1982-06-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this House congratulates the Conservative government of Yukon on its re-election yesterday and supports the people of Yukon and their government in their struggle to achieve provincial status and ownership of their own land and resources.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas forest fires last year in northeastern Alberta completely destroyed the trap lines of the residents of Fort Chipewyan; whereas commercial fishing on Lake Athabasca has now been banned because of unacceptable levels of pollution of the Athabasca River, and whereas this double disaster has dealt a severe economic blow to the residents of the community of Fort Chipewyan causing severe unemployment and hardship, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately to declare the community of Fort Chipewyan a region for special assistance so that employment projects can be initiated without delay to allow the people of this area to retain their dignity and self-worth.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions pf Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the concerns of new immigrants were illustrated by the Canadian Federation of Vietnamese Associations at their recent meeting in Ottawa when they unanimously passed several resolutions regarding resettlement assistance and language training, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-and I am sure this motion will have the unanimous support of the House:
That the federal government, in the preparation of its immigration levels paper and settlement policy take into account and consider, first, providing financial support to the Vietnamese Association projects of training resettlement workers with a background in legal matters; second, supporting a training program of Vietnamese community workers; third, improving and extending the period of language training; fourth, providing a minimum of 24 weeks of language training with living allowances, regardless of their sponsorship, and fifth, inviting ethnic communities to participate in the formulation of language training policies for immigrants and refugees.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) went to the OECD in Paris last May and discovered unemployment, and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) went to the Summit in Versailles last week and discovered high interest rates and the sinking dollar, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the House recommends that the Minister of Finance go to Cape Breton and the Secretary of State for External Affairs journey to Windsor and the Right Hon. Prime Minister drop into Montreal and see the conditions in their own ridings and then if they have any responsibility at all they will all forthwith resign.


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

June 8, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering the thousands of automotive workers who have been laid off for an indefinite period at Boisbriand, Oshawa, Windsor and Oakville, and considering the failure of the Liberal government to conclude an agreement with Japan on what would constitute an equitable share of the Canadian automobile market, and the government's inability to bring down interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House demand that the government reach an equitable agreement with Japan and that it reduce interest rates and thus enable Canadian production to recover.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) and the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House support the resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli military forces from Lebanon and for the immediate and simultaneous cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border; and that the House urge all parties to the conflict to seek peaceful means of achieving their mutual security and resolving their differences.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support
the resolution of the hon. member for St. John's West as it is an endorsement of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Whether it is the shooting of an Israeli ambassador, the maiming of a Lebanese child, the drowning of a British seaman, or the death of an Argentine soldier, there never is a time, as General Grant once said, that some way cannot be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.
I hope the House will endorse the hon. member's resolution. I think that would go a long way toward bringing about a permanent settlement of the Lebanese-Israeli dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I must put the motion to the House. I am afraid I did not realize the hon. member was discussing the motion and therefore debating it. Does the House give its consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the said motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given the unprecedented outflow of investment capital from Canada which grew by 500 per cent in 1981 to almost $20 billion, while our foreign borrowing has increased by more than $30 billion secured by way of bonds and loans with foreign lenders who enjoy guaranteed rates of return of 16 per cent to 20 per cent annually, and whereas the antiinvestment policies of the federal Liberals are the principal cause of widespread unemployment, high domestic interest rates, and untold human misery everywhere in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the government be directed to restore economic confidence by reversing immediately its anti-investment policies embodied in FIRA, the NEP, and the illegitimate November 12 budget or, barring such a reversal, the government is hereby instructed to resign.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 8, 1982


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association stated recently that it is not the lack of a down payment which has brought the construction industry to a halt, but rather the inability of home owners to meet excessively high monthly interest payments. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government recognize that until it introduces economic policies that will lower interest rates to home purchasers, the real estate industry and the construction industry will never become strong again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas high interest rates have caused many farmers to lose all of the equity they have built into their businesses, sometimes over several generations, and whereas there have been repeated calls by members of the farm community for interest rates at 10 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That this House urge the government to provide emergency funding for farm debt consolidation at 10 per cent interest rates for farmers facing economic disaster, and that such action be taken prior to the summer recess.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON NATURAL GAS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, in view of the hardship the federal excise tax on natural gas has placed on all those who have to make use of natural gas as a fertilizer base as well as for home heating, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Finance remove this cancerous and inflationary tax if and when he presents a new budget to the Canadian people.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, whereas fishermen are complaining bitterly at the tax collection procedures of Revenue Canada and the proposed deduction of income tax at source, and whereas the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry failed to convince the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) to appear in order to answer questions on these two important matters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be given a reference by this House to investigate the federal government audit and taxation policies and procedures as they affect Canada's fishermen, and that the committee be empowered to travel and call witnesses, and report its findings to Parliament this fall.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, either in that capacity or in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. He will know that the Prime Minister of Canada, who is still out of the country, indicated in Versailles that the economic policy of Canada is to wait six weeks to see if some other country does anything. Will the Minister of Finance today give this Canadian House of Commons a firm commitment that the Minister of Finance will introduce either a new budget or a full economic financial statement before this Parliament leaves for a summer recess?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 8, 1982
Oral Questions


Mr. Nowlan:: You are pretty slow.


Mr. Stevens:: This is the surrender at Versailles.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I would like to answer the Leader of the Opposition because I, too, am somewhat concerned about the interpretation that the Prime Minister had somehow stated that any possible statement or any possible action to be taken by the Government of Canada was somehow delayed by six weeks. What the Prime Minister said, not only at his press conference but at the Summit meeting, was that because of the impact American high interest rates are having on the world economy and on Canada, and because of the impediment they constitute to the recovery, it was impossible for the world to wait until the fall, until after November, for the United States to act and, therefore, action was essential before the U.S. Congress and the Senate adjourned. That is how the reference was made. Obviously the impact of American policies is very important, but that is not to say there are not actions or responses that Canada on its own will have to consider.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance may have noted, he did not answer the question 1 put to him. What the Prime Minister said-
[ Translation]
And I would like to quote what he said for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance:
We shall see whether the Americans are going to act with the urgency- [English]
That is the Prime Minister's comment on action in other countries. Our problems are in this country, caused by this government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TIMING AND NATURE OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what I and those 50,000 Canadians who will be out of work in the next six weeks if this government continues to delay want to know, is when there will be a full economic and financial statement in this House of Commons. Will it be in the form of a new budget? We want a guarantee that the Government of Canada, which ran away to Versailles, which is running away and blaming the Americans-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -will not run away from the House of Commons but will, instead, deliver that statement when the House of Commons is sitting here. Has the Minister of Finance the courage to give us that commitment now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Let's hear it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty in
telling the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as I did when I appeared before the standing committee, that I intend to update the economic forecasts and the consequent fiscal implications. I will make that update in the House of Commons. There is no question about that.
Whatever updating is required will take place in the House of Commons. It will not be made elsewhere on such an important matter as a new statement, a new report, or a new review of the economic situation and the fiscal requirements that flow from the changed economic situation since the budget. I have no hesitation in assuring the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that that will be made in the House of Commons, and I have absolutely no hesitation in facing the opposition at any time on these important matters because I believe, like him, that this is the place where I ought to make a statement of that consequence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance has not moved very far from the Hall of Mirrors. He has told us that he will give Parliament an update on what might be a forecast, a review or a statement.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE CHANGE IN ECONOMIC POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, with a government whose policies have driven investment out of the country and have created thousands of new additions to the unemployed list in the country, I want to know whether the Government of Canada is contemplating a significant change in economic policy? Will that be introduced in the House of Commons, and when will it be introduced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will be interested in the communique which was issued following the Summit, and to which Canada obviously gave its support and obviously participated in its conclusions. I believe that it does not, in any of its particulars, anticipate a basic change in economic policy.
If the communique indicates anything, it indicates quite clearly the following: "Growth and employment must be increased. This will be attained on a durable basis only if we are successful in our continuing fight against inflation." That is the basic thrust of the communique, and that is supported by Canada. It does not anticipate the kind of change in policy which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to anticipate. I would like basically to remove any thinking that that is a result of the communique itself, or is in the mind of the government at the present time.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance said that they are planning no major change in a policy which has driven away investment, destroyed jobs, and destroyed confidence in
June 8, 1982

Canada; that is what he just said. His Prime Minister has been saying that he will see what the Americans do and then come back to talk with his caucus colleagues, if any of them will talk to him, to see what they think should be done.


REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what in the world is the Prime Minister talking about? Why is he holding out this hope of some kind of change six weeks from now, six months from now, or whenever, if the Minister of Finance is saying in the House that there will not be any basic change in the disastrous economic policy which has been imposed upon the country by this government that does not have a mandate and does not have the courage to go to the country to get one?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition obviously misunderstands the situation once again, because it is he who formulated the questions this afternoon, not I. He asked the question whether it was the intention of the Minister of Finance to make a declaration indicating a basic change in Canadian economic policy. I have explained to him that we have just completed a Summit in which we participated fully. We gave our signature to a declaration which was the result of intensive debate and which indicates that growth and unemployment must be increased.


Mr. Wilson:: Growth and unemployment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Employment. This can only be done on a durable basis if we are successful in our continuing fight against inflation. That is our policy. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would tell us whether he is recommending a totally opposite, contradictory and different policy. If he is, we would be pleased to hear it and to consider it.


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Surely the minister must understand that his statement today about the policies which he has been following for the past two years which are causing a great deal of concern, great unemployment and many bankruptcies to many Canadians, is a tremendous disappointment to them today, hearing that there will be no change in the basic policy that the government has followed.
The minister talked about the Versailles Summit communique which stated that Canadians will pursue, as a matter of urgency, greater control of budgetary deficits, and at the
Oral Questions
same time he has allowed his deficits to increase from the $10.5 billion estimate at the time of the budget to the current estimate of around $17 billion or $18 billion. What exactly is he proposing to do to reduce that deficit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 am somewhat surprised at the tenor of the question of the hon. member. Is he suggesting, at a time of very deep slack in the economy and at a time of very grave and rising unemployment, that the government should be taking a more restrictive fiscal policy than the policy that was laid out in the budget? If he is suggesting that, then I think he is recommending a policy that the Government of Canada will not follow, or indeed would not think to be in the best interests of the Canadian people at the present time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This is not just a forum where we can parry around with words. I am asking questions.


Madam Speaker:: Order. We have to move to other questioners very soon. There has been quite a bit of time taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre to be brief.


MEANING OF STATEMENT IN SUMMIT COMMUNIQUE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am asking the minister if he will tell Canadians just exactly what the government meant when ministers signed the communique in Versailles which states that, "we will pursue as a matter of urgency greater control of budgetary deficits." What did he mean?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will tell the House and the hon. member what that sentence actually means. The hon. member can interpret it for himself. The paragraph, as a whole, needs to be read. It begins by saying:
Growth and employment must be increased. This will be attained on a durable basis only if we are successful in our continuing fight against inflation. That will also help to bring down interest rates, which are now unacceptably high and to bring about more stable exchange rates. In order to achieve this essential reduction of real interest rates, we will as a matter of urgency pursue prudent monetary policies and achieve greater control of budgetary deficits.


Miss MacDonald:: What are you going to do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That last particular sentence was inserted


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you going to do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as a result of representations made by the Canadian delegation-


Charles Joseph Clark: Come on, what are you going to do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to bring to the attention of the United States that if the world is to get any opportunity to get out of this recession the United States must take action to reduce its

June 8, 1982
Oral Questions
real interest rates. That is the purpose of that sentence. It was directed against the United States, not against Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT NEW ECONOMIC MEASURES BE INTRODUCED FOR EARLY DEBATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, as usual the Deputy Prime Minister talks a good battle. He has come back from a conference which did in fact lead to the Prime Minister recognizing in Versailles that there was an economic crisis in Canada for which we can at least be thankful.
I have a specific question and a proposal, assuming that the Deputy Prime Minister takes seriously the words that he reiterated just now, that the government is committed to growth and employment in terms of new policies. Considering that there are roughly three days of debating time left on energy bills which we have all discussed and debated before, and also considering that there are three days allocated to opposition parties remaining in this session, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister is the government now prepared to come to grips in a serious and immediate way with the economic problems of this country, by introducing, say, next Monday, specific economic measures to which we could allocate a full week's time of debate, if the opposition parties gave up their days for debate on other matters so that we could get on with dealing with the economic crisis.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member, as I made it clear earlier when questioned by the press, that the results of the Summit at Versailles will be considered by the Canadian cabinet. I will be reporting to the cabinet this week on what happened at Versailles. We will be having discussions in our own caucus and, as a result of that process, we will determine the course of action and what the response ought to be. But it seems to me that it is absolutely essential to intensify our efforts in this country to reduce inflation because our performance, in comparison with most other countries, is not very good.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is bad.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The way to that result is certainly by a moderation of income claims by all Canadians at the present time.


Mr. Deans:: While the interest rates are too high.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member is interested in pursuing that kind of policy which has been pursued by colleagues of his, like President Mitterand and Chancellor Schmidt, then of course I would be interested in his support.


OFFER OF PARLIAMENTARY TIME FOR DEBATE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot get away with prevaricating-


Some hon. Members:: With what?


John Edward Broadbent: -for an unlimited period of time. I am serious about the economic problems of the country. I would hope that there are other people on the opposite side of the House who are serious, as well.
I want to repeat the question and I simply ask for consideration by the government at this time, not for a final answer, but, rather, for a commitment to consider the proposal. We are saying, as one opposition party, that action is needed, and needed quickly. We are also saying that we are prepared to give up our number of days and, cumulatively, there is at least a week's debating time available so that the Government of Canada could act in a number of ways, whether on housing, whether on interest rates, or whether on a longer-range strategy. But it would not be required to take action for at least a week, to give time to the government to consider it.
All I am asking from the Deputy Prime Minister today is a commitment that he will take this proposal back to his cabinet colleagues and give us an answer tomorrow. Will he be prepared to come back next week with economic action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making some sort of an offer saying, "We are ready to give up parliamentary time." That is an unnecessary gesture, a bit of grandstanding by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Parliamentary time is not a factor. We are quite prepared to stay here as long as necessary to deal with economic problems. If the hon. member is trying to compress things into the month of June, well, that is his problem. But what I am saying to hon. members of the House is that we take the economic situation very seriously. We have just returned from an economic Summit where we had very intensive discussions. We now intend to consider the matter in the cabinet, very deeply and very seriously, and when decisions are taken on what course of action we ought to take, then of course the hon. member and the House will be advised. However, I think he will understand that it is a bit of a grandstand to say, "Come in next Monday and, in order to facilitate that, we will give up our opposition days." Really, it is pretty sad, is it not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is only one sad group in this Parliament today, and that is the Government of Canada.
June 8, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is the sad group.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DETERMINE PLANS WITHIN TWO WEEKS
John Edward Broadbent: I want to indicate to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the House leader, with whom he is now consulting, that this party will be prepared to sit all summer if necessary, if that is what is required to get the government to act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Neither the Acting Prime Minister in answer to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, nor the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to the Leader of the Opposition today have told us we would get any action within an early number of weeks. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us a commitment that within two weeks, if not within a week, the government will finally make up its mind and do something for all the unemployed people in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, once again I want to tell the hon. member for Oshawa that surely the important thing is not to seek action within a day or two days, but the important thing-


John Edward Broadbent: Within ten years, with you people!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is to consider what proper proposals are appropriate at the present time. Then we will know the attitude of the hon. member. We intend to take this situation very seriously.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: About time.


John Edward Broadbent: This decade.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister is attending the Summit of NATO leaders this week, and on Monday, when he returns, we will begin-we will continue the process of consideration leading up to-


Charles Joseph Clark: You will continue to begin, or will you begin to continue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will continue the process which we will have already begun this week, since my return.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and the Canadian people are not cheering, even if his Liberal claque is cheering; they are groaning under the economic conditions.
The Canadian dollar was valued at $1.02 in October of 1976. It has devalued 22.5 per cent today to 79 cents. It has
Oral Questions
declined 9 per cent in value since February of 1980 when the government came back into office. During that period the unemployment numbers went up 570,000. The inflation figures went up over 5 per cent, and the bank rate by 5.5 per cent. Obviously a lower Canadian dollar does not help our economy. Can the minister tell us whether it is still the government's policy to prevent any further devaluation of the dollar, and if so, how do the minister and the government plan to accomplish that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member should know that the Canadian dollar is not on a fixed exchange rate. It moves up and down in response to market forces, and that is still the policy. But I would add in reply to the hon. member that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada, as was recommended by a number of provincial premiers, to seek a deliberate devaluation of the Canadian dollar. To us, that seems to be a very unwise course of action. But the dollar is not on a fixed rate. It is moving and will continue to move in response to basic market forces. That is the policy.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE NEW BUDGET
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister said that parliamentary time is not a factor. He has now been in office for two years and three months during which time the situation has gone from bad to very grave. Therefore I would like to ask him a supplementary question. Perhaps I should ask the Secretary of the Treasury down in the United States, if we are to listen to him, but I am asking the minister here. When we return to office we will, and-


Mr. Lalonde:: Dream, dream, dream!


John Carnell Crosbie: And my question is; will the government now revive our economy and put our people back to work by revoking the November 12 budget and bringing in a new budget which will encourage the risk-taker and the investor, by changing the new energy program in major ways, to treat all investors fairly and to give the oil and gas industry some incentive? Will the government start to welcome foreign investment and restore confidence which will start our economy moving again? Will you do those things, or step aside and let someone else do them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is always interested in regaining office because he ends his question with a plea for us to step aside and let that crowd opposite take over the situation.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a failure, a miserable failure.

June 8, 1982
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canadian people had nine months of that-


John Carnell Crosbie: Give them another chance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and did not wait very long to change the hon. member and his leader.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask them today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the reason for that kind of attitude is the basic misunderstanding-


Charles Joseph Clark: They cannot believe what you say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of the hon. member as to the cause of the current economic situation in Canada. He fails to understand that there is a world recession, that every country in the world is suffering from that recession and there will not be a broadly based recovery affecting the United States, Canada and Europe unless there is a basic resolution to the high interest situation in the United States. That is the first step. The hon. member may talk of marginal changes in Canadian policy, but that is not the way out of this situation. That is why the Canadian delegation at the Summit conference kept its eye on the ball and repeatedly urged the United States to take steps that would give the rest of the world a chance to get out of this recession.


LEVEL OF INFLATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance who, several times, faced with the evidence that is mounting in the country of capital fleeing to other lands for investment purposes, has read from a communique issued in Versailles which calls for the continued fight against inflation. With our inflation level in excess of 11 per cent year over year, as high as it has been in living memory, will the minister tell the House when his fight against inflation will commence, bearing in mind that the Americans at least got their level down to almost 3 or 4 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have been maintaining a monetary policy and a fiscal policy that are directed against inflationary pressures in the economy. I will admit to the hon. member that in Canada at the present time income settlements are much higher than in most other countries of the world. That is an aspect of our problem which has to be addressed by all the major participants in the economy. If we are to remain competitive and if we are to participate in a recovery that is to come, and will come, we have to be more successful in dealing with this aspect of our inflationary pressures.
I have argued against the introduction of a comprehensive system of wage and price controls. Therefore the only workable alternative is to secure a better understanding among the main participants in the Canadian economy of the result of
current economic behaviour. That is really the situation that we face in this country at the present time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As we all know, somebody else in Versailles said "let them eat cake".


PLIGHT OF WORKERS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance arises from his last answer. Unemployment is estimated to go up another
50,000	in number in the next six weeks, the dollar is now approaching 79 cents, there is an exodus of capital with the bond issue that the minister placed in Europe falling out of bed, down two points alone on $750 million. Has the minister no concern for the plight of Canadian workers other than to insult them with what he just said, that it is their wage increases that are causing the problem, bearing in mind that in the last five years the average wage earner has seen his real buying power fall by 10 per cent in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I have no intention and 1 will not insult Canadian workers. I have not regarded them as the culprit in the present inflationary situation. I do not believe they are responsible for the current situation, but I do say that unless we have greater success in bringing down the level of income settlements in Canada in all groups, this country will not succeed economically. That is the situation at the present time.
When we see the largest industrial union in the world, the metal workers in West Germany, just recently settle for several points below the inflation rate, it gives us some cause to consider what the course of action ought to be in Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. At the instigation of the federal government the Supreme Court ruled last week that the federal government had the right to designate large numbers of public servants as essential to public safety, and to remove their right to strike. The specific decision dealt with Canada's air traffic controllers where approximately 1,800 out of 2,200 lost their right to strike. Is it the intention of the government to use this Supreme Court decision to remove effectively the right to strike from public servants? If so, will the government bring this change of policy before the House in the form of legislation so that Canada's elected representatives can debate this anti-union policy?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously was not
June 8, 1982

here in 1967 when the act in question was adopted. The issue was thoroughly debated at that time. Section 79 of the act simply provides that the employer is entitled to apply to have those employees whose duties involve safety or security designated and, once designated, they cannot strike. The issue was debated. The issue was well understood by parliamentarians of the day. The section has been applied consistently. In this particular instance the government elected to use it in the case of air traffic controllers. The Supreme Court has simply confirmed the interpretation that the government has of this section and which all parliamentarians had of this section in 1967.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE LIST OF PLANNED DESIGNATION CHANGES
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. It is clear that he is not living up to some of the provisions of the ILO with regard to this matter. It is clear that the government's new tactic on designation is a new policy and is being used to change labour relations. Within the last few weeks groups other than the air traffic controllers have been hit with extreme designations. The ship repair group on the dockyard in Halifax have had nearly 80 per cent of their membership designated. The Public Service Alliance has had its H.P. designation-
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Earlier, the minister clearly indicated that he intended to maintain a philosophy that he has fiercely defended, with very unfortunate results, during the last two years. The minister said that he still believed in the future economic growth and job creation, provided that we keep up our fight against inflation. As a result of this philosophy, during the last two years Canada has lost 16,000 businessess and 300,000 jobs which provided a living for 1,200,000 Canadians. In the circumstances, and considering the fact that a number of ministers as well as the minister's fellow members have publicly condemned his policies and qualified him as incompetent, does the minister, if he really wants to serve his country, need any further reasons for asking his Prime Minister to allow him to resign?


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear, hear. Resign!


Madam Speaker:: A supplementary, the hon. member for Joliette.


Madam Speaker:: Order. That really is not a question.


Sidney James Parker: I am merely stating there are other groups. Will the President of the Treasury board at least table a full list of the planned changes in designations rather than trying to sneak them through one at a time over the next few months?


Roch La Salle: I now understand why the Minister of Finance has no new proposals to put before the House, because he has no idea of the harm he has caused this country as a result of the lack of adequate measures. Madam Speaker, I believe that the refusal of the Minister of Finance to-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am puzzled by the question. There is no planned change. There is absolutely no change in the law. In each instance the employer simply moves forward with a list of proposed designations, and the union has a perfect right to contest them. If the Public Service Staff Relations Board determines that these employees are carrying out duties necessary in the interests of safety and security of the public, surely the hon. member is not against that. This government is interested in protecting the safety and security of the public.
There has been absolutely no change in policy, and the designation procedure used today is exactly the same as it was in 1967. As far as the air traffic controllers are concerned, the circumstances speak for themselves. The issue has gone through two courts. I am pleased, as I hope hon. members will be pleased, that it has been satisfactorily resolved and that the interpretation given to the section by the government has been confirmed.


Roch La Salle: It relates to my question. I understand, Madam Speaker, that these people do not want-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the option of not answering the question and that is his right. The hon. member may proceed with a second question, but it must be brief as well.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, in my second question I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of the problems experienced by Canadians today, whether he realizes that at least 500,000 Canadians will have no alternative but to go on welfare by December 31, and whether he has any idea of the hardship he is causing to Canadians as a result of the lack of adequate measures, and in the circumstances, whether the Minister of Finance has anything else to say besides his usual refrain, which is bringing this country to the brink of bankruptcy-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!

June 8, 1982
Oral Questions
[English)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member's second question is a pretty good illustration of the reason why I declined to answer his first question, which was basically a series of rhetorical statements. I am quite prepa-pred to answer questions, as I do every day, but I really cannot answer them if they are not formulated in a way that they can get an answer.
The hon. member asked me if I am aware of the difficulties that the Canadian people face. Madam Speaker, there is no one more aware of the difficulties that currently exist in the Canadian economy, and there is no one who is more worried about the rising level of unemployment than members of the cabinet, including myself. We are following the policy, no matter how difficult it is at the present time, that we think will bring the country to a possibility of renewed strength. Now, if the hon. member or his party has a different policy, a better policy-


Charles Joseph Clark: We do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I think it is their responsibility to lay it out and let us examine it. But up to the present time they have failed, and have not indicated what their economic policy is in current circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF MINISTER
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have seen an incredible performance of stonewalling this afternoon. We are in a great recession. We have more than 1.2 million Canadians out of work. We have double-digit inflation. And we have bankruptcies at near record levels. Yet we have the minister telling the House, and I am quoting him, that he needs more time to consider-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we have had more than five or six questioners today during question period. I know that some answers have been long; but if hon. members want to give everyone a chance to ask a question, they should not be repeating those statistics, which have been repeated four or five times in the course of this question period. They should go directly to their questions.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the heads of two Canadian chartered banks have told the finance committee that extended periods of high interest rates will cause serious damage to the economy, that bankruptcies will increase to an intolerable level, and that a time of crisis is near. Is the minister waiting until the crisis does occur, in order to change his economic policy, or is he prepared to act now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the members
of the banking community who appeared before the committee have been stating well known facts, that the existence of high interest rates is very damaging to the Canadian economy and to all the economies of the world. That is well known. I share their concern. That is why, at the economic Summit, the Canadian delegation directed its efforts completely in the direction of trying to find ways and means of bringing down interest rates throughout the world, particularly in the United States. So I would agree with the concern that has been expressed by the hon. member.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTER
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, this supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. Since he has been wrong on his economic forecasts, and wrong on his budget measures, and wrong on his National Energy Program revenue projections, and wrong on his claim that a lower Canadian dollar would lead to lower interest rates-


Charles Joseph Clark: He does not know where he is living.


Pat Carney: -now that he tells the House that he believes his policy will lead to renewed growth in the economy, why should Canadians believe him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, of course I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. It is another rhetorical question that is really impossible to answer.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. It relates to some of the statements the Minister of Agriculture has made as a result of the passing of the farm credit bill. The Minister of Agriculture said he would have an additional $1 billion of funding available for the Farm Credit Corporation after the first of June. I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if he will support the Minister of Agriculture in his efforts to raise that additional $1 billion of funding for the Farm Credit Corporation, at lower rates, through the agribond concept, which is similar to the small business bond concept.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have always supported the Minister of Agriculture in his efforts to improve conditions for the Canadian farmer, and I will continue to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 8, 1982


ADVANCE CROP PAYMENTS
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to look at something that would help farmers without increasing the deficit, that is, an amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in the other place, is in favour of that. I wonder if the Minister of Finance, as a senior member of the cabinet and Deputy Prime Minister, is prepared to support the minister in the other place, to see that as of the first of August farmers will have some additional funding available to them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the responsible minister brings forward his amendment I will look at it quite sympathetically, but I cannot forecast what the response will be until I see the specific amendment.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: My question, Madam Speaker, is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the recent report of the Canadian Judicial Council on the actions of Judge Thomas Berger. The minister stated recently in the national media that the Council accepted the report of their committee of investigation, which was an appalling document that essentially found that Judge Berger's actions would support a recommendation for his removal from judicial office. Will the minister take this opportunity to correct publicly this totally erroneous statement which he made, and confirm that in fact, far from accepting the report, the full Council rejected the report of the investigation committee and found that Judge Berger's actions did not in any way constitute grounds for his removal from the bench? Will the minister set the record straight?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I said that the committee reported that Mr. Justice Berger had committed an indiscretion, that it was unprecedented, and that they were not recommending his removal from the bench. I have accepted the same recommendation, to the effect that we should not put this question to the House of Commons and the Senate. Of course, as the Judicial Council of Canada said, he had committed an indiscretion. I have accepted that report.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the minister has had his opportunity, but he is continuing to take cheap shots at this respected British Columbia judge-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath


Svend Johannes Robinson: -whose only offence was to condemn the shameful betrayal of Canada's founding peoples and our native peoples. This is a travesty of justice.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF SUBJECT TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has refused to correct this shameful attack on Judge Berger, and in the process has continued to lie to the people of Canada and abuse his office as Minister of Justice, will the minister allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs an opportunity to examine this question and give Judge Berger an opportunity to reply to this serious and unprecedented attack on his credibility?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said there was a report which was presented to me and, at the request of the hon. member, I made it public. I said I have accepted the recommendations of the Judicial Council, which said that there was an indiscretion but that, as it was unprecedented, there should be no remedial action or the removal of Mr. Justice Berger from the bench.
It was at the request of the hon. member and of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that I made the report public, and I repeat in the House that it is extremely important in our system that we have a complete distinction between the parliamentary and executive powers and the judicial powers in Canada. That is the cornerstone of our system.
We welcome the report, which says that when you want to participate in political debate, you run in politics; if you want to be a judge, you act as a judge. That is all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but it is probably more in the form of a question of privilege. It has just come to my attention on reading Hansard that 1 interjected yesterday following an answer by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), and Hansard quite correctly reported me at page 18147 as having said, "That is a lie". That is unparliamentary, Madam Speaker. It adds nothing to the decorum of this place and I withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member saying he did not make that interjection? At any rate, the Chair did not hear it; otherwise, I would not have allowed it.

