1982-04-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek redress for an unnecessary exercise which will waste approximately $4 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money. A government spokesman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, is on public record to the effect that the next election will be based on current boundaries. Therefore the proposed changes in electoral boundaries will never be used. As a result, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government introduce a one-line bill halting this futile redistribution until such time as the much-needed reform of Parliament, including the Senate, has been effected in order to avoid a repetition of the useless redistribution which took place in 1972-74.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General has expressed deep concern that government guarantees of private company indebtedness now exceed $8 billion. Many of the companies whose debts the government has guaranteed are not viable and these guarantees represent a liability to the taxpayers not disclosed in the budget or budget papers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That a special committee of this House examine the outstanding guarantees given by the Government of Canada to banks and bankers on behalf of private companies, to determine the extent of the government's liability, and that the government's financial statements be amended to make realistic provision for the payment of these guarantees should they be called.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, considering the refusal of the Argentinian government to obey the United Nations' call for a removal of its troops from the Falkland Islands and its belligerent assertion that it will use force to maintain their illegal occupation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House (1) urges the government to break off diplomatic relationships with Argentina, and (2) immediately contact other countries to urge them to follow suit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the high interest rate policy of the government is destroying the agricultural industry in Canada. Farmers cannot afford the interest charged on loans, general or operating. The Farm Credit Corporation loans and Small Business Development loans are a farce, with their tight regulations and meagre funding. I am sure that members on that side of the House are also aware that farmers just cannot raise their prices, like other producers, to cover cost increases. Madam Speaker, farmers just cannot take the price-cost squeeze any longer. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member from Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this government immediately take steps to lower interest rates on all agriculture loans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 6, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) combined in a devastating attack on Canadian home owners. If, as they suggested, variable rate mortgages are indeed illegal under the Interest Act, the Interest Act provides that home owners would be in no danger of losing title to their homes and would have to pay only 5 per cent interest or less. This year 650,000 Canadian home owners could have taken advantage of these low interest mortgages if these two hon. members-acting, no doubt, on behalf of the banks-had not exposed the scheme. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That, to commemorate the folly of the two honourable members' questions, a statue of Don Quixote be erected on Parliament Hill, with curly white hair and holding a long Cuban cigar instead of a lance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the community of Lake Louise has been imploring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to improve its signal in that community, but CBC, contrary to facts, insist that the population of Lake Louise is only 140 according to the 1976 census and CBC will not undertake the project until the permanent population reaches 500. Whereas the actual population of Lake Louise is 411 year-round residents, plus 800 permanent seasonal employees, plus some 300,000 visitors-all of whom want better radio and TV facilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That this House urges the hon. Minister of Communications to contact CBC and provide improved facilities for these people. People who live and work in our
national parks are human beings and deserve equal treatment to that given to other communities, many of which are much smaller.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of State for Trade has told us, through the press, that Japan recently purchased 25,000 tonnes of canola from Sweden because Canada's open marketing system could not deliver, even though Pacific port stocks were 85,000 tonnes at the time; and whereas Canada lost a sale of 20,000 tonnes of canola meal to Hungary for the same reason, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House instructs the government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include rapeseed or canola under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board in order that a co-ordinated sales approach can be undertaken to the benefit of producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, university students and their families across Canada are disturbed by the prospect of drastic increases in tuition fees to offset government funding cutbacks to post-secondary institutions. Students have been forced to demonstrate publicly to bring their plight to public attention. Yesterday concerned students at the University of Moncton demonstrated to focus attention on tuition increases and funding cutbacks. Similar demonstrations will occur at other universities. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to assure Canadian university students that new federal government policies on provincial transfer payments will not result in tuition fee increases beyond the normal and that the dream of post-secondary education will be preserved for Canadian young persons.
April 6, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. We on this side of the House are delighted to learn from Le Soleil that the leadership of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is more solid and widely based than at any other time, and that he fully intends to lead his party in the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette):
That this House express its confidence in the right hon. member's ability to lead and wish him well in keeping his party working so well together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Pembina.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Madam Speaker:: I feel I cannot put the motion to the House even with unanimous consent since I am sure the motion was put in a facetious manner.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the widespread opposition to mandatory conversion to metric by cabinet decree of Order in Council PC 1981-1705, which will be illustrated by the presentation of thousands of petitions later this day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this Liberal government follow the example set by the previous Progressive Conservative government and endorse conversion only on a voluntary basis with the agreement of the sectors involved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, since video display terminals are having abnormal effects on pregnancies, and since federal government department heads are quoted as being afraid to formalize a transfer policy for pregnant women because of the fear of setting a precedent, and since in the case of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, workers there do not know about the government's policy of transferring ill or pregnant workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That Treasury Board issue a directive to all management personnel stating that all ill or pregnant employees be allowed immediate transfers from potentially dangerous work stations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Next Wednesday will mark the secondary anniversary of the Speech from the Throne in which the government promised to bring forward amendments to the Human Rights Act to protect the rights of the handicapped. In view of the fact the government has not yet done so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the Minister of Justice to bring before this House amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would prohibit discriminatory practices against disabled Canadians and that these amendments be in conformity with recommendation Number I in the "Obstacles Report."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
16188

April 6, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We have available today the quarterly report of the Conference Board of Canada which includes a survey of economic forecasters who describe our current recession as "the longest and probably the most severe in the post-war period". Of course, the minister has available within his own department his own forecasters and analysts. Does the Department of Finance analysis lead the minister to agree with the report published today by the Conference Board of Canada that we are in fact in our deepest recession since the 1940s?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have not examined the precise figures which were released this morning by the Conference Board. I just saw them as I came into the House. I have no complaints with their description that the economy is in a recession. The recession, or the downturn, is deeper than we expected. On that point I think their comments are justified. I am not in a position to confirm whether they are correct in saying that it is the worst since 1947. It is bad enough the way it is.


CONCERN OVER HIGH INTEREST RATES
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the minister might comment on one specific figure wherein the average forecast with respect to unemployment was 8'/2 per cent. I wonder if the minister's advisers agree with the accuracy of that forecast. The principal fear of the Conference Board is that a projected second half economic recovery might be cut short and we would be back into a recessionary period in 1983 because of increased credit demands and higher interest rates. Do the minister and the departmental advisers share that concern as a real possibility and, if so, would the minister say what policies are being considered to avert that very serious situation? I emphasize that question because it would seem that his November budget is now very badly out of date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member rightly draws attention to the prospects for recovery which most forecasters expect to take place later this year and the attendant fear that that recovery might be frustrated by a resurgence in interest rates. If the hon. member recalls when I spoke in New York in February, I drew attention to that very point and the danger that recovery might be thwarted by a resurgence of interest rates in the United States occasioned by
a very large deficit. I can only express the same sentiment which I expressed in New York, namely, that all partners of the United States are still living in expectation that the assurance given by the President at the Summit in Ottawa last August that interest rates would decline will be fulfilled. That is very largely dependent upon how the deficit is handled in the United States.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION FORECASTS
William Herbert Jarvis: I would ask the minister again if he might comment on the average forecast of 8'/2 per cent unemployment and whether his analysis in his department shows that to be an accurate forecast.
As the minister knows, Madam Speaker, the Conference Board forecasters were a little bit more optimistic about inflation rates, just under the 11 per cent mark, particularly as a result of moderation in food and world energy prices. Frankly-and I look forward to the minister's comment-in a deep recession one would expect a sharper downturn in prices when very few consumers are able to buy except where absolutely necessary. Does the Conference Board inflation forecast closely correspond to that of the minister? Second, can he explain why there has been less moderation in prices and in inflation in Canada as compared to that in the United States during the current recession?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the forecasts for 1982 established by the department are available in the budget papers, and they have not been revised since the budget. I do not have them at hand to refer to them-


William Herbert Jarvis: Unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but I believe the unemployment rate suggested by this collection of forecasters is 8.5 per cent on average for 1982. We have already exceeded that figure. In fact the last two rates were higher than that, so I do not believe their forecasts in any way overstate the gravity of the unemployment situation in Canada.
The hon. member has asked why, in my view, we have not succeeded in showing a better price performance in Canada than in the United States. I think there are two reasons, which are reflected in the Canadian cost of living index, which are not as pronounced in the United States. The first is rising energy costs. World prices were absorbed almost in one gulp in the United States. The second is that wage settlements in the United States currently are running at about four percentage points lower than in Canada. The American performance on the price and wage fronts is certainly better than Canada's at the present time.
April 6, 1982


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. The news today is that Japan will export the same number of vehicles this year as it did last year, namely, 174,000. Has the minister analysed the effect this will have on jobs in the automotive industry, and what is he going to do to solve this problem?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have indicated to the Japanese that shipments the same as last year of
174,000	units is not acceptable to Canada because of the fact that we expect a decline in the domestic market this year. Thus, if we accepted the status quo, that would mean a higher percentage of penetration of our market by the Japanese. Negotiations are ongoing.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I really wonder if this minister has the intestinal fortitude to put his point across in a real way on behalf of the auto workers in this country and let the Japanese know the damage they are doing to the job situation in Canada.


Mr. Rossi:: Ask your question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER NEGOTIATE FAIR DEAL FOR CANADA
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I know a Japanese trade delegation is here right now. When is the minister going to go back to Japan with some hard-headed businessmen to negotiate a fair trading deal for Canada for the sake of jobs in the automobile industry in this country?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, those decisions are not taken by the private sector in Japan; they are taken by the Government of Japan. I have just returned from Japan with a blue chip group of 50 top level senior Canadian businessmen. Those businessmen are trying to sell products to Japan. They were not trying to restrict the import of products from Japan.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. Section 6 of the Interest Act stipulates that mortgage agreements must clearly indicate rates of interest, and also that interest is to be calculated either annually or semi-annually. Considering that the latest self-serving gimmick of the banks, the variable rate mortgage, meets neither of these requirements, could the minister tell us today if he has had the legality of this scheme checked out?
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has referred to a section of the Interest Act. I would like to respond by pointing out that Section 3(4)(h) of the National Housing Act clearly states that a mortgage:
-was made on such terms as to principal, interest and taxes by monthly instalments or otherwise as may be determined by the Corporation.
I would like to assure the hon. member in response to his question, and his questions of yesterday, that it is the intention of the corporation to ensure that with respect to any application by any carrier-be it a credit union, bank, trust company or other financial institution-for insurance from the fund for any of these kinds of new mortgage instruments which have been raised, all acts of the Parliament of Canada are closely looked at. The corporation would not insure any loan which did not comply with the provisions of any of the laws of this Parliament.


INQUIRY RESPECTING LEGALITY OF SCHEME
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, when I put a question to him about the Interest Act, the minister quoted from the National Housing Act. Is he telling the House, in unequivocal terms, that this scheme, which does not stipulate what the interest rate is, which could have a home owner ending up, after five years, owing more money on his home than at the start of that five-year period, is clearly within the law? Is the minister telling us that, or is he not?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I was attempting to respond to the hon. member's question by assuring him that the government is concerned about consumers who might apply to take advantage of that kind of financial arrangement which is offered by credit unions, banks, etc. In so far as the Interest Act has any pertinence to the ministerial responsibility that I exercise, I have indicated that the government will ensure that all acts, whether the Interest Act or any other act of Parliament, are reviewed as they affect the operations of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and that the legalities of any proposition made by any carrier will be reviewed. We will assure all hon. members that, as has been the practice in the past, the law will be followed.


