1982-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the people of Newfoundland, with a loud and clear voice and with over 60 per cent of the popular vote, which almost wiped out the Liberal Party, supported the reasonable proposition of shared management and revenue sharing for the offshore oil and gas. The only response from the Government of Canada was from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who accused the premier of Newfoundland of "outright lies" and said:
-the election results mean nothing as far as the federal government is concerned.
1 would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House directs the Prime Minister to reopen negotiations with Newfoundland on offshore oil and gas, using as a basis for negotiations the compromise proposal put forward by Newfoundland on March 16, 1982, whereby both governments would set their ownership claims aside and become co-owners of the resource, both governments would be equal, both governments would receive their share of revenues directly from a joint agency, and arrangements could only be changed with the consent of both governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, CBC-TV management, having approved the spending of millions of taxpayers' dollars to create its current affairs show, "The Journal", is now allowing the program to go off the air for nine weeks this summer. The incredible reasons given for this vacation are that the staff involved need the time to
recover from the day-to-day pressures of the job, and the break is needed to maintain the supposed high quality of the show. Given that their counterparts on daily newspapers and at radio stations obviously manage competently and professionally to cope with exactly the same pressures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the minister responsible for CBC-TV order its management to explain to the Canadian taxpayer just why such high-priced staff, unable to handle the job, were hired in the first place, or to dismiss these poor, exhausted employees and replace them with professionals capable of handling the pressures.
This might not solve the problem of quality, but it would give an indication of effort toward that goal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of national importance, under Standing Order 43.
[ Translation]
Whereas the government's policy to remove import quotas on leather footwear is contrary to the recommendations of the report of the Anti-dumping Tribunal and has already caused nearly 7,000 lay-offs since December 1, I move, seconded by the member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That import quotas on leather footwear be set at 38 million pairs over a period of five years, thus enabling the Canadian footwear industry to hold 50 per cent of the domestic market.
I would like to give the member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) the last shoe manufactured in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 7, 1982


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) in this House undertook publicly to write in person to every one of the 135,327 Canadians who petitioned their opposition to the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system. A form letter does not constitute a personal letter. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge all Canadians in every province and in every walk of life, especially the shopkeepers and their customers, to write directly to the minister, postage free, with copies to their own Member of Parliament so that every citizen may be sure to receive the minister's personal justification for the needless, costly and confusing program which threatens to rob Canadians of their freedom to choose.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED UNIFORM GASOLINE PRICING STANDARDS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion respecting the serious matter of oil-pricing discrepancies that exist among the oil companies in Canada. Gasoline prices vary as much as 40 cents per gallon from one station to another, and retailers blame this on the lack of a uniform pricing formula and the fact that oil companies and the federal government are taking too large a share of the retail price of gasoline and oil. This has resulted in a province-wide strike of gasoline station operators in Quebec, and threatens to spill over into Ontario. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take immediate steps to work out uniform pricing standards for oil companies to their wholesalers and retailers and that the minister direct Petro-Canada to desist from its policy of undercutting other gasoline retailers by offering better prices and terms than are offered by private sector companies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EDUCATION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that many post-secondary institutions face funding cuts as a result of changes to the Established Programs Financing Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That the government appoint a parliamentary task force to report on the state of fundamental and applied research done at Canadian post-secondary institutions and to suggest alternate means of funding so that current research efforts can be continued and hopefully expanded.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Under present Treasury Board regulations, contractors bidding for government tenders must submit a certified cheque with the bid. However, certified cheques drawn on credit unions are considered to be unacceptable. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House request that the government amend the regulations to end this discriminatory practice and thereby place Canadian credit unions and caisses populaires on a more equal footing with the chartered banks of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, because of the government's high interest rate policy, because of its high energy costs, and because of continuing low commodity prices, 1,200 International Harvester workers have been laid off at the farm machinery plant in Hamilton, amounting to 80 per cent of International Harvesters 1,500
April 7, 1982

workers in that city. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this government immediately initiate policies to bring down high interest rates, to bring down high energy costs, and to give farmers fair prices for their products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, on March 17, 1982, Conservative and Liberal members of the Prince Edward Island legislature unanimously approved a resolution condemning the government's metric conversion policy. I urge all members of this House, particularly the members opposite, to join with their fellow Liberal members of the P.E.l. legislature in support of that motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House adopts the unanimous request of the P.E.l. legislature condemning this government's metric conversion policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the continual flight of capital, both Canadian and foreign, out of Canada, has caused the Bank of Canada to try to protect the value of the Canadian dollar by keeping interest rates significantly higher than in the United States. The result is increasing lay-offs, more unemployment and more distress. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That a special committee of this House be established to inquire into the overall fiscal policy of the government to determine what can be done to reverse the extraordinary outflow of capital from the country, including consideration of reversing completely the National Energy Program, reversing completely the thrust of the foreign investment review program, and reversing completely the anti-entrepreneurial, anti-investment provisions in the November 12 budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL PRICING POLICY OF PETROLEUM COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urging and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Most of the gas stations in Quebec are now closed, and considering that gas retailers have spoken out against both the provincial surtax and the oil companies who want to squeeze out independent operators by charging exorbitant rental rates and reducing their profit margins, I move, seconded by the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the federal government, under the authority it has pursuant to the Combines Investigation Act, order an investigation to determine whether the big oil companies are practising illegal pricing policies.


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 QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday Mr. Bouey's speech held out little hope for Canadians that interest rates will be coming down. Yesterday the Minister of Finance agreed with the consensus of economists that the economy is in its worst shape in over 30 years. Today Statistics Canada has said that the few signs of recovery evident in the economy in December vanished in January.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I would appreciate if the Prime Minister would answer it. Can he give Canadians any hope that the government is considering alternative economic policies in order to avoid this dismal outlook?


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in

April 7, 1982
Oral Questions
his comments yesterday the Minister of Finance indeed referred to the fact that the recession is deeper than we expected. In his speech the Governor of the Bank of Canada gave Canadians some very good advice, and I think it would be worth while to draw this advice to the attention of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. The advice follows up the answer given by the minister yesterday and is as follows:
Our markets for goods and services both at home and abroad are no longer conducive to rapid price and wage increases. It is now in the interests of both business and labour that they respond by moderating price and income increases in order to protect employment and output.


OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL
Michael Holcombe Wilson: In other words, Madam Speaker, there is no hope for Canadians to avoid the dismal outlook that is evident today.
There are alternatives, and I would like to refer to them. There are a number of them. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. A number of knowledgeable observers have recently drawn attention to the unprecedented outflow of capital as well as Canadian savings from this country. The outflow is about six times the level of the 1970s. If that money had stayed here in Canada it would have been used to create jobs here, not in the United States, not in Australia, and not in the Far East. Since that amount of money is more than equivalent to the cost of all the housing investment in 1981 and clearly would have created a number of jobs in that industry, and new housing units, what steps is the Prime Minister proposing to reverse that capital outflow and create jobs here, not in the United States?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question underlines the need to pursue directly the policies outlined in the budget. He indicates that there is a heavy outflow of capital. Every week the Bank of Canada and the government have been telling the hon. member that we have to maintain our interest rates to keep ourselves attractive to that very capital and to maintain investor confidence in our battle against inflation.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the fact that the outflow increased in the last quarter of 1981, after the budget was brought down by his government. That is what has been caused by the government. That is what is causing the outflow of capital. If that money had been invested in Canada with Canadian industry, it would have created over 200,000 jobs in this country, more than the level of the unemployment in the construction industry and the automotive industry combined.
Again I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister explain to those unemployed construction and automotive workers why he persists with policies which
are forcing capital out of the country, creating jobs in the United States and Australia and not here in Canada?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, we will have jobs and we will be able to bring some recovery to some of these industries as soon as we are able to beat inflation and as soon as we are able to indicate to investors that their investments in this country are safe. Again I would refer the hon. member to the speech given by the Governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday which contained some lessons he would be well advised to learn.


FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In his absence the Minister of Finance denied that any confusion has arisen regarding the processing of tax returns as a result of his failure to bring budget bills before the House. Yesterday I drew the attention of the House to a telex sent by a Revenue Canada official in Ottawa instructing the Vancouver district office not to proces tax returns filed on the basis of the budget. As a result the refunds of thousands of Canadians could be delayed indefinitely.
In light of the tremendous confusion that seems to exist, and the hardship that could be created if Canadians do not receive the refunds they are entitled to, is the minister prepared to change those instructions from Revenue Canada's Ottawa office so that all returns can be processed?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Epp:: Welcome back!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: You did a great job.


Bill Rompkey: The noise is an indication of the confusion that exists on that side of the House. Indeed, that is where it does exist.
The hon. member read from a telex, but she did not read the complete thing. She read from an older telex, not the most recent telex, that is, the instructions to our people. That is point number one.
We have encouraged taxpayers to file on the basis of the budget proposals. We anticipate no real problem in the provision of refunds. Already this year we have given out almost two million refunds, and this is well ahead of the record for last year. No refunds are being held up and no tax refunds are being stockpiled. The confusion that exists is only on that side
April 7, 1982

of the House. I regret that the confusion is being spread to taxpayers across the country.


REQUEST THAT IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF BUDGET BE CHANGED
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Revenue Canada officials have confirmed today that they plan to process some taxpayers' returns three times in order to get around the problem of the delay in getting refunds out. Apparently they are going to process the same returns under the old system before the budget, under the new system based on the budget, and a third time, if necessary, if the budgetary provisions are changed in some way in regard to taxes.
In view of the fact that Revenue Canada has said that only a minority of taxpayers' returns are affected by the relevant provisions in the November, 1981, budget for the 1981 tax year, would the minister not agree that it would be simpler and cheaper for the government and for taxpayers if the effective date of the budget were changed so that it does not affect any taxpayers in the 1981 income tax year?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I really have to repeat my last answer. With regard to the holdup of refunds, I have to repeat to the hon. member that there is no holdup in refunds. Almost two million refunds have been issued so far this year, and that is well ahead of last year. There is no holdup in refunds and there is no stockpiling of refunds.


Miss MacDonald:: That is wrong.


Bill Rompkey: The Department of National Revenue is acting according to the law. We are encouraging people to file on the basis of the new provisions and to put notes on their tax returns signifying where the new provisions will apply to them personally. There is no delay at all.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister and, because it deals with broad policy matters, I hope he will answer. He is shaking his head. His miasma must be bothering him again today. I will put the question to whomever is responsible or cares about finance matters over there.
Given that the average industrial worker in Canada earns $19,000 per year, and a typical family living at the minimum wage level lives below the poverty level in our cities, does the Prime Minister agree with Governor Bouey that these workers need to reduce their income in real terms in order for the country to deal with inflation?
Oral Questions


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, Governor Bouey did not say that they should reduce their incomes. He said that they should not play games with catchup.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: John Evans would not have said that.


GOVERNOR'S ANALYSIS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to come back to the hon. member who is today actually accepting the responsibility which the Prime Minister should be accepting, and point out that the question concerned income in real terms. Governor Bouey said that workers who have had a net decline in real income for four years in a row should be prepared to stay in that condition and that they should not go after, to use the hon. member's term, a catch-up. We on this side of the House think it is time that the average Canadian worker got a fair deal in the country, and we blame the government for not giving it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 repeat, does the government agree with Governor Bouey's analysis that workers at the minimum wage, or average industrial workers, must take a decline in their real income in order for the government to deal with inflation in the coming year?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, first of all I thank the leader of the NDP for putting me in such good company.


Mr. Clark:: You will not be there long.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Second, I remind him that the governor gave the same message to corporations to reduce their profits and to all of us to hold our costs down. We are doing no worker, whether he is on the minimum wage or above it, any favour by renewing a vicious inflationary spiral. That is the message that we all must get out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNOR BE DISMISSED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my last question is directed to the Prime Minister. Governor Bouey indicated that ordinary industrial workers must accept a decline in their real standards of living. He also blamed farmers who organized marketing boards for inflation, even though their real incomes are expected to go down 15 per cent this year. In so doing, he clearly demonstrated complete insensitivity to ordinary Canadians wherever they may live. If

April 7, 1982
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister is concerned that the plight of ordinary Canadians be understood and sympathized with, will he take some concrete action by firing an insensitive Governor of Bank of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not think the suggestion of the leader of the New Democratic Party is a very positive contribution to the future of the country. The governor is merely pointing out what everyone in the House really knows in his or her heart, that we cannot expect Canadians collectively to take out of the economy more than they are putting into it. Governor Bouey was not singling out the worker, certainly not the worker at the minimum wage, as the leader of the New Democratic Party suggested. He was telling Canadians-workers, businessmen, investors, Members of Parliament and everyone-


John Edward Broadbent: He mentioned the minimum wage.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that we cannot expect to continue increasing our economic progress at the same rate as we did before the OPEC crisis, before the massive economic strife which has hit the western industrial world, or before the high unemployment which exists in Canada, but which is even higher in the United States to where capital is moving, to quote the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. If we try to hide this from our elaboration of economic theories and remedies, we are misleading the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: So what is new?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not doing that.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Not now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What about 14 cents a gallon and no wage and price controls?