June 8, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, we have a very competent Hansard reporting staff in this place. I did make that remark. It was reported, it was unparliamentary, and I withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.


Mr. Cousineau:: Hey, John, did you hear that?


PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege following upon the answer of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) to my remarks. The Minister of Justice has refused to correct what is obviously a lie which he has perpetrated, suggesting that a committee of the judicial council-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has just seen a formidable example of someone who has withdrawn such an expression. I ask the hon. member to withdraw it right away.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I distinctly heard the hon. member say that another hon. member has told a lie. If I have not heard the hon. member correctly, I will hear from the hon. member, who will assure me he has not said that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a situation in which a judge has no opportunity to reply to an attack upon himself.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: His credibility has been undermined. At no time did I suggest that the Minister of Justice abused his position by lying in the House. However, at the weekend the minister did unquestionably tell the people of Canada that the report of the investigation committee of the Canadian judicial council-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. As long as the hon. member has not said someone in this House has told a lie, that is fine; no unparliamentary language has been used. As for the rest of the hon. member's invervention, he is obviously debating a question. He does not have a question of privilege.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is over. I have just ruled.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the question period. It affects my privilege as a Member of Parliament because as Members of Parliament we have a responsibility to protect judges who cannot reply. I think we have to put this on the record to give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) a chance to reply. The fact is that there was a recommendation by a subcommittee-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is still debating the question. It is not a question of privilege. He has no foundation for a question of privilege at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to the Hon. the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled as follows:
The PETITION of the undersigned residents of the Riding of Saskatoon East, in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Hon. House will therefore provide a remedy,
Humbly Sheweth:
THAT the World involvement in nuclear armaments will lead to the probable destruction of the human race,
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your Petitioners humbly pray and call upon Members of Parliament to express their fears and concerns for the future of all mankind.
AND as in duty bound your Petitioners will ever pray.
There are 24 names of parents and grandparents who are deeply concerned about world involvement in nuclear armaments. I present this petition.


COOPERATIVE ENERGY ACT
Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-116, an act to establish the Cooperative Energy Corporation and the Cooperative Energy Development Corpopation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
June 8, 1982

[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. 2,794 and 3,885.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the RCMP or any other branch of the government made security checks on all persons hired to work in any of the buildings on Parliament Hill, including (a) cleaning staff (b) maintenance staff (c) protective staff (d) restaurant and cafeteria staff (e) employees in the offices of the Members of Parliament, Senators and Cabinet Ministers and (i) if so, is this a regular procedure and on what date did it commence (ii) if not, is the government concerned about security clearance for these persons and will security checks be undertaken?
2.	Did the government recommend to the Management and Members' Services Committee of the House of Commons or to anyone else that such checks be made and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: l.(a) to (d) No. (e) (i) Security checks on employees of Members of Parliament, Senators and Cabinet Ministers are conducted at the request of the PCO or a department whenever such employees require access to classified government documents in the discharge of their duties. In the case of ministers' exempt staff and departmental employees employed in Parliament Hill offices, the procedure is mandatory and a condition of employment under government policy. In the case of ministers of the Crown and parliamentary secretaries associated to ministers involved in defence and external affairs, House of Commons staff who are assigned government-related duties involving access to classified material are subject to a security check, but only after the requirement has been explained to them and their consent has been given to proceed. (e)(ii) Not applicable.
2. No. A government, as such, would not, under normal circumstances, address a recommendation to the Management and Members' Services Committee of the House of Commons. A matter of common interest to elected members would be put to the Speaker for consideration.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the past five years, what were the names and job designations of those employed by the Department of Public Works at the Brockville federal building?
2.	Were there any instances where competitions were not held to fill their positions and, if so, in each case, what were the details?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1
During the past five years, those employed by Public Works Canada at the Brockville Federal Building are as follows:
Petroleum Administration Act
Names	Job Designations
C.A. Euverman	GS-BUS-I
S.L. Gorgerat	GS-BUS-1
W. Kirk	GS-BUS-2
2. All new employees are recruited and screened by the Canada Employment Centre. A list of successful candidates is maintained by them and they refer candidates at a client's request to staff a position.


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


Madam Speaker:: Questions enumerated by the Parlemen-tary Secretary have been answered-The member for Central Nova (Mr. Mackay) on a point of order.


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, just looking at some of my questions on the Order Paper, on February 9, four months ago, I put on the Order Paper a series of questions in question No. 3,750 concerning our diplomatic staff in eastern European countries and the diplomatic staffs of those countries stationed in Ottawa. On March 22 I filed further questions concerning the penetration of the RCMP security service by communist agents and the pressures exercised by Czechoslovak agents against Canadian citizens.
These are all questions which concern our country, and I hope there will be some effort made to deal with them pretty quickly. I hope the absence of answers is not deliberate.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the absence of answers is not deliberate. I am not aware offhand what stage the answers are at, but I will look into this matter on behalf of the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 7, 1982, consideration of Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, and Motion No. 6 (Mr. Hawkes).
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I want to speak in support of the amendment proposed. Debate on the amendment was opened by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). When one looks at the amendment, one will recognize that it is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment but, most of all, it is a very reasonable amendment. It is responsible and contains a great deal of common sense. The amendment proposes to limit the
801 16-18

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
amount of money that can be collected under the Canadian ownership account. According to Clause 39, which deals with Section 65.26(3)(b) of the act as set out on page 29 of the bill, the money provided by the collection of this surcharge can be used as follows:
-for investment in shares, debentures, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of or for property acquisitions from any person in order to increase Canadian public ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada and to repay loans or expenses incurred for that purpose.
The amendment would place a limit on the revenue collected under the Canadian ownership charge of $1,460 billion. It is a sunset provision, in effect. Parliamentary approval would be required before any wild and woolly deals such as the Petrofina deal could be made. In this clause the government seeks carte blanche approval to buy a company outright, to buy shares in a company or to buy properties without parliamentary approval. It could use its authority to draw upon a slush fund to be created at the expense of the consumers of Canada in order to buy a greater percentage of the oil industry. Considering the present lack of control we have over Crown corporations and the accountability of the government, I think this amendment deserves to be considered.
What the government is really saying is that state takeover is a way of Canadian life; that it has become part and parcel of the social and economic fabric of our society; that the government has the power and in its wisdom it shall decide when, where and how it shall penetrate the oil industry and how much it shall pay for it without being accountable to the people of Canada or making any reference to Parliament.
My colleague's amendment deserves consideration by all members of the House, Mr. Speaker. If the institution of Parliament is to be preserved and its credibility enhanced, then it must uphold its responsibility for funds held in trust for the Canadian people. Parliament must have the final say in this connection.
There are other areas that I want to touch on briefly, such as the economic climate in the country which is closely tied to the fundamental principles of the National Energy Program and the budget. There is no question that the country is in very serious economic trouble and there are many reasons for this. I would be the first to admit that the international environment is part of the problem but I do not think it is the only reason. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his colleagues on the treasury benches will have to accept their responsibility for the present ills of the country. They cannot continue to plead that it is an international problem and an offshoot of the policies of the United States. I say very bluntly that the problems we face in this country are largely made-in-Canada problems and require made-in-Canada solutions.
There are three components that I believe contribute to the current malaise. The first is a psychological or attitudinal problem. There is a negative psychology in the country which pervades all aspects of our society and all regions of the country. The record of the government in the last two years has created this negativism. It has created a feeling of deep
mistrust and now Canadians do not believe anything that the government says any more.
A week ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) announced changes to the National Energy Program. However, people in the industry are so cynical now that they do not believe that the minister's intentions or the intentions of the government are honourable. These provisions are to be in effect for a limited time only. But the fundamental philosophy enshrined in the National Energy Program was not withdrawn; it was a patchwork scheme drawn up to attract a certain amount of support. There may be support in some sectors of the industry but, by and large, the damage has been done. The goose that laid the golden egg that was our once vibrant industry has been killed. It will take more than the announcement made by the minister to revive it.
There is a mood of cynicism in the country. When people remember that the government fought an election on a platform of cheap energy and that in less than two years it has doubled the price of gasoline, it is not surprising that no one believes it any more. Today the Minister of Finance reiterated that the government has a mandate from the people of Canada, but that mandate was obtained on a platform of lies and deceit. If the people of Canada had a second chance, knowing as they do now that the government did not mean what it said, I am sure the results would be quite different. There is a feeling of deep mistrust in the country and a realization that the government would rather confront than co-operate. This has led to division and mistrust rather than to harmony.
Another aspect of this attitudinal problem is that more and more Canadians now realize that the government is incompetent. It does not have answers. It has destroyed the incentive, the desire, to progress that was once alive in the country. It has destroyed industries that were once humming and viable. There is a growing realization that the government is incompetent and is largely responsible for the mess we are in, that it does not understand what makes the country tick or what makes the economy tick. It has run out of solutions.
Rather than having a positive mood in the country and a readiness to tackle urgent economic problems, there is a feeling of hopelessness, despair and helplessness around us. There is uncertainty, confusion, and investment decisions are being postponed. Things are going in reverse, Mr. Speaker.
There is a general view abroad in the country that, given our resources and the opportunities that exist for individuals, companies, entrepreneurs and investors, we should all be doing much better. But the government has stymied initiative; it has stymied investment; it has stymied the entrepreneurial spirit that was the hallmark of this country over the last 20 or 30 years.
Another reason for our present problems is the economic policy of the government which is reflected in the philosophy of the budget. That budget, as we all know-and we are not sure whether it will survive this Parliament-stifles growth,
June 8, 1982

discourages investment, penalizes initiative and enterprise, and advocates greater state control in the growth and development of economic opportunity in Canada. It was interesting to note that Mr. W. P. Wilder, the president and chief executive officer of Hiram Walker Resources Ltd., in a speech to the Canadian Club of Montreal on March 1, said this:
The biggest single barrier to investment-whether it be the multi-million dollar investments called for by the energy industry or the smaller investments required in other industries across the country-is uncertainty. And this federal government, through its over-all approach to the economy, has raised a basic uncertainty as to whether or not investment in Canada-by Canadians or by anybody else-is really a very good idea in business terms.
I think that summarizes very succinctly the prevailing mood in the minds of investors.
The third issue which has led to the deterioration in our economy is, naturally, the NEP. The fact that we are engaged in this rather long debate, Mr. Speaker, which strikes at the very core of the NEP, is certainly a tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, and indeed to the House leader of my party. I think it is fair to say that the NEP is not fully understood by the average Canadian, and hopefully through this debate we will be able to apprise Canadians in a more general way as to the real thrust of the NEP, what it has done and failed to do, and how it might be improved.
The short and simple solution would be to have the whole thing withdrawn and to start all over again. I think that would do a lot to lift confidence and improve the investment climate, particularly in the oil sector. Those are not only my views, they are shared by other learned individuals in the country. I would like to quote from an article written by Mr. John Meyer, a very well-known journalist, who has written some very learned articles on the economy, energy, and business in general. This is from an article which appeared in The Executive magazine of April, 1982 and is entitled-and this is the very point I am trying to make-"Canada's collapse began with the NEP". He goes on to say:
This is a recession which need never have happened. Now that it has, it looks as if it will last longer and hurt more than any previous post-war recession. After three quarters, there is still no end to it in sight.
This recession was triggered and has since been intensified by a succession of federal measures and, to a lesser extent, the provincial responses they evoked. The breaking point came with the National Energy Program.
To attribute this recession to the arrival together of most of the developed countries on the same downslope of the business cycle, or to attribute it to high U.S. interest rates, is to ignore the dominant role of energy among our other natural resources.
Provision for a competitive rate of return on oil and gas production would have strengthened the dollar, improved national productivity and raised the national income. At most, it could have overtaken the deterrents of high interest rates and slumping other countries. At least it would have offered the promise of early recovery. The introduction of the NEP deprived us of both.
Before NEP, the strongly rising volume of investment in oil and gas exploration and development had been driving the whole economy forward. Every dollar invested by the petroleum industry multiplied two or three times through the economy in purchases of equipment and services.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, the purchase of equipment and services not only in western Canada, but indeed throughout all of Canada. I quote again:
Since NEP, the industry's investment here has been drastically reduced, by 30 per cent to 40 per cent through 1981 and by at least that much again this year.
Petroleum Administration Act
These are not now recoverable funds. They have either been committed outside Canada or absorbed by government.
He goes on to say:
For the better part of a decade, government has been reaching out to capture key elements in the economy, to transform them into instruments for implementing its vision of the corporate state-that is, one in which political authority is assured by control over investment and production.
An earlier model of the corporate state was Mussolini's Italy of the late 1920s and 1930s. But set aside what the attempts to emulate it here imply for individual rights and freedoms. Consider only what it has cost so far in forfeited economic growth.
I can quote Mr. Wilder again where he says in his speech to the Canadian Club of Montreal:
And the main point I want to make-a point I do not believe the energy industry has made as clearly as it should have-is that the NEP is not an isolated set of government policies that affect the oil and gas industry alone. The NEP is just one part of an approach to the economy of this country on the part of the federal government that is undermining the ability of every industry in Canada to meet the kinds of economic challenges it faces today.
He goes on to say that:
In total, because of the NEP, the energy industry is smaller, and weaker, and less capable of finding the new energy sources we will need to achieve selfsufficiency in Canada.
He goes on to talk about trust:
The people in our industry are less and less disposed to trust the federal government.
He then talks about Canadianization:
-"Canadianized" industry is going to be much smaller than it would have been under more advantageous conditions.
So the things we are espousing here today have not simply been dreamed up by members on this side of the House. The fact of the matter is that they are shared by many other knowledgeable people throughout the country. Simply put, we can summarize the NEP as being the most destructive measure ever perpetrated on a once viable industry in Canada. It has literally destroyed the western oil industry. Exploration is down by 40 per cent, over 200 rigs have left the country, we have massive lay-offs, bankruptcies, and employment is down by 33 per cent. More than 14,000 people have lost their jobs in the energy industry since the NEP came into being. There has been an exodus of capital, something like $18 billion in 1981. Over $1 billion worth of machines have left this country in the form of drilling rigs and equipment. We have auction sales every day. As my colleague the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has indicated, those sales produce 50 cents on the dollar and certainly that is eroding confidence in the industry and in the economy as a whole. On May 21, 1980, two years ago, there were over 400 drilling rigs working in western Canada. Today there are fewer than 100. Those rigs are like little factories for us in western Canada; they employ 40 to 50 people each. Where have they gone? They have gone south of the border, and some young men and women have been fortunate enough to go with them. They found jobs there and the United States gave them work permits.
I can go on. The cancellation of megaprojects is clearly another example of the disaster which has been caused by the NEP. We are more reliant on imported oil today than we were a year ago. And what are we doing? We are importing oil

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
while shutting in our own domestic sources of supply. Something in the order of 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day are shut in. Those wells are not pumping so they do not require service, and that is adding to the unemployment rolls, further eroding our balance of payments, weakening our dollar, increasing interest rates, and contributing to the declining confidence in the Canadian economy.
There can be no question that the disastrous NEP has not yet completed its work in the country. The fact of the matter is that its effects are now spreading to the petrochemical industry. In the province of Alberta at the end of 1981 there was a value of $8 billion placed on some 15 petrochemical projects which were identified as having the potential for development. What has happened? A number of things have happened. What with excessive taxation and the National Energy Program, the competitive edge for Alberta's ethane price no longer exists. Feedstock prices in the United States are considerably less and as a result some 15 projects worth $8 billion have been thrown into jeopardy. They are either on hold, postponed indefinitely or have been dropped. That is the kind of climate that exists.
I spoke earlier of confidence. Some people ask how we can restore confidence in the country. There are some people who believe that confidence will not be restored until the Liberals leave the treasury benches of government. Mr. Roy Farran on April 16 wrote the following in the Edmonton Journal under the heading: "When the Liberals go, oil industry will recover". Mr. Farran's article reads:
Politicians would do an enormous favour to the nation if they would quit lying and start telling the truth. Any chance of Canada's becoming energy selfsufficient before 1990 has been blown long ago.
What do you think it means when Imperial pulls out of a petrochemical plant near Edmonton, when half the companies withdraw from the third oil sands plant, when Imperial disperses its team at Cold Lake, when Shell sells off subsidiaries, when oil lease sales drop by half?
Why do you think Alberta Energy shares fell from $25 to $10?
I suppose there are still pipedreamers up there at the university who will say with a straight face that the oil companies are only bluffing for more. And they'll base their argument on some figure thrown out by Lalonde or Leitch during the energy battle even though by now it is quite clear that neither of them knew what they were talking about.
His article continues:
They really did kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, didn't they?
Mr. Farran goes on to say:
Canada is now feeling the joy commonly experienced in the Third World when hated multinationals are driven out. The euphoria of liberation is marvellous. Then come withdrawal pains as they learn too late that these gringos or foreign dogs did bring benefits, too-
The most that can be said is it could have been a lot worse if Alberta had not fought so hard. But the pact was no great day for Canada, believe me.
Only when the Liberals go will it be time to peal the bells. For everything they touch goes bad.
That feeling is very predominant, particularly in western Canada and to an increasing degree in other parts of Canada. What this government has done to the oil industry it is doing to other industries as well. Look what it has done to the dollar.
What this government has done to the oil industry and to the dollar will also happen to Canadians. This government will inflict serious damage and hardship on them.
When we look at the value of our dollar these days we can only identify that, through the process of Canadianization, the National Energy Program and the budget, we have had a tremendous outflow of Canadian dollars which has caused the reduction in the value of our dollar, making it necessary to raise interest rates to attract sufficient capital into the country. The investment dollars which left the country are no longer here to stimulate industry and the economy, to retool, to improve our productivity, to engage in greater research and development which enabled Canada to be more productive and competitive in the international marketplace. Everything this government has touched has gone sour.
The National Energy Program is a clear example of that. Back in 1980 Canada's energy industry was coming along. It was going great. There was an agreement initialled and ready to be signed. The Alsands project was going ahead. The Cold Lake project was going ahead. The heavy oil upgrader project was going ahead. There was a mood of optimism. There was a feeling that we would finally achieve the goal of energy selfsufficiency. There would have been benefits for all Canadians, not only for western Canadians. Before the ink was dry on the Syncrude contract, some $250 million worth of contracts were let to the province of Ontario for the machinery and equipment that were necessary to see that project go ahead. The $14 billion or $15 billion oil sands plant would have created some $7 billion worth of economic activity for Ontario. Everyone would have benefited. We would have been more secure. We would have had a greater level of employment. There would have been a positive attitude in the country rather than the negative attitude we have today.
I want to talk briefly about Canadianization, which is really the thrust of this motion. The clause we are now dealing with is the heart and core of the whole question of Canadianization. No one will argue with the objective of increasing Canadian ownership in any industry, particularly the oil industry. I support it and my party supports it. It is a laudable objective, there is no question about that. But in the process of this government implementing its program of Canadianization, it has literally destroyed the very basic component of Canadian enterprise within the energy sector, that is, the exploration and service sector. That industry has been crippled and destroyed as a result of the policies of the National Energy Program. It was an industry that was almost totally Canadian owned. We have expertise in drilling and exploration, in manufacturing and indeed in the servicing area.
In terms of dealing with the heavy oil tar sands and the various methods and the technology that we have, I believe we are second to none in the world. But with the killing of the Cold Lake project, with the killing of the Alsands project and the delay in moving ahead with the heavy oil upgrader, our technical expertise is getting less and less.
June 8, 1982

The same thing applies to the service and exploration sector. As a result of the National Energy Program and the government's commitment to Canadianization, what has happened? Every day a new outfit goes into receivership or bankruptcy. I will give one example of this. A company called Raydan Transport Ltd., an oilfield trucking company based in Nisku just south of Edmonton, owned a fleet of 39 trucks. It employed 105 people full-time and it hired 36 casual workers when necessary. By last December the company had auctioned all but one truck and the staff had been reduced to four. That is one of the results of Canadianization and the National Energy Program.
During the last week in May in the city of Lloydminster, which is in my constituency, 200 oil industry jobs were thrown into jeopardy. In the Toronto Star we read:
The jobs of 200 Lloydminster residents were thrown into jeopardy after Universal Industries Ltd. announced it has been placed in receivership yesterday. The company, which manufactures oil-pumping units, faces financial difficulties due to the continuing economic uncertainty surrounding the Canadian oil and gas industry.
I know the owner of that company. It is not a fly-by-night company. This company has been in business for a long time. Last year at this time 350 people were on the payroll. Today that company is in receivership. The owner reduced the number of people employed to 200 but he was still forced into receivership. Whether he will survive will depend upon the cooperation of the receivers and the banks. But that company was a thriving company which employed 350 people. It supported 350 families. As a result of the National Energy Program a community within my constituency is going down the drain.
In the town of Wainwright the lead headline in the Star-Chronicle reads:	"Jurassic quitting Canada". Jurassic
employed 30 people in oil servicing. The owner decided to move his rigs south to Oklahoma. Mr. Voll, the owner, said this:
The decision was taken in the light of federal and provincial policies which continue to destroy the small operator, he said. Last fall's National Energy Program, then the Lougheed-Trudeau agreement in September set the stage for the move.
That happened in December, 1981. The following was also reported in The Regional Times of Lloydminster:
One hundred and fifty local jobs are in jeopardy after four local oilfield companies were placed in receivership Friday.
Management of Petroserv Management Ltd., who also own and operate Weldex Machine Ltd., Midway Oilfield Service Ltd. and G and W Oilfield Service, is now in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Bank of Nova Scotia-
That occurred in February, 1982. I have another example to which I will refer in Vermilion. These are all communities in my constituency. If one drives through my constituency, one sees oil wells sitting idle and not pumping. From where are we getting our oil? We are buying it from Venezuela and Mexico at $40 per barrel. These oil wells are shutin and are laying off people. Companies are going bankrupt. What a disgrace! It does not make sense. The poor Minister of Employment and
Petroleum Administration Act
Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is trying his darndest to generate jobs. Why does he not talk some sense into the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It is too bad they are not here. The minister is a very persuasive gentleman. Why does he not visit our ridings to see what could be done? I know he is genuine and sincere about trying to help the unemployed, but he can only generate so many jobs and make-work projects. Genuine jobs are going down the drain.
I should like to refer to an article entitled "Slowdown in oil industry causes lay-offs in Vermilion". It indicated that 19 Bird Oil employees were laid off nearly two weeks ago, most of whom were welders or welders' helpers. They were let go because of the slumping sales of oil storage tanks. These 19 employees made up nearly half of the labourers which the Calgary-based company employed in Vermilion. That is the kind of situation with which we are living. The article in the Vermilion Standard indicated that there was little chance of rehiring anyone for the next few months. It simply does not make sense to the people of Alberta or, more generally, to the people of western Canada. This oil is being shutin and we are relying upon imported oil to serve our domestic needs. We are paying a dear price for it. We are paying a very heavy price both in terms of what it is costing out of our pockets and in terms of how it is further eroding the value of the dollar, further contributing to the balance of payments deficit, and further undermining confidence in the economy.
This is not a fabrication. These are the facts. We are dealing with individual companies and individual lives. We have to give answers when we are travelling around our constituencies. What answers can we give? Our constituents simply ask: "Can you not talk any sense into these people?" The Canadianization concept and objective advocated by the government has been a failure.
The minister will say that we have increased our penetration of Canadian ownership by 7 per cent, but it cost us $6.5 billion. It has not generated one additional barrel of oil. It has not added to our technological expertise. It has not improved confidence within the oil industry. In fact, it has not done anything.
One might very well ask: Do we need Canadianization in our frontiers? The answer is no, they are already dominated by Canadian companies. Panarctic is owned by Petro-Canada and Dome is owned by Dome Canada. Also there is the Arctic Islands exploration group.
In addition to the difficulties which I cited in my own constituency, we know that rigs and companies have moved south of the border. Recently the Houston Business Journal referred to the Canadian connection and indicated that energy, money and politics blur borders. It identified some $2.5 billion of Canadian investment capital which has been invested in the Houston area. It cited about 24 companies which have set up offices in that city. That is one of the results. The outflow of capital has hurt the opportunity to invest and to create jobs. It has further eroded the value of the dollar and put pressure on the people in charge of fiscal and monetary management to increase interest rates.
In the first six months of 1981 the oil company acquisitions or takeovers by Canadians amounted to $6.5 billion. The

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
government was hellbent to Canadianize. It enticed and encouraged people to become involved in the Canadianization process. For example, Dome today is indebted by some $7.8 billion. Unless there are some further concessions or a bail-out is provided, it is uncertain whether Dome will be able to survive. Other companies have been similarly lured into takeovers, such as Sulpetro and Turbo. These companies were lured into the Canadianization process by the government. They are in trouble. There is a breakdown of confidence and there is uncertainty.
The budget is not helping matters. The government moves in and out and changes the rules of the game as it sees fit. The fact is that Canadianization has backfired and has created more problems than it has solved. As a result, the Liberal government will be advocating more and more state control, state intervention and state ownership. This is the thrust of the budget, of the National Energy Program and of the musings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This is the thrust contained in the document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s".
This administration is so obsessed with centralized power and control that it is prepared to sacrifice a once vibrant private sector for a controlled economy which is steered or guided by an army of bureaucrats and by a group of political manipulators. We are not sure where it will stop.
In an April 19 article which appeared in The Financial Times, it was indicated that an internal energy department study was being conducted in which officials were probing the refining and marketing segments of the oil industry, looking for rationalizations and for new interventions. Also it indicated that there was talk of carrots and sticks to promote different objectives, as well as the possibilities involving forced Canadianization, price controls, profit restrictions, production directives and the continuing erosion of private control fo the industry.
A very learned and respected journalist, W. A. Wilson, wrote the following in a recent article:
As the National Energy Program develops, bureaucratic regulation and control will increase. One recent government study suggests that upwards of $1.5 billion will have to be spent during the next eight years simply on federal supervision of the oil industry and that hundreds of additional officials will have to be hired.
The only outfit which is hiring new people is the Government of Canada. The productive sector is on the decline and the government is hiring more bureaucrats and more regulators. It is appointing more people to boards and task forces which will monitor and basically interfere with the smooth operation of a once viable industry. Of course, these are paid for by Canadian tax dollars. Mr. Wilson went on:
One of the worst potential problems is rarely even mentioned and practically never in Ottawa. Administration of subsidies running to many billions a year will demand an extraordinarily high level of honesty. In reality, the level of dishonesty in society is fairly high. The NEP creates the greatest incentive to graft by the unscrupulous which any Canadian government has ever set up.
The amendment proposed by my party is a small mechanism which would serve as a check and balance. It would give
Parliament some control over any further acquisitions encouraged by the army of bureaucrats and political manipulators in charge of the country at the present time.
I should like to deal briefly with Petro-Canada because essentially the funds envisioned in this particular provision would be administered and handled by that state oil company. It is in place, and I think it is fair to conclude that it will be part of the Canadian business landscape for many years to come. It enjoys fairly widespread support, but it must be made to work effectively for Canadians. I believe that Petro-Canada has strayed rather dramatically from its primary mandate, which essentially was to provide a mechanism to promote exploration for oil and gas resources in Canada at a pace and in areas which could not be expected of the private sector.
When the creation of Petro-Canada was being debated, there was a recognition of the fact that there would probably have to be public funds injected into those areas of Canada, such as the frontier, heavy oil areas and offshore areas, since the private sector may not be eager to go into those areas. Therefore, one of the primary objectives in creating Petro-Canada was to use it as an instrument to further enhance the security of supply in Canada and to further assist in achieving the goal of oil and gas self-sufficiency.
The second objective was essentially to ensure and promote a more rapid pace of oil sands research and development as a potential back-up source of energy supply for Canada.
Third, it was to give the Government of Canada a window on an international industry which is notoriously difficult to control. It was also given a mandate to improve the government's knowledge of Canadian energy stocks, costs and markets to provide a better insight since energy is a primary engine of economic growth. It was important for the government to have a window on the industry.
Fourth, it was to provide a mechanism to engage in state-to-state trading, which seemed to be a desire that had been expressed, rightly or wrongly, by people and countries with whom we were engaged in trade.
The fifth objective-and this was not the primary one-was to increase Canada's presence in an industry which was overwhelmingly foreign dominated.
I make those points simply to reiterate that Petro-Canada's mandate was not to Canadianize the oil industry or to make the industry more efficient and competitve but, rather, to promote Canadian self-sufficiency in energy by accelerating the timing of high-risk exploration and development in the Arctic, the eastern offshore basins and the heavy oil sands and tar sands of western Canada.
When we examine the record of Petro-Canada we see that these objectives have not been fulfilled. It has not concentrated on enhancing security of supply. It has not added to our known reserves in the country. It has not advanced our technology or speeded up another tar sands or heavy oil development. It did nothing to salvage Cold Lake.
June 8, 1982

