in the continued and growing vitality of the nation.
From time to time we tend to think of these debates in regional terms. They have a direct impact on the regions affected, but ripples cut across boundaries, waves wash over boundaries, and it does not matter.
If a step is taken by any government advancing any good principle-and Canadianization is a good principle-people from every part of Canada are involved. However, if a step is taken that has a deleterious effect on one of our major industries, particularly one in which there is some capability for growth, then people from every part of Canada have to become concerned. Therefore, I think it is relevant to the people in my constituency and in my part of Canada, just as it is relevant to my friends in the province of Quebec, to be very much concerned, just as an increasing number of knowledgeable economic writers and commentators are concerned about the effect of the National Energy Program on the resource industry in western Canada.
This is not a concern reflected just in partisan terms about government policy toward the development of business in Canada. The same concern was reflected the other day in a statement made by Mr. Thomas Kierans who is the retiring chairman of the Ontario Economic Council. Mr. W. A. Macdonald, a distinguished Toronto lawyer and member of the McMillan Binch firm spoke in similar terms. I am sure hon. members recognize the McMillan Binch firm as the firm John Turner went to. Mr. Macdonald expressed concern about the impact a number of policies of the government were having on the country.
We should stop and take stock of where we are moving. If we are moving in the right direction, are we using the right tools and are we on the right track? Are we going too quickly? Is the speed at which we are travelling having deleterious effects?
I am sure all those who heard the special report carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast in the early part of this week must have been moved by the discussions on activities in western Canada. When I was in Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, I talked to a great many people, not just Conservatives but people who are interested in the development of Canada as much as anyone else is. I was told about the tremendous diminution of drilling rigs in western Canada.

October 30, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Since the National Energy Program began, more than 100 drilling rigs have left the country. If my figures are incorrect and they can be checked, I will certainly correct them on the record. But the movement of 100 rigs is a major movement. Drilling rigs are not like hand pumps that one can pull out of the ground, they are not like electric drills that can be moved easily. The movement of one drilling rig involves 30 trucks. A big decision is made when a rig is moved. Where are these drilling rigs going? They are not going to the United States because their owners like Americans more than they like Canadians. It is not that at all. I do not believe rigs are leaving Canada because their owners do not like the policies of the government of Alberta. They may not, but I do not believe that is the reason. If anyone can tell me of a commentator who would say that, I would like to know. Drilling rigs are being moved by their owners because of the National Energy Program. People are concerned about the Canadianization policy. They are concerned about the the proposals involving Canada lands. Given that kind of concern, it is only natural people turn to the United States.
I am not suggesting at all by what I am saying that companies should have an untrammelled right with respect to Canada lands, but I think we have to stop, look and listen to what has happened. We must listen to those who are knowledgeable in the business. We must ask ourselves whether the policy, of which this bill is the keystone, is really in the best interests of the country, given the speed of implementation and given the side effects from it. That is of interest to us because I believe it can be demonstrated that for every Canadian job lost in Alberta, for every drilling rig which is taken out of Canada, and for every negative shift, the impact is not felt only in Drayton, Alberta; it is felt in Ontario among the suppliers of valves, pipes, fittings, trucks, drills and all of the things manufactured here and used in the drilling industry. This can have an impact on the petrochemical industry in Sarnia, represented by my friend, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) who is in the House. We are not little islands in this country, we are joined together as one country in the economic sense, and that is the course of the matter. That is the thing that concerns and worries me about this bill.
I had determined not to enter the debate until I heard my friend, the hon. member for Calgary South. I think it is very important that the government not consider anyone who is opposed to the bill as being opposed to Canadianization, but that at least it consider another way to Canadianize. 1 hope it is considering other ways.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the importance of foreign capital to the industry. My friends have talked about that importance, and it is important. You represent a part of the province of Ontario, as I do, and you must know, as I know, the concerns there are within the province of Ontario regarding the whole question of deindustrialization. We do not have oil here. We have some very small quantities of natural gas, but we do not have oil. If we are to see our growth, it will be in high technology, in the developing, manufacturing,
assembling and processing industries. That is not happening in Ontario at the moment. That is one of the difficulties of this province. If we are to have balanced economic growth, I believe it is important to have growth everywhere.
One of the things that you and I encountered, Mr. Speaker, when we were in the Republic of Germany was that wherever we went-and you will recall that we met Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, provincial officials in Stuttgart and officials in Bonn, we met them socially, as you will recall, and we also met them at the session of the committees of the parliament in Bonn- was their puzzlement, they were scratching their heads. They wondered why we took this kind of universal approach to the question of foreign capital. They indicted a willingness to enter into joint ventures with us, ventures in which they did not want the majority holding. They are interested in making money and they look upon Canada, they thought, as a reasonable place in which to invest, but they scratched their heads. I think this government too is beginning to scratch its head a little about this matter.
As the hon. member for Calgary South has said, jobs are created as a result of the creation, the building, the augmenting of industry in any part of Canada. There is a great problem in Canada with respect to jobs. We have a million Canadians unemployed. We have people who are trained to do some jobs, but there is no place for them to work. We have people who are educated but because there is no development at the moment, they find themselves underemployed. There is nothing wrong with working at what might be termed a job at an ordinary level, but it is a shame if a person is trained to work at something different and cannot do it. That is a concern we all must have, and I gather the government is suddenly becoming concerned about it.
All those brave words in the Speech from the Throne have come to nothing. Little has been heard recently of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and little has been heard about the strengthening of it. The reason is that it was regarded, and is becoming , regarded within the Liberal government, I think, as a matter that will slow the pace of needed development. The same can apply to any government policy. However we like to cut it, in the resource industry in western Canada at the moment the application and the pace of the program under the national energy policy as announced, and the form and method of Canadianization, is having that kind of dulling effect on the cutting edge of one of our industries with the greatest potential in Canada.
If the government does not soon develop some reasonable policies with respect to research and development, then we in our own part of Canada will begin falling behind the Germans, the Japanese and others in terms of high technology. In that case, we can use some help from the government in terms of some reasonable approach to research and development. If those reasonable approaches are not made with respect to the national energy policy, Canadianization and all the things involved in Bill C-48, the same thing could happen in western Canada. Whether that kind of decrease happens in this part of Canada or in western Canada makes no difference to Canadi-
October 30, 1981