EFFECTS OF SCHEME ON HOME OWNERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I take it from what the minister said that the government is going to review the Interest Act which, I understand, has not been changed in about 100 years. I also understand that the government accepts what we say, namely, that the variable rate mortgage is not a legal proposal and is going to require supportive amendments to government legislation. I wish the minister would state categorically if that is what he intended to say.
How can the minister support a scheme, the legality of which we think is nonexistent, that could leave the home owner

April 6, 1982
Oral Questions
owing more after five years of paying on his mortgage than he owed at the outset? Is that any kind of justice for home owners, to put them deeper in debt without them even knowing?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgot one significant fact that is important to a person who is making a choice about what kind of mortgage to apply for. At this point we have not examined the variable rate mortgages that are being offered to which the hon. member has referred because they are no business of ours. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not insure them so the government is not involved. Those are private contracts between mortgage companies and individuals.
I am told that under these variable rate mortgages an applicant is offered an interest rate which sometimes is two per cent less than the going rate. I do not know why the hon. member is doing his very best to try to ensure that Canadians who opt for that break in interest rates cannot take advantage of it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF NEW BRUNSWICK, QUEBEC, ONTARIO, AND MANITOBA LEGISLATURES
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of calling to the attention of the House the distinguished presence in our gallery of members of the legislatures of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, who are taking part in an interparliamentary visit program on small businesses.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, over
1,000	farmers met in Montreal to comment on the federal government's agricultural policies. The president of the Agricultural Producers Union, Mr. Proulx, took this opportunity to condemn, in very strong terms, the federal government's national policy, especially regarding interest rates, and he said that the present interest rates are bleeding farmers white. I should like to ask the minister first of all whether, considering this statement by a bona fide association, he intends to introduce new measures to reduce interest costs, and whether he received the information kit distributed by the APU in which federal Quebec members are criticized for not defending the interests of farmers in Quebec?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that last week a question was asked in the House about who attended the meeting, etc. My parliamentary secretary attended the meeting, along with several other members of the caucus from la belle province. They had a very good meeting. Also the hon. member knows that about 7,000 members appeared in the capital of Quebec, Quebec City, and confronted the provincial minister of agriculture about the problems which in any case are the provincial minister's responsibility.
We have the farm credit legislation which was before the House and is before the other House at the present time. We are not in the short-term money market; we are in the longterm money market. We intend to increase our ability to lend money through the Farm Credit Corporation. The province of Quebec has a long-time program subsidizing interest rates. It has become a very costly program for them. They withdrew from it to some extent. We are not promising anything different than we have now. We have interest-free programs on storable crops. I believe last year the producers of the province of Quebec took advantage of that to about $40 million. We have national supply managed programs to take in the marketing costs of the whole operation, production costs, and the costing price formula which the majority of producers use in the province of Quebec. Those producers who are within that kind of a marketing system do not have the real concern of other producers outside the marketing system depending upon the open and free market to supply their return.


RECOMMENDATION THAT PRICES BE BASED ON PRODUCTION COSTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Roch La Salle: This time, Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the minister that I am asking a question that specifically and exclusively concerns the federal government's interest rate policy. This is no time to blame our interest rates on one of the provincial governments.


Carlo Rossi: Is the federal government to blame for the results in Saint-Laurent and Louis-Hebert?


Roch La Salle: Secondly, Madam Speaker, the APU strongly condemned the agricultural stabilization programs, and recommended that the stabilization system should be based on production costs instead of the average figure for the past five years. Considering that the seventy-four Quebec members opposite have the same document I do and that the the minister would have done well to examine it, could the minister inform the House whether he intends to respond positively to this recommendation, for the greater benefit of Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to a document which was
April 6, 1982

released late last week. Let me go back even further to one which 1 made available to farmers and to himself in 1977 where we offered 100 per cent income assurance to producers. Farm organizations and provincial governments turned down that program. If they had accepted the program which the Government of Canada offered them at that time, there would be no problem at the present time with the vast majority of producers in Canada.


Roch La Salle: Yes or no, Gene!


Eugene Whelan: It offered to take care of those things. I suggest he ask his leader right next to him who advocated higher interest rates in the fall of 1979. He advocated higher interest rates. He said that we could look toward them and that he would support the Governor of the Bank of Canada at that time.


Roch La Salle: You said, "No", Gene; that is all.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Bill C-89 which was recently passed in the House provided some help for people who are renewing their mortgages, renovating their homes or needing rental accommodations, but no help was provided for first-time purchasers of homes. My question is simply this: why not?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, with respect, the question as posed by the hon. member is inaccurate. Indeed, questions were raised in the House over the last couple of days, for example dealing with new mortgage instruments such as a variable rate mortgage, a shared equity mortgage, or who knows what other new types of instruments might be promoted in the present changing economic climate, and all those instruments heretofore were not possible and could not be insured by the corporation. It was the initiative of the government in Bill C-89 to give the corporation additional flexibility to provide mortgage insurance to encourage additional flexibility for people who are first-time home purchasers.


QUERY RESPECTING NUMBER OF FIRST-TIME HOME PURCHASERS
Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, the annual report of CMHC on March 12 indicated that first-time home purchasers had a much reduced ability to participate in the current market. Also it indicated that in 1980, 61 per cent of people buying homes were first-time purchasers and that in 1981 the figure was 44 per cent. What is the minister's estimate for this year?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, it is almost a truism to reflect that one leader in
Oral Questions
terms of inflation in the last two years has been the cost of land and of housing. We know that the rapid increase in the price of housing in British Columbia was repeated right across Canada, from west to east. However, in the last six months or so, it appears as if the price is moderating and that that movement as an indicator of inflation is moderating. I dare say that the budget, which introduced the position taken by the government to restrain expenditures, to reduce the deficit, to monitor the economy at the same time and to provide impetus and support to those who need help the most, is responsible for that moderation in inflation.


COST OF LAND
Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, the minister said that the cost of land rose tremendously last year, but Statistics Canada showed that the cost of land remained stable. Who is correct, the minister or Statistics Canada?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of looking at the statistics to which the hon. member referred. I think I would need to have an opportunity of comparing the two figures to which he referred. It may be, for example, that land and buildings are referred to; sometimes statistics refer to real estate. Without having the particulars of the schedules about which the hon. member is speaking, I do not think I could answer the question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The minister will recall that last November he announced in Chatham, New Brunswick, that 416 Fighter Squadron would be withdrawn from the base there. He also made a commitment to the people of the region that the full resources of the Government of Canada would be brought to bear to find solutions to the problem created by that withdrawal. Also the minister knows that a great deal of anxiety and concern was caused by the announcement. Could he give us an update on what has occurred since then to resolve this serious problem?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi knows the problem in this region very well. I understand his concern. I can assure him that our first objective is to try to ensure that equivalent for employment and economic activity is found for the Northumberland-Miramichi region. To that end, we have just established a new committee of very respected, high-ranking officials to look specifically at the current problem in Chatham. I would also like to assure

April 6, 1982
Oral Questions
the hon. member that we are doing everything possible to reassure the people of Chatham that we will stand behind the commitment we made in November when I was there.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. He has just announced today, April 6, the setting up of a committee that he announced in December he would establish. There has been a four to five months time lapse. Will the minister assure the House that this committee will be charged with holding public hearings? Will he explain to the House why this is a committee of officials and will he explain why he does not trust members of this House of Commons to conduct a public inquiry into this question?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition understands the problem.
As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, we have an interdepartmental committee looking into defence infrastructure, and this committee looked at the Chatham area. As we are phasing out the 416 Squadron, we have a commitment to the Chatham area to find equivalent in economic activities and employment opportunities for that region.
Under the direction of several different ministers, among them the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, we have now set up a special committee to ensure that we look at the Chatham area as a priority specifically so that we can arrive at a solution in 1984.


SUGGESTED PARLIAMENTARY STUDY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I understand perfectly that the Liberal government is shutting down the Chatham Base when it does not need to do so. 1 understand perfectly that the Liberal government is setting up a committee of officials, of public servants, who will shut out public inquiry. This is a democracy. Why trust everything to public servants? Why will the minister not allow this public question to be looked into by a committee of elected members of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is telling us we are not democratic. In fact, I announced last November to the Miramichi Chamber of Commerce that the 416 Fighter Squadron would be leaving Chatham. Certainly everything was open and above board. 1 believe we asked an interdepartmental committee to find out how we could meet our commitment to the citizens of Miramichi to maintain the same level of employment and
economic activity in the region when 416 Fighter Squadron leaves in 1984. I think it is perfectly normal to ask our officials to look into this and prepare a study. I feel that, subsequently the ministers concerned will act according to their responsibilities and see what they can do in this area.


REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED TO CONDUCT INQUIRY
Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. I fail to understand why the minister is so afraid of the members of this House and of the Parliament of Canada. I do not know why he always seems to prefer public servants. The matter is quite simple. Why not have an inquiry by a parliamentary committee and do this in a democratic way? Why hide behind public servants? Why not have a parliamentary committee in order to have a full inquiry, a public inquiry, so that members on all sides of the House will be able to do for the citizens of New Brunswick what hon. members for northeastern New Brunswick are not prepared to do themselves.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it is very sad to see the Leader of the Opposition using the people of Miramichi to indulge in petty politics-


Roch La Salle: Give a straight answer, it's not that difficult. Sit down if you don't have an answer-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Lamontagne:: I feel everything is quite straightforward. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned being afraid of democracy. The arrangements were made and the decision was announced last November. We met with the municipal council and the Chamber of Commerce. I had two meetings with the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Hatfield, who is coming here tomorrow for further discussions. So, everything is above board, and all the parties concerned in the Miramichi area will be informed about what we intend to do, and together we will decide what is to be done.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of the fact that he seems to be banging his head against a brick wall these days with respect to imports of Japanese cars and trucks, and in view of the fact that the Minister of State for International Trade said in this House that his primary responsibility was to protect Canadian jobs, will the minister now impose a temporary emergency 15 per
April 6, 1982

cent surcharge on all Japanese cars and trucks coming into this country in 1982?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the substantial number of jobs in this country that are dependent upon exports that Canadian firms have to sell to other countries. 1 am sure the hon. member would like to see a positive conclusion to the negotiations rather than an enforced unilateral system here in Canada.


REASON FOR NOT IMPOSING SURCHARGE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister's seemingly positive approach to this problem is getting him absolutely nowhere, I do not think I can agree with what he just said. In seven months sales of Japanese-made trucks increased 109 per cent while 21 per cent of all cars sold in Canada were built in Japan. Since there are no further restrictions on Japanese cars, the Japanese will still be able to claim at least 21 per cent or 22 per cent of our market while truck sales could double again. I ask the minister once more how can he continue to reject a 15 per cent surcharge which would simply equalize the price of Japanese and North American produced vehicles here in Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated several times in the last three or four weeks, we would much prefer to have a voluntary restraint quota agreed to by the Japanese.


An hon. Member:: Are there negotiations going on?