What has actually happened is that it has become nothing more than a downstream refining, distributing and retailing oil company. It has become an integrated oil company. It has essentially established itself as another major oil company to be nothing more than a glorified service station operator. It is another intergrated oil company very similar to the others except operating under somewhat different and preferential guidelines. It has not aided in accelerating the development of heavy oil, a heavy oil upgrader or enhanced recovery systems in Cold Lake. It has done nothing toward accomplishing the development of another tar sands plant. Today it is doing virtually the same thing as those companies in the private sector continue to do, and at an enormous cost in terms both of money and what it has done to the erosion of our economic climate in Canada.
Up to this point Petro-Canada has cost billions of dollars. We are more reliant on foreign oil today than we were a year ago. This has been the succession of Petro-Canada. The cancellation of Alsands and Cold Lake has not brought forth an alternative energy policy from the government. Does the government plan to revitalize a smaller Cold Lake or the heavy oil upgrader? Does it intend to stimulate the exploration and development of our conventional resources in the western basins or will we have to rely upon Venezuela, Mexico and the OPEC countries in the hope that production from our frontier lands and offshore will be developed in sufficient amounts in time to bail us out of the crunch?
What is most disturbing is that the international component of Petro-Canada will be funded rather heavily. It will receive $250 million over the next four years and will be searching for oil in Tanzania, Senegal, Pakistan, Jamaica and Bangladesh. The question which must be asked soon is: What has Petro-Canada done for Canada and the average Canadian lately? What is it doing in terms of ensuring that it is an effective mechanism and is providing fair value for the dollars that have been invested in it? Not only must Petro-Canada fulfil its mandate; it must provide a benefit to the consumers of Canada. It has not done that heretofore.
I believe if Petro-Canada is to work for the benefit of the average Canadian, there must be greater parliamentary control and a greater degree of accountability to Parliament. We know that there is a proliferation of Crown corporations in this country. There are approximately 400 Crown corporations which are becoming uncontrollable. These Crown corporations are not properly scrutinized nor are they subject to the proper checks and balances that any other business owned by individual shareholders is. They are merely carte blanche operations which can proceed to establish subsidiary companies without any reference to Parliament. They operate quite independently without any realistic or effective accountability to their shareholders.
A new framework for the creation of Crown corporations is needed if we are to continue to proliferate our Canadian economy with increasing numbers of Crown corporations. Crown corporation legislation is needed which would provide an effective parliamentary mechanism to monitor them and hold them accountable. Through proper legislation these
Petroleum Administration Act
corporations would be accountable to Parliament and, therefore, accountable to the shareholders of Canada.
We need the Auditor General to audit these Crown corporations. The Auditor General, in his report ending March 30, 1980, had this to say about Crown corporations:
Control and accountability of Crown corporations has been a major concern of this office for a number of years. As we have stated in previous Annual Reports (most recently in Chapter 8 of the 1979 Report) and in testimony before the Public Accounts Committee, we think that all corporations wholly owned by the Government of Canada on behalf of the taxpayers should be subject to comprehensive auditing.
Comprehensive auditing in Crown corporations can help provide the independent assurance Parliament requires as to whether systems and procedures related to financial control are appropriate, whether there is due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and whether management practices are consistent with the expressed public policy goals of Parliament. This kind of assurance, we believe, is also desirable for directors and shareholders of Crown corporations.
During the 31st Parliament, legislation in the form of Bill C-27 on Crown corporations was introduced in the House of Commons. The bill provided that Crown corporation auditors should conduct value-for-money audits. The bill died on the order paper at the dissolution of Parliament in December, 1979.
Since then, nothing has happened. The government has withdrawn its intention to introduce Crown corporation legislation that is necessary to establish the proper framework.
In the latest Auditor General's report we again hear that call from him when he states:
Legislation is necessary to provide for comprehensive audits in all Crown corporations wholly owned by the Government of Canada. Only through such audits may Parliament be given independent assurance concerning systems and procedures related to financial and management controls.
The comprehensive audit would monitor the degree to which, in conducting the affairs of each corporation, there has been due regard to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This information is especially significant for the Directors of the corporations.
We do not have that framework, but we must have that framework if we are going to monitor and hold accountable the Crown corporations in this country. There is no legislation on the Order Paper at the present time or any indication that the government has any intention of introducing such legislation. The government is, in effect, aiding and abetting this blank cheque exercise which is seen in this particular bill. It is really a blank cheque exercise which is being funded and paid for by the consumers of Canada.
The amendment with which we are dealing goes a partial distance in providing a mechanism which would exercise some control and, indeed, make it necessary for parliamentary approval before Petro-Canada or the bureaucrats went out on a spending spree to buy up more oil companies financed by the taxpayers of Canada. Clearly this is a role for Parliament and a role in which the people of Canada should have some say.
By approving this amendment, we would be ensuring that there will be no more Petrofina deals and there will be no more huge payments to Maurice Strong and friends of the Liberal Party to facilitate deals like this. Such transactions will have to come before Parliament to get the kind of support that is required and envisioned, and which this particular amendment

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
will have the effect of providing. So I urge all hon. members, in the interests of preserving the institution of Parliament and of ensuring that there be proper accountability, to support this particular motion because, as I said at the outset, it is simple, it is pratical, it is responsible and, above all, it is a common sense amendment.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had not intended to participate in our discussion this afternoon, but after listening to some of the remarks of the hon. member opposite who has just spoken, I want to make one or two comments. I listened to the hon. member with the respect which I normally accord to him, because he has made a number of very useful contributions to our debates in the past. But I thought that this afternoon he failed in some respects to maintain that standard by introducing material which was either erroneous or anachronistic in some ways irrelevant to the legislation we have before us. In particular, I have in mind the discussion in which the hon. member engaged with regard to that part of the legislation referring to the petroleum compensation charge and the related question of a shut-in oil industry.
I am sure the hon. member opposite would recognize that over the years the amount of shut-in oil in Canada has varied depending on marketing and other circumstances. But as we all recognize, the amount of shut-in oil in Canada substantially increased during a recent period. Indeed, the government quite clearly stated in the National Energy Program update of a fortnight ago that it considers it essential that Canadian domestic oil be used to meet Canadian needs and that it has been deeply concerned about the level of shut-in oil which has existed in recent months. So there is no disagreement in the House or, indeed, across Canada in general that the amount of shut-in oil has been high and that measures should be taken to reduce it.
When the government did recognize that a problem was emerging earlier this year, it announced on April 1 certain actions which have considerably alleviated the problem. However, for a moment I want to touch on some of the reasons the problem occurred and then on some of the solutions which have been put in place.
Initially, some part of the shut-in oil resulted from the cutbacks in production which the Government of Alberta instituted as part of its response to the National Energy Program. Oil companies understandably moved at that time to offset the cutback in Alberta production by seeking the guarantee, the assurance, of offshore supply. Those contracts, of course, simply could not be cancelled or reneged upon in a very brief period. Some of them have already run their course and others will in the near future.
Second, a contributing factor has been a lower demand in the United States for Canadian heavy oils. The recession in the United States has resulted in lower demand for heavy oils surplus to Canadian needs which have been exported to the United States. The result has been additional shut-in oil in western Canada.
Third, of course, has been the reduction in demand here in Canada for refined petroleum products.
Some mention was made earlier, in our discussions of the National Energy Program, of its success in reducing the demand for oil. One of the ramifications of that success has been that within Canada there has been a drop-off in demand for certain types of oil. The eastern refiners have necessarily had to vary their mix of imported oils to match demands in Canada and that, in turn, has had its impact on the shut-in oil problem.
Fourth, some refiners took advantage of lower international oil prices in recent months. A few Canadian refiners have taken advantage of those lower international prices to reduce their costs. That has meant, in some instances, passing up Canadian supply in favour of imported oil. All those factors come together and have contributed to a situation where we have had significant amounts of shut-in oil.
As I mentioned, the government moved on April 1 to ensure that there would be greater use made of our own domestic sources of oil and to ensure that imported oil was not used to displace Canadian oil. On April 1, measures were announced to ensure that heavy oil surpluses were competitively priced in the U.S. market. The National Energy Board took steps to issue licences for the export of such oil for 12 months rather than for shorter periods which had been in place in the past. Additionally, the government moved to encourage eastern Canadian refiners to import only minimum offshore amounts so as to help ensure that Canadian sources were used in place of imported oil.
As a result of those and other measures there has been a quite dramatic drop in the amount of shut-in oil in Canada. There was, in fact, a period in April when shut-in oil amounted to some 65,000 cubic metres. Two months later, in June, that amount has dropped to 5,400 cubic metres. That is, in two months it has dropped from 65,000 to 5,000. All hon. members will agree that that has been a dramatic and sudden reduction in shut-in oil, both of the conventional light and medium crudes, as well as heavy crudes. Now, that is not to say that the amount I have just cited for June, 5,400 cubic metres, will necessarily be the same amount for every month in the future, but it seems evident to me that we have seen a real turnaround in the situation which is very real. I would recommend that the hon. member who spoke before me look into the facts.
I agree that in July or later, during the early autumn, for example, when there is a traditional refinery shutdown for maintenance, there may be some temporary increase, possibly in the magnitude of 5,000 or 10,000 cubic metres of shut-in oil. However, I would submit that it would be nothing of the order of magnitude that we have seen in the past, due to the various measures taken.
I want to draw to the attention of the hon. member opposite the fact that not only on April 1 were measures taken by the
June 8, 1982

government to ensure that the use of Canadian oil was promoted, but also in the update of the National Energy Program there were a number of additional measures taken to ensure that a major growth in shut-in oil does not recur. I draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that the government has committed itself to restricting crude oil imports to those volumes under current contract necessary to preserve continued access to offshore oil.
Perhaps more important, adjustments will be made to the petroleum import compensation program, adjustments fully in accord with the legislation now before us, to ensure that the program is more responsive to offshore oil prices paid by Canadian importers.
When the petroleum import compensation program was developed, it was against the background of increasing oil prices. Now the unusual situation has occurred-perhaps temporarily-of lower world prices. The method of calculation is accordingly being altered to take into account that new situation as well. In addition, we have put in place a program to purchase some additional volumes of western Canadian crude oil for storage. In special circumstances, financial support will be offered to assist the movement of western crude oil to eastern Canada via exchanges with United States refineries. All those programs, combined with efforts to ensure that the refineries review all their import contracts to reduce imports, will, in our view, help to ensure that shut-in oil of the magnitude we saw earlier this year will not recur.
The second matter I want to touch upon is that the member opposite drew our attention to the situation on the conventional oil lands in western Canada where there has been a decline in the amount of new exploration over the past few years. There has been a lot of discussion on that subject in this House. For example, we have had reference to the fact that there was, in the eyes of the oil drilling industry itself, a surplus of rigs before the National Energy Program was announced. The fact that there has been a natural gas surplus in Canada has also had an adverse impact on drilling activity. It is not my purpose today to repeat those factors which have contributed to the present situation.
However, when the hon. member opposite contrasts what he suggests is a gloomy situation in western Canada with a glowing, vibrant and dynamic industry in the United States, he is behind the times. I wish to quote in extenso from an article in the current issue of Fortune Magazine which reads as follows:
The shock waves that have rippled through U.S. oil since January have been felt in every corner of the industry, among service and equipment companies, independent producers, and the integrated companies.
The ninefold increases in oil prices since 1973 has masked inefficiencies and shielded the business from its own excesses.
What happened is no secret: falling oil prices, dwindling demand, and higher costs encircled the majors' bottom line and squeezed hard. For the remainder of the year, most analysts project that net income of the nation's 17 largest oil companies will be down sharply, in some cases as much as 40 per cent.
The downturn has jolted the entire chain of oil service and equipment companies, whose health derives solely from the spending patterns of oil and gas
Petroleum Administration Act
producers. The count of active seismic crews, which performs the first step in exploration by mapping geologic strata with reflected soundwaves, has been declining for seven straight months in the U.S. Drilling rigs are "stacked" or out of service, all over the oil patch.
Despite the cries of suffering wildcatters and other oil men, the industry that emerges from the current travail should be one well able to serve the public interest by finding oil efficiently-good news for consumers.
That quotation is not from an article about the situation in the western Canadian oil patch. It is about the situation in the United States today. No one takes any pleasure in the drop in drilling activity in the United States any more than one does here in Canada. But the fact remains that the United States does not have a national energy program. These adverse circumstances in the U.S. petroleum industry which are described in the article are clearly the result of other reasons.
I suggest to the hon. member opposite and to the House generally that the drop-off in the United States oil exploration, which is partly the result of lower world oil prices, inflation and higher interest rates, have also contributed to the slowdown evident here in Canada.
One can debate the impact of the National Energy Program on exploration and development. I am willing to do that. However, the hon. member's stand would be more realistic and comprehensive if he were to take into account some broad, adverse aspects in the economy affecting the drilling situation in western Canada beyond those he cites which relate only to the National Energy Program.
In light of those adverse factors, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have moved to provide the industry with a greater degree of revenue so that it can undertake more activity both in the conventional lands of western Canada and in the frontier areas in their search for new oil sources. I need not remind the hon. member opposite that the Alberta government has provided a substantial reduction in royalties. Second, the Government of Canada in the recent update of the National Energy Program announced some major reductions in taxes so as to increase the revenue of the petroleum industry.
I do not doubt that those provincial and federal measures, when combined with the fact that any new oil discovered, will receive the new oil reference price, the equivalent of world prices, and the availability of the petroleum incentive program, which in Alberta is financed by that province, will combine to stimulate a resurgence in drilling in the time ahead, both in Alberta and in Canada lands.
Finally, the hon. member opposite referred to the Canadian-ization aspects of the National Energy Program. I have never been clear in my mind whether his party has a consistent policy on that aspect of the National Energy Program. It seems to depend very much on where a speaker comes from as to whether he is fervent in his admiration for Canadianization or at best lukewarm. In that connection I found the comments of the member opposite surprising when he referred to Petro-Canada.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
It seems to me that to describe Petro-Canada as nothing more than a downstream company, and I quote his words, and secondly as a glorified service station operator, is a bizarre description of Canada's national oil company. It is a company that has shown the way in seeking sources of oil in western Canada, in the Arctic and in the Atlantic. Before it, Panarctic played an active part, a company in which the Canadian government provided a major share of the financing, paving the way for many of the activities that Petro-Canada now engages in.
Those activities are well set out in the annual report of Petro-Canada for 1981. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the review therein of Petro-Canada's activities in the frontier, where it is a major player. Indeed, it has been a substantial catalyst in ensuring that exploration on the Nova Scotian shelf, the Grand Banks and the Labrador shelf should go forward. That those resources have been identified in the Atlantic offshore is in part ascribable to the activities of Petro-Canada. All of us should be very proud of the work of our national oil company in that regard.
In the Arctic, Petro-Canada has been an active member of the Arctic Islands exploration group, the Arctic pilot project, and has contributed substantially, both financially and in terms of technical skill, to ensuring that the most promising areas for new sources of petroleum, the frontier lands, are brought on stream at an early date.
In the west of Canada the exploration activity of Petro-Canada has been considerably extended in territorial scope by its acquisition of Petrofina. We have had ample evidence in the past couple of years, and especially last year, of the commitment of Petro-Canada to play an active role in the exploration and development of petroleum areas of western Canada.
When the member opposite talks of his view of Petro-Canada as a glorified service station operator, he does a disservice not only to our national oil company but indeed to the Canadianization program of the government as a whole. That Canadianization program is not in some way limited to the activities of Petro-Canada as he suggested. On the contrary, the principal way that Canadianization of our petroleum industry will go forward will be through the private sector and not through government ownership, as the evidence already shows in the period since the introduction of the National Energy Program.
The acquisition by Petro-Canada of Petrofina has indeed attracted a great deal of attention as a fleshing out of the activity of our national energy company. I would remind the hon. member that in fact the incentives for the Canadianization of our own oil industry have found more expression in the acquisition by private investors of foreign-controlled petroleum | companies. Indeed, since October 1980 the acquisition by Petro-Canada of Petrofina was only the third largest of various acquisitions. Dome's acquisition of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, which was larger. So was the Canada Development Corporation's acquisition of Aquitaine.
In any total calculation, Mr. Speaker, of the amounts spent on the Canadianization of the oil industry, the private sector has led the way. It has recognized the opportunities that now exist for Canadian investors and indeed for all Canadians to participate more actively in our own petroleum industry.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a remarkable opportunity to sit here and listen to the member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). What he did today was stand up and admit in public that the National Energy Program was a mistake. He does it so cleverly. He says that we had a shut-in problem but "look at the marvelous thing we did to correct it". You cannot correct something unless you made the mistake in the first place. That is the admission of failure. We had shut-in oil because this government made a great big mistake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Eight days ago in this chamber we had an update on the National Energy Program with a further $2 billion committed. That is $2,000 million. You cannot have an update, you cannot have that $2,000 million, unless you made the mistake in the first place. What he did today was stand up in this House and say "Yes, we made a mistake". That is what he did throughout his speech. Today we have had the clearest demonstration to this point that this Liberal government and the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have run the oil industry just as well as they ran the post office in the last ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is what they told us in this House today. The minister stands up and says "I do not think the Conservative Party has a clear-cut policy on Canadianization". Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian and I do not own one piece of Petro-Canada. The only owner is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The only owner is Petro-Canada, not all Canadians.
Our policy in the Conservative Party is clear, our policy is consistent. We believe in all Canadians, those who put their money into pension plans, those who buy a piece of this industry and a piece of that industry. We believe in Canadians who can afford to own their own homes. We believe in Canadians who can start a small business. We believe in all Canadians, 24 million Canadians.
That party over there, and the NDP, the "Liberal Party West", believe in one Canadian, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or in 30 Canadians called the federal cabinet. When they look at this bill and we talk about a Canadian ownership charge and about Canadianization, what they mean, and every Canadian should understand it, is that the minister of Energy shall own everything, or the cabinet shall own everything.
That is not my view of Canada, Mr. Speaker. That is not the view of this party. This party believes in 24 million Canadians,
June 8, 1982

each of whom should own an increasing share of this country. That is what our policies were directed toward and that is what our policies will be directed toward, not ownership by the minister of Energy, not ownership by the Liberal cabinet, but ownership by all Canadians. The bells rang, Mr. Speaker, to restore some sanity to the Liberal Party and to this House of Commons.
The Alberta government cut back production a year ago to restore some sanity to our oil and gas picture. Every step of the way, since their election, this government insists on bullheaded, misguided, bad policies for this nation. They will not listen to gentle advice. They will not listen to logical advice. They have to be hit over the head with a club before they hear anything, Mr. Speaker. I stand here today debating this bill and this amendment because we hit them over the head with a club.
There are ten amendments, Mr. Speaker, that stand in my name on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada. Each and every one is logically derived and would make sense for Canadians and consumers. They would increase jobs and would reduce the cost of living.
That is the sum total of those ten amendments, and let me deal with the one before us now. We have to read through all the legal language to find out that there is a tax of 4.5 cents a gallon. It does not sound like much, but when one fills up the gas tank in his car, it is a dollar. When we fill up our home heating oil tanks in the wintertime, the sum total of that 4.5 cents tax is $3 million a day. That 4.5 cents a gallon represents $3 million a day. Did the government have the courage to bring in a piece of legislation to say it would tax the people 4.5 cents a gallon until the government has collected enough money to pay for the buy-out of Petrofina and then it would stop that tax? No, it did not. No part of this legislation gives us any indication that when that purchase is completed the tax will stop.
The purpose of this amendment is to stop the tax once the buy-out is complete. If this amendment is adopted, the 4.5 cents a gallon tax would stop. But no, the Liberal Party wants to keep the tax in place forever. Four and a half cents a gallon is about 5 per cent of the cost of our home heating oil, about 5 per cent of the cost of the gasoline which goes into our cars and about 5 per cent of the cost of the gasoline which goes into tractors used in the production of food. This tax makes everything more expensive.
What is the government doing with this money? The first $1,460 million is to buy Petrofina. Canadians should think about that because what that means is that $1,460 million will be sent outside Canada, largely to the people who live in Belgium. People without jobs in Canada should stop and ask themselves whether their unemployment is partly because this government decided to send $1,460 million out of Canada for this one purpose alone. Do the people of Canada want the government to take 4.5 cents a gallon out of their pockets and send it out of the country? When the government does that, it
Petroleum Administration Act
drives down the value of our dollar. Today our dollar is worth just a little over 79 cents American. A few weeks ago it was worth about 83 cents American. When the value of the dollar falls four cents, practically everything we buy becomes more expensive. The cost of living goes up when this government sends dollars out of the country.
If we pay 4.5 cents tax on every gallon we buy, we might ask ourselves what we want the government to do with it. The 1.2 million Canadians who are unemployed today would like to see the government use that money to create jobs. Canadians who cannot afford their mortgages and are in danger of losing their homes would rather their government brought interest rates down a little so that they can keep their homes. Small-businessmen whose businesses are going bankrupt because of high interest rates would rather see the government take that 4.5 cents and reduce interest rates so they will not go bankrupt and all their employees will not lose their jobs. It is a matter of public choice. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, supported by all the backbenchers opposite, has decided to send that money out of the country, and he has decided to keep collecting 4.5 cents after the need for it is gone.
How can members of this House go home to their ridings this weekend and say they stood in the House of Commons and voted to impose a 4.5 cents a gallon tax on gasoline forever so that only the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can decide how to spend it and so that he can send it out of the country? Instead of creating jobs in Canada, he has already decided to send money out of Canada to create jobs in Belgium. Where will he send money next? Will he create jobs in the United States of America? Will he create jobs in Mexico? Will he create jobs in Venezuela? The minister wants to take 4.5 cents per gallon out of my pocket to create jobs in other countries and not in this country where 1.2 million-plus Canadians are unemployed.
Members of Parliament have been sent to this place to help Canadians, and I urge them to vote for this amendment because, at the very least, it would stop this minister from collecting that $3 million a day and sending it out of Canada. If he does not have it, he cannot send it out. It would be wise in the current situation if we took that $3 million a day and spent it in Canada rather than in some other country. I wonder if there are 365 communities in Canada which could use $3 million each to help get projects started, to help get factories going, to reduce interest rates, to encourage businesses to develop and to create jobs. If the answer is yes, we have an opportunity today. All we have to do is vote for this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 8, 1982
Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"tions from any non-Canadian person in order to increase Canadian ownership
of'.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-Fisheries-Closure of fish plant at Georgetown, P.E.I. (b) Role of government; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. Mac-Kay)-The Judiciary-Nature of character reference provided by Solicitor General; the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski)-Multiculturalism-speech made by Chairman of Race Relations Committee, (b) Minister's understanding of multiculturalism.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions
related thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, and Motion No. 7 (Mr. Hawkes).
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, very simply, this amendment seeks to make the bill read in the manner in which the government indicates it intends the legislation to impact on the Canadian economy. The amendment merely says that if in fact there is to be a Canadian ownership charge for the purpose of increasing Canadian ownership-which we do not think is justified, reasonable or appropriate-then the moneys collected should be spent to purchase assets, shares, capital and so forth of non-Canadian-owned oil and gas companies. We simply would change the wording of the appropriate clause to have the legislation do what the government tells us it is intended to do.
Frankly, I do not believe the government will go along with this amendment because I do not believe the government when it says its purpose is Canadianization. I do not think that is any more honest than a number of things the government has been telling us.
The purpose of this whole program is nationalization and state ownership. Big brother is going to run things for us, and that is going to make us very comfortable, secure and selfsufficient! The economy is going to be run by these genuises in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who have made such a success of this country's energy industry so far that they have driven out $19 billion worth of capital, put thousands of people out of jobs and driven hundreds of companies to bankruptcy! That kind of performance will not deter the true ideologue and the trained donkeys who can be depended upon to support such behaviour. If state ownership is the object, I suppose that is what we will get because we cannot expect trained donkeys to learn from experience, but we continue to hope.
This amendment was put forward with a view to having the legislation reflect what the minister says it was intended to do. We will see whether he was telling us the truth or not when we see how the trained donkeys vote. I am quite confident that they will vote against it.
When speaking to motion No. 6 yesterday, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made a couple of statements that I should like to correct. He suggested that we should read what Jeff Simpson had to say about Norway's Statoil and the Norwegian oil fields. I suggest that he do a little more reading himself. He would find out that in the last
June 8, 1982

few months the Norwegian government has changed the situation considerably and Statoil is no longer the big brother of the Norwegian oil fields. The Norwegians have learned, as we should have learned by now, that Crown corporations in Norway do not work any better than they work in Canada. The hammerlock that Statoil had on the Norwegian oil fields was offered to us as a model to be followed in giving Petro-Canada the same kind of hammerlock on Canada lands, but the Norwegians are changing the situation. They have learned that Crown corporations are not the answer. If were to follow Norway's example we would rescind some of the powers we have given to Petro-Canada, not increase them as the hon. member suggested.
The hon. member also made reference to Britain but I think he should inform himself on that situation as well. He would find that the British national oil company, which was created by the Labour government as a kind of big brother operation to run the British North Sea oil fields, has had its powers curtailed. In Britain, as in Canada, it was discovered that Crown corporations do not work. They do not work in Britain, they do not work in Norway, they do not work in Poland, they do not work in the Soviet Union-they just do not work. I would hope that even the obtuse members to my left would eventually learn that lesson.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that the Progressive Conservative Party was not being true to its roots when he read from a 1974 policy document in which the party indicated it was in favour of at least 50 per cent ownership of resource industries, including oil and gas. He should have kept reading that document as well. He would have found that among the specific suggestions made by the Progressive Conservative Party for changes in Canadian law that would promote Canadian ownership was a change in the income tax law which at that time contained something called the principal business test for oil and gas investment. Basically, that meant that unless you were already engaged in the oil and gas industry you would not receive the same incentives as those already engaged in it received. The impact was that an American, a German, a Swiss or a British company could drill a well in Canada with pre-tax dollars but Canadians could not. That was the absurd situation that existed in 1974 and for a decade before that. Canadians were at a disadvantage compared to foreigners when it came to investment in Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party was outraged and said that if that were changed there would be a tremendous increase in investment by Canadians in the oil and gas industry.
The provision was changed in the budget of December, 1975. From 1976 onward, for the first time, Canadians were on a par with foreigners regarding investment in the Canadian oil and gas industry. In 1975 the oil industry was 92 per cent foreign owned, but four years later it was only 72 per cent foreign owned. So Canadian ownership increased spectacularly as the result of that simple change in the tax law which was part of our policy in 1974 and was adopted by the government and put into effect in 1976.
Petroleum Administration Act
The effect of the National Energy Program was to slow down Canadianization, not increase it. The federal Petroleum Monitoring Agency is proof of that. Any member of the House who is interested in what happened should read the latest report which shows that, as a result of the National Energy Program, in the first six months of 1981 foreign-owned companies operating in Canada suffered a loss of 28 per cent of their income while Canadian-owned oil and gas companies lost 52 per cent of their income. The National Energy Program is discouraging to foreign owners in the Canadian oil and gas industry but it is devastating to Canadians. It is an affront to honesty, integrity and decency for Liberals to claim that the National Energy Program is good for Canadianization. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker.
The New Democratic Party and the Liberals talk about Canadianization of the industry but they neglect to examine the whole spectrum of the industry. Their idea of Canadianization is how many service stations have red maple leaves painted on them.
A decade ago the drilling industry, which is an important part of the oil and gas industry, was as much as 80 per cent foreign owned. The big companies that dominated the industry were foreign owned. In 1980 the industry was 95 per cent Canadian owned. It had become Canadianized without big brother, without Crown corporations and without any of this nonsense about Liberal concern.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With a few super depletion allowances.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member speaks of super depletion. I am talking about the drilling industry. He does not even know what I am talking about.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who do you think pays for all that? You and I, baby.


