1981-10-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, individual Canadians as well as local governments are outraged by the proposed 75 per cent increase in the cost of mailing a first-class letter. Given that such an increase could be viewed as a reward for postal waste and inefficiencies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House strongly urges that the proposed increase in postal rates be rejected, and a more reasonable increase be implemented.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, because many urgent issues presently face Canada's native community, including the very real concerns over the constitutional proposal, land claims, and Indian political and economic development, and because numerous individual bands and native organizations have been trying for months to voice their concerns before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately make a special reference to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that it might begin hearing these representations from Indian people as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the federal government has now completed energy agreements with the producing provinces and will get a great deal of additional cash as a result; since the price of home heating fuels this winter will rise faster than the pensions of our old people; and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said last night that scarce tax dollars must be spent first on those who need help most, and that those who are stronger must carry more of the load, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House urge that Canada's seniors, unlike the oil companies which are now getting a generous guaranteed income, be given a specific grant in the forthcoming budget in addition to the guaranteed income supplement so that they can afford to heat their homes this winter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, inflation is now running at about 13 per cent on a yearly basis and is reducing the living standard of virtually every Canadian within the government's reach. In the past 12 months the largest contributors to increases in our consumer prices have been Ottawa-set interest rates which are up by fully 50 per cent, and Ottawa-set energy prices which are up by fully 33 per cent even before the new energy agreement begins to operate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That any of the Torontonians attending last night's dinner who believed a single word the Prime Minister said about fighting inflation should be required

October 29, 1981
to spend a weekend at 24 Sussex Drive reading Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent $625 million purchase of Suncor Corporation shares by the government of Ontario, making it the largest shareholder, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren):
That this House applaud the Ontario Conservative government's effort to further the Canadianization goals of the National Energy Program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RELATIONS WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, the economy of British Columbia is on the brink of recession. Our major industry, the forest industry, faces a potentially disastrous economic situation as hundreds of workers are being laid off every day. A further threat to that industry is now apparent since, in retaliation for this government's discriminatory policies toward the U.S. in the National Energy Program, Washington is considering restricting the import of B.C. lumber. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House urge the government to stop butchering our trade relations with the U.S. and immediately implement policies which reflect the fact that the U.S. is our major and dominant trading partner and can easily cause irreparable damage to our nation's economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the United Nations is having a problem electing a Secretary-General. The choice of Kurt Waldheim, running for an unprecedented third term, is being vetoed, and this impasse must be rectified. Canada has the answer. Now, Madam Speaker, it was a tough decision to make. What should I put first when proposing this motion, the world or Canada? I decided Canada must come first. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, place his name in nomination for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations-


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


John Horton McDermid: -resign as the Prime Minister of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: -so that this great country will have a fighting chance to survive economically, socially, and united from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD., AT LONGUEUIL, P.Q.- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that yesterday the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) announced that a $4 million subsidy would be given for the construction of a $20 million industrial research centre to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada Ltd., and considering that every dollar invested in this kind of industrial research pumps $60 back into the economy, which will be a considerable advantage to Quebec's economic situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart):
That the House congratulate the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its minister for having given the province of Quebec this substantial financial assistance.
October 29, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions
that an immediate apology be extended to both persons involved, namely, to the member of this House and to the Yugoslavian ambassador for these outrageous examples of improper handling of first-class mail and registered mail.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DANGERS OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED FISH-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of levels of dioxin contamination in Lake Ontario and the environmental problems and health issues that must be addressed; and in view of the recent studies of Dr. James Allen on the effects of dioxin on animals, which confirm that as little as one microgram of dioxin per kilogram of body weight gives evidence of contamination, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That in view of the dangerous contradictions between the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-first, Health and Welfare allowing the Canadian public to dine on fish twice as contaminated as allowed in the United States; second, Fisheries and Oceans allowing the export for consumption in Europe of fish prohibited in Canada due to contamination; third, the Minister of the Environment saying that no dioxin is allowed in food in Canada, the Liberals should come clean on this vital health issue and inform Canadians why no dioxin is allowed in food, but that one can eat fish polluted with 20 parts per trillion, and that anything more contaminated can be exported to poison others.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise in regard to the receipt of two anonymous brown envelopes containing first-class mail addressed to persons in Ottawa which Canada Post failed to deliver to their destinations, the circumstances of which illustrate the shocking postal inefficiency for which the government disgracefully wants Canadians to pay almost 100 per cent more. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be requested to investigate, first, the handling of a registered letter bearing registration number 606, mailed by a high official of the Yugoslav Embassy at Ottawa substation 3 to a recipient in Ottawa who never received nor signed for it, and to which is still attached the acknowledgement of receipt card requested by the Yugoslav Embassy; second, a letter written by a prominent member of this Parliament to an Ottawa recipient, which was also never received; and finally,


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday in the House of Commons the minister said that if there was any doubt about the legality of the order in council which has been proposed to eliminate one fifth of Canada's rail passenger service he would merely pass a new order in council and have it registered.
Has the minister consulted with his legal officials on this matter since the government order does nothing to amend the existing CTC order, namely R26-520, which prescribes an ongoing statutory responsibility on CN and CP to provide rail passenger service, and since this argument is part of the argument which is being advanced by a group seeking a legal injunction in the federal court of the province of Saskatchewan? In order to facilitate the court action would the minister not now undertake to have this matter referred to the proper court with a proper reference, so that it can be cleared up, or does the minister simply intend merely to issue another order in council to get around this other legal requirement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that what we have done is legal, and consequently there is no reason to do what my hon. friend suggests. There are two aspects to this matter. One has to do with CTC order R-6751 and CTC order R26-520, being orders under which the railways would have to continue operating routes. What I am pleased to tell my hon. friend is that CTC order R-6751 was revoked by CTC order R31-300 on August 14, 1980. I am pleased to tell him that CTC order R26-520 has been varied by the order in council on August 6, 1981. Item 3 of schedule XV refers to the final plans for western transcontinental passenger train service as implemented by CTC order R26-520. Therefore, there is no problem at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 29, 1981
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the subject of the registration, I am still in the same position that I was in yesterday when I reported that we are studying that aspect in depth now. If there is a doubt, we will act accordingly and make the necessary adjustments to the order in council of August 6. That will be quite legal, and things will not be changed from what they are now.


REFERRAL TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, one will have to study that answer very closely. If, as the minister suggests, the first order in council may be illegal, does that mean all of the instructions issued under the first order in council are also invalid, including the lay-off notices of which the minister is required to provide some 90 days' prior notice, which will probably require clarification, or will it mean that another lay-off notice will have to be made based upon the legitimate order in council? Could the minister respond to that?
Since the Senate has unanimously referred the matter of VIA Rail to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and since that committee has unanimously asked the minister to defer the date of implementation to at least March 31, 1982, could the minister advise us whether he is aware of that? Can he tell us whether he has received that communication and what will his response be to that unanimous approach made by the distinguished members in the other place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as usual there are three questions in every one asked by the hon. member for Vegreville. On the subject of going before committees, I have said it before and I will repeat it again that I am willing to go before committees to explain what we have done, but I am not willing to play the game which the opposition wants to play-


Mr. Clark:: Which is called democracy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -that of buying another day on the floor of the House of Commons. The government House leader explained that extremely well yesterday. This afternoon I am appearing before the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I will do my very best to give them all of the material that I have in my hands now.
With respect to the subject itself, I think I have answered quite well today, if I may say so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacEachen:: Superbly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Superbly, says the Minister of Finance. That is a compliment which anyone should cherish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I have answered well on those orders of the CTC which, in the mind of my hon. friends yesterday, had not been dealt with properly. Now with respect to the procedural registration of these orders in council, I will go further on that this afternoon. There is a very learned debate now and all of us here are being but mouthpieces of much more profound legal minds on this subject. But there is a debate on the subject. I stand on the position I have taken up to now. I very graciously said that, if there is a shadow of doubt, if there is a modicum of doubt, we will move to accommodate that doubt. I do not see what else I can do.


POSITION TAKEN BY SENATORS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, am I to take it then that the minister is ignoring absolutely the unanimous position taken by the distinguished members of the other place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of being called to a committee of the Senate on the subject. I will look into it immediately. I was not made aware of it this morning. I will see what I can do to accommodate the other place.


REQUEST THAT PASSENGER SERVICE BE CONTINUED
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport who has just informed the House that, if there is a shadow of doubt touching on what he is proposing to do with regard to VIA Rail, they will move as a government to remove that doubt. Will the minister explain to the House just why he chose to move retroactively to attempt to rectify a mistake he obviously made, as opposed to moving the other way by simply giving a break to the passengers who want to continue using those sections of VIA Rail he intends to discontinue, by carrying on the service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody here and everybody outside sees the reasoning of the hon. member. He is taking what I have said about a shadow of doubt on the procedural matter and aggrandizing it to the whole of the policy we announced on July 27. That is so obviously a deformation of the words and of the mind, I do not have to pay further attention to that. What I did say was-


Charles Joseph Clark: Arrogance.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should know about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: What I was saying was that there is a debate or discussion about the need to register certain types of orders in
October 29, 1981

council under Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act. I do not want to go into the details of it. I will do that this afternoon. There is a discussion on that, and I say that if there is a shadow of a doubt as to the need to register the orders in council we passed on August 6, we will do so according to the interpretation of this necessity or obligation. Is that clear?


SUGGESTED SAVINGS ON AIRPORT PROJECTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Transport. He is speaking about a shadow of doubt. There is a great shadow of doubt as to why the minister has chosen this particular expenditure cut. Will the minister indicate to the House why he chose this priority as opposed to eliminating the sum of $50 million which will be spent on Mirabel this year alone to keep that airport open to service some one million passengers or, in the case of Pickering, has he given any consideration to selling out the $110 million investment he has there, which is simply raw land being used for no airport or rail travel whatsoever? Why concentrate on VIA Rail as his point of saving as opposed to eliminating Mirabel or Pickering?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the association of Mirabel and Pickering with the announcement of our rationalization of VIA is again a very far-fetched one.


An hon. Member:: Do you not weigh your priorities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Assuming that mistakes were made in the past in Canada, which is debatable-and you can bring the Bona-venture into this if you wish-assuming mistakes have been made, does that imply that more mistakes should be made? I cannot understand the mentality behind a question of this kind.
I have explained repeatedly why we have made this decision on the rationalization of VIA. I have explained, ad nauseam, that there were some budgetary reasons for doing that. It seemed to the government that an expenditure of $535 million on railway transportation, at a time when some of these routes have become extremely infrequently used by the people to whom they are offered, has become indefensible.
The second reason for our decision is one of transportation policy. My friends are embracing VIA at this time. They are strangling VIA at this time. We think that the process we have adopted is one that will strengthen VIA in the very best interests of the corporation itself and in the very best interests of the people it serves. We are very strongly of that view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


REQUEST THAT TAX LOOPHOLES FOR RICH BE CLOSED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In 1968 the Prime Minister promised Canadians a just society. Since that period the rich in Canada, in terms of their share of the national income, have got relatively richer and the poor have become relatively poorer. Last night, at a $175-a-plate Liberal dinner in Toronto, the Prime Minister promised to reverse this trend. After more than a decade of economic hypocrisy, why should Canadians believe him?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get up and answer.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is obviously a little sensitive on the point. I will put the question more precisely in terms of factual information, and perhaps he will respond, as opposed to hypocritical attitudes, I say to his colleagues. Considering that just two years ago there were in Canada more than 3,000 Canadians earning over $50,000 a year and almost 200 Canadians who earned over $200,000 a year who did not pay one penny in income tax-many of them were no doubt at the dinner last night in Toronto-will the Prime Minister in the coming budget at least put an end to the tax loopholes which make this possible?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member is repeating a suggestion for consideration in the preparation of the budget, a consideration which we will look at. I know the hon. member always has some interesting figures.
If we take that into account, I wonder if the hon. member and his party will vote for the budget when it is brought down.


TAX TREATMENT OF LAND SPECULATORS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it would be nice for a change if we could get from the Prime Minister or his smiling colleague, the Minister of Finance, some specific commitment, as opposed to the vague promises about fairness and caring and sharing, touching words which were used by the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday. "The Liberal Party is a party that cares and shares."
I will try another angle to demonstrate the hypocrisy of his claim about caring and sharing. Right now in Canada while 100,000 home owners are in serious jeopardy with respect to maintaining their homes, we have a tax system which permits people who speculate in land, thus contributing to the housing problem, to have only half the income so gained, taxed. Will the Prime Minister at least make these people pay taxes at the full rate just as the ordinary worker in Canada does?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, to use the hon. member's own words, he is asking for

October 29, 1981
Oral Questions
specific commitments on this and the previous point. He does not want to hear about Liberal principles of caring and sharing. He wants specific commitments. He is somewhat experienced in these matters, and he knows that this type of specific commitment would be brought down in a budget, a budget which would have been read to the House today if we had followed our original plan.


Mr. Deans:: Why isn't it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am asked why it is not. I think hon. members know the answer.


Ian Deans: We are here. Why isn't it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It isn't, because I had asked the premiers to meet me last week and the week before. The week before, when they said they could not meet me, I suggested we meet this week, and I postponed the budget to next week. After I had announced the postponement of the budget, they said they would not meet me this week but that they would meet me next week, which they are now doing. So we will have the budget in the week after.


An hon. Member:: Why don't we have the budget this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member asks why we do not have the budget this week. I just gave the answer to that. If the hon. member reads the "blues", he will see it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not quite sure which question is being answered just now. There were several coming from the floor. The matter is being prolonged.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have given notice to the Solicitor General, and I know he has now been briefed on reports from Toronto which indicate that on October 8 a clerk from the Polish consulate there, a Mr. Marek Ostaszewicz, defected to Canadian authorities with security documentation. The next day he and his wife were delivered by the RCMP, with the assistance of the Department of External Affairs, to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States. This gentleman has been kept incommunicado ever since then while being interrogated by the CIA at Langley, near Washington, D.C.
Why would the RCMP deliver this man, who defected in Canada, to American security people, instead of interrogating him here themselves?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, there are many inaccuracies in the statements of the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and I would be pleased to discuss the matter with him outside the House in his role as a Privy Councillor.
However, I know the hon. member would agree that it would not be in the public interest to give many details of the defection. I merely want to assure the House that Canadian interests have been fully respected in this matter.


DEFECTOR'S WISH TO OBTAIN POLITICAL ASYLUM IN UNITED STATES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my further information is that this gentleman particularly indicated that he would not and was not seeking political asylum in Canada. He did not want to speak to Canadian authorities. He wanted political asylum only in the United States, from the Americans. That has some very serious implications which should be discussed and debated publicly, not privately. I therefore ask the Solicitor General if he can tell us if these reports are true and, if so, if he knows of the reason why there was a very definite declaration that political asylum in Canada was not wanted?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I know the full story in this matter and have known it for several months. I think a discussion with my friend might be useful outside the House, but if he feels that that is not a proper way to proceed in the matter, I would be glad to keep the confidence myself.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FUNDING FOR EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and I hope the Minister of Finance will listen as well. It has to do with the-and I say this as a compliment-with the increased funding of the natural sciences, medical research, and, to a much smaller degree, the social sciences in Canada, which is an indication of the aim of the government to increase its spending to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product on research, job creation, and innovation in Canada. That is the kind of investing in Canada's future which we can all support.
Recognizing that the only real resource Canada or any country has is its mind power, the brain power of its people, will the minister now put to rest the fears of students and academics that there will be large scale cutbacks in established programs financing, which would lead to a disastrous decline in the education and training of young Canadians, and a further decline in Canada's already shameful productivity, and increase funding instead of decreasing it?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is in the unfortunate position of being a victim of the propaganda of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party has distributed, to the campuses of the
October 29, 1981

universities and to some of the community colleges of this nation, propaganda outlining that the government intended to cut $1.5 billion from post-secondary educational assistance. This, of course, is totally inaccurate, and is an effort by the Conservative Party to try to get a tiny piece of the support of the students, which it has never been able to achieve in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say to the hon. member that this party and this government have traditionally been the strongest supporters of post-secondary education and students, and that we intend to continue to be so.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I think we can take a great deal of comfort from the fact that this is pure rumour and speculation, regardless of the source, which I suspect is not the Conservative Party but, rather, is information received from the academics.
Is the government, then, prepared to increase funding respecting this vital educational matter so that not just the annual wage increases of the academics but also the actual plants-the universities, campuses-can be upgraded, and the equipment needed can be bought, so that students can become well schooled and well able to handle the urgent needs of a future vital Canada, which the minister espouses?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am heartened at this expression of support for post-secondary education by the hon. member, and I hope he will try to influence those around him.
In relation to his question I suggest that he, as a member from the province of Ontario, might well direct his remarks to Queen's Park, because during the years since 1974-75 the federal government has done exactly what he has called for. We have increased the federal share of the total cost of post-secondary education from about 45 per cent to 59 per cent; whereas in the same period, according to statistics I take to be accurate, the share of the provincial Conservative government has been diminished from 34 per cent to 21.8 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald Augustine Regan: If there is any danger in relation to the postsecondary educational system in this country, particularly in the hon. member's province, but in many of the others also, it is a result of a diminution of effort by the provincial governments. I hope the hon. member will direct his remarks to them so that they might reverse that trend.


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


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Rolland Dion (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Solicitor General of Canada. The minister announced officially on April 4 last that the cabinet had chosen the city of Donnacona, in the Portneuf riding, as the site of a new maximum security institution for the Canadian correctional service. Can the minister tell us what progress is being made and when the Department of Public Works will start building this institution?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that everything is on schedule regarding the detention centre to be built in Donnacona, and that preliminary work will start in the fall of 1982.


NATIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On October 16, 1980, the Nuu Chah Nulth Tribal Council on the west coast of Vancouver Island submitted a comprehensive aboriginal claim to the minister. Over a year has passed and to date the Nuu Chah Nulth people have not received word as to whether or not their claim has been accepted. On November 16, 1980, the Haida people of the Queen Charlotte Islands submitted a claim. They have not received word as to whether their claim has been accepted. A leaked memo, over the minister's signature, says that priority lands claims settlement should be given to areas where the government urgently requires a settlement, in other words, areas slated for massive economic development and where people have to negotiate-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Every minute I expect the question to come, but it is a new sentence in the preamble. Will the hon. member put the question?


James Douglas Manly: Will the minister inform the House whether this policy is the reason that he has not informed the Nuu Chah Nulth people and the Haida people as to whether their claims have been accepted for negotiation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Madam Speaker.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, after a year the people would really appreciate an answer.

October 29, 1981
Oral Questions


NEGOTIATION OF YUKON LAND CLAIMS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have a question on a related issue. The Council of Yukon Indians reports that there has been some progress in negotiations with the government regarding their land claims. Unfortunately, as these negotiations reach a crucial stage, the Indian people will not have enough money to continue. Is the minister still committed to these negotiations? Has he submitted a request to Treasury Board for more funds? Since the moneys used are advances on settlement moneys, will he assure the House that the necessary funds will be provided so that the Yukon Indians can successfully conclude these negotiations?


Mr. Nielsen:: And will he keep Jack Austin out?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that the Yukon Indians met with me yesterday. I think they are relatively satisfied with the result of the meeting. Out of this fiscal year they have $800,000 to draw on to assist them in their research for the negotiation of their particular claim. I indicated to them that, since they had already intruded on that to the extent of $300,000 that was coming to them, we would try to push up, if possible, the remaining $500,000 to enable them to conduct the negotiations that are to recommence next week. I also indicated that I would talk to some of my colleagues to assess the need for additional moneys and see what could be done. Yesterday I could make no commitment in that regard. The hon. member is quite right. That claim is proceeding very well, as are most of the comprehensive claims north of 60.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and deals with a matter raised previously that he must remember. Because two years have gone by, I believe, since his predecessor made the commitment to privatize Nordair, can the minister tell us today whether he still feels bound by the commitment made by his predecessor, and if so, when this company will be turned over to the private sector?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, everyone knows how much I was in favour of a merger between Nordair and Quebecair, and I worked actively to promote this merger for several months. At some time last summer, a few months ago, when my hon. friend was very busy, I imagine, we came very close to achieving this merger. At that time the Quebec government intervened for some reason and decided to make the project abort by injecting $15 million into Quebecair. This resulted in a legal problem since
the authorization of the Canadian Transport Commission is required for the approval of such changes of ownership among the shareholders of an air transport company. This decision is now in the hands of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like the minister to tell us first whether he still feels bound by the commitment of his predecessor, whether the government still intends to privatize that company? Second, does the fact that the Quebec government has invested a few dollars mean that the intention of the government, as expressed by the minister, is now a thing of the past because the Quebec government has become involved in the matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, personally my intentions have not changed but, of course, if other parties change the rules of the game, naturally I have to take into account what they want. So, as far as I am concerned, I am still of the same mind. I remain convinced that merging those two groups would be an important step in rationalizing the Canadian air industry. I am still very much convinced of that, but I must also wait for the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to see whether or not the transactions that have taken place comply with the regulations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. What is the minister doing to review or change the concept of mandatory supervision for convicts in view of two very serious current matters? The first is the brutal murder of a little girl in Nova Scotia by Joseph Odo while this man, whose homicidal tendencies were well known, was on mandatory supervision. Second is the apparent failure to suspend the mandatory supervision of Clifford Olson who subsequently was charged with several murders in British Columbia. Is the minister taking any review action in view of incidents like these?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I indicated shortly after becoming Solicitor General that I was dissatisfied with the mandatory supervision policy which is really the result of an existing statute which cannot be directly changed outside this House. I asked for an interdepartmental study to be conducted. That study was conducted. It has recommended some far-reaching changes to mandatory supervision.
When I got the study in July, I circulated it through the criminal justice constituency across the country. I indicated that I would wait until the end of October for their comments on these recommendations. I expect to close the book on receiving comments from these groups shortly. I hope that within a few months I will be able to go to cabinet with
October 29, 1981

proposals for change and for improving the mandatory supervision system.
When the hon. member talks about those two particular cases, I have to remind him that, no matter what system we have, there is an element of unpredictability about human nature and behaviour. Whatever system we have of conditional release will always be subject to the possibility of being unable to predict the behaviour of certain dangerous individuals.


OPERATION OF SYSTEM
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, it is all very well for the minister to point out these truisms or cliches, and what he says may be true. However, it is also true that the system, flawed as it is, if allowed to work properly is still offering some safeguards to the public. My concern is that the community assessment report with respect to Olson was not followed. Subsequently the crimes for which he was charged were committed. If the system were allowed to work it is possible that, during the relevant times, there would be a lot of changes. On whose conscience is this going to rest? Is the minister just going to hide behind the system, or does he feel an obligation to look into what happened in these cases?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that the system was not followed in either of those two cases. I will look into them. I would be happy to hear more about them from the hon. member.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister. For the past year we have been treated to the repentance of the government for the treatment of the Japanese during World War II who were put in internment camps. At the same time that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice were justifying the charter of rights so that we would not have a repeat performance of that, they were passing an order in council to empower the Solicitor General "to establish, administer and operate civilian internment camps". I would like to ask the Solicitor General, who will be the customers next time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there are no such orders in council. What the hon. member is referring to is the design of a plan for dealing with national emergencies in Canada. Under that plan if we were dealing with a situation of invasion of the country, or some other extreme emergency, I think it would be appropriate, and the government would be criticized for failing, to have plans to operate in situations such as that.
Oral Questions


TERMS OF STANDING ORDER PUBLISHED IN &quot;THE CANADA GAZETTE&quot;
Benno Friesen: shall refer the minister to The Canada Gazette dated June 10. Order in Council SR 1 TR 81-76 established the clear difference between an emergency situation and war. No wonder the member from Ottawa-Vanier calls reading the Charter "a hallucinating experience". Does the minister now want to institutionalize the War Measures Act? The same order in council empowers the minister to empty the prisons and make room for civilians. Does the minister intend to free the people convicted of a criminal charge and to make room for people who have fallen into disfavour?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If this country were invaded by foreign powers and the government and the security service of Canada were aware of the presence of illegals or foreign agents of that foreign power in Canada, does the hon. member suggest that nothing should be done about it? Should they be allowed to remain at liberty in positions in the country?


INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY RATES IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Not long ago the minister published a brochure under the title "Do your heating bills make you shiver?" Well, with the indirect tax the social democratic government of Quebec has put on electricity, a lot of Quebecers are going to shiver this winter, especially those with electric heating, and the poor will suffer a lot more than the rich. During negotiations with Quebec on his $800 grant program for single-family dwellings, was the minister informed by his Quebec counterpart that there was going to be a rate increase of 20 per cent in 1982, and could the minister tell the House whether he accepts part of the responsibility for this increase or this indirect tax on electricity in Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the rates charged by Hydro-Quebec are quite obviously the exclusive responsibility of the government of Quebec. As the hon. member pointed out, several weeks ago the Quebec government decided to raise these rates very substantially. Obviously, the Government of Canada was not consulted, and I have had no word from my counterpart on the matter. The decision is the exclusive responsibility of the Quebec Department of Energy and the Parti Quebecois government responsible for that department. As far as we are concerned, we shall continue to give grants of up to

October 29, 1981
Oral Questions
$800 for conversion from oil to natural gas or to electricity wherever this is feasible.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Would the minister tell the House why, having failed to supply adequate immigration services in India and in Canadian ports of entry, thus causing an extraordinary backlog of Indian nationals waiting to visit or seek refugee status in Canada, he chose to resolve the problem he created by a measure which discriminates against the largest member of the Commonwealth, requiring visas for all Indian nationals wishing to visit Canada? Would the minister tell us why?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: If the hon. member were to look at the decision we took a week ago relating to the problem faced at ports of entry in Canada, with large numbers of people coming from India claiming refugee status, he would realize the only recourse we have, after consultations with the Indian community and with the Indian government, would be to provide some review of their status before arriving in Canada to save them from being victimized by very unscrupulous agents in India who were giving them false information about what they could expect when they arrived in Canada.
The purpose is not to discriminate; far from that. It is to make sure that people would be treated equally and fairly under the immigration system, and that the refugee system itself would be protected against that kind of abuse. That was the reason for the decision. I believe it would be wrong for the hon. member to make false charges of discrimination when, in fact, what we are trying to do is to protect a system of immigration which is the fairest in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCATION OF CANADIAN IMMIGRATION SERVICES IN INDIA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: As a supplementary I would ask the minister, in light of the fact that he does not seem prepared to rescind his decision, will be consider relocating some of the immigration consular staff within India, making our service more geographically available to all parts of India, and will he take the necessary steps to ensure that all bona fide visitors to Canada can obtain visas upon arrival at Canadian ports of entry?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to correct some of the so-called facts that the hon. member mentioned. First, one receives a visa in India, not when one arrives in Canada. Second, we have already allocated through the offices of the
Secretary of State for External Affairs additional officers to go to India, and we have improved the facilities of the High Commission Office there. That was done in consultation with the High Commission Office and the Indian government, who indicated their concern about the problem of a number of people arriving in Canada claiming false status and, therefore, giving credence to a separatist movement in India.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services in his capacity as Receiver General of Canada. Did the minister read, prior to transmitting it to the Minister of Finance, the report of the Auditor General that contains the first qualified opinion in the history of Canada on the propriety of the government accounts, indicating there has been an understatement of the government's deficit position by a total in excess of $8 billion, an 8 per cent increase in the cumulative deficit of the government? Did he read that in the report? And when he transmitted the report to the Minister of Finance did he make any recommendations to him?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: The points raised by the Auditor General are the same that have been made in the past, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton knows. What is significant is that the Auditor General has stated that the accounts have been prepared in accordance with the stated principles which have always governed the preparation of the accounts. While it is true that the finger is pointed at certain accounting practices which persisted for many years, I would also point out there are many other areas which have to be addressed.
We have a study under way through the office of the Comptroller General to examine different ways whereby the accounts of Canada should be properly presented. I would point out that, for example, while the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is concentrating on liabilities which he is often wont to do, he neglects to point out that many assets of the Government of Canada-accounts receivable, gold, land- are not in fact recorded either. Look at the Accounts of Canada in perspective and let us not try to exaggerate the situation, which is one that has already been noted in the past.


REQUEST THAT ACTION BE TAKEN IN BUDGET
Walter David Baker: I am not the one
looking at the report; it is the Auditor General of Canada who has looked at the statement of accounts. The Auditor General indicated the government accounting is not valid and is not in accordance with normal accounting practices. There are reservations. My question to the Receiver General is clearly on whether or not that will be corrected.
October 29, 1981

I want to direct a question now to the Minister of Finance. With respect to his upcoming budget, can the House be assured now that the Minister of Finance is aware of that opinion, that in terms of the proper statement of the Accounts of Canada for the purposes of the budget, that that change that has been pointed out by the Auditor General, apparently now for the second year in a row, will be accounted for in the budget that will be presented in this House on November 12?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board stated, the comments of the Auditor General were made last year. There were explanations provided as well, so that no member of the public can be misled by the way the accounts are presented.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He would probably recall that Bill C-60 on Constitutional Reform, which he tabled in Parliament in the summer of 1978, provided that provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that affected the legislative authority of a province would not become effective before the charter was adopted by the province in question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he would be willing at next week's meeting on the Constitution to go back to the proposal he made in 1978 and offer the provinces, as a compromise solution, what is called "an opting in clause" regarding the provisions of the Charter that affect their legislative authority? If the answer is no, could he tell the House why what he found acceptable three years ago is no longer acceptable today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, Bill C-60 was entirely prepared by the Liberal government at the time, with the help of the caucus, and we were tabling it, at that time, as legislation initiated solely by the government.
The bill now being considered in the House is the result of several months of discussions, with the participation of the provinces represented by their attorneys general, and the Attorney General of Canada, so that the bill now before the House, whose passage we are seeking, is the result of several months of joint activity by the federal government and the provinces, and has also been substantially amended and improved thanks to additions by the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. It is therefore a mistake to compare the two bills. In one case we have a bill that was strictly unilateral, to which we were asking the other parties to
Business of the House
give their approval, and in this case, we have a bill that is the result of months of discussion between the provinces, the federal government, and opposition and government members.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I direct the usual Thursday question to the government House leader and ask him what the business of the House will be for tomorrow and as far as he can go into next week? I understand that Monday will be an opposition day, as he stated yesterday. I suggest to him that we would be prepared to utilize tomorrow for cleaning up some small housekeeping measures if that is his desire.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, as far as today is concerned, we will deal with Bill C-48. We had a useful House leaders' meeting this morning and discussed a few bills. I understand that one of them will not be discussed tomorrow because it is impossible for the hon. member's party to deal with it. Therefore, I think we will wait until another Friday to dispose of uncontroversial business and tomorrow go on with Bill C-48, which is a major bill and which will be approved, we hope, very soon, if not tomorrow.

Next week we will continue to deal with Bill C-48 aimed at Canadianizing our petroleum and gas industry. Monday will indeed be an opposition day and after that, as I have just said, we will go on with Bill C-48, if necessary.
Now then, if we were to complete the study of that bill this week, tomorrow, next Tuesday or at any time before Thursday next week, the next bill will be Bill C-78 to amend the Canada Labour Code, which is very urgent and very important. All that of course is subject to notice to the contrary should the government decide that it is imperative that the debate on the Constitution be concluded. In that case, we would see to it that the opposition parties are given proper notice.

October 29, 1981
Business of the House


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a point I should like to put to the government House leader. For two Fridays in a row we have been making an effort to clean up some so-called non-controversial bills. As a result of Thursday meetings, in both instances I have made arrangements for members to be present to deal with them. I would ask that we make our minds up one way or another: Are we going to deal with them on a Friday, and which Friday? Then I can ask my members to be here and not have to ask them to change their plans every week.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the concern of my hon. colleague is legitimate. For two weeks we have tried to deal with some uncontroversial business; he has agreed to some of it and the Conservative Party has agreed to some items. It was difficult, however, to get the agreement of the three parties on the three pieces of legislation concerned. Since only one of the three bills we have discussed could be proceeded with tomorrow, I thought it was preferable, as I had a commitment from the Tory House leader, to deal with the other one on the following Friday and tomorrow not go on wasting our time but try to terminate debate on report stage of Bill C-48, on which we have already spent a lot of time. Subject to circumstances the following Friday we could try to agree on at least three bills that we could approve, using one speaker per party.
I appreciate the concern expressed by my colleague which is valid, but he must understand that in our caucus, after a House leaders' meeting, I have to have consultations and it is only on Thursday at three o'clock that according to practice I am in a position to confirm if we can go along with the discussion that we had in the previous House leaders' meeting.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, is it not possible for us to decide today that a week Friday, subject only to matters which may arise in the interval, we will deal with certain pieces of legislation, rather than wait until the day before the Friday that we are supposed to be dealing with it?


Yvon Pinard: I think this is a constructive suggestion, Madam Speaker; nevertheless, it is always difficult for a government to agree one week in advance, not knowing how debate will evolve in the House. We have spent many, many days on report stage of Bill C-48. If debate were to continue to next Thursday and not terminate, it will be difficult for the government to agree to switch to other legislation, when it would become more and more urgent. It is impossible one week in advance to make a commitment. On the other hand, it is surely possible to plan and try to come to some agreement. I will take note of the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, as the government House leader knows, we have offered to deal with Bill C-45, the pest control legislation, tomorrow and let it go with one speaker. We have also agreed to deal with Bill C-25, the radiation emission legislation, with one speaker. Those are bills that he
could have. I do not think that there would be any difficulty for the NDP in dealing with those matters tomorrow.
I have suggested that if we were to change the date of our House leaders' meeting to Tuesday, followed by caucus, we could have decisions for him which I am sure would streamline and make the government's conduct of the business of the House more efficient. By Thursday he would have full knowledge of any agreement that could be reached and legislation that could be dealt with.


Yvon Pinard: First of all, Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned Bill C-45 and Bill C-25. We discussed dealing with those two bills tomorrow in our discussion this morning. We also mentioned Bill C-84, to amend the Small Business Loans Act. This bill is urgent, for technical reasons, as it will increase the amount of loans to small business in this country. He knows very well that this party is not in a position this afternoon to confirm that we could get Bill C-84 tomorrow. When he mentions Bill C-25, it is the NDP that cannot guarantee that we will get that bill tomorrow because they have more than one speaker and they have asked us to deal with it as the third item. Therefore, I end up, with just Bill C-45. This is not sufficient.
The reason I think it would be more useful not to deal with those three bills is that I do not have agreement to deal with the three of them. We end up with only one bill. I prefer to use tomorrow to deal with Bill C-48 for the reasons I have mentioned.
The hon. member talks about House leaders' meetings. This is very useful sometimes, but it has also demonstrated that it is not always necessary when we do not end debate on major pieces of legislation. In the past, it was not necessary to meet on a Tuesday to determine the business of a Friday. Since I have been House leader, we have always had our meetings on Thursdays, and so far we have been successful in approving 65 bills in this House in this session. Therefore, I think if we have good will on both sides, we can still meet on Thursday and get some legislation passed by this House.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order on House business. Last week at this time I asked a question of the President of the Privy Council concerning a bill which Canadian women, in particular, have been awaiting a long time, Bill C-53, the sexual offences legislation. At that time, the President of the Privy Council informed me that he was prepared to bring this bill forward on Friday of this week, namely, tomorrow. If he could reach an agreement with the two opposition House leaders, and that following one speech each by the opposition parties this bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I want to say that we have agreed in the past, and we will certainly continue to agree, that this bill should be referred to the justice committee quickly. We are prepared to put up one further speaker on the bill and see it go forward, as not only have many individual Canadian women demanded, but also all
October 29, 1981

of the major national women's organizations. It is long overdue that this bill, which would redefine rape as a crime of violence and not as a crime of passion, is brought into the statute books of this country.
I want to ask the President of the Privy Council why, in his discussion of bills which might have been brought forward tomorrow, he was silent on the question of Bill C-53, the sexual offences legislation. Since he seems unprepared to bring the bill forward tomorrow, will he not give us an assurance that next Friday the government will bring forward Bill C-53 for the conclusion of second reading debate in order that it can be referred quickly to the justice committee, where we can make the needed amendments and where Canadian women will finally have decent rape laws?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member mentions Bill C-53, and I welcome his offer to deal with it expeditiously. On the other hand, he says that I never mentioned it. He should know that what is discussed in House leaders' meetings is to stay in House leaders' meetings, so I wonder how he can conclude that I did not mention it.
In any case, I welcome his offer and I will take that into consideration; but I am also a practical man and know very well that in the justice committee there are bills which are under consideration at this time. Even if we were to refer Bill C-53 to the justice committee on this Friday or next Friday, it is most unlikely that it could be dealt with during the next few weeks.
We may come to an agreement at a House leaders' meeting to deal with this bill or other bills quickly, but I can assure the hon. member that I have no reason to delay the study and consideration of Bill C-53 by this House. However, if he is a practical man too, he will realize that he would be welcome to help accelerate the debate in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which he is a member and where some legislation is pending.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of the legislative timetable in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That is no excuse for not concluding debate in the House. In view of the offer of the government House leader, I wonder whether we might hear from the House leader of the Conservative Party concerning the attitude of his party. Are they prepared to listen to the concerns of Canadian women and expedite debate on this bill at the earliest possible opportunity?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We think it is urgent. We think it should be debated.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Say "yes".


Erik Nielsen: We think it is important and urgent as well, Madam Speaker. I am always ready, willing and able, as are all hon. members on this side of the House, to listen to the
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
concerns of the Canadian women. I might say something, too, about them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. In view of the findings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case that I am taking against the government and the cabinet, including the minister, is the minister now prepared to bring to the House amendments to the Northern Pipeline Act to make legal the orders in council which were put through by the government instead of legislation? I am aware that the court has not completely ruled on the case; but to avoid further litigation and further appeal-it is now in the court of appeal and, no doubt, appeals will go to the Supreme Court of Canada-I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could indicate whether the government has considered the possibility of bringing in legislation to deal with the order in council and make an amendment to the Northern Pipeline Act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -in view of the developments in the United States, as well.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that I should not have allowed the hon. member to continue. He was not asking a question about government business, but a question about what the government might bring forward as government business in the future. That question was not altogether in order.
The hon. member for Yukon on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I served Your Honour with the required notice under the Standing Orders that I intended to raise this question of privilege today arising out of yesterday's exchange between the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who I regret is not in his seat, and the government House leader.


An hon. Member:: He just came in now.


Erik Nielsen: The exchange is to be found, including the comments of the Chair, on pages 12267 through to 12278 of yesterday's Hansard. I see that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi is now back in his seat.
I do not intend to submit any lengthy argument to Your Honour because that argument was very ably, logically and articulately made yesterday by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). However, I do wish to highlight one or two points which I submit should be taken into consideration before Your Honour comes to your ruling, both on the question itself and the substantive motion which I

October 29, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
intend to move in support of this question should Your Honour find it to be a prima facie case of privilege.
The first point I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention is that the question dealt solely with the right of a chairman of a standing committee of this House to answer questions. It did not deal at all with the discretion that he is allowed under our rules to reply or not to reply. That was not the question at all. We all know that questions directed to ministers or chairmen need not be replied to at all. We cannot question the answer. That was not the problem yesterday. A review of those pages of Hansard to which I referred the Chair will clearly show that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport of this House, attempted to rise in order to respond to the questions put to him, but he was usurped by the government House leader.
In that respect, I would specifically like to draw the attention of the Chair to page 12269 of Hansard where, immediately following a question by the Leader of the Opposition, an editorial note in italics appears as follows:
And Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi) and Mr. Pinard having risen:
There can be no doubt, quite apart from the very manifest observation on this side of the House, that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi was trying to respond to the questions; at least, he was trying to gain the floor. As we subsequently learned, he did so in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee to discharge his responsibilities to his committee members who elected him to that office in the first place.
Therefore, I would like to emphasize that it is not a question of insisting on an answer. We know we do not have that right. However, I submit to Your Honour that the chairman of any standing committee of this House has a right to answer in his capacity as chairman of that standing committee.
I do not think it need be gainsaid that it has long been our practice-it was the practice of your immediate predecessor, the Hon. James Jerome, as it was the practice of his predecessor, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux-to recognize on repeated occasions the right of chairmen of standing committees to respond to questions being put to them, from whatever side of the House they were put. I do not think that right can be questioned.
In this instance, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), as Hansard will show, rose three times. He was trying to discharge his responsibility as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to answer the questions put to him. He was making a really genuine effort. His right to respond is the matter in question here. It is not his right to refuse to respond.
The other points covered by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, I would especially commend for your favourable consideration. The point has been made that if we were to get into the practice of allowing ministers of
the Crown to cut off at the pass chairmen of standing committees who want to discharge their responsibilities, who want to inform members of this House as to activities of committees, whether it be the government House leader or any other minister of the Crown, it would place in serious jeopardy the integrity of the whole standing committee system of this House.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that committee chairmen are elected officials of committees. They are not appointed by the government. The government has no control, except a reference, over the conduct of members of that committee. It is the chairmen who exercise that control, authorized by their committee members. It is not authorized by the government and it is not controlled by the government. I make that very strong submission to you.
The issue here is the independence of the committee system and the independence of committees from control by this House. Even more importantly, it is the independence of the chairmen of those standing committees, elected by members of those committees, to report on behalf of all committee members to the House and to answer questions in the House. Just to sum up, it is a question of the independence of committee chairmen to respond to questions. Whether or not they choose to answer those questions is within their discretion.
Because of the very able and strong argument made by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe yesterday, to which the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants contributed, I believe the matter is of sufficient importance, since it affects the privileges of all members of the House, and because of the dangers it presents to the continuation of that independence and integrity of the standing committee system, to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, for a complete examination of the subject matter of the exchange that took place yesterday.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the matter of the questions addressed on Wednesday, October 28, to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, and the actions of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in taking the floor instead of the hon. member, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to enable the committee to determine whether it is derogatory to the privileges of this House to allow the President of the Privy Council, or any other minister, to claim the right to speak to the House on behalf of the chairmen of standing committees, and reply to questions about the in camera deliberations of committees, if ministers choose to do so.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Dionne rose in his place.)


Yvon Pinard: Madame le President-


Some hon. Members:: He rose first.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday to give you an explanation. I know that Canadians are anxious to hear that Bill C-48 has been adopted. I would suggest that the
October 29, 1981

question is unfounded and that we should not waste any more of the time of the House.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, since this question of privilege has been brought before the House today, I have two or three brief comments to make but I will not pursue them further. However, I would ask, if it is to be pursued further, that we have a fuller explanation of the comment made by you, as reported on page 12267 of Hansard, which reads:
Order, please. The President of the Privy Council is authorized to answer questions if he so chooses on questions of that nature.
I want to make it clear, Madam Speaker, that I did in fact rise in my place. I was prepared to answer the question. I was able to do so, I think, in the first instance rather than in the last instance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, this is a matter of considerable importance, and whether it is referred to the committee or not, I think it must be dealt with.
The question whether or not a member who is chairman of a committee is entitled to answer directly and without interference is of vital importance to the operations of the House. I think it is understood by everyone in this House that there is a difference between a question put to a member of the Privy Council or to a member of the cabinet, the right of a more senior cabinet minister to rise and answer a question and a question put to a private member who, in his or her responsibility as chairman of a committee, is asked to comment on a matter that is legitimately before a committee.
In looking over the precedents that I can find, I do not believe there is anything to justify interference by any member of the cabinet in the right of a private member who has been asked a question and who is legitimately entitled to answer it. Nowhere in our precedents can I find where a cabinet member, a minister, the President of the Privy Council or anyone else is entitled to pre-empt an individual private member.
I hope the Chair will rule that way. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will simply rule that it is appropriate to ask, it is appropriate to answer; that it is inappropriate for any member of the House of Commons to attempt to gain the floor to answer a question addressed to someone other than someone within the cabinet. If the Chair can rule in that way, I will be delighted. If, however, you feel that the matter is necessary to be reviewed outside of the House and then referred back, I would support the motion of my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition.


Madam Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) completed his intervention? He asked me to clarify something I said yesterday. I can tell the hon. member that I will clarify what I said when I make my ruling, but if he has some arguments to offer, I would be glad
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
to hear him. I have to tell the hon. member that I shall not explain myself until I make a ruling, as I do not want to rule today but will reserve my decision on this matter, if he has a few arguments to advance which he has not yet had a chance to do, I will hear him now.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: No, Madam Speaker. However, I do want to make it clear that I was not in any way casting any reflection on what you said, because I know that in the heat of question period, and with much noise in the House, it is sometimes difficult to hear anything. I simply made that statement following what the House leader of the official opposition had to say on his question of privilege. I think he has made the arguments I would have made so I will not go into it in any further detail.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, on this particular question I think it comes down to the point that when an hon. member asks a question and there are two members getting up, as was the case yesterday involving the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who had not been addressed but volunteered to stand, it is up to the Chair to make a choice. There is no way that the Chair should decide that other than that the member who was asked the question should answer. There is no impediment whatsoever in the way of a chairman of a committee replying to questions relevant to procedures of that committee. It is an established rule of this House that a chairman of a committee may be asked questions relevant to the procedures of the committee.
I think on serious reflection that the President of the Privy Council is not the man to determine what is happening in a committee and that the person who was being asked was being asked in his proper capacity. If he says he will not answer, as a minister can do, that is the end of it. Beyond that there is no cabinet minister, not even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who can, shall we say, usurp the function or position of a committee chairman.


Madam Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if he will help the Chair by answering this query I have in my mind. If the hon. member will read the questions as they were phrased yesterday by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he will find that there might be a double interpretation. Two members having risen in order to answer the question, in order for the Chair to decide who is to answer the question the Chair would have to interpret the question. Would the hon. member feel that the Chair has to go so far as to interpret the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I speak subject to correction, but if memory serves me correctly the chairman of the committee was asked whether he had sought permission from the Minister of Transport (Mr Pepin) for the expansion of a question which had been proposed. The President of the Privy Council sought to, and did, intervene. Ultimately the answer

October 29, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
was given "yes", the chairman had asked the minister that particular question. As a matter of fact, if the chairman of the committee does not understand the question he has the same right as a minister to ask the hon. member questioning for clarification. I do not think it is up to the Chair to interpret the question.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon rising to speak twice on the same question of privilege?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in order to assist the Chair, since it was I who raised the question in the first place, I should like the opportunity to respond very briefly to the question you just put to the distinguished former occupant of your high office, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
My immediate answer in respect of the interpretation of questions would be that in my opinion, no, it is not the Chair's job to interpret questions. But may I suggest, with the greatest respect, it is the Chair's job to note to whom the question is directed, and it is the Chair's job, in my respectful submission, to recognize the established precedent in this place, that it is proper and within our practice for chairmen of standing committees to respond to questions concerning the affairs of those committees. That is not the jurisdiction of the House. All the House does is make references to committees. That is the information we on this side were seeking yesterday during the question period process, whether such a reference had been sought.
The President of the Privy Council and government House leader, in replying on three separate occasions, refused to answer the specific question but gave us a story about the difficulties of conducting House business. He pointed out to us, for instance, that we had already had two days' debate on the matter and there was going to be another opposition day on Monday, none of which had anything at all to do with the question.
The danger I am attempting to impress upon the Chair with respect to the independence and integrity of standing committees arises from the sequence of events as they occurred yesterday. Your Honour will recall that on three separate occasions the chairman of that standing committee rose in an obvious attempt to answer the question, and on three separate occasions he was prevented from doing so by the President of the Privy Council. Finally, as recorded at page 12269 we find the President of the Privy Council saying, when he rose the fourth time-and the chairman of the standing committee had also risen.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi is now able to answer the Leader of the Opposition-
The use of that word "now" is very significant. What he was saying in effect is, now that he has had his opportunity to tell the House why there is not going to be a reference-not saying it directly, but by referring to all sorts of other business-and the government position having been established, the chairman would be allowed to answer the question, but not before.
There are very serious implications to be drawn from that sequence of events yesterday having nothing to do at all with interpreting the question. The question was quite clear: has a request for a reference been made? In my respectful submission, the chairman was denied the opportunity of telling us whether a reference had been sought until he was allowed to do so by the President of the Privy Council. Therein lies the danger, and that is the danger which, in my submission, is best cleared up by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I will reserve on the question and study the arguments that have been presented.