Mr. Kempling:: You are an expert.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members on the other side seem to think that everyone can keep up to inflation-all of us; Members of Parliament, workers, shareholders and so on. It is certain that if we all try to keep up to inflation, inflation will not come down; it will stay where it is or continue going up. We know that if we want to remain competitive with the other producers in the western industrialized world, we have to lower our costs, which we cannot do if we keep increasing our revenues and our profits.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. For the tenth time, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question concerning an industry we still consider to be very important, namely the footwear industry. Once again, a number of hon. members have been reminded of this fact by the presence of industry and union representatives. The minister is aware that his policy is now causing the industry to lose 6,000 out of a total of 20,000 jobs. Could the minister inform us whether today, he would be able to announce a decision to include leather footwear in the global quota, as being the only way to ensure the survival of this industry? I do not want to hear about new programs. Could the minister tell us today, in the interests of the industry, whether he is prepared to include leather footwear in the global quota?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I had a very useful meeting with spokesmen for the footwear industry and the union, and my cabinet and caucus colleagues have also had some very useful meetings. I have drawn the attention of my cabinet colleagues to the representations that were made, and we are now reviewing them. We are taking this very seriously, in the light of the present economic situation, since the economy is a factor, and not just the quota system as is claimed by spokesmen for the industry. Although my hon. friend does not want me to talk about new programs, I want to point out that we have established a major modernization program with a fund of $17 million, which proves we have a real interest in the industry and its employees.


REQUEST THAT QUEBEC WORKERS BE REINSTATED
Roch La Salle: What the minister did not say is that several millions of these dollars will be allocated to retraining and pre-retirement pensions, which is, in fact, welfare in disguise. Can the minister give the industry and its thousands of workers, many of whom are employed in my own province and other areas in Canada, the assurance that he is prepared to ensure the survival of the industry and its 15,000 workers and thus enable the 6,000 employees who have lost their jobs to go back to the industry and make a living in Canada? That is the question which the minister has failed to answer with his temporary, stopgap measures.

'si? a
April 7, 1982


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We
created the modernization fund because we have a positive interest in the industry-


Roch La Salle: You are letting them die!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that is why we have maintained quotas on non-woven footwear and added a quota on canvas shoes, something which was not in previous quotas. So we do take a positive interest, and we are taking the interests of the industry and its workers very seriously.


Roch La Salle: Prove it, that is not enough!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the European Economic Community gave encouraging support to Britain in the Falkland Islands dispute. It is considering bans on key imports from Argentina along with trade and financial sanctions which would be the most extensive the EEC has ever undertaken. West Germany, for example, has already cancelled an $850 million warship contract with Argentina. Is the Canadian government considering any comparable measures?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the only countries which have taken stronger action than Canada are the United Kingdom itself and New Zealand. The measures which the hon. member relates with respect to West Germany are exactly parallel to the measures that we have taken here.


EMBARGO ON MILITARY SHIPMENTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Monday the minister told the House the following:
Wc are placing an immediate embargo on all military shipments to Argentina-
A phone call to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce yesterday elicited the information that exports to Argentina of military weapons, ordnance and parts, in 1981 amounted to $15,647.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Does the minister really believe that cutting off this amount of military shipments accomplishes anything other than making him look ridiculous?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The amount represents one fifty-thousandth of 1 per cent of our export trade. This mouse's attempt to roar so far is only a barely audible squeak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will check on those figures. But the important fact is that there is some trade in military materials between Canada and Argentina. I believe there are some additional materials which are double purpose requiring an export permit but which might not be classed as military material according to the hon. member's information. 1 will be glad to check into that and inform him in due course.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the riding of Gaspe, there are over 400 families-about
2,000	people-who are affected by urea formaldehyde foam insulation. More than twenty-five families have already left their homes, and others are waiting to do so. I have medical certificates stating that children must leave their homes for accommodation that is not insulated with UFFI. My question is as follows: Could the minister inform the House whether he intends to continue his representations to the provinces, in order to persuade them to grant direct assistance to owners of homes insulated with UFFI, and does the minister intend to increase the federal contribution, which is already set at $5,000, or is he going to urge the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to help these homeowners through its RRAP program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker. I appreciate the concern shown by the member for Gaspe for home owners who are victims of UFFI. I would urge the hon. member to make sure that these home owners are registered with the Canadian centre here in Ottawa, in order to be eligible for federal assistance, up to a maximum of $5,000. Unfortunately, despite our urgent representations to provincial authorities during the past weeks, actually the past months, none of the provincial governments intends to give direct financial assistance to UFFI victims, and 1 think this is most regrettable. To answer the hon. member's question about using the RRAP program to finance repairs to
16252

April 7, 1982
Oral Questions
these homes, I may remind the hon. member that the legislation governed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not provide for such measures. It would be necessary to amend the act, and I am not so sure that this kind of loan would be preferable to the $5,000 direct, non-taxable grant available to UFFI victims who are homeowners.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Two hundred and fifty shore workers in Prince Rupert are going to join 400 other colleagues from Port Edward and 200 colleagues from Oakland Fisheries in Victoria on the bread lines as a result of corporate decisions to shut down fish plants. These are among the same corporations that have been at the public trough for a number of years, namely, George Weston Limited, Merubeni, and H.B. Nickerson and Sons Limited.
In view of the minister's attempts to prop up the unemployment insurance contributions from fishermen again, would he go to British Columbia with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, meet with fishermen in Prince Rupert, meet with the council in Prince Rupert, the people who are going to suffer a tremendous loss of income, and see if we cannot bring some sense to the employment situation in Canada by keeping plants open and workers working, rather than paying unemployment insurance premiums to the workers of British Columbia?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am not exactly sure of the purpose of the hon. member's question. I do sympathize with the situation which the fishworkers on the island are facing. I would remind the hon. member that I was on Vancouver Island just over a month ago at which time I met with a number of woodworkers there. We will be in British Columbia with the western affairs committee on April 23 and I will be very happy to take representations at that time.
Might I say to the hon. member that the whole point of the unemployment insurance program is to provide income security for workers who are laid off their jobs during downturns in the economy. That is the purpose of the program and that is how it is being used. I do not think it serves any purpose to criticize the program when in fact we do provide that basic support and foundation for workers who are facing temporary loss of income.


CRITERIA GOVERNING GRANTS MADE TO PROCESSORS
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has been responsible for many of the DREE grants to fish processing plants, particularly in Atlantic Canada, as well as to B.C. Packers and Weston's corporation. Workers do not want to collect unemployment: they want to work. Therefore, will the minister reconsider the criteria under
which grants are made to processors in Canada so that the Canadian government has some commitment from those processing plants to stay open and keep workers working? If not, will he consider the option of taking some equity in processing plants which the government is so generously funding?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to examine my hon. friend's suggestions. Obviously we want the maximum benefit for workers, their communities, and our country from programs like DREE, and his suggestion with respect to commitments is certainly something I would be happy to examine.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEWFOUNDLAND ON OFFSHORE RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Hon James A. McGrath (St. John's East): Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Referring to the offshore dispute with Newfoundland the Prime Minister said on May 5, 1981:
We consistently maintain that ownership is not the important issue and that reaching a negotiated agreement on shared management is the vitally important issue...
That was the Prime Minister's position last May. Is he now prepared to say to the government and people of Newfoundland that, consistent with his statement last year, his government is prepared to set aside the question of ownership and sit down and negotiate with Newfoundland on the basis of the very reasonable compromise proposal which was accepted by 60 per cent of the population of Newfoundland who voted yesterday?
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must remind the hon. member of something I told him in this House a couple of months ago. My answer is still the same, that the position I expressed in 1981 I had been expressing all though the 1970s. We began sitting down with the Atlantic provinces as early as 1969 or 1970, if my memory is correct, and we adhered to the proposal that we set aside the question of ownership and try to negotiate an agreement, as we have been able to do with the government of Nova Scotia, and as we had been able to do in 1978 or 1979 with the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The only government which has never wanted or been able to reach an agreement acceptable to other provinces is the province of Newfoundland.
I have not been pressing for the settlement of the question of ownership; I have been pressing for a negotiated political settlement. The government of Newfoundland has been saying no for all those years, and it is that government which first brought a reference to the courts to settle the question of ownership. I find it rather strange that they now say we should
April 7, 1982

not want to settle the question of ownership when they are the government which brought that question to the courts rather than continue negotiations.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that statement is just not consistent with the facts because it was his government which insisted on having this matter brought before the Federal Court on the SIU case, and that is what set off the breakdown in negotiations. The Prime Minister knows that to be a fact.
Now, Madam Speaker, the government of Newfoundland, supported by the people of Newfoundland, has agreed to a reasonable compromise proposal which would call for joint management and revenue sharing. That is a reasonable proposition, and I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to be reasonable-


Mr. Lalonde:: That is what we offered.


James Aloysius McGrath: -because we cannot expect any reason from his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the Prime Minister prepared to be reasonable and say to the people of Newfoundland on the basis of that compromise proposal, which was accepted by the people of Newfoundland in a democratic election yesterday, that we are prepared to sit down and negotiate so that we can get on with the development of this resource not only for the people of Newfoundland, but for the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I really cannot accept the interpretation which the hon. member put on the SIU case, as though we had started a reference to the court. It is quite clear that for a decade we tried to reach a negotiated settlement. In very recent times the matter went to the courts in two ways: first, the SIU took it to the courts and raised an issue of ownership where the governments were dragged, if I may say, into that issue; second, the government of Newfoundland made a direct reference to the Appeal Court of Newfoundland.


James Aloysius McGrath: You brought it in the back door.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So how can the hon. member say that my statement is not in accord with the facts?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As many of us feel it is very important to get a correct perspective of the tragic events now taking place in Central America,
Oral Questions
especially El Salvador, and the role played by Socialist International with respect to these events, would the minister indicate if it is true that the general executive body of the communists in El Salvador, known as DRU, has a fighting arm called FMLN which co-ordinates guerrilla activities in that country, and that DRU in turn has been working with the Socialist International associated group of Mr. Ungo, known as MNR, under an umbrella organization known as FDR which presents a side of leftist terrorist activity designed to arouse world sympathy-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -while it disguises the true nature of the Communist International infiltration?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You dont't know what you are talking about.


An hon. Member:: Did you get the question, Mark?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am not-


John Edward Broadbent: He is out of his tree, Mark.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 am not sure I caught the whole of that alphabet-


An hon. Member:: Alphabet soup.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -but as I understand the situation, the Communist Party of El Salvador, PCES, is one of the constituent parts of both the military and civilian grouping of rebel parties which together make up the DRU. So the DRU is not only communist, it includes communists-


An hon. Member:: Christian Democrats.


John Edward Broadbent: And Conservatives.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -on both the military and civil side. One of the groups which is part of DRU is the Socialist Party of El Salvador headed by Mr. Ungo-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No, Ed Broadbent.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -which I believe is reported to have only 30 to 40 members. It is that party which is a member of the Socialist International.


ROLE OF SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that the guerrillas, who are now co-ordinated under FMLN, which is associated with DRU, have estimated they themselves are responsible for the deaths of some 5,000 people in the past two years, and has he been informed that last September the Socialist International in Paris spoke

April 7, 1982
Oral Questions
glowingly of the alliance of FDR with the guerrilla control group FMLN? If so, has the minister informed Socialist International, perhaps through their vice president who sits in this House, the hon. member for Oshawa, that such help for terrorists is either wittingly or unwittingly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -being delivered, and is certainly ill advised and contrary to our democratic traditions in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is too bad the rules of the House do not encourage the putting of questions by the hon. member directly to the hon. member for Oshawa.