ans. To the extent that we do not realize our potential, wherever it might be in Canada, the best interests of the country, the people and the future, are not appropriately served by government policy. That is the isssue before the government with respect to Bill C-48. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I call it four o'clock?


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

John Carnell Crosbie: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should act on the request of the government of Newfoundland outlined in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the Premier of Newfoundland dated April 16, 1980, to ensure that hydroelectric power pass freely from the development of the Lower Churchill River in Newfoundland and Labrador from Labrador across the territory of the province of Quebec to other provinces and territories so that the said hydroelectric power can be sold freely to other customers and not be forced to be sold to Quebec Hydro alone at whatever price Quebec Hydro wishes to impose, and that the government invoke its authority under the BNA Act to grant to Newfoundland the right to transmit hydroelectricity across the province of Quebec in a similar manner to action taken to permit the free flow of oil and natural gas from Alberta and the western provinces to consumers in Ontario and Quebec by way of interprovincial pipelines, and that the government act immediately so that financing arrangements can be concluded and steps taken to commence the development of the hydro resources of the Lower Churchill River in Labrador during 1980.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this motion to put before the House the facts of a situation which is a national tragedy. It is a national lost opportunity. It is a national shame. This is a cry to the nation for justice.
This motion was moved, Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1980. It is now a year and a half later, and we have progressed no further.
In 1965, an agreement was entered into between Quebec Hydro and the Churchill Falls-Labrador Corporation, a subsidiary of Brinco, to build the Upper Churchill power project with the approval of the Newfoundland government. It was completed and it now produces 5,600 megawatts of electric power, 35 billion kilowatt hours per year that is purchased by Quebec Hydro and sold by CFL Co. It is the equivalent of 60 million tons of oil in energy. Under that contract, the power is
Newfoundland Hydro
sold for 3 mills, that is three tenths of one cent per kilowatt hour, which transposes into $1.80 per barrel of oil. The equivalent price of oil would be $1.80 per barrel. Under the contract entered into, which became effective September 1, 1976, for 65 years, this contract will continue to the year 2041. After 40 years, the price will go down to 2 mills per kilowatt hour, two tenths of one cent per kilowatt hour, the equivalent of $1.50 per barrel of oil. This will be in the year 2016. In essence Quebec will be getting oil at $1.50 per barrel, or hydroelectric energy at a price of 2 mills per kilowatt hour.
As we know, imported oil is now costing Canada $40 per barrel. Quebec obtains its power at a cost to Quebec Hydro of about 10 mills per kilowatt hour, when you include the cost to Quebec of bringing it across the transmission lines from Churchill Falls into Quebec. The power that they are getting at a cost of 10 mills per kilowatt hour, they are now selling within Quebec for an average price of 25 mills per kilowatt hour. The profit per year to Quebec Hydro for 35 billion kilowatt hours of energy sold at 25 mills per kilowatt hour is $525 million a year. That is a very good deal, you might say. You might say they were stupid in Newfoundland to have entered into this arrangement, and doubtless that is true. The person who was responsible was the then premier, Mr. Smallwood, who in large measure has to bear the responsibility for this. Of course, we are looking back from our vantage point now and it is very easy to be smart in hindsight.
This contract does not have a provision for renegotiation or escalation. The inflation alone would amply demonstrate that if CFL Co. were left as a private enterprise, it would be bankrupt before this contract was even half completed. This contract was so ineptly drafted, showed so little forethought, that CFL Co. would have been bankrupt if left as a private enterprise before half the 65-year term of the contract was over. There was not even an escalation clause included to cover inflation.
That is a very good contract for Quebec Hydro. In Newfoundland there is a feeling of great injustice. I do not think Newfoundland is making any money from this. The $8 million or $10 million, which was the original estimate of what Newfoundland would make in the Upper Churchill, has gone with the increased costs since then. This is confirmed by the study done by the Economic Council of Canada. That is the Upper Churchill.
In 1974, the Newfoundland government took over CFL Co. from Brinco by nationalizing it. I was there and I am delighted to have been a member and one of the originating spirits of that action. Work was planned to begin development on the Gull Island site in the Lower Churchill. That site would provide 1,700 megawatts of power. Work was also planned to develop the Muskrat Falls site on the Lower Churchill River, which would have produced another 600 megawatts of power, resulting in a total of 2,300 megawatts of power.
Newfoundland had to have the power. It ran out of new hydro sources in Newfoundland, as I will demonstrate in a moment. They are now left to use very expensive oil. We all know what has happened to oil. Newfoundland spent $78.3

