1982-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity. The child care tax deduction of $1,000 for working mothers has not been adjusted since 1976, even though child care costs have soared to $2,500 a year in government-subsidized centres and even higher in the private sector. Given that child care costs are a legitimate business expense and should be treated as such for tax purposes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the $1,000 tax deduction limit for child care which working mothers can now claim be increased to reflect the legitimate costs of child care which are currently running on average at four times that amount.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Liberal government, under the able direction of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd), has now stated that it will sell only 30,000 of the 97,000 acres it expropriated for Mirabel International Airport and not 80,000 acres as indicated three weeks ago, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That congratulations be extended to the "speedy" Liberal government for keeping the farmers of this region in continued confusion and relentless frustration for "only" 12 years while it settled this issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, all sides of this House have recognized the blatant discrimination against native women in Canada and the urgent need for action to end it. Above all, native women need a strong organization of their own to represent their interests at local, provincial and national levels. A consultation process with the Native Citizen Directorate identified several areas for expansion of the native women's program, and a cabinet submission was to be made in early March. However, nothing has happened, and the Native Women's Association of Canada has not been able to obtain a meeting with the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) to discuss their needs. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House instructs the Secretary of State to arrange an early meeting with the Native Women's Association of Canada in order to arrange an adequate funding program so that native women will have the means to fight for justice and equality.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the Halifax Board of Trade and other concerned organizations and residents in Atlantic Canada view with alarm the possibility that Air Canada and CP Air flights from Halifax destined to Montreal will be diverted from Dorval to Mirabel Airport. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):

June 3, 1982
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to reject and cancel the so-called "Minus 6" plan and any other plan promoted by Transport Canada that would divert east coast originating flights from Dorval to Mirabel Airport since such a diversion would cause grave hardship, increased cost and unfair disadvantages to airline users in and from Atlantic Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED ENCOURAGEMENT OF EXPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of great urgency concerning the economy of this once-strong trading nation. Whereas the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) has now publicly rejected the majority report of the House special committee inquiring into the formation of a national trading corporation and has, instead, joined with my party and the great majority of Canada's exporting business sector in opposing such a hybrid trading corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House urge the adoption of policies favouring the expansion of our export trade by means of an encouragement of renewed investment in Canadian industry and an intensifying of the mandate of existing public agencies dedicated to the existence of Canada's trading community.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The devastation caused by the recent floods in Nicaragua and Honduras has left thousands homeless and without food and clean water. Many roads and bridges have been washed away, and the risk of epidemics is high. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That Canada render to Nicaragua and Honduras all possible emergency assistance in this very grave situation, and that, in so doing, due consideration be given to the longer term development needs of these two countries.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the citizens of those countries attending the Versailles Summit this weekend were polled yesterday by the European publication "Paris Match", and whereas the results of this poll showed that Canada was chosen unanimously as the country whose people enjoy the best standard of living, and whereas all countries but Japan felt that Canadians are the people who inspire the greatest confidence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That this House request that the members of the opposition be provided with a copy of these objective and unbiased polling results as published in "Paris Match", in order that they can familiarize themselves with world opinion-an opinion which ranks Canada and Canadians so highly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATEMENT BY UNITED STATES BROKERAGE FIRM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in a market release issued by Solomon Brothers of New York they make the following statement, "We have suspended research coverage of all Canadian oil firms. While we will continue to survey developments 'north of the border' the Canadian federal government's energy policies make foreign investment in that nation's energy sector unwelcome and, in our opinion, unwise." In view of the comments by Solomon Brothers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House condemn the government for creating an impression with a major brokerage house, indeed a brokerage house that acts as fiscal agent for the government in New York, that investment in Canada is unwise and unsafe.


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

June 3, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the $155 million Federal-Provincial Manitoba Northlands Agreement expired one year ago, and since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) has avoided meeting with the provincial minister, Mr. Jay Cowan, in spite of the province's repeated request that negotiations be finalized and in spite of the federal minister's promise to meet in late April or early May, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the minister responsible for the Northlands Agreement, with total cabinet approval, finalize an agreement with Manitoba which will include the provision of sufficient federal funds for northern programs and development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that shipbuilders at the Port Weller dry-docks went to great expense to convert from imperial to metric measurement only to receive a Canadian government icebreaker contract, dated September, 1981, with the blueprints entirely in feet and inches, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government allow all industries to operate in the system of measurement in which they feel most comfortable and that the government cease and desist from mandatory metric imposition which is obviously becoming ridiculous.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to present a
Oral Questions
motion on a very urgent and pressing matter concerning the fire that burned the railway bridge over the Fraser River in New Westminster. In view of the fact the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) told me that he would take urgent action to ensure that the span would be opened very, very soon, and that such action, I am afraid, has not yet been taken, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent):
That the Minister of Public Works be encouraged to act today to ensure that the span on the railway bridge over the Fraser River be opened to allow shipping through.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, I am sure, is aware that the bank rate has just been set at 15 7/8 per cent, up about .5 per cent from last week. This is bound to lead to an increase in mortgage and other interest rates, and is clearly directly related to the weakness in the Canadian dollar in the past few days. I have recommended to the government in the past a number of policy changes it could make which would take pressure off the dollar and lower interest rates. Is the government considering any further policy changes in its budget, and energy and foreign investment policies which will result in less pressure on the dollar and consequently lower interest rates in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that the U.S. dollar has appreciated against most major currencies; the Canadian dollar is certainly not an exception. If there are further policy changes to be announced, they will be announced in due course and in the proper way.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I did not ask about the dollar. I asked about interest rates which are causing a lot of pain in this country.

June 3, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR EASEMENT OF PRESSURE ON INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the weak Canadian dollar represents the verdict of the world marketplace that Canadian policies are not working. Liberal policies-well supported by the NDP which has time and again called for policies which would result in a lower Canadian dollar-are leading to a higher interest rate and a great deal of pain in the country. I can only remind the minister that bankruptcies here are 2.5 times those in the United States. What action is the government proposing to take to ease the pressure on interest rates and take the pressure off the dollar so that the home owners, farmers, small-businessmen, and manufacturers who are being hurt by these interest rates will feel less pain?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the over-all thrust of the budget which the hon. member so strongly opposes is to reduce pressure on both interest rates and the rate of inflation. I notice my friend is simply asking questions, so he obviously has no answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If he is right about the verdict of the world, then it applies as well to the yen and the mark, and he has nothing to say about that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I want to remind the minister that we have put forward answers to him and to the Minister of Finance. They have been totally ignored, and the result is a weaker dollar and higher interest rates for all Canadians.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will put the question to the minister one more time. Is the government proposing to do anything about this problem in the marketplace and show some recognition of the fact that the high government deficit, which the Minister of Finance referred to on Monday evening, is causing high interest rates and higher unemployment? Does the minister have any answers or any response to the proposals we have put forward?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my friend has often spoken in opposition to the budget, the very basic thrust of which is to reduce the upward trend of that deficit which he says is so serious. But I am informed that his leader said in Montreal the other day that they have no alternatives. No wonder my friend is doing nothing more than asking these empty questions.


HOUSING
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for housing
who will be aware that approximately 700,000 mortgages will be up for renewal between now and the end of the year, at interest rates of 18 per cent or 19 per cent if today's figures are any indication. On a $40,000 mortgage that will mean an increase in monthly payments of something between $200 and $250, an amount which very few people can afford. However, they could be helped if mortgage rates come down. What proposals has the minister responsible for housing and high mortgage rates made to the Minister of Finance in order to get him to bring down interest rates?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the hon. member that the government's plan, that is, the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, which was supported by the hon. member herself and her party, is in place. The plan provides for mortgage deferral. This is the equivalent of deferring interest rates up to 3 per cent or 4 per cent, or a grant of up to $3,000. In the last 30 days approximately 1,200 families have applied for and successfully used this plan. That was the response of the government which said that on the one hand we must take into account the first question raised this afternoon, namely, that the government must be diligent and attempt to keep expenses down, and we must be sensible with expenditures. We have to balance that on the other hand with our responsibility to be sensitive to those people who are finding things very difficult. The formula in that plan is to offer assistance to Canadians who have to pay a disproportionate amount of their income on mortgage renewals. This plan is in place for those Canadians who have to pay more than 30 per cent of their income for principal, interest and taxes when renewing mortgages. It is operative, and I am glad to have had the support of the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I am sure that even the minister will realize that plan is not bringing mortgage rates down. They have gone up today as a result of the increase in the interest rate.


CONCERN OF WOMEN HOME OWNERS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: My
supplementary question is for the same minister. Yesterday I met with a group of women here in the House of Commons who are taking adult retraining courses. The very first question and concern they raised with me was the matter of mortgage renewals and their fear that they may lose their homes. What would the minister have said to that group of women if they had had the opportunity to pose their question to him?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, First I would have brought to their attention my
June 3, 1982


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister and former minister of finance. Today we have learned that the prime rate has jumped again, and the banks will now likely set a rate for preferred customers of 17.5 per cent once again. Under the present interest rate policy the forecast is that, at a minimum, something like 10,000 businesses will go bankrupt this year, and this means that thousands more Canadians will lose their jobs. Why does the government stand back and do nothing in the face of this human and economic disaster?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the government's economic policies have been announced by the Minister of Finance, as the House is no doubt aware. Obviously, if we want to keep interest rates here in Canada at a level that is acceptable to Canadians, we must make sure that inflation goes down, and that is what the government is trying to achieve at this time. Of course, the discussions taking place in Versailles tomorrow and during the weekend will certainly be very important as far as Canada's economic policies are concerned, and when he returns to Canada, the Minister of Finance will be able to announce whether any change in policy is advisable.
[English |


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, no one but a Liberal cabinet minister, not even the backbenchers, believes that high interest rates are helping against inflation. Everyone in this country knows that high interest rates are driving inflation up, not bringing it down. The Government of Canada has not dealt with the structural causes of inflation. It continues to use quick fixes, for instance, the borrowing the other day of $750 million once more to prop up the dollar artificially.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government will now commit itself to putting an end to this disastrous spending of the taxpayers' money on an artificial solution, put an end to
Oral Questions
quick fixes, and bring in a budget before the end of June which will deal with the serious structural problems in the Canadian economy, and which will put particular emphasis on job creation in the manufacturing sector.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the government has many programs in place which are designed to help the manufacturing sector. I think that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has made many statements about that.
As has been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, all nations of the western world are faced with some very difficult situations. We hope that the consultations which are shortly to take place in Versailles will create a better climate so that the economies of these nations will be able to move in the direction that everyone wishes for all of us.


John Edward Broadbent: I guess it is because of all the actions of the Liberal government that there has been a loss of 100,000 jobs since last August in the minister's home province of Quebec alone. That is the kind of action we see from the Liberal government.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since we could not get a clear answer from the Minister of Finance on this question yesterday, will the Acting Prime Minister at least deal in a negative answer? Will he tell the House that there will not be a budget produced before the end of June?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Finance had to tell the hon. member yesterday.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a series of questions to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister will be familiar by now with the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which was tabled in the House a couple of days ago, which, incidentally, was unanimously endorsed by all parties represented in the standing committee, and which lays out evidence which shows the minister being seriously negligent in his discharging of trust responsibility to native people. It shows that in most cases it is the minister's bureaucracy that is the only thing standing in the way of native people achieving their self-determination.
Is the minister prepared to tell the House and the native people of Canada when he will meet the standing committee

June 3, 1982
Oral Questions
and the native people to lay before us a serious program for action which will alleviate some of these serious problems that were identified in the report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, without going into the details of how that committee came to its conclusion- having talked to some of my own backbenchers with reference to certain undertakings the hon. member himself gave and then called a meeting on Monday morning-1 just want to indicate that 1 have gone before the standing committee on many occasions, as the hon. member knows. I have made myself available on numerous occasions for all sorts of questions. I intend to continue doing so. I do not believe there is any need for me to be defensive in terms of opening myself up to any type of cross-examination by the hon. member or anyone else who wants to undertake that in the committee.


Frank Oberle: The minister implies in his answer that there was trickery involved in the committee meeting.


John Carr Munro: You said it.


EXPENDITURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, one of the recommendations in the report was that, because of the sometimes fraudulent and strange way that economic development dollars are being spent, particularly in the Pacific region, the minister should immediately appoint an independent inquiry to look into the affairs of the Pacific region, particularly the way that it disburses scarce economic development dollars. Is the minister prepared to tell us today whether he is inclined to appoint this independent inquiry immediately to look into these serious allegations?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would not want to dignify the type of wild witch hunt of the nature that the hon. member is conducting. He used the term "fraudulent". If he has any evidence of any fraudulent behaviour on the part of any civil servants connected with my ministry in the west, instead of these obnoxious innuendoes, I think that every member in the House would be pleased if he would stand up to make his charge and then take the responsibility to make it stick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY OF TRADE FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Lord Cockfield, who is the Secretary of Trade for Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When will the minister report to the House as required by statute under the James Bay Agreement? The report was supposed to be tabled 30 days after January 31, but it is still not before us. Testimony before the committee indicated that nothing has been done since the last testimony before the committee a year ago. We want to know what the government is intending to do because there has also been testimony that there are still life-threatening situations in the James Bay area.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, with reference to the latter part of the hon. member's question, I have been in touch with both Billy Diamond and the Inuit leaders and I hope we will be able to announce the resolution of the James Bay report in terms of commitments by the government. I would anticipate that that would be very soon. I fully indicated in the House about a week ago that it would be soon, but I did tell the hon. member that I thought we would certainly have the matter completely resolved prior to the end of the month.
May I say that prior to yesterday, during the discussions with those leaders over many weeks, it was suggested from their point of view as well as ours that, as the whole question of the James Bay Agreement was being reviewed and corrective action would hopefully be taken by the government, it might be advisable to postpone the tabling of the report until the resolution of this matter. I think that at least the Inuit leaders preferred that course of action. That is the reason why there has been some delay, which I regret, but I hope to table it very soon.


QUERY RESPECTING REPORT OF INQUIRY
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I suppose I should ask the Minister of Justice whether reports should be tabled as established under statute. Another inquiry has been called because of the work of the committee last year. That inquiry has been completed by the Minister of Justice. I believe it is in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
June 3, 1982

Northern Development. It has been there for a number of months. The whole inquiry is with regard to the James Bay region, but we still have not received any reports. I wonder when the minister will make that available to the House. The people up there deserve better treatment than they are getting.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave the correct information to the House that this report has been received and we have looked into the shortcomings of the implementation of the agreement. The government is determined to live up to its commitments. As the minister said, the final answer from the government will be coming out this month.


AIRPORTS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. He will be familiar with one of the properties to which I will be referring. The Mirabel and Pickering properties which were expropriated for airports have been in a state of chaos for a period of 12 years and ten years respectively. The minister was formerly a member of a group called POP which fought the expropriation of the Pickering land.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Scott Fennell: During our seven months in office, we had already


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have a question? If so, I will recognize him. Otherwise, I will not, as this is not the time for speeches.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there are 600 families-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I want to warn hon. members that when I ask them to stick to their questions, I do not want them to continue making speeches. I am speaking to this hon. member now. Would he please put his question?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Would the minister state, because of the confusion, the exact amount of land the government intends to sell and whether the current farmers will be given the right of first refusal on this land? How much longer will the process of retrocession take?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the question. The hon. gentleman gives me the opportunity to congratulate him for his appointment as official opposition critic for public works.
Oral Questions
Mind you, that appointment was made nine months ago, and this is the first question that the hon. gentleman has asked-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: -but he has asked a question concerning a matter which has been of major concern to the Department of Public Works and the Government of Canada. During those nine months, the government, through the Mirabel Land Company, has been working with local officials in the Mirabel airport. We have come up with a formula and an offer has been made. It has been widely communicated. I would invite the hon. member to take a look at the press releases and the plan which is now available to the public.


TERMS AND TIMING OF SALE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, it took me nine months to find out who the minister was, because nothing was being done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: The minister refers to press releases. There are 600 people on the Mirabel property-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Scott Fennell: -who do not know how much land will be given up for sale. Who will have the option of buying it, and when will it be completed?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has really been serious in his investigation of these questions, I would invite him to look at the material made available at the press conference on Friday last. All of those matters have been detailed. They are all available. I am sure that the people in the area are better informed than is the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and relates to a very important upcoming date, that being July 1, Canada Day. We all refer to it as "Canada Day". Because of the historic developments this year in the patriation of the Constitution, and as we have our own flag and our own national anthem, I wonder whether the minister could advise the House and all Canadians concerning his disposition to take the necessary action to bring in appropriate legislation to change the name of

June 3, 1982
Oral Questions
Dominion Day in the future, and hopefully this year, so that it is officially and legally known as Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in relation to the question, the hon. member may know that there is already a bill on the order paper which would provide that July 1 would become known as Canada Day. I have spoken with the House leader on this subject, and the government would be willing to co-operate in arranging for this bill to be passed in all stages during one day if the opposition were willing and prepared to undertake such co-operation. If such co-operation is forthcoming, then it would be quite possible for us, before July 1 in the year of the patriation of the Constitution, to establish Canada Day firmly in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There are presently 400 unemployed shoreworkers in the groundfishing industry in British Columbia. At the same time fish caught by fishermen in British Columbia are being offloaded in Vancouver and shipped to Bellingham, Washington, for processing. Growing resentment would indicate that there may be some difficulties on the Vancouver waterfront and at the port of Vancouver. Is the minister aware of this action by Canadian fishermen, and is he willing to sit down with the companies to determine how those jobs which are needed in British Columbia can be kept there in the future and not be exported with raw materials?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Decisions affecting the groundfish processing plant were made after considerable reflection by at least one company. I am told that the Prince Rupert Co-operative decided to interrupt its activities in that field after trying to make it work in terms of volume and just finding that the market was not there to sustain it. I have not received representations of the type which would allow me to give a positive or a negative answer to the industry.
It is obvious that the groundfish industry on the west coast, because of the volume involved, is just not finding it, in the present circumstances and in the present market, a profitable operation to continue.


WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY
Edward Allan Miller: The spokesman for B.C. Packers, Madam Speaker, which is the largest processing plant in British Columbia, has indicated there may not be a salmon fishery this year. The minister may be aware of that statement. What discussions has the minister had with B.C. Packers and others in the industry to ensure that there will be a salmon fishing industry in British Columbia? Will the minister take the kind of steps that the Kirby task force has taken for St. Anthony's on the east coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have to be extremely cautious in commenting on that question. The hon. member knows that, as usual, we are on the eve of very difficult negotiations on fish prices. I would be derelict in my duty if I were to appear to take a position on this issue at this time.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. On May 26, the Quebec Farm Producers Union made representations to the Minister of Agriculture for the purpose of obtaining additional funds at preferential rates. Yesterday, the hon. member for Northumberland asked the minister, on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, whether he intended to provide for additional funds at a rate of 10 per cent. The minister did not answer the question. Therefore, in the interests of all Canadian farmers and, of course, the Quebec Farm Producers Union, I should like to know whether, today, the minister could give the House the assurance that he will ask the Minister of Finance for additional funds at preferential rates, as is being done in other sectors. That is the kind of answer farmers need.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon member is aware that some farmers in his part of Canada, Quebec, La Belle Province, and in other parts of the country, receive money interest free on advance payments for storable crops for the lifetime of the storability. Last year nearly $500 million was advanced to farmers interest free.
When the farmers presented their brief to the different members of the cabinet, including myself and the Minister of Finance, they suggested a 10 per cent interest rate. We asked at that time if this was for all farmers, special groups of farmers, young farmers, or farmers in more financial difficulty. We did not receive an answer from them. We are exploring
June 3, 1982

all avenues of how we can raise more money for the Farm Credit Corporation. We are following the suggestion that some of the farmers made, some of the members of the farm groups made, Madam Speaker, on an agri-bond type of operation, giving special treatment for investing in the Farm Credit Corporation as far as tax benefits are concerned. We will be making representations shortly, as I said yesterday, to the Minister of Finance and my government colleagues.


STABILIZATION OF FARM PRODUCT PRICES-INQUIRY WHETHER NEW FORMULA BASED ON PRODUCTION COSTS WILL BE APPLIED
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. I am not convinced that farmers will get any reassurance out of the minister's reply. The minister can talk all he wants about what happened in the past, but the fact remains that since May 26, the Farm Producers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been asking the minister to take additional action in view of the current situation. In the same request, the Quebec Farm Producers Union asked to have the Price Stabilization Board assess production costs, a major change that will be more satisfactory considering the present circumstances. Could the minister, and I am still speaking on behalf of the farmers, give us the assurance that he will advise the Union and the Federation that he is willing to approve a new assessment based on production costs as far as the price stabilization program for agricultural products is concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member is asking me to do is to make a recommendation to Parliament. He does know that we do have different stabilization programs, but he is asking me to compensate farmers when the marketplace does not give a proper return to them. We think there are different ways and means of obtaining that proper return that gives them a decent profit for their productivity. We will be proposing that shortly. I said that to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when they were here, that there were ways of compensating farmers and making sure that they get proper compensation, other than using the treasury of the provinces or the treasury of the federal Government of Canada to do that. There are other ways of doing that.
The hon. member knows very well what I mean, because there are some farm producers in Canada who are not asking for that kind of assistance. A big percentage are not asking for that kind of assistance that he is talking about because they have looked after themselves pretty darn well by taking advantage of the legislation provided by them by the most democratic institutions in the world, the provincial legislatures and this House of Commons.


Roch La Salle: Will you do it, yes or no?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: He says, "Will 1 provide that kind of thing?" If he was so interested, Madam Speaker, in doing what he says, why did his party hold the House in abeyance for three weeks while that legislation was ready to pass?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, on two earlier occasions I have directed questions to the minister responsible for housing in respect to the CMHC commitment to guarantee loans for houses with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. It is still being reported that such people are having difficulties in some locations in Canada in renewing their mortgages. Would the minister now assure all financial institutions engaged in the lending of money for mortgage purposes that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will indeed guarantee any mortgage application for renewal with any individual financing a mortgage?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have answered that question on two previous occasions. My answer today is the same. It is the policy of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act to provide mortgage insurance to those companies that qualify under the act for mortgage insurance. Nothing has changed. The corporation indeed is providing insurance for those people who qualify for renewals of mortgages even though they have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes.


REQUEST THAT MORTGAGE RENEWAL PROGRAM BE PUBLICIZED
Fred Alward McCain: I appreciate the minister's reassurance of the government's position in this regard. But in spite of the fact that tens of millions of dollars are being spent on advertising for other programs, it apparently has not been communicated to the financial institutions engaged in the mortgage business that indeed any application for a renewal for a UFFI insulated home will in fact be guaranteed by CMHC. Will the minister take the necessary steps to extend the communication not only to members of this House but to the general public who may need a mortgage, and to all of those engaged in the mortgage business?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, after questions were raised by the hon. gentleman previously, the corporation took steps to let the lending fraternity know. It was at my direction that head offices of all the lending companies were asked to notify all of the branch offices, so that there would be a widespread distribution of this

June 3, 1982
Oral Questions
information. If there is any difficulty, if the hon. gentleman has any specific cases, or if any members have difficulties- and some have already brought some to my attention-I would be pleased to respond. But I certainly do not think it warrants the expenditure of millions of dollars in advertisements, as the hon. gentleman would ask us to do now, especially in the light of the fact that all we get is criticism when we attempt to advertise good programs of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mrs. Kay MacPherson, who stood as the NDP candidate in my constituency of York East in the past three federal elections, has been refused entry into the United States to attend a United Nations conference on disarmament, simply because she has been an outstanding proponent of peace and disarmament. This is apparently an example of the U.S. government enforcing the provisions of the McCarran Walter Act to exclude undesirable persons.
Has the United States government advised the Canadian government that any Canadians who stand for disarmament and peace and who wish to attend this conference will be similarly excluded, and will this also cover Members of Parliament, such as myself, who plan to attend the UN conference in a couple of weeks in New York?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I had the occasion to talk briefly with this lady yesterday evening and I told her that I was very surprised that this situation should have occurred. I have no further information about it. I will certainly ask for information and report to the House as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture concerning the bankruptcy of Econ Consulting, a Winnipeg grain company which owes its creditors $4.3 million. On May 11 I asked the minister for a judicial inquiry into Econ, but the minister said he preferred to wait until the current investigations are complete. Since that time the commissioner for the Canadian
Grain Commission has told the Standing Committee on Agriculture that he is making no specific Econ investigations.
Will the minister tell the House why the commission is not investigating Econ, since the agency is responsible for the private grain trade and has the necessary legal powers to do so?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that bankruptcy proceedings with respect to Econ are going on at the present time. He knows the legal obligations both sides have. We have received presentations from both sides. I am satisfied that all proper procedures are being followed at this time, and I think it would be improper to carry on the kind of investigation the hon. member is talking about at this time before the bankruptcy problem is settled.