MR. BENJAMIN-REFERENCE TO SENATE COMMITTEE OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE POLICY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I did not get notice of the hon. member's question of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I give it now, Madam Speaker, because it is related to the previous question.


Madam Speaker:: Very well, I will recognize the hon. member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, this is related to the previous question of privilege in the sense that it affects the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport. At page 12269 the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) is recorded as asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about a request of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport for an order of reference, and the Minister of Transport said, as reported at page 12270:
It should be obvious to everyone here that what the opposition is trying to do is obtain a reference-
By the way, this was a request made by all-party agreement. He went on to state:
-so that a report can be written and they will have another kick at the can.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seems to be referring to the deliberations of yesterday, in which case I have to remind him that I require written notice of his question of privilege. If it involved the deliberations of today I could accept his question of privilege, but he is quoting from yesterday's Hansard and, therefore, I am afraid I cannot hear the hon. member at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I guess that makes it a point of order. This document in my hand indicates that the government refused an order of reference to inquire into VIA Rail and submit a report.
However, I find as a result of what has just arrived in my hand that the government House leader of the other place has taken action. The other place has authorized their transport committee to inquire into and report upon the national rail
October 29, 1981

passenger service, exactly what the chairman of our committee asked for and was refused, and in fact double-crossed, yesterday. Now we find today that the same authorization has been provided in the Senate. Surely that raises some kind of privilege on the part of the chairman of our committee and all members of this place.


Madam Speaker:: With respect, the hon. member is still discussing matters which happened yesterday and even matters which took place in the Senate. This cannot be entertained under a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition prepared of their own volition and signed by 160 people who principally are residents of Port Perry, Ontario, in my constituency. Like most Canadians, they are gravely concerned about the extremely high mortgage interest rates and they urge Parliament to take action to establish a realistic interest rate to provide security for those who have homes which are mortgaged.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition signed by approximately 350 of the 650 householders in the Ridgewood area of Millwoods, Edmonton. This petition was prepared by Mrs. Fran Walker and asks for nothing more than group mail boxes. I think you would be amazed, Madam Speaker, if you knew the hours in which mail service was available to these people. They are simply asking for a right which every other Canadian appears to have.


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: 2,559 and 2,691.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosby: L Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or any official of his department or the president or any official of Petro-Canada have conversations or discussions with Mr. J.W.E. Mingo, Q.C., of Halifax or with a member of the board of directors of Petrofma Canada Limited prior to or after the first attempt by Petro-Canada to acquire control of Petrofma?
2.	Was Mr. Mingo paid a fee as a director of the Bank of Canada or as an agent of the government or Petro-Canada with respect to the attempt by Petro-Canada to acquire controlling interest in Petrofma?
3.	Did Mr. Mingo play a role in the acquisition of a controlling interest in Petrofma by Petro-Canada and, if so, does the government consider that role conflicted with his interest as a director of the Bank of Canada and other government agencies including the Halifax Port Authority?


Marc Lalonde: The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1.-3. No.


Mr. Domm: 1.	Does the Minister of Transport have contingency plans for changing the printed dimensions and specifications on the outside surfaces of various railway rolling stock to metric units and, if so, what is the anticipated cost of changing the stencilled specifications?
2.	What form of specification measurements will the minister require to appear on rolling stock originating in the United States?
3.	Will Canada's railway gauges be specified in Canadian or international units in future and on what date will any change take place?
4.	Did Canada receive an order to supply some 1,200 items of rolling stock to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and, if so, will the items be manufactured to Canadian or international specification?
5.	Are end-product items of the Tilby-Miller sugarcane separation technology to be manufactured under license by Intercane Systems Inc. and Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc. and, if so, will they be made according to Canadian or international specifications?
6.	Were 90 subway cars purchased recently by Mexico City Metro from Bombardier Inc. for $50 million and, if so, will they be manufactured in Canadian or international units of measure?
7.	(a) Are the industrial off-shoot benefits accruing to domestic firms as a result of the purchase by Canada of the CF-18 fighter aircraft expected to amount to approximately $2.5 billion and to continue to approximately 1995 and has the Metric Commission scheduled the changeover of the Canadian aerospace industry from Canadian units of measure to international in 1987 (b) does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce envisage regulatory exceptions to permit Canadian industry to legally continue to supply parts built to Canadian units of measurement beyond the scheduled changeover date and, if so, what will be the exceptions?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows: 1. No. However, plans for changing dimensions and specifications to metric units were proposed by the rail transport industry and the rolling stock manufacturers and approved by the Railway Association of Canada. These plans are compatible with the standards set by the Association of American Railroads. The cost to convert the rolling stock is approximately $20 per car at manufacture and $50 per car at refit of existing equipment.

October 29, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	The Minister of Transport does not establish the form of specification measurements that appear on rolling stock. See also answer to 1 above.
3.	Railway track gauges will not change but will eventually be expressed in metric units. The current industry target for this is 1988.
4.	No.
5.	The equipment resulting from the Tilby-Miller sugar cane separation technology will be manufactured by both Intercane Systems Inc., and Hawker-Siddeley Canada Inc., and will be made according to the specifications required in the country where it is being used.
6.	No.
7.	(a) Yes. The appropriate industry sector committee
(aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturers) has scheduled conversion to metric units within its industry in the period 1988/89. Sector committees are made up largely of industry representatives and act in the interest of the industry concerned.
(b) The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has no intention of introducing regulations requiring manufacturers to use metric units. Industries are free to provide their goods and services in the units of measure their customers desire.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,784?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I have here the answer to question 2,784. I could read it but it is rather lengthy so, with unanimous consent, perhaps I could table it.


Madam Speaker:: Is there agreement for the tabling of this answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to is as follows:]


Mr. McMillan: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,308 concerning trips between Ottawa and Prince Edward Island taken at government expense by Mr. James Fay, Executive Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (a) with what individuals or groups did he meet (b) what was the (i) date (ii) location (iii) duration (iv) purpose of each meeting?


Marcel Ostiguy: (b)(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)Individuals or groups met	Date	Location	Duration	Purpose of each meeting
Trip number 1
Island Growers	September 2, 1980	Charlottetown	all-day session To obtain information on the intent of the
Island Growers re the proposed Potato Agency for Eastern Canada
Trip number 2
Prince Edward Island Potato Producers October 16, 1980	Charlottetown	three and one-half To discuss updated data on proposed EasternAssociation	hours	Canada Potato Agency Plan
Trip number 3
Prince Edward Island Potato Producers December 19, 1980	Charlottetown
Association
two and one-half To discus draft plans for Eastern Canada hours	Potato Agency as a result of the September 2,
1980 hearings in Charlottetown
Trip number 3
John MacDonald, Member P.E.l. Potato December 20, 1980 Producers Association
Souris, P.E.l.
2 hours
To discuss possible Potato Stabilization for the 1979 crop year for Maritimes
October 29, 1981

Individuals or groups met Trip number 4
P.E.I. Potato Producers Association P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board
Trip number 5
P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board
P.E.I. Potato Producers Association
Trip number 6
P.E.I. Potato Producers Association
Trip number 7
Premier of P.E.I. (with Minister of Agriculture)
Trip number 8
P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board Members P.E.I. Potato Producers Association Member P.E.I. Potato Dealer Association Member


David P. Smith: Madam Speake questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary some matters arising out of the answers given yesterday at pages 12279 and 12280 of Hansard in answer to my question No. 2,317 respecting the RCMP 'E' Division headquarters in Victoria. There are three points I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention.
The first and most important one concerns the answer to the question in the second column of page 12280. There is an asterisk beside it and if one makes reference to the explanation of the asterisk one sees that the cost is only an estimate since "purchase is still under negotiation, which should be completed by the end of June, 1981."
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this answer was tendered and appeared in Hansard on October 28, 1981. The answer was obviously prepared before June, 198l', and has been sitting somewhere. Perhaps that portion has been awaiting the accumulation of the other information. I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary if he could update that aspect of the question.
My second point relates to line 6 of the first column of page 12280, where it refers to office equipment and furnishings.
(b)(i) Date	(ii) Location	(iii) Duration	(iv) Purpose of each meetingJanuary 19, 1981	Charlottetown	2 hours	To discuss new seed regulations as they may affect P.E.I. elite seed programFebruary 9, 1981	Charlottetown	two and one-half hours	EEC regulations as they relate to seed exports of Maritime PotatoesFebruary 9, 1981	Souris	3 hours	To discuss Status of 1979 Potato Stabilization - Possible funding and update on the Eastern Canada Potato Agency PlanFebruary 15, 1981	Charlottetown	three and one-half hours	Preparatory talks for future Eastern Canada Potato Agency meetings in OttawaMarch 4, 1981	Charlottetown	2 hours	To discuss proposed Atlantic Veterinary CollegeMarch 13, 1981	Souris, Charlottetown	seven and one-half hours	To discuss seed potato phytosanitary regulations, and how it relates to EEC'S and Canadian Seed Potato and the proposed EEC Potato Agency Planask that the	remaining	
The cost is $74,100. Then the second column, under (d), relates to the relocation of furnishings and equipment for $80,000. It seems to me that it is inconsistent to purchase office equipment and furnishings for $74,100 and pay $80,000 to move them.
My third point is a small one. It is related to the name "Fairmont, Vancouver", just above the italicized reply in column No. 2. I do not know whether that is Fairmont Street or Fairmont District. I think it should be clarified for the record.


David P. Smith: I will look into those matters, Madam Speaker, and see if they can be clarified.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 28, 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
[Stage Direction]
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 21 (Mr. Wilson) and 22 (Mr. Waddell).
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, since we have had so many interruptions in the debate perhaps you could tell me how much time I have left in my participation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that the hon. member has 17 minutes.


Peter Elzinga: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I started to indicate yesterday, I am sure all parties basically agree on the importance of our nation reaching energy self-sufficiency. We all agree that it is important that we have more efficient development of our resources. I think we also agree that it is essential that we have a healthy oil and gas industry in Canada if we are to reach oil and gas self-sufficiency. It is important that we have a healthy oil and gas industry to cure some of the serious ills we are facing in our economy, such as inflation, which is running rampant. The fact that so many individuals are employed in our energy sector also makes it important that we have a healthy oil and gas industry in Canada.
The main difference lies in our philosophical approach as to how we achieve energy self-sufficiency. I dealt with that aspect somewhat when I spoke on this measure last Tuesday evening, illustrating the total difference in our philosophical belief as to how we can achieve a healthy industry in comparison with both the Liberal and New Democratic parties.
We do fully support Canadianization but we have grave reservations about nationalization. I think Canadians were disturbed when they saw our minister of energy sitting back and eating cake in celebration of the first year of the National Energy Program. The Canadian people are the ones who are paying for this cake, but they do not have any of that cake to eat. In fact, they are having less to eat because of the disastrous policies of this government.
The Liberal administration wishes the Canadian people to think that it is a bunch of American fat cats, American capitalists, who are running our oil industry. You would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the amount of investment by the so-called small investor in Canada. I am talking about our senior citizens. Many widows rely on their dividend payments from their investment in these different corporations to make their livelihood.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gives a few dollars to increase old age pensions with one hand but then takes them back fourfold by allowing the value of oil stocks traded on the stock exchanges to decrease. Do hon. members opposite care about individuals who have invested small amounts in the oil industry so that they might benefit from the development of our resources? It seems that they do not. Far too often we find that they deal in the abstract; they do not deal with individual hardship cases. I refer to people who have put a great deal of
sweat and blood into the development of our resources but now find that this government, through the back-in provision of claiming 25 per cent ownership on Canada lands, is simply walking in and stealing portions of what they have worked so hard to obtain. They have worked for years and invested for years, but our hon. friends opposite are literally stealing 25 per cent of something people have worked hard to develop. That is a totally different philosophical approach from that which we take, and we have given many illustrations respecting our approach.
I referred briefly to the budget we introduced in 1979 and made some comparisons with what is taking place now. The governments of Canada did not build this country. This country was built by individuals who were willing to stake their livelihoods. They built something we of the younger generation can enjoy, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. However, this government is not expressing any gratitude to them at all; it is penalizing them for their hard work.
As I mentioned earlier, we in this party support the concept of 50 per cent Canadianization. We encourage direct support by Canadians in the development of our resources. Petro-Canada is a fine example of the approach of this Liberal government. The individual who heads Petro-Canada has much to say about the development of our resources, but I understand that at one time he came close to being fired from a second rate job at Imperail Oil, a company which produces oil. Now he is running a government organization responsible for billions of dollars.
We are dealing here with the energy industry. I find it totally unacceptable when I hear my friends to the left in the New Democratic Party indicate their support for an energy tax credit for those individuals who cannot absorb increased energy costs. Members of the New Democratic Party voted against that measure when we introduced it in our budget in 1979. They voted against the progressive steps we wanted to take to help those individuals who are burdened with additional energy costs. Yet today they ask the government to implement exactly what they voted against. The hypocrisy of that party never ceases to amaze me.
A number of individuals participating in this debate have stated that it is important that Canada reach energy self-sufficiency. I refer specifically to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), who illustrated how that will not be possible under the present administration. If the present policies advocated by the Liberal government continue, we can never hope to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
I was happy to see on television last night that the province of Alberta has reduced its royalty structure so that more development will take place in the province of Alberta. I would like to see some encouraging actions on the part of the federal government as well so that the industry can be restored to the health it enjoyed prior to the introduction of the National Energy Program.
I do not wish to belabour what we attempted to do in our budget and in a number of the proposals we advocated during the short nine months we were in government, but I think the
October 29, 1981

underlying factor in everything we advocated in this House and throughout Canada was our deep belief in the individual Canadian citizen. I deeply believe that the average individual in my constituency of Pembina can prosper in Canada, but the average constituent should be offered initiatives by his federal government so that he can own his own home and participate directly in the development of our resources. I hope hon. members opposite will realize the wisdom of that attitude and of offering initiatives rather than always relying on government intervention.
Quite frankly, I am glad an agreement was reached between the federal government and the province of Alberta because at least the uncertainty that existed was removed. However, I find it frustrating that the party opposite was the party which campaigned on cheap oil. Hon. members opposite told the Canadian people they would keep energy costs down. As a result of the agreement reached Canadians in reality are paying and will in the future pay more for oil products than what we advocated in our budget. For example, we agreed to the gradual increase in the price of our oil to 75 per cent of the world price. That was included in the agreement signed by the province of Alberta and the federal government, but that is only in effect with respect to old oil. The cost of new oil or oil found after January of 1981 will be allowed to rise to 100 per cent of the world price under the present agreement. That oil will cost the consumer much more. I Find it very disheartening that simply for political expediency hon. members opposite made promises and built up the hopes and expectations of the Canadian people and then, after an election is over, they forget about their promises and renege on them totally.
Let me conclude by referring to what I said in my opening comments. I hope our friends opposite will realize the wisdom of offering not only small Canadian oil companies but all individuals throughout Canada opportunities for self-fulfilment and the opportunity to produce for themselves rather than always taking the government interventionist approach.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this legislation. I wish we did not have to do so. I wish the legislation was not before us, but it is part of the schedule and part of the menu the government has put before us, so we must address ourselves to it.
It has been a year since the National Energy Program was introduced. It is probably an indication of the popularity of this measure that a year after the program was introduced we are still debating one of its major features. It is probably time to sit back and take a look at what is happening in the legislative process of this program. As I consider the debate, it seems to me that pretty well everyone in this House has staked out his position. In some cases it appears that this is a dialogue of the deaf. We have all determined what we want to see, what we want to support and what we want to reject, and there is not very much listening going on any more in this debate.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
That is true for the Liberal Party as well as for the Con-servatiyfis and NDP. All of us have solidified our position so much that we are not really hearing what other people are saying. It.probably does not pay any more to listen because we know what they are going to say. We have such a staked-out ideological position that we can anticipate what the other party will say. There are no surprises.
That is not healthy for a good legislative debate. I wonder whether it is not time to take a look at the premise which ought to underlie legislation if it is to be good legislation. What is the premise? From the premise flows the principle which ought to undergird all of the provisions of legislation. The premise is that we want good legislation, good law. We have to decide whether the law that we are debating is good. For example, for a number of years I have promoted a private member's bill on parental kidnapping. The government has now adopted that legislation in Bill C-53.
Something that encouraged me to go ahead with that legislation was an experience I had in Toronto some years ago. A young lawyer was using the kidnapping provisions of the Criminal Code to counsel his clients on how to kidnap their own children and do so successfully under the Criminal Code. That provision in the Criminal Code is supposed to protect children. However, it was being used by counsel in order to abduct them. That is bad law and the sooner we get rid of it, the better.
The underlying premise of all legislation is that it ought to be good. Maybe we ought to look at a couple of principles which ought to be qualities of good legislation. Good legislation should first of all have the principle of universality in it. Good law should be able to endure and enjoy universal application. You cannot have good law if it is very specific and particular. It should apply as much as possible to any situation within the purview of that legislation.
Second, it should not be written to give selective attention to any one person or group of people. I am sure the civil libertarians in this House will agree with that. Law which is designed to give attention to one group is probably not good law.
It should not be written to punish or reward any one person or group of people. Nor should it endanger any one person or group. It ought to benefit the public as a whole. For example, when I first came to this chamber we were still dealing with legislation related to a specific divorce action, a person who wanted a divorce and the provincial legislation did not accommodate that divorce action taking place. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you remember cases like that. That is not good law. I am glad we have changed the legislation in such a way that we do not have to deal with that any more. We should not be dealing with specific cases in that way. We ought to have universal legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have been listening attentively to the hon. member. This is report stage of the bill and two amendments have been grouped for debate. It appears to the
12304

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Chair that the hon. member is straying from the principle of speaking specifically to the amendments before us.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, you will note what I am driving at. In about two minutes I will come to the application and you will see why I am dwelling on the point that law, if it is good law, must have universal application.
The second principle is that if it is to be good law, it should not be passed on the basis of an individual liking or disliking a person or group of people. That is why we have debated and talked about a charter of rights, to protect people from that kind of prejudice. If we allow that to happen, we get into the danger of an ever-escalating vendetta against one person or group of people. For example, if we were to pick on any one race in our society and adopt property provisions relating to that race, we would quickly agree that that is racism and rule it out as bad law.
Does the clause in Bill C-48 that we are now dealing with pass these two tests of good legislation? Does it enjoy universality of application? Could we take the principle in this piece of legislation and adapt it to other areas of our lives as Canadians and appreciate the legislation? Second, does it look at one person or group of people with special attention? That is really the underlying question.
We are dealing with Clause 27 of the bill. It is called in our jargon the back-in clause. This provision allows the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) through the Crown corporation to expropriate retroactively property that has been developed by any corporate citizen. Whether it is an individual person or a corporate citizen is immaterial to the principle we are now discussing.
Should the government be able retroactively to back in and expropriate property belonging to a person, whether it be an individual or corporate citizen? Does it enjoy the test of universality? Could we apply this principle to all ownership in Canada? I ask the backbench members on the government side whether they would appreciate having this principle of retroactive expropriation applied to their homes, farms or businesses. Should we accept retroactive expropriation?
I enjoyed attending, and I say this with some level of seriousness, the NDP convention last July. It was good theatre, although not much more. I recall looking at their energy resolution which was passed by their executive, although not promulgated originally by the memberships as a whole. I quote clause six of that energy resolution:
Fiscal Incentives for Equity-Any expenditures of public funds, including incentives (both grants and tax write-offs) in support of privately-owned ventures must earn equity in those ventures in proportion to the funds provided.
Having approved that principle, I wonder whether the members of the NDP would like to apply that principle universally?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was an energy resolution.


Benno Friesen: Part of the energy resolution in this country is the CHIP program which is designed to spare our energy resources. It is a grant program specifically mentioned in their resolution. They would endorse the application by home
owners to take advantage of those grants, which then become an investment in the home. Their resolution says that those kinds of grants "in support of privately-owned ventures must earn equity".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's absurd.


Benno Friesen: Do they support the fact that the government should have equity in those homes or those businesses that make use of that particular grant? Let us look at universality in the application of a law. Should we accept the present legislation, Bill C-48 and its Clause 27, that allows the government retroactively to expropriate an investment that a private citizen or corporate citizen has made?


Marc Lalonde: You are ridiculous.


Benno Friesen: Let us turn that around. Maybe it is ridiculous to apply that kind of legislation to a corporate citizen.
I welcome the intervention on the part of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does he want that principle applied universally across Canada? What investor across Canada would feel secure if we were to adopt this legislation and accept the principle that it should be universally applied across Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Is the hon. member asking me a question? If he is, I will be happy to answer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta has the floor. If the minister is asking the hon. member who is speaking a question, I think that is in accordance with the custom of the House. I am not aware the procedure would permit any reverse questions at this stage.