October 30, 1981
Newfoundland Hydro
million working on the plans for those two projects. In 1976 the Newfoundland government had to stop because there was no agreement with Quebec. You might ask: no agreement about what? Well, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland we cannot develop 1,700 megawatts of power from the Lower Churchill without having more customers than exist in Newfoundland. The surplus has to be sold somewhere for a period of 10 to 20 years.
The only way to sell that surplus is to sell it to Hydro-Quebec for use in Quebec, and if Hydro-Quebec does not want it, to sell it to somebody outside Quebec, such as the United States, Ontario, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia who need and want the power. However, the position of the Quebec government has been negative. They have said: "No, you are not going to sell that power to anyone else". They have said: "You cannot transmit that power over our territory unless we buy the power ourselves." They will not allow us to sell to some third party, and they will not buy it.
In any event, they have told us that if they did buy it, they would not give us very much for it. They have said: "You have to surrender any rights or claims you think you have on the Upper Churchill before we will agree to let you sell this power to us or transmit it to anyone else."
Well, Quebec is obviously in a very stong position. The Government of Canada has never exercised its constitutional right to expropriate land or permit construction of interprovincial and international electricity transmission lines, such as they have done for oil and natural gas transmission lines. It has exercised its power to allow oil and gas to come from Alberta, across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario into Quebec. No province can stop them from doing that, but the federal government has not done that for hydroelectric transmission.
Newfoundland was left without any accessibility to the power from its sites at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls. In 1978, the federal and provincial governments formed the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, 49 per cent of which was owned by the Government of Canada and 51 per cent by Newfoundland. The two governments have spent $25 million to date, $15 million from the federal government and $10 million from the province. The plans for the development of Gull and Muskrat have been found to be economic and feasible. Gull Island is preferred because it gives lower cost power, but the surplus power must still be sold for a number of years and Quebec has stopped all further progress because of the reasons I have outlined.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland government says it is not going to give up any claims on the Upper Churchill. Never will it give up its rights or claims on the Upper Churchill. No, no, never, never, nay never. No more will we sell our heritage, nay, never more. That is the attitude of the province of Newfoundland. They are not going to surrender their right to that tremendous resource on the Upper Churchill for justice and equity to develop the Lower Churchill. The Newfoundland government would allow the lights to go out first. I hope it will never come to that. It is unreasonable for it to be asked.
In an attempt to get justice on the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, a court action was commenced in 1976, when I was minister of mines and energy in Newfoundland, under the original lease between the Newfoundland government and CFL Co. The action was taken under a provision of the lease which said that Newfoundland had the right, provided that upon the request of the government, consumers of electricity in the province shall be given priority where it is economic and feasible to do so.
Newfoundland, acting on that clause, asked Quebec Hydro and CFL Co. to permit Newfoundland to recall 800 megawatts of power. The answer from Quebec Hydro-and CFLCo had to observe what Quebec told them-was no, it is not going to allow Newfoundland to recall anything but the 300 megawatts permitted under the original agreement. They would not allow any more than that. We cannot get any power from the Upper Churchill, although we need the power on the island of Newfoundland and Labrador. A court action was commenced against CFL Co. and Quebec Hydro was joined as a party. It took five years to get it into court. It is in court now, the trial is under way and it will be another five years before that is all concluded. We cannot wait another five years. So in November of 1980 the Newfoundland government passed legislation known as the water rights reversion act which provides that they are going to expropriate, or nationalize, CFL Co.'s assets. They are going to take them over, take back the water rights. They will pay off all the bond holders, and if that legislation is found to be intra vires of the province, and I hope to God that it is, then Newfoundland will at last be in a position to deal mano a mano with the province of Quebec in this situation, because Newfoundland will own the assets and have the power and will not have to sell power to anyone. It could just turn the switch off quite legally and properly if this act is intra vires of the province. The case went before the Newfoundland court of appeal this month on a reference. They will be giving a judgment by early 1982. It took five years to hear the argument. All the parties were represented. After a judgment is given there, it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we can expect to have an answer in another year as to whether or not that legislation is intra vires of the province. If it is, then the province for the first time will have an equal bargaining right with the province of Quebec. Quebec will have to sit down with Newfoundland, and they will have to decide on a fair and equitable arrangement on the Upper Churchill.
Newfoundland is not asking that Quebec give up its right to this power from the Upper Churchill or that it surrender much of the power. It only wants the opportunity to have some of that power at a reasonable cost to meet the needs in Newfoundland now. It wants and is quite prepared to do a deal with Quebec to develop the Lower Churchill and Muskrat Falls.
I have already mentioned the 1,700 megawatts on the Gull Island site. There are 600 megawatts at the Muskrat site. There are five more rivers whose headwaters originate in Newfoundland. They go down through the territory of Quebec
October 30, 1981