Edward C. Lumley: This matter is under negotiation, Madam Speaker. Negotiations of this magnitude do not come to a conclusion overnight, or in 48 hours. I am very hopeful that we will still arrive at a positive conclusion.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very difficult problems of pricing, marketing, and import costs facing Canadian beef producers, can the minister tell the House whether he will be releasing the Anderson-Vandermeul-en study which he commissioned some time last fall? Would he tell the House what actions he is planning to assist this industry as a result of this report?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Anderson-Vandermeulen report referred to by the hon. member has been completed. We have submitted it to the department. The department is considering this report in conjunction with work which the department has been doing, the questionnaire that I sent to some 230,000 beef producers
Oral Questions
and the Senate report. I hope to have something that I can make public in the very near future and which I hope will be for the betterment of the beef industry.


FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister denied in the House that there was any delay caused by his inability to bring budget measures before the House. As reported at page 16139 of Hansard for April 5, 1982, the minister said:
Madam Speaker, there is no delay attributable to any confusion arising from the Ways and Means motions.
Therefore I would like to draw to the minister's attention a telex that was sent from a Revenue Canada official in Ottawa to the Revenue Canada district office in Vancouver, which reads:
Taxpayers have been encouraged to file 1981 and 1982 T1 and T2 returns on the basis of budget proposals to avoid a retroactive effect. Returns filed on this basis will not be processed until the legislation has been approved by Parliament.
Here we have an official statement saying that the taxpayers' returns will not be processed until the legislation has been approved by Parliament. Since 75 per cent of Canadians get refunds, and since this budget morass is not of their making, why does the minister not resolve the problem by simply delaying the effective date of the legislation involved so that these taxpayers' returns can be processed and Canadians can get the money they so badly need?


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is too reasonable.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue will be in the House tomorrow. I have taken note of the hon. member's question and her views, and the minister will act in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.


IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I will address my supplementary again to the Minister of Finance because it is his budget. At least that is what we are told.
Officials are urging people who really need the money to file under the conditions existing prior to the November budget, and therefore risk having to pay interest and penalties. Since the responsibility for this sad state of affairs rests with the Minister of Finance, is he willing to suggest to his colleague,

April 6, 1982
Oral Questions
the Minister of National Revenue, that any penalties incurred by taxpayers trapped in this swamp should be waived?


Claude Tessier: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of National Revenue is following very closely the matter of filing income tax returns. We do not intend to grant any extensions, but in order to safeguard the entire process as well as the filing of tax returns, we shall take appropriate action, as required.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank God for Hansard}.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Conference Board of Canada has now fairly well substantiated what most of us have believed for some time, that if there is going to be any reduction in the inflation level it will be marginal, and will be borne primarily on the backs of people who are going to be unemployed. It is quite clear that the interest rate policy pursued by the government is the single largest contributing factor to the major economic problems we face today. It matters not whether you are talking about consumer purchasing, farm purchasing, or housing, in every single area interest rates are given as the main reason why purchasing is not taking place.
I ask the minister, is it not time for the government to review its mad policy of pursuing high interest rates and set an interest rate policy consistent with the recovery of our manufacturing sector? And if it means exchange controls, then let it mean exchange controls!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, no one is quarrelling with the hon. member's concern about high interest rates, but every time he raises the question he fails to make the inevitable connection between high interest rates and high inflation rates. The surest way for the hon. member to get lower interest rates is to get lower inflation rates. Once he makes that connection it will be possible for us to have a reasonable discussion. If he refuses to make that connection, then of course it is futile for him to ask for lower interest rates because we will not have them unless we can lower prices and the general level of inflation.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE REDUCED
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, of course there is a correlation between the two; no one denies
that high interest rates contribute to the high level of inflation. I put to the minister that today in Hamilton there are another 1,800 people faced with another major lay-off, people who had been earning a living and looking after their families. In every community, in every industrial sector, and I do not care what part of the country you go to, no matter how you make the calculation, high interest rates are a major part of the cost of any commodity in the marketplace. If you reduce interest rates, you reduce the cost of a commodity and you get more efficiency, so why will the government not understand that and implement that kind of policy?


Mr. Thacker:: You put them in there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has again made the mistake of saying that high interest rates cause inflation.


Ian Deans: They contribute to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously they contribute to it, as the hon. members says, but the main force behind these high interest rates is the high inflation rate. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the high inflation we have is causing high interest rates and high unemployment, and the moment we start to make more progress than we are in getting the inflation rate down, the sooner we will have more jobs and the necessary recovery. That is why, Madam Speaker, the government is following the only policy available in the circumstances to bring down our rate of inflation.


DROP IN SASKATCHEWAN OIL PRODUCTION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who will know that ever since he took charge of his portfolio, people in the oilfields of southern Saskatchewan have been out of work; it has not just happened in the last year. Eighty per cent of production in the Swift Current area is shut in, and 35 per cent in the Estevan-Weyburn area. This means hundreds of people out of work in Saskatchewan. At the same time the minister continues the practice of importing 400,000 barrels of oil a day at a cost to the taxpayer of over $3 billion a year.
Will the minister explain to the people of Canada, and in particular the people of southern Saskatchewan, how he can justify the direction he is taking in his portfolio?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I wonder where the hon. member has been during the past two years. First of all, last week I announced a number of specific measures to provide assistance in this area, measures aimed at starting up production in a
April 6, 1982

number of oil fields that are shut in at the present time. This was due in part to the excessive royalty rates imposed by the government of Saskatchewan, which has now agreed to revise its rates. Second, I have announced measures to increase exports of this commodity to the United States, with the possibility of extending export permits, and these measures have been endorsed and supported by the Saskatchewan Minister of Energy. I therefore suggest that my hon. colleague should be better informed before asking such questions.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, when the minister took charge of his portfolio the price of gasoline in Saskatchewan was $1 a gallon; today it is $2. The tax on that gallon is $1.36, divided between the two levels of government. How can the minister justify yet another increase, for which he is seeking the authority of this House, in view of the high price he has brought upon the people of Saskatchewan?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is not asking for an increase in price other than the increases which have resulted from the agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -and the hon. members on the other side, including the Conservatives, have been pressing the government to get even more.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Epp:: Where is the 18 cents?


Marc Lalonde: We have had to fight to get the agreement we have at levels lower than-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -what the Tories were trying to push upon the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Committee Reports
I have to tell the minister, Madam Speaker, that his policies are blamed for lost jobs and lost opportunities in Atlantic Canada, and I ask him whether it is true that he has refused to approve inter-company agreements and proposals which would result in development activity, all in the name of Canadianiza-tion. Will he Canadianize petroleum industry employees by giving them unemployment insurance cheques and welfare benefits in place of pay cheques from offshore developments?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is completely off base on offshore.


MEASURES TO ASSIST DEVELOPMENT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer indicates his view of Atlantic Canada, which is facing unemployment of over 120,000. Newfoundland has over 16 percent of its population unemployed, and unemployment is almost as high in Nova Scotia. What I want to know and what the people of Atlantic Canada want to know is what the minister will do to promote offshore development instead of hindering and delaying it.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in the last month we have succeeded in arriving at an excellent agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia which, I am sure, the people of Nova Scotia are very strongly supporting. Under that agreement, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada are working jointly. We are working together for the benefit of the people of Canada, and the people of Nova Scotia, in particular. I can inform my hon. friend that, thanks to the Canada Oil and Gas Act that this government has passed in spite of the opposition-


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister for OPEC.


Marc Lalonde: -of the Tories on the other side, we have substantially increased Canadian participation and benefits to the Canadian workers and Canadian businesses of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to Atlantic offshore resource development. The minister must know that offshore development is the major hope for job creation in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, yet the most promising developments off the Nova Scotia coast, such as Shell resources' $200 million drilling program with the Sedco 709, have been delayed and may be cancelled.



TRANSPORT


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. This is a special report entitled "Domestic Air Carrier Policy".

April 6, 1982
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to the House 135,327 signatures on a petition against the forced implementation of the metric system. This petition is 36 inches wide, three and a half miles long and weighs 247 pounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This is one of the largest petitions ever presented to the House of Commons. It is to be added to the 24,000 signatures which I presented last year.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. When the Chair rises, hon. members know that they must resume their seats. Hon. members cannot have it both ways. If they have given the page the petitions, which I assume were in the envelopes-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That was just part of it.


Madam Speaker:: The roll and the envelopes. If they are all original signatures, that is fine. I cannot say that that is not a petition if the hon. member tells me it is.


An hon. Member:: That's what it is.


Madam Speaker:: I thought that the envelopes contained signatures and that the rolls contained other signatures.


Walter David Baker: Bring it in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There they go, to the internment camp!


Madam Speaker:: It takes the pages and four MPs to carry that petition! I wonder what that means.


Mr. Andre:: Thirty cents a letter, too.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I would like this petition of 135,327 signatures to be added to the 52,000 signatures which have already been presented to this House, making a grand total to date, in less than 12 months, of 187,327 signatures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This petition was gathered, put together and signed by Barbara Amiel, Peter Worthington-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Laugh at the people if you like.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -Robert MacDonald, A. Donato, Anti-Metric Canada, Operation HUMBUG, Measure Canadian and the staff and management of The Toronto Sun.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Oh, The Toronto Sun\


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This is the petition of the undersigned residents of the federal ridings of Peterborough, Carleton-Charlotte, Capilano, Red Deer, Don Valley West, Scarborough East, York North, Ontario, Rosedale, Etobicoke Centre, Mississauga South, Calgary West, Hamilton-Wentworth, Victoria-Haliburton, Brampton-Georgetown, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Crowfoot, Edmonton North, Edmonton South, Edmonton-Strathcona, Edmonton West, Pembina, Wetaskiwin, Yellow-head, Okanagan-Similkameen, Bow River, Calgary Centre, Calgary East, Calgary North, Calgary South, Malpeque, in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
We oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI Metric system in Canada; and we believe the pace, degree and nature of change to the SI metric should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms or industries directly concerned and with minimal government interference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I urge this Liberal government seriously to consider these 135,327 signatures and add them to the 52,000 of 1981, making the grand total of 187,327.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ouellet:: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: We are not on privilege!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the petition presented today is the result of false and misleading representations and information given-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that is not a debatable question.


Walter David Baker: We have concluded that is not true.


Madam Speaker:: The petition will be read by the Clerk of Petitions and if it is in conformity with our rules, it will be accepted.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in rising to present a petition, I should remark that it is not unusual that an hon. member who has, in the past, counselled judges-


André Ouellet: Order.
April 6, 1982


Charles Joseph Clark: -should seek to counsel the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Yellowhead, Alberta. The purpose of this petition is to indicate that these petitioners, along with thousands of Canadians, oppose the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada. These Canadians believe that the degree and nature of change to the Systems International metric system should be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms concerned and further believe there should be minimal government interference.
Therefore, 1 present this petition on behalf of my constituents in the full knowledge that thousands of Canadians share their concern and are protesting mandatory imposition of metric conversion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: On a question of privilege arising from the remark which has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I want to say-


Some hon. Members:: True, true!


André Ouellet: -that if the leader of that party has to go with cheap shots like the one which has just been given-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -to establish his own position in Parliament, it is very downgrading for this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, sit down!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but this is no time for debate. With one sentence on one side and one sentence on the other side, 1 think that equals the opportunities.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a great many of my constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth who oppose the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada. While many of my constituents are not against metric conversion per se they feel very strongly that democracy should be brought to the system, that the conversion should be voluntary. My people believe, as I do, that if the Government of Canada can require bilingual labelling of all retail goods, then surely this same government can order tandem labelling of imperial and metric measurements, to give consumers a freedom of choice. Madam Speaker, I humbly present this petition.


Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by many hundreds of citizens in
Petitions
Calgary North, is to indicate to the government that the citizens of Calgary North protest the forced imposition of the metric system in Canada by order in council. The nature of the petition is to demand that this government rescind its compulsory order to impose metrication on Canadians.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their concern, and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in you and your office to draw to the attention of the government the hardships caused by the imposition of this order in council.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition on behalf of the many residents of Rosedale riding who want to show their opposition to the compulsory implementation of the metric system. Madam Speaker, they believe that the pace, degree and nature of the change to the Systems International metric system should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sections of trade and industry, and by the individual firms or industries directly concerned and with minimal government interference.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to rise on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, and particularly the thousands of citizens of Toronto who continue to be opposed to the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada. Madam Speaker, they, among the
90,000	who have signed various petitions against this matter from my area, believe that the pace, degree and nature of the change to the metric system should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sections of trade and industry, and by the individual firms or industries directly concerned, and with minimal government interference.
Madam Speaker, I pray you will find when thousands of Canadians petition this House that they are expressing themselves openly and clearly, that they prefer free choice, and that you will find this petition important enough that it be given due consideration at some point here in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians across Canada, I would like to present this petition opposing the mandatory imposition of the metric system.
It is the firm belief of those who signed that the pace, degree and nature of the change to the SI metric system must be determined voluntarily in various sectors of industry and commerce and that the present law represents unwarranted government interference in the lives of individual Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House on behalf of my constitu-

April 6, 1982
Petitions
ents a petition disclosing opposition to the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system and favouring a voluntary implementation of the same upon determination by the private sector.
At the same time, I would like specifically to pay tribute to a young man in my riding, a certain Chris Bartolin who, concerned about the way in which the government has behaved, personally paid for an advertisement which gave rise just recently to-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. members should limit themselves to the content of the petition.


John Albert Gamble: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition on behalf of the worthy citizens of Edmonton North, who are angry, frustrated and furious that this government would not allow an open debate on metric and would hope that the government would absolve the cost of implementation of this disaster. Therefore, we oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system in Canada, and we believe that the pace, degree and nature of the change to the SI metric should and must be determined voluntarily, in the various sectors of trade and industry, by the individual firms or industries directly concerned, and with minimal government interference. I pray that you will take this into consideration, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Tousignant:: Madam Speaker, I must protest against that gang of hypocrites on the other side of the House who are speaking out against the metric system, while their leader-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is time to present petitions, not to debate the question. Hon. members are entitled to present petitions now.


Mr. Olivier:: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to know-I gave notice in writing that I intended to raise a question of privilege, and I should be grateful if you would allow me to discuss my question now.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member will be able to discuss his question of privilege after the Chair has dealt with petitions, although questions of privilege do have priority over all other matters in the House. If the hon. member wants to discuss his question of privilege he may do so, since, it is true he has given me notice. The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has the floor.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, as usual, I am quite willing to co-operate with everyone in this House. I am willing to do so if the Chair gives me the floor after the other members have finished their business.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am interested in the concern of the members opposite. I am sure that if they put forward a motion or a bill to make illegal the metric measure, they will be very pleased with the debate we would have.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am rising to present a petition.


Madam Speaker:: That is fine.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of thousands of constituents of Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre and Etobicoke-Lakeshore who have presented a petition. It is my duty to speak on their behalf, because they oppose the mandatory imposition of the Systems International metric system, particularly those Canadians who have been caught off guard in their shopping recently in buying goods in metric and finding when they got home that they had spent considerably more-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members need not be reminded, I am sure, that the only thing they can do is make a brief statement of the title of the petition, and that is all. They are not to debate it or refer to certain facts that are peculiar to their particular constituency. I would appreciate it, since I have had notices of several petitions being presented, if hon. members would be particularly brief.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, 1 will be brief. I believe it is my honoured duty to present this petition on behalf of the constituents of Etobicoke Centre.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the mandatory imposition of metric is similar. I only want to say on their behalf that freedom of measure ought to be a measure of freedom.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of the many thousands of citizens of the electoral district of Red Deer, Alberta, who oppose the mandatory enforcement of SI metric. Prime Minister Pierre is imposing metric. The population finds it hectic. Convert or else-face jail or fine. Drop Imperial, toe the line. My petition is: if yards become meters, at the same time, will Pierres become Peters?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise today, as have many other hon. members, to present a petition
April 6, 1982

to the House of Commons opposing the government's mandatory imposition of the metric system of measurement here in Canada and calling instead for voluntary conversion. The petitioners' view is echoed by widespread and determined opposition in the constituency of Oxford to the government's strong-arm tactics in pushing for compulsory metric. The petitioners hope that the government will come to its senses and be sensitive to the needs, desires and concerns of the Canadian people, allowing them a say in metric conversion.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I rise in response to the thousands of names that I have received from my constituents with respect to the implementation of the metric system, and I present their petition at this time.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, we petitioners of the undersigned riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka-and I also speak for many of the ridings in northern Ontario-now avail ourselves of our ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. We humbly sheweth that we oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system in Canada, that we believe the pace, degree and nature of change to the SI metric system should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms or industries directly concerned and with minimal government interference and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the federal riding of Burlington who oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system in Canada. We ask the House to give a proper and just redress to this grievance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Mississauga, may I present a petition against the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada. My constituents believe that metric should be voluntary.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition to this House on behalf of the constituents of the federal riding of Okanagan-Similkameen who have added their signatures to a petition, the purpose of which is to express opposition to the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada. The nature of the petition is to pray and beseech that this House note the desire of the people of Canada to return to the voluntary nature of metric conversion with a minimum of governmental interference.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and that you will bring to the attention of the Government of Canada the anxious
Petitions
concerns of citizens to the mandatory imposition of metrication in their country.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present this petition of the many undersigned residents of the federal riding of Calgary East in the city of Calgary, Alberta, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy for those citizens who oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI metric in Canada and who believe that the pace, degree and nature of change to the SI metric should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms or industries directly concerned and with minimal government interference and, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to you on behalf of the citizens of Scarborough East and the other Scarborough ridings not being represented here today a petition opposing the enforced implementation of metrication in Scarborough and in Canada at a time when electronics provide instant recognition on weigh scales, of both imperial and metric, and at a time when we apparently cannot afford the cost of extremely expensive bilingual labels. I earnestly petition that we be given the freedom of choice on all labels involving weights and measures.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition on behalf of thousands of my constituents in the Bow River riding in Alberta. My constituents oppose having metric shoved down their throats. They oppose compulsion by a totalitarian government in imposing metric on them. They oppose the spending of millions of their dollars to let the people know what is good for them.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sure that is not in the title of the petition.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member must not argue about the petition.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Okay, I won't argue. I simply ask on behalf of my constituents that the government which passed the order in council and made metric compulsory now make it voluntary by order in council.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty on behalf of thousands of constituents of Calgary West to present this petition to the House. The constituents in my riding are also concerned about the enforced aspect of metric and about the fact that democracy was not well served. The constituents in my riding would like to remind the members of this House and the government that when democratic ways are not attended to the faith which the people have in democracy today is inevitably eroded. This is one of those examples.

April 6, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Olivier
We hope that the government will pay attention to these petitions and might rescind the order forcing metric on a nation that does not want it.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which I feel is extremely important and, in fact, there is a second question of privilege connected with the first one. That is why I accepted your ruling last week, in which you mentioned I had failed to send notice. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that I did send notice the same day you pointed this out to me, and I trust that in that respect, I have acted in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
I have found, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Do I understand correctly that the hon. member now has two questions of privilege to discuss? 1 have only received notice for one question of privilege. If there is a second one, I am very sorry, but the same procedure must be followed. Unless this question arises out of proceedings in the House, the hon. member may not discuss it, but I should be happy to listen to what he has to say about the first question.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the first question has been expanded so there is now only one question. So, in that respect, I have met your request. I should like to point out, and I want to make this quite clear, that the Speaker's role in the House is a very difficult one, and it is certainly not up to me to dictate the behaviour of anyone, even the Chair, and certainly not to make any kind of judgment on the qualifications of the members in this House.
Madam Speaker, on March 31, around 5.40 p.m. or 5.45 p.m., the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who had the floor, and several government and opposition members, I believe, tried to raise points of order or questions of privilege to draw your attention and be recognized. 1 must point out, Madam Speaker, that on page 16031 of Hansard, it is clearly established that I tried to draw your attention eight times. On pages 16031 and 16032, we see names of the hon. members who witnessed my attempts to draw your attention eight times, Madam Speaker. I realize that I am a backbencher and I have been one for ten years in this House, but after all, it would have been only fair and reasonable to recognize me between my first and eighth attempt.
At my second attempt to draw your attention, Madam Speaker, you rose and said, and I quote:
Order, please. There can be no point of order. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has not yet spoken. He has the floor.
In my view, you had, in fact, ruled on the alleged point of order or question of privilege I had raised. Furthermore, you-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member at this point. I remember clearly pointing out to the hon. member that I could not allow points of order at the time because I had just given the floor again to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-who had not yet uttered a single sentence, if I remember correctly-and that consequently, there could be no point of order on what the member for Nepean-Carleton had just said because he had not said anything. I must point out to the hon. member that if he would like to recall the circumstances in the House at the time, there were perhaps as many as fifteen members who were trying to be recognized by the Chair, and 1 could not, of course, recognize everyone at the same time. I tried to give each member a chance to speak, and the hon. member is not satisfied with the manner in which I finally was able to give him the floor. I am very sorry, but I do not feel that this is a matter for a question of privilege. The hon. member for Longueuil.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not want to doubt your word, but I just wanted to point out that at page 16030, the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had already started to speak. I would also like to remind you, Madam Speaker, that one of the privileges and perhaps the only privilege a member has in the House is the right to speak. And it is clear that the purpose of all privileges arising from that single privilege is to enable a member to express his views. It is also a fact, Madam Speaker, that it is extremely difficult for the Chair to recognize 282 members at the same time, and I realize this. I also realize, Madam Speaker, that when we consider the sixth time I tried to get your attention, not the second time as I said earlier but the sixth time, once more, you prejudged the question I wanted to raise, assuming that I wanted to question the hon. member, which was not the case. As page 16031 of Hansard indicates, you prejudged what I was going to say.
I should like to point out, Madam Speaker, that Beau-chesne's fifth edition mentions the member's privilege of freedom of speech. In Beauchesne, fifth edition, Citation 55 on page 21, it says very clearly, Madam Speaker, that practically the only right a member has in the House is the right to speak. And neither the Chair nor anyone else may judge the hon. member before he has been heard.
Finally, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I really have the impression that the hon. member, after sending me notice of his question of privilege which was supposed to refer to the fact that his earphone was not working, is now dealing with an entirely different question. The hon. member has probably realized
April 6, 1982

that his earphone has been repaired. After looking into the matter, we found that the earphone's wires had been cut. That means that we have a serious security problem here in the House of Commons, because I cannot imagine who could possibly get into the House and cut the wires of a member's earphone.
In any case, the matter is being investigated, and as far as the hon. member is concerned, I believe that since then his earphone has been repaired. If the hon. member wishes to criticize the manner in which I conduct the proceedings in this House, he knows there is a formal way of doing this. The other day, I was not prejudging the question he wished to address. I was simply making use of my right to recognize this one or that hon. member, and when twenty or more hon. members are trying to get the floor, it is really one of the few powers the Chair has. I gave preference to another hon. member over the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) at various times. Eventually, it was his turn. I really do not see any reason for the hon. member to complain, and I do not see that this is a matter for a question of privilege. Therefore, I do not think the hon. member can take the floor again to discuss his question of privilege.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Once again, you are prejudging what I am going to say.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil has the floor.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, once again you are prejudging my conclusions. I suggest you wait until I finish.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! Will the hon. member please sit down? The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has the floor.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, it comes as a shocking surprise to me that we learn for the first time that the electronic Hansard system in the House of Commons has been tampered with. No doubt you have asked for an inspection of all members' systems, so that their microphones and speakers may be examined. I would be interested in learning whether any other member's microphone or speaker has been tampered with and whether there is an ongoing investigation into the whole of the circumstances surrounding what appears to have been a deliberate tampering with the electronic system in this chamber.