Benno Friesen: If the minister could answer a question without making it look like a pretzel, I would not mind having him answer it; but I have never heard the minister yet give a straight answer in the House.
To what extent is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources willing to drive home this principle that he is applying in this legislation to other areas of our life? That is the answer we are looking for in the long term. If I had more than 20 minutes given to me now, I would allow the minister to answer that question, because when he first introduced this legislation and this policy, he said in this House that this policy would change the social structure of our country. That is the thing that worries us. If this has universal application, the minister certainly has a funny way of expressing himself.
This is an energy bill that basically has western and maritime application. I recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister talking about the fairness of sharing our resources. The sharing principle is only in terms of energy and
October 29, 1981

in terms of the wealth of the west. It has nothing to do with the hydroelectricity of Ontario or Quebec. It has nothing to do with the mineral resources of Ontario and Quebec. The principle applies only to the energy resources of the west and of the maritimes. Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to be bad legislation. If we cannot accept universality, then it is bad law. It also ought to enjoy the test of whether or not it gives special attention to something based on likes or dislikes.
The fact that the government has been engaging in a spree of expropriation, of buying or wanting to appropriate energy companies, already focuses special attention on those companies. The legislation we are talking about deals with foreign investors in a special way. I suggest that if this legislation is designed to isolate certain people or certain groups of people for special attention, then it is bad law. I suggest to the government that in this case it is dealing with foreign investors, and most of them are American investors-though not all

in the energy field.
The special attention given to foreign companies dealt with in social programs is what we call racism. Since it has to do with economics and since it has to do with wealthy oil companies, my friends to the left, who are very solicitous about not prejudicing any group of people or any nationality, forget about the fact that special attention is given in a prejudicial way to foreigners in this legislation. It is a kind of racism. It is a kind of economic racism that we are involved with.
I take interest in the resolution passed by the New Democratic Party last July dealing with Canada-U.S. relations. It reads:
A New Democratic Party government will pursue a comprehensive and mature state to state relationship-
I think that is a contradiction of terms. I do not know if it is possible for them to have mature state to state relationship, but that is what they say. It continues:
-mature state to state relationship with the United States based on the principle of equality of nation states. To accomplish this, Canada must cease to deal with United States on a special issue-by-issue or deal-by-deal basis.
That is what their resolution says in terms of Canada-U.S. relations. When it comes to energy, they say:
This involvement-
That is, public sector involvement.
-should include the expansion of Petro-Canada by the purchase of Imperial Oil.
On the one hand they are saying, "We don't want to deal with a matter on a special issue-by-issue or deal-by-deal basis"; on the other hand they say, "let's buy Imperial Oil". We may want to accuse the New Democratic Party of a lot of things, but there is one thing we should never accuse them of and that is consistency of policy or of the application of policy. Forever and a day they have been calling in the House for that kind of resolution.
If we are to have good legislation and if we are to have good law, Mr. Speaker, then we must be able to apply that law universally across the country within the sphere of application of that particular legislation. I suggest the legislation before
Canada Oil and Gas Act
us, Mr. Speaker, does not enjoy that kind of welcome across the country. You cannot universally apply this legislation without prejudicing the property rights of people all across Canada. Because one group of people in Canada happens to be foreigners and happens to be big in numbers, we find their position is prejudiced by the special attention given to them by this legislation. The civil libertarians in the New Democratic Party would not want that to happen in any other area. They only want that to happen in economics. In that sense they are no different from the socialists in the Liberal Party who are promoting this kind of legislation.
I think we need to vote against this provision, Mr. Speaker, and promote the motion before us in the name of the member from Calgary which would balance off that provision.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke previously with regard to a former motion on Bill C-48. I am pleased to participate not only in the debate on Bill C-48 but in the debate on a particular section of the bill that goes to the heart of the whole energy program that the government announced a year ago.
Let me look at the objectives of the energy program and the objectives of Bill C-48. First of all, it tries to achieve a higher Canadian ownership content in a very important sector of our economy, namely the energy sector. It tries to achieve greater benefit for Canadians in terms of economic rent and profits made by this particular sector of the economy.
The other major component of the bill is the concept of achieving energy self-sufficiency as early as possible, with the goal of 1990. In other words, through this bill and this energy program we are trying to achieve an accelerated development of our energy resources, including those located in unconventional areas of our country and particularly in the north.
In its wisdom the government has decided that it must achieve these goals through ownership and direct government involvement. It aims for ownership and complete control of the energy sector. It must have a means to compete with industry already in the field and it must have a window into the energy sector in order to pursue these stated objectives. It is saying that the regulatory instruments we now have are not sufficient to keep the industry honest and to achieve sufficient benefits for Canadians in the areas of energy development and marketing.
Let us look at some of the regulatory instruments normally used to ensure corporate responsibility, specifically in the energy sector. The multinational oil companies do not drill anywhere on federal or provincial lands unless they are told to. Normally leases are made available to them in areas where we think exploration and development should take place. The leases are put on the market for competitive bids and the oil companies bid on them. In other words, they have been told where the development shall take place.
We could use the same regulatory instruments to tell the oil companies how quickly development should take place. They

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
could have a licence with the condition that certain improvements had to be made within a prescribed period of time, otherwise they would have to vacate and the licence would be given to someone else.
We could go further and, indeed, we have gone further. We could tell them that when they make a find we will set the rate of production, where the product will be marketed and at what price it will be sold. Then, as is done with most other industries, by adjusting the economic rent and royalties associated with such endeavours we could tell the industry how much profit it can make.
I make a comparison with the lumber industry. Royalties on lumber are adjusted to compensate for cost of production and world price. The companies are really operating on an incentive rate of return which is usually 15 per cent to 25 per cent. Such adjustments can readily be made because we know what the world price for oil is and we know the basic cost of production. The economic rent could be adjusted to make sure that the companies had a rate of return sufficient to permit them to raise the capital required to undertake the ventures that need to be undertaken. At the same time we would make sure that there would not be any windfall profits. If we want to accelerate these projects, we could build the procedure into these regulatory arrangements.
Instead, the government has chosen to go the route which is more consistent with the new type of Liberal philosophy. I am confident that I will not convince my hon. friends opposite that there is a new type of Liberal philosophy; but we all know that there are millions of people outside this House who sometimes view what we are doing by means of television, so those people know.
I should like to discuss this Liberal philosophy with respect to economic nationalism and behaviour. It is a kind of new collective economic philosophy and, at least in the area of energy, it is an attempt at a planned market economy instead of a free market economy.
The government has now decided to teach individual Canadians what their priorities are. We are now all shareholders in the great energy industry. Regardless whether our priorities are consistent with that, we are shareholders in a high-risk and sometimes low-yield industry. Canadians have never shown much interest in investing in energy, Mr. Speaker. We would be an energy poor country if the initial exploration and development in conventional areas had had to be financed with Canadian money. On the whole, Canadians are very lazy and it took the multinational companies who had more faith in our energy prospects than we have to build up the industry. We are great savers, we put money in the bank and like to buy Canada Savings Bonds, but we are not great risk takers. The government has now decided that we are going to be risk takers. Because the government wants us all to be equal, it wants us to share all the profits from these great ventures. In fairness, like the New Democratic Party the government holds that if you share in the profits then you have to share the risk. Now we are all shareholders in this new and important sector of our economy.
I cannot understand why the NDP are so upset about what the government is doing. They complain that the wages of the average worker in this country have declined in relation to inflation. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that the worker is no longer just a wage earner but a shareholder. The government has taken a bite out of his pay cheque and put it into the energy sector. It spent $1.4 billion to buy Pacific Pete in western Canada. Just recently a Liberal member celebrated the opening of the first Petro-Canada gas station in eastern Canada. The minister was there too in his hard hat, full of joy, gasing up the first car and giving away a tank of gasoline.
There have been Petro-Canada gas stations in my constituency for the last three years, Mr. Speaker. If you fill your tank at the Petro-Canada station at Fort St. John, you find that the price is three cents per litre more than at other stations. In my riding, Petro-Canada has assumed the role of price leader, formerly the role of Esso. The price is about 12 cents per gallon more than at other gas stations.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Frank Oberle: When the president of Imperial Oil appeared before the committee, he said: "We cannot wait until Petro-Canada takes from our shoulders this horrendous burden of being the price leader. Our shareholders are rubbing their hands with glee, waiting for Petro-Canada to become the price leader, because our profits will go up."
Wages have gone down because the government spent $1.5 billion to buy Petrofina. It did not buy new oil; it did not advance the prospect of energy self-sufficiency by 1990 because it bought a bunch of broken down service stations in eastern Canada. If you wanted to paint the country red, you would begin with the service stations because there is one on every corner. We now have all kinds of Petro-Canada service stations. If hon. members in this House worry about the telephone calls they receive from people complaining about the Post Office, about some of the other programs and the other direct involvements of government, they should just wait. I already have the experience. The Petro-Canada service station is in the neighbourhood. I am now receiving phone calls from my constituents. They are asking, "Why is it that Petro-Canada's price is three cents a litre more than Esso's price? Why did I not get any warranty when I had my generator fixed in the government's service station?" Now, fellows, prepare yourselves for it! That is the next problem you will be facing, because you cannot have one without the other.
The government is taking these bites out of everyone's pay cheques. It should be little wonder to all of us that we are no longer keeping pace with the rate of inflation, because the government is now investing our money in the energy sector. How is it doing this?
Let me then turn to the provision in the bill which is known as the 25 per cent back-in. The government has made a regulation, reflected in this bill, which states that any company operating on federal lands-federal lands being the Northwest
October 29, 1981

Territories, the Yukon or the offshore-will have to have a Canadian ownership content of at least 50 per cent. There is a built-in encouragement for companies to go much further than that. In fact, the ideal ownership content is 75 per cent. Basically, there is a formula being followed to give companies the incentive to improve their Canadian ownership content, and it works something like this. If a company is 75 per cent Canadian owned, it will be reimbursed 85 per cent of its development costs, in cash, by the federal government, or from you and me, Mr. Speaker, because of that bite in our pay cheques. If the company is only 50 per cent Canadian owned, it will be reimbursed only 35 per cent of its development costs. So the obvious goal is not a 50 per cent Canadian ownership content; if one wants to be in competition in the north and on federal lands, one must really have 75 per cent Canadian ownership.
I hope that the provincial premiers are aware that the government is also stating that if a company is drilling in conventional lands, meaning the provinces, if it is a 75 per cent Canadian company it will be reimbursed only 35 per cent of its development costs. Of course, that is designed to lure away those companies which have not already packed up and left our country for the United States. It is trying to lure them away from the conventional areas, from the provinces, to drill in the north.
It has gone further and said that of that 50 per cent Canadian ownership, 25 per cent must belong to the bureaucrats, to government itself. The measures which are contained in this bill will provide that in cases where the company had less than 50 per cent Canadian ownership after the back-in, the agent of the minister would just simply confiscate the rest or the difference. In other words, Chevron Canada Limited is, I believe, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey. The minister would back in with his 25 per cent, and it would still be 75 per cent foreign owned. If it could not find a Canadian partner, the minister would just simply confiscate 50 per cent.
Companies can now apply for leases in the north. If one understands the oil business, one knows that particularly in the high risk areas where the technology is not yet known-for instance, the technology required to bring oil under the icepack of the Arctic Ocean to shore and to deliver it to some other places-companies have a tendency to take in many partners and to sort of spread the risk involved with these kinds of new ventures. Because of that, the 25 per cent Canadian or government ownership content will, in almost all cases, mean a majority content. Therefore, the government will not only have the ownership and the window into the industry, but it will be on the hook for the whole scheme. That is all right when it comes to divvying up the profits, but what about when it comes to assuming the risks associated?
What concerns me most about the energy program, and even some of the more stubborn socialists to the left agree, is that Canada will always have to share some of its resources with other countries. I happen to think that because we will always be in a position where we will have to share some of the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
resources with other countries, the risks associated with developing new sources of energy and new technology to bring oil from the tar sands and from underneath the icepack should also be shared. It is good that Japan has made a deal with Dome to share the risk of bringing oil out of the Beaufort Sea.
We should invite other highly industrialized countries which are desperately in need of our resources to share in the risks and the high costs associated with developing these new sources of energy. The Canadian taxpayers are not in a position, as the bite out of their pay cheques is not that big, to come up with the $300 billion to $500 billion required to gain energy self-sufficiency by 1990.1 do not believe that Canadian taxpayers have that kind of resource available, as their pay cheques are not that big. I do not even think that Canadians have that kind of credit in other parts of the world. Instead, we should be recruiting new investment, inviting others to help us share in these incredible risks. Of course, they will not do that unless we also let them in on some of the profits. Some industrialized countries do not measure profits in dollars but, rather, in a share of the resources which will eventually flow.
We are experiencing a very crucial and difficult time. We have to bridge some sort of a gap of about 40 or 50 years, after which time all of us throughout the world will be able to develop much more exotic sources of energy, such as solar power, wind power, thermal power. However, we must find enough oil and gas in the meantime to bridge this gap.
I am glad the minister is in the House. I hope I have been able to demonstrate to some of my friends that it is not all gravy. Any business into which one enters has certain associated risks. We should all be aware of what we are doing and understand that not only will we increase the benefits by having Canadians sharing the development of new energy and its sale and marketing, but we as taxpayers will also share in the risks.
Dome Petroleum will report to us in a very few days concerning the resources that it has discovered in the Beaufort Sea. If, as we all suspect now, all the optimism associated with this billion dollar scheme was not warranted and that, in fact, there is not the amount of oil that everyone expected, then we will have a demonstration of what it means to share in the risks. Although we have hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars invested in the scheme, there are many private people who have had faith in Dome and in the Beaufort Sea who will be losing their shirts.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-48. It is a customary opening phrase, I know, but in my case it is a very heartfelt one. It may seem strange that I, as the representative of Vancouver Centre, should take such a keen interest in this debate. Discussions about royalties, Petro-Canada, the government's back-in clause and the Canada lands sound very distant from the concerns of residents in the heart of Vancouver, whose concerns I normally devote my time toward; but they are not at all remote to me.

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in the north. During the 1970s I lived in the Northwest Territories where I worked for several years. In fact, I was in Whitehorse reviewing the right of way for the Foothills pipeline on the day that I received a call from the riding association in Vancouver asking me to run in Vancouver Centre. During that time I developed a deep appreciation for the people of the north and its traditions. I travelled extensively throughout the Northwest Territories.
I have been most impressed by members of my own party who have worked so hard to promote changes to the original act. They have displayed extensive knowledge of the oil and gas industry. Just as important, they have manifested a real sensitivity to the needs of the north.
Nowhere is that attitude more evident than in Motion No. 21, the motion we are debating today. It seeks to limit the right of the Crown to back-in to a production field. If passed, and I sincerely hope it will be, it would allow the Crown to become a Canadian owner of last resort only.
I object in the strongest terms to the powers which the federal government wishes to give itself through the back-in clause. I am opposed to the federal government's attempt to appropriate a piece of the action, as it were, to itself. The Liberals wish to give the federal government a 25 per cent share, no matter what is the extent of Canadian ownership of the project. My party is not opposed to Canadian ownership. Our amendment would permit the government to acquire a share where ownership was less than 50 per cent Canadian. We would permit the federal government to acquire sufficient interest to bring the project up to 50 per cent Canadian ownership.
I am opposed to the assumption that underlies the federal government's attempt to take a straight 25 per cent ownership of projects. It is typical of the attitude that the federal government has always adopted when dealing with the north. Federal governments have rarely demonstrated any real sensitivity to the needs of the north. Federal governments have always, throughout the history of the north, taken the major revenues for themselves and prevented northerners from attaining any degree of control over their own future.
For more than 100 years, political and economic developments in the territorial north have been linked. The nature and establishment of political structure reflected the interest in the north's economic potential for the rest of Canada. When demand for the north's economic resources rose, federal administrative activity and the development of local government increased. When the economic base flagged, the political structures withered and the north, to all intents and purposes, was abandoned by southern Canada. Throughout the period, the essential conflict has been the demand by northerners for a greater measure of self-government and the federal government's reluctance to relinquish ownership and control over the natural resources which would provide the financial base for self-government. Bill C-48 fits into this tradition. It is consistent with the pattern that any time national interest begins
to focus on the north, the federal government jumps right in. The only difference this time is that the federal government is being particularly heavy-handed. Bill C-48 will retard the political development that has been so hard won in the north. That is a tragedy.
If you will permit a short review of the history of the north, Mr. Speaker, I will explain why. The Northwest Territories has been defined entirely by the needs of southern Canada. The original territory was composed of the area which now represents present day Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the present Northwest and Yukon Territories. The Northwest Territories, as we now know them, represent land left over when the more economically productive regions that became Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved off in 1905. Its area was further reduced in 1912 when boundary changes extended the northern limits of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec. The 60th degree of north latitude was established as the northern boundary of the provinces, apparently on the false assumption that it marked the limits of a viable agricultural economy.
In 1898 political and economic factors led to the creation of the Yukon as a separate territory. Thus the Northwest Territories, as now constituted, emerged as a residual area with little apparent economic potential beyond fur trading activity, centred largely around the Mackenzie drainage basin.
If we examine the political evolution of the Northwest Territories, we can identify two distinct phases. The first is characterized by a colonial form of government, permitting little involvement by residents. The second is characterized by limited local participation through the establishment of local territorial councils, composed of appointed or elected members, or both, and allowed some legislative responsibility if Ottawa so chose. The latest development is the settlement of land claims which would enable native northerners to control their own lands and resources as well as their economic and social priorities.
Over the last 100 years, the territories were viewed as unproductive and little attention was paid to them by the government in Ottawa. In the period following confederaiton, the economic activities of the north centred around the fur trade and, to a lesser extent, whaling. Its government was first vested in the federally-appointed lieutenant governor. Gradually, a form of responsible government evolved as the first legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories was created. In time, more and more legislative rights were granted to the assembly until its powers resembled those of the provinces.
In 1905, however, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created from the territories of the northwest. With their departure went the fledgling responsible government. The remaining region reverted to colonial status, fully controlled by an appointed commissioner. There was no provision for elected representation. This totally colonial situation remained until 1951, which is only 30 years ago.
The attitude of the federal government during the period can be politely described as that of benign neglect. The provision of most services historically lagged behind demand.
October 29, 1981

This cannot be surprising since there were some years when the territorial council did not meet at all. By default, the administration of the area rested in the hands of the RCMP. Church missions supplied education, health and welfare services. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent described this phase of southern Canada's attitude toward the north in 1953. He said, "Apparently we have administered these vast territories of the north in an almost continuing state of absence of mind".
Changes came only with the Second World War, when the north became of strategic importance to the federal government. Suddenly roads were built and the level of federal government activity increased. In the face of this new attention, residents of the territories demanded to be allowed to participate in the process of change which they could see taking place. They won their first battle when, in 1947, the Northwest Territories was permitted to send its first representatives to Parliament. A second milestone was reached in 1951 when three members of council were elected rather than appointed. At last, a hint of responsible government returned to the Northwest Territories, just 84 years behind the rest of the country. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, Canadian voters in the eastern Arctic did not have an opportunity to vote until 1961.
Little more was accomplished until the decade of the sixties. In quick succession the rules were changed permitting more and more members of council to be elected. The direct influence of Ottawa diminished accordingly. By 1970 local government was permitted to take responsibility for such services as education, welfare and municipal affairs. This was a period when southern Canada's interest in the north was almost entirely absent.
Although there seemed to be momentum for the development of local government, there was at that time, however, another factor that came into play. Oil and gas were discovered in the high Arctic. Energy reserves in the north became a subject of national interest. The federal government was forced to alter its time-honoured approach to the north. Benign neglect would no longer do. Active control, and in the case of Bill C-48 outright confiscation, rules the day.
By the middle of the 1970s, ten government departments were well and truly entrenched in the north. Understandably, the territorial government viewed their activities with distrust. Such a strong federal presence trampled the efforts to develop a local system of government and the residents objected strenuously. In the face of such opposition, the federal government was forced to pass legislation to strengthen the territorial council. In 1974, it finally became a fully elected body.
It is clear from this history that all federal initiatives have been related to demand for northern resources. I should point out that the network of roads in the Yukon, the construction of the railway north to Pine Point, and the construction of the Mackenzie and Dempster Highways, were all linked to actual or impending resource development.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Today, Mr. Speaker, local government in the north has become fairly sophisticated. Its legislative powers are similar to those of the provinces, with some major exceptions. The most important one is that the territories have no ability to exert any fiscal authority, the power to decide how revenues can be spent. In addition all natural resources, with the exception of game, remain the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. Those resources, of course, include land, and in the Yukon it is impossible or very difficult for Yukoners to buy a piece of land even to build their homes.
While residents are proud of the political status they have achieved, their ability to govern themselves is still severely limited by these unfair constraints. Because they have no control over, and receive no royalties from, the development of their natural resources, they lack an adequate revenue base to sustain their local government and the goal of eventual provincial status.
As I wrote in a report on the social and economic impacts of the proposed Foothills pipeline in 1974, the NWT's major sources of revenue came from private sector licence fees in a region where government is the biggest business; a fuel tax in a region where gasoline can cost twice as much as in the south; a liquor tax in a region where alcohol abuse is rampant; and a general sales tax in a region where a major sector of the population exists below the poverty level.
Today, northerners still lack the right to set their fiscal priorities or decide how their tax dollars are spent, and they still lack the resource revenues to sustain any hope of self-government. The Arctic of Canada remains a colonial Arctic. At the same time it has a growing population, with rising expectations resulting from resource development which is creating an unprecedented level of demand for services, services which the territories do not have the fiscal power to provide for themselves. This is the situation which now faces the north. This is the situation that Bill C-48 is only going to make worse.
My party supports the objective of achieving provincial status for the Yukon. We support a strong system of local government for the Northwest Territories. But self-government will remain an impossible dream for the north as long as the federal government continues to regard the region as a colony ripe for exploitation. The north will be a colony until the federal government allows it to have a more equitable share of resource revenues and grants Canadians in the north the same rights and privileges as southern Canadians enjoy.
It is not too late for the federal government to change. It is my hope that the federal government will learn from the lessons of history and pass legislation that will be sensitive to the needs of the north, more specifically, legislation that will not retard the political development of the north.
I do not believe this is too much to ask for. It is not too much to expect that the government will live up to the priorities that it set for itself in 1972 when the current Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In outlining his objectives

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
at the time, the minister stated that he considered the needs of the people his top priority, taking precedence over everything else, including resource development. That was nine years ago and I think now is a very appropriate time to remind this government of that philosophy, because that philosophy of the people is not reflected in Bill C-48.
In concluding, I would urge the government to give favourable consideration to Motion No. 21. I would also urge the government to rethink its attitude to the north and to consider the implication of its policies. The federal government made the error of withholding the resource revenues from Alberta and Saskatchewan until 1930, 25 years after they became provinces. This was clearly unjust. I ask it now to promote and encourage the development of self-government in the north, rather than impede it, as Bill C-48 is bound to do.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion I would like to impress upon members opposite the fundamental significance of this bill and of the debate which is taking place at this time in the House of Commons. I cast my mind back some 23 or 24 years when the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker had a vision of the north and developed the theme "Roads to Resources". It is amazing how that caught on with the Canadian public. He and that government had a vision. Fortunately for us we still have members in this House who were a part of that government, and I am sure they could speak more eloquently of what the right hon. gentleman had in mind at that time.
One of the idiosyncracies of it all is that the present Liberal government also has a vision of the north, but it is entirely different. It is not a vision to allow that part of our country to develop and grow on its own strength, but rather to use that northern part of our country as it has been trying to use western Canada-to establish its own strength.
I believe the reflection of gold in the eyes of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) obstructs his view. He does not have an adequate understanding of what the potential is in that part of the country. Otherwise, he would not be stripping it, as he is trying to strip western Canada, of its strength.
We would have had an energy agreement long ago had we not had that election, because the Clark government had an agreement with the province of Alberta. Because the present minister had different ideas from those of the Conservative government of that day, the agreement was 18 months late and this country has suffered severely for those 18 months. I honestly believe we would not have an agreement yet had it not been for the fact that a budget had to be presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I am sure the minister would rather have waited until after the constitutional matter had been settled. He would then have moved entirely into the western Canada domain.
May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Pipelines-Alaska Gas Pipeline-Query respecting completion of project-Exports of gas to United States; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Housing- Registered Home Ownership Program-Request that maximum permissible level of savings be raised; the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens)-VIA Rail-Court actions seeking injunction to halt cancellation of services-Request that minister give financial assistance to groups taking court action.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter since private members' proceedings last Friday afternoon. It deals with the Order Paper itself and what I think is now incorrect information on the Order Paper, as well as the procedure last Friday during private members' hour which has caused me some personal embarrassment.
On Friday at four o'clock the Acting Speaker said:
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper-
That is what you have just said. Following that, Hansard reads, without explanation:
Items Nos. 18 to 156 inclusive on the order paper allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
The House proceeded at that point with item No. 159 on the Order Paper. The procedure we have always followed in private members' hour is that the business would proceed strictly as listed and the Chair would call the appropriate items in the order they are listed.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, at the start of every session we have a draw which determines the order of listing on the Order Paper. On Friday, by passing to item No. 159 under private members' bills, 56 bills were passed over. In fact, 59
October 29, 1981

bills in total were passed over, and of those 59 bills, four were standing in my name. One of those 59 bills was in the name of a senator and two of them were in the name of a cabinet minister. On this point, Your Honour might perhaps consider whether we can leave these listings on the Order Paper because it would imply that either a senator or members of cabinet have the right to proceed in private members' business.
To return to the bills standing in my name, in the view of my constituents these bills were sufficiently important for me to proceed with them. The first one dealt with the Bank Act, a subject of current interest because of high interest rates and large bank profits. The second bill deals with the Criminal Code as it relates to abortion control. The third bill deals with Crown corporations and their responsibility to Parliament and the public. The fourth bill deals with the cost of publishing public reports.
Needless to say, I have many other bills on the Order Paper dealing with a variety of subjects, but it is these four bills which were passed over last Friday which has given the public the impression that I was not serious about these bills or I was not ready to proceed.