REQUEST THAT JUDICIAL INQUIRY BE ESTABLISHED
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, bearing in mind that in addition to Econ two other grain companies have gone bankrupt in recent months and that the RCMP have charges pending against at least four more grain companies in Manitoba, will the minister address this serious problem which faces the entire private grain industry-not just Econ-by ordering a judicial inquiry to do the job the grain commission is neglecting to do?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says the Canadian Grain Commission is neglecting to do its job. In relation to the obligations vested in the commission by legislation, I think it is doing a proper job. Until someone can prove otherwise, I will remain of that opinion.
The hon. member talks about bankruptcies. A comparison between the number of bankruptcies in other businesses in Canada and the small number of bankruptcies among grain operating businesses shows they must be doing a pretty darned good job. The hon. member knows as well as I do that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of grain companies are in that category, and we do not have to worry about their going bankrupt. There are some about which there might be some concern, and from time to time the Grain Commission audits the books of some companies. The hon. member is fully aware of that also. Some suggest we should have an army of auditors inspecting books, as is done in police states; I do not intend to have that.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Justice is also in relation to Canada-U.S. relations. The minister will know that in September, 1981, a Toronto businessman, Sidney Jaffe, was kidnapped by bounty hunters and, in complicity with Florida
June 3, 1982

state officials, forcibly removed from Canada to face prosecution in that state. It has been eight months since that outrageous invasion of Canadian sovereignty, and Mr. Jaffe still sits in a Florida jail. The bounty hunters remain unextradited. I know the minister has made representations to William French Smith, the Attorney General of the United States, on the matter. What progress has he made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member, and I put this question to Mr. Smith when I had a visit with him not long ago. I am very unhappy that U.S. authorities are not proceeding faster than they are because Mr. Jaffe was a Canadian citizen in Canada when he was taken by force to the United States. I think that should not have occurred but, unfortunately, I have not received any firm answer from Mr. Smith. My department has been working on this, as has the Department of External Affairs but, unfortunately, we cannot report progress at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Attorney General's name is Mr. Smith, William French Smith.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister has pointed out to American officials that the actions which have been taken in this instance are similar to what they would be if Canada were to send out a posse to pick up, say, Hal Banks in the United States, or John C. Doyle from another jurisdiction. I simply want to ask the minister whether he intends to follow this up strenuously in terms of extraditing these people who shanghaied a Canadian citizen out of our country, and I wonder whether the government is considering making a habeas corpus application on behalf of Mr. Jaffe.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the procedure suggested by the hon. member. If it is possible, we might do just that, but I am not sure we can.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I also have a brief question for the Minister of Justice. He will recall that last March I raised the question of an inquiry under the Department of Justice Act, Section 4, into the Consolidated Computers debacle which cost Canadian taxpayers well over $100 million. Subsequently I debated the matter in the House, and I asked the minister informally what was going on. 1 wonder if he can now give us a report on what his officials have found under that section and, hopefully, assure us that there will be a proper departmental or judicial inquiry into this
Oral Questions
so that someone will be held accountable for this monumental waste of taxpayers' money.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I am not in a position to report progress at this time, but I am getting a bit impatient.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it is supplementary to that posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.
If I heard the minister correctly, he characterized as obnoxious the unanimous recommendation of a standing committee of this House which called for a specific inquiry into the administration of economic development funds in the British Columbia region. Does the minister intend to act on that unanimous request by a standing committee of this House for a specific inquiry into the administration of economic development funds in the British Columbia region of his department?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition should examine my remarks. 1 do not call the recommendations of the committee obnoxious. I called the suggestions and implications of the hon. member more than obnoxious.
I repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that I may have agreed and the government may have agreed to the tabling of that report, but that in no way carries with it any implication that we agree with all the contents of it. That is obvious.
Second, I repeat that no matter what is the sense of values of the Leader of the Opposition in this particular situation, I have not the slightest intention of mounting some type of judicial inquiry into the alleged misbehaviour of certain officials, who cannot speak for themselves in this House and cannot defend themselves against wide generalizations and accusations of some type of fraud. I think that would be obnoxious, and I would expect any Member of Parliament who has one iota of concern for civil liberties in this country would object very strongly to that. If the hon. member or the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make some substantive charge against the conduct of certain of my officials, then I am prepared to consider it; otherwise, it is entirely out of the question, as far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to compare my standards with the minister's standards any day of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
8011 6-1 3

June 3, 1982
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let us be very clear about this. We are dealing here with the unanimous report of a standing committee of the House of Commons, including a recommendation agreed to by Liberal Members of Parliament.


Mr. Beatty:: Liberal majority.


Charles Joseph Clark: That recommendation, among other things, asked for a public inquiry which would allow those very public servants to explain themselves and, if necessary, defend themselves before a public inquiry. Do I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is denying that right to public servants, is denying action on the unanimous recommendation of a standing committee, and is denying the people of Canada the opportunity to have an impartial study into the activities of the economic development fund of his department in the Pacific region? Is he saying absolutely no to that kind of inquiry asked for by an all-party committee in this House?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I will have to examine the "blues". The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to be shifting ground from question to question. 1 take it now he is talking about some type of study. I am of course prepared to undertake that. If he is talking about an inquiry of some kind, would he specify, or if he is backing up his own member who was talking about a judicial inquiry, would he back that up? In other words, instead of being indefinite and just making allegations of some kind, would the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibility and say specifically what it is he is recommending?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER READ REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the minister read the report signed by the Liberal Members of Parliament and signed unanimously by Members of Parliament from all parties who served on that committee, which recommends that there be a specific inquiry into the administration of economic development funds by his department in the British Columbia region? Will he also agree to have that specific inquiry into that specific matter which was recommended specifically by that all-party committee, and which was recommended unanimously?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about the all-party unanimous recommendation. As I understand the matter as it was related to me by my parliamentary secretary, some undertaking was given to him as a member of the committee-and that is one Liberal member of the committee-that if an agreement was made for the standing committee to meet on a Monday
morning-which is most unusual-there would be no substantive votes taken at that time. He agreed to that, only to find out that the agreement was not kept.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: If that is the kind of activity that would lead to some type of substantive unanimous approval, then the Leader of the Opposition has a much different set of values than I do.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION BE IMPLEMENTED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I regret having to ask this question again. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, a Liberal, was, I believe, a member of that committee, and the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior was a member of the committee and, as I understand it, their names are appended to the unanimous report which contains that recommendation.
May I ask the minister again, very simply, if he will have that inquiry that is specifically asked for into the administration of economic development funds in the British Columbia region, or will he not? Is he going to honour the recommendation of the standing committee, or is he not going to honour it?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I consider that that obviously warrants being looked into. I will look into the observations contained in the report to find out whether there is any substance to them at all. I would naturally do that in any circumstances, as would any minister. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition at last wishes to clarify to the House as what he means by an inquiry, of course I will do that, Madam Speaker.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-114, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2), without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I am sure that the officiers of the Table will look at that and make the necessary correction.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
June 3, 1982

General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 3rd day of June, 1982, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Jacques Noiseux, for Edmond Joly de Lotbini&re Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, June 2, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I should like to ask the government House leader to give the House some indication of the business of the House for tomorrow and for as much of next week as possible.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with Bill C-115, the Occupational Training Act, and we hope to get second reading before the end of the day. If not, in any case if we get an agreement on Bill C-37 which is the bill for Canada Day on July 1, I would be willing to call it as the first item of business and then deal with the other bill. We could dispose of Bill C-37 very quickly. If we fail to get agreement on Bill C-37 tomorrow, then the first item of business would be Bill C-l 15, followed by Bill C-37.

Next week, the business of the House will be concerned almost exclusively with the report stage and third reading of energy bills, Madam Speaker, and, unless otherwise indicated, these energy bills will be considered in the following sequence: C-103, C-104 and C-108, and that will be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes


PRIVILEGE
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I was tempted to raise this question of privilege a couple of days ago when, for the first time, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asserted that in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development certain irregularities were indulged in. Today in question period the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) alluded to the fact that certain irregularities took place in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the passing and production of the reports which were laid before the House. Everyone knows that the make-up of the committee is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member tell me what the question of privilege is about, because I am afraid he is now discussing things that took palce in committees? Unless these things are reported to the House they cannot be discussed in the House. At any rate, anything that takes place in committees should be dealt with in those committees and certainly cannot constitute a question of privilege.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been reported to the House. Both the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have cast a shadow on the validity of this report by saying that this party, and this member in particular, used certain techniques, which were described by the President of the Privy Council as trickery, to achieve this report. Everyone knows that the committee is made up of members of all parties, that the governing party has a majority in committees and that committees cannot pass anything unless at least some government members are present for the passage of whatever the committees do.
I feel that my privilege and the privilege of all members is offended when committees report to the House and ministers of the Crown use language such as was used in the question period today-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This clearly is not a question of privilege and cannot be brought up at this time nor under this guise.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, could I bring to your attention Motion No. 9 on page x on today's

June 3, 1982
Petitions
Order Paper and Notices. Motion no. 9 stands in my name but I think there must be some mistake. 1 did move ten motions and there are 11 on the Order Paper but all 11 appear in my name. 1 think the error is in relation to Motion No. 9, which I suspect was moved by a member of the New Democratic Party as it is similar to a motion moved in committee. I bring that to your attention and to the attention of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that the officiers of the Table will look at that and make the necessary correction.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the eighth and final report of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 140 citizens in central Alberta, is to register concern over the use of the metric system in auction markets and other bid-buying operations in livestock sales.
The nature of this petition is to request that the government implement the use of the metric system in auction markets and other bid-buying operations no earlier than January 1, 1986, but preferably that the system not be implemented until agents of the federal government are able to establish that the use of the metric system is intuitive with the majority of buyers' and sellers' language as an expression of value.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and that you might use the powers of your office to allow for discussion and referral to committee as soon as possible.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Crowfoot. The petition is signed by approximately 950 citizens and is to distinguish the unique difference which exists between auctioning or bid buying and that of fixed-price buying when it affects the change of nomenclature and units of
measure. The petition asks the government to recognize that the understanding of value and submission of bid must be intuitive to the auction system, and that an early change to metric, before the language of metric is clearly understood, will disrupt thousands of auction markets across Canada and that a cautious bid by a buyer could result in the loss of thousands of dollars of income for individual ranchers.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that you will find their petition in order and that the appropriate ministers of the Crown will provide an opportunity for this matter to be discussed in the appropriate committee.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some 959 Canadians living in my constituency in Alberta. The petition requests that capital punishment be reinstated for deliberately planned murder. Our society is built on crime being punished. When the ultimate crime, namely murder, occurs, then the ultimate punishment, namely death, should be enacted. Some of my petitioners come from the Standard, Alberta area, where a beautiful young girl, Kelly Cook, was brutally murdered, and some are from the High River-Okotoks area, where two young women were murdered and their remains burned. A person who deliberately plans and executes the murder of another human being has no right to live.
My petitioners pray that the government will reflect the thinking of the majority of the people of Canada and reinstate capital punishment for murder.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from citizens of the City of Toronto requesting Parliament to direct the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to refuse to allow the testing of Cruise missiles on Canadian soil.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 940 residents of my riding requesting that our government take measures to halt the production of nuclear weapon components in Canada, and that the government instruct its representatives at the upcoming United Nations Special Session on Disarmament to take an active role in initiating discussions to bring about, hopefully, a global freeze on the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of members of the congregation of the
June 3, 1982

German Zion Baptist Church in Edmonton who are very concerned about provisions of the proposed non-profit corporations act which was the subject of a unanimous resolution in this House yesterday. I ask on their behalf that the petition be presented to this chamber.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,854, 2,977 and 4,239.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Privy Council Office under the Privy Council Office Program at page 32.25, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to entertainment and hospitality (a) how does the Privy Council Office explain the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (d) what was the name of each type of service (e) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (0 are guidelines used to determine when the Privy Council Office will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (g) of the $65,720 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Yvon Pinard: (a) In
respect of entertainment and hospitality, a decrease of $13,328 was reported.
(b)	, (d), (f) Definitions and policies on hospitality are contained in chapter 360 of the Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual.
(c)	Nil.
(e), (g) Records of hospitality payments are not maintained according to service or categories of individuals.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the Northern Affairs Program at page 32.16, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?
Order Paper Questions


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) "Opening of the Baker Lake
Co-operative"; a 15 minute %" video documentary in Inuk-titut produced by Nunatsiakmiut Communications Society of Frobisher Bay. Cost: $5,667; (b) audience, primarily Inuit; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
2.	(a) "Canadian Reindeer Industry"; "Eskimo Dog- Qimmiq", two (approximately 'A hour each) 16 mm film documentaries produced through the NFB by Inuk Films, Yellowknife. Cost: $46,196; (b) audience: national and international; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
3.	(a) "Canada's House of Commons", a 15 to 20 minute 3A" video documentary in Inuktitut produced by Nanatsiakmi-ut Communications Society of Frobisher Bay. Cost: $8,578; (b) Audience: primarily Inuit; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
4.	(a) "Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre", a 15 minute %" video documentary in Inuktitut produced by Nanatsiakmiut Communications Society of Frobisher Bay. Cost: $5,000; (b) Audience: primarily Inuit; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
5.	(a) "Pond Inlet Community Television Project", a %" video documentary in Inuktitut (approximately 'A hour) produced by Eric Tagoona. Cost: $2,200; (b) Audience: primarily Inuit; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
6.	(a) "Inuit Traditional Games", a V2 hour 16 mm documentary produced through the NFB by Ken Buck. Cost: no invoices received in 1979-80; (b) Audience: national and international; (c) no distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.
The balance is for scripts for slide presentations, $6,208; technical and training services to PIC TV and Nunatsiakmiut Program, $18,617; translation and production of slides and tapes on forest fire control into three languages, $3,646.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount was paid in family allowances in the Province of Quebec?
2.	Do the figures differ from amounts calculated on the basis of federal family allowance rates and, if so, what is the difference and how is it adjusted?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The amount of federal
family allowances paid in the Province of Quebec in the past five years is as follows:

June 3, 1982
Order Paper Questions (in millions of dollars)
1977	$555.8
1978	$600.3
1979	$446.9
1980	$467.1
1981	$493.7
2. Yes, the figures differ from amounts calculated on the basis of federal family allowances rates and the estimated differences for the years in question are as follows:
(in millions of dollars)
1977	$	4.41978	$	22.41979	$	6.01980	$	3.91981	$	14.2
In 1977, 1978 and 1979, the amount paid to beneficiaries in the Province of Quebec was greater than what would have been paid had the federal rate been used. In 1980 and 1981, the amount paid was less than the amount that would have been paid had the federal rate been used.
In the choice of a provincial family allowance rate configuration, payments over a four-year accounting period are taken into consideration. The most recent four-year period was 1978 to 1981. Rates are selected so as to minimize the difference between payments made under a provincial configuration and what would have been paid had the federal family allowance rate been applicable.


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


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if the parliamentary secretary would take note of question No. 2,596 I placed on the Order Paper 363 days ago. It is a simple question, and I understand the answer has been prepared for several months but the minister is unwilling to table it in the House. Would the parliamentary secretary take this up with the Department of National Defence and report back, please?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to 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 proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-107, respecting motor vehicle fuel consumption standards, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Mark Willson Rose: That Bill C-107, an act respecting motor vehicle fuel consumption standards, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 35 to 42 at page 7 and lines 1 to 10 at page 8.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Mr. Lalonde moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I will not take up too much time of the House since this bill is probably one of the most useless pieces of legislation that has come before Parliament, certainly in the years that I have been here. One must wonder why it was part of the energy package in the first place because it is not certain, when reading the legislation, what it will, in fact, do. I will expand on that later. I will quote one sentence stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) just a month ago, on April 20,
Fuel Consumption Standards
during second reading in the House. He said, "This legislation, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, was first promised in 1976". In 1976, Mr. Speaker! Does the minister not know that the situation has changed considerably since that time? Not only is this piece of legislation obsolete, it was not necessary in the first place. If the government was serious about creating energy fuel consumption, it would not be creating additional regulations at a time when the automobile industry is facing huge unemployment in the country.
May I say at the outset that if the government was indeed serious about further reducing the use of conventional energy, it would then encourage, through any number of incentives, the use of alternate fuels such as propane or compressed natural gas. Those are the steps that are needed by the industry. We know that this is not what the government is doing with this piece of legislation, or indeed with any other piece of legislation that is either before the House now or being contemplated by the government. The industry does not need Bill C-107, which is obsolete, unnecessary and in fact damaging, not only to the automotive industry but to the whole economy of Canada.
With respect to the automotive industry, surely this is not the time to burden further the domestic automotive industry. Instead, the government should act on the serious damage that Japanese automobile imports, for example, have inflicted on our economy if it wants to help the industry. I am certainly not a protectionist by heart, but under these difficult and unusual circumstances I believe the government should be taking a tougher stand with respect to imposing Canadian content regulations of offshore imports so that jobs would be created in Canada. The government has negotiated with the Japanese for two years and those negotiations have obviously failed. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) has accepted the fact himself just this week that negotiations are at an impasse. If his answer to that is those underhanded tactics in Vancouver which are taking place now and are creating further unemployment for Canadians, that is certainly not the step to take either.
If the government is serious about trying to help the industry, the second option is to create incentives for foreign investment in Canada. That is what is necessary to create jobs. One should know that there have already been 50,000 jobs lost in the automotive industry in Canada in the last two years. The situation is not getting any better at all, and here is a government coming up with a piece of legislation to put further controls, directives and regulations on an industry which is certainly already overburdened with regulations and other difficulties and is getting no support whatsoever from the Liberal administration here in Ottawa.
What Bill C-107 represents is not so much the Liberal government's commitment to energy self-sufficiency or its so-called made-in-Canada energy plan, whatever that is, because we know what is happening to its whole energy program,

June 3, 1982
Fuel Consumption Standards
although we do not have to dwell on that today. The National Energy Program has been a total disaster. That has been evidenced by the fact that the minister himself had to come before the House just this week to announce some new emergency measures. In those announcements alone there is an admission by the government that the National Energy Program has been a total and absolute failure. But the Alsands project has collapsed as well. Because of the tremendous increase in federal taxes, the price of gasoline has still increased, but not by the 18 cents a gallon which the Conservatives suggested in the last election campaign. Many think that the reason the Conservative government was defeated at that time was the 18 cents a gallon increase at the gas pumps. Canadians now know that the price of gasoline has, in fact, increased by nearly $1 a gallon since the Liberals made a promise that they would keep the price of gasoline to less than the promise made by the Conservatives.
What this bill, in fact, represents is the government's continued deception and use of empty legislation and empty promises devised to do nothing more than make the government appear to be doing something. That is exactly what it is. This is a piece of legislation that would give the government the right to implement restrictions on gas consumption by automobiles. But they are not telling us what those restrictions are in this piece of legislation. It is a vague piece of legislation which would create a threat to the domestic automotive industry without the automotive industry being able to plan ahead of time.
In his speech on second reading, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the industry needed "a long range plan to be able to plan ten years ahead". Well, certainly with this piece of legislation the industry cannot plan ten years ahead if this piece of legislation does not spell out exactly what the government intends to do next month, next year, two years from now or five years from now. So what is the minister talking about? It is empty rhetoric, that is what it is.
The reality of this legislation is that it is void of any content. Yet at the same time it empowers the minister to enact compulsory fuel consumption standards without indicating any specific details as to just what those standards will be or what the objectives of the government will be with regard to acceptable levels of fuel consumption.
The bill represents no digression from the government's reliance on those standards made compulsory in the United States, and it does not challenge their accuracy. That is a very important point to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker. The United States, which has compulsory regulations for gas consumption, has a standard to keep up, that is, 27.5 miles per gallon. We all know that the North American auto industry is governed by the United States and that the products are designed in the United States. The industry in the United States and in Canada is far surpassing the regulations imposed in the United States of 27.5 miles per gallon. Most domestic automobiles now get over 30 miles per gallon and some as much as 40 miles
per gallon. So why, Mr. Speaker, are we looking at this piece of legislation today, why was it included in the omnibus bill in the first place?
I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that the minister said that this legislation has been in the works since 1976. It is just giving some bureaucrats in their ivory towers who know absolutely nothing about the automotive industry, and also obviously know nothing about the energy situation, something to put together, to give them the job of creating an extra piece of legislation.
This bill is not helping the energy situation, it is harming the automotive industry and it is not assisting Canadians in any way whatsoever. If fact, the minister has in mind regulations of a new type in this piece of legislation. I believe that these regulations should be spelled out before any such legislation is passed by the House. That is exactly the point I am trying to make, that we cannot trust this government, we cannot allow it the opportunity to do to the automotive industry, by fuel consumption regulations that might be unrealistic, what this government has done to the energy industry with the National Energy Program. I do not want to dwell on the disaster that the National Energy Program has caused to the economy for all Canadians.
In fact, the minister has in mind enacting standards that are already being met and surpassed. It would amount to nothing more than demanding, for example, that vehicles come equipped with safety belts, a feature that is already compulsory, in other words, reinventing the wheel, a waste of the time of Parliament.
I would like to take a look briefly, Mr. Speaker, at the practicality of this legislation. In 1976, when this legislation was put together, Canada implemented voluntary fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. That, Mr. Speaker, was in the post-OPEC oil embargo days. It is very important to keep that in mind. That was at a time of fuel shortages and at a time when North Americans were just beginning to swallow the hard medicine that fuel prices were about to increase dramatically. It was a time when energy conservation was fast becoming one of the primary objectives of economic planning. In that same year the government promised to bring forward legislation that would put into law those voluntary fuel efficiency standards that I have just mentioned. When one looks at this bill, Mr. Speaker, it would almost appear that its introduction now is nothing more than desk cleaning. The bill is empty. It does not deal with the very significant changes that have taken place in the automobile industry since 1976, nor with the vast changes that have taken place in the energy situation since that time.
I would suspect, notwithstanding the fact that most Canadians are wise to the methods of this government, and that they will be wise to their methods when the next federal election takes place as well, that one of the reasons the government has not been motivated to pass those fuel consumption standards that it promised in 1976 is simply that the Americans had already beaten them to it, just like interest rates. We are well

June 3, 1982

aware of the Liberal preference to have our policies determined in Washington. At the same time, I do not mean to underestimate the importance to the federal government of a matter such as this, they having already sold out our automotive industry. Given the size of our automotive market relative to that of the United States, regulations such as these would be a little like the tail wagging the dog. That, Mr. Speaker, is another reason why I question the minister's intention in attempting to push this bill through this third reading stage and through Parliament.
I wish to get back to those regulations already in effect by virtue of the fact that our vehicles are designed and tested in the United States. This goes as far back as 1973, I believe, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated a voluntary fuel efficiency labelling program. This was superseded in 1975 by the passage of amendments to the motor vehicle information and cost savings act, which stipulates (a) the actual fuel economy standards to be reached for each auto manufacturer for 1978 to 1980, and until 1985; (b) the legislation requires that labels indicating the fuel efficiency of each car be affixed to the automobile; and (c) that the EPA must publish a book listing all efficiency ratings and that that book must be made available to all auto dealers.
On average, these standards are met in Canada by virtue of the fact that, as I have already said, these automobiles are designed and tested for this market, whether they are produced in the United States or in Canada. In fact, in Canada most vehicles, on average, surpass even these standards because our emission level standards, as everyone knows, are lower than those in the United States. The minister has not challenged these standards. The bill does not contest the accuracy of these tests, nor their applicability to the Canadian market.
So exactly, Mr. Speaker, what does the minister have in mind in asking Parliament for the authority to enact yet unknown standards? Why is the Liberal government trying to attempt to pass legislation without spelling out what the changes and standards would be? It is just more bureaucracy, and that is something that we certainly do not need more of at this very dangerous time in our economy.
Technically speaking, this Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act embodied in Bill C-107 only continues the conceit of the federal government, but with a new twist, Mr. Speaker. Whereas former energy ministers have maintained that we have fuel consumption standards when in fact none were in place, the present minister now proposes to implement such legislation but at the same time wants to pretend that he has no authority. If he had no authority, then he would not be presenting this bill; and if he had the authority, he would not have to present this bill and he would come up with the specific requirements now, so that this House and Canadians and the automotive industry would know what those requirements would be.
The EMR briefing note on the act claims that it would be a two-stage bill. If voluntary standards fail to work, a second part of the bill will allow the government to implement compulsory standards. But that is not what is written in Bill C-107;
Fuel Consumption Standards
and that is again why I believe we must question the intention of the minister and not allow this bill to pass.
The bill clearly gives the government the authority to set fuel consumption standards which the industry must meet at some time in the future. There is absolutely no mention in the bill of voluntary standards. In fact, there are only two very absurd ways the government could set voluntary standards under this bill. One would be to set standards by one regulation and by another to exempt everyone, a contradictory situation. The other way would be to set no standards at all.
Under those circumstances, why do we have this legislation? If the reality is that this government is concerned only with appearing to be doing something, I for one do not believe the minister should be empowered with this authority. If the government does have it in mind to legislate the same standards that exist in the United States, then I think there should be a clear statement to that effect contained in this bill, and it clearly is not there.
If the government does not have that in mind, I demand that this House be advised of the real objectives of this bill. Is there something hidden in this bill which gives the government the power to do something in the future about which neither we nor the industry know? It is not specified in the bill. That is why I question the bill.
I remind the government that the automotive industry has already demonstrated its intention and ability to respond to energy shortages. Fuel consumption has decreased dramatically since 1976, not because of bills of this nature but because of the considerable increases in the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline in Canada is going up when it is going down everywhere else in the world. If it continues to go up, we will have energy self-sufficiency by 1990 because people will no longer be able to afford to buy gasoline.
What, at its introduction, at its second reading and at committee stage, was vague legislation continues to be vague. Without content, it serves only to upset an industry which simply does not need to deal with the threat of yet more regulations, and the automotive industry employs more Canadians both directly and indirectly than most others.
I want to say in closing what I said when I began. If the government were really serious about trying to preserve conventional energy, it would encourage the use of alternate fuels. I have just mentioned two, and I will repeat them: propane and compressed natural gas. However, the government is not going in that direction. If the government were serious about trying to help the automotive industry, it would deal with the Japanese in a tougher way. It would deal in a realistic way with the automotive industry in order to protect jobs in Canada. It need not necessarily impose embargoes on offshore imports; it should be creating Canadian content regulations and incentives for foreign investment in Canada. I would not mind a Honda plant in my riding, as long as it was creating Canadian jobs and helping the Canadian economy. However, we cannot continue to strangle our domestic industry and impose further regulations on our domestic industry while

June 3, 1982
Fuel Consumption Standards
we allow the Japanese to send us $1.5 billion worth of automotive products and while we sell the Japanese nothing more than token windshield wipers. In fact, Canadian automotive products sold to Japan amount to only one half of 1 per cent of the total Japanese imports to Canada. That is not free trade, it is not fair trade and the Japanese are very much taking advantage of that situation.
If the government is really interested in improving our whole economic system, whether it be through trying to protect or help a specific industry, preserve gasoline or encourage productivity, the government has only one alternative, and that is to throw out that "tremendous" budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) of last November, which has been damaging to the economy of this country, and replace it with a new budget. Only then can we begin on a new road to recovery.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: I thank very kindly my friends and foes alike.
Bill C-107 basically sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Some of the remarks made by the preceding speaker were absoutely correct.