An hon. Member:: Same party.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am not able to confirm all of the points raised by the hon. member. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Oshawa was chairman of the recent meeting of Socialist International dealing with the El Salvador question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unbelievable.


Mark R. MacGuigan: There was considerable difference in the Socialist International over El Salvador and over Nicaragua, because the parties in these countries which are close neighbours of El Salvador do not take as strong a position as the hon. member for Oshawa has publicly stated.
Madam Speaker, I now have the figures that were asked for earlier by the hon. member for Victoria and I wonder if I might just take a moment, while I am on my feet, to give them.
In 1980, we exported military equipment worth $5.5 million-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER QUEBEC PERCENTAGE OF GASOLINE TAX IS GREATER THAN PERCENTAGE COLLECTED BY ALBERTA
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the present situation in Quebec with respect to gas and gas retailers, many Quebecers are wondering what share of the price of gas at the pump goes to the province of Quebec, and I would therefore like to ask the
minister for details about the percentage collected by the province of Quebec, and whether it is true that the percentage collected by the province is higher than that collected by the province of Alberta.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the difference between the price of a litre of gas in New Brunswick and Ontario and the price of the same litre of gas in Quebec is now approximately seven cents, which means that in Quebec, a litre of gas costs about seven cents more. Regarding the percentage collected by the province of Quebec, it is not only more than that collected by the government of Alberta, it is more or less equal to the sum of the percentages collected by the government of Alberta and the federal government. In March, the government of Quebec was collecting 27.7 per cent on the price of gas, while the government of Alberta and the federal government collected a joint total of 28.2 per cent. Therefore, the government of Quebec is taking a very sizeable share of the price per litre. In fact, this percentage is higher than that taken by any other province in Canada.

[English ]


INCOME TAX
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. 1 realize that today may not be a very good day to ask him for favours.


Mr. Nielsen:: He is cantankerous?


Melbourne Alexander Gass: My question to the minister concerns the policy announced by the government of income tax deduction at source as it applies to fishermen, and the fact that the fishermen are the only small independent business persons who are asked to pay income tax in advance when they sell fish to the packers.
We met for two days last week with groups of fishermen from all over Prince Edward Island. Their main concern was income tax deductions at source. I want to ask the minister has there been any recent discussion on the mandatory policy of income tax deductions at source as it applies to fishermen in Atlantic Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, that is a budget provision. The Minister of Finance announced it in the budget, as you know. The reason for announcing it was that I, among other people, had requested that he review this. The reason I did that was that a request came from the fishermen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 7, 1982


Bill Rompkey: Fishermen had encountered some difficulties, Madam Speaker, as a result of income tax not being deducted at source. To offset that, it was felt much better to pay on a regular basis, so that a great amount of income tax would not accumulate. Indeed, that meant putting fishermen on the same basis as everybody else in the country. I met with fishermen as recently as this past week in my own constituency and they are perfectly happy with the measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: All the members from the fishing constituencies can be heard, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member has something to say, the time to do it is when the legislation comes before the House.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DISCUSS POLICY WITH MINISTER OF FINANCE
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, we were advised by the fishermen that that is exactly what the minister would tell us, that they said they were in favour of it. 1 am sure there is not one fisherman in P.E.I. that is in favour of mandatory income tax deductions at source. Not one. Will the minister assure this House that he will discuss this policy with the Minister of Finance and see that some changes are made, so that it will not be deducted at source on a mandatory basis?


Erik Nielsen: Write him a letter.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: There may be some fishermen who said they would volunteer, but they are against the mandatory policy that this government is trying to force down their throats.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, 1 have to say again that all across the country people have their income tax deducted at source. That is all across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: As I said before, it seems to me that doing it on a regular basis is much preferable to having taxes accumulate. If the hon. member has points to make to the contrary, lie will have a chance to do that before the House.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As the minister knows, there have been a number of attempts to negotiate a new Northlands Agreement. The last agreement, which lasted for five years, was worth $155 million to the people of northern Manitoba. I understand the minister has agreed to meet with the provinical minister of northern affairs, Mr. Jay Cowan, at three o'clock today. Would the minister guarantee that there will be a new agreement, and
Oral Questions
would he also guarantee that that agreement will provide at least as much money as the previous agreement did?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as I said in Winnipeg when I met there with Mr. Cowan, the provincial minister, some weeks ago, my objective was to have concluded negotiations in a successful way that would lead to both of us being able to recommend to our respective cabinets a new Northlands Agreement which could carry on the very good work of the existing agreement which has very substantial federal participation. I think there has been considerable progress made in the negotiations for a new Northlands Agreement. With the very active support and assistance of my colleagues, the Minister for Employment and Immigration and the hon. member for St. Boniface, I look forward to further progress being made on this before too long. I also look forward to a brief meeting this afternoon with the Manitoba minister, in the company of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


QUERY WHETHER ARDA AGREEMENT WILL BE RENEWED
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the minister has in fact agreed to have a meeting. Lest the minister should feel he has been acting with some haste in this matter, I would remind him that the last agreement expired one year ago and that there has not been an agreement for the last year except the interim agreement, which has provided only a small amount of money for people in the north.
My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is with regard to the special ARDA agreement which is also between the province of Manitoba and the federal government. I would like the minister to guarantee that the agreement will be again renewed for a full five-year period at this point, after the Manitoba government has already agreed to a five-year extension, based on the negotiations between the province and the federal government, and that at this late date the federal government is not going to change the ground rules and try for a shorter time for a further agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has confirmed that although the initial Northlands Agreements' term formally ended only a year ago the federal government agreed to make an extension for a year, which has enabled us to carry on discussions which I hope will result in a satisfactory conclusion before too long.
With respect to the matter of special ARDA, this is a federal initiative covering all the western provinces as well as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I am discussing with my cabinet colleagues the future of this agreement. 1 look forward to being able to make some positive statement in that regard before too long.

April 7, 1982
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


PLIGHT OF NICARAGUAN REFUGEES IN HONDURAS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 31, 1982, Mr. A. H. Mayne, the first secretary of the embassy and I met in Honduras with aboriginal Nicaraguan refugees known as the Miskito people. The Miskito refugees alleged that they are victims of gross human rights violations by agents of the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Given these and other similar allegations, will the minister announce his intention in the House today to initiate an investigation into these alleged abuses, either to disprove them or ensure that this matter is brought to international attention and justice?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, we are aware of the problems in Nicaragua concerning the Miskito Indians. One must distinguish between those who are still in Nicaragua and those who have fled to other countries. With respect to those remaining in Nicaragua, we have made representation to the Nicaraguan government recently. The head of CIDA, Mr. Masse, will shortly be visiting Nicaragua and will carry an additional message to the Nicaraguan government about this minority.
With respect to those who are refugees, we have been giving on a generous scale to the organizations which have been looking after the refugees. We are the third largest donor to the UNHCR for Central America refugees. We also give money to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Through those organizations we have been doing our best to help the plight of the refugees, the Miskito Indians and other refugees in Central America.


REQUEST FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, the minister has heard from different parties in this House many concerns expressed regarding human rights abuses by both the extreme right and the extreme left in this region. What specific initiatives does he plan regarding an international human rights investigation of all of these allegations which are at the root of basic instability in this region? What does he plan to do to bring initiatives forward in this area?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we do not have the right to go into another country, in Central America or wherever, to launch a human rights investigation. We have verified that many of the problems the hon. member referred to exist. With respect to the group of Indians still within Nicaragua, we have made protests to that government and will continue to do so. With respect to those outside, they are mostly under the supervision of the UNHCR. We have to accept guidance from them as to how best to help them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, a moment or two ago the hon. member for Victoria asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the hon. member in good faith used figures provided to him by the department, probably erroneously. It now seems the minister has a complete answer to provide, not only to the former minister of national defence but also to the members of this House and the distinguished press gallery. Can the minister now be allowed to give the figures that he has?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot entertain a point of order during question period. I will gladly entertain it later.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, any difference in statistics may be accounted for by the method of categorization used, but what we have banned is the shipment of military materials of any kind, whether they are double purpose or whatever. On that basis, the exports from Canada to Argentina in these categories were $5.5 million in 1980, $1.9 million in 1981, and more than a million dollars worth of permits were issued in the first quarter of this year.


MOTION RESPECTING EASTER RECESS
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleagues across the way. As we all know, tomorrow will be an opposition day. Provided there is no vote, and 1 understand the official opposition has given notice under Standing Order 58(11), I think there is unanimous consent for the following:
That tomorrow the House will sit from twelve o'clock noon until six o'clock, at six o'clock we adjourn and that the order read yesterday allowing a break at Easter still stands but mutatis mutandis this order will apply to the House order made yesterday.
Question period will be at 12.15 following motions under Standing Order 43.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable to us, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: We also agree. Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its consent to the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-
April 7, 1982


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) may have inadvertently misled the House during question period when he indicated that Alberta benefited from the gasoline taxes in Quebec. The House will know that gasoline sold in Quebec for the most part is imported.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Discussion as to facts and statements does not constitute a question of privilege. The hon. member is trying to prolong the question period. He should know that is not possible.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. McKINNON-ANSWER GIVEN BY MR. MacGUIGAN DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the third attempt which the minister made to try to answer one of my questions. The figures he gave include figures for non-military stores such as twin-otter aircraft, repairing engines of those aircraft-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member's desire to debate this question, but he can do that at another time. That is not a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Without intending in any way whatsoever, Madam Speaker, to reflect upon the actions of the Chair, the events of today might be re-examined in the light of the intervention by the hon. member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) which gave the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) the opportunity to get up on what in effect was an extension of the question period. I thought at the time that that should not have been allowed and the answer should not have been allowed. All that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) wanted was to do precisely what was allowed the hon. member for Saint Denis and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was recognized at about three minutes after three o'clock. It is true it was a few minutes past the time at which question period normally is terminated. It happens that sometimes for certain reasons I extend it for two or three minutes, especially when I feel that answers, for example, have been longer than usual. Sometimes it is very difficult for me to interrupt a minister in the course of some lengthy answer, and obviously hon. members want the information. Of course, some answers are more complicated than others.
Tabling of Documents
I interrupted the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) during his answer. 1 felt it was too long, so I interrupted him. I also felt that given this information, he probably could have answered the question the first time it was asked. I assumed he would have another opportunity to give this information to the House.
I recognized the hon. member for Saint Denis on a question which was quite legitimate. When a question is asked during question period, an answer is allowed. That is exactly what happened at 3.03. I do not feel that in any way it has been a departure from custom.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very short question of privilege. I want this House to be assured that at no time was Madam Speaker in a position to know that my question was going to be on the same subject.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to debate this. I think it is quite clear that I do not know in advance what the questions will be. That is obvious to all members.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. You mentioned that you want us to have all the information. Surely we should have all information and not just part of it.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, April 6, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table copies of the annual report of Petro-Canada for 1981, in both official languages.

My friends on the opposition side will be very happy to see that it shows black ink and not red ink, as they noted yesterday.

April 7, 1982
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Calgary North. The purpose of this petition, signed by 449 citizens of Calgary, is to indicate to the government that the citizens of Calgary North protest the November 12 budget proposal as it affects company-paid premiums on extended health care plans and dental plans. The nature of the petition is to demand that this government review its proposal of the budget and withdraw it from the budget. The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their concerns and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to have this matter referred to the appropriate committee.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have the honor to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of the city of Toronto requesting Parliament to request the Prime Minister to refuse to allow the testing of this new generation of weapons, the Cruise missile, on Canadian soil.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order arising out of petitions presented in the House. I realize that I am appealing under Standing Order 67(8) that the petition may be read on request at the discretion of the Speaker. I advised the Speaker on this same point of order that on April 5 I sent a letter to Dr. Koester, Clerk of the House, which stated very briefly:
Please be advised that I intend to present the petition on Tuesday, April 6, 1982, during routine proceedings and before introduction of bills. May I ask that the petition presented to the House on April 6 be read by the Clerk according to Standing Order 67(8) upon your tabling of the report of the Clerk of Petitions.
1 request at this time that the main body of the petition be read into the record.
The second point for which I would like to ask your consideration is that because of the urgency of the matter and because of precedent Citation 695 in Beauchesne, I would like to move, on your ruling of acceptance, for unanimous consent to have this petition referred, because of its urgency and the way it is affecting jobs and business in Canada, to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in order that we might be able to call witnesses from across Canada to discuss the urgency of this petiton that now totals
180,000	signatures collected over a period of 12 months.
I plead with the Chair to give consideration to this matter, due to the number of citizens from coast to coast who would
urgently request the House to refer this petition to the appropriate committee in order that witnesses may be called and a proper assessment of the seriousness of the situation can be made by this government.