Ian Deans: What is your point of order?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am coming to it, if you will be patient. No one called me, Mr. Speaker, to ask if I wanted to move second reading of one of my bills, and after a check with one of my colleagues who also had bills passed over, he was not called to ask if he wanted to proceed with his bills either.
Let me clarify precisely what I believe the procedure should have been on Friday, Mr. Speaker, which would have clearly indicated to the public what transpired.


Ian Deans: Surely this is not a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: It is an abuse of the time of the House.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The fourth item of business on Friday was in the name of the hon. member who eventually proceeded, and that item of business had to do with the Post Office. He did not want to proceed on that matter at that time. I have no objection whatsoever to the member in question proceeding with another bill. I am not dealing with what was debated on Friday; I am dealing with the Order Paper procedure. I suggest that what we should have done on Friday was, instead of just writing into the record on page 12143 of Hansard that items 18 to 156 on the Order Paper-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is using up the time of the House. He knows that the time limitation placed on debate by the rules expires at five minutes to six. He is deliberately attempting to go over that time in order to avoid being embarrassed again as he was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for York East.
Point of Order-Mr. Herbert


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: My question of privilege affects the rights of every private member in this House. The private members' hour is a rare privilege. We get only two hours a week for this purpose. That hon. gentleman is abusing the rules of the House by deliberately running out the time here. The Chair should step in and protect the rights of private members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for York East.


Mr. Collenette:: I did not want to rise, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Yukon has made a statement which cannot be allowed to stand in the record of this House. He has imputed motives to my hon. friend for Vaudreuil, one of the most diligent members of this House who uses private members' hour regularly for the purpose for which it was intended. I ask him to withdraw his statement. He imputed motives; he said that the member for Vaudreuil is deliberately wasting time. To make an accusation of that kind about any member is bad.


Ian Deans: You are doing it now.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member for Vaudreuil is acknowledged on all sides of the House as being someone who is sincere in his use of private members' hour. I take great umbrage to the House leader for the opposition using that phrase and I ask him to withdraw it. Because we cannot proceed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I not only refuse to withdraw it, I will expand it by saying that the hon. member for Vaudreuil is misusing private members' hour; and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has similarly abused the time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: He has succeeded by going over the time now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. [Translation]


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trpde and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has spoken somewhat hastily as far as the Standing Orders of the House are concerned. I know we all have a vested interest in the private members' hour but it should be remembered that if consideration of the motion now before the House is not completed by

October 29, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Herbert
the end of the sitting it will remain on the Order Paper and debate may continue some other day. So there is no question of abuse. In any case, the Standing Orders provide that when debate on such motions exceeds the private members' hour, they are allowed to stand. This is the second time we are debating the motion. Furthermore, if the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), whose argument and interpretation of what happened last Friday I cannot quite accept, is rising on a question of privilege today, it is certainly not the first time. He has done so on several occasions, and I could mention here a decision by the Chair, one of your distinguished predecessors, the Acting Speaker, handed down on December 5, 1977, concerning the business of the House during private members' hour, and if the then Acting Speaker took the trouble to hand down a three-page decision to clarify the proceedings for the guidance of hon. members and to reach a conclusion which may be somewhat different from that of the hon. member for Vaudreuil-I refer the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) to that decision concerning private members' business.
However, I do not want to go on about this decision, it is there for all members to read and can only help to improve proceedings during private member's hour. Meanwhile, may I remind the hon. member that absolutely nothing is taken away. Questions of privilege and points of order are being raised constantly in this House, and if there is any abuse of the democratic process, it is coming from the opposite side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The House was listening to the hon. member for Vaudreuil on a point of order. It has been brought to my attention by the Clerk of the House-and perhaps I could direct the attention of the hon. member to this-that all orders preceding No. 159 were allowed to stand by unanimous consent of the House. From what the hon. member was saying earlier, I gathered he was not satisfied with the manner in which the House proceeded with calling the bills. However, since this was done by unanimous consent I do not think it can be challenged by the hon. member. Therefore, the point of order cannot be pursued.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, you did not deal with the question of privilege which was at hand, and I submit it should be dealt with immediately. The hon. member for Yukon made a terrible accusation of an hon. member in this House, and it must be dealt with before any other matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not have the blues, but the charge which was alleged to have been made and which has been requested to be withdrawn was to the effect of obstructing the work of the House, if I understand correctly.
Beauchesne's fourth edition, Citation 154(5) at page 130 is as follows:
It is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue, but it is unparliamentary to say that it was untrue to the knowledge of the member addressing the House.
I am sorry, I have quoted the wrong paragraph. According to paragraph (4):
It is not out of order to say that a member has obstructed the business of the House, or that a speech is an abuse of the rules of the House.
I do not assume there is a question of privilege but, after referring to the blues, if tomorrow the hon. member feels that he was accused wrongly, he can bring the matter up with Madam Speaker at the proper time. I find that there is no question of privilege.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 per cent with what you have said but, because of the interruption, I did not come to my point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I suggest that be done forthwith.


Harold Thomas Herbert: It certainly will. I suggest we did not follow on Friday a former procedure we have used in this House by which we substitute-this is on the record, and I can refer Your Honour to the page-one motion for another motion or one bill for another bill, dropping a member's bill down to a position where he has his second bill, thus making it clear to everyone that we have changed the position of two bills. This is the procedure we have followed in the past. I suggest this is the procedure we should have followed on Friday.
Furthermore, three of the first four bills which were referred to on Friday are marked "text received" by Your Honour's own ruling. By the ruling of the Chair bills which were not printed were to be dropped from the Order Paper but, in all fairness to the members who were submitting bills, some time was to be allowed so that where they had submitted texts, these texts could be studied and eventually the bills could be printed. If three of the first four bills in this particular grouping are still marked "text received", that means they have not been printed. Therefore, the rest of us have no knowledge of their contents. I suggest it is now time that where they were marked in that fashion, they should be dropped from the Order Paper in the same fashion that bills where no texts have been submitted are dropped from the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member may have a personal grievance about the manner in which it was done, but I must remind him that this could have been raised on Friday before unanimous consent was given. Again I remind the hon. member that I cannot entertain this point of order. I think it is a grievance. Perhaps it is a very legitimate personal grievance, but it certainly is not a point of order at this time.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I must reserve my right to rise on a question of privilege on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That will be taken under advisement.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Item No. 22 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 9, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all Orders in Council since 1965 relative to the remission of duties under the Automotive Agreement.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) would delay the bringing on of this matter because it is very important to the House. The motion refers to all orders in council since 1965 relative to the remission of duties-taxes- under the automotive agreement, which is the auto pact.
I enjoyed working with the hon. member for Vaudreuil on the task force on fiscal federalism. He and I worked very closely together during the period from April to July 24. One of the reasons that task force was successful was that the hon. member for Vaudreuil was able, through a number of Order Paper questions, motions for the production of documents and so forth, to supply to the committee, as a result of his own personal research, information about transfers from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, about language training program costs, educational and medical expense matters and a great deal of other valuable information. It is in that context that I think we must support the hon. member for Vaudreuil to make sure this vital information with respect to taxes, the payment of duties under the auto pact and the remission of those duties is brought to the attention of the public.
We all know there are four companies-and that is all- which can benefit under the auto pact arrangements. Those companies are General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and American Motors. Those companies are able to bring into Canada auto parts and new automobiles duty free on the basis that they manufacture in Canada to a certain criteria under the auto pact. They therefore can import duty free and for their own benefit. Occasionally they cannot keep to the terms of the auto pact and therefore somewhere along the line a duty remission order-a special order in council-is passed for their benefit.
These automobile companies are not entirely charitable institutions. They charge the people of Canada a pretty good price for their product. Yet they are manufacturers in Canada and should pay the same taxes as anyone else. The auto pact gives them a great advantage over manufacturers in other
Automotive Agreement
fields, and people wonder why the auto pact was not complied with. My constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of other hon. members wonder about that.
Duty remission orders are given to these automobile companies to protect them from violations of the auto pact. It is only fitting and proper that the Parliament of Canada should know about that remission of tax because when a taxpayer gets a special deal, we as Members of Parliament who are responsible to our constituents want to be able to say that that special deal was justified. We want to hear the government say it was justified. The government is responsible to this House of Commons for taxes and moneys raised.
If we do not have a sense of fairness with respect to taxes in our society, then there will be people who will say that some taxpayers are treated better than others. I am sure the government would not want that to be the feeling. The government should be happy to comply with the requirement of making information with respect to duty remission orders public.


Gérald Laniel: They are public.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If they are public, why are we having this debate? They should have been released. Why have they not been released? That is the reason for this debate. They are not public.


Gérald Laniel: We have never refused.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Obviously there must have been a refusal, or the matter would not be on the Order Paper for debate. That is why we are debating this matter, and that is why the information had better be produced. If they are public documents, and I am glad to hear they are, perhaps they should have been supplied. This motion is a result of the refusal to supply. I am sure the hon. member for Vaudreuil would not make a useless motion in this House. I have worked with him on a task force and I know he would not do that.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil should have an apology. He certainly would not come to this House after 45 minutes' debate previously and allow the motion to come on again in order to waste the time of the House if the material was already available. It is not available to me, and I want to see it.
I came to this private member's hour to find out about that material. I want to be sure, when one taxpayer is getting a benefit and another taxpayer is not, that we know the reason. I also want to know what benefits that taxpayer is getting over other taxpayers. That is what a duty remission is all about. That material must be made public.
Before I finish on this matter, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That pursuant to Standing Order 6 this House continue to sit through the dinner hour this day for the purpose of considering the business now before the House.
I say that in view of the time that has been spent and to get over the 45 minutes under this motion, because if the matter is

Automotive Agreement
completed today at least we will get something completed on the Order Paper and have this matter attended to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


An hon. Member:: What about the motion?


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, to implement this motion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I request that the Chair read the Standing Order so that everyone here knows how the rule applies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair will have to be guided as to who is in favour of defending this motion. All those who propose the motion will please say yea. All those who oppose the motion will please stand.
All those who support the motion will please rise.
The motion has been defeated. The motion has been withdrawn.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was an exercise to behold. I cannot for the life of me understand what happened to the yeas and nays and all those other little things. I was told when I took on this responsibility that it was a learning experience and it certainly is. No wonder the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has taken ill!
In any event, I want to speak to the motion before us. I ask the hon. member who is promoting and sponsoring the motion why the motion is before the House. It certainly is a puzzle to me. I read the motion. It tells me that the member wants to have produced to the House all of the orders in council since 1965 relative to the remission of duties under the automotive agreement.
I know that hon. member follows the proceedings of this House diligently. I point out to him that on July 17, 1980 I put on the notice paper question No. 1,457 which reads:
What are the details of each motor vehicle general remissions order granted to the automotive industry between 1965 and June 1980?
The second part of my question read:
Since the inception of the auto pact in 1965, what were the details of each order in council issued regarding the performance requirements of the automotive agreement?
Subsequent to that I asked another question, No. 1,460 of July 17, 1980:
1.	From 1965 to June 1980 how many orders in council were issued affecting Chrysler and its subsidiaries operating in Canada and what was the actual wording of each order in council?
2.	What amount of customs duty was remitted for each order submitted concerning Chrysler and its subsidiaries?
3.	What were the commitments from Chrysler and its subsidiaries in exchange for remitting each customs duty?
4.	Did Chrysler and its subsidiaries meet each commitment?
On July 17, 1980 I asked question No. 1,461:
1.	From 1965 to June 1980, how many orders in council were issued affecting American Motors and its subsidiaries operating in Canada and what was the actual wording of each order in council?
2.	What amount of customs duty was remitted for each order submitted concerning American Motors and its subsidiaries?
3.	What were the commitments from American Motors and its subsidiaries in exchange for remitting each customs duty?
4.	Did American Motors and its subsidiaries meet each commitment?
I suggest to the hon. member who has asked that this matter be proceeded with today that there is a remarkable similarity between the matter we are debating and the questions that I placed on the Order Paper.
Frankly, I feel compelled to support the hon. member in his quest because it strikes me as passing strange that a member of the government backbench, who stands and supports the government at every turn, even to the extent of embarrassing himself by voting against motions that he himself has promoted, a member who I know is committed to the government and has done everything he possibly can to support the government, cannot get answers to his questions.
It is odd indeed if a member like myself can ask the same questions and be given the answers while this fine, upstanding Liberal backbencher is refused. It is disturbing that I can be asking the questions and receiving the answers, the very answers that the hon. member is seeking, and he cannot.
When you stop to think about it, Mr. Speaker, there is one of two things happening here today. Either that member is being denied access to information which is available to all other hon. members, or else he is wasting the time of private members' hour. It is one or the other.
I ask hon. members to consider what they would prefer to think was happening. Would they prefer the public of Canada to believe that this member was not being given acess to information readily available to all other hon. members? Would they like the public to think that this member was being ostracized by the cabinet and government of this country? He is not being given access to information which is vital while all other members of the House have access to that information.
Or would they prefer the public to think that this member was simply wasting the time of the House? I know he would not waste the time of the House. I just know that would not be the reason for this debate taking place. Therefore I assume, and I hope rightly, that his reason for continuing this debate today is because he, an upstanding member of the Liberal party, having asked for this information, has been denied the very information that was made available to me. Therefore, it is an obligation on the part of each and every member to stand in his or her place and vote in favour of providing that member with the information. I think that is important. In fact, we should have that vote now so the member can get this information, rather than taking any longer on this. I know it is available.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote.
October 29, 1981


Ian Deans: Quite frankly, I would be prepared to share the information with the member and let him read my copy. However, I know he would like to have a copy of his own. I do not know what he is going to do with it, but I know he would want it.
I say to the members of the House that they have to stop closing this member out. They have to let him into the inner circles of the government. They have to give him access to information. They have that obligation. They heckle me at a time like this when their own member is in despair and unable to gain access to documents.
I see a genuine concern on the part of every member on this side of the House and a desire to support the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I say to him, "We support you. We want you to have this. If you move the motion and get on with the vote, we would be delighted with this or some other appropriate measure being taken to have this vote taken so that this nasty government, which refuses to give him information, will be forced to do so". It is a shame. It also speaks directly, I might say, to the principle of freedom of information. This fine, outstanding member who desperately needs this information, to the point of taking up the time of the House for yet another hour, is being denied by the ministry rightful access to information. I say to you it is mind-boggling.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to allow this matter to come to a vote quickly in order that the hon. member not be denied access to information any longer.


Walter David Baker: None of us will speak until we have the vote.


Ian Deans: If there is one member of the House who is denied access to information that is available to all other members, that is a very serious matter. In fact, I am surprised that the hon. member, in whose name this motion stands, has not risen on a point of privilege to demand that he be given the exact same rights and privileges as the rest of us.
When he rose at the beginning of the private members' hour, I felt confident that he was rising simply to demand that rights and privileges given generously to everyone else be accorded to him as a member. Mr. Speaker, if you would permit a vote to take place now, I would yield my spot to allow it to take place. I say to the member, "No wonder you are disaffected, no wonder you are disenchanted, no wonder you are angry with this government and no wonder you are thinking of quitting". If I were a Liberal backbencher and were denied what others had, I would feel the same way.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was previously discussed, frequent reference was made to the automotive agreement and to the various studies and reports which had been made on the industry in the last few years.
It was pointed out that the automotive industry is in a period of very rapid technological change, and the suggestion was made that the automotive agreement was obsolete and
Automotive Agreement
inadequate. I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the research done by the two members who spoke previously is obsolete and inadequate or perhaps inexistent. On page 2231 of Hansard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
Madam Speaker, the documents requested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) are very voluminous and would require a lot of time and a lot of public funds to prepare. So I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) to withdraw his motion.
At page 3550 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vaudreuil is reported as saying:
As a result of the calling of this motion today, I have had meetings with the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and have reviewed with them the 115 orders in council which have been passed in the intervening 15 years. They made interesting reading. I have several copies with me. Of those 115 orders in council, 67 were passed to take care of companies that were not in existence in 1965 and, therefore, could not benefit from the agreement. Of those 67, 35 companies are still operational.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has seen these papers. They are available for inspection by individual members, and therefore they are public.


An hon. Member:: You are the one wasting the public's money.


Ralph Ferguson: Before coming to a discussion of the orders in council which are called for in the motion, it is probably appropriate to spend a few minutes considering not only the automotive agreement itself, but also the suitability of that agreement in terms of the automotive industry as it is emerging in Canada and in the world today.
Prior to the implementation of the automotive agreement, the Canadian automotive industry had experienced the problems of manufacturing for the limited Canadian market.
Canadian vehicle manufacturers were producing a wide variety of models, with a total production volume of only 600,000 vehicles annually. It resulted in higher costs in both assembly and manufacturing operations than those experienced by their parent companies.
As a consequence of these higher sales, the motor vehicle industry in Canada came to rely on imported components. Faced with a declining market in Canada, Canadian parts manufacturers and producers found it increasingly difficult to meet the United States competition. Canadian content in motor vehicles production in Canada was not growing, and imports of vehicles and parts were increasing rapidly. By 1964, Canada had a trade deficit of over $500 million in automotive products with the United States. The Canadian government, in an effort to encourage specialization and exports to the United States, introduced in the fall of 1963 a duty remission scheme for imports based on export performance. Exports to the United States under this program could have been subject to countervailing duties.
Discussions were therefore held with the United States. The outcome of these discussions was the Canada-United States automotive agreement, signed by Prime Minister Pearson, a Liberal Prime Minister, and President Johnson, on January 16, 1965. The agreement sets forth three broad objectives.

October 29, 1981
Automotive Agreement
First, the creation of a broad market for automotive parts where the full benefits of specialization and large-scale production can be achieved. Second, the liberalization of United States and Canadian automotive trade in respect of tariff barriers and other factors tending to impede it, with a view to enabling the industries of both countries to participate on a fair and equitable basis in the expanding total market of the two countries. Third, the development of conditions in which market forces may operate effectively to attain the most economic pattern of investment of production and trade.
It is recognized that it would be necessary to take into account the institutional barriers to trade, arising out of the corporate structure of the industries, as well as formal governmental barriers, if Canadian industry were to be able to participate effectively in the United States market. In recognition of the differences in size, strength and degree of development of the automotive industry in Canada and United States, conditions were established for Canadian manufacturers to ensure that Canada would derive real and reciprocal benefits on a fair and equitable basis. The conditions are as follows: first, for each class of vehicle, for example, cars, pickups or buses, the ratio of Canadian vehicle production to vehicle sales in Canada achieved by a manufacturer during each model year, expressed in net sales value, must be at least 75 per cent or the percentage achieved in the 1964 model year, whichever was the highest. Second, the Canadian content, with value added that is, in vehicles produced in Canada by a manufacturer-with each vehicle type again taken individually-must be no less than the absolute dollar amount achieved in the 1964 model year.
In addition to these conditions within the agreement, two additional commitments to the Canadian government were incorporated within separate letters of undertaking. These two commitments are, first, to increase value added in Canada in each model year by an amount equal to 60 per cent of the growth in the value of car sales in Canada, and 50 per cent in the case of commercial vehicles: and second, over and above the value added floor stipulated in the intergovernmental agreement and the value added growth arising from increased vehicle sales in Canada covered by the letters of undertaking, there should be a supplementary increase in the Canadian value added of $260 million, or U.S. $241 million, by the manufacturers, in the aggregate, by the end of the 1968 model year.
The United States limited the duty-free entry of automotive imports to Canada, putting the United States in breach of its most favoured nation undertaking in GATT. The United States accordingly sought and obtained a waiver from its GATT partners. The agreement is thus bilateral on the United States side, but on the Canadian side, qualified Canadian manufacturers can import automotive products duty free from any country whose exports are entitled to most favoured nation tariff treatment.
The integration and rationalization of the Canadian and United States automotive industries resulting from the implementation of the agreement has been to the mutual advantage of both countries. In Canada, efficiency gains were realized from economics of scale that were made possible from the reductions in the number of model lines. The degree to which the Canadian industry has become competitive with its U.S. counterpart is evident from the production trend. Output increased from 671,000 units in 1964 to a peak of 1.82 million in 1978, an increase of 171 per cent. Employment in the same period increased by about 711 per cent from 69,000 to 118,000. It is estimated employment increased by some 30,000 in the related services and supplies industries.
Total automotive trade between Canada and the United States was $22.6 billion in 1980 compared to $796 million in 1964. Over the same period, Canadian exports of automotive products increased from about $100 million to $10 billion. The Canadian trade position changed from a $711 million deficit in 1965 to a surplus of $198 million in 1971 and has since then reversed, with a deficit of $2.0 billion in 1980.
The industry in North America is in the throes of a major readjustment. The factors which have led to this readjustment are many but the most obvious are rising gasoline prices and actual gasoline shortages in the U.S. Consumers are now demanding the smaller, lighter weight, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The industry was unable to revamp its entire manufacturing operations in step with consumer demand. As a result, offshore producers, principally the Japanese, were able to establish a very substantial foothold in the market.
I would not wish to leave the impression that these are the only significant events. Price competition, perceived differences in quality and performance, have all contributed to the situation, as well as major technological change involving emission control, improved engine performance and weight reduction. The cost to the North American industry to introduce these new technologies and convert existing facilities to the new generation of vehicles has been estimated to be in excess of $80 billion. This, coming at a time of high inflation and with high interest rates, has added to the burdens faced by the industry. What now appears to be emerging is an industry that is in the process of modernization, that is becoming more efficient and producing competitive vehicles.
This tremendous upheaval in the industry has upset existing sourcing patterns; not all of the established suppliers have been able to adjust to the change and some have gone out of business, but new suppliers are emerging.
I have outlined this background because without it it is difficult to understand why Canada has not adopted a different posture with respect to the automotive agreement. This government initiated consultation with the Americans under the agreement in April, 1980. The new U.S. administration is committed to continuing consultation on automotive matters.
There has been a primary concern within these consultations relating to the need for a return to health of the North American industry as a whole, and of course there were consultations on a broad range of specific issues including
October 29, 1981

Japanese imports, the arrangements we made with Ford and, more recently, the remission program for Volkswagen.
Thus, even though our preoccupations have been the Canadian industry and how it performs, the government recognizes that the Canadian industry is a part of the world automotive industry and we cannot consider our problems in isolation from what is happening in the industry worldwide.
The automotive agreement has, I believe, provided an excellent framework which we must now build around to accommodate the emerging new industry. The Volkswagen arrangement encompasses much of what the government sees as being the way of the future.
Orders in council to bring about adjustment to the automotive agreement where it involved Canada's implementation of that agreement are therefore a necessary part of the administrative process. There has been no attempt to conceal the decisions which have been taken, and in fact it occurs to me that many of the automotive issues have been aired quite frequently, not only in this House but also in the press and other media, including the Hansard record to which I already referred.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, so many untruths have been told in the House this afternoon that 1 cannot allow this debate to end without pointing them out. I could follow in the footsteps of my distinguished colleague who has just given us some more details on the background and objectives of the automotive agreement, but I would rather explore another avenue, which may help our hon. colleagues to understand what the automotive agreement is about, and why the government must act by order in council to make sure that the automotive industry is most beneficial to the Canadian economy.
I think a few examples would illustrate what I mean. The automotive agreement must be implemented so as to respect the interests of Canada. Although all the provisions of the agreement are clearly indicated in the 1965 Auto Pact, no provision could be made at that time to ensure some flexibility in its implementation and that is why the government is proceeding by order in council. I would invite my hon. colleagues to consider the situation of various companies who have sought orders in council from the government. Chrysler, Ford and Volkswagen came to Canada to make investments or a commitment to become more involved in the development of our country, with a degree of flexibility guaranteed by an order in council within the framework of the auto pact.
Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the order in council concerning Chrysler mentioned earlier in this debate, we can see that it was not penalized for not achieving its production-sales ratio. That charge was levelled at Chrysler regarding its production of commercial vehicles during the seventies. Instead, the government asked Chrysler to compensate for its shortfall by investing in a new truck plant in Windsor. The long-term economic impact of this investment in terms of employment,
Automotive Agreement
income and taxes has been far greater than the short-term effects would have been if we had asked Chrysler to pay back the remission of duty it had been allowed. This specific situation required an order in council. However, the order did not provide for further benefits for Chrysler and did not change the requirements concerning its participation in the auto pact.
There have always been some consumers who prefer to buy imports. To help Canada benefit from the sales of these cars, the government has tried through a customs duty remission program to urge foreign automobile manufacturers to purchase some of the parts for their cars in Canada. The initial program required that parts bought in Canada return to Canada in assembled cars. The program was then extended so that the remission would apply on the basis of parts purchased in Canada and used for vehicle manufacturing whether the vehicles come back to Canada or not.
Since some believe that the government is making changes to the automobile agreement without full knowledge of the facts, the government has insisted on justifying its decisions and revealing as many facts as possible. I am referring to the announcement made by the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) on January 5 concerning the conditional amendments to the ratio applicable to the Ford company. On that occasion, the minister gave full details about the advantages which would result from the agreement and he clearly indicated the conditions Ford had to meet if it wanted to continue to participate in the automobile agreement.