Otto John Jelinek: That scares me when it comes from a member of the New Democratic Party!


Raymond John Skelly: I want to associate myself with some of the thoughts he expressed here today. Since the last election the government has been a mindless organization, and this bill is a good example of that.
One element of this bill is worthy of support. No one in this House would not support the idea of conservation of fuels through insistence on improved standards of use in automobiles-or any other transportation mode, since transportation presently is a large consumer of our very valuable hydrocarbons. However, unfortunately, as pointed out by my colleague, this bill impacts negatively on the automobile industry. While the government on the one hand is attempting to do consumers a favour and bring about fuel security in the long term, on the other hand it is failing to do anything to salvage the automobile industry. Indeed, it is imposing a penalty on it. This is mindless and almost destructive, as are the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the National Energy Program. This bill will have a negative impact on the auto industry. It will not help in the development of a comprehensive industrial strategy. It will do nothing for the aspirations of Canadians in relation to the development of the auto industry, energy conservation or a general energy strategy. This bill takes none of those things into consideration. There should be companion policies and legislative proposals to go along with it. Without them, this bill is a mindless exercise.
I have the same questions as those my colleague raised. What will be the effect on Canadians attempting to develop a relevant automobile industry in this country? This legislation will have a serious impact on that industry. I urge the government to something constructive. It should use the levers it has
to ensure that within Canada we begin to develop the research facilities we need. Automobile companies should be encouraged-or forced, as it were-to use our market facilities, but the government should also make sure there are research facilities here to develop the necessary technology to produce the fuel efficient engines envisaged by this legislation. That is the ridiculous part of this bill.
In the long haul the policies of the Minister of Finance and the energy policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-and the government generally- are wrecking the Canadian economy. There are no two ways about it. We receive mail from people who are suffering badly not only because of this kind of legislation but also because of the over-all mindless policies of the government.
My colleague mentioned some other things in his outline of this bill which are very typical of the Conservative Party. I have said it before, but with respect to this bill it is clear that the Conservative Party is a "gofer" for a small number of very large corporations.


Mr. Dingwall:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: The Conservatives are "gofers" for major oil companies. Their energy critic has been a very articulate and outspoken defender of Imperial Oil, Shell and Texaco-


David Charles Dingwall: Shame.


Raymond John Skelly: -and a small number of other very large corporations. That position taken by the Conservative Party was again demonstrated by the previous speaker's comments. His only concern was what will happen to a small number of major corporations. He did not seem to be concerned about what would happen to consumers. What happens when Canadian workers see fuel-efficient automobiles produced elsewhere? That party's knee jerk reaction to legislation- which I guess has potential at some point-is typical. It has been busy wrecking the Canadian economy and devastating the standard of living built by our forefathers and by workers today. That is the party that is busy wrecking Parliament.
A previous speaker pointed out the effects of all this on the auto industry and the effect of the negative approach for the sake of being negative. Their role as "gofer" for their corporate friends at the expense of a great number of small businesses, consumers and workers in this country should be remembered. There will have to be a change in that orientation.
The big lie that has been perpetrated in this House for a long time is that somehow it was the opposition that threw the Clark government out. In reality it was the same workers who did that. They were offended by that government's policy. The consumers were offended by that policy. The small business people were offended by neglect and the single-minded purpose of defending a small number of very powerful corporations. That kind of thing must stop before the Conservatives can be
June 3, 1982

considered a serious or credible alternative for the country. So much for its role as "gofer" for the oil companies and for major corporations.
I want to return to the detail of the bill before us, Mr. Speaker. The bill contains a typical Liberal government trick. Of course, there is a need to develop fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and we have to be serious about that. This would provide advantages for the country if it were applied along with a strategy for a transportation policy and for the automobile industry. If we handle this matter carefully, it could help develop a fuel efficiency technology in Canada. This country could become a world leader in fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, we do not have a coherent policy on this. We have led the world in many fields: we developed the first jet passenger liner, we have developed an admirable high-tech industry and we have been leaders in many other fields, but I think this happened in spite of government instead of with its assistance.
We will never achieve anything with the old carrot and stick approach, Mr. Speaker. We watched the director of investigation and research attempt to defend Canada against corporate concentration when legislation did not permit it. Mr. Bertrand tried to use the carrot and stick approach but it was a complete failure. This, too, will be a complete failure. We know the government will not impose the compulsory aspects of this legislation on the community even though the bill provides for it.
The question of conservation is vitally important for the future, Mr. Speaker. If properly administered, this bill would provide for an examination of alternate and cheaper fuels which would be of tremendous benefit to the consumer. It would look at alternate technologies, would create employment in Canada and mean a new approach to world markets. A bill like this is extremely important, but unfortunately within the government's plans-if a plan exists-this bill will not achieve anything. The compulsory aspects do not have enough clout.
The bill has another flaw which is typical of the government's whole energy package. This bill is very permissive and it is vague. Some time in the future we may impose standards, but not necessarily, it seems to say. The authorization to create regulation provided by the bill is strong, however. It is literally ruled by cabinet, ruled by order in council and ruled by regulation. All through the National Energy Program the government has left control in the hands of the minister and in the hands of cabinet. It is a serious thing when control is removed from the representatives of the people and is put into the hands of a small group of individuals in government who, as I have said before, have literally destroyed the economy and have thrown much of the energy sector into chaos by ignoring long-term, serious priorities.
The bill is part of an over-all package that has been before us for months. A long time ago the government made a very strong statement of policy based on Canadian ownerhip, enhancement, exploration and development of the resource, conservation and alternates, and it held that great revenues for the Canadian people would be derived. It dealt with conservation, security of supply, enhanced revenues or a greater share
Fuel Consumption Standards
of revenues and provided access for a petroleum corporation of Canada. Today, as the final package is slipping through, the government has backed away from most of these things.
When Bill C-48 was introduced there was a great hue and cry from the oil companies and their "gofers". It went to committee along with great promises and when it came back to the House the Liberal amendments essentially went along with the "gofers" and the oil companies. All of a sudden, after the bill is passed this package is presented and we are told that there are serious problems in the energy industry in Canada. The government has backed away from the revenue aspect and has given several billions of dollars to the major oil companies. The price of energy is being driven up, consumers are suffering, home owners are suffering and, indeed, Canadians generally are suffering. Our industrial strategy is suffering too.
These bills have no substance. The "gofers" to my right who have been strong, outspoken proponents of the multinational oil companies, the favoured few who have blackmailed and misled us for years and years, have been upstaged by the more cunning group on the other side who have laid out policies that they think will interest the vast majority of Canadians. When the amendments come in and the cards are on the table, however, the Liberals will be seen to have betrayed the Canadian people.
There really is no difference between the "gofers" on my right and the government, Mr. Speaker. That was clearly illustrated by the fact that they voted together to defeat a very worth-while amendment in the House this afternoon. The record shows that time and time again when proposals are put before the House that will benefit the Canadian people, whether they concern the economy, employment, control of banks or the major oil companies, these two parties stand together with the major corporations against consumers and Canadians generally. No legislation illustrates this fact better than the bills emanating from the National Energy Program.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate which marks the end of a process which began some time ago. It is nice to see the Conservative Party energy critic who has returned from worldwide travels. I welcome him back to the House and the proceedings. I include in that, of course, the energy critic for the NDP, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). They both know we have had deliberations on this particular bill, heard witnesses before the committee, and then we debated it quite seriously.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an important part of the National Energy Program. It is a key conservation measure aimed at reducing the consumption of fuel by motor vehicles in Canada. I wish to remind hon. members of the magnitude of the oil savings we believe can be achieved by this program. The savings have been estimated at 300,000 barrels of oil per day by 1990, compared to the fuel required by vehicles maintained

June 3, 1982
Fuel Consumption Standards
at a 1979 level of fuel consumption performance. This represents a sizeable reduction in transportation energy use, the largest sector of oil consumption in Canada.
Our commitment to this program dates back at least six years, and has embraced a history of discussions with the auto industry as well as numerous Canadian and foreign government agencies. The result was a successful voluntary fuel consumption program, supported by Bill C-107. The importance of this bill and the large measure of agreement on its role was evident in its success in committee. The performance of industry under this voluntary program provides further evidence of success. The targets for fuel consumption performance have not only been met but exceeded to date, and it is our expectation that this trend will continue. This willingness and expressed commitment of industry to co-operate with us makes a good case for retaining the voluntary nature of the program.
As a means of enhancing this voluntary program, industry and the federal government will work together in many areas. Industry is certainly willing to participate beyond current levels and we intend to harness this co-operation in order to coordinate all interests affected by the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, including the fuel-producing industry. We hope to focus this effort through industry-government working groups, one of which will concern itself with fuel consumption data. My colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), has had notable success in developing a reporting system which provides key reports to the government from industry which indicate vehicle fuel consumption performance, sales, and thereby incorporate average fuel consumption information. This system is central to the production of the motor vehicle fuel consumption guide which I am sure many hon. members have heard about or seen in dealer showrooms. I should emphasize, however, that this reporting system is designed to support the administration of the program rather than the formulation of policy.
We therefore wish to involve industry actively in the development of relevant data to support fuel conservation policies which affect them directly. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the motor vehicle producers for their expressed willingness to participate not only in the gathering and analysis of data, but also its interpretation.
I want to emphasize that the flow of information will be two-way. For example, we will provide the information the industry needs to project future fuel supplies and quality. We also recognize the research and development efforts which industry has made over the past ten years in order to respond to the rapidly changing market and energy conditions. Research on cold weather fuel consumption is a good example of this effort. The government realizes the burden which such efforts impose, necessary though they are in this day and age
of conservation. We, too, have an obvious interest in research and we will support industry's efforts.
In the vital area of motor vehicle fuel we will work with industry to determine the optimal mix of fuel and fuel quality for use by vehicles in the future. In this way we hope to be able to co-ordinate industry's reponse to new fuel options. There is a great deal of interest in fuel options and we have committed ourselves to examine these in detail and to strike with industry and provincial governments a consensus on what an appropriate mix and quality of conventional and alternate fuels might be and how they are best used in Canada in the coming decade.
Under this "enhanced voluntary" program our approach to the setting of fuel consumption standards will be one of meeting with the industry to secure a realistic picture of the constraints and opportunities imposed by technology and economics on fuel consumption performance. We will seek to obtain views on Canadian market demands and trends as well as fuel availability, quality and trends in other countries. We will also take into account other regulatory constraints on industry, such as emissions and safety. From that should come informed decisions on achievable, effective standards for motor vehicle fuel consumption performance, with appropriate credits for new fuels we may wish to encourage.
Through these negotiations, Mr. Speaker, through working groups and further discussions between industry and government, we hope to make clear our expectations for industry performance under a voluntary program. This commitment we see as being essential to continued mutual trust. The government has decided that the program will remain voluntary unless companies fail to co-operate. As with all government programs, we take quite seriously the process and need for regular analysis and evaluation of this program, especially in terms of its effectiveness in meeting its goals. We will be dealing with this in our annual report to Parliament under this bill. It will include an assessment of compliance with program requirements, and the impact it has on real world fuel consumption. We will be assessing the case for continuing the program beyond 1990, and for other approaches which may be required.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the key objective is to improve the flow of information concerning motor vehicle energy consumption. We are very pleased to find no reservations on the part of industry in responding to our desire for improved two-way communication. We feel passage of this bill will be a significant step toward energy self-sufficiency. We want to see this long-standing commitment fulfilled, and we will strive, in cooperation with other government agencies and industry, to ensure that the aims and objectives of this bill, an important part of the NEP, are achieved. In concluding my remarks I urge all hon. members to support this legislation.
June 3, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Mir. Deputy Speaker: 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 Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Housing- (a) CMHC role in renewing mortgages on urea formaldehyde foam insulated houses, (b) Request that banks be instructed to renew mortgages; the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-The Economy-Closure of lumber mill in Chemainus, B.C.-(a) Protection for jobs, (b) Investment of capital outside of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-107, respecting motor vehicle fuel consumption standards, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few words on this bill. I am glad that no member of this House had the gaucherie to mention that Members of Parliament beat the pages in last night's baseball game! I am glad no one pointed that out; it was a fairly close game.
This bill is really important and it has not had very much debate. It is ironic that we spend all our time debating taxes and grants to oil companies, etc. These are all things on the supply side of the equation-that is, where we get our oil and gas-and we spend very little time in committee or in debate on the demand side of the equation.
The parliamentary secretary who just spoke said that energy self-sufficiency is the goal of the energy program. But we should be talking about energy efficiency. As the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has said, if we looked at our demand for energy we could really make some progress in energy self-sufficiency. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) never ceases to point this out.
This bill deals with fuel standards for cars. Ralph Nader, the American consumer advocate who pushed fuel standards, would laugh if he read this bill. It is a very weak bill. It does virtually nothing. It sets out voluntary standards for companies. Consumption standards should be more stringent. The auto exhaust emission standards should not be sacrificed in return for better fuel consumption ratings as set out in this bill.
Fuel Consumption Standards
It seems to me that we should be talking about increased fuel efficiency and reduced pollution emissions. We should have better targets set up that are contained in this bill. The government should set its targets now as the industry is planning ahead.
This bill really does nothing out of the ordinary. It does not change anything that is happening right now. We do not set any tough standards for the industry. If we did we would give the industry something to shoot at. We have taken a second-rate approach compared to what the Americans are suggesting. Automobiles and light trucks consume about one third of Canada's refined petroleum products. Out of eight bills, is there very much in them dealing with conservation? We have something in part of the first bill and something in this bill. This bill is a Mickey Mouse nothing bill. It deals with fuel consumption standards and looks for voluntary standards. It does not set out any tough standards to follow.
It seems to me the government is making a mistake. It is another fault of the National Energy Program. In the future the government should bring in bills to deal with energy conservation that have some teeth in them so that we can get into the matter of fuel consumption.
A pattern is developing in Canada. Some of the major automobile companies are now starting to build fuel guzzlers again. I mean big cars, of course. To continue doing that will be a tragic mistake. People are beginning to think there will be a big oil glut on the world market. As a result, people are again starting to use oil and gas like there is no tomorrow. The minister said the other night we have made progress. He is right; Canadians are conserving fuel. But we have only begun to do that. We can do much more. I suggest to members opposite that they subscribe to and read a publication called "Canadian Renewable Energy News". I believe the editor's name is Mr. Jeff Passmore. I have been reading this publication lately in more detail and I have begun to realize there is a tremendous saving that we can still achieve in conservation.
We in the New Democratic Party are going to vote against this bill, not because we do not want fuel consumption standards for cars and not because we do not want to see energy efficiency, but because we want a bill with teeth in it dealing with auto exhaust emission standards and better fuel consumption standards, along with some guidelines for the industry. What Canadians need is a balance between the carrot-the advantages in price that conservation will give them-and a little bit of the stick. Canadians have to be pushed into conserving fuel. What better way to push them into doing that than imposing standards for cars, light trucks and vans which use one third of our refined products? But conservation in this area cannot be done with this bill.
This bill is typical of Liberalism. It is a halfway thing. The government thinks it is in the middle, the wishy-washy middle. Being in the wishy-washy middle is not leadership, nor will it give us energy efficiency in this country.

June 3, 1982
Fuel Consumption Standards


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments on the bill. If there has been an agreement made, I will honour it. However, I will not speak for too long. To my knowledge there will not be a standing vote on this measure. My speech will be very brief unless I am provoked.


David Charles Dingwall: Shame on you!


Mr. Bosley:: Consider yourself provoked.


Mark Willson Rose: I want to add to what my colleague has said about the ambivalent and wishy-washy legislation before us. Certainly we have seen a reduction in the consumption of petroleum products over the last year in the vicinity of 8 per cent to 10 per cent. Canadians have reduced their consumption of petroleum products as a result of scare tactics concerning the shortage that we thought existed in oil supplies. The rationing mechanism in Canada has not been a result of consumption standards. The rationing mechanism has been price. When the price of a product is pushed up high enough and quickly enough, naturally the consumption of that product drops. That has been the most effective, and certainly the most stringent and punishing kind of conservation measure on the part of this government.
In this bill we are talking about setting voluntary standards. That is all they will be and that is all they will ever amount to unless the price of gasoline is pushed up to the point where people can no longer afford to buy it. We had what was called a marvellous victory when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), his Alberta counterpart, Mr. Leitch, the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, and our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) got together and toasted one another with champagne over this great energy agreement they reached. They said what a wonderful thing it would be for Canadians. But what did it do? Our oil prices go up every six months. Yet I have a lot of trouble convincing my constituents who drive 50 miles back and forth to work each day-


David Charles Dingwall: In Cadillacs?


Mark Willson Rose: Some of them have Cadillacs, not all of them, certainly not very many who vote for me have Cadillacs, in contrast to the supporters of the hon. member across the way! I have great difficulty convincing my constituents that a price increase every six months is good for them. The distance from Mission to Vancouver is the same regardless of the price of gasoline. Many of these commuters have the same old gas guzzlers they have always had, because they cannot afford a new car.
This agreement simply amounted to a naked revenue grab by the federal government and the province. But all the plans went awry when the world price dropped. I do not know what
we are going to do now. I do know that by conserving and therefore lowering the consumption of gasoline, it also lowers air pollution levels. If you do not burn as much gasoline there will not be as much emission into the air of harmful pollutants. The concomitant side benefit of lower consumption and fuel efficiency is less damage to our environment.
We would be in favour of more stringent standards. We know that the auto companies in the United States have asked the Reagan government to put off the imposition of the demands that the American government once had under the Carter administration for greater fuel efficiency for automobiles. These standards have been pushed back. I have a large car-not a Cadillac-which is a gas guzzler.


David Charles Dingwall: Get a bike.


Mark Willson Rose: I can ride a bike. Contrary to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I do not always ride a hobby-horse. In any event, I am concerned that we might slip back into our old ways. It is habitual. We were just starting to learn how to conserve energy. Unless we are shown some government leadership, I am afraid we will slip into the same old pattern that we have always followed, Canadians being the supreme, number one energy gluttons of the world.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member repeat his last statement? I did not hear it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Generic Drugs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall items preceding No. 98 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


USE OF GENERIC DRUGS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all government studies completed in the past five years concerning the use of generic drugs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is once again my privilege to be speaking in this Thursday five o'clock "happy hour", and the subject today is generic drugs and the pharmaceutical industry.
1 should say at the outset that I am no longer interested in obtaining a House order for the production of papers, it having been amply illustrated in this session that such a House order is valueless. 1 have illustrated that, despite a House order for the production of documents, there is no obligation on the part of a department to supply the documents referred to in the motion. In fact it is now abundantly apparent that until the House rules are changed, it is meaningless to obtain such House orders. Therefore, since I want to air a problem, I will continue as often as I can to use this opportunity to speak about the subject in question and no longer concern myself with trying to obtain documents.
When I was first elected in 1972 the very first call I received was from a Mr. Jack Fralich, who was then the president of Hoffmann-La Roche, a major Swiss-owned multinational pharmaceutical company in my riding. He wanted to see me about government legislation, Bill C-102, and specifically compulsory licensing.
Anyone who journeys from Ottawa to Montreal or from Toronto to Montreal will observe in the constituency of Vaudreuil a huge concrete monument to Bill C-102. That huge concrete structure, which was built at a cost of something in the order of $16 million, was to be the forerunner of a $65 million plant for the production and distribution in North America of drugs from the giant Hoffmann-La Roche company. The $65 million of 1969-70 probably would be at least twice that amount today. One can see how much has been lost in terms of construction and jobs because that particular project did not go ahead.

June 3, 1982
Generic Drugs
If one passed that huge concrete structure at night, one observed that only a limited number of floors had their lights on. In other words, only a limited number of floors were occupied. The rest of the floors were empty in 1970, in anticipation of expansion, but they remain empty today, in 1982.
One can and undoubtedly will argue what the benefits of compulsory licensing have been to the consumer, but I will let someone else deal with that subject. I want to point out, though, that in that one company alone, the loss of investment in Canada, the loss of jobs to Canadians and the loss of research and development have been very considerable indeed.
A few words about the industry are probably appropriate. The pharmaceutical industry possesses many characteristics which make it interesting to economists and a concern to the public. It is an industry which deals directly with the health of individuals and, as such, there is a desire to ensure that its product is readily available to the public, both in terms of price and quantity. However, to the extent that drugs can be extremely dangerous due to improper use-or because of their very nature-there exists a strong tendency to regulate this industry. Through its role in the health care field there exist external benefits to proper drug use and, as a result, it is generally believed that a competitive solution will not be optimal. The industry is highly research-intensive. It faces an inelastic demand for its products and has the sole purchasing authority resting with an agent other than the ultimate consumer of the product. These features make the pharmaceutical industry somewhat unique and should be considered when examining the economics of prescription drugs.
The demand for prescription drugs is relatively insensitive to price changes. The person prescribing a drug does not consume it or pay for it. The consumption decision is made by an individual who is unusually familiar with the quality of the product due to his role as a physician and the practice of drug firms of providing a great deal of information to doctors in the form of advertising and visits by detail men.
The industry believes that firms which are innovative earn high profits which encourage others to copy or become innovative themselves. A firm cannot rest for long on its past achievements. It must continue to innovate in order to maintain its market share. Although at any point in time the concentration rate may be high, with some firms earning monopoly profits, the entry rate into the market will also be high. Such competition from new products will cause prices to fall directly or indirectly via quality competition.
The industry is experiencing a much greater deficit in foreign trade than previously. In addition to this, the domestic industry is supplying a smaller fraction of Canada's domestic consumption than previously was the case.
In answer to one of the many questions that I put on the Order Paper, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated that the estimated percentage of the total national health bill spent on drugs in 1976 was 10.5 per cent. That figure is interesting if we relate it to the balance of
trade in pharmaceutical products. In 1971 the negative balance of trade in pharmaceutical products was $50 million; in 1975 that imbalance had grown to $110 million and by 1979 the imbalance had reached $232 million. Once again, Mr. Speaker, those figures were supplied by the government, this time by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais).
In Canada, patents are awarded for 17 years, although the patentee has exclusive property rights for only the first three years. After that period of time compulsory licences to produce can be awarded to other firms if it is demonstrated that the patentee has abused his patent. This is not the case with drugs; patent abuse is not a pre-requisite for the awarding of a compulsory licence. Since 1923, compulsory licences in pharmaceuticals could be granted to produce patented drugs in Canada. The 1969 changes to the Patent Act allowed for compulsory licences to import the generic equivalents to patented drugs. After the 1969 amendments to the Patent Act, patent holders have been receiving royalties of 4 per cent-I emphasize that figure, Mr. Speaker-of the total sales of licensees, which is far from a monopoly return.
The government's policy toward drug R and D appears to be contradictory. On the one hand that monopoly power is granted through patent protection in order to encourage R and D, and on the other hand monopoly power is taken away through compulsory licensing to induce lower prices via increased competition. In Canada, over 65 per cent of total R and D expenditures do not originate in industry and are therefore not subject to the profit motive. Some inventions cannot be readily copied, even in the absence of patent rights. Often the inventor possesses a head start in the application of the invention and possesses know-how concerning it which may not be readily apparent to outside observers. The inventor also has a head start in getting the ultimate product to market, which usually generates a certain amount of product loyalty among consumers.
According to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, there are two criteria on which the performance of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada can be considered inadequate. These relate to its balance of foreign trade position-to which I previously referred-and the level of research and development expenditures locally. Although these reports claim that a multitude of factors could be identified, the major reasons for this poor performance are judged to be government policies and regulations concerning the industry.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that here I am referring to reports of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. These reports claim that the 1969 amendment to Bill C-102, the Patent Act, was a major contributing factor to the decline in Canadian pharmaceutical research and development. The arguments in these reports do not differ with those discussed in the original research branch paper of March, 1980. As with other studies taking such a position, these departmental reports equate reduced profitability of selling pharmaceutical products in Canada with reduced profitability of engaging in R and D activity in Canada.
June 3, 1982