Harvie Andre: The energy critic for the NDP, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, talks about the super depletion allowance. That does not apply to provincial lands, it applies only to federal lands in the high Arctic. It applies only to wells in excess of $5 million each. The drilling industry does not really participate in those wells; they are drilled basically by the companies concerned. There has been in the order of 60 or 70 in total drilled in the high Arctic, and there has been only a dozen or so eligible for super depletion.
Now, in comparison, I am talking about the 5,000 wells drilled in provincial lands by Canadian drilling companies which were devastated by the NEP. They are now in Colorado, Texas or Kansas. As usual, the hon. member has his facts totally wrong and he shows why the monicker of "Liberal Party West" is appropriate. Facts are not going to get in the way of a good issue!
Another aspect of the industry is that of service companies. They go in after a well is drilled and service it. A decade ago that industry was overwhelmingly foreign owned; today it is overwhelmingly Canadian owned. That industry has been

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
devastated by the NEP. Dozens of companies have been driven into bankruptcy, all of this for Canadianization. Anyone who says, Mr. Speaker, that the NEP has contributed to Canadianization is a fool or a liar; one or the other. Let us not carry on with this nonsense, whether in ignorance or through malicious intent, that somehow we are Canadianizing the oil and gas industry through the NEP. It is no such thing. As my colleagues and I have indicated, the Canadian ownership charge is nothing but a sneaky tax designed to nationalize and put big brother in control of more and more of the private sector. Given big brother's track record, that does not fill with confidence anyone who has any common sense.
If this Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, and the geniuses in the bowels of the bureaucracy who advise the government, are determined to carry on, they could at least have the integrity to do what they say and support this motion, which provides that if you intend to carry on with this stupid tax to Canadian-ize, at least use the money exclusively for the purchase of non-Canadian-owned shares. To collect this tax from the consumer and then turn around and use the money to purchase private assets from Canadians is not increasing Canadian ownership; it is increasing nationalization. If that is what they are after, then for goodness sake get a mandate from the people. Go to the people and put this program of nationalization, state ownership and socialism before them in an honest way. If the people of Canada decide that they want to emulate Poland, fine. But the way they are gong about it now is-


Mr. Kristiansen:: The Tories voted for martial law in Canada, not us.


Harvie Andre: There is the pinko from the Okanagan-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You and the Liberals imposed martial law in Canada, not the NDP.


Harvie Andre: He is just bitter because there is no legitimate communist party in Canada that he can be a member of.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You and your pals in Warsaw want to ban the right to strike here, too.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member seems to be a little sensitive. I will soon finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and he can stand up and explain to the House why socialism is such a wonderful thing-and why big brother can do such a good job of running things. He can tell us what a marvellous utopia we are going to live in when the state owns the means of production, and how it will be so super for Canada when the NDP ideal of having the minister and his minions run everything in Canada is reached. I await with interest his address about what a marvellous country this is going to be when we achieve that utopian ideal of the state owning everything.
If the government is honest, Mr. Speaker, and the intention is Canadianization as opposed to nationalization, it will in fact support this amendment. But I do not expect the government to be any more honest this time than it has been so far.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to reply to the eloquent and low-key remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I thank him for his analysis of history and for his speech on dialectical materialism and the role of the state. I listened very carefully to him. He talked about Norway, and I cited Norway the other day. I did that simply to show that there was a role for a Crown corporation in the energy industry. I mentioned the U.K. for the same reason. It is true there are new governments in Norway and the U.K. The problem, as they saw it, was too much government involvement and they cut back somewhat; but they kept the government corporations going because they wanted to give direction to the industry.
Do you know whose idea it was, Mr. Speaker, to have the government of the United Kingdom involved in the oil industry? It was a great communist, a great left-winger, one who followed the Moscow line. His name was Sir Winston Churchill. Around the time of World War I he advocated that the government buy into the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company because he saw oil as a strategic commodity. So that great communist pinko freak, Sir Winston Churchill, was the one responsible and I hope my friend will mention that in his next speech.
I am distressed, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Calgary Centre says, as he does quite clearly on the record, that Crown corporations do not work; not in the United Kingdom, in Poland or in the Soviet Union. He says they do not work anywhere. The same thing was said about co-ops 50 years ago. It distresses me because it is an attack on all Crown corporations, such as Air Canada and the CBC. As I pointed out yesterday, you can criticize them individually, and goodness knows the CBC sometimes deserves criticism as well as Air Canada and some others, but it seems to me you cannot criticize them generally. I think the hon. member, like some of his colleagues-not all-are becoming prisoners of ideology. They are getting so far out on the right wing that they are really putting their party in danger of being in the mainstream of Canadian politics.
He speaks of the government having a mandate from the people. My interpretation of the last election was that the people did not want Petro-Canada destroyed. That is why the government had so much trouble. They had three policies on Petro-Canada. I suggest to the hon. member that he look at his own majority. He knows more about that than I do, but even in Alberta I think there were some reductions in Conservative majorities. I do not think the people were happy with the program of dismantling Petro-Canada. In the House the minister said in the clearest language possible that Crown corporations do not work. He was advocating the dismantling of Petro-Canada. I warned the Conservatives of the ramifications of doing that.
OO)
In my province of British Columbia the Social Credit government, which is a conservative government, got very
June 8, 1982

ideological. It sold many energy and mining Crown corporations. It gave free shares to the public and it sold some shares. The government did this through the British Columbia Resource Investment Corporation. The shares in BCRIC were sold for $6. The shares rose to $8 or $9, but after that they slid to $3. BCRIC is responsible to no one. All those assets which were previously owned collectively by the people were sold off. The assets were sold to private interests; many were sold to people outside the province. Difficulties in management occurred and the company is doing poorly. Is that the way to handle resources?
I listened to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) speak. I believe the hon. member has a doctor of philosophy degree. He sounded as though he had not taken a grade nine course in political science and history when he suggested that everybody wanted to put the power into the hands of the minister and the cabinet. He wanted to put it into the hands of the representatives of 24 million people. Who does the minister and the cabinet represent? Has the hon. member ever heard of the parliamentary system of Canadian democracy? A grade nine student knows what that is.
There are difficulties with Crown corporations. If the hon. member from Calgary had been listening to some of the speeches made by members of the New Democratic Party instead of flailing at some dead taxes and dead issues, he might have talked about our ideas for trying to make Crown corporations accountable to people. That is the new thrust in this country. That is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about how to make Crown corporations accountable and how to decentralize power into the hands of the people. Some Conservatives and some New Democrats agree on that. We are trying to find ways of decentralizing power.
I do not think it helps to put all the power into the hands of a few directors of a corporation. It is not decentralizing power to put all power into the hands of a few politically appointed directors of Petro-Canada. We in the socialist context and they in the free enterprise context have to find ways of dealing with these things. We have never advocated production being run by state-owned companies-the total control of the means of production. That is communism. I had three communist candidates run against me in the last election. Obviously they thought we were not advocating that or they would not have run against me. As my colleague from the Kootenays said, which party was it whose members stood up when martial law was brought into Canada? Let us not hear about Poland and so on because it is not relevant to this debate.
One of the two members who spoke last called us the western wing of the Liberal Party. How many times since October have the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party voted together? The answer is 30 times. How many times have the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party voted together? The answer to that question is 14 times. That does not sound like an alliance to me. It seems to me that the western wing of the Liberal Party is the Conservative Party if you go by those statistics.
Petroleum Administration Act


Mr. Fulton:: Ray Hnatyshyn is a secret liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We do not ask for much. We just ask for the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to come out of the closet and declare his liberalism.


Paul James Cosgrove: We are not proud.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this particular amendment I agree somewhat with the hon. member for Calgary Centre that in a sense Canadianization is rather a phony process. The government has said through the minister of energy, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and through former ambassador Towe speaking in the United States that it is not going to carry on with public ownership for the present. The government is relying on private takeovers. But we are not going to have any more private takeovers because of high interest rates in this country. The companies that tried private takeovers, such as Dome, Turbo, Sulpetro and some other companies, got burned. They are now hanging out to dry and are in deep trouble.
Suppose the Government of Canada wants to use some of the moneys that will be in surplus to take over a Canadian company and it is necessary to do so. It seems to me this is a problem and is one of the reasons we cannot support this amendment. I will put an example on the record but I do not want to go on record as favouring it. The situation would have to be looked at very carefully. If Dome cannot get out of its present financial difficulties, the government could take over Dome's assets in the Beaufort Sea.
What about TransCanada PipeLines, which would give Dome some cash and allow the government to have a greater say in the marketing of natural gas, which marketing is in a mess in Alberta right now? If we did that, it would help the small companies. There are possibilities that money could be used to take certain companies under public ownership which may, in fact, be Canadian companies. But then we have the problem of what is a Canadian company. By how much should it be owned and by how much should it be controlled? That problem is not addressed in this motion. We will see groups of Canadian companies in the north that are not really Canadian companies. They will be shells that are American controlled.
The hon. member from Calgary wants to fight down on the beaches and to fight them everywhere, just to paraphrase Churchill. The hon. member forgets the terrible communist and left-winger who understood, which the hon. member from Calgary does not, that there has to be a guiding role by the government, whether federal or provincial, in the development of strategic commodities. That does not leave out small Canadian companies. Good luck to them. Some of these companies perform a lot better in drilling and other areas. I am afraid that my friends in the Conservative Party have become prisoners of Reagan ideology, which is not really part of the Conservative Party. It would be enough to make the former member for Prince Albert and certainly Sir Winston turn in their graves.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make on this amendment. Before I do that, I want to put something on the record for the edification of members who were not privy to the deliberations which took place in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
As we all know, there was a House order determining the length of this particular debate; the legislation had to be sent to committee and then returned to the chamber within a specified time frame. Throughout the process hon. members of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party and the government had an opportunity to review in depth the substance of the various pieces of legislation which were before the committee. In doing so, we called upon a good number of experts. We heard representations from the business and academic communities. A number of individuals put forward their ideas on the pith and substance of the legislation. There were a number of suggestions on how the legislation could be improved. There was some serious debate as to what different clauses meant or indeed what their effect would be.
I, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), am somewhat concerned, and perhaps in some respects annoyed, by the tone of the official opposition. However, perhaps that tone will continue because it has been part and parcel of its ideology and has been intensified as a result of the last federal election in February, 1980. Unfortunately the official opposition has not recovered from that particular defeat. It is attempting to use any means-and I use that phrase quite liberally-at its disposal in an attempt to recreate the situation which took place in 1979.
Hon. members of the official opposition have made a great many comments against Petro-Canada. It should be noted that according to my latest calculations they have approximately three positions on that Crown corporation. That may have changed; there may be four by the time we conclude this debate, but basically they have three positions. I believe Petro-Canada is something which the people of Canada want. It is important in terms of developing and promoting a national energy policy.
Hon. members opposite made reference to the fact that Petro-Canada is not a good company and is not needed. They have given it a whole host of descriptions. I should like to indicate for their edification that as a member of government I believe wholeheartedly that the people employed by Petro-Canada are extremely competent, concerned and dedicated public servants who believe very strongly in the National Energy Program, that Canada needs a tool-which is what Petro-Canada is-for the National Energy Program. They believe very strongly in their mandate and deserve a great deal more than some of the ill-conceived and somewhat despicable comments which come from the official opposition. They are attempting to do their job, they are doing it well, and I think Canadians all over the country, whether they be in the province of Newfoundland or in the province of British Columbia, are mindful of and respect the individuals associated with Petro-Canada for their great efforts.
Some members of the New Democratic Party indicated that one way to improve upon the activities of Petro-Canada was to have an enlarged board of directors which included individuals with various backgrounds, such as fishermen, environmentalists, sociologists, psychologists and others. I believe the individuals associated with Petro-Canada at the level of its board of directors are indeed very confident and are providing direction to that particular oil company. One individual who comes to mind is the president of the Newfoundland fishermen's association. He is a union man and a professional who is making a very worth while contribution to the direction of Petro-Canada.
Members of the official opposition have made many comments concerning the Canadianization aspect of the legislation, particularly in this amendment. I do not find anything wrong with the Government of Canada owning a piece of the oil and gas industry. I do not find anything overly distasteful about it. When I hear members of the official opposition saying that it is not a good thing, that it is wrong, or that we should not be doing it, I am tempted to ask them whether they would dismantle the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Are they willing to speak with the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia, who belongs to the Conservative Party of Canada, and tell him that that Crown corporation is not needed? Would they destroy Nova Scotia Resources Limited, another provincial Crown corporation? Perhaps the argument could be written or spoken in such a way that if you are a Crown corporation you are okay as long as you are provincial; but if you are federal, somehow that ideology is wrong or no good.
Is Air Canada wrong? Is Canada Post, for which hon. members opposite voted, wrong? Conceptually, no; therefore the concept of Petro-Canada is not wrong either. They may have some difficulties with a particular program of a Crown corporation, and of course they should have an opportunity in which to voice their concerns. That is what the chamber is all about.
The Canadianization program and the energy legislation which is before the House are attempting to meet the needs of both the public and private sectors. We stated very clearly in the National Energy Program that the Government of Canada wanted to acquire more public ownership. I do not think there is any doubt on either side of the House that that intention was a serious one. Our intention to have more Canadian ownership in the private sector is also an intention about which I do not think there is any doubt on either side of the House. We are providing very rich incentives for people to become involved and to participate in the oil and gas industry in Canada. The petroleum incentives program is one which comes to mind. We will debate it a little later.
The opposition, particularly the Conservative Party of Canada, has made reference to Canadianization, public ownership and so on, but it was the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who stated quite clearly that it was the thrust of his party to move on the front of Canadianization.
June 8, 1982

There seems to be a dichotomy over there. That is not new to hon. members who sit in the chamber, as I do, day after day and find some members of the Conservative Party for this, some for that, and indeed those who are for both views.
Reference was made to the fact that somehow the legislation contained in Bill C-103 was anti-American. That is the line which was picked up by the official opposition. I do not believe for one moment that it is anti-American. I believe, as other members on this side of the House believe, that it is pro-Canada. I do not find anything distasteful about being proCanadian. I can understand certain members of the Conservative Party taking exception to that particular concept. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives have a vested interest or are involved in so many ways with the multinationals. They do want to see any Canadian participating in the extremely vital oil and gas sector of the Canadian economy.
However, when they make speeches throughout Canada and suggest that somehow the National Energy Program is antiAmerican, that is false. The National Energy Program is proCanadian and I think Canadians are extremely proud of that ideal. I therefore wish to reject that comment and the views expressed by the Conservative Party of Canada.
As well, hon. members opposite stand in their place to say that the National Energy Program is the cause of the oil and gas industry's present difficulties. I suppose the opposition would like to be able to insulate the oil and gas industry from the conditions which exist in the world economy. If you are a Tory that thinking is logical, but I am not a Tory. I would never subscribe to a philosophy such as that. The economies of other countries in the world, whether France, Germany, the United States or Britain, are in difficulty. The fact cannot be avoided that the oil and gas industry is involved in those economies which have high interest rates, high unemployment and high inflation. It also must bear some of the burden. It is not true to suggest that the oil industry has sustained all its difficulties due to one particular program, the National Energy Program.
I do not believe that the members of the Conservative Party wish to present a scenario without providing all the facts. It is very clear that those members are perhaps prisoners of their own philosophy, as they were aptly described by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Although the Conservatives are very right wing, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Canadian government should invent policies which would insulate the Canadian oil and gas industry. However, in view of the present situation in the world economy, of which Canada is a part, the government has taken some very serious steps to provide much needed cash flow, such as the reduction of the PGRT, for example, and to create incentives and exemptions to aid the small producers in the oil and gas industry in Canada.
There has also been an update to what many Canadians realize is a successful National Energy Program. I do not believe there is a member on our side who would say that the National Energy Program is the panacea to all the ills of the energy world. That has never been suggested by anyone.
Petroleum Administration Act
Nevertheless, the fact must be taken into consideration that Canadians enjoy some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world, certainly lower than those in many other countries, including Italy, the United States and Great Britain. Gasoline in those countries is more expensive than here.
Members of the opposition will rise to say that is not true and make comparisons in various parts of Canada. In my own province of Nova Scotia the Conservative government introduced a 15-cent tax per gallon of gasoline in its budget. That is a provincial tax but, of course, the opposition would be content to persuade Canadians that it is the fault of the federal government. I believe it is very wrong to do that, and I hope they have the courage to say that the provincial governments are partially responsible as well for higher gasoline prices in some of those jurisdictions which I have mentioned.
While I would like to refer to a few further points in the National Energy Program, I will conclude by saying that the government will vote against this amendment. I urge all members on both sides of the House to vote against this amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes. At the outset I will just say that anyone who brings up the subject of a 15-cent provincial tax, having told the voters that 18 cents is too much and now intending to stand up in the House later today to vote for an increase of 52 cents a gallon in two taxes alone, has a credibility problem that will not quit. Those members who fought an election over an 18-cent increase and who then propose a 52-cent increase are creating a credibility problem which they cannot overcome. It takes a great deal of gall to mention a 15-cent tax when we are dealing with a bill which has a 52-cent per gallon tax hidden in it.
Anyone who has common sense will know that the National Energy Program is a disaster. An update to this program was introduced last Monday evening when a $2 billion mistake was admitted. We indicated in the House that evening that the update was still a mistake. Since that time those who are knowledgeable in the oil and gas industry have judged that mistake. Oil stocks, which only fall when the climate is bad, have fallen 200 points. Of course, the reason for that decline is the update which was introduced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The dollar has also fallen.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) asks us to appreciate the employees of Petro-Canada. I have many voters who are employees of Petro-Canada and I value them, their work and what they are attempting to do. It is those same employees who tell us the shortcomings of Petro-Canada and what should be done for it to become a strong and vibrant company.
The parliamentary secretary has a lot of gall to stand in the House and say that Petro-Canada is a success story because it has assets of over $6.5 billion and a profit of $63 million after cooking the books. Those same financial statements contain

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
deferred charges that are greater than the bottom line profit. Hidden in those books are several billions of dollars of interest payments which the taxpayers pay and the company does not. If Petro-Canada were an ordinary corporation competing in the private sector, its losses would be staggering and its bankruptcy would be assured.
We have a clear indication of that credibility gap if the parliamentary secretary can stand in the House and say that bankruptcy is a success story for a large oil company operating in Canada. To say that 18 cents is too much and then to vote for 52 cents is a clear-cut example of incredibility; but to say that we have a Canadian oil company success story when, in reality, it loses hundreds of millions of dollars and did so last year, is to defy logic. None of the other similar-sized companies has a financial picture that would give us that indication. It is only one. For him to compare that one with the Power Corporation is also to defy logic.
In Canada today young people who want to get work in the electrical industry know that they will be working for a Crown corporation. The odds are 95 per cent plus, because that is the nature of the electrical industry in Canada, for historical reasons. But if these young people take training in a university to work in the oil and gas industry, they could work anywhere in the world. The difficulty with a Crown corporation in the field of oil and gas is, in reality, the difficulty of competing worldwide for staff people of quality.
An oil company is a gamble. There is never any certitude that when a well is drilled there will be oil at the bottom of the hole. It is a gamble. It is like picking a horse at a race track. What the Liberals would have us believe, with the support of the New Democratic Party, the "Liberal Party West", is that young people fresh out of university have better judgment in picking where to drill the wells than people with 30 or 40 years of experience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In essence, that is what Petro-Canada is all about.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody rises on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if the hon. member realizes that his party has voted with the Liberals 30 times compared to our 14. The Conservative Party is the western arm of the Liberal Party, sitting right there.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am glad the hon. member brought that to my attention. The Liberal Party has the wisdom to vote with us against the nonsense proposed by the NDP.


Paul James Cosgrove: We are not proud.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I want people to imagine the following: that we take 10 per cent of the federal budget and gamble it in the
oil and gas industry. If we were to take 10 per cent of the federal budget and put it on a horse race, would we ask some young people fresh out of college which horse to bet on, or would we instead try to find someone with years and years of experience working at a race track, training and conditioning horses? Whose judgment would we trust? Would we trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to pick a horse in a horse race? What experience does he have?


James Ross Fulton: At least he picked the right end!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What training does he have for proposing that tax? Yet we want to give billions and billions of dollars to that man to put on that horse race. I suggest to Your Honour that that is the flawed logic. If someone wants to bet on a horse race, he will gamble or pick a number at random and see if his luck is good, or he might get advice from people who are knowledgeable about horses and about that race, because one who follows the expert's advice has a better chance of winning.
Another example which comes to mind is this: would we want all the painting in Canada to be done by a Crown corporation? Would we stand up in this House and say that all painting businesses should be owned by the Government of Canada and that all of those who wanted to be painters should become employees of the Government of Canada? What nonsense! Crown corporations do not have the kind of record which suggests that the Government of Canada should be running a painting business. What we have in Canada is a system where many people own different painting businesses. There are many small entrepreneurs and if we are in the market to hire a painter, we have a choice. We may choose someone who charges a little less than someone else because he does just as good a job, but he has discovered a way to do it faster and therefore cheaper. But if the Government of Canada owned all the painting businesses, all the painters would be paid the same amount because the charges would be the same, and 50 per cent would go to administration and 50 per cent to the painter. It would cost us three or four times as much.
That is the logic of the Liberal government in relation to the Canadian ownership charge. It wants a tax which will continue forever so that it can buy out all the little guys and have one state-owned oil company which would charge what it darned well pleased, which would take half the money it earned and put it into administration or some other place and the consumers in this country would pay twice as much for half as much service.
If there is any integrity on the other side, the government must do one of two things. The heading of this section states Canadian ownership charge". In committee we inserted the word "public" but the Liberal members voted against it. We proposed the word "public" so that it would become "Canadian public ownership charge", because the clauses which followed clearly indicated that the government could use the money to buy property and shares and hold those in the name
June 8, 1982

of the government. So a correct title for the way in which the clause is written would be "Canadian public ownership charge"; but the Liberal Party voted that down. It did not want the honesty of that.
Therefore, today we propose an amendment which would state that when the government collects that $3 million a day, it would have to spend it on increasing Canadian ownership and would not be able to go out into the marketplace and compete with other Canadian companies, to buy out assets of other Canadian companies. All we are asking is that this huge amount of $3 million a day be dedicated to the purchase of non-Canadian companies so that they can become Canadian. If hon. members opposite do not go for that, then it should be clear to every Canadian in every part of the country that the Liberal Party believes in government ownership and does not give a darn for Canadian ownership. Voting against this amendment would clearly say that. The government believes in government ownership and in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources owning, but the government does not believe in Canadian ownership. That is what a vote against this amendment would signify.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 7. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Harvie Andre: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 23 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"the report has been prepared and that every report laid before Parliament
under this section stands permanently referred to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Public Accounts".


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with another aspect of this Canadian ownership charge which should be put on the record because it is one more example of why one cannot trust this government and of how it does not keep its word and its promises. I do not know if any of the trained donkeys over there know it or not, but this Canadian ownership charge-
Petroleum Administration Act


Mr. Bloomfield:: Your ears are awfully long.


Harvie Andre: -does not go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it goes into a Canadian ownership account. The reason for that is very simple. It does not show up in the blue book, it is not part of the estimates, and it therefore does not show up as part of government spending. So the Liberals can stand there with straight faces and say; "Look at how we are controlling government expenditures. See?"
Through this tax, $1.5 billion is collected from Canadian consumers for actual government spending. It is being spent to buy Petrofina, but it never shows up in the accounts of Canada. That is in violation of the recommendations of the Lambert Commission, which the Liberal Party said it endorsed. It has either forgotten that commitment or it was not honest in the first instance. It is in violation of the recommendations of Auditors General over the last few years. It is in violation of promises made by Liberals about being honest and open with regard to government spending. Through this amendment we are attempting to bring a little integrity to that dishonest bunch of book manipulators.
We would like this report referred to the Public Accounts Committee, a non-partisan, all-party committee, so that it will have the capability of examining the account to ensure that the moneys were properly spent, that there was not an abuse or that the moneys were not used to reward members of the Liberal Party through purchasing of other shares, etc. That is all this amendment does. If the members of the Liberal Party are interested in honouring at least some of the minor promises they made in the past and living up to some of the policy statements they made with all solemnity and commitment, they will vote for this amendment.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 8 is a straightforward request for accountability of funds being collected by the government. One of the bases of parliamentary government that is generally accepted is that money collected by the government must be accounted for. Therfore, this kind of clause is necessary in order to have that kind of accountability.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that this money which is spent should be allocated through some kind of estimates which are legislated. That is not always done in these cases or in the case of many federal Crown corporations. Therefore, anything that can be done to increase accountability of money collected by the government should be supported.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly about the wisdom of allowing the Public Accounts Committee to examine this kind of expenditure. I put on the record at public accounts a scenario that is relevant to the decision whether or not to vote for this amendment.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
When you turn an aspect of the market over to a bureaucracy, you increase the possibility of mistake in the marketplace. I put on the record a series of decisions which have been made in relation to the petroleum compensation charge. One of those is a provision which was exploited by Petrofina.
It is my information that Petrofina increased its bottom line profit through the exploitation of government subsidies by something in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. At a later point in time, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) used the vehicle of Petro-Canada to purchase Petrofina. The consequence for the Canadian taxpayer was that one set of government subsidies inflated the selling price of a set of shares bought by the Canadian taxpayers through the energy minister. We have suggested in this House that the Canadian people paid about twice as much as they should have paid for the purchase of Petrofina. That is over $700 million too much which the taxpayers of this country had to pay. We inserted this amendment so that a body of Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee, would have the power and the authority to examine situations of that kind and recommend to Parliament and the government ways of avoiding $700 million mistakes in the future.
Regardless of ideology or party, Liberal and NDP members should see the wisdom of this Progressive Conservative amendment which simply says that a report which must be laid before Parliament should automatically be examined by one of the standing committees of Parliament. If we believe in the electoral process and in democracy and believe there is some point to Members of Parliament examining expenditures, then we must support this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Lewis:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended in Clause 39
(a)	by striking out line 43 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor: "signed by not less than ten members"
(b)	by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiration of
the fifth such hour, the Speaker of the House".
He said: Mr. Speaker, originally this motion appeared in the name of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I can understand the mistake because we are both similar in views and appearance.
This is a very simple motion. In this bill the government proposes to give itself the power to fix oil and gas prices unilaterally if necessary. Having done that, they feel they should allow the House of Commons a chance to debate it. It is called a negative resolution, which is an indirect way of doing things. This will be done, providing 30 members object to what the government is doing. Three hours will be allowed for debate. The draft bill talked about ten members and five hours' debate. In the interest of democracy and protecting smaller parties, not necessarily this party because we expect to have at least 140 members after the next election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the last House we had 26 members. In this House we had 33 and now have 32. That means that we as a party would not be able to object to the bringing in of this extraordinary measure under the Petroleum Administration Act. Therefore we propose this simple amendment. I am sure the government can accept it. In fact, I thank the government for indicating by its attitude and by the smiles of members opposite that it can accept it. The amendment simply states ten members instead of 30 and five hours of debate instead of three. What is an additional two hours on energy matters? I am sure the government can agree to that. The argument for it is that it is more democratic. A government that is interested in democracy would not have any problem supporting it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He is always eloquent in his presentation, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes to substance I have to differ very strongly. This particular amendment is repetitious; it is a repetition of the one placed before the standing committee on energy. At that time I believe I indicated to the hon. member that the government was not in a position to change again the previous draft of its Bill C-94. We had 50 members and now it is down to 30 members and we believe that is a sufficient number.
On the other hand, if the hon. member is so confident that after the next federal election he and his party will return to this chamber in great numbers, surely he cannot find any difficulty with the way the legislation reads at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 8, 1982


David Charles Dingwall: However, Mr. Speaker, I know what he is thinking of. He is thinking about the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). He is afraid that that party after the next federal election will return to this chamber with fewer than 30 members. I know the hon. member and I know well enough that that is probably the reason he seeks to put that amendment in. Unfortunately, the government will not accept that amendment at this time.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of this amendment. I do not know why the government is afraid to give ten members the right to call for a debate in the House of Commons if and when they decide to undertake some new nationalization program and buy some oil company and impose this tax. Why do they insist on 30 members and think that ten is too small a number? It makes no sense, unless they are of the view that it is an intolerable imposition in the House of Commons that we should bring forward a motion requiring the government to explain why it is spending taxpayers' money. If they had any consideration for what this House is supposed to be, even in the most modest way, namely a forum to debate and discuss, they would accept this motion.
One could almost make a very good case that one member should have that right, but certainly ten members is not an onerous or unreasonable number. I am surprised and disappointed that the government has taken the view they have.
I would take this opportunity to point out that Clause 39 as amended in committee is a vast improvement over what the government originally proposed. Those people over there in the bowels of the bureaucracy who draft legislation are constantly seeking ways in which they can neuter this House as much as possible, because we are nothing but an imposition upon them as they pursue their good works on behalf of the nation. They produced an original procedure which had the ludicrous effect, Mr. Speaker, of meaning that the government could propose to buy a new oil company, the House of Commons could say no in a motion, but they could still go ahead and do it if they had the approval of the Senate. So you had the ludicrous situation where the House of Commons, made up of elected members of Parliament, could in the majority say no and we could not stop the government from acting; they could still go ahead and spend taxpayers' money.
That is an absolute affront to any reasonble interpretation of democracy. I suggest that whoever dreamed up that little scheme should be fired immediately and removed from the bureaucracy, because he is a danger. Apart from that, this is a violation of the Canadian Constitution because it has the effect of letting the Senate, an appointed body of has-beens, authorize the government to spend taxpayers' money. That is simply not tolerable in a democracy and I think it is in violation of our Constitution. The appointed people in the other place have no
Petroleum Administration Act
right to spend taxpayers' money; yet the original proposal from the government would have had that effect.
After considerable debate in the House, considerable debate in committee, and much more pressure than should have been necessary from our side, the government did make an amendment. And I give credit to the member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) for taking that recommendation to the bureaucrats and saying "Try again". Ultimately they did, and we are pleased to see that change come about.
It is unfortunate that he did not spend a little more time with that bureaucrat or that collection of bureaucrats and convince them that it would have been quite reasonable to have ten members as the necessary minimum for triggering this mechanism, that 30 members is simply an attempt by the government to make it as difficult as possible ever to exercise this one, slim, minor, modest little check on government power.
I consider it unfortunate, regrettable and anti-democratic that the government is apparently going to vote against this amendment.