into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On those five rivers there are another 3,000 megawatts of hydro power wasting away, running into the ocean. Fifty-three hundred megawatts of energy are now running into the ocean every day, unused, the equivalent of another 60 million tonnes of oil per year that could be used here in Canada running away because no one can solve this conundrum and because the Government of Canada, the national government which has the constitutional powers and responsibilities, has taken no action to date to resolve this and to force the two parties to be more reasonable. The federal government could certainly exert some pressure by using its constitutional power and asking Quebec to be more reasonable. It could show Quebec that it really will have to be more reasonable.
There has been another cost to Newfoundland. The cost of site work on Gull Island in 1976, if construction had started then, would have been $2 billion. The estimated cost today is $4.3 billion. The cost has more than doubled because of this unnecessary delay caused by the somewhat, I believe, predatory and unneighbourly position taken by the province of Quebec, but, of course, they are responsible to their own electorate. I suppose they feel they cannot give anything up unless they are forced to give it up. They cannot justify it to their customers or their people, and they are in a difficult position. I can see that in Quebec. Unless they can show they are forced, that they have no choice, are they going to give up $535 million a year, which will eventually become a billion dollars a year? And God knows what it will be before the 65 years are up.
So that is one cost to Newfoundland. The cost to Gull has now doubled. If it started now, it would be $4.3 billion. But Newfoundland had to have more energy. They had to build a. third oil fired unit at Holyrood. It cost $75 million for 150 megawatts of power, oil fired. That is very, very, expensive, as hon. members know, the oil costing now whatever it is. There is some subsidy from the Government of Canada, but it is $34 a barrel, $40 imported. It is costing the Government of Canada quite a bit to subsidize that oil.
Then we had to do the Hinds Lake hydro project in Newfoundland, $80 million for 75 megawatts of power. That costs 25 mills a kilowatt hour. Then the province had to start the upper Salmon development; $155 million to produce 84 megawatts of power. The cost to Newfoundland hydro is 40 mills per kilowatt hour, almost 20 times what Quebec is paying for Upper Churchill power, and now the government of Newfoundland has had to start the Cat Arm hydro project, the last site left on the island of Newfoundland; $300 million to produce 127 megawatts, and the cost, 60 mills per kilowatt hour that we have to produce in Newfoundland, power for which our people pay 60 mills, while we are selling all this power to Quebec at 3 mills per kilowatt hour. We are paying in Newfoundland now 20 times what Hydro-Quebec has to pay for the power from the Upper Churchill.
The total cost of all those developments on the island, all of which would have been unnecessary if Gull Island had been permitted to start, was $610 million which had to be spent
Newfoundland Hydro
unnecessarily in new plants. This was because Quebec said that Gull Island could not go ahead because they would not purchase any surplus power and they would not permit Newfoundland to transmit it to anyone else.
Those are the basic facts. The government has presented, in an energy security bill to the House-no, it was not presented to the House, I do not think. It is a suggested draft bill that is planned to be presented to the House. There are provisions in it that would give the Government of Canada the right to put under the National Energy Board interprovincial and international electric lines which link producers of electricity with customers elsewhere in the country or on the continent. If that legislation is eventually passed, that would give the government and the NEB the legal powers to do this if they so wished, but that legislation is not likely to pass the House for another six months, nine months or however long it might take, and this situation requires action now. It is a national tragedy, not just a Newfoundland tragedy, that one of the most disadvantaged provinces, one of the provinces lowest in per capita income, one of the provinces striving to pull itself up by its boot straps, should be losing $535 million a year at the moment because of a bad contractual arrangement made in 1965. It would be bad enough if it had been since 1968, but that for the years since 1976 it has been prevented from developing all this power in Labrador because the province of Quebec has a strong stranglehold on whether or not the development goes through and wants to exact capitulation and surrender with respect to the Upper Churchill is intolerable. That is what we have a federal government for, and it clearly has the powers. It does not need to amend the Constitution to get these powers. It has them already but has failed to exercise them.
So I believe either this should come forward now and the government should act now-separate this out from the energy security bill-or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) should try to see if some progress cannot be made by persuading Quebec and Newfoundland that there is no point in waiting any longer. These developments have to come. How long can Canada wait for all that power to be developed in these rivers? Fifty-three hundred megawatts of power today are just running away into the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Labrador current because of this impasse.
The solution to all of this, of course, was back in 1965. I will say this for Mr. Levesque: he was the minister of resources in Quebec, and he approached Mr. Smallwood back in those days and suggested, before the project started, that the Upper Churchill should be a joint venture between Newfoundland and Quebec. Had that been done, it would have been a sensible way of doing it. They could both have shared these resource rents equally. But the then premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, said "No." He would not abandon his favourite son, BRINCO, that he had had something to do with having created years before. As a result, this great opportunity was passed up, and we face in the province of Newfoundland this impasse today.