Madam Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that there is an ongoing inquiry into what has taken place because I, just as the hon. member, was quite shocked at the idea that someone could have tampered in this way with one member's microphone.


Erik Nielsen: No doubt, Madam Speaker, when your inquiries are completed all members would be interested in hearing the results.
Privilege-Mr. Olivier
While that investigation is going on, I recall that particular evening in question when the sound in the whole of this place was turned off. I noticed the gesture of despair which was made by the operator of the system. The only station that was being heard was the Chair. The sound and the lights were totally dead at all other positions. Perhaps that also is the subject matter of the inquiry you are conducting.


Madam Speaker:: I believe if that happened it was because the Speaker was standing in her place. As the hon. member knows, the rule that we established when we introduced electronic Hansard was that there would be an electronic interpretation of the Standing Orders. This is quite a brilliant idea since, when the Speaker rises, members should resume their seats and only the Speaker should be allowed to speak. The microphones at members' desks go off automatically. Those are instructions that we have all agreed would be given to the people at the console. If the hon. member is referring to a situation such as the one I have described, he would know that that is quite normal.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I know it is quite normal in those circumstances but I recall very clearly that you had recognized the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). You were seated and the operator was obviously frustrated because he could not activate the microphone in front of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and he was shrugging in despair. I wonder if that might be checked out with the electronic Hansard personnel, just to double check on those circumstances.


Madam Speaker:: That as well.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to say that you were right when I pointed out that the simultaneous translation system was out of order. I simply wish to refer you to a ruling made by one of your predecessors, in 1968, I believe, about a defective translation system or the absence of translators. I would ask you to refer to this ruling, Madam Speaker, in the course of your investigation, and I would like this investigation to determine how it could happen that a member should be deprived of the simultaneous translation facilities when another member is speaking in the other official language which he cannot understand. It is in fact for this reason, Madam Speaker, that I rose eight times in an attempt to draw your attention to the problem. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, who was entitled to speak, as you had recognized him. He therefore had a right to say what he had to say. However, what I want to say, Madam Speaker, is that I also had a right to understand what the hon. member opposite was saying, and it is for that reason that I tried eight times to call your attention to the problem and show you that I could not understand what the hon. member was saying. I would like to refer you, Madam Speaker, to a ruling made by one of your predecessors who stated very clearly that, in the various committees, when there are no interpreters or when no

April 6, 1982
Introduction of Bills
translation is available, the committees should not sit or should at least interrupt temporarily their proceedings while the problem is being solved. As you have pointed out, Madam Speaker, if we had 282 defective earphones, the whole proceedings would come to a stop, but when the problem affects only a few earphones, it is only fair and reasonable that someone should check the matter.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is still debating the issue. I shall look into this matter of the translation that the hon. member could not hear, but he must understand that this is only a technical problem affecting one member. Not all members were without translation. The hon. member should not overdo it. This is purely a technical or an administrative problem which could have been settled by a telephone call to my office. I believe this is the way to settle such matters. Unless the entire House is deprived of all the facilities to which it is entitled, 1 do not believe that such problems should be raised in the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this matter, but I do think the record should be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question has been sufficiently debated. I am trying to put an end to it. I will inquire into all these technical difficulties and report to the House.


CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-650, to amend the Citizenship Act.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time, at the next sitting of the House?


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should have risen earlier to make his brief statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I know he is allowed to make a brief statement, but he should have risen earlier. If the House will allow the hon. member to make his brief statement, we can revert to that particular part of the procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to restore certain provisions omitted from the revised Citizenship Act which came into force in 1977. The former act extinguished the citizenship of any Canadian who, through a voluntary act, took up citizenship in another country or who declared his allegiance to another country. The bill would reaffirm this principle, namely, that a person cannot profess loyalty to two different countries at the same time.
I would add, Madam Speaker, that from the explanatory note in the printed version of the bill from which I am reading four words are omitted, and I would like to put them in. They should appear in the fourth line and read: "any Canadian who, through a voluntary act-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating the bill. I think the House has an idea what the bill is all about, and that is the purpose of this brief statement.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[ Translation]

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with the representatives of each party, and if you ask the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion, I believe that you will get it, at least according to the discussions I have had with the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
I therefore move:
That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, April 8, 1982, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 19, 1982, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Madam Speaker, I believe that there is unanimous consent for this motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I had no idea my name would appear as a seconder, i would like it to be removed. The seconder can be the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). We give our unanimous consent for
April 6, 1982

the motion to be put now without notice. We do not intend to debate the motion. We do not intend to bring on a vote on the motion. We accept the decision of the government with respect to the content of the motion.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I get a little tired of the House leader for the official opposition picking and choosing when he will accept things. However, I will second the motion, if that is all that is required.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Poor Ian.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the government House leader could clarify something for me. My constituency is in Vancouver, and I would like to be home for Good Friday. I wonder whether the House will be adjourning at six o'clock on Thursday or whether it will continue to the regular time of ten o'clock, because we cannot get planes to get us home for Good Friday if it does.


Erik Nielsen: Ten o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the way the motion reads it is obvious that the House will adjourn at ten o'clock on Thursday, but I certainly will not object if the hon. member leaves earlier, if he so desires.
I apologize to the opposition if I was understood as having said that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seconded the motion. That is not what I said in French at all. I said I had consultations with him. It could be seconded by any hon. member on my side of the House who wishes to support the motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am not critical of the translation, but the problem is that what came over the translation was that I was seconding the motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, apropos what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has said, my House leader, of course, has quite properly agreed to a reasonable adjournment of the House. Those of us from the west coast are prepared to agree to this order-


Donald W. Munro: Hey!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -but I ask the government House leader to consider the possibility of adjourning the House earlier because some of us have to take part in these debates, it is a long way home and we want to be home for Good Friday. Perhaps by a later agreement, if the House leaders would think about this, we could in fact


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear hon. members laughing. This is a serious matter to us on the west coast. I just ask the government House leader to reconsider.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I am willing to consider a further order, if we could get
Energy Legislation
unanimous consent, but in the meantime I understand everyone agrees to the motion I have just read. In so far as the hon. member's request is concerned, I am willing to consider it and discuss it. If the opposition agrees-because Thursday will be an opposition day-I will certainly not object if we adjourn at six o'clock.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to advise that as an independent member of this House I was not consulted. In fact, I can refuse to give my consent to this motion. Nevertheless, I want to get home for Good Friday also, so I suggest that perhaps we do leave on Thursday at six o'clock. However, I point out that I would also be prepared to second the motion put by the hon. member opposite.


Madam Speaker:: The House gives unanimous consent to the motion moved by the hon. President of the Privy Council which asks that the House adjourn-and I shall not read it again-on Thursday, April 8, at ten o'clock. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried.


ENERGY LEGISLATION
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to put another motion which has the consent of all hon. members. We did not consult the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) when we dealt with the order related to the energy bills, but his rights were protected in the order. I want him to be assured that when we do not consult him, we see that his rights are protected at all times.
I move:
That, pursuant to section (g) of Standing Order 75.1, the members of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, created pursuant to the aforementioned section of the aforementioned Standing Order, be Messrs. Andre, Bosley, Collenette, Dawson, Evans, Foster, Hawkes, Lefebvre, MacLaren and Waddell.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
April 6, 1982
Energy Legislation
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,512, 3,961, 3,962 and 3,963.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the placing of question No. 3,322 on the Order Paper concerning whether or not immigration in the port of Lansdowne, Ontario might be placed under the direction of Kingston, is the government moving swiftly to have the matter placed under the jurisdiction of Kingston and, if so (a) what are all the reasons for haste (b) will the government consider representations from various interested parties before any decision is made to place the port under any jurisdiction outside the boundaries of Leeds-Grenville?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No.
(a)	No haste is being taken in making this decision. As stated in the reply to question No. 3,322 part 1(b), it is part of our annual review of operational planning and as stated a final recommendation has not been made as of the date of this question.
(b)	No. If it is simply an internal re-organization and does not affect the level of service in the area concerned or if it does not involve the closure of an office, the Commission has full authority to make this decision.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and job designations of all the persons in government who played any part whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in the consideration being given to placing the Department of Employment and Immigration at the port of Lansdowne under the authority of the port of Kingston, which is outside the boundary of the constituency of Leeds-Grenville where the port of Lansdowne is located?


Lloyd Axworthy: The decision to place the port of Lansdowne under the responsibility of the port of Kingston was made by the executive director of the Ontario region in consultation with his senior officials. It would be inappropriate to provide the additional information requested, as the full authority for making this decision rests with the executive director.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the provincial jail in Brockville in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville used for all persons arrested for immigration infractions at the port of Lansdowne and, if so, what would be the purpose of placing the port of Lansdowne, located in that constituency, under the authority of the Department of Employment and Immigration at Kingston, which would be outside the area and 50 miles from the jail?


Lloyd Axworthy: No. The provincial jail in Brockville is used for some persons arrested for immigration infractions at Lansdowne. Some are transported to Ottawa immediately, the remainder are transferred to Ottawa within 24 hours. Brockville jail is usually crowded and does not have proper facilities
to hold adjudication hearings. There are no full-time matrons for female prisoners; therefore, females are transferred to Ottawa as soon as possible.


Mr. Cossitt: Has political pressure been or is it being exerted from any person in government, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the government to place the Department of Employment and Immigration at the port of Lansdowne in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville under the authority of the port of Kingston which is outside the present area and, if so, what are all the details in this regard and what are the names of all those exerting such pressure?


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: That a Ways and Means Motion about a bill to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, laid upon the table of the House on Monday, April 5, 1982, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
April 6, 1982

Petro-Canada Act


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.
* *
*


PETRO-CANADA ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-101, to amend the Petro-Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce for second reading Bill C-101, to amend the Petro-Canada Act, which is an important legislative element of the Government of Canada's National Energy Program. As hon. members may know, these amendments were originally included in Bill C-94, the energy security bill. The Tories' strike-with-pay against Parliament was an avoidable and most regrettable incident. Time which could have been spent debating in Parliament our proposals for energy security was lost, for nothing as it turns out, since the government had said all along that it was ready to split Bill C-94 if there was an agreement to treat all its elements with some dispatch.
Again today, Mr. Speaker, we saw more abuse of Parliament as the Tories were trying to turn the House into a circus. All those members who presented a petition today were the same members who, in 1977, passed unanimously the statute law amendment to the Metric Conversion Act.