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.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider Motion No. 10.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-103, an Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended by deleting Clause 40.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this section is really a retroactive section. Earlier this day the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioned that there had been a cutback in Alberta oil, western Canadian oil. In order to increase importation, the government collected an extra tax for a period of six months.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
The House should be aware of two or three points regarding that tax. First of all, it was at 7.5 cents a gallon. The first thing we discovered in committee was that in six short months the government had collected more than $140 million too much. Even if one accepts the logic that a special tax is necessary, the rate of that tax was 40 per cent too high.
The only conclusion a rational human being can draw from that is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) shamelessly used this chamber and his backbench members to make a political statement. He told Canadians it would cost them 7.5 cents a gallon more because of those cutbacks when in reality the extra amount, if there ever was one, would have been less than five cents a gallon. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be held accountable to this chamber for that tax.
Canadians may remember that in early September an agreement was reached and the cutbacks were stopped. A marvellous thing happened. That 7.5 cents a gallon tax did not disappear. The tax was there for a reason. The reason disappeared, but the tax of 7.5 cents a gallon stayed. What did the minister do? He simply increased another tax 7.5 cents a gallon the day this tax should have stopped.
Earlier today we warned Canadians that the 4.5 cents a gallon Canadian ownership charge is a tax, and last week and all day yesterday we warned Canadians that the 48 cents a gallon for the petroleum compensation fund is also a tax, which once they start this government intends to collect. We were telling the truth. The reality of that truth is here in Clause 40. The tax imposed is 40 per cent too high. It was for a specific purpose, but when the purpose stopped, the tax was simply transferred and it is still collected.
It was marvellous to listen to the testimony given in committee. We asked how the department calculated the need for this tax and were told that in Canada we require all refiners to estimate the amount of domestic crude they will use. When we were told that there would be so much cutback in the western provinces, we said to ourselves that we will have to import that much more and will have to pay extra for it. Production of Canadian crude was down, but imports did not increase because Canadians were learning to conserve. In effect, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officials had imposed a tax on conservation.
That is what this tax is. That is what this charge is all about. It is an extra price imposed because Canadians listened and started to conserve. They started to drive smaller cars. They insulated their homes. They began to discontinue using oil products and are using natural gas. Canadians did what their government said they should do. They cut down on the need to import oil. As a reward, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, supported by all his backbenchers, said: "We will tax you more. Do what we tell you is good, and we will tax you more". That is what Clause 40 is all about. It is a tax which
never was necessary. It was an inflated 40 per cent, and when the political excuse disappeared the tax stayed.
Then about 63 days later the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources blamed the oil companies for increasing prices. Is this a government in which Canadians are supposed to believe and have trust and confidence? It is a sham. This is a government with no shame. Its backbench has no shame. Hon. members opposite went out and told voters 18 cents was too much, but in this bill alone there is a 48 cents tax, a 4.5 cents tax and a 7.5 cents tax. Those are the taxes Canadians pay.
Then there is the export tax, which is the very first part of the bill. It was originally imposed on Canadians in 1974-75 because revenue was needed to pay for imports. In the last few years not one dime of it has been used to pay for imports. All that money goes into the federal treasury. We are taxed for a reason, and then when the reason disappears, the tax remains. That is the history of this government. That is the history of this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and we have moved this amendment so that we will have the opportunity to point out with the greatest possible clarity that the tax was never necessary. It was imposed-at a rate 40 per cent too much-for a specific purpose, but when the purpose disappeared, the tax remained. Sixty-three days later the oil companies were blamed because prices went up.
If there is a Canadian tax revolt, it will be because of the behaviour of those who stand in this chamber and support this kind of principle and this kind of clause. It is onerous and deceitful, and we should make a statement in this chamber that as Members of Parliament elected by the people of Canada we do not support that kind of deceit in terms of the taxes which come out of our pockets.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
June 8, 1982


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended in Clause 42 by striking out line 9 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"with the regulations provided that the amounts of such payments shall not cause the price of imported petroleum to a processor, that is the price that is effectively reduced after compensation, to fall to a level below the price of a comparable quality or kind of domestic petroleum."


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is an attempt to put some discipline into the ridiculous situation we have wherein we are subsidizing Mexican, Venezuelan and Arabian crude. Taxpayers are paying that subsidy to the point where foreign crude is cheaper than Canadian crude, the price of which is set by fiat. This is causing Canadian production to be shut in. It is causing cash flow problems for the exploration and production companies affected. It is causing business drop-offs for the oil service companies which would normally be servicing wells. It is causing a loss in royalties to the provincial governments affected. It is causing a loss of petroleum revenue taxes to the federal government. It is causing a loss to Canada in general of hundreds of millions of dollars.
A few years ago we in this country and in this House had a sense of outrage and indignation when the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency allowed some 28 million eggs to go rotten on the shelf. Members in this House and people generally were rightfully and justifiably angry and upset because an incompetent marketing board allowed that kind of waste. It was a waste of food and a waste of money.
That waste is insignificant compared with the waste which has been going on because of the way the petroleum import compensation program has been working. In the month of April 300,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil production were shut in daily. That meant we were importing the equivalent amount from Mexico, from Venezuela and from Saudi Arabia and subsidizing it to the tune of about $20 a barrel.
The taxpayers of Canada were paying $6 million per day in subsidies to Pemex, the Mexican oil company, and others, while 300,000 barrels per day of Canadian production was shut in. If that production had been in Quebec the roof would have lifted, Mr. Speaker. There would have been outrage, indignation and fury at that kind of treatment by the federal government. But the shut-in production was in western Canada, Saskatchewan and Alberta, so who cares? Some companies went bankrupt because they did not have any business, but who cares? It is not important. Who cares that the government is bungling the import compensation so badly? Nobody cares. It is taking place out there, so no one cares.
If the socialists needed an example of why the state should not be allowed to run anything they need look no further than this program. "Big Brother", the Liberal government with its high-priced officials, says in effect, "We have this brilliant scheme and we will administer it for the benefit of Canada." In the process the taxpayers of Canada pay $6 million per day
Petroleum Administration Act
in unnecessary taxes. That money ends up with Pemex, the Mexican petroleum company, and Petroleos de Venezuela, the Venezuelan state-owned company, or with a Saudi Arabian company. In the process, since we cannot afford $6 million per day, we have to borrow at 18, 19 or 20 per cent interest because there is a current account problem in the rest of the country. This contributes to our balance of payment problems. It is an incredibly stupid move, Mr. Speaker.
It is not as if the problem were a recent one. Last October the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was told about it but he did nothing until April when the action he took was not adequate. He said, "I will phone the refiners and ask them not to buy cheap oil on the spot market". That was his reaction to this insane situation that has existed at least since last October. If it were not so tragic it would be laughable.
One has to wonder what kind of gall it takes for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) to claim that the National Energy Program is a success. Would it be a real success if, instead of $6 million per day in unnecessary taxes, we were paying $12 million and if, instead of 300,000 barrels per day of shut-in oil, it was 600,000 barrels per day of shut-in oil that was affected?
I suppose all that would make it an outstanding success! The people responsible for operating the program in such an inept manner would resign if they had any decency, but that is not something we can expect from them.
We put forward this motion which, in effect, says that if you are going to operate an import compensation program, if you are going to subsidize Mexican oil-and heaven knows that is a stupid policy-but if that is what you insist upon doing, at least for goodness sake do not do it in a way that penalizes Canadian producers. That is a very reasonable request, and this is a reasonable motion. It asks that this program of subsidies to Mexico not be run in a way that will hurt Canadian producers.
It is ironic that most of the 300,000 barrels per day shut-in production comes from wholly Canadian-owned companies. It just turned out that the shut-in Canadian production came from fields dominated by Canadian companies. So, while the government is saying that the national energy policy will Canadianize the industry, it is subsidizing imports from Mexico, inflicting economic harm on the nation and, in particular, on Canadian-owned companies. Anyone with a shred of decency would blush, if not apologize, for supporting a government that would maintain and sustain that kind of absurd program.
While acknowledging that there is no likelihood that the trained donkeys will think any more independently about this motion than they have about others, nevertheless I plead with them to examine it, to examine their consciences, to live up to their responsibility as Members of Parliament, and support this reasonable amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thought that a member of the government might speak and indicate

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
support for this motion. I am disappointed that such is not the case.
Canadians should understand that what the government has put in place is a system that works roughly in the following way. If the government were to put a tax of, say, $1,000 on every vehicle sold in Canada, and then all imported vehicles were to receive a subsidy of $5,000 so that they would be cheaper than a comparable Canadian made car, then under those circumstances Canadians could not be blamed for buying imported cars. But of course more people in the Canadian automobile industry would lose their jobs.
That is what the government has been doing in the oil and gas industry. Imported oil is more expensive than Canadian oil. It is all taxed, then the money collected is given over to the imported oil. When that $18 per barrel is given to the company that imports Mexican oil, all of a sudden, instead of being $9 more expensive than the Canadian it becomes $9 cheaper. Can a refinery be blamed for buying imported rather than Canadian oil under those circumstances?
Could the buyer of an imported car be blamed if our government made it cheaper than a comparable Canadian manufactured car? What about a toaster? Collect a tax on all toasters, Canadian or imported, and then give the money to the people who import toasters. Imported toasters will then become cheaper than the ones made in Canada, and Canadians will lose their jobs. That is what the government has been doing in the energy industry.
It is a peculiar fact of life, Mr. Speaker, that the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) himself directed PetroCan to buy 50,000 barrels per day of Mexican crude. That is the only purchase which the minister directed that company to make, and it is really strange that it is Mexican crude which benefits the most. It costs $9 more a barrel, but he set up a subsidy system which makes it $9 cheaper. If you went to the marketing area of the refinery in Quebec which uses that cheaper oil you would not find gasoline any cheaper. The subsidy makes it $9 a barrel cheaper, but the consumer does not find it any cheaper. The profits go into the pockets of the big oil companies. The minister takes tax dollars and turns around and subsidizes imported crude.
What we propose in this amendment, Mr. Speaker, does not go as far as I would like. I propose that we say to the minister he cannot use our tax dollars to make imported oil cheaper than domestic. You cannot take my taxes and reward the companies which import oil, and punish Canadian companies. You have to give Canadian companies an even break. That is all we are trying to do with this amendment.
Is there anyone with common sense who thinks it makes sense to put a tax on refrigerators, televisions, toasters or automobiles and then give it to the people who import those products so that they can sell at a price lower than the price of Canadian-made products? It defies common sense. Yet, somehow, members of this House continue to support a
minister who is doing just that with imported oil. It defies logic. All those Canadians on fixed incomes, all those Canadians who are having trouble paying the high cost of food or transportation, should know that the Liberal Party wants to make all those things more expensive so that it can take the money and give it to Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.
If we do not buy Canadian first, Mr. Speaker, then there will be fewer jobs for Canadians. The figures from last month show that has already happened in western Canada. Unemployment rates are going up rapidly. The government should remember that those unemployed people out there cannot buy trucks which are made in central Canada, or tires or toasters, all those things that are made in central Canada. That is what the government is doing, Mr. Speaker.
We simply ask that this Chamber, through this amendment, indicate to the Minister of Energy that he cannot use our tax dollars to provide a subsidy for foreign oil in order to make it cheaper than Canadian oil. If he really cared, he would go one step further and say it should always be a few cents more expensive per barrel so that there would be an incentive to buy the oil produced in Canada before we buy oil from other countries. That makes economic sense, helps reduce the cost of living, and will create jobs in Canada. We need all those things desperately, and this amendment would help to achieve them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 11. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) on a point of order.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, with the unanimous consent of the House, to present an amendment to Bill C-103 as follows:
That Bill C-103, an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto be amended in clause 42 by
(a)	striking out line 29 on page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"petroleum or petroleum substitute;"
(b)	adding immediately after line 34 on page 34 the following:
" "Petroleum Substitute" means any renewable energy source which displaces
the use of petroleum"
(c)	striking out line 3 on page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"quality or kind of petroleum or petroleum substitute, the Minister"
June 8, 1982

(d)	Striking out line 45 on page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "petroleum or petroleum substitutes in respect of which compen-"
This amendment is offered in the face of increasing concern for energy security. There has always been a serious question of alternatives developing because of subsidized and depressed domestic petroleum prices. This amendment would allow the minister to equate the comparable petroleum energy replaced by alternatives and then give consumers who choose these alternatives the same level of compensation. As an example, a solar energy system-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I gave the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) adequate time to put his motion to the House and to indicate the purpose of the motion. I thank the hon. member for Bruce-Grey for providing the Chair with a copy of the motion before he actually put it to the House. I have indicated separately to him that he may wish to argue the question as to whether or not the motion is in order. I simply want to bring the argument on the matter of whether the motion is in order to his attention, so that he can address himself to it as quickly as possible.
As the hon. member indicated, Clause 42 of the bill provides for compensation to be made payable by the Government of Canada to producers of petroleum. The purport of this motion would be to extend the compensation factor not only to the producers of petroleum but to producers of petroleum substitutes. The Chair obviously has to conclude that there is a difference between those two groups, namely, producers of petroleum, and producers of petroleum substitutes. In that event, there being a difference, the hon. member is putting to the House a motion which would provide that the Crown expend money in the manner in which he has described. I refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 773(7), which reads:
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the Public Treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.
I have to indicate to the House and to the hon. member that if there is, in the proposed motion of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, a charge upon the public treasury, then the Chair would have to find his amendment out of order. Perhaps we could hear the hon. member for Bruce-Grey on the matter of whether or not the proposed motion is in order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I would like to make three arguments why this motion is entirely in order. I can argue on the basis of a debatable point as well as on the substance of the real question which is now in the mind of the Speaker and which presents itself in this motion, that is, whether we are actually increasing expenditures which would require a Royal Recommendation.
I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) was talking a few moments ago about the Conservative Party and the victim it is of ideology. The question of ideology and how people get their minds around the whole question of energy is one of the difficulties which faces this House and faces the Speaker as he considers this question.
Petroleum Administration Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Ideology is not the matter of the point of order. I appreciate the hon. member's intentions in attempting to explain further the purpose of the amendment. The difficulty the Chair has, at least on the face of the amendment, is that it appears to call for the expenditure of treasury funds. That is the only point that I raised with the hon. member. Ideology notwithstanding, if the hon. member could address himself to the question which is of concern to the Chair, namely, the issue of whether or not he is proposing the expenditure of public funds, he would assist the Chair in ruling whether or not the amendment is out of order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I respect the point which the Chair has made. I understand the question of expenditure. My point in raising ideology was not from a political, philosophical point of view. My point was with respect to the set mind that people have with energy, and the question of what energy really is. The fact is that we cannot define what energy is, and the fact that petroleum, as we are dealing with it here and now, is interrelated and interchangeable and cannot be separated from other types of energy resources and sources that we have in this country.
With respect to the question of expenditure, I would humbly suggest to the Chair that I would debate, long and hard, the question of whether this amendment as proposed would increase expenditure. With one brief example, if the Chair will allow me, I would suggest that the expenditure could actually be decreased by the definition and the redefinition that we apply with this amendment.
In Prince Edward Island where all oil imports-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to give the hon. member a full opportunity to address himself to the issue that has been raised by the Chair. I will do it again.
Clause 42 calls for compensation to persons in respect of a type of petroleum. I have to assume that the expression "petroleum substitute" means something other than simply petroleum. If that logic is correct, compensation for a person in respect of a petroleum substitute constitutes a different type of expense for the Crown. If that argument is correct, then the proposed amendment is out of order. That is the point to which the hon. member should address himself.
The point is not on a global budget concept as to whether or not money might be saved by compensating the producers or persons in respect of petroleum substitutes. The question is whether or not the amendment proposed by the hon. member is a call upon the treasury by those persons in respect of a petroleum substitute. If it is, then unfortunately, the amendment has to be found out of order. That is the only point to which the hon. member has to address himself.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to raise, albeit in a circumspect way perhaps for the Chair, is the fact that this amendment would likely decrease expenditures for the Crown. In that case it is not a call on the treasury and, indeed, the amendment should be allowed.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
The decrease in expenditure would be in the decreased amount that would be required to compensate those people who were importing oil into this country for whatever use. That is the key point. I think it is debatable at the very least. I would suggest very strongly that it is accurate, and that is the basis on which I think this amendment could be considered so that the members of this House, particularly those who have taken the time and the effort to consider this question in some detail, such as the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), could have an opportunity to express themselves at the time of a vote. That is the key point, and that is why I think I deserve an opportunity to explain this motion briefly, if the Chair will allow me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to focus the hon. member's attention on the particular point. I think this is the third or fourth time. I will hear other members on the same point if that is necessary. But the problem comes down to the fact that it is not a matter of a global budget and, therefore, that what one takes from one envelope one puts back through another envelope. The issue created by the hon. member's motion is that he intends certain people shall be compensated, namely, those using petroleum substitutes. If that is the hon. member's intention, that constitutes a call upon the treasury.
To suggest, for example, that the users of various other products might be compensated-because it is a very good idea or it is a very sensible way of going about things-is not an argument related to whether or not the amendment is in order. The problem is that when one creates a new class of people who are entitled to compensation, that is a call upon the treasury, and the Chair is obliged to find that out of order. I will hear the hon. member for Bruce-Grey for another moment. Apparently there are other hon. members who want to speak on the point and I will hear them as well.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, on the last point that you have made, the compensation fund is a fund separate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is an established fund. It is not at the call of the government for any other use, as I understand the compensation charge. It is not a question of taking into an envelope an amount of money which, in a discretionary way, is being handed to another party outside that envelope.
What we are doing with this amendment is decreasing-I admit it is an arguable point-the amount of charge that would have to be paid to those people who would normally bring in oil to the country, and allowing that, in a lesser amount, to those people who do not require that oil.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. To understand the rhythm of this proposed amendment and how it sits, having been on the committee and having spent several weeks in detailed study of the bill, I think it might be helpful to look at the National Accounts of Canada. If we look at the National Accounts of Canada, we find that the petroleum compensation charge is netted out at zero for the current year and all projected years. It is an amount of money
which does not show up in the National Accounts of Canada, as the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) indicated.
The second principle which I think we find throughout Bill C-103 is that there is no automatic compensation of any kind, for any thing, in any amount. Indeed, it is a bill which requires order in council approval for the setting of charges and for the setting of payments. Of particular interest might be the clause which deals with the definition of petroleum. The first part of the definition reads as follows:
"petroleum" means any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons other than gas-
But the second part of the definition is of particular interest and reads as follows:
-and includes any product designated as a petroleum product by regulations made under Section 75.
That definition and other clauses in the bill empower not only the rights but the responsibilities of order in council, which is cabinet, to set regulations, to define and to determine through some kind of descriptive process what in fact qualifies.
My first point is that nowhere in the National Accounts of Canada or in the treasury are any of these amounts dealt with. In all the documents which came before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts not one dime of anything involved in this part of the legislation came to our attention because it was there as zero. Second, both the rights and responsibilities reside in cabinet, in order in council, to define through regulation what in fact is eligible. The impact of this amendment would simply be to remind cabinet that there might be something very useful here which it would want to consider within the powers given it by the legislation.
Cabinet could in fact take all the commodities, or some parts of the commodities which my hon. colleague has in mind, put them on the list, and therefore make them eligible. Perhaps this is a strange piece of legislation in that sense, but I think that citation in Beauchesne's does not deal with it adequately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Since no other hon. members are seeking the floor to contribute to the point of order, I will first attempt to answer the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). The Chair is seized of the bill. I appreciate the explanation of the hon. member that in the National Public Accounts the costs are netted out at zero, as he indicated. The difficulty is that on a particular bill it is not possible for the Chair to go rampaging through the public accounts to consider whether one aspect of the accounts might net out in a different way than another aspect of the accounts. I am faced with the bill which is in front of me.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) created a new category of person. That category of person is referred to in connection with petroleum substitutes. I understand that some hon. members may feel that that is a rather narrow interpretation on the part of the Chair, but once a new category of person is created and a new category of thing, once the
June 8, 1982

word "compensation" enters between the person and the thing, and once it constitutes the use of public funds, then the Standing Orders are very clear that only a minister of the Crown may propose such a motion.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Bruce-Grey for giving the Chair notice prior to proposing his motion. The Chair had an opportunity to consult with the officers at the table in that regard. I do not want that hon. member or the hon. member for Calgary West to think that the conclusion was arrived at lightly. During the course of the last several minutes the matter was reviewed, and the Chair is satisfied that indeed the motion is out of order. I see the hon. member for Bruce-Grey is seeking the floor on another point of order. He ought to know that, once a ruling is made it is not debatable, but out of courtesy I will recognize him.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the key point which I neglected to make before is that the definition of hydrocarbon is hydrogen and carbon. There is no question in my mind that, in the purest sense, the measure I have introduced can qualify, but when the Chair intervenes I would ask it to consider whether or not there is any acceptable phraseology which would provide the necessary limitations in order to comply with the spirit and the technical requirements of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must indicate to the hon. member that the Chair is not really permitted to give advice to hon. members on how best to prepare or word a motion. In order to end the discussion as amicably as possible,
1 remind him that the hon. member for Calgary West indicated that this motion was a reminder to cabinet that there were other possibilities under the regulations for certain products to be considered for compensation. Once the hon. member for Calgary West made that comment, the Chair was satisfied that the reminder was made and that there were other options by which petroleum substitutes could be considered. Therefore,
I reiterate my ruling. Now, is the House ready for the recorded divisions on several amendments?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) have some comment in this regard?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I had consultations with my colleagues. Before calling in the members, I have two motions to make. It seems that there will be unanimous consent on both of them.
The first one is that, notwithstanding any order of the House, any division on report stage of Motion No. 1 on Bill C-103 shall apply to report stage of Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, and that, if a division is required on the motion to concur in the said bill at report stage, this division shall be taken separately.
If Mr. Speaker could call this motion I am sure there will be unanimous consent, and then I have another motion to move.
Petroleum Administration Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Subject to correction by hon. members present, there may be some change in what the President of the Privy Council has proposed. My understanding is that Motion No. 8 was negatived on division. Therefore he may wish to withdraw his reference to Motion No. 8. Of course Motion No. 12 stands in the name of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey. I have just dealt with it at some length. Unless it is the intention of the House to raise that motion despite the ruling of the Chair, the President of the Privy Council might wish to delete it as well. Is the President of the Privy Council agreeable?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is by inadvertence that representatives of the parties included these motion numbers. There is no doubt that we will agree to delete or withdraw Motions Nos. 8 and 12. Therefore I so move.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the purposes of clarification, it is moved by the President of the Privy Council:
That notwithstanding any order of the House, any division on report stage of Motion No. 1 on Bill C-103 shall apply to report stage of Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5,6, 9, 10 and 11, and if a division is required on the motion to concur in the said bill at report stage, this division shall be taken separately.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have had prior consultation on this matter with the government House leader, and our party is prepared to agree.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we too agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Therefore the motion is agreed to and so ordered.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand that the President of the Privy Council indicated that he had a second motion.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement among House leaders and representatives of the parties that members not be called before 8.15 p.m. later today and that, in the meantime, we shall begin debating the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-104. Following the recorded division after 8.15 o'clock, if you would ask if there is unanimous consent that we deal with the third reading stage of Bill C-103, pursuant to what I have just said, I think you would obtain it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the suggestion put forward by the hon. President of the Privy Council. Is there unanimous consent for that?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we also have had prior consultation on that, and we are prepared to agree on this side.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the divisions on Bill C-103 and the motions pertaining thereto stand over until 8.15, along with the other details as mentioned by the President of the Privy Council.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-104, respecting Petroleum Incentives and Canadian Ownership and Control Determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has some notes relating to 13 motions at report stage of Bill C-104, an act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act. It is the intention of the Chair to group them as follows:
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 4 causes grave concern to the Chair as to its procedural acceptability. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) in his motion is attempting to establish one or more consultative councils, which would entail the outlaying of public funds. I realize that in subsection 9 of this motion it states that each member of a council shall serve on a voluntary basis. However, the hon. member will admit that in setting up such councils other costs will be involved, such as administrative costs. For the benefit of hon. members, I refer them to Beauchesne's fifth edition where Section 7 of Citation 773 is on this point, and I quote in part; as I did earlier for the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the public treasury-
For this reason the motion is not receivable.
Motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 6 and 13 could be debated together and voted on separately. Motion No. 7 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 will be debated together and voted on as follows: (a) Motion No. 8 by itself; (b) as Motion No. 9 is consequential on No. 10, a vote on No. 10 will also dispose of No. 9.
Finally, Motions Nos. 11 and 12 could be debated together and voted on separately.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am told that consultations have taken place in relation to three additional amendments from the government to Bill C-104 and that there will be unanimous consent for them to be considered as if notice had been given 48 hours ago. I will table those three amendments forthwith.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent to the proposal of the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think now may be the time to make a brief submission respecting your ruling on Motion No. 4. May I do that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would ordinarily be inclined to suggest to the hon. member that he do so when we come to that motion. However, it may be more convenient for the House if the hon. member seeks to make his point of order in that regard immediately. It is on the matter of the Chair's ruling. I do not think I need to seek unanimous consent. Unless the House indicates to me that there is some problem, I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway with respect to motion No. 4 and the argument he wishes to make.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I could make a short submission to indicate that this is in order. You could reserve your decision, or your review of it, until we get to motion No. 4.
Let me just say that I gather that the reason for the ruling is that the amendment purports to spend money. The proposed councils do not spend money. In my submission, they do not increase the financial burden on the Crown by a cent. I submit that all they do is constitute a council that does not commit the Crown to anything. It does not commit the Crown to providing financial expenses, space, offices or anything such as that. The reason for that is the representatives on the council are people who are paid by other organizations and through other funds.
Even if Your Honour were to determine that the Crown would have to pay money, there are a number of precedent amendments which direct an officer of the Crown to perform certain tasks. Even though his salary must be paid and he must be provided work space, Parliament, in giving him direction, has not passed a financial item. I am told this has been so ruled in the past.
When the government proposed to abolish appeals to the Tariff Appeals Board in 1961, a Senate amendment proposed a procedure guaranteeing expeditious hearings in order to meet both government and opposition concerns. The amendment was never challenged as to its spending money because it would continue appeals and create work which would not need to be done if appeals were abolished.
Further, the provisions of proposed Section 10, A(8) entitling councillors to be paid, does not spend money. I will just have to check on that. In the original draft of the amendment it did mention spending money, and I purposely eliminated that from the amendment submitted.
In effect, I submit that there is nothing in these regional consultative councils which require the Crown to spend any money. The minister is asked to establish the councils. The Dene people are specifically mentioned, but of course their people are funded by the native group in the Northwest
June 8, 1982

Territories. The objectives are discussed. Their meetings are to be determined by the council. Basically, they are to review the Petroleum Incentives Program. They can establish committees.
I now see I was mistaken, because there is a section that deals with payments. I thought that was excluded.
I will have to rely on my second half of the argument. There are, in fact, precedents for the fact that even though you set up a procedure or board you do not necessarily have to rule that it will require expenditures by the Crown. Perhaps Your Honour could look at it and advise whether that is still the ruling of the Chair when we come to that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a courtesy to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway I will do as he suggests, which is to take his proposed amendment under brief consideration. Obviously, from the Speaker's ruling which I read earlier, the research has been done and it would appear that the creation of such councils has not yet been considered to be possible without any cost whatsoever. Since the hon. member has made an appeal to that effect, perhaps the Chair can take this into consideration until such time as the House reaches that point.
I will call the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 2 of the English version by striking out lines 35 and 36 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) crude petroleum regardless of density produced at a wellhead in liquid".