October 30, 1981
Newfoundland Hydro
I am not advancing this or putting these facts forward in any way against the province of Quebec. Naturally they want to protect themselves and enjoy all the fruits of that contract they can enjoy. As I said before, their politicians and their government have to remember that if the cost of power goes up in Quebec because Hydro-Quebec agreed to pay more for Upper Churchill power, their own electorate might be very, very angry at them. So the only solution now is either if the Newfoundland legislation passes the test of being intra vires, that will mean that there will have to be a settlement between Quebec and Newfoundland because their two bargaining powers will then be just about equal and they could work out some arrangement between them, or, failing that, the Government of Canada has to exercise its jurisdiction in the national interest because this power is not all needed in Quebec. The power is not all needed in Newfoundland. It will save the importation of tremendous amounts of expensive oil altogether on the Upper and Lower Churchill and the other rivers that I have mentioned, 120 million barrels of oil a year in energy. That is why I say it is a national tragedy. That is why I have put this motion forward. I hope putting the facts on the record will induce members of this House to urge the government to take some action, and take it now, before the final conflict and struggle comes when the Newfoundland legislation is found to be intra vires. If it is found not to be intra vires, there is no telling what the future will hold for the province of Newfoundland or what confrontations or conflicts will then ensue.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of being a member of this House is that you can see problems outside your region and appreciate some of the great difficulties in making a country like Canada work. My riding is in Vancouver, some 4,000 miles away from the area talked about by my friend, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I learned a lot from what he said in his speech today. I want to state some of what I have learned in order to clear it in my mind and get it on the record. I want to suggest some ways this very delicate issue might be handled.
I understand that 14 years ago Newfoundland agreed to sell almost all the hydroelectric power from its massive Churchill Falls project in Labrador to the province of Quebec, that it is a 65-year contract, and that Quebec agreed to pay Newfoundland $100 million a year. That works out to slightly less than three mills per kilowatt power per hour. A mill is one tenth of a cent. Since the signing of that agreement in 1967, world energy prices have soared. Current market prices for electricity are in excess of 30 to 50 mills per kilowatt hour.
As 1 understood the hon. member for St. John's West, Newfoundland should be collecting about $700 million a year for this energy. It wants Quebec to tear up the old contract and renegotiate. I gather that Quebec says, "A contract is a contract. We know bargain-basement prices when we see them, and we will not tear it up."
The hon. member also referred to a court case, which no doubt will be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. I have read and heard about this issue before. It is like a peat fire smouldering under the surface for many years, and now it is flaring up. It is approaching the stage where we must think of trying to resolve this problem.
I knew the hon. member was going to make his speech today so I made some inquiries as to the Quebec side of the argument. Being a lawyer like the hon. member for St. John's West, I suspected there are usually two sides to any argument or case. I want to put this on record as well and to clarify it in my mind and get it through my thick Scottish head so that I can make some suggestions.
I understand that Quebec maintains that unless Hydro-Quebec had agreed to buy the electricity in the first place, the Churchill Falls project would never have been developed. I also understand that Quebec Hydro raised money for the project in the United States, laying itself on the line in doing so, because Newfoundland could not raise the money. It may be said that it was easier for Hydro-Quebec to raise the money than for Newfoundland, to do so.
I further understand that the province of Quebec had been involved with long-term contracts with Ontario for hydroelectric power at very disadvantageous rates. In fact, when the last contract expired in 1976, Ontario was paying 2.7 mills for Quebec power. The then market value was four mills. That was the going rate for power generated by Ontario Hydro at the time. Quebec did not like those contracts but, to quote Premier Levesque, they lived up to them to the bitter end. One might say there is a big difference between that discrepancy in mill rates and the discrepancy the hon. member for St. John's West clearly set before the House today.
I understand there is another issue running in tandem with this, which was not mentioned today by the hon. member for St. John's West. There has been a long-term Quebec-New-foundland dispute as to who owns Labrador. That dispute goes back some time. Again to quote Premier Levesque, he said, "If we were robbed in 1927, by God it was only simple justice to get some of our own back by getting the lowest possible price for their power." The issue of an equitable contract is therefore clouded with the issue of the ownership of Labrador. It may not logically follow, and some would say it should not, but it is there. When you try to weigh the argument on both sides, you have to recognize that.
The hon. member's resolution may be somewhat premature. The National Energy Board Act amendments in the energy security bill before the House will cover some of the concerns the hon. member mentioned. Let me say something about that so that I can get it clear as to what those amendments do.
As I understand it, the amendments to the National Energy Board Act, as proposed in the energy security bill, will have the effect of broadening the board's jurisdiction with respect to power lines and redefining the board's jurisdiction in relation to oil and gas export prices.
October 30, 1981

The NEB will be able to regulate interprovincial power lines which may, in the future, be designated as falling within its jurisdiction. Authority for these designated lines has been added to the board's mandate to ensure that authority exists to permit construction of a dedicated power line between two provinces through a third.
The amendments also grant the board authority to expropriate the necessary rights-of-way for both international and the designated interprovincial power lines. This will provide treatment for power lines analagous to that accorded pipelines.
I should say that this has never been decided in law. The Supreme Court case may be helpful, although it may not settle the issue. According to Professor John Laskin at the University of Toronto, one of the finest law schools in the country, it has been established by the Federal Court that pipelines can go across provincial boundaries, but the issue is yet to arise with the interprovincial transmission of electric power. Therefore, it is a complicated issue.
There are negotiations being carried on between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland over this issue. I believe it would be better to await the outcome of these negotiations. If you listen to the debate, as you have, Mr. Speaker, on this and on Bill C-48 which we have been debating, you can see the kind of anger and frustration that some of the members on my right feel. They kid me a lot and I kid them, but I can pick up the regional anger and frustration. They are saying, "By God, Ontario did that to us for hundreds of years." I think the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) expressed it best. I will not quote him directly, but to paraphrase his remarks, he indicated that Ontario did it to them for hundreds of years, that is, it controlled energy and so on, and that they would do it to Ontario now. We can see the anger and frustration, but unfortunately a country cannot be governed consistently on anger and frustration. There must be some equity and some justice. The hon. member for St. John's West appealed rather eloquently for the justice of the Newfoundland case. On its face, it seems to be a bad contract. I have learned much from what he said, but I note that he ran for Mr. Smallwood and the Liberal Party in 1966, approximately six years after the negotiation of the contract. Presumably he supported the policies of the then premier, Mr. Smallwood. I am sure even the hon. member in his wisdom could not have foreseen the increases in energy prices and their effects on the old contract, the old deal.
I should like to refer to some remarks made by a past prime minister, the late Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, as reported on page 2145 of Hansard for April 14, 1964, as well as some of his remarks later on. He said:

It is the task of parliament, without regard to party; it is the challenge of statesmanship rising above faction, to find the solutions to our problems which are now more serious and more difficult than any we have faced in peacetime since 1867.
Newfoundland Hydro

I especially like the lines where Mr. Pearson went on to say: [Translation]
Mr. Pearson was referring to the problems with Quebec during the sixties. He discussed the quiet revolution in Quebec which strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, offers a number of similarities with the kind of economic revolution western Canada is going through at the present time. Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Pearson said, and I quote:
We must find these solutions by agreement, not force them by compulsion. We cannot hope to find such agreement in our country if we cannot find a basis for it in our parliament.