I should like to read an extract from a letter written by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) dated April 29 of this year. The letter is addressed to me and in it the minister writes:
The government is very concerned about the over-all low level of research and development in the private sector and is actively pursuing a number of measures to improve Canada's performance in this area. We recognize the importance which a strong Patent system can play in encouraging industrial investment in R&D thus creating the appropriate climate for innovation.
A little earlier I referred to the first call that I received after being elected to Parliament from the then president of Hoff-man-La Roche. It is interesting that one of the employees of this company with whom I have had considerable correspondence refers to the company as follows:
-certain companies, primarily the ones with the best R and D productivity, are being driven into the ground by Bill C-102. The attitude within these companies, who have been responsible for the saving of countless Canadian lives, is becoming desperate.
Referring to Hoffman-La Roche he goes on to say:
-now operates far below its production capacity, has shelved plans for capital expansion and is now in the process of reducing staff. The organization is trapped between falling revenue and increasing operating costs, and, not to be forgotten, also trapped between generic substitution brought about by Bill C-102 and true innovative competition.
The writer, Mr. K. S. Hardy, an employee of Hoffman-La Roche, referred me to a very interesting editorial which had appeared in the "British Medical Journal" entitled "Generic Prescribing and the Drug Industry". The following quotation is particularly appropriate in relation to the pro-generic legislation currently in effect at both levels of government in Canada:
-generic substitution would be a clumsy and ineffective way of reducing NHS drug costs and one which might discourage foreign investment in the British pharmaceutical industry. Long-term, a worldwide trend toward use of generics could further reduce the pace and breadth of research by the pharmaceutical industry.
As I said earlier, this gentleman has written me frequently and many of the comments in his letters are particularly appropriate to the subject we are discussing this afternoon. For example, he refers to a competing company, Smith, Kline & French, which used to have a plant in Montreal but which has now moved out of the province of Quebec. He writes as follows:
The research intensive segment of the drug manufacturing industry is the most responsible for breakthrough drug discoveries. These breakthroughs can and often do result in vast savings to the total health care system and benefit society as a whole. As an example it was calculated that prior to the discovery of the anti-ulcer drug Tagamet, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent either directly or indirectly on gastric surgery, in-hospital care, lost man-day economic contribution, income taxes, etc.
In a letter of December 15, 1981 he writes that Smith, Kline & French were the discoverers of the breakthrough drug Tagamet and goes on to say:
Despite the well-documented proof of social contribution relative to its price, it is noteworthy that the productive research effort which gave birth to "Tagamet" has been rewarded with approval of several compulsory licences in this country.
At this point in time, the first imitator is introducing its generic copy of "Tagamet" barely 4 years after the introduction of the original discovery.
Generic Drugs
Because of its research productivity, Smith Kline & French has learned rather painfully that Bill C-102 penalizes the research-based firms in direct proportion to their research success.
Now, because of one major discovery, surgery, long hospital stays, mortality, lost taxes and other social costs have been so greatly reduced that the cost of the drug itself is a minor consideration and is one that has reaped monumental dividends to individuals, governments and society itself, not to mention the saving in suffering and human life. As Mr. Hardy says:
None of Canada's major trading partners employ compulsory licensing to import. Hence, it should come as no surprise that Canada is perceived as being a "hostile" environment. Such perceptions will not change unless compulsory licensing is abolished and a fair patent system is instilled which recognizes product protection.
One of our previous Members of Parliament who eventually became a minister was Martin O'Connell, the former MP for Scarborough East. If I had the time I would have liked to quote extensively from a paper which he prepared in 1978 but I will conclude by saying, as does he:
With the return of Great Britain to patent protection, Canada remains the only developed country with this unique discouragement to product innovation and manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry. In both countries, compulsory licences to import issued to companies which have not incurred the costs of research and testing appear to have had a profound adverse effect on research-based companies. This is understandable when it is realized that it normally takes some ten years of research, development and clinical testing by the patentee before a new drug is cleared for sales and that it may soon be overtaken by a new discovery, let alone licensed to a company interested only in manufacturing the products developed by others. But one need not look only to the British decision; good and sufficient reasons exist in Canada to modify the nine-year-old Canadian system of compulsory licences to import alternative generic products.
Because of my cough and for other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I should conclude here. I think I have amply illustrated that whatever benefits the consumer may have received from compulsory licensing in Canada, the cost in jobs, construction and investment has been very high indeed.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I might start by suggesting to the previous speaker that there are a number of brand and generic drugs which could be used to help his throat. Perhaps we can talk about that later.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, reads:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all government studies completed in the past five years concerning the use of generic drugs.
The surprising thing is that this motion is even required and that we have not by now observed the kinds of things the previous speaker talked about concerning the impact on the industry, the market share of generic drugs in Canada, what the impact has been on research and development and therefore on jobs, and, in particular, on the quality of pharmaceuticals provided for Canadians.
The word "generic" is perhaps a misnomer; in a sense, all drugs are generic. What we are really talking about is whether or not a particular company with a particular brand name has the protection which would encourage it to do further research and development and other things necessary in order to produce drugs for human use.

June 3, 1982
Generic Drugs
An important aspect as well is the question of the responsibility the Canadian government has in this area. Because of the number of government supported drug plans for senior citizens, the government is directly involved in the question of which drugs or combination of drugs, generic or otherwise, are covered. The critical point here, which the previous speaker was trying to get at and which caused him to propose this motion, is that the drug companies with operations in Canada would have a degree of protection, which they do not now have, and which would provide the stimulus for them to carry on their operations in Canada.
One of the first questions in a discussion on that subject is whether or not in fact, even with their operations in Canada, they are doing research and development here and not in other countries. As the hon. member suggests, that would mean increased employment opportunities for Canadians. There is no question that, with the changes in the patent law and with the loss of some of the protection the companies had before, there was a major shift in this area. In some way that in fact benefited Canadians. This occurred through an influx of generic drugs which could be very efficiently produced at a very low cost.
The question is whether or not we had the necessary standards of quality by allowing these relatively non-controlled sources of drugs to enter Canada. It is clear that in some cases drugs of poor quality entered Canada, drugs which did not have the beneficial effect they were meant to have when prescribed for a particular disease. One of the drugs which was discovered to be a problem was, of course, tetracycline. It is well known that the standards of that particular antibiotic when it was imported into Canada were well below that which would be expected either by a medical practitioner or the patient receiving therapy. There was a very serious question as to standards, and that to me is one of the most important aspects of this matter.
In addition to the standards, an interesting question is whether or not we as a government have been following the quality of those drugs. Clearly a responsibility the government has to the Canadian people is to ensure that the quality of the drug being offered in Canada is good. Recently we have had a number of examples, particularly in the area of pesticides, where the quality of different chemicals allowed into this country has not been acceptable. We have ended up accepting the word of independent companies which have been used by different drug companies for testing of products to prove they were acceptable and would not cause ill effects should they be used in a particular way. DDT is an example of that. DDT levels build up. It is difficult to get rid of DDT. DDT has detrimental effects. Thalidomide is another example. The testing process there was important. Testing of drugs to determine whether or not they are acceptable for human consumption is very important.
The federal government has a responsibility for drug standards, but it has not been seen to be completely effective in the
past. All of us would, I think, want to take a serious look at this. I would question whether we have been following in a responsible and effective way the quality and the standards of generic drugs that are imported into Canada. I suspect the answer to that question is no, that we have not. I know we have improved our assessment to some degree, but I suspect there is a lot more that we could do. It would be interesting to find out what studies we have had on generic drugs in that respect in addition to the economic effect.


Mr. Blaikie:: None at all.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) say none at all. That is the point.
I will come back to the main argument put by the hon. member who proposed this motion. We have to examine the viability of the industry to provide drugs for Canadians at a reasonable price. There are Canadians with certain diseases who require large amounts of drugs over long periods of time. These drugs are important to their health. The cost of them can use up a major portion of a family's income. This can put severe stress not only on low-income families but on middle-income families as well. It is not unusual for patients to spend $100 per month on drugs for long periods of time. There are drug plans in which patients can become involved. Most people who face long periods of drug therapy eventually are able to get into some kind of drug plan. If not, there may be some assistance through some level of government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The NDP government has Pharmacare.


Royce Herbert Frith: Even the Tories have it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: papers, although I think that is important. We on this side would strongly support that initiative. We would like to see testing of generic drugs as well as a number of other things which the federal government has responsibility for in health care, on behalf of all Canadians.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much time I have. 1 hear that we may be called out of this chamber to attend the Senate.
I do want to say a few words about the whole question of drug testing. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) calls for copies of studies done by the government over the last five years having to do with the use of generic drugs. I am not sure just how many of those kinds of studies there are. I know there is an inadequate number of studies, indeed if there are any, on the effects of drugs which are on the market in Canada. It is a fact that some drugs on Canadian pharmacy shelves have never been properly tested. They may be dangerous to the health of Canadians.
Information made public recently under the freedom of information act in the United States clearly shows that in the case of at least 16 prescription drugs presently in use in Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare have not properly protected the health of the Canadian public. Health and Welfare Canada commonly authorizes the sale of powerful new drugs based on testing done by the drug manufacturers themselves. In our view, it is irresponsible for the government to rely on private companies who manufacture the drugs and sell them also to test these same drugs. This is an obvious conflict of interest in our opinion and is something that ought to be rectified.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has recently found cases of misrepresentation, fraud and falsification of test results in U.S. drug testing laboratories. One hundred and twenty seven laboratories have been found to be in violation. Forty three doctors were suspended and another 24 are under investigation. The FDA caught up with one doctor who had been making up results by picking EKG tests out of a garbage can and assigning a name to a test result. Yet the federal government refuses to change the law to require that drug testing be done in Canada and at more reliable locations than the drug manufacturers themselves. For instance, these tests could be done in our Canadian universities.
The present system for testing drugs has to be changed or we will see and hear more of the horror stories that we have witnessed with regard to some of the drugs that are now on the market. I refer to the near fatal experience of a woman in Oakville, Ontario. This woman had been taking the drug clindamycin. This woman was given clindamycin in 1973 for a minor nasal infection. Within a couple of weeks she was near death from colitis. In the years since she has had a series of eight operations, and most of her intestines have been removed. It turns out the company that marketed the drug, the Upjohn corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan, carried out clinical trials in 1969 which showed the drug to cause colitis but did not inform Canadian officials until 1974.
Generic Drugs
With regard to drugs, pesticides and other hazardous substances, the government must recognize that it cannot trust the drug industry to tell the truth. It will simply just have to be more vigilant. This would involve implementing some inspection programs in Canada. It would be a matter of inspecting laboratories and looking over the shoulders of doctors who conduct the tests. The government must come to realize that the situation whereby people involved in the conflict of interest which I earlier described, where the drug manufacturers themselves do the testing, cannot continue any longer if the health of Canadians is to be protected.
We should have research conducted on hazardous substances, as I suggested recently in this House in a Standing Order 43, by a national hazardous substances research council or similar body through which we would have the confidence that tests were being conducted by an independent body whose only concern was to discover, in an accurate, honest and scientific manner, what the possible side effects of various chemicals in the environment or drugs on the market might be. If that were to happen, I believe the Department of National Health and Welfare could truly be said to be looking after the health and welfare of Canadians, rather than sitting by with an either naive or diabolical confidence, I am not sure which, in information provided from the United States about drugs that are on the market.
A good example of this which I would like to mention is the anti-nauseant drug, Bendectin, which is prescribed for pregnant women. This has been a subject of controversy for several years since it has been suspected, although not definitely proven, to be a cause of birth deformities. It is the only drug which exists solely for use by pregnant women in their first three and most vulnerable months of pregnancy. I might add that it is also made by Merrell Labs, the company that has been dogged by doubt ever since it marketed thalidomide in North America.
Bendectin has been on the domestic market for 23 years, but in recent years it has been plagued by suspicion that it is a teratogen, which in layman's language is a drug or chemical that causes congenital malformations and defects in human and animal fetuses. Two recent studies show a statistically significant increase in birth defects in children born to women who took Bendectin.
The first study, conducted by Doctor Jose Cordero, reviewed
250,000	births. This was done at the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. The study associates Bendectin with such defects as missing hands and feet.
The second study, which was released in September, 1980, by Doctor Hershel Jick at the Boston collaborative drug surveillance program, suggests that Bendectin is a moderate teratogen on the limbs. Doctor Jick's report indicates that something less than five birth defects might be expected for every 1,000 women taking Bendectin during the critical early stages of pregnancy.

June 3, 1982
Generic Drugs
We have spoken with Dr. Donald Patterson who has been attempting to get the ear of the Medical Association and/or the Canadian government on the Bendectin issue. Dr. Patterson believes that Bendectin should be allowed to remain on the market but should only be used as an anti-nauseant for nonpregnancies only. That is to say, for motion sickness, chemotherapy effects and so on. Enough suspicion has been aroused in the United States regarding the safety of the drug that patient package inserts are included with each prescription. These inserts contain information on the risk and benefit considerations involved in taking Bendectin.
The most that has been done in Canada is that Bendectin is now sold by prescription only rather than over the counter as before. But in all these cases, whether we are in committee or in whatever forum where we have the opportunity to question the government on these matters, we find that all the government can do is quote from tests which have been done by private manufacturers in the United States who have an interest in the marketing and promotion of these products. What we in the NDP say is that this situation cannot go on any longer. We live in a modern society which has a great number of substances, whether chemical or pharmaceutical, that we have to contend with. In Canada we are virtually at the mercy of people who have an interest in making profit out of the promotion of these substances.
This brings us right back to a basic philosophical argument. Are these substances to be produced for profit or for the health and use of the Candian people? We would like to see the profit motive removed from these matters, particularly from the testing of these particular substances.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member from Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing to the attention of the House of Commons the subject of the use of generic drugs in Canada.
It is to the credit of the member that he is concerned about this matter. It certainly does concern Canadians who need medication, particularly those who need drugs for acute illnesses and the many who need them for the curing of chronic illnesses or keeping these illnesses under control.
In all such cases, those who need relief from pain and suffering greatly value the achievements of the drug industry over the last few decades. World wide, the pharmaceutical industry has developed, tested and introduced many new products with extraordinary powers to ease the afflictions which have burdened men, women and children for centuries. There is no doubt that these accomplishments have made a significant contribution to the progress of mankind.
I am sure that the hon. member for Vaudreuil would agree that people suffering from illness need these medications at a reasonable price, especially if they need them for a long time or even permanently.
The hon. member has asked about government studies completed in the past five years concerning the use of generic drugs. With respect to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it has initiated three studies in the course of the last ten years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-19, an Act to provide for state immunity in Canadian Courts-Chapter No. 95.
Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act-Chapter No. 96.
Bill C-114, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)-Chapter No. 97.
Bill S-25, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of the association known as "The Army, Navy and Air Forces Veterans in Canada".



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-103, an Act 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:: With the little time available to the Chair, I have been able to take a cursory look at the motions and it would be my intention that they be dealt with as follows: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 should be debated and voted on separately; motions Nos, 4 and 5 could be debated together and voted on separately.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 1
June 3, 1982

That Bill C-103, an Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be amended by deleting clause 12.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first of the energy bills to be debated in this chamber subsequent to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation finishing its work. That work was completed at approximately 12.30 this day. It speaks to the difficulty that the energy committee has endured under the special House order, where hon. members of that committee have frequently been required to be in two places at the same time. It is a pleasure to be standing here this evening with no sense that the committee is meeting simultaneously with the House and that hon. members will have to make a choice as to whether to participate in the hearings of the legislation before committee or in this chamber.
I think it is wise at the outset to remind Canadians that Bill C-103 is a consequence of the bell-ringing which took place in this Parliament for 16 days. Members of the Canadian public may recall that the Progressive Conservative Party quietly, over a period of one year, attempted to tell the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that it was wrong to bring in the kind of legislation proposed in Bill C-94. It was legislation that had far too many topics inside it, legislation that the minister intended to be debated in this chamber and in this chamber alone.
What the minister of energy wanted the Parliament of Canada to do was to deny Canadians the right to be heard as witnesses before a committee. There was a democratic principle at stake, Mr. Speaker, and we won that democratic principle on behalf of Canadians. We have had a committee. But it is a tragedy that the House leader chose to bring forward bills for debate in this chamber at the same time as the committee was meeting.
That procedure is exemplified by the fact that Bill C-103 was reported back to this chamber, a 50-clause bill, with 11 amendments already accepted by the government. Those amendments were accepted because of the work done by committee members and the work done by witnesses before the committee. However, the tragedy of Bill C-103 as it sits before us this evening is that so little of what those witnesses told the committee appears in the form of amendments.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is still so bad that there is a temptation to move amendments on each and every clause, but there is a danger in that, because we have a limited time to debate and if we were to move so many amendments it would be difficult for the Canadian people to focus on what is wrong with the bill.
I say to the Canadian people, those who are watching at this moment in time and those who may read about our debates, that the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, attended each and every one of the committee meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We spent seven and one half to eight hours on many days. We examined, in the most minute detail, each of the clauses in this bill.
Petroleum Administration Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We will stand in this chamber and we will vote for the proposed amendments. And we will vote against the bill, because it is still a bad bill. We would like to invite government members, Liberals who were elected in this country in 1980, we would invite them, some of the independent thinking members on the other side, to consider the wisdom of each of the separate amendments. We invite them to think over their responsibility to their constituents, their responsibility to this nation, and join with us through the amending process in making a bad bill at least a little bit better.
Experience has taught us in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, that the squeaking wheel gets the grease, that power is the name of the game. Unless those watching this debate, or reading about this debate, care enough about the country to pick up a telephone or pick up a pen and communicate their thoughts and their feelings to those members, then experience tells us that they are not likely to change, for some reason best left to them to explain. They bow to the squeaking wheel of public opinion; they do not bow to logic; they do not bow to what is good for the nation. But if enough Canadians across the country pick up a pen, pick up a telephone, and communicate their thoughts and feelings to a Member of Parliament, they can tell them clearly that they should support some of these amendments.
I urge people to listen closely to the logic of that. If Canadians are persuaded, then time is short. This bill will become law sometime next week unless members of the Liberal Party of Canada who were elected to serve in this chamber can be persuaded otherwise by their constituents and, let us hope, by the eloquence in this chamber. Common sense dictates, the health of the nation dictates, that the amending process required for this bill continue.
I would like to put into context, Mr. Speaker, a kind of schema, a kind of report card, that people can use for measuring the wisdom of a proposed amendment. There are many ways to develop a way of measuring a topic as important as this. I am trying to make it simple, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that there are four criteria that members opposite should look at before they decide whether or not an amendment is a wise one.
The first of these is: does the amendment provide any increased degree of protection for the consumers of oil and gas and the products thereof? Canadians should realize that when they go to the local service station and buy a gallon of gas today, the price they pay at the pump is greater than the price they would pay in many parts of the United States of America if they were to drive south. It makes people wonder about the campaign promises to keep the world price below 75 per cent, when they can just drive south of the Canadian border and buy gasoline cheaper than they can here. If they are wondering, then they should know that on average 65 or 66 cents out of every dollar that they pay goes to government in the form of

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
taxes. The gasoline they put in a car, that they pay a dollar for, is worth 35 cents. When they buy oil to heat their homes, it is a similar situation. This bill has many taxing provisions in it, Mr. Speaker, and consumers will pay. Your costs as Canadians will go up if you give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the authority that he wants to raise your taxes. So people should look at an amendment and see if it will help the consumers.
Second, Mr. Speaker, in the climate in Canada today, Canadians should look at an amendment and see if it will help this country with jobs. Tomorrow we get the unemployment figures. Last month we had almost 1,300,000 unemployed. That makes you look at an amendment to see whether or not it has the wisdom of helping this nation and the Canadian people to have a job, a job instead of an unemployment insurance cheque, instead of a welfare cheque. A job-that is what Canadians want. To this point the policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have cost this nation hundreds of thousands of jobs.
On Monday evening the minister announced the injection of $2 billion into the oil and gas industry, and that was a clear-cut admission that the energy policies of the past 18 months have been bullheaded, badly designed and harmful to this nation. They cost us jobs. We can see that in a direct sense in western Canada because rigs are not drilling. Truck drivers do not have trucks to drive. Caterpillar operators do not have caterpillars to operate because there have been auction sales, and the Americans have come north to Canada and bought that equipment for less than half price. The American industry has boomed, and our jobs have disappeared. That is a consequence of the policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
People in Ontario and Chicoutimi who worked for companies which provided parts for vehicles have been laid off, but it is very hard for them to see that they have lost their jobs because-in part, at least-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has led this nation astray, with the advice and consent of backbench members of the Liberal Party.
Those are the first two. Does an amendment protect the consumer? Does an amendment help us get more jobs? My third criterion for judging an amendment is its impact on the economy and, in particular, its impact on interest rates. With his policies the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has encouraged Canadian companies to go on buying sprees. He has encouraged them to borrow money abroad. Even today we have further evidence of the consequences of that distortion of the Canadian economy. Increased borrowing of capital has driven down the value of our dollar, and that has caused interest rates to jump one half of 1 per cent today.
Canadians sometimes have difficulty seeing that government is their competitor in the marketplace when they borrow money. When they try to get mortgages for their homes, mortgage money is being auctioned off, and they are bidding
against their own government. Their own government can take money out of their pockets through taxes as well as outbid them. The cost of borrowing grows and grows.
The federal government is the prime culprit in this country. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us last Monday evening that federal revenues would fall $25 billion short of his projection. If the response of the government is to go back to the marketplace to borrow that amount, interest rates will continue to rise. Small firms and farms will continue to go bankrupt, and people will lose their homes.
Energy policies are not the total cause of our difficulties, but they are a very important factor, and each and every amendment should be screened against that criterion. Will an amendment help bring interest rates down? If we do not have the amendment, will interest rates climb higher?
The fourth criterion is whether an amendment helps our democracy. In theory this chamber is a place for debate. In theory a committee is a place to examine witnesses and to reach independent conclusions. But in reality all of the eight bills in the present energy package attempt to transfer power away from democratic systems and into the hands of a small group, the cabinet. Those of us who work in the Parliament of Canada as elected members know the kind of schedules cabinet ministers have and the amount of time they have to examine any particular piece of legislation in detail. It is darned little, and each time a piece of legislation comes forward in this chamber, it is flawed. It is usually seriously flawed; that is a consequence of a process. Cabinet ministers are too busy.
This bill seeks to transfer enormously increased responsibilities to a minister who has already demonstrated clearly and unequivocally to Canadians that he cannot handle well the responsibilities previously assigned to him. Why in the name of sanity, when that is so unequivocally clear, would we attempt to give that individual increased responsibilities?
I would like to repeat the four criteria for an amendment. Does it protect consumers? Will it help us get more jobs? Will it help our economy and keep interest rates down rather than allow them to go up? And will it enable elected people to do their jobs and to be of assistance to the government in screening legislation and making it better?
I hope members of the New Democratic Party will pay attention to the speeches made by members of this House of Commons, because one of the real disappointments in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation was that of the 31 or 32 members-I forget the number-of the New Democratic Party, we saw only one of them in those weeks of committee study. The remainder did not come and did not learn. Sitting in this chamber they probably still do not understand.


Mr. Anguish:: Should we have a quorum count now when there are only two members of your party in the House?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. These are ridiculous charges. The hon. member has just asked how people can be in two places at the same time. How can they be
June 3, 1982

in other committees, in the House, and in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation at the same time? The hon. member cannot have it both ways. The hon. member should be fair.


Mr, Anguish:: Typical Tory.


Mr. Nowlan:: That is not a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is Tory crap we have to take day in and day out in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it was also disappointing-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Get to the point of your speech.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It was also disappointing how many times there was no member. For instance, there was no member this morning-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Stop talking about the past and get to the present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair was alerted about two weeks ago by an hon. member to my left on whether hon. members should comment on the presence or absence of hon. members either in the House or in committees.
I have had the advantage of looking at some of the precedents in that regard. Without access to the precedents right now, I think perhaps it would be reasonable to suggest to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that some caution be used in referring to the presence or absence of members either in the House or in committees. I say with caution because, quite frankly, the precedents I have seen do not refer to presence in committees. They refer to presence in the House, but I think with that caution expressed to the hon. member, which is done as a service to him and not in criticism, he may wish to consider how he chooses to express himself now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It should be pointed out that there are four Conservative members in the House to listen to this "dynamic" speech.