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I just want to give a brief explanation of this particular amendment. This amendment makes the English version consistent with the French version. "Density" is the terminology used in the metric system. Therefore, I do not believe hon. members opposite would find difficulty in supporting this particular government amendment. However, I would like to expand on some of my feelings about this particular piece of legislation, for this particular act is a fundamental building block in the National Energy Program, the goals of which are energy security, opportunities for Canadians to share in the development of their energy resources, and the establishment of a fair energy system for all Canadians.
Through this proposed legislation we will be able to establish a stronger presence of Canadian owned and Canadian controlled firms in our oil and gas industry. Not only will such Canadianization provide energy security for the country, but it will also enhance the opportunities for Canadians to benefit, to participate in the oil and gas industry. Moreover, Canadian ownership and control of the oil and gas sector will ensure
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
that, in the long term, the benefits of industrial expansion are distributed more fairly amongst Canadians. Once this legislation is in place, approximately $2 billion in incentives will be available to the industry for exploration and development expenses incurred between January 1, 1981, through to the end of this fiscal year.
Bill C-104 is the bill which will provide $2 billion in incentives to the oil and gas industry, a bill which was purposely delayed by the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives stood in this chamber and made reference to assistance for the oil and gas industry. The Government of Canada announced in its National Energy Program a specific item to assist, and it is here, in Bill C-104, but what did the Tories do? They walked off the job for two weeks, allowed the bells to ring, took their big salaries, and ran away from the House of Commons. But they had the nerve to say, through their literature and on television and in articles in the newspapers, that they were concerned and wanted to assist the oil and gas industry.


David P. Smith: Hypocrisy.


David Charles Dingwall: It is hypocrisy at its best. And who is it from? It is from the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of the Right Hon. Joseph Clark.
These incentives will encourage foreign-controlled companies willing to work with Canadians to develop Canada's oil and gas potential. Foreign-controlled and owned companies continue to be welcome to explore for oil and gas in Canada, despite the rhetoric that one hears from the Conservative Party of Canada. The prospective returns for such companies are competitive, if not superior, to similar investments in other western oil producing nations. Nevertheless, the degree of foreign control and ownership in this strategic sector of our resource economy must be reduced. The path the government has chosen is to stimulate Canadian private investment through a scheme of incentives for Canadianization. These incentives are to be given to Canadians participating in oil and gas exploration and development, in order to achieve a 50 per cent ownership of the oil and gas industry by 1990 and energy security for all Canadians. The legislative mechanism for the achievement of such goals is the bill before us today, Bill C-104.
There are three distinct parts to this bill, the first containing provisions for exploration and development incentives to be granted to Canadians in varying amounts according to their Canadian control status and degree of beneficial Canadian ownership. The provisions under which Canadian control and Canadian ownership will be determined are found under Part II. The aim of these provisions is to ensure that the incentives benefit Canadian-owned and controlled companies and that Canadian participation in exploration and development is encouraged.
Part III of the bill amends in a technical way two provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act. The definitions of a non-eligible person and corporation are amended to reflect

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
policy that has been applied by the Foreign Investment Review Agency since the enactment of the FIRA Act in 1974.
Part I, entitled "The Petroleum Incentives Program Act", provides cash incentives to applicants who incur eligible exploration and development expenditures. Generally, the percentage of an incentive will depend on some or all of the following factors: first, the Canadian ownership rate of the applicant; second, the control status of the applicant, and, third, the type and location of the expenditure.
The bill provides for two incentives. The Crown share incentive amounts to 25 per cent of any eligible exploration expenditure incurred on Canada Lands. Entitlement to this incentive does not depend on the Canadian ownership rate or the control status of the applicant. The Crown share incentive will encourage and assist the exploration effort in Canada Lands, while contributing towards a share of such expenditures commensurate with the government's retained interest in the Canada Lands.
There are three higher levels of incentives, again representing a percentage of the eligible exploration or development expenditures or eligible asset costs incurred by an applicant.
Entitlement to this incentive is dependent on the applicant being Canadian controlled and having a minimum Canadian ownership rate of 50 per cent. The incentive levels as a percentage of eligible expenditures increase as the Canadian ownership rate of the applicant increases.
The rules for determining ownership and control status are found in Part II of the bill, entitled "The Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act". A Canadian ownership rate is based upon beneficial ownership. This ownership determination may require looking through nominees to establish where the real beneficial ownership resides. As well, such measurement takes into consideration an investment in a chain of ownership. Beneficial ownership includes rights to equity in the future and to other forms of participation besides that of traditional equity. The control status determinations are made on the basis of control-in-fact. The Foreign Investment Review Act definitions and presumptions of control-in-fact will be used for such determinations.
Bill C-104 has been before the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation. A number of witnesses appeared before the committee to make submissions on the bill, including representatives from the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Individual companies appearing with submissions were Dome Petroleum Limited, Norcen Energy Resources Limited, Home Oil Company Limited, Gulf Canada Limited, Texaco Canada Resources Limited, and McLeod Young Weir Limited.
In committee witnesses addressed several issues. One issue raised by many of the submissions and the members of the committee was that there was no mechanism established within the bill by which an appeal could be made regarding an incentive or ownership decision. I am pleased to announce to the House on behalf of the Government of Canada that we
have considered these representations and that the bill will be amended so that the determination of a Canadian ownership rate under Clause 39(2), a redetermination of Canadian ownership rate under Clause 44(1), and a finding by the minister that an arrangement is artificial under Clause 30 and 53(1), are all now specifically subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
This amendment will make the COR determination and redetermination as well as the PIP and COR artificial transactions divisions subject to review under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act. This amendment is a result of responsible government. We have a committee. Representations were made at the committee level by Members of Parliament, the industry and the academic community to improve this bill. The Government of Canada is attempting to do that. That is what that amendment is about.
Several other amendments were introduced in committee stage. While most of these amendments were technical, one amendment to Part II of the bill is worth noting specifically. This amendment would allow applicants who have begun to determine their Canadian ownership rate and control status on the basis of the draft forms and regulations, published on March 10, 1982, to rely on the provisions in those drafts for their COR.
Several other issues were addressed in committee. One such issue was that the provisions of the bill are complex. In the case of PIP, a key consideration has been the recognition that the benefits conferred by PIP on Canadians could, in a variety of ways, be transferred to non-Canadians. This has led to the adoption of rules to reduce such transfers to a minimum. However, while these rules introduce a complicating factor to the PIP system, they still allow for the self-assessing process to be applied and should be readily understood by those familiar with the terms and conditions commonly found in the wide range of industry agreements in use.
As for the Canadian ownership and control determination act, it is intended to measure real beneficial ownership. Sometimes this can be a relatively simple process, but for other cases it is more difficult. The COR system of rules for the measurement of Canadian ownership is designed to be applied as uniformly as possible to individuals, private and public corporations and partnerships, and many other investment vehicles such as trusts and insurance companies. The equity structure of each one of these types of entities is extremely varied and, of course, the COR rules must parallel them to be effective. It is in this sense that the rules are necessarily detailed.
The degree of ministerial discretion and the fact that many of the measurement and incentive rules are prescribed by regulation was another issue raised in committee. Because financial structures and oil and gas transactions are sensitive to change, it is considered desirable to retain a certain degree of flexibility in order for the government to be able to respond
June 8, 1982

to new and unforeseen situations. However, while these provisions are intended to ensure that the PIP and COR programs are responsive to industry needs and changing circumstances, I want to stress that the flexibility inherent to these programs is not intended to detract from, but rather to reinforce, the long-term nature of the PIP and COR programs. Indeed, the flexibility provided is by way of fine tuning to ensure that relief is provided in circumstances where the rules could otherwise lead to an arbitrary or an unintentionally hard result for PIP and COR applicants.
Another issue raised in committee was the fear that confidential industry information would be disclosed through these new programs. The confidentiality provisions in the statute permit disclosure of information to appropriate officials and departments for purposes of administration of the act, as well as to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency and the Department of Finance for purposes of monitoring the oil and gas industry and development of fiscal policies.
In addition, the statutory disclosure provisions recognize that the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the public interest in the statutory protection of confidentiality in two circumstances. The first of these is any kind of legal proceedings, civil or criminal, arising out of the administration of the act in which evidence is to be taken under oath. The second of these is criminal proceedings of any kind. The ability to disclose in the latter circumstance reflects the position that when the important issue of criminal guilt, and perhaps the liberty of the subject is at stake, all relevant evidence might be available to ensure a proper resolution.
The officials have been instructed to keep in close touch with the industry to review the provisions of this bill for any changes that may be required. Any such changes will be considered within the context of the integrity of the program. The continuation of this dialogue is an extension of the effort that began with the inception of the program.
The specifics of the petroleum incentives program and the Canadian ownership rate and control status system were first set out in papers for public discussion in late 1980. These were further elaborated and refined in light of subsequent public comments in the spring of 1981. Public comments and reactions to both papers were reflected in the draft bill tabled in this House last June. The regulations for these programs have reflected this interaction with industry.
In addition, a series of workshops on both the PIP and the Canadian ownership and control determination programs took place earlier this year. Approximately 1,500 people attended these sessions in six different centres across the country.
Those attending came from both large and small companies active in the oil and gas sector as well as from the legal and accounting communities and from such financial institutions as banks, trust companies and investment dealers. Indeed, the key role to be played by the latter group has prompted separate follow-up sessions with them. Throughout the course of these and similar contacts, the exchange of information has contributed to both a better understanding and, we think, a more workable program.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
In light of the extensive dialogue with industry and the support of the Canadian people across the country for the objectives of these programs, the Canadianization goal of the National Energy Program would appear to be a necessary component of a viable solution to this country's energy problems. Increased Canadian ownership and enhanced exploration activity will enable us to achieve our energy security and ownership goals and will also ensure that the benefits of industrial expansion are distributed more fairly across this country.
I am pleased to recommend this bill to the House as it will be instrumental in enabling us to resolve many of this country's energy problems. It will help this country become self-sufficient in energy by the end of the decade. It will help Canadians achieve control of the petroleum industry.
It is critical that these programs be put in place as soon as possible. There is an urgent need for the incentives by many Canadian oil and gas companies which believed in the National Energy Program and made investment decisions on the basis of the imminent availability of subsidies under the Petroleum Incentives Program. The Petroleum Incentives Program and the Canadian Ownership and Control Program will both play a vital role in securing our energy future.
As I said at the outset, if industry has one concern or, indeed, one complaint, it ought to direct it four-square to the Conservative Party of Canada. Never before have we seen such hypocrisy from a Canadian political party. For two weeks they goofed off. They left Parliament Hill. They had the bells ringing while important legislation like this Bill C-104 was delayed. This Bill C-104 has been delayed by their tactics. They referred to bankruptcies and to hard times in the oil and gas industry, but they did absolutely nothing about it when they had an opportunity. I hope they will have the courage to stand and say to the oil and gas industry and to the people of Canada that they made a mistake. They are used to making mistakes, whether it is in positions on Petro-Canada or something else. We have heard it all and we will hear it again, if they continue to make mistakes and blunders.
They have an energy policy to which they alluded today. It is in bits and pieces. One point is to dismantle Petro-Canada, to cut the prices of oil and gas. That is their policy. They say, "Never mind the agreement of the producing provinces." They never had what we refer to in my community as the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to take those policies before a policy convention of the Conservative Party of Canada and have them voted on in terms of resolutions. Not one resolution emanated from that policy conference.


David P. Smith: They were too scared.


David Charles Dingwall: We know they are scared. They are scared that this energy legislation will do something for the oil and gas industry. Their intent is to see that industry go down the tube. I say to the Conservative Party: "Shame, shame, the

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
industry will make you accountable in the next general election."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear that we "want the industry to go down the tubes". Would the parliamentary secretary go to Hamilton and see whether they are making tubes any more, or making pipe any more? Two years of this minister and they are not making any pipe, they are not making steel. That is Liberal policy.
In a court of law, in a criminal trial, one of the principles that all of us hold dear is that we cannot self-incriminate, we have the right to avoid self-incrimination. This Chamber is a marvellous place because so often members plead guilty and do not even know they have just done so. The parliamentary secretary stood and said that for two weeks the Conservative Party rang the bells and goofed off. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we spent those two weeks talking to the Canadian people about the reason why the bells were ringing. The people listened and they knew we were telling the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They supported us then and they support us today. The parliamentary secretary starts there and he finishes there, saying that we were "goofing off while the bells rang." In the middle, Mr. Speaker, comes his guilty plea. He puts it out there for all of us, with pride. Mr. Speaker, do you remember him saying to you and to all the members of this Chamber: "We have changed the legislation; when we listened to the witnesses, we learned; we have put before you tonight 12 amendments, we had a whole lot more in committee."
The bells rang, Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal government was not going to let the bill go to committee, the bells rang because the Liberal government was not going to hear witnesses. Now they stand in this Chamber and admit to the nation that they have 12 amendments tonight and had a whole bunch more in committee. That, Mr. Speaker, is because witnesses were heard, because the government learned. It is a rotten bill, but it is better, and it is only better because the bells rang for two weeks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I love to stand in this Chamber and point out that the parliamentary secretary has been admitting that those bells rang for a reason. The reason was so that knowledgeable Canadians could be heard, that legislation could be changed, and that it might be made a little bit better. He stood up there and he told us that all those things happened, that Canadians were heard, and that he is proud because the bill is going to be better. And the proof is in the order paper today: 12 amendments that we debate this evening and perhaps tomorrow, and then we go to vote on them. None of those amendments, Mr. Speaker, would have been available for Members of Parliament to vote on if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the House leader and the backbenchers of the Liberal Party had had their way and had rammed this bill through, without witnesses.
What are they so proud of? Do you know what we have here in this package of bills and in this one in particular? In the package we have all kinds of ways of taking money out of the pockets of the consumers and out of the corporations which employ people, the corporations that buy steel and trucks and so on. We take it all away from them and then we get to Bill C-104 and we give it back, not all of it but part of it.
Mr. Speaker, do we give it back to those who have earned it, who have the knowledge to use it rightly? Do we do that in this piece of legislation? No, we do not, Mr. Speaker, we give it back to whomever the minister of energy decides shall get it, whether they know anything, whether they earned it, whether they are going to use it wisely, whether it will add one drop of oil. No, those are not the criteria, Mr. Speaker. The criterion is that the minister of energy shall decide who gets it. Is that wise for Canadian consumers?
Just stop to think about it for a minute. In the city of Ottawa today we have a lot of grocery stores. Some of them do a good job, bringing into their stores the things that people want. They charge a reasonable amount so that they can keep their good employees, and they stay in business. Others do not do so well. They buy the wrong groceries, they put them on the wrong shelves, they do not display them well, people do not buy, and they go out of business. What does that system produce? It produces for us all a system of pretty good grocery stores, because if the manager is bad, he is going to fail; if the store is well run, it will succeed.
Do we apply that logic to the oil industry? No, we do not. We say, "If you are successful, if you find a lot of oil, we will take most of it away from you in the form of taxes." Then we add: "Are we going to give it back to you, because we know that you can do a good job of finding us more oil? No, we are not, we are going to give it back to whomever the minister of energy decides to give it back to." Do they have to have any experience in the oil and gas industry? No. Do they have to have ever drilled a well? No. That is not why they get some of this money back. Could you drill wherever you want, wherever your mind and your experience tells you you are going to find oil? The answer is no. You drill where the government tells you to drill. And you will get money for doing it if he decides you should get it. It has no relationship to experience, it has no relationship to where oil is likely to be.
We have seen some evidence of this. Where is he telling us in this legislation that most of the money is going to go? I will tell you. It will go to wherever it will cost the most. He is going to encourage everyone out there to drill in the most costly places, so that gasoline and oil to heat your house and drive your car will cost the largest amount possible. He will finance it by raising taxes. And somehow he has forgotten that for less cost you can produce gas and oil for people at a lower price. That was the system we had in this country until two years ago, but now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) stands in the House and brags that his government is going to take money
June 8, 1982

away from successful people and give it to an unknown bunch, but only if they drill in the most expensive places possible. If they find any natural gas or oil, it will cost consumers the maximum amount. It will cost them as much as possible. The government is doing everything it can in this legislation to raise the prices which must be paid to heat homes and drive cars. The parliamentary secretary has the gall to stand in this chamber and brag about that.
Let us think about what it would be like if the government took a little less and left all those companies-there were thousands-to make the individual decisions they had been making. Those companies were asking, "Should we drill here or should we drill over there?" Those companies made those decisions after 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 40 years of experience, and they used their own money. They decided where they were most likely to find oil and gas, and the parliamentary secretary wants to replace that system with a system whereby a bureaucracy will decide where they should drill.
We were told in the committee that it will take 400 more civil servants to give money back. Who will pay for that? The senior citizens of Canada who are heating their homes will pay for those 400 more civil servants. The minister admitted that, and if his past projections are any indication of the future, that 400 will become 800 or 1,200, and their sole job in life will be to give money back. If we have to have 400, 800 or 1,200 to give it back, I suppose hidden behind are another 400 who had to take it away in the first place. Then, of course, we forget about the 1,200 or 2,400 who work in all the companies and who have to do the book work to decide how much is to be taken away. Then there is another group in each company which has to decide how much is coming back.
What have we done? If we have all those people employed in companies deciding how much is taken away and another group deciding how much is coming back, and if we have government employees who have to work to take it away and another group who have to work to give it back, what will happen to oil and gas prices? None of those people were necessary two years ago, but we are making them necessary. The people who will have to pay will be those people on fixed incomes, on pensions and on unemployment insurance. They are the people who will have to pay for this mess. We have done this to our system; now we tell companies where to drill, not because there is any oil there and not because it is the most likely place to find it but simply because the government wants the drilling to occur in some places rather than in others.
If a person has a summer cottage or a farm and he wants to drill to get some fresh water, will he just drill any old place, or will he seek a little help to find the best place to drill? It is expensive to drill a hole only to find out there is no water. That person will want to drill where he is likely to find water. The same is true in the case of oil. It is very expensive to drill a hole if no oil is found. A company will want to drill in the most likely place.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
This legislation deserves the unanimous condemnation of all members of this House because it is based on the principle that big brother knows best where to drill. It is based on the principle that big brother has already decided that where companies will drill will be the most expensive places. Big brother has decided that the cost of gas and oil three years, four years and five years down the road will be incredibly high because big brother is forcing the industry to drill in those expensive places.
The parliamentary secretary stood in the House and said that the program is working because Canadian ownership is increasing. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he owns his own home. Does he own his own home, or does a mortgage company own his home? There is quite a difference between owning a home which is paid for and having a mortgaged home. Interest rates have doubled. People who thought they owned their homes suddenly found they did not own their homes when interest rates doubled, and they are going to lose their homes. The National Energy Program has encouraged Canadian companies to go out and borrow a lot of money to buy other companies. I will give one example. Dome is the biggest of Canadian-owned companies. A couple of years ago about half the money Dome was taking in was used to pay interest on money borrowed, but the other half was used for drilling, expansion, pipeline construction and development. As of about three weeks ago 90 per cent of the money which accrued to Dome was used to pay interest. Since that period two or three weeks ago interest rates have gone up, and the value of the Canadian dollar has gone down. The Canadian dollar closed today at 79.25 cents U.S. My suspicion is that that Canadian company does not have enough money coming in every day to pay for the money it borrowed. If it does not have enough money coming in every day to pay for the money it borrowed, it is bankrupt.
If the company goes bankrupt, who owns it? At first blush one might think it is a Canadian bank because Dome borrowed from a Canadian bank. However, we find that the Canadian bank borrowed from a foreign bank, and the real owner of Dome Petroleum is not Canadian. The ownership certificate says Canadian, but in reality when Dome borrows that much money, it is the people who lent Dome the money who own Dome, and those people are not Canadian. The parliamentary secretary would have us believe this program has produced more Canadian ownership. It has not. It has produced more Canadian borrowing.
Let us examine what borrowing does. If half the money Dome had was being used to build pipelines or drill wells in Canada, that half was being taxed. It was producing income. People were employed, and they paid income taxes. Cars were bought, and taxes were paid. However, when all the money Dome gets is used to pay interest and the ultimate borrower is a foreign bank, all the money consumers pay for oil and gas bought from Dome leaves the country and is not taxed because it is a business expense. No jobs are created, and no federal revenue is generated.
18246

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has done to this country. Billions and billions of dollars have left the country in this way. The truth is that in the marketplace stocks are down, down, down because they are worthless. The truth is that the value of the Canadian dollar is down, down, down because it is becoming worthless. The truth is that one and a quarter million Canadians are unemployed today because there are no jobs. There is no money to drill wells, to buy cars, to buy trucks, to buy steel or to buy pipe because hon. members opposite blindly follow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister is wrong. He has pride and pizzazz, but he is stupid. What he has done to this nation is a tragedy. Never in the history of this nation has there been a member of the cabinet who has done so much damage to the fabric of our country in such a short period of time. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is an absolute catastrophe. To vote for this legislation, in whole or in part, is to aid and abet a crime. It is a crime which approaches treason for what it has done to this country and what it will do in the future.
A few days ago the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) appeared at the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. The topic was urea formaldehyde foam insulation, which the government had said was suitable for homes. It gave grants for its installation but later said that it was not healthy. Now people cannot sell their homes. For some the hope of retirement has been wiped out and others have lost their health. What was really disturbing was that when a group of those home owners came to ask the government for help the minister complained, saying the government had given them $60,000 to organize and therefore they had no right to criticize the government. So for $60,000 apparently we give up the freedom of speech!
That is what grants do, Mr. Speaker, they make people afraid to speak up. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is going to hand out grants to people in the oil industry, will they have the courage to tell Canadians what is right and what is wrong? Freedom of speech is for sale, apparently. That is one of the cardinal principles of this minister and of many ministers on the front bench-that they can buy silence.
Bill C-104 which we are discussing tonight gives money to oil companies and in this way the government hopes for increased silence from the industry. There is a threat in this. Once you take the paycheque from the government you had better not criticize, because it can quietly cut you off. The most recent example of this was the civil servant, Neil Fraser, who worked in the tax department. He wanted to speak publicly about the dangers he saw in Canadian society, but he drew a paycheque from the government so it fired him.
The government now wants the whole oil industry to take a paycheque in the belief that once it is on the payroll, it will not be so critical. I have lived all my life around people in the industry, Mr. Speaker, although I have never worked in it. They are a rugged bunch of individualists, well trained and
with a lot of pride. They would be just as happy if this legislation were scrapped. But the minister and the parliamentary secretary do not understand that. People in the industry understand the danger to their freedom of speech and freedom of action which is inherent in the legislation. It tells people where to drill and when to drill. If they have any knowledge or experience they know that this legislation is one of the rotten elements in the whole package that will help drag everyone in the nation into increased dependency on foreign oil, a devalued dollar, higher inflation and increased unemployment. They feel as strongly about it in a negative sense as I do and I urge all members of the chamber to vote against it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke said he lived all his life around the industry. As I listened to him I thought that I lived all my life during the course of his speech, which went from urea formaldehyde to civil servants and finally back to the oil industry.
We are supposed to be speaking to the first amendment, but it looks as if we are speaking to the whole bill. I want to say to the parliamentary secretary that I would like to look more closely at his speech tomorrow in Hansard because he announced some changes that may be significant. I should like to deal with them when we get to the clauses in question. The parliamentary secretary spoke about Conservative hypocrisy in this case. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black when you consider that the government was forced to listen to Parliament and divide the bill! That is the problem the government has with the people-the people do not think that it is listening. This is not a democracy but an autocracy, a government run by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and very few others.
It was good for the government to be forced to divide the bill. 1 am not sure that it lost much in the long run as the bills will be through the House within a couple of days. In any case, the government did have to eat crow. That is why we supported the division of the bill. It reminds me of the line in Macbeth about the bell- " ... it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell". We are not sure whether the government will go to heaven or the other place yet. We will have to wait and see.
I want to say something about the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Talk about hypocrisy! The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) wrote to the minister telling him to divide the bill and he might do better with the PIP grants because the industry wanted them. But tonight that party claims it is bleeding for the old age pensioners who will have to pay for all this. That is too much, Mr. Speaker, after they have spoken for about 12 hours putting forward the line of the industry almost exclusively. A brief presented by the Consumers' Association of Canada had this to say:
Bill C-104 and the philosophy behind it perpetuate the failed energy policies of the past-namely that future oil security can be brought through higher prices and subsidies for oil companies.
Last week the minister announced that $8.9 billion would be spent in PIP grants. That is a lot of money. It means that 80
June 8, 1982

cents of every dollar invested in exploration in Canada lands in the north and in the offshore will be borne by the taxpayers of Canada, and there will be another 13 cents in the dollar if it is a Canadian company paying taxes. That is 93 cents on every dollar, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder that consumers feel they have a stake in this. The brief continues:
What should be kept in mind is that for every $1.00 increase in the wellhead price of oil and an equivalent rise in the price of natural gas, the consumer will pay industry and government $18,000,000,000 in higher prices for existing reserves of oil and gas, because the established volume of hydrocarbon reserves the industry says now remain in the conventional producing areas total the equivalent of 18 billion barrels of oil. With price hikes in excess of $35.00 per barrel in prospect by 1986, in this zero sum game the financial burden on the consuming sector of the economy will likely become unbearable, amounting, as it will, to hundreds of billions of hard-earned dollars in extra payments to the petroleum industry and to governments. The stakes are immense. That is why we see full page newspaper advertisements and multimillion dollar television campaigns sponsored by the petroleum industry.
I say to the consumers of Canada-do not be fooled; you are being hosed. You will have to pay $8.9 billion in petroleum grants and pay more at the pumps. You are dealing with two parties who want to give this money away. This money comes out of the pockets of consumers, Mr. Speaker, and goes into the pocket of the government and the pockets of the oil companies. If companies want to explore, I have no objection; but why do we have to give them $8.9 billion in grants? We are going to introduce amendments to this bill in which we tried to give the consumers in Canada a break, and give native people a chance to participate in the administration of these grants. We try to make sure that the required Canadian content is real and substantial. Those are the kind of amendments we propose, and I reserve my right to speak on the amendments of the parliamentary secretary.
This bill will give the big oil companies a lot of money, eight billion, in fact almost nine billion dollars, to be taken out of the consumer's pockets and put into those of the oil companies. This is incredible, at a time when families are having trouble paying their oil, gas and hydro bills. This legislation is far too generous to the big oil companies.

Therefore we will be making some amendments to the bill.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the COR program and PIP grants, which are the substance of Bill C-104, are going to last maybe two years and then collapse. The reason for that was exemplified in the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He clearly gave one of the reasons these programs will not survive. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) turned loose those little beavers in his department to work on this thing, these people with brilliant academic credentials and no knowledge whatsoever of the oil industry, they produced this little gem as a way of Canadianizing. They were going to get at the cash flows of the big companies throught the PGRT
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
and the NGGLT, these massive taxes, and recycle the money to Canadian-owned companies by way of PIP grants.
It was a great academic theory, the only problem is that the world is populated by more than just the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) raised the same questions in committee. These huge taxes have suddenly become the property of the government, and the grants are gifts from the people to the oil industry. They forget about the other part of the question and they say "What is going on? How can you give these billions of dollars to the oil industry when hospitals are closing and universities need money?" It is that kind of simple-minded reasoning which will dominate. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted from the Toronto Star and reporters from that paper are going to repeat it ad nauseam. You can bet that anyone in this House with a cause will say "just a minute, you cannot say you do not have any money because you are giving these billions of dollars to the oil industry".


An hon. Member:: Right.