Erik Nielsen: Six o'clock!


Gérald Laniel: I should-but the hon. member does not want explanations, he does not want to understand the problem, he is not interested in the automobile industry as far as I can see. Mr. Speaker, the requirements have been clearly outlined, and they may not have satisfied the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans), but it still remains that the government has not been afraid-


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw Your Honour's attention and ask you to review the content of the hon. member's participation this afternoon. At the beginning of his speech, he made the point that many untruths were uttered here this afternoon. Since I was one of only three members who had spoken prior to his speaking, I wish to make it clear that I reserve my right to challenge that statement tomorrow at an appropriate time, once I have had an opportunity to review the blues, or I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement now rather than have the matter raised again tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Gérald Laniel: On a point of order-

October 29, 1981
Automotive Agreement

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this will be an easy one for you. It has been said that there is nothing worse than people who do not want to understand, but indeed there is worse still-people who do not want to listen. If only the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain had been listening earlier when my colleague behind me had the floor. My colleague gave clear and unequivocal answers to the questions raised by the hon. member. Before seeking the floor in the House, the hon. member had not even gone to the trouble of examining the file and reading the first hour of debate when even the hon. member for Vaudreuil admitted that he had had access to the 115 orders in council of the government. The hon. member is here to confirm that and it is,-

Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote, as I hope the hon. member wants to know the truth-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are fully aware of the fact-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought the hon. parliamentary secretary had the floor on precisely that question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Well, he was not dealing with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore, I have to hear the hon. member out.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the hon. member concerning one of his assertions accusing me of imputing motives, or of implying that hon. members did not tell the truth, I say that he did not tell the truth as it is. In answer, let me point out to the hon. member that on October 9, 1980, as reported on page 3550 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) stated:
As a result of the calling of this motion today, I have had meetings with the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and have reviewed with them the 115 orders in council which have been passed in the intervening 15 years. They made interesting reading. I have several copies with me. Of those 115 orders in council, 67 were passed to take care of companies that were not in existence in 1965 and, therefore, could not benefit from the agreement. Of those 67, 35 companies are still operational.
When the hon. member stated today, with tears in his eyes, that we were-


Erik Nielsen: Filibustering.


Gérald Laniel: -preventing the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), from having access to information and documents, he was not telling the truth, because he did not take the trouble to read the speech of the hon. member.


Mr. Taylor:: Why are you wasting our time, then?


Ian Deans: I now ask that the hon. member be directed to withdraw that allegation. At no time did I tell anything that was untrue. In fact, if Your Honour recalls, I said that there was only one of two interpretations which could be placed on
this motion which was brought before the House. One was that the hon. member had not been given access to the information, and the other was that he was unnecessarily taking up the time of the House. I chose not to believe the latter, since I trusted that the hon. member was honest.
I ask that that unparliamentary remark which was attributed to me be withdrawn now.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Stop wasting our time.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify a point for the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He talks of two alternatives, but he has forgotten the third alternative. Whatever may be available to me is not necessarily available to the public, and is therefore not in the public domain. He left out that third alternative.


Ian Deans: Quite possibly, but that does not give him the right to say what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), in his question of privilege asked that the hon. member withdraw his remarks forthwith. I think that in the context of the debate this afternoon, we hear these charges regularly-


Ian Deans: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: -that the hon. member who spoke previously was not stating the facts or that his facts were not true. But I heard no specific charge. If the hon. member feels, after referring to the "blues" and to Hansard tomorrow, that he has been personally accused and he thinks he has a logical question of privilege, he might raise it before Madam Speaker at the proper time.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) had the floor.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier this afternoon I said that part of the problem, not only in this bill but in the over-all oil industry in Canada, is the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has had his vision flecked with gold. The government is in such a poor position that the minister thought it was yellow gold, but I am talking about black gold which is pumped out of the ground.
The minister is not seeing the present situation in a realistic manner when he uses confiscation methods. The oil and gas industry has relied primarily on private enterprise to get it to its present point.
Approximately 40 years ago the Premier of Alberta came to eastern Canada to finance the development of the industry in the west. At that time there did not seem to be much interest in it, so the premier approached private developers in the United States. That is one reason why the United States has had such a great interest in the oil and gas industry. But now all of that is changing. As I have said, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had his vision smudged with oil, which is unfortunate because, as a consequence, we will all suffer. The idea of having oil self-sufficiency by 1990 is just a myth. It will be pie in the sky if the government continues its present direction.
Massive amounts of money have moved out of the country, both within and outside the oil industry. A reputable firm has estimated that approximately $17 billion a year leaves Canada. A great part of the blame for this can be laid at the door of an unhealthy oil industry. Some oil companies are leaving the country because of the present government's policy, which is resulting in an unhealthy economic community. One cannot have a healthy economic community if the government continues to confiscate by its so-called Canadianization policy.
In actual fact it is nationalizing the industry. This destroys faith in the industry.. I would be very close to the right figure if I suggested that the Government of Canada has put about $2 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money into Petro-Canada. This is probably debt money which eventually will have to be paid by the taxpayers. On top of that, $1.5 billion has gone into Petrofina. There is no return on this investment to the Canadi-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
an taxpayer or to the Canadian government. However, if private industry had made the investment, there would be a return because that is how private industry operates.
This is the sound basis upon which the industry has been built, but the government sees fit to destroy all of that. It is a shame because Canada's oil and gas industry has come a long way. Canada was on the road to oil self-sufficiency, but the present minister of energy, whose vision is impaired by oil, is destroying all of that. Eventually we will all suffer because of what the government is doing. In fact, we are already suffering.
Not too many years ago when the great Canadian oil sands project was starting to be developed, I had the privilege of meeting with the then president of GCOS. He told me that we did not have the technical knowledge and ability to develop the project the way we should. But we were on the road to accomplishing that in northern Alberta. In order to become energy self-sufficient, that is the direction we have to move. But what is happening today? Not only are we losing oil equipment and the enthusiasm of companies to get projects going, we are losing the technical people who are needed to attain energy self-sufficiency. Anyone in the industry will tell you that it takes two to three years to train someone for these specialized jobs. These things are not being done. Jack Masters, the president of Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd., and U.S. immigration officials will confirm that there is a stampede of Canada's best oil brains going to the United States. Obviously they are going because it is the closest community where they can find jobs. No doubt they are going because the United States has a vision of self-sufficiency in the not too distant future. In Canada this vision is fading. People are leaving Canada because of the national energy policy which is forcing small independent oil firms to cut costs by laying off their technical staff.
This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The government is leading us into the position of having one or two mammoth national oil companies in the future. This means there will be no room for these small Canadian companies. Many people do not really understand the oil industry. They think everybody who is associated with the industry is a millionaire, and they relate the industry to multinationals. There are hundreds of small Canadian companies which must be involved in any move toward self-sufficiency in oil or energy in Canada. If we lose them, self-sufficiency will not be attainable by the year 1990.
A reported 25 to 35 Canadian energy companies have opened offices in the nine-state Rocky Mountain region over the past 21 months. This involves people we require in Canada. Mr. Masters went on to say it is, "a panic flood of the best technical people in the Canadian oil industry. They're trying to save their skins, their income and their lifestyle by getting down into the United States." Mr. Masters and other knowledgeable people in the industry fear there may be wholesale lay-offs around the corner.

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It will probably take that to bring the present government to the realization that what is happening in the west and northwest is having ripple effects. We lose jobs, equipment and projects, and this means there will be massive lay-offs in eastern Canada. The oil industry is not made up entirely of multinationals; it is not the "Seven Sisters". It is not all made up of service stations and millionaires. The oil industry is made up of men and women with families and small businesses; it is made up of hundreds of small Canadian entrepreneurs. Let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that those entrepreneurs are losing their interest in the industry today. They are just trying to hang on by the skin of their teeth.
Under Bill C-48 we are losing the ability to provide what is required by Canadians. The motion as presented by my colleague, our critic, would provide investment by Canadians in the industry so that they could make the decisions as to the direction and best management of whatever operation is involved. Surely we in Canada have come to the stage in life when we can see the benefits accruing to countries which rely on private enterprise.
I was reading an article the other day which said private industry is just about finished in Sweden. The government bureaucracy is going to take over. Let me assure you that when that happens in any country, its future is beset with problems.
The National Energy Program will result in a loss of jobs in manufacturing plants in central Canada. Jobs will be lost in steel mills and foundries, in plants manufacturing pipes, boilers and pressure vessels, valves, turbines, construction equipment, pumps, compressors and electrical and transportation equipment. Just think of all the trucks manufactured in eastern Canada which will never be sold because of what this government and this minister is doing to the industry in western Canada and the north.
These are just some of the companies for which there is no longer room in the scheme of things the government has embarked upon. Colonial Oil and Gas Ltd. has a 1981 exploration and development budget of $20 million, of which $10 million is earmarked for the United States. Ocelot Industries Ltd. plans to spend half of its $84 million 1981 exploration and development budget in the United States. Bighart Oil and Gas Limited is investing 100 per cent of its 1981 $5 million exploration and development budget in the United States. That company has also opened an office in Texas. Canada Northwest Land Limited will spend 75 per cent of its $7 million or $8 million exploration and development budget in the United States. Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd. has offices in Houston, Denver and Salt Lake City where it is spending 90 per cent of its 1981 exploration and development budget. Lochiel Exploration Ltd. will spend a third of its $15 million exploration and development budget in the United States. Omega Hydrocarbons Ltd. expects to spend a million in the United States this year. Ram Petroleums Ltd. will spend 90 per cent of its $6 million 1981 exploration and development budget in the United States this year. Rupertsland Resources Ltd. will spend 75 per cent of its $40 million 1981 budget in
the United States. PreCambrian Shield Resources will direct 40 per cent of its budget from a Houston, Texas, office. Scepter Resources Ltd. has an office in Colorado, and intends to spend $38 million of a total of $70 million corporate and drilling fund exploration and development budget in the United States. Another $8 million will go toward international plays, and only $24 million will remain in Canada. Prairie Pacific Energy Corporation's $2 million exploration budget goes to the United States.
The list goes on and on and is as long as the list of companies in Canada. They are not looking for oil, and this is what is happening. These are all Canadian companies. What do we have to do to impress upon this minister and the government that we must involve private individuals in Canada in the process, as they were in the past and as they will continue to be in the future? That will not be the case if the government continues to lead us on this course.
Pundits and oil experts ask what sort of conditions will have to be created in this country to patriate the money and the invaluable technical expertise. A Calgary writer states:
However, with returns in the U.S. for oil so vastly greater than in Canada, and with the gap widening, it would appear these investment dollars have found a permanent home.
Why not? Why would they not stay there as a result of the way they have been treated in Canada? The loss to Canada is an incalculable blow to the objective of energy self-sufficiency. We shall never attain that if we follow the direction in which this government is leading us.
The stated aim of the energy program, as I said earlier, is, supposedly, Canadianization of the oil industry. What this government has done, and there is adequate proof, is to Americanize the industry at a tremendous cost to our people; lost jobs, lost drilling rigs, loss of our accumulated expertise, and the loss of our energy self-sufficiency goal. They, and by that I mean the people living south of the 49th, will attain energy self-sufficiency long before we will, simply because of the programs they have embarked upon, and because they rely on private enterprise to do the job for them.
The current casualty report shows that over 131 drilling rigs will leave the country this year, leaving only 471 behind. Drilling days will decline from 140,000 in 1979-80 to 92,000 in 1981-82. '
Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) does not realize that next year and the year after, these people who have lost their jobs will not be paying income tax. In fact, they will be writing in for refunds. Just think of what that will do to the national treasury.
I noted, as a result of a question in the House yesterday, that it is costing Canadians 25 cents out of every dollar the government spends to finance the national debt. The government is only adding to the national debt by this policy.
We are embarking upon a disastrous course. If the members opposite continue to follow the minister in this disastrous-
October 29, 1981


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


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on the serious and damaging aspects that Clause 27 of the Canadian Oil and Gas Act carries for the future of this country. I would also like to take the opportunity to express some of the deep concerns that we in the west have about this type of legislation.


An hon. Member:: We are on Motion No. 21.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I wish the member knew what he was talking about. We are on Clause 27 and are speaking to Motions Nos. 21 and 22.
It is obvious I will have another night of interruptions, but I think I will be able to handle them. My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), as reported at page 12227 of Hansard, has once again given the House and the country a most thoroughly researched and ominous warning of the difficulties we are facing in Clause 27. This so-called Canadianization clause is, in truth, a nationalization clause. The hon. member for Calgary South pointed out in his warning that under this clause of the act we are likely to experience a daily shortfall of oil in the order of 1.1 million barrels per day by 1990. This clause will not provide Canadians with energy self-sufficiency by 1990, but it will give us the potential of that kind of an import need. He also pointed out, as did my colleague from Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the disastrous attrition that has taken place within our exploration abilities since the combination of Clause 27 of the Canada Oil and Gas Act and the constitutional package were delivered to this country.
Today we have two great freedom bells ringing. We have the charter of rights, and we have the Canadianization of our oil and gas industry as called for under Clause 27 of this bill.
This freedom clarion has the depth, morality and sincerity of the big red L and the big red maple leaf ink stain. It is a red blot that is smothering the history and evolution of Canadian morality. Canadianization, as it is meant in this clause of the bill, is in effect confiscation. It is theft and it is piracy. I do not see any other definition for it.
I never thought I would live to see this kind of act passed on the North American continent. Canadianization, as it is meant by the Liberal government, is nationalism. The bill as it stands now allows the government to take 25 per cent ownership of only the winners, without cost. I repeat, only the winners. There is no obligation for the government or for the Crown corporation to share in the cost of the dry holes or the tremendous front-end exploration costs that precede all drilling activities. This bill allows the Crown corporation access to all the intellectual property that the private sector has so dearly paid for over the years.
The New Democratic Party is not satisfied with the devastation of the 25 per cent back-in clause which the government has proposed. It wants to create absolute havoc by increasing this to 50 per cent in their Motion No. 22. If Motion No. 22
Canada Oil and Gas Act
were accepted, it would bring all activity in the frontier to a halt.
In the mid-1970s this country had an opportunity to achieve full employment and oil self-sufficiency by the 1990s. We have lost that opportunity. A generation of young people who came out of our school system, anxious to carve a spot for themselves in Canadian life, have been denied this opportunity because of the deliberate interference of the government in the marketplace.
I have had to ask myself many times why we have had this succession of policies which have interfered with the opportunity for full employment which this country was blessed with. I believe the answer is in this bill. It is in the Canadianization aspect of this clause. It is also in the New Democratic Party Motion No. 22 in which they want to lift the back-in threshold to 50 per cent.
My colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) moved motion No. 21 which merely states:
"(2) Her Majesty in right of Canada is hereby vested with and the minister on her behalf shall hold a share sufficient to render the interest holder with a Canadian ownership rate of 50 per cent",
Never has this party done other than agree with the objectives as presented by the government in the Canada Oil and Gas Act. The first objective rings beautifully: energy self-sufficiency. Why, then, does it do everything it can to prevent participation by Canadians? What a misleading twist that is. We are talking about state ownership, not participation by Canadians.
The other stated objectives of this bill are fair pricing and revenue sharing, but that is not what is being delivered. What is being delivered is a policy that has caused many of us in this country great and deep anguish.
Socialism cannot be imposed from the top down. It has to be a grass roots movement from the bottom up. It is not possible to create the social unrest necessary to bring about a socialist state if people are working and the economy is healthy.
Of all the countries in the world, Mr. Speaker, Canada is the one which could make a major donation to the Third World by stopping our reliance on non-renewable energy sources from abroad. Since 1976 we could have been fully employed by moving from the Syncrude plant all that engineering and labour and skill capacity over into another Alsands plant. We could have been building the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which would have sent that energy locked in the north down to our neighbour in the south who pays the military bill which gives us our cloak of freedom. We could have been phasing in one megaproject after another. Cold Lake, which was going to be in place and on which great sums of money had been spent-and individual people like you and I, Mr. Speaker, had moved in to invest in that growth opportunity-is dead. It lies dead and cold. We could have built pipelines for gas to the maritimes and Quebec as an oil substitute. Why were these things not started in the mid 1970s? We could have moved to replace oil with gas. We did not. We could have been energy self-sufficient by 1990. We could have stopped the drain on world resources. We could

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
have introduced fiscal policies which would have added further value to our resource products. We could have introduced fiscal policies which would have replaced the incentive to work as well as the incentive to save back into our economy.
But under the regime that is radicalizing Canada, these entitlements have been denied the Canadian people and the people of western Canada. Instead we have received a plethora of regulations and legislation which is increasing the frustration and anxiety levels of the people. We have policies which aggravate and irritate, policies which heighten the frustration levels of our people, policies which deliberately create tensions, and policies which create heavy and unnecessary regulatory and paper burdens on us. We have policies which deliver more power and control to committees, tribunals, commissions and bureaucrats. We have policies which collectivize, drown and smother the individual and the private sector. Why? The answer is that it must be deliberate. They are the policies of socialists who are now in control. They are the policies of people who have infiltrated the Liberal Party of Canada, the once defender of the individual and of individualism in this country.


Erik Nielsen: It no longer exists.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We have radical policies which go beyond the wildest dreams of the left wing of the New Democratic Party. We have policies which deliver frustration, bitterness, division and the regional antagonism which is so intense and growing at such a frightening rate in this country.
Socialism can only be created from unrest and crisis amongst the masses, and Clause 27 of this bill is right at the heart of that. A socialist state cannot be created when people are at work, when they are achieving goals and when they are able to pay for their homes and their private property. That has been denied the people by the government, and that is what we are debating in Motions Nos. 21 and 22, which would amend Clause 27 of the proposed Canada Oil and Gas Act.
A terrible shame lies on those Canadians whose political perception is no deeper than the thickness of a paper label. Canadianization in the sense of Canadian people owning 50 per cent of their oil and gas resource industries-yes. That would allow us to provide the pension plans necessary to relieve the burden on a reducing population in our work force, but nationalization and confiscation-no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Britain's professor Flores said this:
The private sector can be defined as the part of the economy that the government controls.
The public sector is the part that nobody controls.
That is what Bill C-48 is delivering us into. Just look at the terrible national tragedies of the nationalization of the major industries in Britain. They are national tragedies, bringing that once great country to its knees, because there is no incentive
and there is no magic left for the people in the work force and the people coming out of the universities. That is the issue.


An hon. Member:: What about Maggie?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Just look at the economic disasters of Leyland and the British Steel Corporation. The tragedy is that the British have a massive North Sea resource, and they are mismanaging their state-owned economy so badly that they will dissipate that resource before they can come out of it and protect the welfare state which is so dear to them. That is the tragedy.
I wonder why that great NDP haven and example of the perfect life for the masses-I am speaking of Sweden-has backed away from increasing state ownership, to the point now where the state owns less than 5 per cent of the economy. I wonder why. And here we are nationalizing one of the most important aspects we have in Canada. What we are dealing with in Clause 27 and Motion No. 21 is fundamental to our future and to the protection of our sense of individualism in this great land. What we are dealing with, as a bottom line, is our freedom. If we allow ourselves to become organized and structured by the state, we lose that human magic. Organization interferes with the incentive to create and be efficient, and that magic is being smothered by this clause and by this bill.
In countries which lose their economic freedom there can be no political freedom. That is the issue in this motion tonight. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it is too late now for the Canadian electorate to wake up, but I ask those hon. members opposite with minds and concerns-and I know there are some-please, wake up and realize what a serious issue we are dealing with. Organization of this kind denies us the magic that is in the human soul, and it is that magic which built this country and delivered us into the sense-perhaps the false sense-of wellbeing we have today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it needs to be said, but let us get one thing very clear: I am not a socialist. I am a free enterprise person. As was pointed out by the previous speaker, I believe we have seen examples of the folly of trying to direct the economic operation of the private sector by government, by ministers, by bureaucrats and by boards. It has not worked.


An hon. Member:: What about Suncor?