Douglas Keith Anguish: One is a Liberal sitting on this side.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. There are three.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair just explained the question of commenting on the presence or absence of hon. members. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will consider those remarks.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a long evening ahead. We are dealing with a number of amendments. I respectfully suggest to the Chair and hon. members that hon. members should have to deal with the amendments. If they do not deal with the amendments, they should be called to order. That is the only way we will get through these bills.
Petroleum Administration Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as usual your wisdom is most welcome and worthwhile. I shall refrain from commenting further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I want to point out to Canadians and members of the chamber that the detailed proceedings of the committee are published. Every word spoken in committee is available to Canadians across the country through our journals system, and there they can find out who asked the questions and who was present for the votes. I would urge groups like the Consumers' Association of Canada, which sent a brief about its concerns, to read what happens in question period and learn who is the protector of consumers-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully suggest that we should insist upon relevance in this House. There is an amendment before the House which deals with a transportation tax for air carriers and maritime carriers. We are not in committee and we are not talking about how many members are in the House. Let us deal with the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we can read the transcripts and see who asked the questions about the transportation tax. We can find out who was present to vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has made every effort to watch the problem resolve itself rather than attempt to rule on it. The fact is that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is quite correct; there is a rule of relevancy in the House. It is so rarely observed that I thought we might escape the issue by carrying on. But now I have to ask the hon. member for Calgary West if he would address himself to Motion No. 1 standing in his own name.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 deals with the minister's decision, through a ways and means motion which was never approved by this House but simply approved by cabinet and the minister, to put a tax on aviation and marine fuel. That tax existed for nine months. It brought revenues to the federal government from the aviation side of the transportation industry. In the process of collecting that tax the government discovered it had an international agreement with other nations and that the tax ran counter to that agreement. The testimony from the minister is clear and unequivocal: that tax will be rebated to international air carriers but will not be rebated to Canadian air carriers.
I want the House to visualize just how unfair and unjust that is for consumers, for employment, and for our economy generally. For example, Wardair, a Canadian-owned air transportation company, does 98 per cent of its business on international routes. The Canadian government has decreed

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
that in the industry, when Canadians compete with a Russian, French, British or American airline flying from a Canadian airport to an airport in another country on the same route, the Canadian company shall pay 25 per cent more for fuel in this country than those foreign carriers.
That defies logic, it defies common sense, and it hurts. The airline industry in Canada is laying people off. Recently Air Canada reported a $27 million loss. It is an interesting coincidence that its increased tax bill was $26 million.
What the government decrees in Clause 12 of this bill is that Canadian companies shall be rendered non-competitive relative to foreign companies that fly in and out of Canadian airports. That is the first reason why this amendment to delete the clause should be supported. If the House were to vote to delete that clause, then the government would have no choice but to rebate the money to Canadian air carriers and thus treat them in a fashion consistent with the way carriers of other countries are treated. Where is the logic in penalizing a Canadian company and offering a bonus to a foreign company that competes with us?
The government says that a Canadian airline that flies from Canada to New York shall pay more for its fuel than the same size airplane on American Airlines which flies exactly the same route. That is insanity. It is a prescription for bankruptcy, a prescription for job loss. It is insanity. I defy any member of the Liberal Party who sits in this chamber to defend the logic of penalizing a Canadian company and bonusing a foreign company that is in direct competition on the same route. Hon. members opposite should stand up and give one sensible reason why any member of the House should vote for that principle.
Let us consider what we were told by the marine industry, Mr. Speaker. There are 17 ships at berth that have no cargo; they are sitting idle. We were told this is because these provisions have increased their costs to the point that they cannot compete with alternate modes of transportation. Two thirds of the cargo which our Great Lakes shipping fleet has traditionally carried from American producers to Baie Comeau for shipment around the world, has been lost for one reason, and that is the federal government's determination to collect a special tax from our shipping industry. That is the consequence of Clause 12, Mr. Speaker. We were told that the amount was $5 million, but the loss in Seaway tolls is $4 million and the loss to companies in increased paper work is at least $500,000. That is without even considering that if the sailors were employed and paid income tax, more revenue would be generated.
That is the consequence of Clause 12, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure to move that it be deleted. I would remind hon. members that to support the motion would be to remove the discrimination that has cost so many jobs and has increased the cost of airline fares and cargo. It works its way through the economy, Mr. Speaker. We develop a transportation network that works reasonably efficiently when we allow transporters to compete. We have trucks, we have trains, we have ships, and we have planes. In his wisdom the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), has
said that two elements of the four shall be made non-competitive. Why did he pick on ships and planes? The answer we got in committee was because it is administratively easier to tax ships and planes and the fuel they use than it is to tax trucks or trains-no economic logic, no consideration of the repercussions on jobs and costs; simply that it is administratively easier to collect a tax from those two elements of our shipping industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will discover in other amendments and motions that the same lack of logic, the same harmful consequences exist. 1 urge members of the Liberal Party in particular, perhaps in caucus or in some special committee, first to learn about these amendments, why they have been proposed, what they would do that would be good for this nation, and then mount a lobby group. We watched the lobby over the concerns to Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro, and it worked. The minister changed what the members wanted him to change. I invite them to form a similar lobby to support this party in passing the amendments we have proposed and which they think make sense.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to a member of the Liberal Party standing in this chamber and telling me why this first amendment does not make sense. All it seeks to do is to treat aviation and shipping in a manner consistent with the way we treat trains and trucks. It further seeks to treat a Canadian company as well as we treat a foreign country air carrier. It provides no special advantage for the Canadian carrier; it simply takes away the disadvantage which the minister said Canadian carriers must bear. We must do that as quickly as we can, before those carriers face bankruptcy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this amendment on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I noted how much he loves to speak. In fact, words come out of him sort of like excrement coming out of a goose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He goes on and on and, it seems to me, hardly deals with the matter in question. If he looked at the committee meetings, which we both attended, he would find that the essential-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised points of order because the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) mentioned the committee. He is now doing exactly the same thing. If it is to apply to one member, it should apply to all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair may be confused. It was an earlier expression of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) which had preoccupied my mind and I was expecting that to be the point of order the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was raising. I
June 3, 1982

listened attentively to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way-the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the expression used by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). The hon. member was getting into the barnyard and talking about excrement. Knowing that he comes from Vancouver-Kingsway, which is sort of an urban riding, I really do not know whether he has seen a goose in his life. But certainly when we listen to him in this House we know what we are looking at when he talks, and that is a sort of goose which speaks English. However, we have not gotten down to the bladder or the udder and, quite frankly, I go right back to what the former right hon. member for Prince Albert said here in this chamber many years ago. When you are dealing with gas policy, or when you are dealing with large national issues, and/or if you are following elephants, you do not go after rabbit tracks. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, when you are in a contest with a skunk, you certainly do not try to match him at the hydrant.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is that a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am going to deal with the reference made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway because it has now come to the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is what I was protesting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. members will recognize that some words are considered unparliamentary. Matters have even got to the point where there is a list of those words. My recollection, which may be reliable, is that no other hon. member has yet caused the Chair to rule on the particular expression he used. However, there is another matter related to unparliamentary language, and that is that the Chair has a responsibility to judge whether the remarks were made in a certain temper or mood within the House. In that regard I would appeal to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to keep the chamber as cool as possible or, if he chooses to heat it up, to do so by an address to the motion in front of him rather than by personal remarks to other members.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course you are right, Mr. Speaker, and 1 will not pursue that line. I will try to take my own advice and get down to the matters at hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Although 1 might say I cannot think of anything more Canadian than goose and gander.
We are dealing with an amendment having to do with a transportation tax. If I could put it very simply, the problem is as follows. We started out with a tax which would stop foreign operators from coming in and picking up cheap fuel in Canada. But what we heard in committee-and this was my only reference to the committee-from the airlines, was that we now have a situation where fuel is more expensive for Canadian carriers. It goes further in that we gave a rebate to foreign
Petroleum Administration Act
carriers but not to Canadian carriers. So it really represents a sort of zig-zag government policy, which is, I suspect, part of the reason the hon. member brought in his amendment. I just wish he had gotten right down to it and said that.
In the couple of minutes I have I want to show how that problem still exists in another area of transportation, namely, the marine transportation field, and to show that Bill C-103 discriminates against that industry. I have a particular interest in the marine industry because, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out, I do come from the west coast and this is of some interest to the shipping people out there.
I want to point out that American barges are competing with Canadian barges in supplying bunker oil to ships in Vancouver Harbour. The price difference is as follows: the Canadian price is $1.68 per gallon, and the American price is $1.38 per gallon. As a result of Canadian prices being higher than American prices, Canadian suppliers are suffering.
I talked to Colin Park, who is manager of the oil division of Seaspan International Ltd. which does 95 per cent of the ship bunkering in Vancouver, and he told me that his company's business is down 25 per cent as a direct result of the price difference.
Tom McGrath, president of the seaman's section of the CBRT on the west coast, is a well known labour leader. He is very colourful. He is very quick to pick up issues on the coast which hurt his membership and ordinary workers on the west coast. Mr. McGrath confirmed that the problem has meant unemployment for his members.
I am told the difference to which I referred, between the American and Canadian price, is not solely due to the tax we are talking about in this bill. You have to realize the B.C. government has also imposed a tax on bunker fuel in the amount of $5.66 a barrel. There is also a charge which we call the TFCRC that we are talking about, of approximately $3.25 per barrel. As a result we have a situation on the west coast where the difference between the Canadian and the American price is about $6 per barrel.
We heard the parliamentary secretary say not to worry, that Canadian prices are always cheaper than American. The average price of heavy bunker fuel in Canada now is about $31 to $35 per barrel. Canadian refiners on the west coast who supply Seaspan International are faced with the choice of either losing money or losing business. They seem to be doing both. I am told they are absorbing much of the dollar loss while the suppliers like Seaspan are losing business. I am informed that the P & O Steamship Line, which company brings in its colourful cruise ships and tourist trade to Vancouver, usually has three cruise ships bunkering in Vancouver every summer. But this year the P & O line has not asked for Canadian bids at all. Mr. Park says that he is afraid this business is being lost to Americans.

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
1 put these matters to Admiral Timbrell, who testified before the committee. He agreed these were problems. On May 2, 1982, in the House of Commons, the hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), a Liberal Member of Parliament, asked a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr.Lalonde) concerning this matter. As reported on page 16095 of Hansard he said:
Could the minister inform the House whether he agrees with statements made by representatives of the Canadian shipping industry who held a convention here in Ottawa this week? They felt that levying the surcharge on marine fuel expended on international voyages in inland waters on Canadian entrepreneurs was discriminatory, and also that the surcharge was an infringement of the National Transportation Act, since it applied only to marine transportation and not to railway or highway transportation, and finally, that a large part of the traffic in American goods carried by Canadian entrepreneurs would now be carried by American shippers who, as a result of the surcharge, would now be economically more attractive.
That states the case for the opposition, a case which was raised by the hon. member for La Prairie. I put that same question to Admiral Timbrell in the committee. I also quoted to Admiral Timbrell the answer given by the minister in the House. The minister said that it was not a problem. Admiral Timbrell disagreed with what the minister said and agreed with the question raised by the hon. member for La Prairie. Our own merchant shipping people are being discriminated against.
It is essential that we realize how important shipping interests are in Canada in the sense of efficiency in energy. I am told that if you deal with a tonne mile, which is one gallon of fuel expended to take one tonne one mile, the figures for water are 600 compared to 200 for rail, 70 for trucking, 8 for air, and 3.25 for pipelines. Why are we subsidizing pipelines and trucks, and helping railways, and at the same time discriminating through this tax against the marine shipping people? It does not make sense in terms of efficiency of energy, nor does it make sense to discriminate against one form of transportation vis-a-vis another. It hurts people in my part of the country. I am grateful to the two gentlemen I mentioned for raising this matter, and that is why we on this side of the House are prepared to support this amending motion.
We invite the government to deal with our charges and the charges made before the committee in a submission by the Dominion Marine Association which was filed on May 7, 1982, as well as the evidence of Rear Admiral Timbrell given at the committee hearing on May 18, 1982. We invite the government to respond to that here in the House and to tell us why it is not prepared to accept this amendment and change this discriminatory form of taxation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was interested to see the parliamentary secretary stand up. I do not know if he was going to make a general reply on the combination of amendments you now have before you, but I must say, almost with apology, that I find myself nearly in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with respect to the first motion, the fuel compensation tax. I will not talk in combination and/or in co-operation with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingway who, quite frankly, in the relatively short period he has spent
in this House has made a contribution that is not enhanced when he talks about geese, unless he talks about geese at Thanksgiving time. If he talks about geese and certain functions of geese and/or people and what they do during the day, then I think he debases his own character and contribution to this House.
I must ask whether it adds to the dignity of the House by rising on a question of privilege, with the quotation marks around the word "privilege", when different members use expressions which seem to be cute at the time but do reflect adversely not only on hon. members but obviously on this institution. Having gone through the Fraser Birch Dawson "Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms", I will not take the time to go through all the expressions that have been proved unparliamentary. All I can say is that a point like that is only treated in the gender in which it is uttered, and that is jest! For example, when "the pig has nothing left but a squeak" is deemed unparliamentary, and when the utterance the word "stinker" is deemed unparliamentary, you do not have to get much of a combination between goose and what happens to a goose after it eats food to realize that that itself might be deemed unparliamentary. Enough said.
I did agree with almost everything the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said in terms of Motion No. 1, which deals with the fuel compensation tax. Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, has many fundamental taxing provisions of the National Energy Program.
Before I get into the fuel compensation tax, 1 would like to pay tribute to members on all sides, certainly on the opposition side, be they Conservative or NDP, and perhaps even Liberals-certainly to those members who did take the time in committee to deal with these very complex bills which started as that complex juggernaut with which the House was confronted weeks ago when the bells rang for many days.
We all know that the House was confronted with an omnibus bill which was unintelligible in its construction or political comment which made it difficult to criticize since it covered everything in energy under the sun. Due to the ringing of the bells and the restoration of some reason to the House, there is now this House order which puts a time limit on these bills, including C-103, and provides for debate during the supper hours. We used to debate during supper hour many years ago and perhaps, in situations like this, it might not be such a bad situation to use the time during the supper hour to make some progress.
I believe that the hon. members who are responsible for those bills being drafted under the time limit which we all know was imposed by a House order, deserve credit. They are more involved with the technicalities and interaction of these bills than certainly I am. I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation but I am a member of the Standing Committee on Transport. In that respect I would like
June 3, 1982

to express my views on the relevant part of Bill C-103, the fuel compensation Tax, as well as the amending motion moved by my party. That amendment in effect moves to strike the fuel compensation tax section out.
Although I do not know all the complexities of this energy taxation, I want to speak about the fuel compensation tax in an attempt to get members of the House, especially on the government side, to understand what will happen if they vote against our amendment.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stood in the House many months ago to introduce his infamous budget, it not only caused the downfall of the dollar and seriously affected businesses, farmers and home owners who cannot afford homes, but also caused his own political downfall. His hair that was fluffed and blown when he used to enter the Chamber is no longer blown or fluffed; it is flat on the top of his head like his political future because of that budget of November 12.
The business, political, and economic communities had to digest the massive amount of suggested tax changes which were contained in the budget. It was not a white paper, green paper, or blue paper. It was not a Benson tax paper, or Walter Gordon's tax paper in which the Canadian public had a chance to have an input and to suggest tax changes. These tax changes were all hidden in the budget. Since then we have stumbled upon one tax change or reform after another. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow many years ago seems like an orderly progression compared to the retreat of the Minister of Finance.
I think it is most appropriate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance are in Versailles in the Palace of Mirrors because, without reflecting on the Prime Minister, which would be an entirely new speech, the Minister of Finance must have concocted that budget in a Palace of Mirrors. What has happened is that those mirrors have become misty-the sun of reality has shone upon him, blinding him, and he has fortunately begun to react to the pressure from the public to begin implementing tax changes one after the other. Six retreats from Moscow is the MacEachen retreat from Cape Breton.


David Charles Dingwall: What did you do?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The parliamentary secretary has a relatively brief time in this Chamber before we go to the people. I say that kindly because you are a very enjoyable young man and I would like to believe that you have a longer political future but, quite frankly, in terms of the political waters of the deep east, or in deep Cape Breton, your political future is just about as firm as the Minister of Finance's.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct. I should have been directing my remarks to the Chair, but I feel so kindly toward the parliamentary secretary that I do
Petroleum Administration Act
forget the procedure. I would like to get to the substance and, through you, just say hello to my hon. friend from Cape Breton. He is a fellow Nova Scotian, and in that sense he has many good characteristics.
With respect to the November 12 budget, the Minister of Finance had three mastheads to it, if I remember correctly. One of them was called equity. This was supposed to be one of the governing philosophies behind the budget.
Since I have been involved in politics for a number of years I realize that nothing should be assumed about what your audience may understand you to say, but in any event I have to make assumptions because I have not dissected the Speaker's ruling. Since I am not a member of the energy committee, I will not attempt to do that, but I am puzzled as to how the Chair took one amendment which was so clean-to repeal the section of the act which imposes the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge-and combine it with another motion. As I have said, I have not studied the ruling which was made when this debate started at six o'clock, but without reading the reasons of the ruling I am frankly disappointed that the Chair would combine the motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, Motion No. 1 is to be debated and voted on separately.


David Charles Dingwall: Are you finished?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, I am not finished at all. I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker. I heard the Chair's ruling and, for the purposes of debate, I suppose matters should be consolidated. Now that the vote is on Motion No. 1 I will direct my remarks to that motion alone.
Motion No. 1 to amend Bill C-103 is short and simple. It simply attempts to delete the imposition of the transport fuel compensation recovery charge. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway does, I am sure members of the House understand what that transportation fuel compensation recovery charge means. You and I know, and perhaps some members, that the charge on fuel was imposed by the government in 1980,1 believe, when the price of gas was not higher in Canada than in any other part of the world, especially in the United States. There was the fear expressed by some, including politicians, that Americans were coming to Canada to fill up with fuel at our deflated prices, and driving or flying back to the United States.
I am pleased to see the hon. member for Vancouver Kings-way talk about Vancouver, which is one of the true vibrant ports of the nation, and I appreciate the contest between Seattle and Vancouver. However, perhaps a more relevant concern was marine traffic on the Great-Fakes and the competition between Canadian lakers and American lakers. The purpose of the fuel charge at the time it was imposed was to equal the price of fuel used by lake boats relative to the price charged in the United States. It was as simple as that.

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
1 cannot think of any better example of the lunacy of those parts of the National Energy Program which are lunatic than the transportation fuel compensatin recovery charge which has no capacity to change even though the circumstances have changed. We know that the price of gasoline in Canada is higher than in the United States. It is lower in the United States than in Canada. Yet we have this ridiculous situation in terms of equity that if one is a Canadian air carrier or Canadian lakeboat shipper, one has to pay the increased tax levied two years before when our prices were high and American prices were low, whereas the American air carriers and lakeboat operators do not have to pay this tax today.
That is not my evidence or opinion. The most pertinent evidence before the committee was heard as recently as Tuesday, May 18, at which time not only the Canadian Air Transport group appeared, but also Admiral Timbrell and the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada, Mr. Angus C. Morrison. Sandy Morrison is a very interesting Canadian who has had some history in Ottawa. There are some people in this chamber, and perhaps even the Chair, who remember when Sandy Morrison was an executive assistant to one of the ministers of transport at some other time.
Sandy Morrison is a great individual. I know him very well, I would not suggest that he was a political colleague of mine, to say the least, yet he is now president. I can understand why he is the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada. He knows many people in Ottawa. So be it. I am prepared to face that reality. If another party is in power for 40 years, there will be other Sandy Morrisons. That is fine, too. That is the name of the game, to a point. But Sandy-Angus C.- Morrison is President of the Air Transport Association of Canada. Even the ex-whip of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), who was over here a moment ago, will, I think remember Mr. Morrison. Mr. Morrison has said, as I said earlier, that this transportation fuel compensation recovery charge, in today's climate, is a discriminatory charge against domestic air carriers. It is not simply discriminatory. I want to show the lunacy of the situation under this charge which was levied against all air carriers.
I want to deal with the air carriers and the marine carriers under this charge. As set out in the evidence before the energy committee, and by the minister and his officials in the Transport committee, the domestic carriers and the Air Carriers International have had to pay several millions of dollars under this charge.
When it was levied, the Government of Canada, this present government, was warned that it could not levy a special charge for fuel against international air carriers because that would do one of two things. It would breach the bilateral agreements between countries, or it would run straight in the face of the air associations around the world as it would breach their agreements.
Does Your Honour know what has happened and what makes this matter so idiotic? The United States said that the
Government of Canada was levying a discriminating charge against international carriers, that it was unfair and that it would take the matter to wherever disputes are resolved, to arbitration within the system. Mainly because of this, the Government of Canada reluctantly said, "Do you know something? You are right. It is discriminatory".
We are not referring to several thousands of dollars, but, rather, many millions of dollars. To try to be as accurate here as I could, I was going to say $54 million domestically, and $50 million internationally. It is fairly close to that, and I could stand to be corrected. But let us say that the international carriers have said, "Hey, Government of Canada, under that discriminatory tax, you owe us approximately $50-odd million in rebate".
Lo and behold, because the Government of Canada was caught out in left field, it notified External Affairs which notified all the relevant embassies to say, "Please get the diplomatic couriers and an exchange of correspondence going so that a system or process could be set where we could pay back $50 million to the international carriers". Who is in competition with the international carriers in Canada but the domestic air carriers? We have now flipped this thing completely around from levying a tax against international carriers to ensure they paid the same for fuel that our domestic carriers were paying. They had to pay the same tax, under the breach of the IACA agreements and the bilateral agreements between Canada and other countries, flying into Canada.
Our government, because of pressure and because of the law of their agreements, has said, "Governments of the world, international government, you are right. We will have to pay back that $54 million in fuel compensation taxes." Yet, what is the situation with the domestic carriers? The domestic carriers have still been levied and have paid part of the debt of $50-odd million they have incurred under that tax. They have had no chance, and the question as to whether the government will pay back that tax to them has been turned down so far.
I do not want to get into the subject in depth because it is another law, but under another feature of the budget, which, in effect, I believe is Bill C-108, the government will not continue to charge the fuel compensation tax under Bill C-103 which, in effect, it has charged for two years. Under the tax changes which will eventually come up before the House in a ways and means motion, the same tax with the same impact will be levied against domestic carriers as we have levied before under Bill C-103.
There is the absolutely ridiculous situation involving domestic carriers. We all know how the air traffic industry today is in a very bottom line, almost thumb-sucking, very uncertain situation in trying to stay above the line between red and black. Yet, because of a direct policy of this government under Bill C-103 and the fuel compensation tax, which perhaps started off with some reason but which had no capability of changing when the circumstances changed, we are left in the ridiculous situation that if hon. members in the government vote against the amendment, they are voting to keep in place
June 3, 1982