William James Kempling: Wrong!


Marc Lalonde: This is the type of hyprocrisy-


William James Kempling: You are the biggest hypocrite of all.


Marc Lalonde: -that we are facing from the Conservative party, which had been hijacking Parliament a few weeks ago

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
and is now trying to turn this House into a circus by acting on the basis of false and misleading information.
However, we now have an agreement by this House that all the legislative proposals contained in Bill C-94 will see approval by the end of June. I truly welcome this opportunity to put the past behind us and to put the first of our legislative proposals, these amendments to the Petro-Canada Act, before Your Honour.
During the 1980 election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to strengthen and expand Petro-Canada as an instrument of energy policy. This government is committed to deliver on this promise. Let me cite from our 1980 energy election platform. The Liberal Party program of the 1980 election campaign stated:
The Liberal plan seeks to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians. We would start at once to:
-strengthen and expand Petro-Canada as an instrument of national policy;
-ensure that Canada's energy sector becomes more Canadian-owned and
controlled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That promise was formally repeated in the Speech from the Throne in which we said we will strengthen and expand Petro-Canada. I believe those are the precise words we used in the Speech from the Throne. Of course, the importance of Petro-Canada was ultimately written into the National Energy Program itself.
These commitments were obviously completely at variance with the position of the Conservative Party. Ever since, the Conservative Party has tried to dismantle, to dislocate, to destabilize Petro-Canada by hook or by crook. It has tried to damage Petro-Canada and to hurt this institution.
However, what we have is a number of amendments to the act. Many are merely for the purposes of consolidation and clarification. However, there are three amendments which I do consider express significant initiatives. These include an amendment to expand the authorized common share capital of the corporation, an amendment to permit the allocation of start-up funds for Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, and an amendment to provide for the payment of moneys to fund a new subsidiary called Canertech.
Petro-Canada is an important element of the NEP because it allows all Canadians, through their national oil company, an opportunity to participate directly in, and benefit from, the development of our vast energy resources. Through its activities, Petro-Canada continues to play an important role in contributing to the process of Canadianization.
The total additional capital provided by this bill will be $4.9 billion. The new authorized capital ceiling it authorizes is $5.5 billion, but because $500 million has been subscribed under the present act, and since a further $100 million has been provided with respect to the interest in Panarctic Oils, the total of new capital funds available is $4.9 billion. This is a large sum, but in this context it should be pointed out that $4.9 billion is a small share of the roughly $300 billion which will be spent on Canadian energy projects in this decade.
What are the objectives of Petro-Canada, and how efficiently has this Crown corporation fulfilled that role? I think it is
important that I spend a few minutes discussing these objectives, especially to inform our Conservative friends on the other side of the House about this very important national institution.
First, Petro-Canada is seen as playing a major role in securing Canada's energy future by finding and developing major new sources of oil and gas. To indicate the degree to which the corporation has been successful, I simply have to point out the Sable Islands and Hibernia discoveries where the role of Petro-Canada has been very significant and, as a matter of fact, Petro-Canada has been an active participant in both.
Second, it has the goal of encouraging industry to explore and develop in the risky and expensive, but exciting, frontier lands. Exploration and development activity in the Arctic Islands is testimony to Petro-Canada's achievement in this regard. Petro-Canada has been heavily involved in exploration in the Arctic Islands through Panarctic Oils, in which it has a 52 per cent interest. Panarctic, more than 80 per cent Canadian-owned, is the operator for a consortium of companies which has spent $600 million over the past ten years, resulting in very significant discoveries of natural gas and promising indications of oil in the Arctic Islands.
One field, Whitefish, which is located west of Lougheed Island, has been estimated to contain 64.5 billion cubic metres of natural gas. Panarctic officials estimate they have located possibly as much as 425 billion cubic metres of natural gas in the Arctic.
The third goal of Petro-Canada is to encourage Canadian oil and gas companies to become more deeply involved in oil and gas development by showing that a Canadian company can work with, and be as successful as, the major multinationals. Petro-Canada's success here is best illustrated by the fact that the company has been particularly active in encouraging other Canadian companies to become involved in eastern offshore drilling. For example, it heads up the Labrador project, a longterm effort involving many companies to thoroughly explore the coast of Labrador for oil and gas.
In 1980, Petro-Canada assigned a share of its participation in Davis Strait exploration to two Canadian companies, Home Oil Company Limited and PanCanadian Petroleum Limited, as part of a broad program to help Canadian companies become involved in frontier exploration.
The fourth objective is to provide Canadians with a significant and direct stake in the development of their oil and gas resources. Petro-Canada has made good progress toward achieving this goal, using the assets publicly acquired in effective and exciting ways. It has been particularly aggressive in exploring in the frontier regions and in encouraging other Canadian companies to do likewise. Approximately 35 per cent of its corporate spending and 60 per cent of its exploration budget goes into frontiers. Since 1976, Petro-Canada has been a prime mover behind 76 of the 128 wells drilled in the frontier. It is currently the only large Canadian landowner in the
April 6, 1982

eastern offshore, the only Canadian operator there, and a participant in every major offshore well.
In 1981, Petro-Canada participated in more than 5 per cent of all exploratory and development wells in Canada. This included the drilling of over 230 oil and gas wells in western Canada, as well as participation in 15 out of the 22 wells drilled in the frontier Canada lands. I understand that the company's success rate on exploratory wells is 70 per cent, which is even higher than the average for the industry.
Although its spending in the frontier region is not expected to yield significant amounts of revenue until the latter part of this decade, Petro-Canada is facing the high risks of these frontier investments, knowing that when the time comes it will have the experience and talent, to the benefit of all Canadians, to develop the huge oil and gas reserves. The achievements of Petro-Canada have certainly not gone unnoticed, Mr. Speaker. Petro-Canada has in fact been recognized as a vital component of our plans to achieve energy security and self-sufficiency.
I would say that the only ones in this country and around the world who have not recognized this major role and major investment of Petro-Canada are the members of the Conservative party in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marc Lalonde: The 1980 study of Petro-Canada by the United States general accounting office identifies several areas where the Crown corporation has played, or is playing, a critical role in Canada's energy strategy. For example, the report has this to say about Petro-Canada generally:
Petro-Canada has made an important contribution to improving Canada's energy situation, and is likely to play an increasing role in this regard under the Canadian Government's new energy policy.
Or this about Petro-Canada as a catalyst of oil exploration and development:
Petro-Canada's experience indicates that it is possible for a national oil company to fulfil a social benefit function by accelerating the pace of exploration and development activities in high-cost/high-risk areas where private company activity may be insufficient and currently uneconomic.
As the U.S. study finds:
Likewise, it appears that Petro-Canada has been about as successful in conventional oil and gas production as private companies.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts I have just described speak for themselves, and more often than not, Petro-Canada has played a leading role in starting up projects, especially in the frontier areas of the Arctic offshore. However, I wish to repeat a formal commitment made by the government in the past. We want to strengthen and expand Petro-Canada and increase its activities, but the government has no intention of allowing the presence of the public sector to squeeze out the private sector in the oil and gas industry. The industry is, and will remain, largely in the hands of the private sector. In fact, a major part of the National Energy Program was developed with a view to creating policies and a climate that would be favourable to
Petro-Canada Act
investment, thus enabling a dynamic private sector to fulfil its role in providing for Canada's future energy needs. If polls are any reflection of reality, Canadians heartily approve of the expenditures related to Petro-Canada. The Crown corporation has done excellent work, both on its own and in collaboration with others. Many of the projects it is undertaking in the national interest require enormous investments on which no return can be expected before the long term. The corporation must have the financial resources it needs to do a good job.

Mr. Speaker, another important initiative taken by Petro-Canada is the formation of the subsidiary, Canertech. Only a year and a half old, Canertech is already playing a substantial and important role in helping to achieve the National Energy Program's goals of conserving energy and moving off oil on to more abundant alternate energies.
Based in Winnipeg, Canertech is dedicated to helping commercialize conservation and renewable energy technologies. There are three ways that this mandate can be carried out: first, Canertech can invest in or participate in joint ventures with enterprises involved in demonstration, production, distribution and marketing. Second, it can take a leading role in producing, distributing and marketing these technologies. And third, the Crown corporation can engage in research and development projects.
Canertech can promote real progress in meeting public policy objectives in conservation and renewable energy. In this regard, it will act as a catalyst and provide management and financial assistance to an infant Canadian industry that is in many cases hampered by the lack of managerial or financial strength.
Canertech was originally capitalized with S20 million from Petro-Canada. The amendments to the Petro-Canada Act now before this House provide for the repayment of that capital as well as for up to $35 million in additional funding.
In addition to ensuring Canada's energy security we also have an obligation to less fortunate nations.

In the past, the Government of Canada has emphasized its desire to help less fortunate countries, particularly in the energy field. One form of aid would consist in helping these countries to reduce or altogether eliminate their dependence on imported oil. The objective is to give them the capability of producing certain quantities of as yet undiscovered or undeveloped energy resources, or to encourage them to focus on new forms of energy and adopt additional energy conservation policies. To meet Canada's commitment in this respect, amendments are being proposed to the Petro-Canada Act in order to establish a Petro-Canada subsidiary, to be called the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation. The subsidiary is to provide various forms of assistance to developing countries, including, for instance, participation in oil and gas exploration in these countries and studies and preliminary