I take it he was setting forth the general principle that we should try to settle things by co-operation. That would be the best way in delicate interprovincial matters. The best way to settle the dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec is by negotiation. We on this side of the House recognize that there are arguments on both sides and that the dispute must be settled by negotiation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) recently returned from a trip to Labrador. She told me that Labradorians feel quite separate from Newfoundland, and that they act accordingly. Anyway, they prefer to be called Labradorians rather than Newfoundlanders. I suspect much of this is caused by their isolation from Newfoundland. They indicated to the hon. member that they would like a redistribution of federal representation to ensure that they would have their own representative from Labrador, rather than counting on an islander, who apparently never visits them. Certainly it would be helpful to have a member from Labrador in the House who could express their case just as forcefully, or perhaps even more forcefully than it was expressed today by the hon. member for St. John's West.
I understand as well that Labrador is not very happy with the deal between Newfoundland and Quebec over Churchill. They would like to use Churchill as a regional economic base from which to develop Labrador. It sounds similar to some of the arguments in the north concerning the development of megaprojects-there is much rhetoric but there are very few local benefits. I might add that the hon. member for St. John's avoided any heights of rhetoric that I have sometimes heard from him in the House in order to lay the facts before us. It might be interesting to note what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in 1972 when the power was finally turned on at Churchill Falls. As reported in the Toronto Star, he said:
-he proclaimed the project begged "comparison with the pyramids but with a usefulness which promises the benefits of a Nile."
There was much promise when that project happened. By using our heads, being very rational, with a little give and take on both sides, we should realize that, on the one side, this is a very bad contract for the government and the people of Newfoundland, and, on the other side, that the Quebec government goes back a long way and feels aggrieved by the loss of Labrador-there may be some solution through continued

October 30, 1981
Newfoundland Hydro
negotiations, rather than by way of Parliament declaring what should happen. I do not deviate from the principle that if this Parliament has to do so, it should, but I would prefer if we followed-

-the feelings of Mr. Pearson, and finally reach an agreement between the province of Newfoundland and the province of Quebec.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), my good friend of many years, and 1 are not often on the same side of an argument. But I am delighted to say this afternoon that I find myself very much in agreement with many of his points. Certainly I support the spirit of the cause he espoused in the House today. I will elaborate on that point in a moment or two.
Before the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) leaves the chamber, I should like to comment on one or two of the points he made in this debate. He made much of the quotation of the late Right Honourable Mr. Pearson. Then he chided the hon. member for St. John's West about the time when he was a Liberal. Perhaps I should indicate that when Mr. Pearson made that particular speech the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was also a Liberal working very hard for the Liberals in Toronto. Unfortunately he took a below-the-belt dig at the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and pointed out that he was an islander. From my knowledge of the careers of both gentlemen let me indicate that the hon. minister has lived more years in Labrador, namely ten or 11, than the member has lived in Vancouver. I suggest he stick to the issues and he would be less inclined to trip himself up. Also he indicated that he learned a lot from the speech of the hon. member for St. John's West. I am sure he has. I would caution the hon. member, nevertheless, to separate facts from fiction. There is a fair amount of fact in what the hon. member for St. John's West said today. There is also a little fiction. I want to address myself to both, Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes.
The hon. member for St. John's West talked about the lease signed in 1961 involving the transmission of power, the 65-year deal we have heard so much about. In effect, it forms part of the basis for the motion before us. Mr. Speaker, it has been 20 years since the deal was signed. It would be purely academic to spend time defending the deal at this particular time. Suffice to say, for the purpose of what I want to say later, that at the time it was considered to be a very good deal. Indeed, it took the best brains on both sides of the Atlantic to put the deal together.
At that time, it was considered such a good deal, Mr. Speaker, that it was unanimously endorsed by every member, without exception, of the Newfoundland House of Assembly,
including the three lonely Tory members who sat as the official opposition in Newfoundland at that time. Every member of the House in that day, in 1961, thought it was such a good deal that every person, at that particular time, no one abstaining, endorsed the deal.
As my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, it continued to be a good deal as late as 1966 when my good friend from St. John's West joined the cabinet of the gentlemen who engineered that particular deal. It is significant to note that the hon. member for St. John's West, in the three years he served in Mr. Smallwood's cabinet, did not utter a single word about the deal in terms of it being unfair, inadequate or less than good for Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: We were not told anything about it.