discrimination against domestic and international carriers. That is what will happen if government members feel compelled to blindly support the government as they so often do.
I would like to refer to the other element, the marine part of this tax, and the interesting discrimination which will be incorporated in legislation, if this amendment does not carry. If I were a betting man, I would guess the odds were that it may not because the numbers are not on this side.
If I were a member from Ontario, especially a member from the Lakehead or an area joined to any lake system, I do not see how I could even begin to support that feature, Bill C-103, and allow the fuel compensation tax to stay because it also discriminates against the lake carriers. Today, our lake carriers are paying this tax, even though they are in competition with the American carriers. Again, I wish the press, who sometimes lambaste Members of Parliament, would pay attention to what goes on in the committee and find out some of the evidence, because I must say that I am a little jaundiced about what goes on in committee, the waste of time there, the hours and hours. But at least committees do collect a lot of interesting evidence and they are repositories of a lot of evidence.
What I said here earlier about the marine fuel compensation tax were not my words. They were the words of Admiral Timbrell, who happens to be-like Angus Morrison was the President of the Air Transport Association-the president of the Dominion Marine Association.
It is interesting for those members from Ontario especially, and even from Quebec, because they are affected by the evidence that Admiral Timbrell gave in that committee. He said, amongst other things, that his association represents 19 Canadian companies, that they have approximately 172 ships, or over 90 per cent of the Canadian fleet of large ships, 1,000 tons and greater. He said:
We operate principally in the Great Lakes and down the St. Lawrence and outside, coastal and occasionally deep sea.
They basically are a St. Lawrence operation. He says again in his evidence, interestingly enough, on May 18, reported at page 20:26 of the committee minutes of proceedings:
In an average year, we move about 90 million tonnes of cargo. To put it in perspective for you, we carry more in eight and a half months, which is our operating season, because of freeze-up, than Canadian Pacific rail does in twelve and slightly less than CN. About 50 per cent of our cargoes are foreign or are on international trade.
We know, of course, that CN and CP carry an awful lot of cargo. He mentions the twofold nature of the competition- with the United States and also competition in Canada. They compete against rail, they compete against bus, and those people do not pay the fuel compensation tax. He points out here, in a most interesting way:
When the charge came on May 1 last year and until January 1, my companies had paid the equivalent or approximate sum of $5 million in the TFCRC. That $5 million on our international trade represented an increase of approximately 6 per cent on our charges.
He says that in addition there was a $500,000 bill for administration charges. In terms of the tight competition
Petroleum Administration Act
between the Canadian lake carrier and the American lake carrier, it is the evidence, according to the admiral, the president of the Dominion Marine Association-not me, not our party, but the president of the Dominion Marine Association that represents a conglomerate of Great Lake shipping, Upper Canada Lake shipping and Paul Martin's company. One of those is Paul Martin's company-another interesting Canadian who certainly has had an interesting political background.
All these gentlemen, regardless of their political background-that is the point-have said that this tax is discriminatory against Canadians trying to service the international market and/or the domestic market. He pointed this out here in a most interesting way. Perhaps I should read this for members opposite who were not privileged, as most of us were not, to be there at the committee hearing. He talked about the shipment of grain and how his association was so involved in grain, and how Canada gets the benefit of that traffic. He said as follows:
Last year, an average year, we carried approximately 6 million tonnes of U.S. grain to the lower elevators. We charge approximately $10 a tonne, so there is $60 million U.S. we collected for moving that grain. For each load of grain that went through the seaway, the seaway collects approximately $21,000 out of a $25,000 bill. The other $4,000 is for a ship. So, for every cargo we do not take through the seaway, they lose $21,000. If that grain, the U.S. grain, does not arrive at our lower elevators at places like Baie-Comeau Port-Cartier, Three Rivers, Quebec, Montreal, then those elevators, which are Canadian investments, lose an equal amount.
He is saying, and he gives the figures, they have been losing that amount. If for no other reason than that, in terms of the fuel compensation tax, which is a discriminatory tax against Canadians in competition with Americans, 1 would ask members of this House, before they blindly vote the party line, to try to sort out some of this energy problem and, in terms of Bill C-103, vote for the amendment that we have moved in Motion No. 1. That motion is clear, simple but strong, and it says "delete the fuel compensation charge under Bill C-103, primarily because the circumstances have changed."
If we could move there, Mr. Speaker, that, and another whole speech I could give, might show Canadians outside the chamber that this chamber and members in it are a little responsive to some of the problems in reality in the economy. There is just no logical reason why domestic air carriers in Canada should not be refunded the same as international carriers, when the two carriers are in competition with another; and there is even less reason why our Canadian lake shippers, in competition with their American colleagues and competitors, should still be charged a fuel compensation tax when their American competitors are not.
That is discrimination. That is not equity, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is in the appropriate place tonight, in the palace of Versailles, in the palace of mirrors, because this whole budget is a mirror and this Bill C-103 and the fuel compensation tax is one of the most distorted mirrors in the energy scene.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to add too extensive a discussion on this first motion, as I understand we will have many chances tonight to speak to this bill.
First of all, I am particularly concerned about the amendment in front of us, presented by our party. This is a simple motion, to delete this clause altogether. My colleague who spoke immediately before me said he was not in the committee. I was fortunate to be in that committee, to hear the pleading of the witnesses. 1 wished that the minister could have been there to listen to those witnesses.
I would like to refer particularly to one gentleman who with total dedication got a very strong point across. That is Mr. Currie of Wardair. The point that he brought out for us so clearly dealt with this clause. It is that Wardair is the only privately financed airline that is not either government owned or connected with a large financial institution. They have a debt to the Canadian government of S8.5 million.
Wardair is an airline that goes back in history to Yellowknife, to the Northwest Territories. A gentleman called Max Ward had the guts and the entrepreneurial spirit to start something Canadian, privately financed. This gentleman announced and brought out their first quarter earnings, showing a loss, because they have to show a liability of $8.5 million.
Let me compare that to KLM or British Airways or other foreign carriers which operate out of Canada. They got their money back. But Max Ward of Wardair did not get his money back. He is a Canadian, he is being discriminated against, according to the Constitution that the Liberal members are so proud of. There is something wrong when a Canadian citizen is discriminated against compared to foreigners. That is my stand for getting rid of this Clause 12.
Another point in regard to air transportation is that Mr. Lindsay, a vice president of the Air Transport Association and in charge of government affairs-I am sure he is a long-time friend of the government-gave evidence on May 18.
He said right at the beginning that Air Canada was making a profit, and Mr. Currie referred to why it was making a profit. At that date he stated Air Canada was making a profit. How can a vice-president of the Air Transport Association of Canada one day say Air Canada is making a profit and a week later the financial statements show Air Canada lost $27 million? Air Canada had to pay $26 million of it back to the government. I do not feel badly about Air Canada because whether it has a profit or a loss, it all ends up back in the same government pot. It is strictly a question of bookkeeping, and I would say the minister is probably a genius at manipulation of numbers, so it does not worry him, but it worries me because a man like Max Ward and Wardair are being discriminated against under this act.
1 would now like to turn to the Dominion Marine Association and Rear Admiral Timbrell, who I found to be a very clear-thinking witness. He gave us a great deal of information. What he impressed upon me was that we do not have many industries in this country which are really Canadian. We
cannot call the automobile industry Canadian. We can call the steel industry Canadian; my comments will reflect that. However, Rear Admiral Timbrell pointed out that what the government is doing is removing a benefit to a Canadian carrier. We could call it a non-tariff barrier, which every country in the world provides, but by removing this benefit, the government has put 17 ships out of business. Seventeen lake boats are out of business. They employed 500 people with a capital investment of $535 million.
This industry has always had a difficult time. It has never had a decent break from the government. I acknowledge that the shipbuilding industry has, but these people have not. They pay the price. They could buy their ships offshore, and the Canadian government would have to offset that by giving grants to the shipbuilding industry so it could compete with Japan, Taiwan and other countries, but this industry does not even have the advantage of the airline industry. It pays $40 million per lake boat, and it must finance that with money at 17 per cent to 20 per cent under this current administration.
We should encourage an industry which is purely Canadian and which has been successful, in spite of lack of incentives. Last year alone the industry paid $5 million in taxes, but this year it will lose $40 million in revenues. That is very bad thinking on the part of the government. It has prevented boats from travelling through the seaway, where the government could collect approximately $2 million. Five hundred people are now in the ranks of the unemployed. They are collecting unemployment insurance, and the government is not collecting any taxes from them. An interesting point is that these people are not low paid. The average wage on a boat is $30,000. The reason for that is the hours are 24 hours a day for eight months, and they take their holidays in the winter. These men are not paying taxes this year. They are among the 1.750 million people unemployed in the country, and I am including the 500,000 who are not even in the statistics. When we work out what the tax on their income would be, we find that it comes to in excess of $2.5 million. Then when we add to that the fact that these gentlemen are not able to buy anything because they have no income, we see that the government loses out on sales tax. The one I would like to mention in particular is the 24 cents excise tax on gas. There is also the 4.5 cents tax to buy Petrofina. So this sum of money is increased by another $1.5 million. As I calculate it, the government is out millions because of its being punitive to a Canadian industry.
I strongly urge that this House consider this motion and vote for it because the tax with which we are dealing is punitive. It benefits foreigners. It allows them to take our airline business away from us and allows American railroads, the American shipping industry to take grain shipments away from us via the Mississippi. I plead with the backbenchers of the Liberal Party to support this motion, especially if they want to get back into this House the next time around. Canadians are hurting. Jobs are needed. I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of that bench at times-you are not right now, but you are at times-to talk to your colleagues.

June 3, 1982
I would like to make one last point about a person in my riding. A small entrepreneur there decided it would conserve energy if transport trailers were shipped across Lake Ontario as opposed to going all the way around from Oshawa to Rochester. According to the information given to me by Rear Admiral Timbrell, it is some six times as efficient to go by ship as it is to go by truck. That gentleman started by going by carrier from Oshawa to Rochester, but this tax is one of the factors which put him out of business. We should provide grants to gentlemen like this who want to conserve. Transportation by boat is three times more fuel efficient than transportation by rail, and it is Canadian, not American.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points on Motion No. 1. It is incredible to me that this government would be in favour-which it will demonstrate if it votes against this amendment-of treating foreign carriers of Canadian goods or foreign carriers competing with Canadians more favourably than domestic carriers. Surely we should be encouraging Canadians to export and to be more competitive with other countries around the world. I refer specifically to agricultural commodities. Agricultural commodities are a very important earner of foreign exchange for this country. Many of our agricultural products come from the west. The bulk of grain exported to earn foreign exchange for this country comes from the west. Much of our country is land-locked, and it is important that we are capable of moving goods from the west efficiently to export positions. That usually means seaboards, either east or west, and it is important that Canadian carriers be as competitive as possible with the countries with which we compete for foreign markets.
To talk specifically about grain, we know there are American grain carriers on the Great Lakes. Those operators hire out and lease their boats to move grain. If we put Canadian carriers into a position where they are not competitive with American carriers, that puts us in western Canada in a very precarious position in terms of exporting our grain. I just cannot believe this government would be in favour, by voting against this amendment, of giving an unfair advantage. Initially, the government imposed this tax on foreign carriers. It subsequently removed that tax and gave an advantage to foreign carriers over Canadian carriers. That to me seems ludicrous.
Let us look at what the European Economic Community does in terms of some of the agricultural commodities it produces. The EEC pays domestic producers of wheat consumed in the European Economic Community about $9 a bushel, which is $4.50 more than we pay here.
Instead of taking that into account and trying to be as fair as possible with our domestic producers, the government proposed a tax which puts our producers at a disadvantage when compared to foreign producers. I find it incredible that it would do such a thing.
Petroleum Administration Act
The government has recognized that we have problems with rail capacity in western Canada and we have to give it credit for addressing that problem. But, Mr. Speaker, there is some unused capacity at Thunder Bay. However, this tax means that our shippers cannot compete with the Americans. It does not make sense to have unused capacity in one port and then tax Canadians at a higher rate than foreigners who carry our commodities. That does not make any sense to me.
The government wonders why it does not have any support in western Canada. Perhaps it should look for answers at some of the measures it brings before this House such as the one we are considering tonight. This tax will hurt our capacity to move grain to export and will make us less competitive with the Americans who are our chief competitors for world markets.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) who just spoke pointed out that 17 carriers will be put out of business. I do not know how many of them will not operate in the present shipping season and I do not know how many are grain carriers, but even if they stay in business they will be at a disadvantage because of this tax.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Now-lan) went over many points that I should have liked to deal with. 1 do not want to prolong the debate, but 1 should like to point out that if it is fair that the government should revoke and remit the tax paid by foreign carriers that burn Canadian fuel because of an international obligation, surely it should be incumbent upon the government to treat Canadian carriers in the same way. Essentially that is all the motion asks. Members of the government who vote against the motion will really be voting in favour of discriminating against Canadian carriers of Canadian goods. That will hurt us on the international market.
We have problems with the Canadian dollar and with interest rates. One of the ways to solve these problems is to be competitive in the export market. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) arranged to borrow $750 million on foreign money markets to support the Canadian dollar. Surely the government should instead encourage Canadians to export goods rather than borrow the money. If we can sell the goods that we can produce very efficiently, then we will not have a debt. When we borrow money, not only do we have to pay the money back but we also have to pay interest on it. This tax will discourage Canadians from earning the money we need to support our dollar and to bring down interest rates.
I find it incredible that the opposition should have to bring in an amendment like this one. If the government were governing in the best interests of all Canadians, it would not draft a bill like this in the first place.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few moments to reiterate the reasons for this amendment and to provide some reasons why members of the House, if they are to fulfil their responsibilities, will vote for it and strike Clause 12 from Bill C-103.

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
Clause 12 introduces a transportation fuel compensation recovery charge-a name long enough to confuse people as to its intent. That means it is confusing enough to deflect some of the political flack that should properly be directed at a government that would bring in what could only be described as an atrocious taxation measure.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and spokesmen for the Liberal party repeatedly claim to have done a marvellous job in designing an energy policy for this country. In particular they are concerned about the consumers of energy in Canada and, as an expression of that concern, they have moved to protect Canadians from the world price. For a number of years that has been the theme of the Liberal Party-that it is protecting Canadian consumers from the world price. That is a fallacious claim, Mr. Speaker. Any Canadian who lives near the border or who has travelled in the United States knows that it is cheaper to buy gasoline there than in Canada, even though the United States is at world prices.
We also know, particularly people in western Canada, that the policy means that the Liberal Party would rob the politically weak part of the country to give to the politically strong part of the country. This is all done in the guise of national unity with advertisements on television and so on. All the while the government expresses concerns about the growth of separatism in western Canada.
When you start monkeying about in the marketplace, whether you be the Canadian government, the Polish government, the government of the Soviet Union or any other, you louse things up. No central planning or decision-making operation can compete with a free market system which has the tremendous advantage of decentralized decision-making. That is one element which is absolutely essential to efficiency and effectiveness. When the government claims that things can be done better through centralized planning, it keeps making the same kinds of dumb, stupid mistakes-not through malice, not necessarily through lack of intelligence, except to the extent that it cannot see that central planning schemes do not work. They have never worked anywhere; they will never work because they cannot compete with the efficiency and effectiveness of the free market system.
The transportation fuel recovery charge is a classic example of this. For the brief period when we had cheap fuel in Canada, people started to take advantage of it. Airlines going from New York to Montreal to Europe found it made sense to fuel up in Montreal because of the cheaper fuel. They did not load up in New York. Truckers would enter Canada with an empty tank and leave with a full one, and ships did the same thing. It is understandable.
But the clever genuises who designed the National Energy Program imposed a transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. One day a piece of paper was tabled in the House and there was a new tax. The House was not asked about it. Members were not asked about it-but there was a new tax. But these clever little geniuses who designed this tax forgot to see whether in fact it was permissible, given our obligations
under bilateral agreements with other countries. Lo and behold it is not permissible, it violates some of our treaties.
That did not bother this government for awhile, the fact that provisions of the NEP violated our obligations under GATT and so on, and we have not seen the end of that yet. They are not bothered by any contract they sign with the provinces. Why should they be bothered by any of their international treaties? But then the Americans said they were going to take the issue to arbitration, and so the Canadian government caved in. How did they cave in? Well, through a little provision in the Financial Administration Act, I believe, which allows the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) to rebate certain taxes. Rather than come out and be honest and admit they made a mistake-oh, no, no such admission-quietly, through this other provision, they are going to rebate the tax, but only to foreign international carriers, not to Canadian international carriers.
These same little geniuses have come up with a new scheme. They are going to do the same thing, but supposedly through the income tax system. It remains to be seen whether or not it will work. In essence, then, this clause concerning air transport is cancelled. It came into existence and then disappeared before the House of Commons had a chance to discuss it. It will not in fact ever apply to foreign carriers who will now have the full sum of $46.5 million rebated to them. It will only apply to Canadian international carriers. They will have to pay that $50 million.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the incredible situation we have. The House of Commons is being asked to approve a tax which no longer exists. It came into existence and disappeared before we even got around to considering it or thinking about it. It was introduced to supposedly prevent foreign carriers from taking unfair advantage of an energy pricing scheme which was supposed to protect Canadians from the world price, but which will result in Canadian international carriers paying the full tax while foreign airlines do not. Mr. Speaker, Rube Goldberg could not have designed a more stupid, insane and asinine scheme than this one.
It is incredible that anyone could come forward with this piece of trash and not submit his resignation. This is an affront to democracy, decency and common sense. It really is unbelievable. We must be a very docile people to tolerate this kind of thing. Frankly, I do not understand why Max Ward has not strapped some machine guns on those jets of his and strafed this place. The only reason this tax still applies to Canadian carriers is because Max Ward happens to come from Edmonton and does not have that much political clout. If he had been born in the minister's riding, we would not have this asinine tax; we would not have this silly and absurd circumstance where the House of Commons is being asked to retroactively approve a discriminatory tax, one which was supposedly to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of energy policies which are supposed to protect Canadians. There is no simple
June 3, 1982

way to describe that stupid situation. I hope when those trained donkeys vote against this amendment, they at least have the decency to blush.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tousignant):: Order, please. The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tousignant):: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division stands deferred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now deal with the second motion on the Order Paper.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 42 to 44 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"ration of the parties, the Gov-".


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that amendment, standing by itself, is difficult to understand given that it contains two half-words "ration" and "Gov". The part of the act which this motion now seeks to amend reads as follows:
Where no agreement is entered into under section 22 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the governor in council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this Part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province.
If the amendment were to pass, Mr. Speaker, that section would now read:
Where no agreement is entered into under section 22 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil-
In other words, with this amendment the government of a producer-province may enter into an agreement setting crude oil prices if those parties agree they may change that agreement, or the agreement may be terminated. Without this amendment, what we have is a situation where the federal government unilaterally could terminate any agreement that it
Petroleum Administration Act
had entered into with a producer-province with respect to crude oil prices.
What we are trying to do through this amendment is to take out of the hands of the federal government the ability to unilaterally break a contract. Just on the surface, just from the point of view of common decency, convention, practice and established procedure, surely we should be able to do that. I like to think, I know it is naive, that Canadians and therefore the Canadian government can be trusted to keep their oral contracts. A promise made by any Canadian or by the Government of Canada should be kept. I would like to think that a handshake is all that you need to bind a contract.


Thomas Scott Fennell: With this government?


Harvie Andre: I know that is naive. It would probably put too many lawyers out of business if we ever followed that practice in this country, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. At least in Canada a written contract should be binding. A written contract should be something that binds and commits. Written contracts, of course, have force majeure provisions. That is, if some extreme event occurs, the contract may not be enforceable. That is understandable.
But to write into law and to make the law of Canada state that the federal government may enter into a contract and break it at whatever time and for whatever reason it wants is bad practice. It is bad law. More than that, it contributes to disharmony and difficulties in this country when a federal government breaks its word and breaks its contract.
In existence right now is an agreement between the federal government and the producing provinces for the price of oil. The agreement was effective September 1, 1981. But there was an agreement before that which was entered into in late 1975 for crude oil pricing. That agreement was entered into by the provincial governments and the federal government. That agreement called for an increase in domestic crude oil of $1 every six months. That agreement was to last until the end of 1979. However, in late 1977 as we approached what everybody thought would be the 1978 election year and the Liberal Party looked like it might be having a little bit of difficulty, the then minister of energy, Mr. Alastair Gillespie said "I am going to have to cancel the contract as it applies on January 1, 1978."
There was no other reason than that, Mr. Speaker. The federal government had an agreement with the producing governments. The constituents of Etobicoke said "We do not like our prices going up." Their member, the minister of energy said "Okay, I will cancel the contract. I do not feel bound by written contracts." The political considerations of the Liberal Party were more important than the honour and integrity of the Government of Canada. That is what the minister of energy did at that time. That is why people in western Canada are joining the Western Canada Concept Party. They say that they cannot trust the federal government to honour written contracts.
18086

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about agreements and handshakes, I would like to remind him that the only agreement they ever made was last fall in Europe and they broke it. That was the gentleman's agreement they made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity to participate in debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: The hon. member talks about keeping one's word. He should read the rest of this bill. He will come to the part where 14 cents a gallon is mentioned as the maximum amount which the Liberal Party would allow gasoline to increase. If he does the arithmetic, he will find that 14 cents has suddenly turned into 52 cents under this Liberal government. That is if he is talking about keeping words and promises.
That violation of a written contract is only one of a series of those sorts of things. Is it not an insult to decency and to common sense and is this constant bickering between the federal government and the provincial governments not a concern to us? We should worry about the integrity of our country. This constant fighting has weakened us so much. Should we not be saying "If we are going to keep this country together and if we are going to have parts of this country feel like they are part of the whole, then as a bare minimum we have to have a situation where written agreements are honoured, kept and cannot be broken unilaterally by the federal government unless some extreme situation occurs which would be covered by a force majeure provision."
We should be outraged by the actions of the former minister of energy, Mr. Gillespie, in his unilateral violation of that written contract. We should be outraged and we should say never again will we permit a government to act that irresponsibly. We should not allow the government to show so little concern for integrity. We should not be asking the House of Commons to legalize that immoral behaviour. But that is what we are doing. The government is asking the House of Commons to make legal what is clearly immoral.
Last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked at a press conference when he will call the byelections for the three vacancies. The Prime Minister answered that legally he does not have to call those byelections for six months. The reporter asked whether he felt he had a moral obligation to do so. The Prime Minister asked "What is immoral about acting legally?"
He cannot distinguish between moral obligations and legal obligations. If it is legal, it is moral. His only moral code is the Criminal Code. If it is immoral to break a contract, as it most assuredly is-at least it has been in this country and has been part of our traditions because Canadians keep their word and do not break contracts-then the way to make it moral is to make it legal. That is the feeling of the Prime Minister and his party. If breaking contracts is legal, it is moral. That is what
members opposite are asking this House of Commons to pass. They want us to pass a law which would make it legal for the federal government to break contracts which would therefore make it moral, in their minds, to unilaterally break contracts.
Unfortunately, what will happen as a result of this legislation is that no province will enter into a contract with the federal government in which they will have confidence. The provinces will design their affairs accordingly.
There will be a continuation of the sentiment in the provinces of this country that the national government is a foreign government against which they should erect barricades because it is untrustworthy. There will be a continued balkanization in Canada. There will be the feeling in the different regions and provinces of Canada that the federal government cannot be trusted. Who can trust a government which says it will make it legal to act immorally in terms of honouring contractual agreements? Who would trust someone who said they would make legal what is immoral? That is what the federal government is asking for.
Although I know it falls on deaf ears, 1 would like to conclude by making the same plea. If the trained donkeys in the backbenches of the Liberal Party can screw up their courage, think about Canada and vote for this amendment, they will be serving their conscience, serving Canadian tradition and serving Canada of today and the future much better than by merely standing up and saying, "Aye, Sir, Aye" to the absurdities that continue to gush forth from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I do have a couple of things to say. I invite hon. members across from me to put up a speaker to reply because 1 think a reply is called for. I will try to explain why in a couple of moments. I noted that the hon. member who just spoke took a crack at lawyers and was supported by some of my colleagues.


Mr. Blackburn:: From Brant.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If you are a lawyer, I suppose one of the things you learn in court is to try to put your case in such a manner that the judge or those judging it will accept it.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was attempting to make a case for his amendment to the government but spent 15 minutes insulting the government. There were a couple of remarks in the hon. member's speech which stirred me. He said that if Max Ward lived in the minister's riding, he would get help for his airline. I do not believe that this helps unity in Canada. We know what the implications are behind that statement. As a westerner, 1 do not believe that helps the situation.
The hon. member said that the federal government does not keep contracts. Although I do not like the federal government and have disagreed with the minister more than I have agreed with him, I have not seen the federal government break contracts in my experience. They have done many harmful things but they have not openly broken contracts.

June 3, 1982


Thomas Scott Fennell: How about this one right here?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will come to that one in a moment. The hon. member for Calgary Centre said that the constituents of Etobicoke moved the former minister of energy to change an agreement. I would remind him that those same constituents voted for the member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) who is a Conservative. If the hon. member wishes to be in a future Government of Canada, he must reconcile the fact that the constituents of Etobicoke Centre want cheap gasoline and his western constituents quite legitimately want a top price for their resources. These two competing factors must somehow be combined in order to keep the country working. It does not help the situation for him to throw in these statements. They may backfire on him.
I find many problems with this amendment and the clause. I would like to hear more debate on some of the principles behind the clause. One of the principles is that oil prices should be set by agreement. They should be set by agreement because the provinces have control of their resources under our Constitution. They could set any price for oil and gas.


Charles James Mayer: Inside the provinces.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is true, but it would basically be better, as it goes to other parts of the country, that they be free to attempt to get the price they want.
I want a good price for western resources. If Ontario and Quebec are not prepared to charge proper rents and prices for their resources, that is their problem. We want good prices for our resources in western Canada. We still have the interest of the country in mind. Energy-Oil and gas-which we have been almost exclusively debating for two years is vital. It is important that we have a national energy policy.
If an agreement cannot be reached, it will probably necessitate a federal override. The federal government would have to set the prices but only after serious negotiations. We saw this happen in Canada when the federal government and the minister had to negotiate with Premier Lougheed. They eventually reached an agreement. Although many of us do not like the agreement-both the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party do not like it for different reasons-an agreement was reached. That is co-operative federalism.
One of the great tragedies which occurs in the House is not only when the hon. member for Calgary Centre insults the federal government about not keeping its contracts, insults electors in Etobicoke or the fact treatment would be different for someone in Quebec, we see the same problem on the other side with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said that cooperative federalism, is dead. He just likes to take everyone on in a fight, including provincial premiers and members of the House. This is not a good attitude either. He has not yet challenged me to a fight because he knows that he will easily win.
With respect to this particular question, what I believe must be considered is that once you have a contract, can you change it? The member from Calgary Centre said that the federal government can now break a contract at any time it chooses.
Petroleum Administration Act
That is not what the bill says. The bill talks about a contract being terminated. It says, " ... in the opinion of the Governor in Council is not effective or is not capable of being effected." The contract is not capable of being effected. The real weakness in this bill is what does that mean?
I am told that the French version is a little different. It refers to what happens if the contracts cannot be executed or implemented. That is a little different. Suppose we had a separatist government in Newfoundland or a WCC separatist government in Alberta or a tremendous change in the world and Canada was at war, or there was a great depression or something like that-


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, if?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -it may be that the federal government would need to have power to change the contract. We must surely have better wording and a better guarantee than that because we in the west do not want the federal government to unilaterally act like that. We say there may be periods or extra special occasions when it could make changes. Therefore, what I have tried to do is to set out how a co-operative federalism approach would work. I have tried to keep away from throwing insults at others on this particular bill. The minister was in the House a few minutes ago. I asked that an hon. member for the government speak to show us how this wording will not allow a quick unilateral action by the federal government to change an existing contract, because if it does, we on this side of the House could not support it.
I found to my shock that the recent changes in the National Energy Program update the other day were unilateral changes by the federal government. The change which Premier Lougheed of Alberta made a few weeks ago, giving $5.4 billion to the industry, although it affected the federal-provincial agreement at that point, was also a unilateral change. I think that is a very dangerous way to move. I will grant that the hon. member for Calgary Centre did say at the end of his speech that we do need some co-operation in this country. Therefore I say to the government in closing that when we consider this amendment rationally and in the spirit of co-operative federalism, and we must consider this clause, let us hear from government. Can the government tell us that the wording in this clause, which I think is defective in the English language and is somewhat different in the French language, will not allow the governor in council to quickly act unilaterally to change one of these agreements? I point out that while this may sound technical, we are dealing with something which is really important. It has taken up most of the debate in Canada in the last couple of years. It relates to the agreement between the federal government and the provinces, mainly Alberta, but also my province of British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. It concerns fixing the price of the most important commodity that we have, that is, oil. All Canadians feel that way when they go to the gas pumps to fill up.