Fred Alward McCain: Yet the clause we are now considering is one which takes one of the biggest steps ever taken in any legislation of the House of Commons toward further regulation, expropriation and management of our affairs in a very important part of our economy. It is all being done with a careless lack of concern and a total lack of consideration on the part of the back benches of the government. I suppose one could say that it is in fact the government-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet-which is doing this, but that is not the case. Some of us have been in this House long enough to know that a thoughtful presentation by backbench members of
October 29, 1981

the governing party whether it be on VIA Rail or Bill C-48, can redirect the energies of the government and its legislation. As a matter of fact, at this moment that is the only force available to save this country-and it needs saving.
Many suggestions have been made about how these things should be done. Let us look at one of them. We had a situation during the seventies when the Government of Canada was very concerned about whether we would have sufficient supplies of petroleum products for our economy to function. In those days we established an economy and a tax structure which would permit older companies and younger companies to go into the business in a fashion which promised us self-sufficiency by 1985 at the latest.
That has now been wiped out. Those tax incentives at no tax dollar expense were wiped out, first, by the national energy policy, second, by the agreement between the federal government and the provinces and now, to confirm and aggravate the whole situation, by Bill C-48. We cannot have self-sufficiency earlier than in 1990. There will be a minimum of five years' delay. If, as we on this side anticipate, the industry is negatively affected by this legislation, we may be looking at 1995 as the earliest possible date of self-sufficiency.
The first step taken was to delay the two heavy oil plants, the oil sands and in situ. They have been delayed for a minimum of two years. Even if we were to decide tomorrow to build those plants, it would be at least another six months before they could be reactivated, reorganized and the proper skills put in place. This means a minimum of two and a half years and 250,000 barrels of oil which could have been on flow earlier than in 1985.
By 1985, it is estimated that the price of oil in Canada will be a minimum of $50 a barrel. We are looking at $75 million a day which is going to be shipped out of this country. It is estimated that the cost of the delay of exploration and development in the oil industry as brought about, first, by the policy, later by the agreement and now by the legislation, will be an additional $50 billion of Canadian money which will have to flow out of Canada and which should be flowing in our own systems.
That is in the short term. What will it be in the long term? In the meantime, let us consider the cost of inflation and the 20 or 25 per cent money which will have to be used. That would not have been necessary had we provided the incentives. Now it is necessary to borrow that money at those prices and probably double the size of the sum.
The industry is being wound down. This act, this section and this clause, contribute to the literal hemorrhage of Canadian currency outside this country. It is promised that the hemorrhage will continue for many unnecessary years.


An hon. Member:: It's deliberate.


Fred Alward McCain: I agree. It is absolutely deliberate. It is pre-planned. If those seated to the right of the Speaker do not
Canada Oil and Gas Act
see it today, they will rue the day tomorrow. Some of them should listen. We are in dangerous times, not so much because, as the former Speaker said, we may have social problems on our hands because of unemployment, the cost of living, interest on money, the cost of oil and gas and all those other things that are so necessary, but because the government will be blamed for feeding the problem, nursing the economic ills facing us. Are they not concerned? Have they not given this serious consideration?
There is a propaganda machine at work in this land the like of which Goebbels never understood, expert that he was. The propaganda machine is the slickest, smoothest, most devastating and frightening machine I have seen in any of the history I have read, modern or ancient.
The people of Canada have been convinced that profit is a bad thing and that they should not contribute to it. The government refuses to illustrate to Canadians the fact that the old system would have made us self-sufficient in oil, our dollar would not have dropped in value and interest rates would not be so high. We would not have to borrow so much to buy so much abroad. It is an insidious thing. I do not know how to extend the concern that we should have to the public of Canada.
I wonder whether any of the Liberal backbenchers have given any thought to where we are going to get the trillion dollars it is estimated will be necessary by the year 2,000 to supply this country with oil. Where will it come from when we are going to have to spend tens of billions of dollars for the importation of a product which we do not want and would not have needed had we continued with the policies of the seventies? It would have been here. This is going to come out of the pay cheques of the workers and into the tills of their living expenses.
I learned something today which is very depressing. I know that our provinces, municipalities and perhaps our federal treasury have had to go abroad to borrow. They found that the New York market was not convinced that Canada was as sound as they used to think it was.
The American financiers do not particularly want Canadian securities, whether they come from any of the three levels of government or from the corporations of Canada. If you examine the financial situation today, you find that companies are no longer going to New York for money because there is no longer confidence in our economic structure. They are going to jurisdictions such as Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, any country which may have money and is prepared to risk it in Canada. It is a serious situation.
It used to be that our economy and the fiscal monetary policy in this country were so sound that we could get money at preferred rates in New York. Now we have to go where money is running out their ears before we can get it. It is not available in New York at attractive rates. Part of the reason is this act.
When a lender looks at an economic jurisdiction in which there is retroactive expropriation without compensation, it

Canada Oil and Gas Act
does not look like a very good place in which to invest your money, and that is what it is. Every aspect of our oil industry has been delayed by the quarrel between the provinces and the federal government because of the declaration of ownership by the Government of Canada over the rights of the provinces in the offshore lands under regulations which the federal government established in spite of the fact that the provinces were already making regulations. As a result, they became overlapping and conflicting.
That is what happened when we were short of oil. It has come to the point where a corporation that puts its money into a Canada lands situation does not have any idea whether its lease will be secure after the five-year period. Even worse, the powers allocated to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) are such that if he should so desire, he may tell a company that next year it must drill three wells in a particular property. That is his authority, the threat being that if they do not drill those wells, the property will not be theirs at the end of the year.
There are two dangers that will frighten any investor. First, is the equipment available to drill that many wells on the property in which I have already invested my money? Second, will the cost of the wells destroy me financially? That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Why would anyone be interested in investing on a piece of land which he may have? Did it ever occur to you that Canada lands include these offshore waters? Did it ever occur to you that it may cost $150 million to drill a single well? Let us suppose that a Canadian corporation has done its preliminary work, applies for an exploratory permit and is allocated the land, and the minister says, "Yes, but you must drill three wells offshore in the next year." It is impossible. The equipment is not there and it is not available. It may also be impossible because of the massive expenditures expected over a short period of time. When that is coupled with the fact that the minister may not renew the lease after five years, and then can tell the guy at what price he is going to sell, what volume he will move out, and where he is going to sell, the poor fellow cannot call his soul his own. Only the minister knows your fate. What an uncertain environment in which to invest your money!
We heard a great deal from those on our left as to the massive interest kept in the hands of the United Kingdom, the Norwegians, and on and on. Mr. Speaker, the one thing they are overlooking is that both those jurisdictions established a very attractive exploratory environment for the people who invested in exploration. For instance, if one owned a drilling rig and wanted to use it in the North Sea, the United Kingdom extended a tax write-off privilege in which that rig could be written off against operations revenue in one year. If you did not like that, then you could undertake to lease the rig. You could then write if off on a five-year basis, pay the lessor $1 and you owned the rig in five years.
If this act contained the recovery opportunity that existed in the British North Sea lands, that would be a different kettle of
fish. However, let us not simply refer to ownership of the lands by the United Kingdom or by the Norwegians. Let us take a look at what is left. The only thing that is left here is uncertainty and regulation. The developer is assured of nothing else.
What is happening? Not only are the land-based rigs leaving western Canada-and it is estimated that 175 may leave- what is even worse is that the corporations are laying off the human capabilities, the expertise. Both the labour force and the scientific expertise are being dispersed, laid off, fired and lost to this nation. That we cannot afford. We cannot assess that visually or physically at this moment, as we can the $50 billion that we will spend because we are two and a half, three or maybe four years late, with the tar sands and the in situ plants, and maybe we will never develop them.
What are the possibilities? In the Hibernia field alone the possibilities are massive. What a beautiful thing it could be if we would only give to those explorers and developers an opportunity to recover their money so that they would have the incentive to go in there. It is simple to say, "Look, we are not going to have international corporations collect our money". What you are overlooking, Mr. Speaker, when you oversimplify that statement as part of the propaganda machine, is that the small Canadian companies, which have explored and developed resources they cannot market under this regulation, have lost more of their cash flow than have the multinationals. That is something that has not reached home to the back bench members, and certainly not to the public of Canada.
The ongoing operators will have some recovery in their depletion allowances. It is the new operator, with the resource still in the ground, with no markets and no connections with which to market, who is suffering. It is the new guy who has lost more of his cash flow than has the multinational. That is a deception of the vilest, most mischievous kind that could be extended to the citizenry of this nation, Mr. Speaker. Nobody will publish it and nobody will put it as a headline in The Globe and Mail, or The Telegraph-Journal or the Toronto Star. That is the unquestioned situation.
Canadian corporations have lost more of their cash flow than have the multinationals. No one over there gives a damn. We have a potential. When we started to dibble, dabble and drabble in the mix of economy for the oil industry, we knew for sure we had something approaching a billion barrels explored and found as reserves in Hibernia. We now know, Mr. Speaker, we have 1.8 billion barrels of proven, recoverable reserves in that area, and we now know that probably there is at least ten times that much oil in that field. In the name of all that is good and holy, why are we not giving every possible incentive to the necessary expertise, capital, corporate, whatever it may be, to get at that oil? Stop the hemorrhage, cauterize the bleeding economy of this Canada of ours, and get that oil on flow in the fastest possible means to save our nation. Why do we not put those people who are needed to work? Why do we persist in putting on socialist blindfolds as we survey the necessities of this nation? The very survival of this nation is at stake.
October 29, 1981


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


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: If there is anything my hon. friend, the hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte (Mr. McCain) did not cover in his speech, perhaps I can pick it up for him.
We are talking about the extremely unhealthy state of our economy and how that relates to the basic philosophy on which Bill C-48 is predicated and, in particular, the confiscatory aspect of that bill as reflected in Clause 27. We are debating in particular Motions Nos. 21 and 22 which would amend Clause 27 in two entirely different ways.
In a moment I will give my interpretation of the very negative impact that Clause 27 will have on Canada and on our economy over all. Before doing that, however, I want to quote from a speech that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) made last night in Toronto which underscores the gravity and seriousness of the economic problems that face our nation. The Prime Minister said this:
If the September interest rate is indicative of a new trend, it would be a cause of grave concern.
He noted that "high interest rates are symptoms of inflation but that trying to cure these symptoms by higher government deficits will only make the disease worse". He went on to say:
All sectors of the economy must show restraints in their demands, and that includes restraint by government spending.
The Prime Minister went on to state:
I am asking the nation itself to come to its senses.
We are too, I might interject.
-and to act collectively to fight the enemy which is wounding us all-
I think we all know who that enemy is. The Prime Minister essentially called for collective support for collective restraint.
How does Bill C-48, and in particular Clause 27, advance the cause of restraint, improve the health of our economy, bring down interest rates, increase investment and expand opportunities for our young people? The initiatives reflected in Clause 27 take this country further toward economic ruin. The Prime Minister has pinpointed the problem but he has also shown that he is the main part of the problem and that as long as he and the policies of this government prevail, this country will continue to have a rough ride.
As has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, this party is not opposed to the notion that Canadians should control their own destiny. We can start from the basic premise that we do own our own natural resources. Whether they are owned by the federal or provincial government in law is not in dispute; the point is that we own the resources and we have control over what we would do with them. It does not at all enhance the ability of the government to control those resources, to undertake a 25 per cent Crown interest in every bit of drilling, exploration and oil and gas production in the Canada lands that might be contemplated.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Only the winners.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) says, "Only the winners". If we examine the structure of the bill, we may be able to anticipate that certain friends of people in high places could well end up the winners, to the disadvantage of the average Canadian.
We are discussing the necessity of having the government operate with a 25 percent share in all oil and gas exploration initiatives and subsequent production. There is an interesting aspect to Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker. If one reads Clause 32(1) it will be seen that if the government does not choose to assign a production interest to a Crown corporation, be it Petro-Canada or some other, once the discovery has been made the government can, at its discretion, liquidate that 25 per cent interest and dispose of it in any way it sees fit through some form of public tendering. We might begin to wonder into whose hands the 25 per cent interest will fall. What will we protect with this 25 per cent interest if, after the resources are discovered, they go to the highest bidder? That might well not be a Canadian-owned company, Mr. Speaker.
The government is perpetrating a charade on the people of Canada by suggesting that somehow they will have a bigger share in deciding the destiny of their own resources through having a 25 per cent operating share in the exploration and production of those resources.
We have to ask if it is not enough for the government to be able to collect royalties, including the basic royalty of 10 per cent provided through this act, plus the progressive incremental royalty, which would add another 40 per cent tax on any net return to the interest operator of that venture, plus various other production taxes and, ultimately, profit and income taxes assessed against these corporations. What in God's green earth is the government doing by also taking a 25 per cent interest?
It is repugnant enough to us that the government would expropriate a 25 per cent Crown share in oil and gas discovered at least since the end of December 1980. In fact, in the original bill it was going to expropriate all the private interest that was necessary to get its hands on that 25 per cent.
In Clause 27 of the bill, there is provision that the government may acquire more than a 25 per cent interest. In fact, it can acquire any amount that is required to bring Canadian ownership up to 50 per cent. One has to ask why the government insists upon having the right to take a total 50 per cent equity in its own name, if it wishes. As well, on any amount over the first 25 per cent, the government refuses to put in any of the costs of exploration. If the company that owns that next 25 per cent should happen to be foreign owned, the government will just take that portion. It will not pay any compensation after January 1, 1981, for the equity and risk that was taken, not a nickel, Mr. Speaker, and that amounts to outright theft. I for one am getting darned tired of hearing the Prime Minister talk about the Liberal concept of sharing which, to my way of thinking, amounts to legalized theft.
I should like to discuss what is happening in our country, today, Mr. Speaker. We have investment capital flooding out

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of the country. We have created a very ugly situation with our good neighbours to the south when we know that without their support Canada would be nothing more than a wilderness in the north.
An article in today's Ottawa Citizen reads in part as follows:
Harvey Bale, assistant U.S. trade representative for investment policy, said the United States has recently placed before GATT a detailed list of objectionable "performance requirements" placed on foreign investors by some countries, including Canada.
The article, which was reporting on a meeting of U.S. trade officials in Washington, went on:
All the participants testified that the Reagan administration finds disturbing the different economic philosophies practised by the Trudeau government and by the United States.
The article concluded by reporting that Mr. Bale said:
-the Canadian government practises "economic nationalism" by actively intervening in the economy with policies detrimental to trade and investment flows in the world economy.
We in this party believe that Canada should move at a measured pace to take more control of our destiny and financial enterprises, but we do not believe in moving immediately in an arbitrary manner to confiscate and steal an asset that belongs to some third party. In that we differ from my good friends in the New Democratic Party. We do not believe in confiscating and stealing an asset that belongs to a third party.
Many people, including the Governor of the Bank of Canada, have pointed out that high interest rates today are a direct consequence of the implications of the National Energy Program. Virtually every other knowledgeable economist in this country has said that the NEP is, in large measure, responsible for the high interest rates which Canadian home owners, farmers, fishermen and businessmen are struggling with today.
After months of public hearings, the National Energy Board said quite clearly that, after months of careful analysis of all the data and information at its disposal, it concluded that Canada will not reach self-sufficiency by 1990 and may not reach self-sufficiency in oil by the year 2000 under the existing regime. This evidence does not come from some weirdo Conservative thinker out in western Canada; it comes from the National Energy Board, a government agency.
Another spokesman who drew a direct link between interest rates and the National Energy Program is the Governor of the Bank of Canada. And presumably we can put some confidence in people like the president of the Royal Bank of Canada who says that extremismion either side of the border is counterproductive. He said that what the Government of Canada is doing under the National Energy Program is abrupt extremism, and that it is creating a tremendous aggravation to the financial institutions, both within and outside Canada, that make our economy work. He pointed out that these irritants are most visible in a flow of investment capital out of the country and a drying up of opportunities and security for the future of our young people.
If we want to reduce foreign ownership in Canada, Mr. Speaker, we should be providing incentives for Canadians
instead of asking them to buy Canada Savings Bonds at 19.5 per cent interest in order to help bale the government out and provide it with another few years of security from the eventual and horrendous consequences of an overwhelming national debt. We should stop enticing people with 19.5 per cent interest on Canada Savings Bonds. Hon. members opposite should start paying their own bloody bills in this country- excuse the expletive-instead of burdening the people of Canada with high interest rates. These are nothing more than hidden taxation levied on Canadians because of the government's spendthrift policies over the past 12 years. Hon. members opposite should have to pay the bills. They could start with the most wealthy man in this House, the Prime Minister, who talks about charity and shows none in his own lifestyle.
It is high time we started to consider the damage we are doing to our country and the fact that we are not leaving much of a legacy for our children. Why must the government borrow money now to buy out its 25 per cent interest? After much persuasion from many of the witnesses appearing before the committee, the government was finally convinced that discoveries prior to January 1, 1981, ought to be properly compensated. As I read the bill, the government has now undertaken to provide retroactive compensation for the eligible costs incurred to that date to the extent of 2.5 times a quantity called by some fancy name. Therefore, the government is willing to give the investors whom it is displacing two and a half times the relevant cost. The government has arbitrarily decided what those leases are worth, after the oil and gas has been discovered, of course.
I have to ask why the government does not leave those investors alone? Why is it not enough for the government to operate perhaps 25 per cent of the oil and gas exploration on the Canada lands, without having to take a specific, active interest in every lease, every production licence and every exploration permit that is granted? It makes no sense to me.
The thrust of this amendment which the Progressive Conservative Party is putting forward under motion No. 21 is that, yes, we would be happy to see stress placed on 50 per cent Canadian ownership in any offshore exploration initiatives and in the areas north of 60. We would be happy to see 50 per cent; but we would prefer to see that whole 50 per cent plus coming from Canadian citizens, instead of having them trot down to the bank, sucked in by the ads the government and the banks place in the newspapers to buy Canada Savings Bonds. Why do we not provide a tax incentive program of the form we put forward in our budget of two years ago, a program which would have allowed Canadians a tax shelter on up to $100,000 of investment in Canadian oil and gas and other risk ventures? Why do we not get the Canadian people involved in the sense that they could feel some freedom of choice and some opportunity to advance at whatever pace of investment they prefer?
Why do we not find ways to encourage more than 25 per cent private participation by Canadians? That is the next point I want to raise. If the Crown reserves for itself the first 25 per

cent, it only requires another 25 per cent from Canadians. Then the 50 per cent can come from anyone outside the country. Where is the incentive for Canadians to take more than the 25 per cent participation rate? There is very little, unless, of course, they want to go on bended knee to some of their friends in the cabinet and try to get one of those cushy government grants that they will offer to some of their friends-


An hon. Member:: Only their friends.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -who happen to be able to pick up some of this expropriated interest later on that the government will sell off after it has grabbed it and put it under its control.
We have an illustration here. If we follow the provisions set out in clause 27 and thereafter, certain interests in Canada can end up becoming a part of a company which has less than 50 per cent Canadian ownership and continues to operate and explore with the sanction of the government. For example, let us consider a production licence granted on the basis of 25 per cent Crown ownership, 25 per cent private participation by Canadians, and 50 per cent foreign ownership from the U.S. or elsewhere. There could be a corporate change of ownership or change of hands. This happens all the time through transactions on the stock market, or what have you. If there is a change of hands and suddenly we find that that 25 per cent Canadian ownership ends up with some country like Brazil, or who knows-


An hon. Member:: Cuba.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -then we only have a 25 per cent Crown share. The government will move in and take one quarter of the equity away from those foreign investors, whoever they are, and will claim it for itself. Subsequently, Clause 23(6) of Bill C-48 allows the government to resell that confiscated 25 per cent to any company which has at lest 75 per cent Canadian ownership, such as perhaps one of the big distilleries, or one of the major, powerful corporations in our country which are perhaps connected with our friends opposite. As long as this company is 75 per cent Canadian owned, with the benefit of U.S. or foreign capital it can end up buying the expropriated asset that was taken away from some other company. Then, with only 75 per cent of the 25 per cent, this company can then end up being a partner in an oil and gas exploration undertaking where the total rate of participation is only 41.25 per cent. In other words, the government says that a Canadian company can have the 25 per cent it has taken away from a foreign investor if it has three quarters of its equity from Canadian sources.
Therefore, some people can end up operating in the Canada lands with only 41.25 per cent Canadian ownership rate, if they know the minister and they can play the game by his rules. However, those who play by the straight rules would, of course, have to have a 50 per cent Canadian ownership rate, of which the government already possesses one half through the 25 per cent Crown share. It just does not make sense. We can see from all of this that this bill is delaying the date when
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada will achieve energy self-sufficiency. It is driving up our energy costs and our interest rates by driving capital out of Canada and, as a consequence, weakening our dollar.
I just cannot understand the comments of the Prime Minister in Toronto last night. If he knows so much about our economy, why has he made such a God-awful mess of it over the past 12 years, and why does he not bring in a budget now? Why does he give us this phony excuse that he gave to the premiers a week or so ago? He wrote a letter to Premier Bennett of British Columbia, stating:
I assume this postponement does not concern you-
He was speaking in a very cynical voice here.
-since you knew that a budget delay would be the inevitable result of your refusal to meet next week and of your suggestion that-notwithstanding that the budget had been announced for November 3-we meet on the Constitution during the first week of November.
The Prime Minister knows that is absolute poppycock, yet he has the gall to write that. He thinks the Canadian people are so stupid that they can accept that kind of phony excuse. It is high time he started listening to the people of Canada and their hue and cry that this country cannot take very much more of this cynical, devious man who is forever distorting, oversimplifying and twisting the facts to suit no one's convenience but his own. It is high time that some of his friends in the front benches who agree to these phony, socialistic, economic policies awakened and realized what destruction they are wreaking on our country.
I know that other hon. members have been listening very quietly. I hope they have been listening, because these are serious times for our country. If there are not some changes in direction and philosophy soon, then I fear for my children and their wellbeing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the hon. member who last spoke would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would be happy to answer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is sort of a double-barrelled question. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us where it leaves his position in view of the fact that the premiers of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have, in fact, accepted the National Energy Program by signing those recent agreements with Ottawa. Second, why is nationalization of public ownership so bad in the light of the fact that Premier Davis just bought 25 per cent of Suncor for Ontario?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I have a little time to answer. In the first instance, I do not see that there is any connection between the agreements which were signed by the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and, I might add, Saskatchewan on the National Energy Program. There is no direct connection. Those premiers have spoken out as forceful-

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ly as all others in demanding that the Prime Minister hold a first ministers meeting on the economy. They have made their analysis of our economic dilemma quite clear. They have certainly spoken out to the extent that they would speak out on a matter which is not within their own jurisdiction; that is to say, the Canada lands. Second, in so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, I guess it is their business if they want to engage themselves in competition with the private sector.
I have never said that there is no place for Crown corporations in Canada. Many of the Crown corporations which are of the greatest value to this country were initiated by the Progressive Conservative Party. I am talking about the CNR and the CBC. What we are saying is that the government has no right to be involved in every oil and gas initiative on the Canada lands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I see some members of this House are awake. I am glad they are. I hope they are listening as well as giggling. I find it deplorable, when we are discussing a matter as important as this bill, Clause 27 of it and this particular amendment, that not one single member of the press is in the Press Gallery. I hope at least some of them are watching the debate on television.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There is not one minister here either.


Donald W. Munro: As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has just said, there is not one minister here either.


Mr. Breau:: What about the minister sitting there?