Roger Simmons: No, Mr. Speaker. Do not misunderstand me. I am not at all attacking the position of the member for St. John's West at that time. The reason he did not speak out is he had good reason to believe in 1966 that it was a good deal. In 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 it was perceived to be a good deal. It was a good deal as long as oil was $1.80 a barrel. Although my good friend for St. John's West was able to forecast and to look ahead, he could not have guessed that in 1966 or in 1969 the OPEC countries would do what they did in the 1970s to the international oil prices.
That is the key we are missing in this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. What was considered in 1961 and for a decade afterwards to be a good deal is not a good deal in today's terms. That is the point that the hon. member for St. John's West is making, I believe. In 1981 terms, it is an unconscionable deal. It is an insult and it is an unfair deal. It is highway robbery. The times have changed. The terms are changed.
As a consequence, I submit that the deal has to be rewritten. There has to be a new deal in so far as Upper Churchill Falls power is concerned, Mr. Speaker. On that point the member for St. John's West and I see eye to eye and cheek to cheek, to quote him. I will not quote him further because of my propensity for common decency.
Let us set aside the old business of hindsight, the hindsight everyone seems to exercise these days, about how shocking the deal was in 1961. In 1961 and in 1965 it was a good deal, but it is not a good deal in 1981 because of the circumstances that have since transpired. I will repeat it in another way for you, Mr. Speaker. If prices had remained at $1.80 or $2 a barrel today-and we know they are not because they are around $34 or $35 a barrel-Mr. Smallwood and his cabinet would be heroes because they had the foresight to sign a 65-year deal to lock the people of Quebec into a deal-at such good bargain basement prices. Was it the foresight of the people who were negotiating the deal in 1961 that was at fault? No, Mr. Speaker. Who would have dreamed at that point in time that we would today be talking on the international market about something in the order of $34 or $35 a barrel, as opposed to less than $2. That is what went sour with the deal, and that is why it is wrong in today's terms, Mr. Speaker. Conscience and common decency dictate that that deal must be renegotiated in
October 30, 1981

terms of today's realities, realities that changed drastically in the early 1970s after the advent on the world scene of the OPEC phenomenon.
The member for St. John's West talked about gas moving from western Canada through the pipeline, so why not electricity. Mr. Speaker, where has the hon. member been? On June 22 the minister in the House, I believe, gave notice that it is the intention of the government to rectify that situation. It is the intention of the government, through the energy security act, to provide that the National Energy Board have the same powers in respect of the transmission of electricity as it does in respect of the transmission of natural gas. We have given notice that we intend to do that. Mr. Speaker, at such time as we do, and I expect it will be in the reasonably near future, I hope we will have the unqualified support of the hon. member for St. John's West. It will go a long way, not the whole way, to address the issue he identified today in this important resolution.
The hon. member for St. John's West during his speech today also mentioned the so-called joint proposal involving the hydro development in Labrador, the joint proposal that would have involved Mr. Levesque at the time of the Lesage administration in Quebec and Mr. Smallwood on the Newfoundland side. As often is the case, Mr. Speaker, my good friend for St. John's West conveniently forgot to mention an essential component of that particular joint deal. He forgot to mention that an integral part of the proposal was an alteration of the Labrador boundary between the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland. The then Quebec minister of energy, Mr. Levesque, wanted access to the headwaters of five rivers that have their headwaters in what is now Newfoundland-Labrador but flow through the province of Quebec to the ocean.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the deal, they were looking to alter the Quebec-Labrador boundary. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my good friend from St. John's West does not understand Newfoundland politics at all if he is advocating a position that would in any way toy for one fraction of a centimetre with that boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec. In advocating that particular position, harking back to the day when we could have had a joint proposal, I am sure he is not for a moment giving credence to the idea that any sensible, sane, Newfoundlander who is still alive and kicking would stand idly by and allow a premier of any province to toy and tamper with the boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec. That is the kind of half truth, Mr. Speaker, we have come to expect from the member for St. John's West. It is unfortunate. We have before us a case involving the development of hydro in Newfoundland where all of us in this House, irrespective of party, irrespective of what part of the country we come from, must be able to subscribe to the principle of fair play, and to the concept that a province of Canada, be it Newfoundland or some other, ought to have the right, without question, to move its product to market, whether that product be electricity or something else.
Newfoundland Hydro
If the Canadian federation means anything, it should certainly mean the right of the people of Newfoundland or the people of any other province to move their product to market, without obstruction and without interference, without having to ask the permission of another province of this country. In this particular case, it so happens that the nature of the commodity is such that it has to be moved in a way that is different from the movement of commodities by rail, ocean or air. This happens to be electricity. We happen to need an immobile, physical structure across another province to get that product to market, either in another province of Canada or in a state of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, should that make it any different in terms of the basic right of the people of a province to have their products, produced by their own sweat and toil, moved to market? That is the principle. I defy anyone in this House, no matter what the party or where the hon. member comes from, whether Newfoundland, Quebec or any other province in this country, to stand up and tell me that he or she is against the principle of having the free movement of goods and services, the free movement of products from place of production to place of consumption. That is the principle. We will disagree on the mechanism. We will have a dialogue, partisan and otherwise, on how it ought to be achieved; but no one can argue the principle which is embodied in the resolution of the hon. member for St. John's West, that is, the principle of moving, without obstruction or impediment, a product of a particular province to that province's market for that particular product.
I had hoped there could be more time to speak on this particular motion so that we could allow hon. members from all parts of this country, from all sides of this House, from all parties, to stand up and take a position on this important issue, because I submit to Your Honour that the issue is considerably larger than some infighting between two neighbouring provinces of this country. The issue is whether we in this House will stand by and allow, even by implication or default, interference with the free movement of goods and services. That is an issue which is addressed in the charter of rights which will shortly be before this House again. I implicity believe in the issue. I do not believe I have the corner on the market on that one. Knowing hon. members of this House as I do, I happen to believe that every hon. member supports that principle. It is so fair and so sensible that I wonder how anyone could be against it.
Let us not see it as only a fight between Newfoundland and Quebec. I understand what the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway have been saying. I understand that every politician, whether from Quebec, Newfoundland or anywhere else, tends to see things very much from his own vantage point. However, I believe there is an opportunity here to take this out of its potential parochial context and to address it as a principle which is as sacred as Canadianism itself. It is as sacred as the Canadian confederation that there cannot be any thought entertained for