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
I believe I have made my comments in reply to the Conservative motion and I would like to hear the government reply to some of the points I have made, concerning the unclearness of the section.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I chose to speak on this particular amendment because it is a critical amendment having much to do with the whole terms of reference and the way that the whole energy program, or, as one hon. member once alluded, the whole national energy problem, has been created by the legislation brought before us in this Elouse.
1 rise at this time following the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I do not know if anyone else could sort out exactly what he was saying. The one point we could take is that he was asking that a member from the government side stand up to speak. 1 think we understood that, but if the rest of what he said is any more clear to anyone else, perhaps one of the members could explain it to me, because I think he said that he does and that he does not. That may be all right in a courtship, but I do not really know whether the hon. member says he is supporting this motion or he is not.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and let him explain it to you again, if you cannot understand it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The real question is whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway can read. Ele made an allusion to the French translation, and that may be well and good. But if he can read English, the statement is very clear, and he has been correct in picking out the part of the clause that we are trying to amend which states:
-in the opinion of the governor in council is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province.
That could not be any more explicit. I do not think there was any intent on the part of the government to either mean or state anything than that written in black and white on that page, within that clause. Unless the government accepts the amendment that we are honestly offering, unless it is prepared to say that it will not act in a unilateral way, it means exactly what it has said. I do not share the same confidence of the hon. member who previously spoke that the government had any intention to write anything else down there on paper or could in any way explain its way out of the intent and meaning of that particular wording.
It has been historically proven, it has been shown to us time after time, that the government is not only capable, but desires to have the ability and the authority to use its power in a unilateral way. It is as clear as it can be. It has repeated time after time in bill after bill in the parts of the energy legislation with which we are dealing today.
My main point in rising to speak concerning this clause is to consider it from the perspective of what will happen to consumers, to the people of Canada, by this particular clause in the reference. This legislation, this whole bill, is saying that the government will raise taxes. There will be two main taxes, one called the Canadian ownership charge and the other called the petroleum compensation charge. While the whole National Energy Program has fallen on the head of the minister, and
while he tries to justify an alibi and support the positions he has taken, which have been proven wrong time after time, we are now in a situation through this bill where Canadians are already paying 24 cents a gallon, roughly four or five cents a litre, if you like, for gas alone, for a petroleum compensation charge. This charge alone, right now, which is in excess, is doing all the things to consumers that the Liberal Party promised it would not do in the last election.
It is creating all of the increasing difficulties people are facing. It is increasing prices, hurting farmers, hurting commuters, hurting people who are using heating oil and who do not have any alternative. But on top of that 24 cents a gallon, which is already there, this bill and this particular clause gives the unilateral power to the federal government to charge an additional 24 cents a gallon at the discretion of the minister without agreement with the provinces. That would amount to a total of somewhere around 12 cents a litre. Every time a litre of gas went into a car, the federal government would have added 12 cents a litre by this petroleum compensation charge. This charge is now in excess of something like $1.5 billion. That is the figure, taking into account that there is much locked-in oil in western Canada that we have not brought out.
That extra charge is money sitting at the government's disposal, at the expense of the consumer, gaining interest for the government at a time when Canadians across the country are suffering under these increased prices. That is something which the government is prepared to unilaterally increase by an additional 24 cents a gallon by order in council. It would do the same thing with the Canadian ownership charge, which is now about $1.15 a barrel. This will provide a maximum level of about $4 a barrel. That charge is what each Canadian is paying each time a litre or a gallon of gasoline comes out of the pump. That is about four cents now. That charge, in a discretionary, in an arbitrary, even in a unilateral way, according to this clause, can be increased to a maximum of $4 a barrel.
Consumers across Canada are faced with these increased charges. They are faced with these prices that have been put in place and they are given those additional prices at the same time as the Liberal government is saying that we are going to have a fair energy policy, that we will have an energy policy that will make it right for Canadians to achieve self-sufficiency, and all these things. What have Canadians really got to show for that? What they have to show is that all the things that are really the hallmark now of the National Energy Program are really the cross that the minister has to bear. As boldly as he would like to tell Canadians that his energy program is working, the industry knows, and Canadians are gradually becoming aware, that this is a big fugue, really, that it is a con job, a job where Canadians are told one thing and precisely the opposite is happening. Capital is flowing from the country. The investors have lost confidence. Oil companies
June 3, 1982

have not been able to produce. Consumers are facing increasing prices and do not have anything to show for it. We have had a massive transfer of taxes into the federal coffers, taxes that have not increased our ability to achieve the self-sufficiency goal. In fact, last year, 1981, we had no new oil found. In spite of all the increased revenues that the federal government has got, our deficits continue to increase.
All of the negatives are there; and there is not a darned positive thing about it. There is just nothing that could give us any hope that this kind of measure, this kind of approach, will satisfy any of the claims that the minister makes for his energy program.
The Canadian Bar Association took particular exception to this clause. They suggested that any change that would be made would have to be made by consultation. We went through a long process in the country, in the opposition and the government side of the House, in dealing with the Constitution. The bottom line of that was the Supreme Court saying: "Yes, legally you can claim that right but really what we need and have to have traditionally in this country is co-operation and understanding and agreement that is reached by the provinces and agreed to by all the parties concerned." That was the legitimate response and the government finally acceded to that and we got an agreement that was in general accepted-with a notable exception.
What we are doing now is in a smaller way and in a less important way. We are saying that although the Canadian government could not do it at that level with that particular document, it does not really matter. The federal Liberal government is saying: "in spite of that, we are prepared to say here that we will do in a unilateral way whatever we please, regardless of what the producers may say, or what a producing province might say, or even what a consuming province might say; we will do it, we have the right and we are going to take the legal authority through this bill that we will pass because we have a majority in the House of Commons."
Several speakers have mentioned co-operative federalism. If there were a chance, if there were an opportunity for us to repair some of the bridges that have been nearly burned down in our relationships with the provinces, whether in the west or in the east or in central Canada, this bill will make sure we are not going to be able to restore that sense of co-operation, that sense of confidence between the provinces and the federal government, the kind of equanimity and happy relationship that we used to have and that I can remember well back in the late 1960s. That is gradually eroded each time this federal government has interfered, acted unilaterally, acted politically, in order to maintain power, in order to achieve control, in order to gain revenues, in fact, so that as a government they could become more and more involved in all of the things that are occurring in Canada. There are many things that most Canadians would like to support, but if we cannot do it in a cooperative way, if we cannot do it as a unit and as a nation, then we have lost everything.
The agreement that has been made so far took several years and caused a lot of grief. The agreements between Alberta and the federal government were agreements that ended with the
Petroleum Administration Act
system of prices and the system of increases that was laid down, that was acceptable to both parties and that Canadians in general accepted. People knew that energy prices had to go up in spite of the fact that it was a political tool, a very powerful argument for the Liberals in the last election.
Now, individual Canadian consumers are faced with all this discretionary power, orders in council and higher and higher and higher taxes and prices, that are really helping to put the crunch on the invididual Canadian. I think particularly of people in agriculture, and there are many in my constituency facing high prices for fertilizers and farm fuels; but I think it applies equally to almost any segment of Canadian economic activity. It looks as if it will get a lot worse and that it will continue to cost Canadians more and more.
The minister tries to justify and rationalize these increased costs and his energy program continually erodes, and we see with deep regret the country falling further and further behind in an international way. We saw the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) try to support the idea that it was not the energy program that was contributing in a major way to the fall of the Canadian dollar. I do not think that really washes now. Everyone knows that energy prices have caused a considerable amount of the inflationary push that we have had.
Many people know that because the money for investment in energy is gone, we have lost a lot of the interest rate reductions that we could have had. People in the areas affected directly certainly know that, because we failed at Alsands, tens of thousands of jobs are gone, lost. They know that because of the failure of Cold Lake, tens of thousands of jobs are lost. They know that the natural gas pipeline from Alaska is gone and that we have lost that. They know that there is failure after failure after failure in the energy program. No amount of argument, no amount of false bravado, can change the fact that the whole thing is in a shambles.
We need not only a major revision in the specifics of this and other bills that are part of the energy legislation, but we need a complete revision in the attitude of the government so that we can get the individual Canadians and particularly the small producers on a sound economic footing. We must restore the confidence to the business community, so that the minister and his government will have an opportunity to see that the economy starts to grow again. I do not think we can expect that out of this minister. He is completely in tune with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He supports his budget.
He supports all the measures the Minister of Finance has brought forward, as do all Liberal members. That is unfortunate for the Canadian people, and I hope the minister will at least accept the single suggestion in the amendment we have before us now or perhaps just the challenge of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Waddell) to explain to this side of the House that that part of this clause does not mean

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
what it says, that the federal government will do unilaterally what it wishes and impose on Canadian consumers, businessmen and farmers the increases allowable under this legislation.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I too am very concerned about this clause in the bill and hope we can prevail upon those who support the government to understand what the motion we have moved this evening is intended to do. What it is designed to do is take away from the cabinet the power unilaterally to revoke a pricing agreement.
I would like to speak for a moment about written agreements. I hope the minister will pay attention. A written agreement can be changed only with the consent of both parties. If the government intended to reduce taxes or prices by virtue of a new agreement, it seems to me it would have no trouble obtaining the consent of both of the parties which signed the agreement. It could bring about that change to lower prices or taxes. We are all accountable to our electorate. I think we would find it very difficult to go home to our constituents and say we had not supported lower taxes. Changes to an agreement can be made with the consent of both parties, and that seems a practical approach when it comes to reducing taxes. What the government clearly intends to do by this clause is to take unto itself the power to raise taxes unilaterally. 1 have to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) when he says, "If the government intends otherwise, 1 would like to hear from it." The best way we could hear from the government would be for it to support this amendment. Skipping the first part of the clause, it says:
-In the opinion of the governor in council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies-
The key phrase is "not effective or is not capable of being effective". That means if it is not effective in terms of what the government intends to do with it. I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that clause means if it is not effective for the purposes the government intended. It does not mean it is ineffective for purposes solely of enforcement, which I could go along with, but it means it is not effective, or it can mean it is not effective in terms of the purposes the government intends for that particular excise tax.
As I have tried to point out, to me that means the government is taking upon itself the power to raise taxes. The government of the day has the power to bring bills before the House and to have them debated and passed by the House. It seems to me that is what a democratic system should be. It should be accountable to the people for taxes, for the way they are raised and paid and for the way they are dispensed with. However, this kind of clause in the bill erodes further the accountability of the parliamentary system to the people who sent us here to sit as watchdogs over their tax dollars.
I come from western Canada. Many people in my constituency are in the cattle business. Large deals, in terms of dollars, are made, although they are not large deals in terms of a farm's output. One might make a deal on the telephone whereby his word is his bond. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) referred to this in his opening remarks. One's word is one's bond. A person might want to sell a total
year's production of cattle and, if he has a reputation for being an honest person, he makes that kind of deal over the telephone. He can give his word, and it is his bond. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre that we should go back to the day when our word meant something. However, under this bill a written agreement between parties can be changed by only one of the parties involved.
If I go to a bank for a mortgage to buy a house, I negotiate the terms of that loan. It is agreed that payments will be made over a period of two, three, four or five years-whatever term is agreed upon-at a fixed rate of interest. If I were to begin paying my mortgage and after two or three months the bank telephoned me to tell me it had decided unilaterally to raise the price of my mortgage I would not be in favour of that. Nobody would. That would be the cause of many court cases, and I would hope that kind of thing would not be allowed and that banks would be forced to honour the terms of original agreements. Yet under this clause the government is asking for the power unilaterally to change an agreement which has been arrived at.
I see the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) smiling. 1 hope he will take my remarks seriously. If he does not support this amendment, he will be agreeing that we have come to the point in our country where the government should have the power to change agreements it does not like unilaterally.
Two or three weeks ago we had the opportunity to talk with some people who arrange for the investment of funds in this country. In the course of the conversation the point was made that the people who deal with the investment of money in this country do not think past six months any more because after six months the rules will be changed and it will be a whole new ball game. That is a terrible statement to make and have it applicable to the country in which we live.
We are having troubles with our Canadian dollar. The situation has reached almost crisis proportions. Contrary to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says, we in the opposition do not like to condemn our government. We do not like to condemn our country. We are proud of it. We want to do things which will make it productive and number one in the world. However, when we see that is not happening, we are made to feel sad. The point the Minister of Finance makes is that we should not condemn him because that causes problems. However, we should look at some of the things his government is doing, and I suggest this clause adds to insecurity and chases money out of the country. That causes problems for our dollar and problems for people who want to produce. Those problems are brought about by high interest rates. It is precisely this kind of legislation that the government is proposing that is causing these problems. When we think of what the National Energy Program and its back-in provisions have already done, we understand why nobody looks at us with any faith any more.
June 3, 1982

As I said, the people with whom 1 had an opportunity to speak said that within six months the rules will change and there will be a whole new ball game, so no one thinks beyond six months any more. Large amounts of money are leaving Canada and, by and large, going to the United States. Literally billions of dollars are being chased out of our country, and that is forcing the price of the American dollar up. One would normally think that when we sell our dollars out of the country, the price of the Canadian dollar would fall. Because we live so close to the Americans and because we are each other's best customers as far as trade is concerned, we have tried-1 think for very good reasons-to tie the Canadian dollar to the American dollar. This is a very interesting point.
I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is not paying any attention. 1 think he should pay attention. I think the Minister of Finance should also pay attention. When this kind of clause serves the purpose of chasing massive amounts of Canadian dollars out of our country, that money leaving the country causes the price of the American dollar to rise. Subsequently, the price of the Canadian dollar rises with it, and this brings about an effect opposite to that which we might normally expect. It is like being in a boat that is sinking and instead of bailing it out, someone puts lead in it to make it sink faster. That is the effect that this clause will have.
I want to turn now to agriculture which is a subject that is near and dear to a lot of members from western Canada. At the present time, a tremendous amount of tax is paid on the fuel that is used for the production of food and we are already in the situation where we find it difficult to compete with the United States. 1 know we are each other's best customer, but we are also each other's closest competitor. We have to be competitive with the United States when selling our agricultural products on world markets.
I have here some figures given to me by the very distinguished hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). They show that in 1980, a farm of approximately 1,000 acres in Alberta paid approximately $11,800 in tax on petroleum products. In 1981 that tax increased to $16,700, an increase of almost $5,000 but the frightening thing is that by 1986 it is estimated that the tax will amount to $42,000. That means a tax of $40 per acre on land for petroleum tax alone.
That is a lot of money, yet this clause provides that the tax will increase. It provides that the agreement of the parties affected can be obtained to reduce a tax, but the only way I can see the clause being used is in the case where the government wants to unilaterally increase a tax. If the bill goes through without amendment, then producers in my part of the country-and I believe the figure would be comparable for any farming area in the country-can look forward to paying taxes of more than $40 per acre simply on the fuel necessary to farm the land.
If the government does not intend that the clause will be used in the way I have outlined, I would like the minister or
Petroleum Administration Act
the parliamentary secretary to reply and point out where I am wrong. I am hoping against hope that the members of the government who represent farming regions will support the amendment. If they vote for the bill as it stands, then they are in favour of imposing a higher tax in fuel used for the production of food as the years go by.
I want to point out that this $40 per acre does not include the tax on things made from a petroleum base such as most of the insecticides, herbicides, building materials and many other products used in agriculture. That is only the tax on the fuel burned to farm the land.
In closing, I should like to emphasize an important point that was made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. It is actually a question for a philosopher and we know that in some of his musings the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) likes to think of himself as a philosopher, so perhaps he can tussle with it. Someone said that simply because the majority is capable of doing something, that does not make it right. I took a philosophy course at university like a lot of other members and I remember that someone said simply because you have a majority and they are capable of imposing their will on the minority, that does not mean that their ability to impose their will makes it right.
Surely we must have some reason to be proud of the system that has brought this country to where it is today. This clause, however, puts us in a situation where we can simply say that because we have a majority, anything that majority does is, by definition, right. In my opinion, and I suspect in the opinion of most Canadians, that does not make it right at all. In fact, I think many people would say the opposite-that because you have the ability to impose your will on someone that does not make it right. There has to be some room for common sense and justice, otherwise we would simply be ruled by the largest and most powerful. In the same way that the government can impose its will on us because it has a majority, the people who are the biggest, the strongest or the most gifted could impose their will on the less gifted and less strong.
I urge members of the government who will support the bill to consider some of the implications of this clause if it goes through without the amendment we have put forward this evening.
I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, most people in Canada are a little confused by the name of the riding I represent and they are not sure if I represent the whole province or a little bit of it!
I was interested when the gentleman from Etobicoke who happens to represent the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) referred to himself as a westerner. I finally understood why he went west. Being from Etobicoke he is jealous of my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). He could not get that riding if he wanted it. Even if he did get the nomination, he could not be elected there.

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
If the hon. member had been at committee with those of us who went over this bill word by word and clause by clause, he would understand what Clause 15 is about.
This motion asks that the words "in the opinion of' be deleted. As the clause stands, the minister need have no fear of not Canadianizing the oil industry because he will drive out not only foreign investment, but Canadian investment as well.
How can anyone be expected to invest in an industry where the minister can make a unilateral decision on the sale price of products? As has been mentioned before, billions of Canadians dollars have left the country in the past year. The minister was worried about foreign investment, but he does not have to worry about that.
This is totalitarian legislation. It is designed strictly for the Liberal government. It gives so much power to the minister that he can do what he wants without ever referring to his partners in confederation, the producer provinces. He could write up a contract with the producer provinces one day and next day cancel it, as soon as his bureaucrats in Ottawa got his ear and told him he did not have to go through with it.
I plead with the government to take the four words "in the opinion of' out of this clause. Make this a true partnership contract. That is what we have in Canada. I plead with the government not to try to impose its unilateral views on the citizens of this country. That is what is happening more and more with every piece of legislation.
I do not profess to be a lawyer, but I have been in the business world. I have signed many contracts, and I have done many contracts with a handshake. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, sure as the devil I would not make a contract with that government, by signature or handshake, because they have no sense of morality. They want to run it their way; they do not give a damn about Canadians or jobs for Canadians. They care only about one thing, themselves.
At least there is one member of that party who is honest. He participated in the committee, and he stood up in this House and expressed the views of the Liberal Party. He said "if we must be communists, we will be communists". At least he is honest. I respect that gentleman for saying that, because at least he told the public the truth. They do not care about the public, they care only about power, their jobs and their indexed pensions. I hope they have their six years in because the next time around they are going to have a terrible surprise.
We hear a lot of discussion in this House about rights. But what about duty, duty as Canadians, as cabinet ministers of that government? They have a duty to industry, to the ten provinces and territories. They have a duty to this country which they are not fulfilling. And I think I can explain why. The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), in one of the committee meetings, happened to say "I wish we had oil wells in our backyard." My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), jumped on it very quickly and said "I wish to God you had those wells in
your backyard, too, if you did, we would not have this legislation in front of us". I am from the centre of this country and I object to the discrimination against the western portion of this country.
We were in committee today, and it was interesting. Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro, provincial Crown corporations, came up with some changes. They were shot through right away; this is going to be changed, this is the way it is going to go. The private sector has been there and put their point across about the problems of the industry. Has the government made any changes on behalf of the industry? No, Mr. Speaker.
It will only make changes on behalf of Crown corporations and on behalf of the people its members represent. It is sad that they only represent such a small geographical portion of this country, but I understand why. It is because those people have enough common sense to not elect them to this House. I plead with hon. members opposite that when they stand up to vote, they wince as the camera goes by, because they are not helping Canada, the unity of Canada, and they are not helping Canadian citizens.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House on this motion but it does stand in my name and I would like to comment on it. I would like Canadians, those in our gallery this evening and those watching us on television, to consider what their situation would be if they signed a contract with a mortgage company, for whatever term, and the mortgage company then tore up that agreement and demanded its money instantly. How many millions of Canadians would lose their homes? Where would the mortgage companies be if a customer could tear up an agreement without their consent? Would they lend you money?
Where would we be if we used a credit card to make a purchase, at a certain interest rate, and then the company could change that rate? What if you thought you borrowed money at 10 per cent, but after you borrowed it the company said no, it was at 100 per cent? Where would we be if agreements freely entered into could be broken by one side alone without consultation or process? We would have chaos. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), supported by the cabinet, is asking the elected members of this House to pass a clause which puts into jeopardy an agreement freely entered into by both parties. It gives the federal cabinet-not Parliament, not the elected representatives-an appointed group, the power to unilaterally break an agreement which they entered into on behalf of the Canadian people.
Each day in question period-I wish the minister would pay attention-he says "I cannot do this because I have an agreement with Alberta; I cannot do that because I have an agreement with Saskatchewan". I wish I could believe that. It would be so much easier to believe if he did not put in this legislation a clause which allows him to break that agreement at any time without consultation.
Even if we have faith in this cabinet and its wisdom, what about the future? What about the future for your children and my children? There will be an election sooner or later and a


*

June 3, 1982

new cabinet, and that cabinet could be sworn in at eleven o'clock in the morning and by noon it could issue a statement which completely cancelled an agreement entered into with any and all provincial governments. How would members of that party not serving in that cabinet feel? What if the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with Ontario or Quebec and that party's cabinet unilaterally abrogates that agreement? The backbenchers, people elected to represent the people of the provinces concerned, have no say.
It is just the cabinet, based on what information no one knows, because cabinet meetings are secret. We are dealing with principle. Our society runs in large measure on the fact that we have agreements with each other and that we mutually change agreements. We do not have the principle where two parties as matters of free choice enter into written agreements with each other that can be broken by one party.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stands in his place in this chamber, either during question period or at any other time, and says that he cannot do something because he has an agreement with another province, then we will know if this clause passes without amendment that that is a charade because the minister will have given himself the power to break any agreement. When he says that he cannot do something because an agreement is in place, what he would be saying to us is that he chooses to do something or chooses not to do something.
Simply, this clause says that the Canadian people cannot trust their federal government to keep an agreement, an agreement which it entered into on their behalf. This is awesome power the minister has. The minister was asked about that in committee. On that occasion he gave no clear indication why the clause was in the bill. We asked him why he wanted that power. We really did not get an answer. We asked him whether that clause was put in the bill by accident or by design of some civil servant. The minister did not really know.
We suggested that he take this clause out of the bill and that if he needed it later on that he should have the courage to come before Parliament, before the elected people, and defend the need to have the unilateral power to tear up an agreement with the provinces. If something like that is ever necessary, there is a proper forum and place in which to do it. But why does the minister need this power at this time, given the uncertainties that exist in Canada today and the stresses on our confederation? Surely we should not have a clause that encourages the present minister, or any future minister, to act unilaterally without consultation and be able to tear up an agreement that was entered into.
Agreements should be changed through mutual negotiation. Agreements should not be one-sided. In that context, I encourage those members who support the principle that agreements should be changed as a consequence of negotiation to vote for this amendment. The only members of this chamber who should vote against this amendment are those who really believe it is right to give the cabinet the power, without
Petroleum Administration Act
complication, to tear up an agreement made with another member of this confederation. That is not right. The House should indicate that in the strongest possible way. It is not an issue on which government's fall, but it is an issue of principle and this chamber should support the principle that lies behind the amendment.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. However, I do not want to leave unanswered on the record certain allegations that have been made tonight. I listened carefuly to the comments made on this particular amendment by the hon. member who has just spoken and by some of his predecessors. By listening to what they said, you would believe that what is being proposed here, as the hon. member mentioned, is that the governor in council, the cabinet, could at will tear up an agreement reached with a particular province concerning oil prices, an agreement that would have been arrived at freely. You would believe that this is a new provision, a new power which the government is trying to get for itself.
First, I would like to point out that the provision of the bill states that when there is no agreement, the governor in council, the cabinet, can by regulation establish maximum prices for various kinds of crude oil. Or, again, if there is an agreement and the agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, again, the governor in council can promulgate prices by regulation.
That is the point to which the hon. member who last spoke is objecting. It says that "where the agreement is not effective or not capable of being effective-", which in French reads: "Lorsque .. . I'accord conclu nest pas executoire ou n'est pas susceptible de Ie devenir."
What does that mean? It means that if there is an agreement and it cannot be implemented or cannot be acted upon because of circumstances beyond the control of the parties, then the cabinet, the governor in council, can establish maximum prices for crude oil if there was an agreement that for whatever reason could not be implemented, could not be made effective. Some members have said that this would destroy the confidence in the industry. As I indicated, you would think this is a brand new provision which this government is trying to get to allow it to walk away from agreements made with any particular province. I would like to remind my hon. friends on the other side, who may not have paid attention to this provision as much as they should have, that this is not a new provision. This very provision is Section 36 of the Petroleum Administration Act and it has been there ever since 1975 when that act was passed by Parliament.


Charles James Mayer: That doesn't make it right.


Marc Lalonde: Let me read this section from Bill C-47, the Petroleum Administration Act. It reads:
Where no agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 22 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the governor in council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may, by

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province.
That is section 23(1) here, word for word. It is simply reproduced because Sections 34 to 46 of Bill C-47, the Petroleum Administration Act, have been repeated. There is nothing new or anything that is frightening for the industry.
I would remind my hon. friends that the industry has known its golden years with respect to money and other matters with that provision. That provision had been examined by parliamentary committees, debated, voted and passed by Parliament in 1975. Therefore, all the agitation of my hon. friends in the Tory benches, I would have to say, is somewhat fabricated. If it is not fabricated, it took them seven years to become that outraged. I would invite them to go back to the bill which has been in effect since 1975. There is nothing changed. Nothing has been changed in this case either.