Donald W. Munro: per cent of the interest in each of them. There is no other word for it but trickery.
Let us assume that a Canadian company had offered to spend a million dollars for a lease giving it the right to explore a certain parcel of land in the north country, and that it was given that parcel of land on the understanding that the million dollars would be devoted to exploration. Whoever obtained the lease decided that in order to raise the amount, he would have to share out the interest he had acquired. Let us say he did this with ten partners who each put in $100,000, making up the $1 million. They drill, they write off a large portion of their expenses, and they find a viable deposit of oil. At this point they can go into production and sell their oil. There is a royalty as the oil comes out of the ground. That is fair enough. There is a tax imposed on the sale of the oil or gas. That is fair enough. But now another element enters into the picture, namely, this bill. The government says, "Whoa, let me in for 25 per cent of the interest which the ten partners have so graciously provided." This is expropriation, and there is no other word for it. I submit further that it is a breach of contract.
I wonder how a government that prides itself on the legality of operations, particularly as they affect constitutional matters, can reconcile in its mind, its twisted curved mind, this sort of illegality. It is expropriation and breach of contract. 1 suggest also that it is probably easy to understand this government carrying out such a land baron robbery, when one recalls that it is the same government that refused to include the right to enjoyment of private property in its famous bill of rights. This government refused that. Maybe the government had all of this in mind and that is why it refused. At least the government is consistent on that score. Let us recognize the government's consistency in one area at least. On one hand they did not want to acknowledge in the charter of rights, the right to private property and on the other they were planning to deny it in this legislation.
What has my party done to try to remodel this amendment and to make it a little more acceptable? The amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is aimed, first of all, at safeguarding Canadian development enterprise in the north from this conscienceless brigandry through legislation. As the legislation now stands, this back-in and the claim of 25 per cent applies to Canadian enterprise or any other kind of enterprise, all in the name of Canadianization. They are breaking contract with their own people. It is one thing perhaps to try to do that with nonCanadian investment, but to do it to Canadians, I think, is absolutely deplorable.
The manner in which we have managed to safeguard that is in the motion which reads:
Her Majesty in right of Canada is hereby vested with and the Minister on Her behalf shall hold a share sufficient to render the interest holder with a Canadian Ownership Rate of 50 per cent.
That says that if the enterprise is 100 per cent Canadian owned now, there is no need whatsoever for the Canadian
Canada Oil and Gas Act
government to back in. Yet these people sit mutely by and are prepared to see their Canadian colleagues conned out of 25 per cent of their enterprise. I suggest the government is guilty of hypocrisy in this aspect of its operation.
Let us look at amendment No.2 standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). That really is quite an interesting piece of reading because we see there in advance a declaration of principles. Let me just cite it because it is relevant to the amendment I am talking about, although we have not as yet dealt with this particular one. The declaration of principles states that it is recognized that it is "in the national interest to advance national economic and social interests through control by Canadians of their own energy future," and that "Canadians must be offered an opportunity to participate in the development of their energy future and to share in the benefits of that development."
Those are laudable principles, but how you can reconcile that statement of principles by backing in on a 100 per cent Canadian enterprise, claiming you are doing it in the interest of Canadianization, I just do not understand. And I bet you my bottom dollar there is not one person over there who can explain it either, not one. They have no concept of the outrageousness that is before us.
Combining these two highflown phrases, with the powers in this bill to confiscate retroactively 25 per cent of a 100 per cent Canadian enterprise is, to my way of thinking, the epitome of 1984 double talk, not to mention unmitigated hypocrisy and doubledealing. It might be understandable to some, in light of that pious enunciation of principles, to see the government confiscate 25 per cent of non-Canadian enterprise-that might be understandable-but those who can stomach such confiscation and such piracy from their own kind must, at this time, be prepared to see business contracts violated and the government's word broken, because these enterprises were enticed into developing productive resources by generous tax credits and the forgiveness of some of their expenses. They were never told that, in addition, they were going to be liable to seizure by the state once they had found proven reserves.
To pass this legislation in its present form would be to legalize piracy, and my party cannot stand for such a blatant repudiation of an original trust.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the House are aware of what the government is asking them to do, because, in the briefest terms, this amounts to legitimizing larceny. For those who do not understand what larceny is I would like to quote from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is:
-felonious taking away of another's personal goods with intent to convert them to one's own use.
If I have a few moments left, I think it is now worth examining the consequences of this form of larceny. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) listed some of them this evening when he was speaking, including the flight of enterprise from this country to the United States, the transfer of development funds by Canadian firms from Canada to the United States, with all that means in terms of decreased

October 29, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
activity in this country; the making of vehicles, the making of steel, and the shortfall in taxes payable.
There is another consequence whose full dramatic significance has been described in a recent article in Barron's weekly. It is Barron's of October 26, so it is fairly recent. It is an article which appears on page 39, and it is a quote from a study prepared by Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver. He says:
In the next 12 months, some 80,000 wells will be drilled in the United States, five times the total in the rest of the world combined.


An hon. Member:: The Fraser Institute is a most reactionary group.


Donald W. Munro: Facts are very difficult to be reactionary about, and these are facts. He states that some 80,000 wells will be drilled in the United States, some five times the total in the rest of the world combined. He goes on to state:
About 10,000 of them will be financed by refugee Canadians-twice the number that will be drilled-
He says they will be financed by refugee Canadians and with Canadian funds.
I think with that history of the degradation of enterprise in this country by the inept, abusive and larcenous policies of this government introduced a year ago this week, members opposite should be ashamed. I saw them wearing blood on their lapels earlier this week, and rightly so. The rest of us should be wearing arm bands. It is red blood they are bleeding from Canadians and sending across the border. I hear there is some talk about the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) making the banks bleed a little more. I suggest he was thinking about the Red Cross blood bank campaign of that week when he came out with that statement.
We should be wearing black arm bands this week and until we have demolished this bill. The bill before us will be the destruction of free enterprise in this country, as was said so ably by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed to by the hon. member?


Donald W. Munro: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: We have to spend our time educating you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says they have to spend their time educating me. Why is the hon. member and his colleagues who have spoken before him digging in on this particular section of the bill which essentially protects oil companies? Why are they being the spokesmen of the oil companies and not concentrating on environmental matters, native matters, matters that concern the little people?
Why are they more concerned with this 25 per cent back-in? They are really concerned about the large oil companies.


Erik Nielsen: Wait until you hear my speech.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly recall making a contribution to the debate on environmental matters. I am not defending the oil companies in this debate. I am defending Canadians and Canadian enterprise. Members around this House should be prepared, as I am, to invest every single penny of their savings into the development of this country through free enterprise even with disastrous results sometimes, especially over the last three or four months, and not through a paternal government which claims to know better about how to invest our money than we do.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days we have been talking a lot about Canadianism. From listening to the government members talking about Canadianism, one can only deduce that they seem to think they have some kind of monopoly on Canadianism. I want to make it very clear that no party has a monopoly on patriotism or Canadianism. When the Liberal Party tries to give the impression that it is the only one which represents Canadians or favours Canadian ownership, it misleads the people entirely.
Our party has worked toward Canadianism for many years, even before the Liberals thought about it.


An hon. Member:: We started the country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes. If hon. members opposite think they are the only Canadians, they should take a look at our history.
With regard to the last question which was directed to my colleague, I repeat that we are not speaking for the oil companies. I have never been an advocate of the oil companies, but I want to tell him that if it were not for the oil companies, we would be importing 90 per cent of our oil from OPEC. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. All you have to do is to look at our history. We had practically no oil in this country in 1935. So what happened?


An hon. Member:: The Socreds found it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Back in 1937 and 1939, the Alberta government came to Ottawa, a Liberal government at that time, and tried to receive assistance to look for oil. But Alberta got nothing. The government would not invest a dime in Alberta. In fact, it took 30 years for it to give us our resources.
Why would they want us to develop them? It wanted us to stay poor and be one of the have-not provinces, which we were at that time. We were paying to the bond holders 52 cents of every dollar collected in Alberta.
We wanted to develop our resources in Alberta and make a contribution to this country. Canada would not help us. The Bank of Canada would not help us even though the late Mackenzie King promised he would during the election campaign. Finally, our minister of mines went to England and France, but he could not get financing there either. He then
October 29, 1981

had to go to the United States to get the capital to develop our oil resources in Alberta.
For the information of the members of the NDP, the multinationals came in, but on our terms.


An hon. Member:: They took everything.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They did not take everything. You are just showing your ignorance. We had a definite plan to encourage investment. If they made a discovery, then the government-


An hon. Member:: They took it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Only part of that would belong to the companies.


An hon. Member:: Only part of it?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Liberal members are so ignorant they will not listen to the facts. Absolute ignoramuses. The record will tell the story. These multinationals came in and searched for a number of years, spending several million dollars without finding oil. When they finally made a find, did Alberta say it would take it over and confiscate it? No. Alberta said that part of the find would belong to the company and it would be divided up so the company would get every other segment and the rest would be sold to the highest bidder. The company would pay the royalties and lease rents because the resource belongs to the people of Alberta.
If we had waited for the federal government to develop it, it never would have been developed. The Liberals who are laughing on the other side, would be willing to pay 100 per cent today for all the oil that comes into Canada. They do not appreciate the fact that one province did develop its oil resource, not through state ownership but through free enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: An hon. member got up and talked about Ontario buying into Suncor. Let me tell him that under the free enterprise system the state does not have to stay out of industry, it can be in partnership with free enterprise. If this government were going into partnership with free enterprise to help provide jobs and develop the country, it would get some support. For some reason, it thinks it has to confiscate. How can it encourage Canadians to invest their life savings when they are afraid the government is going to confiscate them? I never thought I would see this day in Canada. This bill is the biggest land grab in the country.


Erik Nielsen: Carpetbaggers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Money grabbers, too. If this government had been in power in the early part of this century, when Alberta was created as a province along with Saskatchewan, it would have said, "Sure, we will make you into provinces but we will not give you any resources. We will not give you the wherewithal to look after your people." Even the first Liberal government of Alberta fought the Liberals in Ottawa for that,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
but it did not get very far. Oh, no, the Liberals in Ottawa talked the Liberal government of Alberta out of it. The people of Alberta got fed up and elected the United Farmers of Alberta, a people's party. The United Farmers of Alberta fought tooth and nail, not for something special but only for equality with the other provinces. We wanted our resources just as the other provinces did. When the British North America Act was passed, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec entered confederation on the premise that they retained ownership of their natural resources. They insisted on that going into the BNA Act, but the Liberal government at Ottawa would not give that to Alberta and Saskatchewan until it was forced to do so. It was 1930-1931 before we got our resources.
The present federal government was elected, at least partly, as a free enterprise government, but now the provinces have a threat hanging over their heads: "You do what we say or we will take the resources back". We used to have a word for that when we were kids. We would have called them Indian givers, and that is no reflection on our Indian people. The federal government now wants to take back resources which were properly given to us, even though we were 25 years late in getting them.
We went to the United States and invited oil companies to come in, spend their money and find oil. They did that. They spent several million dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order, you idiots.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They are ignoramuses. They do not bother me a bit. They are so ignorant they do not even want to know the facts. If it had not been for the finds of the 1940s and 1950s we would not have the oil we have today, and hon. members opposite know it. They would be spending millions-oh, but happily; they do not mind spending $50 a barrel for Mexican oil or Iranian oil, but it hurts them terribly to buy oil from other Canadians at $25 a barrel.


Mr. Cousineau:: I have heard that before.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It hurts hon. members, it shows on their faces. They talk about building a united country when they are continuously dividing and conquering. They are dividing the country. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made some remarks in Quebec the other day. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has outlined those remarks for us. It is shameful that a minister of the Crown should set one part of the country against another. This government has stayed in power for so many years by favouring one part of Canada over another. Several years ago, during a campaign Mr. Trudeau promised the people of Edmonton-

Canada Oil and Gas Act


René Cousineau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member who has the floor should observe the custom of the House and refrain from referring to a member by his name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think the member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) is right. Hon. members should always refer to their colleagues by the name of the constituency they represent, as the member for such and such a riding, but not by name.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in English. It would have been a courtesy if the preceding conversation had been in English too.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Rossi:: Joe Clark doesn't like that.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Can't you control the House?


Ian Deans: Let's pretend it's ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair did not mean to refer to languages spoken. It is simply a rule of the House that when we refer to hon. members, we refer to their constituencies and not their names.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I bow to your ruling. That is a rule of the House, and I will endeavour to obey it. I might say that I have no objection to the French language or any other language. I think they are all fine, but when an address is going on and the speaker does not have his earphones on, I think it would be courteous to raise points of order in English so that we know what is going on. I would say the same thing if a member were speaking in French.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to repeat what I said, I can show the hon. member that I can speak the two languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am very proud that the hon. member can. I wish I could handle French as well as he handles English. Some day I might be able to do so.
I want to return to the point with which I was dealing. We have a wealth of oil and gas in this country because we enticed people to come in and invest. They came in and invested because they could make a dollar. They could make a profit. At the same time, they worked under the rules set out by the government of Alberta. They knew the rules were that if they found oil, as they found it at Leduc and several other places in Alberta, they would have a fair share because they spent a lot of money finding it. However, they knew they would not have it all, that the balance would be sold and that that would be the money which would come to the coffers of Alberta. That is what raised our status from that of a have-not province to that
of a have province. It was done by free enterprise, not by taking over, not by nationalization and not by confiscation. I want to emphasize that. Under this bill, the Government of Canada should offer an incentive to companies to go and explore and then tell them they will get a fair share of that. But no, this government plays favourites. It gives 25 per cent of anything found to Petro-Canada, the national oil company. I do not mind Canada having a national oil company, but it should not have favourite treatment. It should work hand in hand with other oil companies and under the same rules. If it does not, we are playing favourites. The government says it is all right to play favourites because the money goes into the pockets of the people. Well, the money does not go into the pockets of the people. The money goes into the coffers of the government, and that is not the pockets of the people.
I believe in Canadianization absolutely, but I believe in the people of Canada owning our industries. The higher the percentage of Canadian people owning our industries, the better I will like it, and we should provide incentives. The greatest incentive any country in the world has found is free enterprise. We should provide the chance to make a dollar. That is not to say anyone should hog, but they should be able to make a dollar, and that is the greatest incentive.
Hon. members here who have great wealth obtained it through free enterprise, not through nationalization and not through government confiscation. This government would be wise to change its policies right away and provide incentive. We need big oil companies. We also need small oil companies, and we should treat them all fairly. We should let them make a dollar, but they should also play fairly with the people of this country so that the people will get their fair share.
I would like to see our industries owned by Canadians. The more the better, but I would like to see some of the profits from our discoveries and from our work going into the pockets of the people so that they can better educate their boys and girls, so that they can have a better standard of living and so that they can buy homes and pay the high interest rates they have to pay now. However, they cannot do that on the ordinary wages of workers today. This government has an opportunity to provide an incentive to millions of Canadians, if it would follow the policy the Clark government was going to follow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
October 29, 1981

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the question we have to debate during the next ten minutes is the matter of the Alaska gas pipeline and the responses given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on October 22 to a question put to him by myself. The minister is not here this evening, but his partner in crime is, so we can proceed.
I will preface my remarks with a quotation from Hansard of December 6, 1979, page 2101. At that time the gentleman who is now Minister of Energy, Mines and Resouces is quoted as saying the following with respect to the Alaska gas pipeline. He is referring to a statement by the then minister of energy, mines and resources, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I quote:
There is no word in this statement regarding swaps, and nothing about the eastern Canadian situation, the building of the Quebec and Maritime pipeline, and the possibility of exports to the northeastern states. In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline. Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan and the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
We have to contrast this with what he has done since being in government. The question of the Q&M tie-in was forgotten straight away. With regard to the question of gas swaps, what happens after we have exported our gas to the United States? Can we get some back from the Prudhoe Bay project? That was forgotten straight away.
Let us look at the ironclad guarantees. In my opinion, they are not guarantees. All the minister has is a best-efforts promise on the part of the United States administration and Congress. A guarantee is a guarantee because it is enforceable. There is nothing in the promises the minister has received that is enforceable in any tribunal.
The complaint I have is that on October 22 when the minister was asked a very simple and straightforward question about the difficulties that had been experienced in getting the waiver package through Congress, his reply was along the following lines. He told us on this side not to worry about it, that they have everything under control and that everything in the garden is rosy. That was his approach. He said "trust us". Can you imagine trusting the bunch on that side? That was the sum total of the minister's response.
Everything in the garden is not rosy. There are a lot of problems with the Alaska gas pipeline. A lot of delays have already been experienced. At one time the final completion date was to be in 1983. Now it is going to be 1986, or the beginning of 1987 at the very earliest, and there is the possibility of yet more delays.
The costs have escalated fantastically. We are now talking about $45 billion to construct the pipeline. With the high interest rates that have come about in the meantime and the higher prices for all commodities, these prices have doubled in the last few years.
Adjournment Debate
With regard to the waiver package before the United Stages Congress, I would like to read something from the Ottawa Citizen, a journal that is usually fairly sympathetic toward the Liberal causes. I quote from an article in the October 22 edition headlined "Alaska Gas Pipeline in Trouble" as follows:
-the White House isn't eager to battle senior Republican politicians who oppose the waivers.
There is a lot of opposition there to the waivers.
These include Rep. Clarence (Bud) Brown of Ohio and Rep. James T. Broyhill of North Carolina, both of whom have told the U.S. President they are "unalterably and unequivocally" opposed to any waivers that would transfer to gas users the risk that the pipeline wouldn't be finished.
That is the so-called tracking provision. How serious is the United States administration about this? It goes on to read:
William A. Niskanen, who belongs to Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, has acknowledged the administration's lack of enthusiasm for the waiver package.
There are a great many difficulties in getting this provision through the U.S. legislature. There are many things to be concerned about. We want from the minister honest and forthright answers as to what his plans are and how he is going to deal with these matters. Is he going to go to Washington and speak to his American counterparts? Let him admit the difficulties, tell us if he has any plans and then go to Washington. Most of all, we would like him to be honest with Parliament.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline has played a part in Canada-United States relations since the Transit Pipeline Treaty of the early 1970s. The treaty was followed by the Canada-U.S. agreement on the Alaska pipeline in 1977 wherein both countries formally undertook to support the project on a priority basis. In the spring of 1980, Canada approved the pre-build segments, based on assurances provided by President Carter that the line would be financed, and that his 1977 decision approving the project would be amended to permit pre-commencement billing for the Canadian segments. Further assurances were provided by the joint resolution approved unanimously by the Senate and House of Representatives and by the commitment of the industry sponsors to participate in the financing of the project.
With the election of President Reagan, there was some questioning regarding the scheduling of the pipeline. However, during his Canadian visit last March, President Reagan clearly stated his strong support for the project.
On October 7, 1981, Senator Olson announced that President Reagan had informed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he was forwarding to Congress the waiver package requested by the sponsors of the pipeline project. This waiver package is a series of amendments to the U.S. enabling legislation for the pipeline.
I would like to quote from a letter from the U.S. President that was sent to the Prime Minister just prior to the submis-

October 29, 1981
Adjournment Debate
sion of this waiver package to Congress. In that letter the President wrote:
In view of the importance which you attach to this question, I wanted to advise you in advance of our public announcement that I have decided to submit for Congressional approval the full package of waivers requested by the sponsors of the Alaska natural gas transmission system. My recommendation to the House and Senate will be submitted later today. It is the view of the project sponsors that this package of waivers will facilitate the completion of the Alaska natural gas transmission system under private financing. As I made clear during our previous discussions of this matter, my administration supports the completion of this project through private financing, and it is our hope that this action will clear the way to moving ahead with it. I believe that this project is important not only in terms of its contribution to the energy security of North America, but it is also a symbol of U.S.-Canadian ability to work together co-operatively in the energy area for the benefit of both countries.
The President has also reiterated these points in his message to Congress putting forward the waiver package.
The waiver package is now being studied by the Senate energy and natural resources committee where it is supported by the Republican and Democratic leaders. It is also before the House energy and commerce committee. Both committees are expected to deal with the bill expeditiously, after which Congress has up to 30 days to make a finding.
The importance of the project is indicated by the fact that Prudhoe Bay contains about 10 per cent of U.S. reserves of natural gas. The pipeline offers the most economic means of access to this large resource.


HOUSING-REGISTERED HOUSE OWNERSHIP PROGRAM (B) REQUEST THAT MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LEVEL OF SAVINGS BE RAISED
Gordon Edward Taylor: Last Friday I asked the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), the minister responsible for housing, two questions on the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. I was not happy or satisfied with the answers I received.
The Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, known better as RHOSP, is an excellent program. In the first place, there is a limitation on who can use it. Those who do not own a home or who have never owned a home may place money in this plan. It is a savings plan for the first home. If the money is left in the plan for ten years and used as a down payment on a house, or used for the purpose of buying furniture for the first time for a house, there is no tax to be paid. That is the incentive that is provided. If it is taken out within a ten-year period and used for other things, then it is taxable just as it would have been, although perhaps at a higher rate than when it was placed in the RHOSP.
My first question to the Minister of Public Works on Friday, October 23 was: "Has he made any representations to the Minister of Finance to increase the maximum ceiling in this plan?"
The minister did not answer this question and so I have to assume that he made no such representations or recommendations to the said minister.
Rather than answering the question, the minister appeared to argue that the present plan, which provides a maximum of $10,000, is sufficient for a down payment on a home. He mentioned the price of homes now for sale in London, Ontario, as being $30,000 or $40,000.
My question was on behalf of young people in particular who live in all parts of Canada, including cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa, Halifax, etc. Certainly in these cities $10,000 would not be enough for a down payment on a modern home.
My supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works was: "Will he urge the Minister of Finance at least to double the present maximums?" That is, an over-all maximum in ten years of $10,000 to $20,000 and an over-all maximum per year from $1,000 to $2,000.
Again, the minister avoided the question, stating that he could not go into specifics. He then went off on an angle about difficulties in answering questions and mentioned that we have to attempt "to provide equity, not only in the housing sector, but also equity as between people facing problems with housing and those who are facing difficulties with employment." While these difficulties may be real, they have nothing to do with this particular plan or this particular problem. Such an answer to this question is not only ridiculous; it does not even start to answer the question that was asked.
The RHOSP was created for the purpose of providing an opportunity for young people to build up a fund for their first home; it provides for a maximum limit of $10,000, with a maximum contribution per year of $1,000. It is not a big thing, so doubling it would not be a big thing either, but it would at least give the down payment for a home in ten years.
The maximum of $10,000 may have been satisfactory when the program was initiated, but it is certainly not satisfactory now. I doubt if it is even satisfactory in London. This is another example of how the government is living in the past and refusing to face reality.
Even by doubling the maximum to $2,000 a year, with a $20,000 limit, this would still be low enough-but it would provide a down payment. All young people would not be able to put in $2,000, but if they could, it is a good savings plan and it would help fight inflation. Apparently the minister responsible for housing has not even discussed this problem with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). This will deny a lot of young people the opportunity to eventually own a home.
The RHOSP is also an effective weapon with which to fight inflation as once a contribution is put into the fund, it is locked there for the purpose of buying a home at the end of the ten-year period. If it is taken out at any time prior to the purchase of a new home, it becomes taxable. As I said before, it is limited to those who have never owned a home.
If the object of the government is to help young people to own homes of their own, then it should at least double these
October 29, 1981

maximums. If it is the object of the government to effectively fight inflation, then this is a good weapon. On the other hand, if the government does not want our people to own their own homes-and the government refused to put property rights in the charter-then I can understand why the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing avoided answering my questions. A lot of young people want to invest in this savings plan but they want it to be effective so that at the end of ten years they will at least have enough for a down payment on a home.
I urge the Minister of Public Works to make strong representation to the Minister of Finance to embody this in the budget to come down on November 12.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. gentleman makes two points. The first is that the minister has refused to tell him whether he has made representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on this particular issue. It surprises me, because the hon. gentleman opposite has been in politics long enough to know that at budget time the ministers are precluded from giving any sort of hints about the budget.
Adjournment Debate


Dave Nickerson: Just like Trudeau last night in Toronto.


Norman Kelly: I think, in obedience to the conventions of this House and our system, the minister is acting very wisely, indeed.
The second contentious point is that the level of savings is too low and that it should, in effect, be doubled. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman opposite that at current interest rates, savings rates in the banks, a young couple who put in $1,000 a year will, after ten years, have in excess of $25,000 saved for their home purchase. That is more than the amount the hon. member is projecting in his second question.
Therefore, I think that the present economic system already addresses his concerns, which are legitimate. Second, I think that he will have to wait for the presentation of the budget to see exactly what advice the minister gave to the Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.19 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 30, 1981