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
studies on oil and gas exploration. Finally, Petro-Canada will be able to provide technical assistance and training in the exploration, development and production of oil and gas.
The government is placing considerable emphasis on this new initiative, which, I must say, has been extremely well received by the developing countries and in fact, by all countries, especially at the international conference held in Nairobi last summer under the auspices of the United Nations. The plan to create Petro-Canada International was very well received, and the corporation has already received requests for aid from some forty countries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which provides for a number of amendments to the Petro-Canada Act, is therefore extremely important. It specifically provides for a substantial increase in the corporation's capital, to enable Petro-Canada to take on its responsibilities with respect to the oil industry in general, so that the corporation will be able to continue to play the major role it has already been playing in Canada lands exploration and development. It is clear that as a Crown corporation, Petro-Canada does not have the same access to the capital market as a private enterprize, and that the corporation's financing is provided by the Government of Canada, its sole shareholder. The amendments to the Petro-Canada Act, whether they concern an increase in capital shares or the creation of Canertech Inc. which has a mandate to develop new forms of energy and energy conservation in Canada or the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, all of the amendments I have just mentioned are extremely important as far as the implementation of our National Energy Program is concerned.
Indeed I hope that these amendments will win the support of all the parties in this House and that for once, the Progressive Conservative Party will relinquish its instinctive antagonism against Petro-Canada and that all Tories in this House and elsewhere in this country will realize that the vast majority of Canadians are favouring the development of Petro-Canada, supporting the existence of this corporation and condemning the position of systematic criticism which the Progressive Conservatives have taken as concerns this institution. Indeed, the amendments which we are introducing today will give Petro-Canada, and through Petro-Canada, all Canadians, an opportunity to participate even more in the development of oil and hydrocarbon resources in Canada. Once again, I invite all the members of this House to consider these amendments and to support them unanimously.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk on one of the eight bills which have come out of the bell-ringing which took place for 16 days in the Parliament of Canada. The bell-ringing has already achieved several objectives which I think are in accord with the protection of democracy and, therefore, important. Part of what we achieved through the bell-ringing is a saving of 46 cents a
gallon in the taxing power of the minister. That is not necessarily a democratic principle, but it is a bread-and-butter issue for most Canadians.
As I stand here today, I wonder how many members of this chamber, in particular how many cabinet ministers and backbenchers on the government side, knew that one hour ago in this chamber they were voting on a Ways and Means motion which would impose a tax on gasoline of 52 cents a gallon; 52 cents a gallon from a government that won an election by saying that 18 cents was too much. That is not all the taxes. That is just one tax in that Ways and Means motion.
How many members opposite read the complex 140-page bill and the ways and means that lay behind it? How many understood that the tax was to be 98 cents a gallon? The bells rang for 16 days. Whenever we could we pointed out to Canadians that hidden in that massive, mixed up bill was 98 cents a gallon. All of a sudden the minister backed down from 98 cents and all he wants is 52 cents.
I wonder if the minister in charge of housing understood that. Did he know what he was voting on in this House one hour ago? I suspect he did not. He believed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). One of the difficulties in Canadian public policy today is the mythology that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows what he is talking about. That is a myth. This Minister of Energy Mines and Resources consistently, time after time, day after day in this House of Commons, demonstrates with clarity that he does not understand the industry and does not understand the impact of his national energy policy on Canadian consumers, workers and the fabric of our society.
As I stand in this House today, I have a sense of certain knowledge that we have heard time and again that this government will protect Canadians from the high costs of gasoline and home heating oil, that it has reached a marvellous agreement that will not allow Canadian oil and gasoline prices to rise above 75 per cent of world prices. They say it day after day after day.
To the south of us is a nation that in public policy said something different. They said their prices would be at world levels. Canada said ours would not go beyond 75 per cent. However, if we get in our cars and drive south across that border, in most parts of the country when we pull up to the gasoline pump or buy home heating oil, the price we pay as consumers is less than the price in Canada today. To prove that to yourself, Mr. Speaker, you need only get in your car and drive south of the border. That is a special kind of magic. We will only pay 75 per cent of world prices, Americans will pay 100 per cent; yet when a consumer buys gas or home heating fuel, he pays less south of the border today than he would pay north of the border.
Then we get to Petro-Canada. The minister says he will strengthen and expand it. He says the Conservative party would have dismantled it. I have never heard the leader of my party or any spokesperson on behalf of my party use the word
April 6, 1982

"dismantle" in relation to Petro-Canada. We used the word "privatize", and we used it for good reason.
Let us examine the minister's assertion that Petro-Canada, on behalf of the Canadian people, has proved to to be a marvellous vehicle. We on this side of the House are anxiously awaiting the annual report of Petro-Canada; it is due fairly soon. It will deal with the activities of that Crown corporation in the year 1981, the year just passed.
It is an oil company existing in Canada, owned by the government. The shares are not held by all Canadians but by one person, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That one person appoints the chief operating officers, has influence on the board of directors and has put together a company. Over the years that company bought three successful companies differing in size but with one common characteristic. Every one of those companies made a profit, sometimes substantial. They paid taxes on that profit. They paid those taxes to the Government of Canada. Taxes were paid by their employees and taxes were paid on what they bought. All of that came into the government till.
Several years ago this chamber was asked to approve a bill. I was not a member of this chamber at the time. It was to take some taxpayers' money and put it in the hands of a president, chairman and board of directors in order that they could buy some successful company, which they did. I will make a prediction. It is too bad the minister of energy has left the chamber. When we get to see the 1981 annual report of the Crown corporation called Petro-Canada, I predict that the bottom line will be a red one. In spite of taxpayers putting over $1,000 million into that company in one form or another, its management, board of directors and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will have managed that company so successfully that it will be the only multinational, the only large company in the oil industry in Canada, which will have to report that it lost money.
The minister indicated that there were only three important amendments in this bill which is before us today. I believe there are more than three, but he identified three amendments which will cost taxpayers more money, and identified them as the most important amendments. The first amendment will cost $5 billion dollars. This is a curious day to consider the question of Canadian taxpayers forking over another $5,000 million, because in this chamber last evening at about ten o'clock the Liberal members made a choice on public policy. They are being asked to make another choice today. They indicated last evening that they were going to cut $5 billion dollars from the provinces who could use that money for health care and post-secondary education. They said they were going to squeeze health care and post-secondary education, take that $5 billion dollars which could have gone back to the people of this country and put it into the hands of a small board of directors who are appointed by Parliament so that they can spend that money-if they perform as they did last year-and go into the red again.
Petro- Canada Act
I remind members of the House that the government recently borrowed billions and billions of dollars at rates of interest very close to 20 per cent, 19'/2 per cent. If that $5 billion-$5,000 million-is simply loaned out, you could earn interest with it. You could just keep it but if it is loaned at close to 20 per cent it means $1 billion a year in interest. That is $1,000 million a year. This money could be kept in the hands of the government, who are the trustees of the taxpayers' money, and spent for other purposes.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources began his remarks by indicating that our party rang the bells as a strike against Parliament.


Marc Lalonde: "Strike with pay".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Although that is a perception that I hope the minister really does not believe, I suspect that he does. Our concern on this side of the House is becoming deeper and more acute every day about the rights of Canadians to be able to express themselves in a democratic process, in Parliament and other forums.


Marc Lalonde: You muzzled Parliament.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: When I look at the amendments regarding Petro-Canada proposed by the minister, one of the amendments proposes to give three members of cabinet-the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources-the power to risk another billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money. If the government was concerned about democracy, Parliament and the electoral process, would that amendment be there? If it was concerned about democracy, would we have instead an amendment which would provide that if taxpayers of Canada are to risk their money through the borrowing authority of a Crown corporation, the opinion of Parliament on that borrowing should be sought? That is what democracy and representative government is about.
We live in a democracy-or we used to-with democratic processes. Voters elect people to come here and they give Parliament certain authority which does not exist in other parts of our society. They give us the right to take away our freedom through legislation in the Criminal Code. They give us the authority to take money out of their pockets and determine how it will be spent. During my two and a half years in this chamber, almost every piece of legislation I have seen has contained clauses which transfer that authority to take money out of people's pockets and put it into the hands of the government. There are always clauses which take that authority away from Parliament.
This subverts the fundamental principle of democracy that voters should control their Parliament. That is the reason why this place exists. The subversion which happens in piece after piece of legislation takes that authority away from elected Members of Parliament and gives it in perpetuity to appointed cabinet members, boards of directors and appointed civil servants. The authority to tax the people is taken away from their elected representatives and given to people appointed by

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
the government. This is a subversion which is very real and damaging to our whole democratic system.
I would like to deal with some aspects of the National Energy Program and the role that Petro-Canada plays in it. I have already discussed the fact that by splitting this bill we were able to have a vote today on whether or not members of this chamber want to authorize the minister of energy to tax Canadians to the tune of 52 cents a gallon. The members in our opposition party stood up in the House and said no, that 52 cents a gallon was too much. If we had not allowed the bells to ring we would not have been able to vote separately, as was done today and as will happen two or three more times.
I wonder how members opposite will feel about getting up in the House two or three more times to say that the minister of energy should be allowed to tax Canadians 52 cents a gallon when those members know that they said during the last election that 18 cents was too much. That is the first point.
I am somewhat disturbed today. I was in public accounts this morning when the steering committee proposed a motion that the Auditor General of Canada-the watchdog of taxpayers' money-should conduct an audit into the operation of the petroleum compensation charge. It was a motion for an audit of that revenue of $5 billion to $6 billion which is collected in taxes, some of which they pay out.


Mr. Dingwall:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for you to consider the point of relevancy. I do not see what this has to do with the bill which we are discussing this afternoon.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The nine members of the Liberal Party who were entitled to sit on that committee stood up today and said no, they do not want the public accounts committee-elected Members of Parliament-and they do not want the Auditor General, who is the watchdog on behalf of Canadians, even to consider whether or not there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayers' money being wasted by that program. Testimony was put on the record showing clearly and absolutely that it is, but the Liberal members voted not to allow that inquiry to proceed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) was at that meeting, and that is the way he voted. He knows very well this is relevant to the bill before us today because this morning he heard that the advice to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources respecting that charge and how it should be spent may indeed have been influenced by Petro-Canada, that wonderful window, the large oil company which is losing money when all others are making money.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Even dummies make money.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He knows such an investigation by the Auditor General might have been important to the taxpayers of this country. It might have been their only protection against a cabinet which controls information and appointments to board of directors, it controls and controls and controls. All we were
trying to do in the Public Accounts Committee this morning was save Canadian taxpayers some money. I refer particularly to people on fixed incomes and with health problems. But no, something is going on on the other side. Something is going on which indicates that public inquiry is to be avoided. Getting information so that we understand is to be avoided.
When we rang the bells we set a couple of conditions, but one was of particular importance to hon. members on this side of the House. That condition was that the bill be split so that parts of it could be sent to committee. I do not intend, nor do other members of my party, to use a lot of the time of the House debating this bill on Petro-Canada at second reading because we believe it is important to get it to committee. The committee has the capacity to call witnesses who have the technical competence necessary to advise us on the repercussions of this particular piece of legislation and the seven others the committee will have to examine. That was the very important principle which lay behind the ringing of the bells. Pieces of legislation which deal with complex subjects and require witnesses with technical expertise should go to committee where witnesses can be called and hon. members can have the opportunity to be informed and, hopefully, to discover whether the minister has been well advised.
When we look at the National Energy Program, we discover very quickly that the consequences of that program to this date are as follows: the extent of our use of imported oil has increased. The extent of our use of domestic oil has decreased. Oil prices have gone up as an inevitable consequence of that mix. Our balance of payments has been affected negatively. The value of our dollar is less, and all kinds of goods are more expensive as a consequence.
It takes a particular kind of genius to put in place a chunk of public policy which is so clearly antithetical, negative and against the public interest, and yet that is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has succeeded in doing in two years. If the president of Petro-Canada, our marvellous window on the Canadian petroleum industry, appeared before the committee and we asked him what has happened to the Canadian petroleum industry, being honest, he would have to say he has never in all his professional career seen the industry so devastated, that he has never seen so many people out of work and so many dollars being sent out of this country and off to other nations. This is not just for the purchase of petroleum, which is bad enough; experts will tell us of the flight of some $10 billion-$10,000 million-of investment capital, money which could have been used in this country to create jobs and to buy cars, trucks, drilling platforms, pipe, snowmobiles and all those products produced by our manufacturing industry. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has sent $10,000 million out of the country with his policies. Has this saved us money at the pump? No, it has not. Most of it went to the United States, and when we drive up to the gas pump there today, we pay less than we do in Canada. Has this caused many to be unemployed? You bet your life it has, Mr. Speaker. In my city the bankruptcies are like dominoes. My
April 6, 1982

city was a vibrant part of the country. It was an engine of economic growth. Jobs were being created all over this country because the industry was buying products.


Mr. Irwin:: Why don't you use the Heritage Fund to bail them out?