An hon. Member:: It is wrong, then.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member says that it is wrong, then. I would remind him that his government was in office for nine months. If this was such a terrible detriment to the west, as I heard some of them say, why did they not introduce an amendment to this bill when they were in office, even for first reading?
I am not asking them to have passed a bill, since they did not have much time to do that, but they could have at least indicated the seriousness of their concern over this provision by introducing an amendment in Parliament indicating that they did not like this provision of the Petroleum Administration Act. They could have said, "We think it is outrageous and therefore we will quickly table, at least, an amendment for first reading."
They did not do that. I would suggest it was not because they did not have the time since it would have been a very easy amendment to draft. They did not do it because there is nothing very outrageous about it. It is a very simple and explainable provision. It is quite understandable because we must bear in mind that there may be special circumstances when a certain agreement with a certain province may become ineffective or unable to be implemented. As the government of the nation, it must have the power to assume its responsibility in the national interest and act to ensure that the prices for various kinds of crude oil will be determined at a time when a certain agreement for a particular reason becomes ineffective.
It is my hope that these few points will have at least removed the notion from the minds of my hon. friends that there is some secret plot which was suddenly invented in the last few months whereby the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be accumulating new powers that no one has ever heard of. Even the Conservative minister of energy, when he was in office, had this power and lived with it. The country did not suffer from it. On the contrary, I think it is a precautionary clause which is quite
understandable and which has not given rise to arguments even from the producing provinces. I can tell hon. members that in two years this point has not been raised once with me by any particular provincial minister of energy.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Marc Lalonde: Why? Because, I am happy to say, the provincial ministers of energy appear to have more sense and have been a little more reasonable with these issues than some members opposite who have spoken tonight.
I do not want to spend any time on some of the more despicable remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (M. Andre). I think they were very well answered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I will simply say that I regret that members of the House feel they have to resort to this kind of argument during a debate. I do not believe they are serving their cause and they are not serving themselves. They are not growing in their own minds by using that kind of argument or in the minds of the public. I do not believe that they serve the cause of understanding, tolerance and friendship between the various regions of this country which is so important.
I only want to say that the arguments that were used did not appropriately reflect the provisions of the bill which were being discussed. These provisions regarding taxation, particularly in the transportation field, will apply equally to foreign as well as domestic carriers. With respect to the hon. member who spent much time discussing maritime transportation, it has been made quite clear before the committee and barely needs to be repeated here that those provisions are not discriminatory against Canadian carriers or transporters. They apply equally to foreign as well as Canadian carriers. I reject those arguments which have been made.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in regard to this portion of the bill which deals with the agreement. This agreement is very important to the industry today because the major problem facing the industry is a lack of confidence. This is just one more area where that confidence breaks down; the minister's right to break the agreement at his discretion. These powers given to the minister adds to the breakdown of confidence.
I sat in the committee for the past two years and listened to witnesses who appeared before that committee. Contrary to what the minister says, the matter of confidence was raised as the number one subject. I believe it was the Elf Aquitaine Company of France which said, with reference to Bill C-48 in particular, that they had never seen this type of legislation introduced in the free world which would allow confiscation as it did under Bill C-48.
In this clause we have the exact same kind of powers of discretion by the minister. If we realistically look at what has to happen in Canada today in order to restore confidence in
June 3, 1982

the National Energy Program and to get investment returning to Canada with respect to the National Energy Program, it is this very matter which must be dealt with. The timing of this was very important because of the actions of the minister with regard to the National Energy Program. That is the point which was being made by the hon. member who spoke previously and to whom the minister referred. It is most important that confidence be restored to the industry so it can depend on the government and on signed contracts.
If you consider the situation as it relates to the falling Canadian dollar today, I would suggest to Canadians and to the minister that the main reason for the weakening Canadian dollar is the National Energy Program and the lack of confidence that the minister himself has brought upon a very successful industry in Canada through the kind of directions he has given to the National Energy Program.
This bill is no exception and this is why it is so important. I would just like to say briefly, in these closing remarks, that I must respond to the minister. It is most important that this ordinary discretion on the part of the minister not be taken at this time to further weaken confidence in an industry that must go ahead in developing our resources. This country should be number one and should not be falling behind in the economic situation as we are today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 3
Petroleum Administration Act
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 19 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) the probable effect on the explorers, producers".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to refer to Motion No. 3 in its context. What we are asking or what precedes this amendment is the power of cabinet to set price. The motion that was brought forward by the minister-and we challenged it in committee-is the clause appearing in the bill and it asserts that in the setting of price, the cabinet should be concerned about the impact of that price on consumers and producers. What we seek to do through our amendment tonight is to change one word, and that is "explorers", because if we have learned with a sense of clarity what this minister's policy has done, we can see it so clearly in the exploration end of the business. Today in Canada one quarter of the wells being drilled were being drilled before that man became Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
In that period of time he has single-handedly destroyed three quarters of the exploration industry in this country. He has destroyed hundreds of family-owned, small firms which have gone into bankruptcy. He has caused people to lose their jobs and, subsequently, their homes. He has put the energy future of all of us at risk because the oil and gas industry begins by looking for the needle in the haystack.
Buried somewhere in the ground is a pool of oil or a reservoir of gas. We have technical ways of guessing where it might be, but then one needs half a million dollars to even drill a shallow well. Most wells would cost at least $1 million. Someone has to pay that money. One hires a drilling rig, hires truckers, caterpillar tractors, cooks, builds shacks and then one drills. One finds oil and gas or one does not find oil or gas. More frequently, one does not, but it takes much money and it is a high-stakes, high-risk venture. It takes money.
But this minister, through his National Energy Program, took the money away from the people who know how to look for oil and gas and two years later we have less of it. By analogy, if this minister had taken over a grocery store, bought it on behalf of the Canadian people, he would have started selling the groceries off the shelves, taken the money, gone somewhere and had a party.
Do hon. members know what the first use of the money should have been put to? It should have gone to the wholesalers to put the groceries back on the shelves for the next customers. But when one does not do that, but just sells the groceries and does not buy more with the money to put back on the shelves, pretty soon every shelf in the store is empty. That is what would happen and that is what the minister has done to this country.
Governments take 65 cents out of every dollar Canadians pay for oil and gas. There is not enough left in that 35 cents to look for oil and gas. So, we force them to sell it. We are selling the groceries off our shelves. This minister will not leave the industry enough money to drill the wells, to put that oil "back on the shelves" for the next generation, for your kids and for

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
my kids. In the process of doing that, he has caused all kinds of small, family-owned firms to go into bankruptcy.
Last week, the biggest auction sale in the history of western Canada was held, selling drilling rigs, caterpillar tractors, trucks, equipment, and the buyers were Americans, citizens of the United States of America. The prices were less than halfprice. The minister stood in this House on Monday night, some three or four days after that auction sale, and said, "We will update the program". What did he brag about? He bragged about giving the oil industry $2 billion more. That is the way he said it. But what he really meant was that he would take $2 billion less away from them.
They found the oil and the money was theirs. With his taxation policies, he took too much away. He took so much away that we cannot drill the holes any more. We cannot find the oil. We are burning it. It is burning in this building right now. It is burning in all those cars out on the street. But there is no well drilling to replace it. It is going. Less than 100 wells are being drilled in this whole country-


Leonard J. Gustafson: Ninety-four, to be exact.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -on this day. We were up to 700, 800 or 900 in the course of a month, but this minister has taken away the future from your children and my children, at least in part. He is taking so much of the money that there is not enough left to hire the people to drill the wells. He stands in this chamber and tells us that we have an agreement with the provinces and that if we go out and find new oil, we will get the world price. Canadians believe him and the newspapers carry the headlines.
Then we read in Clause 16 that he can tear that agreement up on 30 seconds' notice. "Take your money today," he says to Canadians, "invest in an oil rig and go drill a well, and if you find it, you will get a certain price." But hidden in the legislation which his members intend to vote for is the principle that what he tells you today, he can break tomorrow without your consent, without your advice. That is what creates the instability. People do not trust.
The minister told us on Monday night that the energy program had accomplished great things and that it was going to do better things. Well, since Monday night we have stood in this House and said: "No, you have made it a little better than it was, but it is still rotten, it is still bad." The report card will be what happens on the stock exchange and what happens to the value of the dollar. Since Monday night, all stocks have gone down 200 points and the dollar has dropped for the first time in Canadian history, below 80 cents.
Knowledgeable people in Canada have judged this minister and his so-called revision. The program was rotten. It was revised. Canadians have said it is still rotten and it should be dropped. At the very least, I urge members of this chamber to add the simple word "explorers" so that when this minister or
some future minister determines the price and taxes, there will be some protection for our kids, that we not sell the groceries today without replacing them, but have to take into consideration in price the need to drill more wells to replace the oil we are burning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-I03, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto be amended in Clause 31 by striking out line 13 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"amount not exceeding twenty-eight dollars".

He said: I believe we should be on Motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Both motions should be debated together.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-103, An Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto be amended in Clause 31 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 20 the following:
"(1.4) The tariff of charges set out under subsection (1.1) shall be set at
such a level that the aggregate of revenues from those charges does not exceed
the amount required to pay the compensation payable under the provisions of
Division 1 of this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, now we come to a substantive motion that is in large part responsible for a lot of the difficulties of the country. Canadians may remember the month of December, 1979, when the New Democratic Party said 18 cents a gallon tax was too much, the Liberal Party said the same thing, and they threw our government out of office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, certainly the House would accept the apology of the hon. member for statements that have been looked at as mendacities certainly



June 3, 1982

mendacities concerning the National Democratic Party, about this party removing the Tories from power. It was the people of Canada who removed them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They know that very well.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It was all those western Liberals called the NDP who stood in this chamber in December, 1979, and either through revolt or through design threw out the Crosbie budget.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as what the hon. member refers to. It is almost unparliamentary language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order, I am certain that all hon. members want to hear it, but certainly not to entertain a debate. We will hear a point of order, if there is one. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I can understand their sense of embarrassment. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) as minister of finance in December, 1979, proposed to the Canadian people that there be a tax on gasoline of 18 cents a gallon. The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party found that unacceptable on behalf of the Canadian people. We have seen it doubling, an increase of almost $1 a gallon since that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of the relevance of the speeches being given by the hon. member here this evening. I think he should try to be relevant to the motion that we are debating here. Instead, what he is talking about is the hindsight that the Conservative Party shares. The only thing they can talk about is hindsight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps with hindsight hon. members should all introduce points of order only when they are points of order. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Conservative members for going to the special energy committee and learning a little more about oil and gas taxation. The complaining members of the New Democratic Party from the west chose not to attend during those four weeks.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a New Democratic Party member from the west. From time to time and many times I have attended in committee, but I was not asked to speak in this House. The hon. member has got to tell the truth to the House now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: He has never done that before, why do it now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Petroleum Administration Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will want to contribute to this debate.


Harvie Andre: Let us call an election and let the people decide.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sure hon. members would want to defend their stand and I am sure members of the House will want to take the opportunity to do so when they are recognized. I fail to see a point of order; and the hon. member is debating. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the member of the government would like unanimous consent to go to the Canadian people to decide the issue, we would be happy to give that unanimous consent just as quickly as we could. Mr. Speaker, you have read for our edification two amendments as part of a bloc. The first amendment has the effect of changing the words "seventy-five" to the words "twenty-eight." That may be a bit mysterious to many members in this House, to members who have not studied the issue. What it does with this clause before this Parliament, in one tax alone, through the use of the words "seventy-five" is empower the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to raise gasoline prices 48 cents a gallon. That is not all the taxes that he has imposed on Canadians since February, 1980. This is just one and it is 48 cents a gallon.
In this chamber and in the committee my party has discovered that that possibility bothers members of the Liberal Party. They went to the Canadian people and said gas should not be taxed more than 18 cents a gallon.


Leonard J. Gustafson: And the NDP supported them.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Through this amendment we want to give them the opportunity, at least with respect to this one tax, to keep their commitment to the Canadian voters. All they have to do is vote for the number 28 instead of the number 75, and this one tax would be about 18 cents a gallon or less. That is what they told the voters. They said, "Vote for us, and we will see that your taxes do not go up that horrible 18 cents". The Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources wants 48 cents a gallon, but we are giving Liberal backbenchers and members of the New Democratic Party an opportunity to keep their commitment to the voters. If they told voters 18 cents was too much, then it would be stretching logic to vote for 48 cents a gallon. They have the choice of the 48 cents the minister wants or the 18 cents they promised the voters who sent them to this chamber. This is their chance to keep their commitment to the voters who sent them here. It is a chance for all hon. members opposite to keep the commitment they made to the voters who sent them here. Do hon. members opposite remember their campaign brochures and their speeches? They said 18 cents was terrible. All they have to do to keep their commitment is to vote for Motion No. 4. That would keep this tax under 18

June 3, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
cents a gallon, and hon. members could keep their commitment to the voters. If they vote to reject the amendment before us, they vote for 48 cents a gallon.
I hope constituents listening to our discussion this evening will telephone their Members of Parliament and tell them whether they think they should vote for 48 cents when they were sent here to keep the tax under 18 cents. I hope that happens to members of the New Democratic Party too. I invite constituents to pick up their telephones tomorrow, telephone their Members of Parliament, Liberal or NDP, and tell them to vote for Motion No. 4 because it would restrict the taxing power of the minister to something less than 18 cents a gallon, and that would be in line with the brochures, pamphlets and advertising distributed and the speeches made by hon. members opposite.
I think it is generous of the Conservative Party of Canada to give hon. members in this chamber the opportunity to keep a campaign promise in this way. I hope hon. members will give a lot of thought to this at the weekend. They were sent here to uphold a principle, and by voting for this amendment they can uphold that principle with clarity, pride and dignity. However, if they choose to uphold the minister's desire for a 48 cents a gallon tax-just this one tax alone-surely they are breaking faith with the people who sent them here and the things they told them in December, 1979, in January, 1980, and in early February, 1981. That is the first half of the amendment, and I urge its consideration at the weekend.
The second half of the amendment would protect consumers. It would impose a maximum tax of 18 cents a gallon. That would be a break for the consumer. It would bring the price of gas at the pumps down right away. It would be cheaper. If the House voted for this amendment, gasoline and home heating oil would cost consumers less.
However, there is another principle, and the minister has enunciated it. He told us in committee that the petroleum compensation charge, according to his agreement with the producing provinces, shall not be set at a level greater than that required, so that the amount of money coming in through taxation and the amount paid out to Saudi Arabia and Mexico for imported oil would be the same. That is what the minister told us. However, I say to the consumers of Canada that they should beware. The minister has told consumers about his intentions, but nowhere in the wording of the clause is the minister restricted. Many times in the last few years we have been told by ministers that taxes were being levied for specific purposes, and as soon as Parliament has granted those taxing powers, the money has been used for other purposes. Through this amendment we are seeking to protect the consumers of Canada.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Being a member of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, I heard everything the hon. member had to say on this subject. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that enough is enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party I would like to thank the hon. member for reminding Canadians that, yes, they have had enough. We have had enough of this minister, and we have had enough of this policy. I thank the hon. member for bringing this so forcefully to the attention of all Canadians.
Motion No. 4 says that the minister absolutely shall not charge more than 18 cents a gallon tax for compensation purposes. Motion No. 5 says he shall never tax at a rate greater than that required to provide compensation. If we had a decent policy under which wells were being drilled and no oil had to be imported, we would come to the point where this whole tax would disappear and it would be guaranteed in legislation that once the need had passed, the tax would no longer be collected. That is what Motion No. 5 would ensure. Motion No. 4 says there will be a maximum tax of 18 cents. Motion No. 5 says when the need is passed, which surely will happen, the government cannot collect the tax.
Surely a sane and sensible government would not collect a tax which is not needed, but I remind hon. members that in 1975 this Parliament approved an export charge. The purpose of that export charge was to pay for imports. It is now 1982, and this government is collecting that export charge and not putting a penny into paying for imports. It has a new charge of 48 cents a gallon, and there is no restriction in legislation which says it must be used for a specific purpose. There is no restriction in legislation which says that when the need is passed, the tax will disappear.
What we have here is a public relations exercise. People want this Parliament to approve taxes for good reasons, but the government does not want to restrict itself, through legislation, to those good reasons.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, on February 15, as reported at page 14994 of Hansard, I inquired about CMHC guaranteeing mortgages on homes insulated with UFFI. The answer I received at that time was not satisfactory, nor could it be called positive. On April 30 I asked the same question, in effect, as reported at page 16780 of Hansard. In the reply I was assured that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would guarantee all applications for renewal of mortgages, but I guess I specified banks particularly and not the general mortgage industry.

June 3, 1982

Since that time I have received reports that owners of houses with UFFI insulation are still having difficulty renewing their mortgages. Today I suggested to the minister that the government should spend some of its advertising money for this purpose. Someone interjected that it would perhaps be as valuable for the home owner as advertising the Canada goose! This in no way reflects on the Canada goose-I think it is a wonderful bird and I admire it. However, I think the Canadian public would get more value from money spent advertising that CMHC will guarantee any mortgage renewal request for any house in Canada insulated with UFFI.
The decline in the value of homes insulated with this material is seriously underestimated by the government. 1 do not think it understands the problem at all. It has been publicly stated that 80 to 90 per cent of the estates of most retiring people is constituted in the value of the home they own. It is also estimated that approximately 80,000 Canadian homes have insulation containing health hazardous formaldehyde.
An article in the Ottawa Citizen of May 4 states that about
3,000	people are seeking cuts in property taxes because of foam insulation. Another article in the Ottawa Citizen on April 30 carried the heading "Ottawa fears tax loss from foam insulation". The article states that the assessment review court decided that some Sault Ste. Marie homes were worth about half their previous value, and it cut the tax bills accordingly. The article states that it will be months before it is possible to process the appeals to the assessor in respect of the taxation to be paid this year. For many families, 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the value of the estate will virtually disappear because the houses they own have little if any value.
The minister told me that if I could give him a name, he would investigate the case. If the minister is interested, he will not have any difficulty finding out about one member of this House who has an interest in one of these homes. He needed a little security and when he sought a loan through a mortgage with the house as security, he was turned down cold. He was told that in effect they would rather lend him money without security than on the security of a home with UFFI insulation. This is a measure of the serious loss experienced by people who have used this insulation.
1 have in my hand a document entitled "Urea Formaldehyde Foam Checklist". This checklist was to be handed to an occupant by the installer before the foam was installed. I have polled people in my constituency on whether they ever saw this form or anything like it. Directions for its use list several of the precautions that should have been exercised before urea formaldehyde foam insulation was installed in any home. It was supposed to assure that people would get a high quality insulation job. In part, it reads as follows:
-the contractor is required to provide you, the consumer, with an information brochure before commencing the insulation ... the onus for the manufacture and installation of urea formaldehyde foam insulation is on the contractor.
Allergy-prone people or asthmatics may be more sensitive to formaldehyde fumes and should consult their doctor before selecting this type of insulation.
Adjournment Debate
Two of my constituents have suffered as a result of being unfamiliar with this direction from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Section A(l) of the checklist
says:
The materials to be used should have a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) acceptance number.
These were the directions issued by the government. It goes
on:
The contractor must have a licence bearing his/her photograph; ask to see it.
All circuits with electrical wiring carrying 200 volts or more, in any of the cavities to be foamed, must be turned off.
Every clothes dryer or stove properly installed in Canada carries 200 volts or more. It gives a guide to temperatures. The material should not be installed in attics, or in homes with a vapour barrier outside the insulation. My home has; it is just fortunate that I did not use UFFI because I would have it inside an excellent vapour barrier. I could go on.


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


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30 the hon. member asked a very straightforward question:
Is it the policy of the minister responsible for housing that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should guarantee all applications for renewal of mortgages for UFFI homes. If it is the policy of the government, has CMHC been so instructed and are they so behaving?
The minister answered in an equally straightforward
fashion:
Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.
It is very important to make that point, that CMHC is prepared to continue to guarantee mortgages on UFFI homes and provide guarantees on mortgage renewals for such homes even if no guarantee previously existed. It is very important to establish that fact for the understanding of the hon. member and those interested in this issue.
The major banks approve their mortgage renewals, provided the borrower has a good financial record. Most of the time the banks do not inquire whether a home has UFFI or not. They look at the financial record of the home owner when considering renewal. On the other hand, when the banks do learn of the presence of UFFI they know, as the hon. member has pointed out, that the home is potentially subject to devaluation. Because it is a financial transaction, they are then much more hesitant to make a loan to the full amount of the mortgage. On that basis they ask for a guarantee, and it is on that basis that the minister pointed out that CMHC is prepared to offer that guarantee. We all realize that we must give these home owners some assistance. As the minister has pointed out, CMHC is prepared to give that assistance. That is a very laudable position of both the minister and CMHC.

June 3, 1982
Adjournment Debate


THE ECONOMY-CLOSURE OF LUMBER MILL IN CHEMAINUS, B.C.-PROTECTION FOR JOBS. (B) INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL OUTSIDE OF CANADA
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in late April MacMillan Bloedel announced the indefinite closure of its lumber mill at Chemainus, British Columbia. Since that time the company has indicated that it has no plans to either reopen the existing mill or proceed with earlier plans to build a new mill.
The mill manager was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that the new mill would not be built now because all available capital was needed for the building of a new pulp mill in Alabama. Consequently, people in my riding face a loss of 600 jobs in the basic industry. Today happens to be the last pay day for these employees. They get exactly one day's pay and after that they can look forward to the very uncertain future of unemployment insurance. Job loss has a multiple effect, the same as job creation.
In addition to the loss of 600 jobs in the Chemainus mill, there is a loss of jobs in small supporting industries, local shops and services. A shopkeeper pointed to the psychological factor involved when a major industry shuts down. Even people who still hold their jobs cut back on their purchases because of growing uncertainty. Certainly the depressed condition of the forest industry is a factor in the Chemainus closure. British Columbia suffers today because it has become totally dependent upon the export of raw resources. As a result, British Columbia is even more vulnerable to international markets than it would be if it had a more diversified economy.
Just this past weekend in the southern part of my riding in the View Royal area, Plumper Bay Sawmills has just announced bankruptcy. The bankruptcy story is becoming far too common in the entire forest industry of British Columbia.
The International Woodworkers of America union has pointed out that at the end of May 12,837 woodworkers or 25.7 per cent of the membership were laid off. This is an increase from 8,170 people who were laid off at the end of April. Anyone who knows anything about the lumber industry in British Columbia knows that springtime is the very time when loggers are getting back to work. However, at present they are facing increased lay-offs instead.
The B.C. Central Credit Union has pointed out that some S31 million a week is being paid out for unemployment insurance in British Columbia, and it predicts that total UIC payments in B.C. could run to $2 billion by the end of the year. The $522 million budgeted by the provincial government for welfare payments will not be enough unless conditions improve. And so we recognize the general problems of the British Columbia forest industry.
MacMillan Bloedel is not immune to these problems. However, MacMillan Bloedel has not acted in the long-term interests of the community at Chemainus. The lumber mill at Chemainus has been owned by different companies for over 120 years. There was a time when the present mill was one of
the largest and most modern in the world. It was geared to cut the large and beautiful timber which grew on the east coast of Vancouver Island. It is a tragic fact that the largest and best of that timber has now been creamed by lumber companies such as MacMillan Bloedel.
The mill is now outdated and poor forestry practices in the past have caught up with the industry. British Columbians are having to pay while companies like MacMillan Bloedel take the money and run. The mill became outdated. The plant ran down and become antiquated. It did not gear up to cut the second growth timber and the smaller timber which was farther back in the hills.
Our party believes that if the multinational corporations are going to be making money from the resources of our province they should be investing their money in those provinces and creating permanent jobs.
When I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) about the export of money to build a new mill in Alabama, his only answer was that he would take notice of it. We not only face a crisis in Chemainus, not only in the forest industry of British Columbia, but across Canada. The tragedy which the people face in Chemainus is one that is shared by hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We face a government that is incapable, unwilling, or both, to take action.
In this adjournment debate, I ask the government once again if it is willing to take some action to ensure that multinational corporations will act responsibly and that they will have the welfare of the communities in which they operate in mind and not simply cream our resources, take the money and run off to exploit some other part of the world.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall try to give the hon. member a brief but nevertheless complete answer. First, the Canadian lumber industry is going through a difficult period right now, because the market is cyclical and demand is dropping in most parts of Canada and in the rest of the world, especially in countries that have their own lumber industries. Second, MacMillan Bloedel has invested over $650 million in Canada between 1979 and 1981. Third, the Alabama plant was built strictly with American funds, so there is no question of Canadian capital being drained to the United States. The plant is a sawmill built exclusively with American money. Fourth, what can be done now to help people who are laid off? I would have a great deal to say about the matter to the hon. member, because my own riding includes Baie-Comeau and Chute-aux-Outardes, both heavily dependent on the lumber industry, and we have problems there too. The Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) have signed agreements with the government of British Columbia to provide
June 3, 1982

assistance for workers by bringing in specific projects that will directly help the people who are affected by these lay-offs. The agreements were signed not only with British Columbia, but also with Ontario and other provinces, and now we must wait and see whether the action taken by the federal government is a satisfactory response to provincial needs. Fifth, the hon. member is asking the minister whether we are going to take action to ensure that the multinationals are doing whatever they can and that they are truly working in the interests of Canadians.
Adjournment Debate
I would therefore ask the hon. member whether he actually has some specific cases in which he can prove that the multinationals are taking advantage of the present situation, and if so, to let us know so that we can investigate the matter.


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

Friday, June 4, 1982