Madam Speaker:: We had received notice from the hon. member that he was going to present a petition. In fact, we received several notices. 1 would remind hon. members that we appreciate receiving notices as a matter of courtesy to the Chair because it makes the Chair better aware of the fact that several members will rise at the time petitions are called. I thank the hon. members for sending me those notices.
Now the hon. member would like his petition to be read. I just remind the House that this can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Therefore I ask the House; is there unanimous consent to the proposal by the hon. member that the petition be read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Walter David Baker: David Smith said no.



POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I have raised before. In submitting to you that the Standing Orders are clear that obtaining unanimous consent is not the only way that a petition can be read. I have submitted to the Chair previously-and I believe the Chair has agreed with me-that the discretion lies with the Speaker. If the Speaker chooses to exercise it by requesting unanimous consent, that is a discretion that is properly within the jurisdiction of the Chair. However, I submit to you that obtaining unanimous consent is not the only way in which the Chair can exercise that discretion. If the Chair chooses to do so, as it has done today, and seeks unanimous consent, that is one way of exercising its discretion, but I would not like to establish the precedent that the only way of doing it would be by unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to the Standing Order there is no discretion except in the case where a petition claimed some personal grievance requiring immediate remedy, in which case the matter contained therein may be brought in for immediate discussion.
From what I read in the Standing Orders and in Beauchesne, there is no discretion on the part of the Speaker. The Standing Orders are quite clear. I will read standing order 67(7) to the hon. member which says:
On the next day following the presentation of a petition, the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the Table the report of the Clerk of the Petitions-
April 7, 1982

which I have done.
-upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing the matter in breach of the privileges of this House-
That is what the report had said, that they were in order as to form.
-and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.
Therefore, the petition is deemed to have been read and received and therefore it is not for the Speaker to determine that the petition should be read.
1 would like to quote from Beauchesne, Citation 695.
A petition having been presented, and being in order as to the form, may, with unanimous consent, be ready by the Clerk, and may thereafter, with unanimous consent, be referred to a committee.
There are some references there which I have not consulted but which I assume to be precedents in this respect. Therefore, as I read the Standing Orders and the interpretation in Beauchesne, I feel that I have no discretion to decide to have the petitions read, unless the House so desires and expresses that desire by unanimous consent.
Mir. Nielsen: I do not intend to pursue the matter at this time since there is other more urgent government business to come before the House. But I do intend to pursue it further.
As the Chair knows, I have raised the matter before. 1 might put back-to-back with Beauchesne's Citation 695 which has been cited, Citation 694 which states:
While a member has clearly a right to ask that a petition be read, it is a privilege, like many others, subject to the approval of the House itself. In case of opposition, the Speaker will put the Member's motion, "that the petition be read", formally to the House.
As 1 say, I will not pursue it further today. I will go back into Hansard to see where we have had this exchange before and determine if we can get the matter straightened out. 1 do believe it is important not to set an undesirable precedent here, which 1 think might be happening.


Madam Speaker:: I read Beauchesne's Citation 694 as well. 1 have the feeling that it refers to older practices of the House because there is an obvious discrepancy between that one sentence and the Standing Orders. When Beauchesne is not too clear 1 suppose the next reference for any member of the House would be the Standing Orders.
1 appreciate the hon. member's concern. 1 also appreciate that he will want to look into it, as 1 will myself.
Introduction of Bills



UNIFORM EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-651, an act to provide for uniform education standards.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a council whose main function it would be to encourage uniform education standards which, at present, vary from one province to another in Canada.


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


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-I04, respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act.


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


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-105, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.


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


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-106, respecting energy monitoring and to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
April 7, 1982
Introduction of Bills


Marc Lalonde: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-107, respecting Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards.


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

[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3).


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


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-652, to amend the Nuclear Liability Act (limitation period).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce in the House of Commons today a private member's bill to amend the Nuclear Liability Act. The purpose of my bill is to provide a fair limitation period from the date a victim becomes aware or should reasonably have become aware of an injury or condition such as cancer that is caused by exposure to radiation. This would be done by an amendment to Section 13 of the act which would delete the present ten-year limitation. With this amendment victims would have three years from the dates of discovery of their injuries or damages to take legal action.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has indicated that he supports the intent of this amendment, and I look forward to its speedy adoption by all members of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Peterson:: Madam Speaker, I request the consent of the House to return to tabling of reports. I would like to tabie a report which has just come into my hands, and that would only be possible with the permission of the House.


Erik Nielsen: You should have stayed awake.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House unanimously consent to reverting to tabling of documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank hon. members.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I have the honour to present to the House the 1981 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,891, 3,189, 3,271, 3,607, 3,716, 3,753, 4,052, 4,065 and 4,082.


Mr. Towers: 1.	(a) By province, how many Canadians receive (i) door-to-door (ii) general (iii) post office box (iv) roadside box (v) neighbourhood box mail delivery service (b) in each of the past five years, what was the aggregate and percentage rate of increase in service in each category?
2.	During the next five years, does the Post Office Department have any plans to expand door-to-door and roadside rural delivery and, if so, for each province, what are such plans?
3.	How many Canadians, by province, do not have either door-to-door or rural roadside mail box delivery service?
4.	How many applications are pending, at this time, from individuals or communities who wish improved postal delivery service?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: On the date this question was asked, an answer was not readily available. This information has now been compiled as of March 31, 1981.
1.	See tables below.
2.	Yes. Plans are on a national basis in response to service needs.
3.	On March 31, 1981:
Newfoundland	107.481
P.E.I.	12.430
Nova Scotia	85,331
New Brunswick	100,076
Quebec	443,553
Ontario	469,052
Manitoba	125.059
Saskatchewan	193,652
Alberta	288,319
British Columbia	211,069
April 7, 1982

Order Paper Questions
4.	In December, 1980, the number of applications received at postal headquarters was 91. In December, 1981, the number
was 38.
1.	(a) Number of Households Served	.
31 March 1981
Province	(i) door-to-door	(ii) general deliveryNewfoundland	50,187	43,561P.E.I.	14,404	3,316Nova Scotia	136,484	26.322New Brunswick	92,775	45,997Quebec	1,735,731	102,820Ontario	2,472,707	73,655Manitoba	259,548	35,427Saskatchewan	174,424	10,563Alberta	530,790	61,030British Columbia	790,717	33,305(b)	Fiscal year ending	Per cent	Per centMarch 31	door-to-door	var	general delivery var1981	6,257,767	+ 1.7	435,996 +9.11980	6.151,525	+ 3.8	399,496 +5.51979	5,924,242	+3.1	378,722 +17.71978	5,748,360	+2.6	321,803 -3.31977	5,605.271	322,949
data available by fiscal year only
(iii)	(iv)	(v)post office box	roadside box	neighbourhood box62,101	11.984	1,8199,114	15,591	058.402	85.484	60751,643	54.147	2,436335,666	298.446	5,067380,867	379,537	14,53088,668	16,853	964182.954	9.931	135211,086	44,316	16,203171,930	131,032	5,834post office box	Per cent var	roadside box	Per cent var	neighbourhood box	Per cent var1,552,431	+ 5.3	1,047,321	-0.3	47,595	+29.01,474,530	+3.4	1,050.173	+ 1.8	36,885	+ 17.61,426,144	+4.4	1,031,221	+ 2.0	31,367	+ 21.41.366,418	+4.1	1,010.557	+ 5.4	25,836	+ 25.51,312,717	959.250	20,588


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government announce a postal rate increase and, if so, did it take into consideration the disastrous effect that this might have on charitable organizations such as the Christmas Seal campaign, the Easter Seal campaign and the United Way, since these groups use the postal service quite heavily for solicitation, the receiving of donations and the sending of receipts?
2.	Will the government take immediate steps to change any proposed increases to exempt such groups from postal charges that might greatly hinder their essential work on behalf of many persons?


Gary Francis McCauley: 1. Yes. Representations were received from interested parties, including charitable organizations, and were given Canada Post's full consideration.
2.	It is not Canada Post's intention to effect any changes at this time concerning postal rates.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past ten years, what was the amount of foreign capital invested in Canadian industrial or business enterprises?
2.	Is there a breakdown of the total amount invested by each country and, if so, what is the breakdown?
3.	Is there an estimate of the number of jobs created in Canada by the inflow of such capital and, if so, what is the estimate?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	According to information compiled by Statistics Canada, the gross inflows of foreign direct investments invested in
Canadian industrial or business enterprises from 1971 to 1980 are as follows:
1971	$1,735 million	1976	$1,723 million1972	$1,444 million	1977	$1,871 million1973	$1,636 million	1978	$2,683 million1974	$1,850 million	1979	$2,645 million1975	$1,777 million	1980	$3,400 million (estimate)2. No.	3.	The government does not have a reliable estimate of the number of jobs created in Canada as a result of the inflow of foreign capital.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Docs Canada Post Corporation operate certain trucks bearing their name along with an advertisement that the corporation is providing "space age" communications and, if so, is this intended to inform the public that postal service is fast?
2.	Docs the government receive frequent complaints about slow postal service?
3.	Is it government policy to determine the reasons for any breakdown in "space age" communications and is any breakdown due to letters being sent by satellite that have been lost somewhere up in space and, if so, what steps, if any, is the government taking to bring these down?
4.	Has the government received any complaints from any sources whatsoever about space being cluttered with undelivered Canadian mail?


Gary Francis McCauley: 1. Yes.
2.	The Canada Post Corporation receives favourable correspondence as well as complaints.

April 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions
3.	The Intelpost service is continually monitored for its performance.
4.	No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government sign an agreement concerning the co-ordination of forest research and, if so, with which provinces?
2.	Were there provinces where no agreement was signed and, if so, in those provinces, what action was taken to (a) avoid duplication of effort (b) initiate forest renewal programs (c) enhance forest research programs ?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. Yes. A memorandum of Understanding concerning the co-ordination of forest research was signed by the Minister of the Environment and the British Columbia minister of forests and came into effect November 24, 1981. The Canada-Ontario joint forest research agreement, which served as the model in developing the above memorandum has been in place for over 20 years.
2. Yes. Memoranda of Understanding have yet to be signed with the remaining eight provinces. Their status is as follows: Awaiting provincial acceptance for signing: Alberta, Nova Scotia. Under development: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland. Discussions to be initiated: Quebec, Prince Edward Island.
(a)	The staffs of the Canadian Forestry Service's regional Forest Research Centres work closely with their provincial counterparts to ensure the most efficient use of forest research resources available so as to minimize duplication of effort.
(b)	Responsibility for forest renewal on lands within provincial jurisdiction rests with the individual provincial governments. Discussions are now being held to consider proposals to enable a co-operative approach by the federal and provincial governments to facilitate the initiation of forest renewal programs.
(c)	The federal forestry sector strategy for Canada, approved by cabinet in September, 1981, called for a greater emphasis on forest research. To implement this strategy, discussions have been held with the provinces to clarify the roles of the federal and provincial governments, and to encourage the provinces to increase their contributions in this regard.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 ?
2.	During (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981, what rate of interest did the government pay for the use of this money7
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the account during the fiscal year ending on March 31 (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981?
4.	For the same period, by year, what was the total amount (a) paid into the fund by servicemen and women (b) paid out of the account?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 4.	(a) Payments in CFSA by service personnel during fiscal year ending:
Current	Arrears	Transfers	TotalMar. 31/79	69.318,651.85	1.383.899.58	45.644.40	70.748,195.83Mar. 31/80	72,696,175.54	1,381,123.97	46,089.28	74,123,388.79Mar. 31/81	78.633,779.75	1,422.442.44	32.051.29	80,088,273.48
(b) Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending:
Mar. 31/79	227,926,358.26
Mar. 31/80	253,964,531.63
Mar. 31/81	280,843.097.67