October 30, 1981
Newfoundland Hydro
a fraction of a second that a province of this country has any right to interfere with the free movement of goods to market. In this particular case, the goods happen to be electricity.
Given the nature of the rather special relationship I enjoy with my good friend, the hon. member for St. John's West-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Cheek to cheek.


Roger Simmons: -the good relationship, the cheek to cheek, hand in hand relationship 1 have always enjoyed with him, I would do him an injustice if I sat down without pointing out in a partisan, but nevertheless positive, fashion, a couple of holes in his otherwise brilliant presentation this afternoon. I am talking about two particular holes, and he will know the two holes I am talking about.
It is difficult to keep track of this fellow, because he moves around; but I remind him that-not when he was a member of a Liberal cabinet in Newfoundland, but some time later when he was a member of a Tory cabinet, the Tory minister of finance in Newfoundland, which was before he became the Tory minister of finance here, which was before he become the Tory finance critic here, which was before he became the Tory external affairs critic here-indeed, there goes a man with his future behind him. I remind the hon. member of two holes during the period when he was the Tory finance minister, just before the Tory 1975 election, because he made much today of how much these projects, the Churchill Falls and the Lower Churchill development, have cost the people of Newfoundland and the treasury of Newfoundland, of which he was the guardian in 1975, as Your Honour will remember. I remind the hon. member that one of the reasons-$14 million worth of the reason-is because during or just before the 1975 election, when he and his colleagues were looking for a renewed mandate from the Newfoundland people, they went down to the northwest coast of Newfoundland, in what is now the riding of my good friend, the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), and they dug a great big hole in the ground. It cost $7 million, mind you, so it was a big hole. They went across to the Labrador side and made another hole. If nothing else, my friend from St. John's West is a master of illusion. The illusion is that they were getting ready to dig a tunnel under the Strait of Belle Isle, so they put the two shafts down, those two multimillion dollar holes in the ground.
Therefore, I say to him in fairness that if he is going to talk about how much this project has cost the Newfoundland people so far, he should at least do a mea culpa. He should at least admit that part of the reason it has cost so much is the cheap political decision with which he was involved when he was in the Newfoundland government. One of the reasons it has cost the Newfoundland people so much money is that they have been led down the garden path so often by that particular hon. member-and it does not matter to him whether he is a provincial Liberal, provincial Tory-by the way, for a while, he was also leader of the provincial Liberal reform-


John Carnell Crosbie: That's impossible.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's impossible.


Roger Simmons: He was the leader of the Liberal reform in Newfoundland for a while, and then he became provincial Tory. It does not matter if he is Liberal or Progressive Conservative. As my good friend and predecessor, the Hon. Don Jamieson, said, he is now a member of the turkey trot party. Does Your Honour know what a turkey trot is? A turkey trot is one step forward and two steps backward. He will be known as "Turkey Trot Crosbie" from now on.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is better than the cow plot party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. The usual practice is to refer to hon. members by their constituencies. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes, and if I exercise my right to speak for those two minutes, I would be talking out my colleague's resolution. Consequently, I have to resist the temptation to take up the two minutes to deal with the contribution of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), except to say for one brief moment that in speaking of illusions, I mentioned to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that the hon. member for Burin-St. George's has finally cleaned up his act. However, that was an illusion because as he went on into his speech, he reverted back to his old self.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in the very short time allotted to me, I would like to say that my hon. colleague and good friend, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), has once again done an excellent job of putting forward this government's case with respect to some of the more nefarious statements made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I would also point out that the great friendship which exists and the closeness between the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. John's West is evidenced by the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East is giving me the opportunity to respond to some of the allegations of the hon. member for St. John's West. My old boss, the previous member for Burin-St. George's, before my present good colleague, for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), was fond of saying, and indeed perhaps he said it in this very House, and even perhaps to the hon. member for St. John's West, that if hot air were music, the hon. member opposite would be a brass band.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are full of blarney, too.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Indeed, that is the case. This government has taken every reasonable step necessary to ensure that the potential and the opportunity which exist in Newfoundland, if approached in a mature and rational manner, not in a wild, arm's flailing, voice yelling-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Like you are doing.
October 30, 1981


Brian Vincent Tobin: -hysterical fashion, but if approached in a mature fashion, can be developed. Indeed, we saw, as I am sure my hon. colleague pointed out, the introduction in this very House of Commons, just some months ago, a piece of legislation of which I am most proud. I would end on this note. It was a piece of legislation which gives to the province of Newfoundland, through the powers now vested in the National Energy Board, the right to permit-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why are you talking it out?
Newfoundland Hydro


Brian Vincent Tobin: -if dealing is done in good faith, a power corridor to be established through that province to allow that very important Labrador project to go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. [Translation]
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 2, 1981