Harvie Andre: You see, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) forgets the other part of the equation. As socialists, of course, they believe first and foremost that all earned income belongs to the government. Anything left in the hands of the person who earned it represents a gift from the government to that person. Unfortunately that simple-minded approach is going to be adopted and accepted by others who will forget about the other part of the equation.
A second reason this program will die is that it is incredibly complex. The academics sat down and said we will have a grant system based on the degree of Canadian ownership. The more Canadian owned you are, the bigger the grant, and in that way we will be promoting Canadian ownership. That sounds marvellous on the back of an envelope but, as one of our representatives to the committee pointed out, consider a major trust company or insurance company. The majority owners are Scottish, and they in turn manage a pension fund whose major beneficiaries are Canadian, who in turn own stock in the company. Is the company Canadian? Is it British? Who knows? How do you trace the ownership? Well, the only way to keep track of it is to write regulations, so the beavers have been at work writing regulations. They have something like 60 pages of regulations and you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand them. Mr. Speaker, when a member of a large firm of chartered accountants says that he and his partners have been examining the regulations and applications forms for some months-they are in Calgary and expect some of their customers will be interested-and they do not yet feel confident of their ability properly to advise clients on filling out these forms, what hope is there for the small Canadian-owned company which does not have on its staff the lawyers and accountants necessary?
The government has been holding seminars around the country on these programs and I have talked to several people who have attended them. I have yet to find a single person who came out of there and said anything but, "I haven't a clue

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
about how we are going to be able to operate that thing". Remember, it is not just the person applying for the grant who has to be concerned about it. The business world is complex, shares are held in the hands of individuals, banks, stockbrokers, and trust and insurance companies. There is a myriad of ways in which capital stock is held, and there is a myriad of instruments. A lot of companies will have common stock "A", "B", "C", preferred "A", "B", and so on. Stocks can be preferred or deferred in this way and that way. Some have dividends, some do not. There are all kinds of different instruments, Mr. Speaker, held in all kinds of different ways. To find out what percentage of your shares are owned and controlled by Canadians represents an incredibly complex activity. Application forms have to be sent to trust companies and stockbrokers saying, "You have a bunch of our stock in your name that you are holding for another beneficiary. Can you tell us whether that beneficiary is Canadian?" The broker answers by saying, "The beneficiary for this stock is 107652 corporation limited." The address shown is usually a post office box or a lawyer's office. The next thing you have to do is to go to the registered headquarters of 107652 limited to find out who owns that company. You may find the shareholders of that company are 10769 corporation limited, and so on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is amazing how complicated business is.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway says it is amazing how complicated business is. That is not what is amazing. What is amazing is how simple-minded some people can be about programs which they design on the back of envelopes.
This program does not have a hope of surviving that complexity. It is not in existence yet, but already there are in the order of some 400 civil servants trying to deal with it. Witnesses who have appeared before the committee have told us that the cost of administering this program within their companies will be in the order of a half a million dollars a year extra in non-productive, wasted administrative effort. That is for the companies with a vested interest. The banks have no vested interest in this program but they are going to have to deal with it. What is the incentive for them to deal with it? As a company, how are you going to get a bank, a trust company or a stockbroker to supply you with the information to fill out the forms? You will have to pay them somehow for that task. Who knows what those costs will be? What we do know is that the costs will be high. But we do know it is a totally wasted expenditure. It will not bring about one extra barrel of oil nor will it bring about one extra cubic foot of gas. It is a totally non-productive expenditure which will contribute to the continuing deterioration of productivity in this country.
It is a source of incredible frustration for me how little the government pays attention to its own policies. We have heard past Liberal governments say, this one did too-it is usually presidents of the treasury board who make the statements that they are committed to deregulation-that they are committed
to reducing the paperwork burden and to cutting red tape. We are told the Liberal government recognizes that red tape and bureaucracy lead to excessive bureaucratic influence through regulations, etc., and this leads to a deterioration in productivity. That is the Liberal government's policy. It has been stated repeatedly. Indeed, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) set up an office called the Office for the Reduction of Paperwork Burden. What a fancy title. On the other hand, another government department, in this case the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has guys sitting down designing the most incredible bureaucratic complex paperwork burden program that you can imagine. They are doing it without even a genuflection to what is supposed to be government policy.
This program will generate a lot of temporary jobs- because the program is going to collapse-for lawyers, accountants and paper shufflers. But none of this will contribute a barrel of oil or a cubic foot of gas. None of it will make us energy self-sufficient, but it will be good for the paper makers and for filing cabinet makers. There will be a ton of application forms and paper floating around from people who are trying to get information. It is the most complex program imaginable. How did it come about? A writer for Maclean's magazine was right. It was a minister who said, "Look, I have been a minister for a number of years and I have accomplished nothing. We are going to accomplish something now. Go out and design a program that will Canadianize the gas and oil industry." The minister turned loose all those bright young fellows with their Ph.D. degrees. They sat down in splendid isolation from the real world and they came up with this program.
One wonders how long it takes to learn something. In the energy pricing agreement of September, 1981, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the government was going to bring us export permits for Canadian-owned companies. In other words, the Canadian-owned companies would get first preference on the export of natural gas. What a marvellous theory. This was a marvellous theory to help Canadian companies. But a junior land man in the oil industry, fresh out of high school, could have told the minister and any one of his minions that was impossible. There is not a man alive or a team of lawyers alive who could tell you the nationality of a cubic foot of gas in less than about six months of continuous effort. It just is not possible. It is just so shockingly naive and stupid that you despair. You despair at that kind of naivete and stupidity that there is this continuing confidence that the government can do things right. The government cannot do it right. It has never been able to and it will not be able to do so in the future. This whole thing is going to collapse.
I understand the parliamentary secretary in his remarks muttered something about the ringing of the bells having been wasteful or something. I have gone over the history, but apparently there are modern attempts to distort history. But let us make things quite clear as to what happened with respect to the Energy Security Act and with regard to this program.
June 8, 1982

Last fall I approached the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy, mines and resources and said "Look, the junior oil companies are hurting badly and they need a shot in the arm. The only thing you have is this PIP and COR programs. Take that out of the energy security act and we will give it reasonably expeditious treatment, even though it is a dumb program and we don't like it, but if that is the way you are going to go, at least go that way. About 15 months ago 1 know of at least one company that approached the government and said "When is PIP going to come into force? We need it for our exploration program." The company was told that it would be out in May 1981. On the strength of that commitment by the government, it borrowed money, undertook an exploration program and, of course, was severely strapped.
The then parliamentary secretary said that he thought it was a reasonable suggestion and that he would talk to the minister. The minister returned and said that he would split it if we agreed to pass quickly the rest of the bill in one lump. I found that absurd. I had made an offer which I thought would be of assistance to the government, and the minister said that he would let us be of help if we would take the rest of the bill in one lump. It was similar to offering to sweep a neighbour's sidewalk, and he says, "Fine, you can sweep my sidewalk and my driveway as well". Obviously I said no.
Then I wrote a letter to the minister in December making the offer again. He wrote back in January and gave me a flat no. Then we know what happened in terms of the point of order I raised asking that the bill be declared inadmissible. Madam Speaker ruled that the bill could not be split, although I did not ask her to do that. Nonetheless, we were at the end of our tether and had no choice but to ring the bells until the bill was split.
What has happened as a result of the bill being split? We have had the opportunity to have committee hearings and to hear witnesses. I do not know how many witnesses there were, but it was in the order of 25 or 30 who would otherwise not have had an opportunity to present their views, had the energy security act gone through as was intended initially by the government. On Bill C-104 alone there were something like 1 5 amendments as a result of committee work. This would not have happened if we had not stuck to our guns and demanded that that atrocious piece of legislation be split before it was brought into the House of Commons.
As a result of sticking to our guns, Canadians had an opportunity to examine these bills closer, and on Bill C-104 there were some 15 changes, which means that some 15 mistakes would have gone through had the government had its way and brought in that one massive piece of legislation. We have not counted the total number of amendments to all bills, but a bunch of them were brought about as a result of our efforts to force the government to treat the House with a reasonable amount of respect.
When hon. members of the New Democratic Party say that we did a terrible thing by ringing the bells and forcing the
Petroleum Administration Act
government to break up the legislation, and when hon. members of the Liberal Party say that it was terrible for us to do these things, I say nonsense. It is one of the best things we have done in the last year, because it forced the bill to be broken up in a way that it could be handled by a committee of the House and because it resulted in amendments or improvements to the bill, albeit it is still a piece of trash.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 8.15 o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-103.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the division on Motion No. 1 also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 2 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 4 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 5 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 6 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 9 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 10 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 11 negatived.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: that the bill as amended be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-I do not care which you are- this bill illustrates the utter treachery of the government which temporarily is in office in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -I appreciate your attempts to still the braying of the asses in the government ranks. They appear now to be somewhat still.
This bill is the bill which incorporates and puts into legislation the nefarious treachery of the government opposite with respect to oil and energy prices in this country. This is the bill that permits the government to raise the prices of oil and gas in this country, as the government has done 16 times since February of 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: Twelve of those increases have been increases in federal taxes on oil and gas and all the products made from a barrel of oil. The increases total not 18 cents, not 20 cents,
June 8, 1982

not 24 cents, not 9 cents, not 38 cents, not 40 cents, not 42 cents, but 62 cents a gallon. The government has raised the prices and taxes paid by the people of Canada by that much not only on gasoline and diesel fuel but also on heating oil and every product made from crude oil. But, Madam Speaker- Mr. Speaker; sometimes I get confused-


René Cousineau: Sometimes?


John Carnell Crosbie: -about who is the chair. 1 will not deal tonight with the sins of this government in the field of energy pricing. I will deal with its attempt to wreck the confederation of our country and to oppress the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with its attitude toward the question of offshore mineral resources. I intend to deal with the conduct of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-who has so disgraced himself as the head of the system of justice of this country in this House in the last several weeks-in this connection. I will show how the minister attempted to misrepresent certain facts to the people in this House. I do not want to be interrupted, so I will not say whether it was intentional or not intentional. I will also expand on how the minister attempted to mislead the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with reference to the precedents in this matter and how the government leader in the Senate attempted to mislead the Senators in the other House. Those innocents are not used to being misled, but the leader of the government in the Senate did the same thing.
If I can have a little silence from hon. gentlemen opposite, if the wind will stop blowing through their heads and out their mouths-they have a lot of empty spaces in their craniums- and if they will listen, I will show them how the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the province of Nova Scotia, the province of Prince Edward Island, the province of New Brunswick, the province of British Columbia and all provinces which have shores and shelves lying off their shores have been betrayed by this government.
1 want first to deal with my own province, Newfoundland. If Newfoundland and Labrador had not entered confederation on March 31, 1949, there would be no question as to who owns the oil and gas which has now been discovered on the continental shelf off Newfoundland, the Hibernia field. It would clearly belong to Newfoundland under international law. There would be no question about who had control over the continental shelf and the 200-mile economic zone with respect to fisheries, because 66.66 per cent of the whole east coast, the continental shelf area, was brought into confederation by the Province of Newfoundland. That is the province that for 400 years had to struggle to exist and that today is still not economically selfsufficient. It brought all those resources when it joined confederation.
There is not one word in the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada that says the Province of Newfoundland should surrender its resources onshore or offshore to the Government of Canada. That was 1949 and not too much was
Petroleum Administration Act
known about the offshore resources in those days. A lot more is known today.
For 23 years after confederation there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland; a government that did not care whether Newfoundland ever became self-sufficient. It was satisfied just to be the trained seal in Newfoundland and then, if the Newfoundlanders voted the Liberal way they could come to Ottawa and the government would reward them with the largesse collected from all the people of Canada. That is if we were subservient and dipped our hats to them and were properly polite and swallowed our pride, they would see that we did not starve. That was the attitude of that provincial government in Newfoundland led by the first premier, Mr. Smallwood. It did not care about the offshore. It did now know about the offshore until 1960.
If that Liberal government had thought it had any title to the offshore, it could have been dangerous. It delivered all the rights to the offshore to Mr. John C. Doyle who, as we have seen in recent months, is being investigated by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. He was given the rights to huge areas of the offshore by his friend Mr. Smallwood. The rest of the offshore was given to Mr. John Shaheen, late of the Come By Chance oil refinery who is now in some difficulty in the United States. In other words, two adventurers, two plunderers, two buccaneers, two close associates of the then premier of Newfoundland were given the rights to most of the offshore.
In 1972 a new government took office in Newfoundland under Premier Frank Moores, of which I am proud to have been a member. It appointed a young, intelligent, idealistic Newfoundland lawyer to head the Department of Mines and Energy in the person of Leo Barry, now a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Within 12 months he had the situation under control and had cancelled all the permits given to Shaheen and Doyle and the political plunderers associated with the Liberal Party of Newfoundland.
The position taken by that first Liberal government of Newfoundland which agreed with the Government of Canada that it would be delighted to have 50 per cent of the revenues from the offshore, if there were any, went out the window. The new, Conservative government of Newfoundland decided that the resources were to be developed for the people of Newfoundland and that it would put forward a case for the Province of Newfoundland and let the chips fall where they may. If Newfoundland had any future, it could only come from the wealth that would be generated in the oil and gas it felt sure was off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We immediately repudiated the negotiations that had gone on between the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland and the Liberal governments of Canada. We said that we were not going to surrender our one chance for economic self-sufficiency. Never. For 400 years tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders had to leave their homes and go abroad to work. They used to go to Boston, New York, all through the United States and all over the world. Now they are going all through Canada looking for work. We said that we aim for the time when the

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
man or woman born in Newfoundland will be able to stay and work in Newfoundland if they want to-and their children and their children's children. This is their only hope.
From 1972 forward that was the theme, the raison d'etre of the Newfoundland government-that and the development of the hydro resources in Labrador. We have been thwarted in the development of those hydro resources in Labrador but I will not go into that tonight. For reasons known to people who have been associated with the Liberal Party of Quebec and successive governments in Quebec, we have not been able to develop our hydro resources in Labrador.
When Mr. Smallwood was premier, in one of the most unseeing and saddest contracts ever entered into by a sovereign state, he gave away the hydro's resources of the Upper Churchill Falls to the Province of Quebec for 65 years. The conditions of that contract mean that the company that operates the Upper Churchill would be bankrupt in another five or six years in any event because it will not be able to keep up with the inflation which set in in the last ten or 15 years. But I will set that aside for tonight, Mr. Speaker, as I want to concentrate on the offshore minerals problem.
The government prepared its case. Let me explain to the Ftouse that the case will not depend on the question of legal ownership. If any court in the land makes a pronouncement on who technically, legally owns those resources, that is not going to settle the issue. If the Supreme Court of Canada, because it wants to follow the decision it made with respect to British Columbia around 1967 and decides that it does not want to trouble the waters and cannot afford not to be uniform one coast with another-if it decides on technical and legal grounds that the Government of Canada owns the resources, it should not be thought that this will settle the issue. The only thing that will settle the issue is a political arrangement that is satisfactory to the people who brought those resources into confederation. Nothing else, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The federal bully boys, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) do not need to worry. The Supreme Court of Canada is not going to save their bacon. The only thing that can do that is an agreement that is satisfactory and in the spirit of confederation-an agreement that meets the test of a federal state. The test is that in a federal state of Canada, in our confederation, resources are owned and controlled by the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The federal government has huge powers. We know that and we saw them exercised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Gentlemen, just listen. Relax and learn. The federal government has gigantic powers. It could fight Alberta to a standstill. It has powers of direct and indirect taxation; it
has the powers of interprovincial trade; it has the powers of international trade-it has all kinds of muscle. We know that it would be a standoff and that the federal government could win, no matter who owns the resources. Nevertheless, it is very important for a province that it own the resources because then it can control the rate of development.
I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. In Newfoundland we are never going to be a milch cow, milked dry because the federal government wants all our oil and gas in the next 20 years. Because it failed with the tar sands, it failed with Alsands, it failed with Cold Lake, it failed in the Beaufort Sea, it is not coming down to Newfoundland to haul out our oil and gas and minerals to make up for failures elsewhere!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Those resources have to be developed first for the good of the people who live in the surrounding area and who for 400 years have had to leave their homeland to get work. First, it has to mean something for them. First, it has to mean that the oil and gas industry is established in Newfoundland. First, it has to mean that our people are trained for the jobs, and the development must not be too fevered. It must not wreck urban development in Newfoundland. It must not wreck the services that had to be provided in Newfoundland for the development of the oil and gas. That is the first requirement. We are not going to allow it to be hauled out in the next ten or 15 years because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been bankrupt in his policy and now desperately wants to find oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That brings us up to the time that the Progressive Conservative government came into power in June 1979. Until then the Liberal Government of Canada had refused to consider any kind of decent, meaningful agreement with the province. It said it owned the resources, was going to control them but this party and its leader who is sitting here tonight, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), adopted a policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know what is so funny about that, gentlemen. They are not laughing over on these front benches when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks them a question or two. They cringe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We saw today, Mr. Speaker, the spectacle of the Minister of Finance, feckless, fearsome, frivolous, not knowing where to turn, frigid, frozen and frumpy, coming back from Versailles. It is a wonder he did not meet in the railway car over there in Versailles so he could surrender to Ronnie Reagan in decent obscurity. He could not answer a question; he was completely inconsistent. On one hand he is going to enlarge the deficit, he is going to be expansionary. On the other hand he reads the communique as though he were
June 8, 1982

the author. He had nothing more to do with it than the president of Lithuania, Latvia or Switzerland. They are going to regulate the deficits tightly and keep them down. Did you ever see a man so inconsistent, so desperate, so pleading, looking so bewildered? All the vim and vigour has gone out of the cunning little trimmer. Now that he is faced with the responsibility, he does not know where to turn. He is going from one end of the griddle to the other and he has nowhere to turn.
To come back to where I was on the offshore, our party, led by the right hon. member for Yellowhead, adopted this policy; our party does not care who owns, in a technical sense, the offshore resources. We care not a whit. If the court says the Government of Canada owns them, we will say fine, that is great and we will get on with solving the problem, because, as the then Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wrote the Premiers of Canada in September, 1979, we take the position that it is in the spirit of confederation and of a federal state that the provinces should have the ownership and management of those resources in any event, just as Saskatchewan has the resources under its soil, just as Alberta, and Ontario do, so should Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia have the resources under their soil and under the saltwater off their shores. That is our position, and when we return to power we do not care what that group of bully-boys opposite do with a Supreme Court of Canada decision, if there is one in their favour. We are going to say to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Burnswick, British Columbia and Manitoba, and the others who have an offshore: gentlemen, we are proposing legislation and constitutional changes which will put you in the same position in which Canada put Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during the 1920s. Canada owned the oil and gas and other resources under the soil of those provinces for technical and legal reasons, because it was part of Prince Rupert's Land or the Hudson's Bay Company or whatever. The federal government of the day owned those resources, but it saw that in a federation all provinces had to be treated the same and therefore it saw that the title was transferred to those three provinces. We are going to do the exact same thing with Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Even though we have to pull New Brunswick kicking and screaming to the table to accept it, we are still going to do it. British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, they will all be recognized as owners of the resources that lie off their shore because we think that is the federal system in Canada and we are not there to take advantage. We do not say, Mr. Speaker, that we believe in overcoming regional disparity and then, when a province has a chance to stand on its own two feet, make sure that its feet are taken out from underneath it and it does not even have the resources to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hallmark of this government is hypocrisy from end to end. From their foreign policy to their domestic policy, say one thing and do the opposite. Say to Newfoundland: yes, you are the second poorest province in Canada. I
Petroleum Administration Act
think the only one a little bit poorer than us is Prince Edward Island. They are not much under us, and we are fighting to be at the bottom. I remember, when Stuart Smith went around Ontario saying that Ontario was number ten, the deep spirit of resentment we felt in Newfoundland. Ontario was even going to claim to be number ten now. Well, the people of Ontario showed what they thought about old number ten, and he is now up in the Science Council of Canada, number $100,000 a year.


An hon. Member:: You want $100,000 a year?


John Carnell Crosbie: I don't want any $100,000 a year from any Science Council of Canada, brother. All I want is a decent cabinet minister's salary and the chance to get this country back on the track again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we believe that no matter what happens in the next couple of years, we make the solemn commitment to Newfoundland and the other offshore provinces that no matter what the blackguards in this government do, no matter what the power grabbers do, no matter what the people who have declared war on the poorest of the Canadian provinces do, no matter what the Prime Minister, who says cooperative federalism is at an end, does, the man who wants to wage war in Canada but outside of Canada loves everyone, he is the soul of love for the governments of Russia and Poland, a man whose heart opens for all the east bloc countries, it does not matter what he does. It is only his fellow Canadians he gives the mailed fist to, as we discovered in Canada. We say to them: do your worst because we are going to reverse it. If you have a chance to do it, we are going to see that this confederation stands and that all of its parts have a fair deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is because we have a leader who understands how this country operates. Oh, he is not a great theoretician like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who wrote all those fine essays years ago, all those very fine academic exercises which showed us how he was going to lead us to the East European socialist economy which he is now carrying on. No, our leader understands that this is a federation and a community of communities. Of course, all the intellectuals in the media-and God knows we have a lot of them, particularly the national columnists-do not think much of that community of communities idea. They have some other great theory that what is good for central Canada is good for Canada. That is their theory. What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the country. What is good for Windsor is good for the country. Why, the minister in charge of overcoming regional disparity is from Windsor. As I said here in the House the other day, it is the equivalent of the Red Cross appointing Dracula as the blood transfusion supervisor. All he is interested in doing is stopping the Japanese cars coming into Vancouver by putting the customs men on them. That is the answer of our minister

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
responsible for international trade. Here is a country more dependent on international trade than any other, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-three per cent of our GNP comes from international trade. Seventy per cent of our exports go to the U.S. and roughly 70 per cent of our imports come from there. They are big muscle men; they do not care about that. Why, they are going to tell Uncle Sam what to do with his deficit. They do not know what to do with their own but they are going to tell Brother Reagan what he should do with his, which is much lower than ours proportionately. Why, they are going to tell the Japanese what to do with their cars when we already have a trade surplus with Japan of over $1 billion a year. These big bold buckoes are going to tell the Japanese to take their cars and stick them up their customs sheds.
What is to happen to us if the Japanese then say they are not going to take our minerals and our lumber? What is going to happen to us if down on the west coast of the United States next week all those lumber people who have been protesting suddenly start telling the American customs people to start examining every little knot in every little board coming from British Columbia and the rest of Canada into the United States? What about that? What will we hear from the government then? We will hear nothing because they are little knots, little remnants, and a little selfish block which comes from the central part of Canada and can think of nothing but the needs and requirements of the central part of Canada. But to go on with my tale-and I understand, Mr. Speaker, please correct me if I am wrong, but I have a lot to go through, and I believe 1 have unlimited time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My record is 18 hours in the Newfoundland House of assembly, but I think I have more material here tonight. To go on with my tale, Mr. Speaker, that was the position of our government which our Prime Minister outlined in writing to the Premiers in September, 1979. It would have been put into effect but of course, as everyone knows, we were stopped by the combined forces of the NDP on my left and the Liberal government facing us across the aisle. They defeated us, they stopped us. As I like to say in my speeches, it was seven months. We had time enough to conceive but not to deliver. The Canadian people are the ones suffering because we were stopped at the conception stage and could not deliver. Listen to the bleating, the blurting and the braying from the little red rump on my left. They do not like to be associated with the Liberals because now they see them as disastrous losers. If they are going down, they will take the NDP with them. They will both go because we are the only viable alternative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: To come back to the offshore, Mr. Speaker, we were defeated and, all right, we accept that. We are doing our best as an opposition today. We are doing well as an opposition. But we are going to do far better for the people of Canada when we are the government. We will bring this country from the depths of despair in which it now lurks and lingers. We will bring Canada back up again. We will give Canadians confidence. We will get the gross national product growing again. We will have more to distribute to the people. We will welcome the investor. We will welcome the foreign investor and we will welcome the domestic investor. We will put it all together and we will get this country moving again. That is what we are going to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The little soothsayers to my left, the half dozen who will be left to whittle away with their frivolous froth, and their leader who is like a galloping Uriah Heep who goes across this country rubbing his hands, who is so concerned about the unemployed. He is so concerned about inflation. He is so concerned about productivity and he is so concerned about the diminution in real wages. But why is he so concerned about these things? He is the gentleman who put the government in power, the government that has provided all of this for the Canadian people. He is going across the country pretending-


Mr. Riis:: What have you got against the voters?


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen to them, Mr. Speaker. I have nothing against the voters. I love them because in the next election they will wreak their vengeance on all of you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: What about a vote on the Newfie corridor?


John Carnell Crosbie: Listen to the noise. I hear the hon. member say he wants to vote on the Newfie corridor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Newfies would give him some corridor. He would go through faster than 100,000 volts if he comes to Newfoundland.
Let us come back to the offshore. In 1980 there was a disaster for Canada. We lost the election. A majority of the Canadian people did not realize it then, but believe you me, Mr. Speaker, they realize it now. They know how they have been codded and how they have been betrayed. They know how they have been doomed to despair by the Liberals. They know now that Liberal times are hard times. They have learned that. What happened with the offshore question after 1980? Eventually the Prime Minister got around to it. First, he took on Alberta and Saskatchewan. He took on the country with his famous constitutional crusade. He was going to change the whole Constitution of Canada without the consent of the provinces. But our leader here fought him to a standstill with the other eight provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 8, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister battled for a year on the Constitution. He did not worry about the economy. He is not worrying about it now. He is visiting Spain to welcome Spain into NATO. Imagine, this is the Prime Minister who practically took Canada out of NATO, who has no use at all for our armed services, who does not care a fig for our defences, who wants us defenceless, who is now visiting Spain welcoming that country into NATO. That is some welcome. It is like the spider saying to the fly, "Come into my web and visit me" having our Prime Minister welcoming Spain into NATO.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: He is like an ex-Liberal becoming a Tory.


John Carnell Crosbie: Listen to the bleating of that, Mr. Speaker. He said an ex-Liberal becoming a Tory. I am an ex-Liberal and I was never more pleased than when I became a Tory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I would never make the mistake of becoming a New Democratic Party member, believe me. Never would I do that. No, Sir. I was born again in 1971 and I am never going back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That brings me to 1981, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister of this country went to Newfoundland on a very quick visit. He never lasts longer than five or six hours in Newfoundland. I do not know what the reason is for that.


An hon. Member:: I wonder why.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. Liberal gentlemen opposite are very mannerly. They are listening. But constantly I have this bleating and braying on my left. I want to tell the listening audience that when it hears a loud ignorant shout, a bellowing, a bawling, a shouting, a howling and a screeching, it is coming from the New Democratic Party to my left. Do not blame Liberals who are here tonight. The ignorance is coming from my left. Just remember that and mark it down. Members of the NDP do not want to hear anyone else speak. They only want to hear themselves speak. Those are the people who are so protective of the judiciary. Why? Because they want to protect Mr. Justice Berger. One wonders why. What has Mr. Justice Berger got in common with the New Democratic Party?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Come on now, cut the cheek.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going to mention why they are so solicitous of Mr. Justice Berger.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I fail to see the relationship between the current discussion and the bill before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am a constituent of yours, Mr. Speaker. Remember that when you admonish me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petroleum Administration Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Nevertheless, I always find your advice sound and I will follow it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me get back to the offshore. In 1981 the Prime Minister of Canada came to Newfoundland. He spoke at a Liberal fund-raising dinner. Why else would he come to Newfoundland? There is only one reason why he goes to most provinces and that is when they are having the occasional fund-raising dinners. At fund-raising dinners they get a lot of people who would like to be judges, a lot of people who would like to be chairman of the CN, a lot of people who would like to be directors of Air Canada, a lot of people who would like to be citizenship court judges; a lot of people who would like to be garbage collectors in the House of Commons and all of those little positions that have to be filled. On this occasion the Prime Minister came to Newfoundland and as usual those who want to sit there with their hands out waiting for something to drop into them from the great Liberal gods were there. It was a motley crowd, the remnants of Liberals in Newfoundland. About 125 of them were there, most of them just released from somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister made a statement about the offshore. He said he wanted to negotiate a fair settlement with the province of Newfoundland. He did not want this thing going on. I will now quote from a letter sent to Mr. Stephen Neary of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Mr. Neary is now the opposition leader for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland. He wrote to the Prime Minister on March 26, 1981. The Prime Minister replied on July 6, 1981. The Prime Minister had to check out his credentials. He had not heard of this fellow Neary before. It just so happened that Mr. Neary has twins. They were born around the time of the Liberal leadership convention that elected Mr. Trudeau as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He called one of them Pierre and the other one Justin. I am not going to say whether or not he has regretted it ever since. Several weeks ago in the House of Assembly he said that he would not trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada as far as he could throw him. That is the high regard in which the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is held in Newfoundland. He is anathema even to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland. They are slavish devotees of the federal government of Canada and the Liberal Party, but even they have taken so much that they are now saying they would not trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, their Liberal colleague here in Ottawa, as far as they could throw him.
They do not trust the Minister of Justice as far as they could lift him because he came to Newfoundland two weeks ago to announce the betrayal of the whole negotiation process. That gentleman was so short of manners that he had his lunch with

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
the defeated Liberal leader of Newfoundland to tell him about what he was going to propose and announce that day at two thirty before he met or told the Government of Newfoundland why he was in Newfoundland. That is the calibre of this Minister of Justice, the fount of the justice system in Canada. That is the kind of tactic we can expect from that gentleman and the others in the front rank of this House. They do not even invite members of their own districts down when they are having some function in the district. Well, we do not care about that. We will win our seats. We do not need to be there for paltry functions when pallid, Liberal hierarchs from Ottawa are down there opening their little parks, opening their little stamp collections, or whatever they are down there for. We do not need that because we will chase them right off our island and right off our territory of Newfoundland and Labrador when the next election comes. Anyway, this is the calibre with which we are dealing.
They had dinner with the defeated leader of the opposition who came out of the dinner and announced at 2.15, before the minister made his great announcement at 2.30, that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland in no way, shape or form would support the chicanery of referring to the Supreme Court of Canada a matter already under adjudication in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Never will we forgive the insult to our courts and to our judicial system in which the Minister of Justice and this government has indulged; never, never.
I was kidding about Mr. Justice Berger. I will never forgive him for his cheap and contemptible comments about Mr. Justice Berger or the whole process that that honourable gentleman has been fooling around with.
Let me get back to this. On March 26, 1981, Mr. Neary wrote the Prime Minister a letter about the offshore. On July 6, 1981, the Prime Minister replied:
Briefly, this offer was as follows:
(i)	The question of jurisdiction and ownership should be set aside.
It was the Prime Minister of Canada who said that. He has been pretending for the last month that it was the Government of Newfoundland which was insisting on that, and that the Government of Canada never agreed to set aside the question of ownership. He continued:
(ii)	Coastal provinces should derive maximum benefits from offshore resources. Accordingly, a system of administrative arrangements involving both the federal government and each coastal province was proposed.
(iii)	A coastal province should receive the same kinds of revenues as are derived by provinces from onshore resources until it becomes a "have" province. After that point, it would have to share an increasing portion of these revenues with the rest of Canadians.
That was the basis upon which he said they were prepared to negotiate. Well, members of the Government of Newfoundland agreed to negotiate on that basis. They said that they wanted the question of ownership and control set aside while the negotiations went ahead, and that if a successful agreement was reached, they wanted it set aside for the life of the agreement. That in effect was what the Prime Minister had said in his communications in 1981. They said that they
wanted and agreed to a joint system of management and control of the offshore, but that they would not agree that the Government of Canada should have absolute control over the offshore.
I will skip ahead a little to deal with this document here. The framework for agreement was presented by members of the Government of Newfoundland on November 12, 1981. They were seriously negotiating when they presented that document to the federal government. There were meetings and negotiations, and then on January 25, 1982, Newfoundland presented a proposal for settlement at Montreal to the federal negotiator which set out, in my opinion, a very fair arrangement for the offshore. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that they have not had a reply from the Government of Canada with respect to that proposal? Never have they had a reply from the deceivers, the deceitful, the twisters and the bullies on the other side of this House. They have never received a reply to that proposal. I will give the substance of that proposal in a few minutes.
There was a case in the Federal Court of Canada taken by the SIU, represented by a Montreal lawyer who also represents many Liberal cabinet ministers in the Government of Canada, Mr. Nuss. They wanted to get certified on offshore vessels and offshore rigs off Newfoundland. They went to the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board. They had problems. They did not like the decision which the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board gave. They then argued that it was federal jurisdiction. They applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board. They turned them down and said that it was not within their jurisdiction. They started to appeal through the federal courts. By the way, it was a case against Crosbie Offshore Limited, controlled and owned by my brother. Unfortunately I have no interest in it. I am just a poor, penniless politician.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am just a poor boy from Newfoundland trying to make his way. I have no interest in that firm, but it was the other side involved in that particular case.