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the government commission a study respecting investment in the tourist industry by foreign investors?
2.	Is the study being conducted by Fiickling Johnston Ltd. and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost (b) how many persons arc involved?
3.	Is the government's position to ensure that key sectors of the economy arc Canadian owned and controlled and, should the study conclude that foreign investors are welcome in Canada, would such investment run contrary to that position?
1.	Balance in the Canadian Forces superannuation account	
as at: Canadian Forces Superannuation Actuarial Liability		
	Account Account	Total
(a)	Mar. 31/79 2,395,773,602.33 5,678.838,368.32	8.074,61 1.970.65(b)	Mar. 31/80 2,449,242,227.75 6,203,543,207.94	8,652.785,435.69(0	Mar. 31/81 2,523,331,978.89 6.804,085,933.01	9.327,41 7,91 1.902	Rates of interest for	(a)	1978-79 Quarter ending Jun. 30/78	1.8674%Quarter ending Sept. 30/78	1.9102%Quarter ending Dec. 31/78	1.9228%Quarter ending Mar. 31 /79	1.9304%(b)	1979-80 Quarter ending Jun. 30/79	1.9528%Quarter ending Sept. 30/79	1.9702%Quarter ending Dec. 31 /79	1.9786%Quarter ending Mar. 31 /80	1.9998%(c)	1980-81 Quarter ending Jun. 30/80	2.0507%Quarter ending Sept. 30/80	2 0910%Quarter ending Dec. 31 /80	2 1033%Quarter ending Mar. 31/81	2.1528%3.	Amount of Interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year	ending: Canadian Forces Superannuation Actuarial Liability	Account Account	Total(a)	Mar. 31 /79 94,188,404.31 216,512.549.60	310,700.953.91(b)	Mar. 31/80 99,395,779.50 240,704,839.62	340,100.619.12(c)	Mar. 31/81 131,624,814.29 348,181.725.07	479,806,539.36
April 7, 1982


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	No. The government commissioned a study respecting investment in the tourist industry by all investors.
2.	The study is being conducted by Hickling Partners, (a) the cost is $42,800.00. (b) eight.
3.	The government's objective in commissioning the study is to determine how to attract investors who could contribute to the development of tourism in Canada. The study is not concerned with foreign investment per se. However, the government welcomes foreign investment which is, or is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada.


Mr. Herbert: What is the charge, if any, per apartment dweller for the delivery of mail into postal boxes in the lobbies of apartment buildings?


Gary Francis McCauley: None.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Is Air Canada in the midst of negotiations to service the requirements of British Airways at Terminal 2 at the Toronto International Airport and, if so, on what date will the negotiations be completed?
2.	Is there a contrary view being expressed by Department of Transport officials and/or Mr. Walter McLeish that the Airways ought to be serviced or confined to Terminal 1?
3.	Is Terminal 1 overcrowded and are there substantial delays to international carriers being serviced at Terminal 1 and, if so, what arc all the details?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. Yes. A letter of intent has been signed between the two airlines and a contract is currently under review by Air Canada's legal branch. British Airways are expected to commence operations in Terminal 2 with Air Canada on May 17, 1982.
2.	The transfer of international traffic from Terminal 1 has been one of Transport Canada's traffic management objectives for some time. It is proposed that additional international facilities be constructed in Terminal 2 by 1983/84 to permit such transfers to take place. British Airways' arrangements with Air Canada are, therefore, complementary to the department's initiatives.
3.	Terminal 1 frequently experiences periods of congestion and delays to passengers. The problems occur in the public concourses, baggage claim areas, and parking and curb facilities. A construction program is underway in Terminal 1 to increase the size of the international baggage claim and associated sortation areas as well as the public area on the
arrivals level. No immediate relief is foreseen for parking or curb facilities.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have a notice from the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) under Standing Order 26.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the unilateral refusal of the Japanese government to negotiate a reduction in its automotive exports to Canada or to make a commitment that the Japanese will produce automotive products in Canada equal in value to their sales in this country, thus ensuring a deterioration in this sector, which already has 20,000 permanently displaced workers. Such a grave situation demands immediate government action in the form of emergency surcharges or quotas on all Japanese automotive products until an equitable agreement has been reached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have considered the hon. member's application with considerable care and, unfortunately, I must conclude that the motion proposed by the hon. member cannot be put to the House. The matter is, of course, a very serious one, but it does appear to be of a continuing nature and cannot be considered as a sudden emergency in the country. I remind the hon. member that the matter has been-


Erik Nielsen: It is also the subject for tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: -consistently raised in question periods from the end of January until even yesterday when the question was raised. As a matter of fact, the question has been raised practically daily-


Mr. Lewis:: By us.


Madam Speaker:: -since March 19 last.

April 7, 1982

Motions for Papers
There is another aspect which cannot be overlooked, and that is that negotiations are still continuing concerning this particular matter, so I must say I cannot accede to the request of the hon. member because Standing Order 26(16)(a) provides that a matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency. Previous Speakers and I have considered this necessary to justify setting aside the business of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course, it could also be pointed out that this is the subject matter of our opposition day tomorrow, as has already been filed and tabled.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the House leader for the official opposition, it has to be pointed out that until five o'clock today tomorrow's subject matter is not necessarily the subject matter put down by the Conservative Party.


Erik Nielsen: That is a pretty fine hair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 87 in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski)?

Motion No. 87-Mr. Korchinski:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications, including telephone submissions, regarding the application by Cargill Grain Limited for a grant from DREE towards construction of an Oil Seed Crushing Plant at Melfort, Saskatchewan.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notice of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Motion stands.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the tabling and debate of the energy bills. I wonder if I might raise this point now. This morning Bill C-103 was printed-


David P. Smith: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I request-


Madam Speaker:: I have one point of order. I cannot hear two at the same time.


David P. Smith: Can the hon. member wait until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) gets here?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter because of what has happened around here in the last few weeks. The point concerns the timing of the energy bills and the debate. A draft bill with respect to energy security was tabled about a year ago. Seventy-five changes were incorporated in that bill, which became a new bill, Bill C-94, with which Your Honour is familiar. Then there was the bellringing episode in the House. The bill is now divided as a result of an all-party agreement. One would have thought that Bill C-94 would have been split into eight bills and that we would have known what would be in them and then would simply debate them. But that is not the case. There have been changes in the bills as they are split.
This morning we received a bill, so we have had it for about three hours. It is a most complicated tax bill containing about eight different tax changes. There are discrepancies not only between that bill and Bill C-94 but between it and the previous budget bills. When we have had an opportunity to examine it we may find that there are also discrepancies between it and the Ways and Means motion which was tabled a couple of days ago. Without going into detail, already I have picked up discrepancies in the area of the Canadian ownership charge, the transportation and fuel compensation recovery charge and the Canadian ownership account.
It is very difficult for the opposition to prepare for second reading debate properly when the bills are dropped upon us just about two hours ahead of the debate. We will debate this bill just after the vote this afternoon, at about 4:15 or 4:30 p.m. That does not give us enough time to prepare properly for debate on the bill.
In the interests of fairness and procedure, I would ask the minister to consider the wisdom of dropping these bills on the House without giving adequate time for members to consider them. The committee is meeting at the moment and through this afternoon will continue to meet. How can the energy critics of the various parties attend the meeting of the special



:
*

April 7, 1982

committee while debate on second reading of Bill C-103 takes place in the House?
I bring these matters to your attention and to the attention of the government, Madam Speaker, to point out the difficulties the opposition has in preparing for debate on a complicated bill with only one or two hours' notice. I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will take this seriously. I think the government would want to be fair to the opposition and give it a chance to prepare properly before speaking on these bills.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I sympathize with the points raised by the hon. member but I should like to draw to his attention that the so-called discrepancies he has referred to that occur between Bill C-94 and the Petroleum Administration Act that was given first reading yesterday, are all in the Ways and Means motion that was tabled on Monday. The hon. member should not claim that he has been taken by surprise at the changes in the figures that relate to particular taxes. As a matter of fact, the official opposition drew attention to these changes yesterday afternoon.
As far as the bill itself is concerned, it was tabled at ten o'clock last night and was given first reading with the unanimous agreement of the House. This came after consultation between the House leaders and with their agreement that we could proceed in this way so that the opposition would have as much time as possible to debate the bill and have it referred to the committee as early as possible. The modifications in the bill were contained in the Ways and Means motion which was published last Monday.
Perhaps my hon. friend's House leader has not been in touch with him in this regard; I do not know about that. He says that the bill may come up for debate as early as 4.15 this afternoon. We finish at six o'clock today and I do not believe that we will be through with the bill by then, so we will most likely come back to it later.
As far as I am concerned, if the hon. member wants to speak twice on the bill, and if the House agrees, he is welcome to do so. If not, he may put someone else up to speak or he may wait until we come back to the bill. In that case he may have a couple of weeks to get ready so he will not do as he did yesterday, that is, read the wrong speech.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would point out that we are bound by a House order on these matters. With respect to the suggestion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), I would point out that the block time that is allotted to the NDP may be used as that party chooses. The provisions of Standing Order 31 are suspended, so if the hon. member wishes to speak for an hour or for the whole seven, he can do that.
I find it strange that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) would not have the moxie in regard to parliamentary proceedings to have read the Votes and Proceedings for last Monday where, as the minister pointed out, he would have found the full text of the Ways and Means
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton
motion. I do not know how he can now claim to be surprised. I cannot understand why he should be whining about more time. We are ready and we have been ready for some weeks to discuss this measure. It has been improved in a very small way by the minister-he still has a long way to go-but we are prepared to enter into discussion of any of these measures at any time. We do not need any further time to prepare.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way that he might like to have a study period with his colleagues in order to familiarize himself with the provisions in this and the other energy measures that have come down. If he wishes our help, we will be only too happy to co-operate with him.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I do not need the rather outworn suggestions of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). As far as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned, I notice that even when he has the carrot in front of him he still resorts to the stick.
The point is that a Ways and Means motion does not contain all of the bill. It is part of the bill, but there are other parts that were not in the motion.
My examination of the bill has indicated a few changes. I will not go into them in detail but I want to point out to the hon. member for Yukon and to the minister that, for example, the Canadian ownership charge was $25 per cubic meter or $4 per barrel in the draft, and it has dropped to $7.25 per cubic meter or $1.15 per barrel. That is a crucial change in the government's concept of nationalizing companies and how we pay for that.
I will not get into the debate here, Madam Speaker, but I will take the minister up on his suggestion about further speeches. I will decide whether I want to go into debate this afternoon, but I am putting the government on notice that we want some fairness in the way these bills are dealt with.
I can tell the former minister of public works, the member from-where is it-Yukon-that if he wants to debate energy with me any time, I am ready.


Mr. Jarvis:: That would be cruel and unusual punishment.


Madam Speaker:: I sympathize with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway but of course all this is being done under an order of the House and pursuant to the negotiations that took place between the leaders of all parties, so there is not much I can do for him. I sympathize with him, but there is a House order and we have to comply with it.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) about Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers. I was on my feet at the time you called the last three points of order.

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
I wonder if the hon. member could inform the House when Motions Nos. 62, 63 and 64 which have been on the Order Paper for the last ten months, will be brought before the House?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have conveyed the request of the hon. member to the minister involved on previous occasions. I will be happy to convey his request again.


Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 6, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I notice that the minister is running out of the House as we commence further debate on this bill. As we know, he just tabled the Petro-Canada annual report and said that he was very pleased that there was black ink in the report rather than red ink. I have had a few moments to review the annual report. I can understand why the minister would hightail it out of the House before this matter could be reviewed and discussed. As we take a look at the annual report, it is very clear how the government has been able to arrive at the so-called black ink.
I direct the attention of hon. members to certain highlights in the report. For example, on page one it is pointed out that net earnings before preferred share dividends of a subsidiary owned by Petro-Canada were $203 million. This sounds very impressive until we calculate what those earnings are a percentage of in terms of total sales, and we find that the earnings figure is actually a little over 7 per cent on total sales of $2.7 billion. This compares with last year when the government had less of a finger in this operation and on sales of $1 billion it earned $163 million or 16 per cent pre-tax. The fine hands of government and of the minister have already reduced the earnings ratio in terms of sales with respect to Petro-Canada from a 16 per cent return on sales in 1979 and 1980 to a mere 7 per cent return in terms of sales in 1981.
That is only part of the story. As we all know, when we are dealing with government Crown corporations and their annual reports and statements, it is important to read the notes to the statements because that is where auditors feel they must disclose some of the shenanigans of the government in order to
make what appear to be red figures black figures for public consumption.
I refer hon. members of the House to notes 8, 9, 10 and 11 in particular which appear on pages 38 and 39 of the Petro-Canada annual report. I am sure many people in the country who are now inflicted with interest rates of 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 per cent with respect to business activities will be interested to know that as far as Petro-Canada is concerned the government allowed it to go into a preferred share issue where the interest rate last year was approximately 9 per cent per annum. Think what business people could be doing in this country with money at their disposal at 9 per cent per annum! I am not talking about any small amount of money. I am talking about $1,250 million which was made available to Petro-Canada at 9 per cent per annum, according to the auditors, for the year ending December 31, 1981.
But again that is only part of the story. If we read further notes, note ten in particular, we find that the government has doctored-up something they call a convertible note. Convertible notes are in fact government loans to Petro-Canada. This is what the auditors say:
The notes, which are non-interest bearing, will be converted into common shares of the corporation. Interest on the revolving-term loan has been reflected as deferreds interest pending conversion of the notes which will create contributed surplus against which the deferred interest will be charged.
Here again we have the typical doctoring which goes on when the government gets its finger into commercial business activity. For obvious political reasons, the government does not like to show the true colours of its operations. Consequently, we doctored statements, such as the ones we see in the annual report of Petro-Canada tabled in the House by the minister just a few minutes ago.
Of course many of us are dazzled by the billions and billions of dollars which the government has launched us into as far as the activities of Crown corporations are concerned. As we know, it is proposed in another bill that the government increase the capitalization of Petro-Canada to something in the $6 billion range. How many of us realize that even now the government is a very active participant in Crown corporations without the bill that is before us today, without other pieces of legislation.
I am referring to the fact that in total the government has Crown corporations with assets totalling something like $30 billion at the present time. We did a fast calculation because frankly we were somewhat curious to see what was the rate of return of the Crown with respect to the $30 billion investment in commercial activities. As I said, the commercial activities have a wide scope. They include things such as the production of pop in competition with Coca-Cola. They are in the fashion business and in a wide range of activities. If I have a chance, perhaps I will read into the record some of the rather startling names of companies which have been incorporated by the government to further commercial activities. On the question of the total impact of the activities, the $30 billion invested, we find that the rate of return of the government is 6.3 per cent.
April 7, 1982

This is what they are doing with money which they have to go out on the street to borrow at interest rates as high as 19.5 per cent. Hon. members will recall the last Canada Savings Bond issue. That was the going rate the government has to pay for money at that time. The net result is that the sheer loss in interest income over the rate of return on the $30 billion of investment in various Crown corporations at the present time is something like $3,072 million or $130 for every man, woman and child in Canada in the last year alone.
Let me put it into perspective. In terms of assets, what does a $30 billion investment really mean? If the government wanted to put it into this context, it would be equal to the government owning all of General Motors of Canada, all of the Ford Motor Company, Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Gulf Canada, Hudson's Bay, Massey-Ferguson, Texaco Canada, Simpsons-Sears and MacMillan Bloedel combined.
Notwithstanding the fact that the government has already picked up that magnitude of investment in the commercial sector, it is saying, "we crave more", to the point that it even wants the bill we are now debating passed so that the minister, at will, can not only incorporate new companies to go into the commercial Field but can start gobbling up other companies already in that field, with only a secondary recourse to Parliament in the form of the negative resolution spelled out in the bill. That is the magnitude of what we are talking about. Basically, the government has lost all perspective. The government somehow feels that its job is to run business, as opposed simply to creating the atmosphere for business to operate within.
1 have never understood the statist's approach which the government seems to like so much, and of course, in which it is encouraged to take by the socialists to my left. The truth is that I believe they like it because they clearly misunderstand how business works and feel it is a great area for more and more patronage and pork-barrelling in which the government, in particular, loves to engage. I say that because, when you think of it, government that stays out of business has everything going for it. First, it does not have to invest any money, although it can create the atmosphere for investment. Government can entice other people to invest. But if government stays out of business, it does not have to get involved in management. Governments do not have to make the kinds of mistakes such as those which occurred in the Consolidated Computer matter. In that case, the people of Canada had to absorb $125 million in total loss as a result of this government's mistakes in running a commercial activity which it should never have got into in the first place. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when government stays out of business it does not run that ultimate risk of losing an entire investment, such as was done in the Consolidated Computer Corporation matter.
Again, when government stays out of business, think of what government does. In effect, it says, "You in the private sector put up your $1 million or your $10 million and if you win, half
Energy, Mines and Resources
of your winnings will be taxed. However, if you lose, that is your problem. Go bankrupt, but we hope you will try again.''
When you think of it, government has it made. Yet this government is so confused that it believes somehow or other it is in the public interest not to create the atmosphere for business, not to tax business-basically to stay out of business-but to jump into business with both feet to the extent of $30 billion of public funds.
Again, what I think is totally misunderstood about government getting into business is the fact that government is supreme. Government can tax at any level it sees fit, provided it can get that kind of measure through the House. Government is supreme. Why does government then want to take the responsibility of running a business itself? That is the tough part. I suggest it can be shown that every time government has to meet the competition of the private sector it cannot compete as effectively as the private sector.
In that connection, it is very interesting to read the statement made by the minister on why he wants this legislation put through. He says, among other things, that he wants to be able to create these new "children" or entities to compete within the public sector. Do hon. members notice that he does not say, "To compete with the private sector"? He says that it is his longing to have two, three, four or five "children" all competing with each other in the public sector. Does that really make sense? Does it really make sense to divide up this country where public corporations compete with public corporations and presumably private corporations compete with private corporations or with the public corporations? I am not sure what the minister has in mind.
In short, it seems to be bureaucracy gone amuck. It is simply a concept out of control. Rather than have what at one time looked horrible enough which has now become such massive government intervention through the 26 corporations to which I have referred totalling $30 billion, the government actually wants the blanket power to create more and more corporations to compete with the corporations already out there in the public sector.
I know that most of us want to get to vote on this bill fairly early this afternoon, but I felt it important for us to draw back and ask ourselves, as I indicated last evening; are we really equipped to handle the type of proliferation of new Crown corporations which the government is asking us to okay through the passage of this bill? We have no Crown corporation legislation in this country. We have no mechanism by which the activities of Crown corporations can be reviewed in depth by an appropriate committee of the House. We have no minister responsible for Crown corporations in general. The responsibility is spread all over the place. Take your pick, Mr. Speaker. Ask any of the ministers to report to the House concerning one or more Crowm corporations under his or her jurisdiction and I think you will be shocked at the lack of knowledge ministers have concerning the activities of the Crown corporation chosen.

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
In short, we are asking the government from this side of the House, from the official opposition, to draw back and reconsider. The government does not need the bill now before us. The government does not need the power to create more and more Crown corporations. The government has demonstrated well that it does not know how to run the Crown corporations under its jurisdiction now. Let me give one example of that. When we were in power, we had an opportunity to review in depth the internal operation of a company called Canadair. Canadair was acquired in 1974 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) through another government. In 1974 the House was told the acquisition was only a temporary transition. The government wanted to pick up Canadair with the hope that it could get the corporation back into the private sector without delay. But when we had an opportunity to take a look at this matter, we found that it was reasonable to expect, judging from what management told us in 1979, that Canadair's total exposure to a debt and equity commitment from the Government of Canada would be about a $200 million item, and that in any event most of the debt would be paid off by 1982. Canadair then would be in an earnings position, having about $38 million per annum profit starting in 1982 which would increase thereafter. That is what we were told less than three years ago. We now find through miscalculation, mistakes and error, that the total government exposure with respect to Canadair is not $200 million but $1.35 billion. What a colossal miscalculation! Instead of that corporation being in a profitable position at present, we are told very frankly that if the government had not capitalized the various items it chose to capitalize, there would have been a loss of $140 million. That is government in action. That is the government which made a former colleague and minister, Jean-Pierre Goyer, vice-chairman of that corporation. That is the patronage and pork-barrelling to which I have referred in which this government loves to engage when it gets entities at its disposal.
Tragically it is your money, Mr. Speaker, it is our money and it is the money of the average Canadian which the government is earmarking for this type of activity. Someone in the House sometime down the road will have a colossal mess to clean up as a result of the reckless, irresponsible, poorly managed commercial activities of this government if this bill now before us is passed.
We are virtually giving the government a blank cheque to create more of this activity in future with even less control by the people of Canada through the good offices of the House of Commons. Surely it is time for members to say they have had enough. Let us stop the minister right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear from the beginning that this party will vote against Bill C-102 for a wide number of reasons, although not the same reasons as outlined by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I would like to start with two of the rather important and startling principles which the minister has introduced in this piece of legislation.
The first is the creation of Crown corporations by order in council. What can happen is that five members of cabinet can get together late one night and have researchers and members of various departments write up some background papers on a Crown corporation. The five of them can pass the order in council, it will come in and be put on the notice paper and it might say: Gopher Gulch Crown Corporation. It might seem innocuous to those of us in the House, but we have a limited period of time in which to respond. If 30 members of the House sign a motion to the effect that the order be revoked, then we have a negative resolution which will come before the House for a maximum three hour debate. The really peculiar thing, which was touched on by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) last night, is that after the three hour debate, even if every member of this chamber voted against it, it could still become law. What could happen is that it would go over to the other place; and if they do not concur in the negative resolution, it becomes law. I think all members of the House should be aware of this because it is a crucially new and unique way of abusing the House of Commons. Clause 8 of the bill says:
Where a motion taken up and considered in accordance with this section is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced ... but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force immediately ...
I find it astonishing, Mr. Speaker, to see the minister put this kind of legislation before the House, legislation which will completely underride the concept of democracy. Even if every member of the minister's own party voted against it, it can still become law. How can we possibly represent not only the partisan interests of our own party but the interests of Canadians when the only chamber in Canada whose members are elected from all regions can vote against something and it still becomes law? I find that extremely peculiar, and I will come back to it later this afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It makes a mockery of Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: It definitely makes a mockery of Parliament. The second point also makes a mockery of Parliament because it is a negative resolution-even with all the fancy sounding sections referring to 30 members signing, and the minister changed it from 50 last night to 30, and from 20 in the Senate to 15 and so on-with time restraints, and has a mandatory guillotine in it. Therefore, rather than reforming this institution, about which we had eloquent speeches from all parties a couple of weeks ago, we have the minister introducing a bill which slides completely around Parliament. Regardless of Parliament's view, the most we will have is three hours on the floor. Even if we were all to vote against it, in comes the guillotine and it becomes law.
Those two principles alone, Mr. Speaker, should shock every member of the House who has any concept of democracy. We are faced with the possibility of having to vote for something which does so much to undo the very constitutional foundation of this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Hear, hear!
April 7, 1982


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-101 concerns new energy corporations. One would think that such an innocuous sounding piece of legislation would quickly find support in the House, perhaps from all sides. However, what is buried in the few meagre pages of this bill is another blow to the already reeling institution of the House. The long fingers of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), grubbing it seems for additional powers, have left their grimy prints all over this legislation. The stamp of executive power is visible throughout the bill to those few Members of Parliament who will actually take the time to read and honestly address its contents. The minister has obviously convinced his colleagues in the Liberal Party that he requires all the extraordinary powers spelled out, not only in this bill but in its predecessor, Bill C-48. Who knows what the ultimate scheme is? However, it is clear that the Liberals have chosen to put Canada's future in jeopardy by pursuing only oil and gas megaprojects at the cost of alternate energy, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. As you may have surmised by now, Mr. Speaker, almost all of Canada's economy is being thrown to the winds, along with the people who work in industries outside of the petroleum industry.
The drive behind this legislation and Bill C-48, and the bulk of the Liberal policy on energy in this session, is narrowly designed to maximize tax revenues to Ottawa at the cost of the public interest, regions, wildlife and environment. 1 might remind the minister of what he said to me in the House on third reading of Bill C-48 where I put forward a proposal to have a definition of a "spill". Hopefully we will not have a spill, but if we do, at least there would be some way that those people who lost their livelihood, had their beaches damaged or endangered, could obtain redress in the courts. The minister said that my proposed definition of 100 litres was perhaps too high, that he might want to support ten litres. So the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and I promptly informed the minister that we would support ten litres; we thought it was a good idea to go lower. Mr. Speaker, such amendment was not supported by that side and was never put forward by the minister. He shied away from even something as small as that to protect the public interest, all in the name of having the power in the minister's hands and within the bureaucracy.


Marc Lalonde: Not ten litres-one drop!


James Ross Fulton: The minister would now like to have it down to one drop. That is not in Bill C-48, and that bill is now law.


Marc Lalonde: It covers everything, including one drop.


James Ross Fulton: Well, the minister has perhaps not read the provision as carefully as I have, but I note that many of the expert witnesses who came before the committee, people who are far more expert than he or 1, indicated there was a requirement for a spill definition.
The drive behind this bill, and Bill C-48, is an attempt to move into the jurisdiction, not only of the offshore areas but north of 60. It is both a geographical grab in Bill C-48 and a jurisdictional grab in this legislation now before us. Bill C-102
Energy, Mines and Resources
is based on the concept of a negative resolution procedure, that is, the delivery of power to cabinet where, by order in council and without notification to Members of Parliament, Crown corporations large and small can be spawned. If the process is to be seen as and is to be democratic, it must be reversed. Proposals for new Crown corporations must first come before the House, not after they have been designed and delivered. If the minister wants to have the capacity to create speedily Crown corporations or anything else, the rules of the House need to be changed. I find this institution almost impossible to operate in because it moves so ponderously and slowly.


Marc Lalonde: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: It is no longer capable of responding to the interests certainly of my constituency, which is the same size as France. I have to serve 100,000 Canadians in 350,000 square miles, and I know what their interests are and I know how to put it together in legislation. I know the government cannot deliver there; the vote at the polls demonstrates that where they now get less than 20 per cent of the vote. So what the minister is opting for, obviously supported by the Liberal Party, is to make this end run around Parliament, bring in the guillotine and have the right to pass legislation against the will of every Member of Parliament. I think we have to look at it very carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I know the House has to vote against Bill C-102. Anyone who votes for Bill C-102 is voting against democracy in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And for tyranny.


James Ross Fulton: The paranoia of the Liberal Party becomes highly visible with the inclusion of closure or the guillotine in Section 7, subsection (4), making a debate of three hours on a corporation which might well be financed to the tune of billions, as we saw with Petro-Canada yesterday, increased financing of $6.5 billion. It could be in a very vast field, Mr. Speaker. We have no way of knowing that the Crown corporation set up under the Canada Business Corporations Act under any of these sections, whether it is to explore, develop, produce, gather or refine, process, purchase, sell, import, export, distribute, store, transport, or otherwise deal in all sorts of fuel and energy, or to produce, distribute, market, and so on. And so it goes on.
One thing that we all know is that once a Crown corporation is set up under the Canada Business Corporations Act, even if it is done under Bill C-102, once it is in operation, it may operate for one minute in the energy field, as the minister tells the House it will. But then it could go into any purview that it desires. So what this really is, and it must be seen for what it is, is a cornerstone, a tip, a toe, allowing the government to set up, against the interests of the House, against the interests of the nation, Crown corporations in any field that are financed solely by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources making a phone call to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). That is what it is, and it is completely unacceptable.

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
Three hours, Mr. Speaker, that is the maximum that we will get to debate a Crown corporation that might be vastly larger than Petro-Canada.
This bill is the kind of parliamentary support for parliamentary reform. I guess it is supported by the Liberals. Number one, administration by order in council, which can override all of Parliament. That is the first strike against democracy. Then the mandatory guillotine, which is strike two. Then there is the three hour limit, which is strike three.
Let me make it quite clear that we in this party are not opposed to the creation of Crown corporations, be they totally public or of a mixed public and private nature.
There are areas in Canada's economy and social fabric where Canada's collective social goals and aspirations would be most rapidly and purposefully achieved through public ownership and Crown corporations.
But we on this side of the House-and 1 solicit support from members on the government side-object to the methodology of this proposal. Let them answer why proposals, if they are sound, accountable and in the public interest, cannot be brought first before Parliament and with some expedition put through the House. How are we to know, as I said before, what Gopher Gulch corporation really is when it is simply on the notice paper? Is it a $10,000 corporation, or a $1 billion corporation, is it for exploration, is it for pulp and paper? How are we possibly to know, Mr. Speaker, with the way this has been set up? We have no access to the government reports done on it, we have no idea where the design of government is going with any particular Crown corporation or grouping of Crown corporations.
What if the minister, after passage of this bill, were to list 100 corporations on the notice paper, how is the House to know which ones to debate? And even if we debate them all for three hours and we lose them all, the minister still gets them all. I find it passing strange. At times I think that I might be in Argentina or in a chamber in some other area of the world where such potential for legislation is perhaps more acceptable.
Bill C-102 is open to abuse by a very small group within Parliament-to be exact, only five members of cabinet- backed by unlimited bureaucratic resources for design and analysis, reports that would never be available to us in the House, information we would never have access to in judging the viability or need of such a new corporation.
So it is designed in secret, it is introduced by order in council by as few as five members of the government. Within 15 days the House requires the tabling of the notice of creation, and 30 days later it comes into force unless before the twentieth sitting day a resolution requesting revocation, signed by at least 30 members or 15 senators, is filed. Even then, with no support, without one member standing in support, that can still become law.
Why 30? I am puzzled. Yesterday it was 50, today it is 30. Yet to adjourn the House of Commons, as the Tories tried with the bells ringing for a couple of weeks, requires only two members. It only requires five to force a vote. And under the
Petroleum Administration Act it only requires ten. Why would we not follow some kind of parliamentary precedent in terms of the number of members? Why is the minister so interested in making it so difficult to bring in a negative resolution? Why has he set it up in such a way that even if we do negate the idea of a particular corporation, after only three hours of debate, it can still be passed by the other place.
I think we should be puzzled, Mr. Speaker, and we definitely should not pass such a piece of legislation. Then, within six days, there will be a debate of three hours maximum, followed by a vote. However, even if the House votes to revoke the new Crown corporation, it can go to the Senate and be passed. Here, as the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe pointed out last night, is a serious constitutional question. In theory, all members of the House could vote against the proposal; or we can reverse that and see it in the Senate, where exactly the same thing can occur. So we have seen a destabilization even of the awkward system of the House and the Senate that we have so far. That is under Section 7, subsection (8).
I think we have to puzzle, Mr. Speaker, as to where the Liberals are leading the House. I am no longer confident that there are many on the government side who truly understand democracy.
In reference to the other House, it too has the mandatory 15 day passage and the three hour guillotine. So, what do we have? A bill that can spawn Crown corporations of every known variety, without prior notice to the House. As duly incorporated businesses they do not have to stay in the energy field one day or even one minute, and they can draw down unbelievable debts directly on to the taxpayer.
As was pointed out last night, there is not even a veil of security that corporations have that are incorporated in Canada, where the shareholders have some protection. The problems that are being put on to the taxpayers by this administration with Consolidated Computer were brought up many times in the House, where before they finally came to their senses $125 million of the taxpayers' money had flowed away.
Now the government says there is not enough money for medicare and not enough for post-secondary education, that there is no money to help farmers or to help small businesses. But there is enough money around to have such poor auditing and such poor planning, and yet not one head has yet rolled over it. That $125 million can be lost in four years, and what does the taxpayer get back? A 100,000 bucks. It is pretty fantastic.
Bill C-102 represents a dramatic rearrangement of the rules of the House. Without properly addressing and reforming the rules of the House it instead introduces a new style of legislation, which is so far-ranging, so totally contrary to our traditions. How can these Crown corporations be accountable to Parliament? When can they be formed? Why can they be formed? And they can be formed against a majority and in fact a total negative vote of the House of Commons.
April 7, 1982

The history of Crown corporations in Canada is a long one, beginning in 1841 with the formation of the Board of Works.
It was soon followed by the Nova Scotia Railway Company in 1859 and a number of harbour boards, long before Confederation.
Only this party, the NDP, and before it the CCF, consistently fought for the role of Crown corporations in Canada. However, no New Democrat in Canada would support this bill. It is truly a Trojan horse, with happy little Crown corporations on the outside, the Liberals almost not knowing what is inside the Trojan horse. But what is inside is no semblance of democratic principles or accountability.
The Conservatives I have listened to in the most recent speech generally like to attack Crown corporations-but for all the wrong reasons. They seem to forget, Mr. Speaker, that it was they who set up the CNR, the CBC, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board. Need I go on? They set up Ontario Hydro. The Conservatives love to attack Crown corporations, saying they are unaccountable, they are dangerous, they take business away, they destroy the business climate of Canada, they open the pork barrel. They do so, even though they know only too well about the pork barrel. It is one of the problems that the party on the government side has had difficulty in controlling-the desire to put every party member's defeated candidates on to boards, when they have no track record and no history whatsover in relation to the field that they might be going into, whether it is energy or the National Parole Board or anything else. They have created a nest that it is very difficult to sleep in.
I wish to go on for a moment to something that has been raised time and again in relation to this bill. It is a concern the House should have when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) cannot tell Canadians how many Crown corporations there are. I have a letter here dated February 8, 1982 from Treasury Board signed by H. J. Mullington, assistant secretary, Crown Corporations Division, to Michael J. Graham of the Library of Parliament. He indicates that as of February this year, the list of corporations in which the government has an interest records 306. I noted last night the Conservative member from Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe indicated there were about 170 Crown corporations.
To give the House some idea of why this bill is not required at this time when the minister is interested in Crown corporations to handle things in the energy field, let me remind the House of some of these subsidiaries of Petro-Canada which are Crown corporations.
There is Canertech Limited, Petro-Canada Consulting Corporation, Petro-Canada Exploration Inc., Asher American, Inc., Big Eagle Oil and Gas Ltd., Aquilla Holdings Ltd., Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd., GMI Co. (Bahamas) Ltd., Merit Oil Co. Ltd., Cal-Jet Holdings Ltd., Pay-N-Save Gas Stations Ltd., Opal Oils Limited, Commodore Oils Limited, Pacific Exploration Inc., Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd., Pacific Petroleums Espanola, Pacific Petroleums, Inc., Pacific Pipelines, Inc.,
Energy, Mines and Resources
Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Limited, Petro-Canada Norway, Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc., Petro-Canada Products Inc., Petro-Canada Resources Inc., Petro-Canada (U.K.) Limited, Petrofina Canada Inc., Arctic Islands Resources Ltd., Petroleum Transmisssion Company, Petron Petroleum Ltd., Rocair Limited, Tri-Mountain Petroleums Ltd., Value Serve Stations Ltd., Venezuelan Canadian Oils, and Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums.
Just listing those should give members of the House some idea that it is preposterous for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to come before the House with this bill, particularly with the undemocratic principles within it, and to tell us that he wants it so that he can set up Crown corporations to handle exploration, development, production, gathering and so on when there are already pages of Crown corporations. Perhaps the boards are not big enough so that he can appoint all his buddies. Perhaps that is why it is being set up. Frankly,
I cannot believe when you have that many subsidiaries in one large corporation in the energy field that you would come before the House of Commons with such a badly drafted and incredible piece of legislation that could not possibly be supported by anyone who understands democracy and takes the time to read the bill.
I will certainly be watching carefully members on that side who speak on this bill and then stand up and vote for it. 1 intend to make this bill an election issue in British Columbia. I will point out the sheer hypocrisy of anyone in British Columbia, if not anywhere in Canada, voting for a piece of legislation that takes away the right of the vote of every Member of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I might indicate that if the minister is rising to speak, that will close the debate. Is the minister rising to intervene in the debate? If so, I will have to recognize another two members who want to intervene.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some very brief remarks on this bill. I am not necessarily in accord with the manner in which the Crown corporations are going to be formed. I want to say something about the need for additional Crown corporations in this field.
For about eight months I sat discussing Bill C-48 in relation to the 25 per cent share of all federal Crown lands that will be assigned to either Petro-Canada or some other Crown corporation. Let me say in the House what I said in committee. I would find it very disturbing if all the holdings or ownership shares in partnerships and private companies that are going to be active on federal lands would be assigned to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada today is so large that it does not know its front from its rear end.
The oil industry will be growing substantially on federal lands, the Labrador coast, Hibernia, Sable Island, the Beaufort Sea, the Mackenzie region, and on the west coast and in connection with the oil sands and heavy oils. To even begin to think of the 25 per cent ownership share of all these properties