David P. Smith: We will hold a tag day for you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is very good of you. In your district I could probably even make $10 or $12.
The federal Government of Canada intervened in that case, as it was entitled to do, because the SIU raised the constitutional issue of who owned the offshore resources. The provincial government intervened, and other governments across Canada had the right. The Newfoundland government argued that the constitutional issue should not be discussed or argued in this case because the immediate issues were other than constitutional. It did not need to be considered to decide that particular dispute. But the federal government, stabbing Newfoundland in the back and betraying the agreement they had entered into about the question of legal ownership, went to the Federal Court of Canada and argued to the learned judges that the constitutional question should be considered and dealt
June 8, 1982

with. That is what they did in January or February 1982. They argued, they betrayed Newfoundland. They did not go there and argue against it being dealt with; they argued that it should be dealt with. Mr. Smith of the Department of Justice argued the constitutional position and put in all of their arguments there. The Newfoundland government refused to go any further in the case.
On March 5, the Federal Court of Canada decided the SIU case and said it did not need to consider or decide the constitutional issue. But on February 12 the Newfoundland government decided to refer the whole question of ownership of the offshore to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal on a reference, as it had the power to do with its own highest court in Newfoundland. It decided to do that because it was not going to have the constitutional issue decided by a federal court, without the highest court of Newfoundland having a chance first to deal with the matter and give its opinion. That was the very reason. They were forced to make their reference to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on February 12 because of the federal government's attempt to introduce and to have this issue decided for the first time by a federal court. That is why that reference was made and negotiations were broken off.
An election was held. Let me remind the House that on April 6 of this year the people of Newfoundland, in a most overwhelming manner in a single-issue election, decimated the Liberal Party in Newfoundland. Over 61 per cent voted for the Progressive Conservative Party. I was there and campaigned for eight days. I can tell the House that there was one issue and one issue only-colonialism. Will Newfoundland ever be put in a position to get on its own feet, or will the Liberal Party of Canada keep it down forever so that our hands have to be put out, looking for alms from central Canada and from the central Government of Canada? That was the single issue of that election. The people of Newfoundland decided that issue then, that they are going for the future. They are not going for the present day hand-out. They are going to fight it all the way. They are never going to risk what they have and should have in offshore resources with which they came into confederation. That was the political issue which was settled on April 6. That government will be there when this government is long gone, gone in a dim memory, gone so that the people of Canada will forget them very quickly. They are going to want to forget them quickly because never has a government deserved to be more quickly forgotten than this bunch of feeble-hearted people. They have led us into economic disaster and made a bad situation worse, as we have seen for the last two and a half years in this House. That is the reference to February 12.
On March 5 a telex was sent to the Newfoundland minister of justice from the federal Minister of Justice. I have a copy of that telex right here. He telexed the Minister of Justice of Newfoundland to ask him if he would agree to have a reference on the issues in dispute on the offshore made to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what he did.
Petroleum Administration Act
Incidentally, I am getting a little ahead of my narrative because on March 2, an agreement was entered into with Nova Scotia. The federal government entered into an agreement with Nova Scotia on offshore oil and gas. I have it here, it is March 2, 1982. Nova Scotia is well within its rights to accept what it wants from Canada. It is not in the same position as Newfoundland. It did not join confederation in 1949. It has not got a Hibernia or a Hebron and they do not have a two-billion barrel oil field that we know is out there. Nova Scotia has its own background and it entered into an agreement that gives the federal Government of Canada control over the offshore. There is no question about that. There is provision for a decision-making board which is made up of three members who are appointed by the Canadian government and two members appointed by Nova Scotia. The chairman of the board is the administrator of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration and is federally appointed.
The minister can override any of the decisions made by that board. Imagine allowing this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to override the decisions of its board controlling the offshore. That is a fate worse than death.
In addition, COGLA would administer the offshore oil and gas activities. As well, the wellhead price of offshore oil and gas will be set by the federal government after consultation with the Government of Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia government is only to be consulted. The federal government sets the price and everything else.
Of course, this agreement states that if any other province gets any better deal, then Nova Scotia is allowed to put aside the agreement and have that better deal as well. So, Nova Scotia is riding along on the back of the government of Newfoundland who will fight the battle to the end. That is up to them but they agreed to it on March 2.
Do you know what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did? The great conciliator and negotiator, the great statesman, the man who Canada has to thank for wrecking the oil and gas industry, which was one of Canada's most vibrant and prosperous industries up to two and a half years ago when he came to power, proposed that Newfoundland accept the same kind of agreement. But, he said, if Newfoundland did not accept a similar agreement and tried to assert its valid legal claim through the courts, we would not get as favourable a deal as Nova Scotia did, if the federal government won. He thinks he will terrorize and bully Newfoundlanders because our income is the smallest in Canada per capita; because we are at the mercy of fortune; because we have the highest unemployment in Canada; because we are remote from central Canada; because we are not powerful in the national scene. The minister thought he could bully the people of Newfoundland and that they would quake and the government would shiver when he says to them, "You sign a deal now similar to Nova Scotia or, if you give us trouble and go to the courts, we will not give you as favourable a deal if we win."

June 8, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
Has Canada ever seen such statesman-like behaviour by a minister of the federal Crown? Is it any wonder that negotiations are in a shambles and at an end? Can anyone put up or tolerate behaviour like that in a democratic society? I will tell you who is not tolerating it. We Newfoundlanders are not tolerating it. We will not be bullied by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We will not be bullied by the Prime Minister. We will not be bullied by the whole government. We do not give a continental damn for any of you. We do not care for your threats.
When the Peckford administration won the Newfoundland election on April 6, what did the bully-boy come up with then? There was a tirade of abuse from the bully-boy. Why, you would think he had the guillotine in his backyard for what he was going to do to the Newfoundland government if it got the idea that, just because there was a foolish election which gave it an overwhelming 61 per cent of the vote, it would matter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it had another think coming. That is what he told us, Newfoundlanders, that conciliator, statesman and follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he has another think coming. He had better be moved from that portfolio if there is to be any settlement of this issue.
Let me move on to March 5. On that date the Minister of Justice sent a telex. I have it here, if you will be patient for a moment. If you are not patient with me for a moment I must ask you to be patient with me for a couple of moments, and if you are not patient for a couple of moments I will ask you to be patient for a couple of minutes more.
This is a telex which was sent back by Mr. Ottenheimer to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice had telexed Mr. Ottenheimer, the Attorney General of Newfoundland, requesting agreement that the offshore matter be referred directly to the Supreme Court of Canada without being considered by the Newfoundland court of appeal. The correct date of that telex is March 4.
The Minister of Justice of Newfoundland wired back rejecting any such suggestion absolutely. I will not read the whole telegram but he made a number of statements counteracting the falsehoods contained in the telex of the Minister of Justice. He indicated in his telex that if there is any urgency, it can be addressed by resuming negotiations on the basis that they were originally commenced under. He indicated that they are still ready to go ahead to negotiate. He went on to state:
The Government of Newfoundland is of the firm conviction that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to a decision by the highest court in the province on a matter so vital to the future of this province.
Furthermore, the Government is of the opinion that the Supreme Court of Canada should have the benefit of the judgement of the appeal division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland before it renders its decision.
In other words, the province of Newfoundland, when asked for its consent on a matter which it referred to its highest court, said categorically no, that we want the decision first. The people of Newfoundland want the decision first from their own highest court and then let the Supreme Court of Canada proceed. That was the reply on March 5. The government of this land then took unprecedented action and ignored the
wishes of the province to refer this matter-which is life and death for that province-to its highest court and referred it to the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday, May 19. It tried a scurvy trick by saying, "We are only referring the land that is around the Hibernia well." Even there, the government was dishonest. The Prime Minister's statement was dishonest. The Minister of Justice was dishonest. The Prime Minister told a falsehood and the Minister of Justice told a falsehood. He said that they were only referring the area of the Hibernia oil field to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not true. I believe they referred 825 acres. The government referred the area of the Hibernia oil field, the Hebron oil field, half the area of the Terra Nova oil field and half the area of two other oil fields. That is what they referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. It cannot even be honest and truthful in the release it made about referring that matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is just a cheap, scurvy trick, in any event, to try to convince people that the two issues are not the same.
I have not much time left tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I will have lots of time tomorrow and the day after and the day after that as I warm up to my topic.
The government then gave 12 cases of precedents to the Senate and misled the Senate. It then gave 12 cases of precedents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs but not one of them is a case where the provincial government of a province had referred a matter to its highest court and where the federal government had then come in to move it to a higher court without provincial consent and with its total opposition. Never has this happened before in the history of Canada. Never has the judiciary in this country been put in such an invidious position and been so politically damaged by any action of any government. It is the Minister of Justice who I hold responsible because he neither knows nor cares how a judiciary should operate or how a political system should operate. He is nothing but a braggart and a bully-boy and he will get his comeuppance. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because I have much more to say.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, H. B. Nickerson and Sons Limited have not reopened their Georgetown Seafoods Plant on Prince Edward Island for the current season, effectively eliminating over 500 jobs in the province at
June 8, 1982

one fell swoop. On Wednesday, June 2, in the House of Commons, I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) about a proposal put by the Prince Edward Island government to the federal government to reopen the plant. The P.E.I. proposal would require the federal government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in particular, to allow a fish quota for the plant large enough to make it profitable to operate.
In the past, Georgetown Seafoods has been plagued by insufficient quantities of high quality fish for processing, as well as by high operating costs at a time of poor markets. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in response to my question to him in the House of Commons, rejected the P.E.I. government's proposal. He did so on the grounds that an assured fish quota for the Georgetown Seafoods Plant would "have implied a dislocation in fish supplies to another area in the maritime provinces". The minister's concern was that the Georgetown plant should not be reopened at the expense of transferring fish licences from Nickerson and Sons Limited to a new owner or a new operator-especially if such a transfer would undermine the fishery elsewhere in the region, for example, in Cape Breton.
In my supplementary question I suggested to the minister that, if he was not prepared to accept the P.E.I. proposal to open the Georgetown Seafoods Plant, it was incumbent upon him to suggest an acceptable alternative plan because he had a vital role to play in reopening the facility and in assuring its long-term success. Again, the minister was concerned about, "taking licences away very arbitrarily from an area to put them into another area of the maritime provinces".
But the minister's concern is grossly misplaced. The fact is that any assured fish quota for the Georgetown Seafoods Plant-even if it involved a transfer of licences from Nickersons to another operator, and that may not be the case-would not seriously jeopardize fish supplies anywhere else. The Atlantic fishery is on its knees. Fish processing plants are closing all over the place. There is, consequently, an oversupply of fish for processing purposes. Why, then, would the minister be alarmed about the prospect of a few fish licences exchanging hands, particularly when Nickersons would be the ones giving them up? That company is fast getting out of the fish processing business. It is a matter of public record. Everyone knows that the company has taken steps to dispose not only of the Georgetown Seafoods Plant itself, but also of a number of licences that go with the plant. Even if that were not the case, and it is, what is sacrosanct about the existing disbursement of fish landing rights when fewer and fewer people are left in the industry to exercise those rights?
The P.E.I. government has devised an eminently reasonable strategy to rekindle the flame of prosperity at Georgetown. But the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has thrown water on it even before the match is lit, all in the name of some high principle which has no practical foundation whatsoever. The basic problem is that the minister approaches the issue of Georgetown Seafoods on a totally negative footing. Instead of saying, "Here is a plant, it must be opened and how do we do
Adjournment Debate
it?", the minister says, in effect, "We cannot do this and we cannot do that. My hands are tied." The minister's hands are not tied. He has the wherewithal to enable the Georgetown plant to open its doors again. There is no evidence that the Government of Nova Scotia-the very province whose interests the minister claims he is protecting in all of this-opposes the P.E.I. government's proposal to reopen the Georgetown plant. Surely that province would object if the Nova Scotia fishery were threatened in some way by the P.E.I. government's proposal. One can only assume that either the minister is unaware of the facts or is using the question of licences as a cop-out not to do anything.
Much more than the continued survival of a fish plant is at stake. The jobs and livelihood of some 500 people are hanging in the balance. Last year, income tax T-4 slips were issued by the plant to some 570 employees. The truth is that the entire Island economy will be affected by what happens or fails to happen in this matter.
Last week it was shown that P.E.I. experienced the largest percentage increase in unemployment from one month to another since the federal government began keeping unemployment records. That is the largest increase on record. Statistics Canada figures revealed that 15.5 per cent of the work force in the province of Prince Edward Island was unemployed in May compared to 12.5 per cent in April. The job picture would be improved substantially if Georgetown Seafoods were to get on its feet again.
I plead with the minister to play his part in saving the jobs of these fine people. Their future depends largely on his willingness to act. His failure to do so would constitute a most serious dereliction of duty.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new-found interest of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) in the fishing industry and particularly his interest in the reopening of Georgetown Seafoods. I am glad the hon. member shares the very deep concern and interest that I have been taking in this matter over the past weeks and months as the representative of the peole of that area.
In so doing, however, I must express the hope that he is not acting out of any ill-conceived motivations. I hope that he is not attempting to make cheap political points on the backs of the unemployed people in the riding I represent. I hope that he is not acting in a mischievous manner on this issue because the future of the processing plant in Georgetown is at stake, and we have been working very actively and with a very deep concern and interest to ensure that it reopens this season, and with hope for its continued operation in the future.
In any event, I welcome the interest of the hon. member from Hillsborough in this matter. I only regret the timing of his interest. I wish, for example, that he had been able to demonstrate his interest and support for the reopening of the plant last December when the company placed a proposal

June 8, 1982
Adjournment Debate
before the provincial government to keep the plant open. I only wish that he displayed the same concerns with his provincial colleagues that he is portraying this evening. I further wish he had made those same kinds of representations to the provincial cabinet in late March and early April when that cabinet rejected the proposal which, if accepted, would have meant that the plant would be in operation today.
Now that the provincial government has approached the federal government seeking its assistance and intervention, and now that the federal government is actively exploring solutions for the future of this plant and for the industry throughout the region, I would like to caution the hon. member to ensure that his current involvement in the matter does not jeopardize those very sensitive negotiations that are going on.
We have been and are actively working to find a solution to reopen the plant, to put people back to work and to open up the market for these fishermen. Several alternatives are being carefully examined and so this evening I enjoin the hon. member to put aside whatever motivations may have prompted the question this evening and to work closely with us, with the federal government and with the provincial government, to see that the plant is reopened and its employees returned to work.
I therefore want to assure the hon. member that as a member of the federal government and as the representative of the people directly involved, everything possible is being done to reach an early solution. I welcome his interest and invite his continued involvement.


PUBLIC WORKS-REQUEST THAT CONSTRUCTION OF WASHINGTON EMBASSY BE POSTPONED
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, in early May it was revealed that a long-time friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was awarded the contract to design and oversee the construction of the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. Canadians are getting so used to political gifts to Liberal friends, that this political and government graft basically goes unnoticed. But it absolutely sickens me, Mr. Speaker, to see this happen at any time, but particularly my flesh seems to crawl when I see this happen at a time when the economy is in the state it is in.
I asked the Prime Minister on May 25 a very simple question:
Is the government or the Prime Minister considering postponing the design and construction of the embassy building in Washington because of the economic hard times facing Canada, with unemployment at an all time high, farmers going bankrupt, and small businessmen going bankrupt and, if not, why not?
The Prime Minister in his usual cavalier manner said "No, they were not changing their position." In fact, he chastised me because I had asked the same question, or basically the same question, on May 14.
It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that in this country when people do not have the funds to spend they do not spend them. That is the kind of thing that we are hearing daily from
the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), saying, if you do not have it, then you do not spend it.
Businessmen right across the country who do not have the money to expand are not expanding and are not building the new buildings that are required to operate at so-called efficiency, because they do not have the funds to do it.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider for a moment the $38 million, approximately, that is to be spent, according to the Prime Minister, on the construction of an embassy in Washington, when the embassy staff at the present time are occupying perfectly adequate rented quarters, and could easily operate out of those quarters for the next five years, with absolutely no detriment to their jobs. Yet we in Canada, at this time, because the government, because the Prime Minister says so, Mr. Speaker, and will not look at the deficit and the deficit financing, are perfectly prepared to go to Washington, D.C. and spend somewhere around $38 million. When the architect Erickson gets on the job, that $38 million will increase to $100 million.
Leaving that aside, we go down to Washington and spend this money, money that the Canadian government does not have and will probably have to borrow on the foreign market in American funds at a high interest rate, putting more burden on the taxpayers of Canada-to create jobs in the United States, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, there is something basically, fundamentally, absolutely wrong, particularly when the Prime Minister, in his very cavalier way, says, and 1 would like to read you his answer from Hansard at page 17430:
-the work of the embassy staff is done in Washington, I believe, in a series of buildings-
"I believe"-in other words, he does not even know. He went on to say:
In view of the fact that the United States remains our most important economic and political power, it would seem to me that it is self-evident that a building housing all the embassy personnel which will make their work efficient and effective should proceed. I believe the amount involved is some $38 million, or a figure in that area. That is an imporant building. Madam Speaker, and as the hon. member knows, the Government of Canada is building more expensive buildings in various cities across Canada which are needed to ensure the federal government is able to discharge its services in various parts of the country.
1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are sure not spending that kind of money to upgrade the facilities in my riding. They are not spending that kind of money to build an air terminal at Fort McMurray, that is now operating, for a city of 30,000 people, having to use construction trailers as a terminal building. They are not spending it in those areas, Mr. Speaker.
They are not spending that money on post offices, they are not spending it in a little place like Calling Lake, that requires something like $5,000 to upgrade its facility, so that the people do not have to wear overshoes and parkas in the wintertime when delivering the mail, when the postmistress goes to deliver the mail to the people coming in that area.
It is absolutely and totally ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, that this government would think at this time to go into massive capital expenditure in a foreign country, in any foreign country, when
June 8, 1982

the rental facilities are quite adequate to carry them over a period of five years until the taxpayers in this country can afford to spend the money. Mr. Speaker, 1 rest my case.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Kempling:: Now we will hear the bullshit.


Ron Irwin: Put that on the record.
Right now the United States is probably our most-it is our most-important trading customer. We do $45 billion worth of trade with the United States. The United States does that amount of trade with us. We are operating in Washington out of three buildings. Two we own, and one is rented. It is not as if this decision were made last year or the year before. We started making this decision in 1974. There are now 285 employees in Washington, and that number will increase to 320, but even in 1974 we were overcrowded, and that is when we seriously considered building a new building.
In 1978 the government purchased a new site on Pennsylvania Avenue, and in 1981 we started an in-depth evaluation of the architects. Three hundred firms were invited, and there were I I finalists. Arthur Erickson, a well-known Canadian architect operating out of Toronto and Vancouver, was awarded the contract, and we hope to go to tender as soon as possible.


Jack Wendele Shields: Over four others.


Ron Irwin: It is easy to say that it is not necessary, but I suggest Canada has a certain image in the world. It may be my hon. friend's impression that we should operate as a second-class country. That is not the feeling of my party. We are one of the seven great economic countries in the world- the second largest-and we have a certain prestige around the world, and 1 do not think we should proceed by a third class, fourth class or fifth class method as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) suggests.


William James Kempling: That is what I said, bullshit.


MULTICULTURAL1SM-SPEECH MADE BY CHAIRMAN OF RACE RELATIONS COMMITTEE. (B) MINISTER'S UNDERSTANDING OF MULT1CULTURALISM
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, on May 19, as reported at page 17589 of Hansard, 1 put a question in the House concerning remarks made by Israel Ludwig, the government-appointed chairman of the race relations committee of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. I have no doubt that Mr. Ludwig's remarks were sponsored by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) and they echo what the minister himself has said. Pretending to criticize racism, these gentlemen attacked the basic freedoms and traditions of our society and demonstrated once again the government's intention to impose its will by restricting freedom.
Adjournment Debate
I do not think it was any accident that the minister in his evasive reply to my question made a cheap, derogatory remark which was extremely offensive to the ethnic communities in this country. It was particularly insulting to those people in the area 1 am proud to represent. It showed once again the lip service which this government pays to multiculturalism and its contempt for the variety of cultures other than English and French which make up this country.
Racism is brutal, inhuman and does not belong in a democracy. When we look at the record of this government, no one who has been around here since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came on the scene should be surprised by this war against freedom. This government has pursued absolute power at the expense of democracy, Parliament, the press, free employment, business, labour, broadcasting and freedom of information. Through the gruesome Kent commission on newspapers, it is expanding the control of the media which it now exercises through the CRTC.
Dictatorship, by any other name, stinks in the nostrils of freedom-loving people. It always starts with the control of information. We should not forget the examples of Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, the Communist bloc-particularly Poland-and, yes, Argentina. It is all too easy to say it cannot happen here but, if we think just for a moment, we will know it is happening.
The manipulation of the press by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism should be seen together with his attempts to increase the censorship powers of the CRTC. They should be put together with the latest dirty trick of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in the long line of Liberal ministerial attempts to influence justice, which are blessed and rewarded by the Prime Minister. We can add the deliberate avoidance of Parliament and the growing dominance of senior bureaucrats who are political appointees of the Prime Minister. And let us not forget the Prime Minister's carefully staged press conferences and the torrent of controlled information from government information departments. Above all, remember that this government spends hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to cheat democracy by deceitful advertising.
Canadians elect Parliament in a democratic election, but apart from election day there is little democracy left. We have a democracy one day in every four or five years. The people's voice is heard once in every four or five years, and if the Prime Minister has his way, even that will disappear. Right now he ignores Parliament and boasts about it. Right now we have government by decree. One after another the orders in council pour out, dodging debate in this House and escaping the notice of the people. Cabinet ministers do not bother to tell Parliament about their sneaky schemes. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism did not tell Parliament what he and his bureaucrats are going to do to our newspapers. He told an audience at the University of Western Ontario. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) did not tell MPs what the government is going to do with the taxpayers' money they

June 8, 1982
Adjournment Debate
invested in CDC. The subterranean Senator Austin spilled it to the press.
There is no freedom of expression here unless you are a Liberal lackey. The government rammed the metric system down the throats of Canadians; not through Parliament but through a metric commission, a bunch of bureaucrats ordering Canadians what to do under threat of penalties and spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to brainwash Canadians. Metric was not introduced as it was in the United States or Britain or other democracies where people have a say in the affairs of their country. This government does not believe that Canadians can think for themselves, or be allowed to read what they want, or listen to what they please, or do whatever they like. Canadians are not asked by this government, they are told. Neil Fraser, a civil servant, had the guts to speak out against dictatorship, and he was fired. Like him, throughout history men who have tried to light the torch of freedom have been deprived of their civil rights, deprived of their jobs, put in prison, have suffered torture and oppression.
It cannot happen in Canada, you say, but it is happening right now. Ask Neil Fraser. Ask the judge who received the Solicitor General's letter. Ask the newspapermen and broadcasters, and ask those people who cannot get jobs because they do not speak a preferred language.
The Kent commission was appointed by the Prime Minister. Its chairman was a Liberal hack and former Liberal bureaucrat devoted to government intervention. One of the two other commissioners was a career bureaucrat who believes utterly in the CRTC. What a cynical response to concern about the press. Nobody should have been surprised that the commission came up with what the government wanted-more intervention, more government control. We have heard the Minister of State for Multiculturalism rejoicing in the possibility of limitations on press freedom. The Prime Minister has always wanted to muzzle the press.
Newspapermen are rightly furious when newspapers disappear, but the Kent Commission and the government have done absolutely nothing to improve newspapers or increase the number of newspapers.
No newspaperman worth the name should allow regulation of any kind, and the newspaper owners should have refused point blank to talk to the government. Their duty is clear, and if they exercise that duty they deserve their privileged position.
The people of Canada should be on their guard against interference with their newspapers. Whatever the evils of private ownership and the operation of free enterprise, they are far less dangerous than government interference. A completely
free press is an essential ingredient of a free society and an essential check on government.
Today, with an arrogant government led by power-crazed men, we need a free press. We need freedom. I hope MPs on all sides of the House will place freedom before party, and join together to stop the abuse of Parliament and the government's sinister attack on democracy.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Papros-ki) what he meant when he said that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) insulted him on May 19.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The normal procedure does not include questions back and forth. This could only be done with unanimous consent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He cannot do that in the late show.


Carlo Rossi: The Minister of State for Multiculturalism stated at the time of Mr. Ludwig's speech, and has since said in the House, that he will not fire an advisory council member for expressing opinions.
On specifics, the minister has made clear that he disagrees with several of Mr. Ludwig's ideas. Although some of Mr. Ludwig's proposals have been misconstrued, the minister indicated at the National Symposium on Race Relations in Vancouver, and in the House since, that the government would disagree with any proposal to eliminate Christmas and Easter as Statutory holidays.
The minister is concerned that members know that Mr. Ludwig's comments were made in the context of a number of prominent Canadians from different segments of Canadian society exchanging views on race relations and the law. Police, civil libertarians, visible minority leaders, human rights commissioners and the other thoughtful participants, all agreed that the symposium was a useful exchange of ideas on ways to foster racial tolerance in Canada. If the hon. member for Edmonton North felt insulted, 1 believe the offending remark may have been a reference to pirogis. Anyone who thinks the minister of multiculturalism's good natured remark about pirogis was racist, obviously does not know the minister very well. Since the minister enjoys and views pirogis as part of Canada's multicultural wealth, he spoke without any wish to demean. Those who shouted racism must have felt there is
June 8, 1982

something derogatory about pirogis. They then may in fact be reflecting racist and negative views. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, the minister invites those with such unfair and shortsighted views to obtain from his office a popular recipe for this delightful Canadian dish, and I am prepared to table this recipe now if the House is in agreement.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 9, 1982