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
being assigned for administration through the Crown corporation called Petro-Canada would be a fallacy. It would be a terrible mistake.
When we discussed Bill C-48, we discussed the need for additional Crown corporations in this area. We strongly proposed that serious consideration be given to holding corporations taking over the 25 per cent share in some of the areas, holding corporations which do not get involved in the management of the corporation itself in relation to exploration, development and production.
I say this because Bill C-48 is a fact. It is in place. It is there. That 25 per cent ownership share will be assigned in every property to a Crown corporation. Therefore, in offering some advice to the minister and to the government on something that is needed, I again suggest to the minister that he consider very strongly the establishment of holding corporations which do not hire a vast number of government personnel to get involved in the actual development on some of these federal lands.
I wish to say again as I said yesterday, that in the area of the creation of boards for these corporations which will receive 25 per cent of the ownership or holdings in some of the properties in federal lands, every consideration be given to allowing the provinces to appoint a member to the board of directors of these corporations. The provinces could then be involved in establishing energy policy at the earliest opportunity in energy development in Canada. If a holding corporation is established to deal with the Labrador coast with respect to the 25 per cent ownership, I see no reason why some of the Atlantic provinces would not be permitted to appoint a member to the board of that corporation. What would be wrong with that?
The Beaufort Sea is going to be tied through a series of lines in a north-south direction with British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. What would be wrong with those three provinces being given the right to put a member on the board of directors of the Crown corporation that will own 25 per cent of all properties in the Beaufort Sea? What will be wrong with British Columbia putting somebody on the board of directors of the Crown corporation dealing with western offshore properties of which 25 per cent will be assigned to a federal Crown corporation? Indeed, the same would be true for Sable Island and Hibernia. The provinces are desperately interested in the development of oil and gas in these areas and should have a substantial input into policies associated with their development. Maybe the bill is not perfect in form and perhaps the method for dissolving some of these Crown corporations is not the best.
What I am attempting to say is that I favour the creation of some Crown corporations which will be assigned 25 per cent interest in some property on federally owned land. I think it would be wrong to assign that share of ownership in every case to Petro-Canada which, as a single corporation, would not be capable of managing that area of such vast diversity and complexity. That is my basic point and I simply say that it is a
point I made very strongly when we discussed Bill C-48. I just repeat it for the record here.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly to Bill C-102. While many Canadians had grave reservations about the two-week "Gong Show" which tied this place up for two weeks not very long ago, that demonstration, for all of its faults, focused the attention of many Canadians on some of the details of the National Energy Program which otherwise may have escaped their attention.
As was said a number of times by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), we in the NDP agree with much of the National Energy Program. However, we certainly do not agree with all of its contents. We disagree with it, as do members of the opposition party to my right, but in different areas.
I was asked on many occasions during that two-week gong show-the battle between the dingbats and the ding-a-lings that went on across the country which seemed like forever-to try to explain what the issue was all about. I described it basically as follows, that when the opposition parties wanted the bill split, the Conservatives wanted it split so that they could vote for the $6.5 billion more to the big oil companies and vote against the expansion of Petro-Canada and real Canadianization. The New Democratic Party wanted the bill split so we could vote for Petro-Canada and general Canadianization and vote against an extra $6.5 billion for the big oil companies. The Liberals wanted one undivided bill so they could give $6.5 billion extra to the oil companies and still masquerade it as reform. That was basically what the entire issue consisted of.
I am glad that at least the "Gong Show" was able to bring to the attention of Canadians the various motivations and objectives of all the parties during the consideration of this very important program.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) discussed the miserly allocation of funds within the program for renewables and alternate energy and illustrated the overemphasis placed on megaprogects with their high cost of drilling rigs and exploration in Hibernia, Beaufort, Alsands and the other areas. He talked about the great expense involved in developing those resources which are very difficult to reach, if in fact some of those resources are there at all. He related these expenses to the fact that if a small amount of that money was applied to developing conservation, renewables and alternate energy, the country would be much better served not only in terms of energy security but in terms of employment which couid be diversified across many regions of the country. This should be done instead of boosting the economies in a few local areas with high inflationary costs which sometimes are associated with megaprojects, which are concentrated in those areas. We have experienced this situation in Canada before.
Perhaps it is time for the government, as well as Canadians, to take a long, hard look at some of the available options and realize that we should be diversifying some of our efforts and
April 7, 1982

expenditures in order to serve ourselves and future generations far better than we are today.
One of our concerns is accountability. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody raised this concern yesterday. When other facets of the program are debated later, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) will discuss mechanisms for providing accountability for Crown corporations in much greater detail. That issue is one which perhaps is the key to the main social and political question which will have to be answered by Canadians and politicians not only in Canada but in the United States and throughout the industrialized world in the next few years.
This question does not only concern accountability in Crown corporations; it concerns accountability in the mechanics of Parliament and the whole question of parliamentary reform. As well, we must consider accountability for all those large corporations, private or public, which make many of the key decisions that closely touch the lives of the vast majority of Canadians.
It is rather astounding and somewhat alarming that the procedures for accountability which exist for agencies of the Crown are in many cases not much better presently than those for the private sector. While the minister and the government seem intent on holus-bolus creating perhaps dozens more instant Crown corporations-piggy-backing them on this bill or the rest of the NEP-I urge them to think seriously about the fact that not only will we have to develop better measures for Parliament to be able to hold the government and its Crown corporations to account, but we should attempt to structure into those corporations, when they are set up, positive input from their employees, communities or regions. This input should exist within the internal management mechanisms so that Canadians and Members of Parliament will not just be in the position of trying to remedy mistakes many years after they are made, because with that input things might be done somewhat differently.
We must look at it from both ends of the spectrum. I appeal to the minister and his government to ensure that they will serve some public wellbeing and purpose before they rush headlong into forming hundreds of new corporations. Last year, the government did not even know how many corporations it had and now, hell bent for leather, they are trying to create more without developing any appropriate accountability or management mechanisms.
It is important for us to be cautious about the sort of regulations which will apply. It should not only be an adversary system, whether involving unions, governments or oppositions checking on what the government corporation does. We should make sure that there are institutions in place on some of these giant rigs which will be working off all three coasts of Canada, to ensure that the type of attitude such as I read in a book review in The Globe and Mail on Saturday, March 13, does not occur here. The review refers to a book called "The Other Price of Britain's Oil", by W.G. Carson and the philosophies stated by one unrepentant oilman, who seemed to be very representative of that industry. It was in reference to laws and
Energy, Mines and Resources
regulations regarding the exploration and discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea. He said;
"We break your. . . laws every ... day; if we didn't, you wouldn't have one ... hole drilled in your .. . North Sea."
From the information I have received from people who have worked in and around that industry, that kind of operative philosophy is not unlikely to appear in Canadian exploration areas. We will have a very difficult time ensuring that the lives of Canadians and Canada's environment and economic future are secure. People who make statements like that in industries that are infamous for having that kind of attitude will not do us any favours unless we have some very ironclad agreements as to how they will operate.
It worries me, many of my colleagues, many people in the work force throughout this country, and many in the democratic organizations which represent workers, that it will be virtually impossible to have organized workers working on some of those rigs which will be in place off Canada's coasts.
I do not know if any hon. members here have seen the movie I saw a while ago when I was stranded in Calgary. Other people do not mind being stranded in Calgary, but I was stranded in Calgary on my way to my riding because my plane was not flying. 1 went downtown to kill some time and saw a movie called, I think, "The Outlanders". It was somewhat like "High Noon" in outer space, with Sean Connery playing the sheriff at some mining camp up on an asteroid. It was a fictional movie, but in the movie workers' food contained chemicals and drugs to induce more productivity.


Mr. Keeper:: A Liberal conspiracy!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That was fiction, but what is to stop any company or organization in that same type of absolutely isolated and controlled environment-which is exactly what exists out on the rigs-from making itself the law?
When we consider the kind of operative philosophy I quoted in that very timely book about North Sea oil exploration and development, we have to wonder just what kind of nightmare world we will create on some of those rigs. The people on the Ocean Ranger found out. People on other rigs off our coasts seem to be very worried about the same kind of thing happening today because of the same kind of dereliction of responsibilities. People feel threatened when they see 35-foot, 40-foot and 50-foot waves breaking along the Atlantic coast.
We had better be sure of what we are getting into. I am concerned not only about the issue of accountability but also about the whole range of issues respecting public priorities and public spending which must be taken into serious consideration before we rubber stamp the type of piggy-back bill the government is presenting in Bill C-102. For that reason and many others I oppose the bill before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on the understanding that he will close the debate.

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be short. I listened with great attention to the various speeches which have been made on this bill. When I listened to some of the speeches I could not help wondering whether the speakers were talking about something quite different from the bill that is before the House.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) made references to democracy, and I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) on accountability-
What this bill does is take a step forward in terms of the control by Parliament over Crown corporations. The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) complained about two corporations, Canadair and Consolidated Computer. I was tempted to remind him that those two companies have been the subject of government involvement without the opportunity for Parliament to debate the principle of those corporations at any time except when it came to debate the estimates of the various departments concerned.
If we look back over past practices by all governments since the beginning of the century, we find that governments have created Crown corporations by using the Canada Business Corporations Act and the acts which preceded it without any reference to Parliament. It was enough for a minister to get authorization from the cabinet to set up a company under the Canada Business Corporations Act, and that company was in operation. If public moneys were required, when estimates time came the matter was considered as an item in the estimates; but in many instances large numbers of Crown corporations in the past have been created by ministers resorting simply to the Canada Business Corporations Act.
What we are doing is giving Parliament two opportunities to look at any additional Crown corporations which might be created in the energy field and to debate those additional corporations and their activities. Rather, I should say there are three opportunities because there is also the bill now before the House asking Parliament for authorization to create those corporations.
Assuming this bill is approved by Parliament, what would happen? If at any time the government decided to create an additional energy corporation, there would be an opportunity for a debate in the House and in the Senate, if members of Parliament so wished, and a vote. In addition, if public moneys were required to make this corporation work and operate, that would be part of the estimates. The matter could be debated in the relevant committee and in both the House and the Senate.
While I understand the references made about the concept of democracy by the hon. member for Skeena, I argue that this bill indeed represents very significant progress from the previous situation and the previous practice. It would ensure several opportunities for both Houses of Parliament to have a say and to intervene when the government decides to create a Crown corporation in the energy field. In the past this has not been provided for and, as I indicated, one could go back and
find a large number of corporations which have been created under the Canada Business Corporations Act without Parliament's ever having an opportunity to debate the creation of such institutions.
I argue that this bill constitutes very significant progress from old and established practices which existed previously. Indeed, it brings more accountability of the government to Parliament and brings the democratic process into play more than ever before.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that we could have even more involvement. I suspect he found the answer himself when he said that what we need is rule changes in this House. I wholeheartedly agree with him, but this bill relates only to Crown Corporations in the energy field; it does not deal with the question of parliamentary reform. That question is the responsibility of other ministers and, I submit, involves the three parties in this House; but I would be one member of this House to speak very strongly in favour of parliamentary reform and more efficient rules.
I remind hon. members that when it came to creating Petro-Canada, I think it took over a year to get this House finally to pass the Petro-Canada bill. If I am not mistaken, we had to impose time allocation or closure to pass the bill because the Conservative opposition mounted a filibuster in relation to the creation of something which has proved to be of great value to this country. We came very close to losing that bill because it seemed as if it would never come out of the committee, and it could have disappeared through prorogation, the beginning of another session and so forth.
What we are doing with this bill is providing not less but more control to Parliament compared with previous practice. I urge my hon. friends to reflect upon this. We will have an opportunity to debate this issue further and to discuss it in detail in committee. I will be very happy to hear the views of my friends again in the committee and to discuss the matter, but I think it is important at this stage to stress that what we are doing with this bill is bringing more control to Parliament and not less as in the past.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
April 7, 1982


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


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
* *
*

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-88, an act respecting loans to farmers, Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and Bill C-97, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, and to provide for payments to certain provinces.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['that Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.\nHe said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate once again in this most important energy debate. This is the third bill which we are considering in the past two days, and I appreciate the speed with which members of the House have dealt with them.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
April 7, 1982
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 7th day of April, 1982, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Jacques Noiseux, for Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

April 7, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources



Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate once again in this most important energy debate. This is the third bill which we are considering in the past two days, and I appreciate the speed with which members of the House have dealt with them.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-88, an act respecting loans to farmers-Chapter No. 92;
Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Chapter No. 93;
Bill C-97, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces-Chapter No. 94.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until twelve o'clock noon tomorrow, pursuant to order made earlier this day.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Thursday, April 8, 1982