Frederick William Wright: Don't be so naive.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources singlehandedly has done more than anyone to drive this country into depression and recession.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He made an agreement with Lougheed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I have heard hon. members opposite express concern on behalf of unemployed people in their ridings. I think their concern is genuine. Every member of this House is bothered by an increasing unemployment rate, but do we in this chamber accept responsibility for having caused it?


Mr. Gimaiel:: Speak for yourself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is not an accident. It has been caused by a mix of misguided and ill-founded policies. The consequences of those policies were not thought through.
In the committee this morning the New Democratic Party joined with us in our concern about the impact of the petroleum compensation charge on jobs, on consumers and on people on fixed incomes. Members of the New Democratic Party should share some of the responsibility for the decision made in December 1979. That decision was to put the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in charge of energy. That decision was to put the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in charge of finance. That decision taken by the NDP in December 1979 was to put in place the policies which are driving Canadians out of their homes, driving Canadians off their farms, driving Canadians out of their small businesses and driving Canadians out of their jobs. That was a decision the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party together took in December 1979.
It is prophetic to be standing here examining Petro-Canada today, a day on which members of the Liberal Party stood in this chamber and voted to give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the authority to raise the price of a gallon of gasoline 52 cents after he and members of his party fought an election saying 18 cents was too much. Surely there must be a point where politics stop, common sense begins and the welfare of the Canadian people becomes our primary concern. In the midst of a recession I hope that we have come to that point.
In that context, Mr. Speaker, we must consider whether we want to give $5 billion more to Petro-Canada. We must also examine whether we want to take it away from other potential uses, such as health care, job creation and education, and turn it over to a board of directors that apparently is not known to anyone. Who is on this board of directors? Do hon. members opposite know? What do these people know about running an oil company? Are they campaign managers, appointed civil
Petro-Canada Act
servants with other responsibilities or are they people knowledgeable about what is a very difficult and technical business?
In the public accounts committee I asked whether there was anybody on the Petroleum Compensation Board who had the background, training and experience necessary to compete successfully for a position as a crude oil buyer. The answer was that there was not. At that moment I felt a small twinge of sympathy for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and for the cabinet. They have received advice on that program from people who do not have the background or experience that would make them reliable sources for the kind of information that is needed by a minister who is willing to listen and to act. When any of us receive flawed information, then the possibility of making a bad decision is increased immeasurably.
May I suggest that that is the difficulty that the Liberal party has always had in regard to energy policy, Mr. Speaker. Members of that party do not come from regions where large numbers of people are employed in the industry, and their friends, their neighbours and the people on the street in their constituencies do not work in the industry.
If I could draw an analogy, let us suppose we had an automobile compensation charge which worked the way the petroleum compensation charge does. In that case the federal government would decree that every car and truck sold in Canada would carry an extra tax of $2,000. It would then say that all importers of cars and trucks should be given $2,000 per vehicle. In other words, put it on all vehicles then give it back, and more, on the imported vehicles. Imagine what it would do to the Canadian automotive industry if all of a sudden a tax was charged on every automobile purchased and then that money was then given back to the foreign car companies.
The analogy to oil is not complete until we get to the numbers involved and find that some kinds of Mexican crude is 40 per cent cheaper than Canadian. In reality, the Canadian is the cheapest one but we are buying the Mexican crude and using our taxes to subsidize it and make it cheaper. How would hon. members opposite feel if that practice were applied to automobiles or shoes or snowmobiles? The money is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets in order that the government can give it to foreign competitors. This makes their product cheaper than the Canadian one. That is the logic of the petroleum compensation charge, Mr. Speaker.
I notice the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has come into the House-


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has suggested that I was just coming into the House. It is now 5:25 p.m. and I have been here all afternoon. I do not see why by innuendo he links my name with his criticism of the government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: By definition, I thought any cabinet minister was someone who belonged to the government.

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No; they write letters!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Minister of National Health and Welfare will probably not remember the first question that I ever asked her in June of 1980. In a series of question during Committee of the Whole I asked the minister if she believed more in the needs of senior citizens of this country than in the needs of the oil companies. As a member of cabinet and a member of the Liberal caucus she consistently stands in this House and says that she cares about health and about senior citizens. Last night, however, she voted to cut funding for those purposes by $5 billion. As soon as the Petro-Canada bill comes to a vote, I suppose she is going to vote to give Petro-Canada $5 billion. She is going to vote to take money away from health care and education and she is going to vote-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are you going to vote for it or against it? You have been speaking for 40 minutes and you have not said yet.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What is at issue here, Mr. Speaker, is an industry in which there are three important commodities: people, money and equipment. From day one Petro-Canada, as a state-owned oil company, has been and will always be in difficulty. In a competitive world labour market it has not been able to attract competent experienced people who will stay with it. The record shows that in its early days Petro-Canada had to pay 30 per cent over the industrial average in order to get staff; the record shows the remarkably high turnover rate of employees compared to the industrial average, and the record shows that people in senior positions on average have less experience and less skill. That is not a unique Canadian phenomenon; it is a characteristic of state-owned oil companies around the world. I think Canadians understand that.
If I owned a family farm that I had grown up on and gradually acquired, I would have learned a lot about farming. I would care about it because it was my land. But if the state came in all of a sudden and said, "We own your farm and somebody's campaign manager is going to be on the board of directors to tell you how to run the farm and he has no knowledge of farming", would it be expected that the farm would do as well as it had before? I suggest the answer is that it would not.
I hope that as hon. members opposite approach their task on this special committee and as they approach this bill, they will assist in bringing forward witnesses who will testify about the ease or difficulty experienced by Petro-Canada in acquiring staff. I hope we will hear some testimony about what they expect in the future.
Surely if hon. members opposite want to vote to turn $5,000 million more over to a board of directors and staff, they have an obligation to examine whether an organization of that size will be able to attract and hold the kind of competent people who will spend our taxpayers' money wisely. This is the basic issue. We might wish it were not, or all kinds of things, but in reality nothing works very well-the Parliament of Canada, the family firm or Petro-Canada-unless the people within it have the motivation, the skill and the desire to make it work.
Before voting this $5 billion for that purpose, surely we should ask ourselves that question.
The second question we should ask ourselves is the money question. I am not prepared to accept the fact that Petro-Canada needs another $5 billion. But even if I were, surely hon. members opposite should join with us in obtaining an answer to the second question. If that money is needed, from where should it come? Should it come from general revenue? Should it come from the pockets of taxpayers at a time when 23 cents of every dollar is already going to pay the interest on the pubic debt? Should we increase the public debt and give it to the board of directors of Petro-Canada? Are there other ways of raising money which do not put such a heavy burden on Canadian taxpayers?
We used to have a system where people willingly put their own money into the development of resources. More than we think, we are replacing it with a system where money is forced out of people's pockets and put into the pockets of others- employees, boards of directors and landholders. We are taking it away through the tax system and giving it to a group of people who are not really accountable to Parliament but simply accountable to one man, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surely the committee should explore whether there are alternative ways to raise the necessary money.
Another question is a bothersome one to anyone who believes in Canada, in Canadian ownership and in Canadian development. Some years ago the present chairman of the board was chosen. Much of his background was in New York. As Petro-Canada spends dollars on ships, rigs, carpets, logos and signs, perhaps the committee should explore the degree to which it spends dollars in Canada on Canadian products and the degree to which Canadian taxpayers' dollars are being used to fund a corporation which, far too often for my taste, chooses to spend money outside of Canada, creating work in other countries. In that connection I wonder whether or not, on the exploration side, Petro-Canada has spent more dollars in other nations this year than it has in western Canada on oil and gas exploration. If so, would that be the definition of a national Crown corporation? Should it spend more money on exploration in other nations than it spends in our nation?


Marc Lalonde: From where did you get that?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I throw it out; it is something for the committee to examine.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, throw it out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What is its record lately? Where is it drilling? Perhaps the committee should examine whether or not the oil reserves of Petro-Canada are going up or down. We know that through acquisition it acquires new reserves. If, for example, one owns a grocery store, starts to sell groceries off the shelves and simply spends the money, rather than purchasing new groceries from wholesalers to restock the shelves, one would
April 6, 1982

look pretty good for a while, but sooner or later one would have no groceries to sell and would not be in business any longer. The minister can say what he wants, but the basic record of Petro-Canada over its years of existence is that it sells barrels of oil in the ground which it bought from other companies and does not replace them. It is a one-way sleigh ride to a very bad end, if it sells the oil in the ground and does not use the proceeds to find more. I suspect that is what the evidence would show fairly clearly before the committee.
I should like to bring one other matter to the attention of the House before this bill goes to committee. A number of people in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada are increasingly disturbed about two specific incidents on which I hope the committee might hear some testimony. The first is that Petro-Canada is using taxpayers' dollars on something called the liquefied natural gas project and that it is commissioning engineering design studies to build the system. The word I get is that the technology which Petro-Canada is asking private sector companies to design on its behalf is 20 years out of date.
I hope the special committee will call technically competent witnesses to examine as one illustration the management of the corporation and its ability to spend taxpayers' dollars.
The second concerns the increasing sense of unease in many parts of Canada that the giant they have created, Petro-Canada, is becoming a predator in the marketplace and that in fact that big company is driving out of business family owned and operated firms, not Imperial Oil, Esso or Shell. Some firms have existed over 20, 30, 50 or 100 years in the province of Quebec, for example. They are family-owned firms which supply heating oil or operate small service stations in small and medium-sized communities.
We must ask ourselves as members of the House whether or not we want to create with taxpayers' dollars a corporation which drives small family-owned businesses out of work. If we cannot answer the question in a manner which indicates that we should restrict Petro-Canada and not allow it to be the predator in the marketplace competing with small family-owned businesses, if in our wisdom we cannot design clauses to stop that, do we really want to move forward with making it ten times as big, making it ten times as hungry, or making it ten times as predatory? Do we really want to use taxpayers' dollars to drive family firms out of business?
1 look forward to the bill moving to committee and to the examination we can give it there, if we have the will and the background knowledge to choose the witnesses and to ask the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petro-Canada Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), may I deal with the proceedings of the adjournment motion this evening.
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 Halton (Mr. Jelinek)-Automotive	Industry-(a)	Negotiations over
importation of Japanese manufactured vehicles, (b) Request that Canadian content regulations be imposed, (c) Length of negotiations; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-(a) Corporate Affairs-Uranium price fixing trial-Query respecting Crown immunity (b) Instructions to counsel; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Political Parties-Former affiliation of Manitoba Attorney General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-101, to amend the Petro-Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that we are sitting through the dinner hour. I gather our House leaders negotiated that on our behalf, for which we can thank them.
I am pleased to open debate for the New Democratic Party on this first of eight bills dealing with energy security. We have a question which will be asked throughout the debate on the eight bills. It is this: Energy security for whom? In the context of setting out what we think are the fundamental flaws in the Liberal government's Canadianization program, we in the NDP would not merely increase the capitalization of Petro-Canada, as this first bill does; we would make Petro-Canada the number one oil company in Canada. It is not now. Dome Petroleum and other companies are ahead of Petro-Canada. We believe that predominant public ownership of the oil industry is long overdue. It is popular. It is what the people want and it is what they should get. Only then could Petro-Canada be the pace-setter for a fair retail pricing policy for Canadian consumers. Instead of taking this opportunity to advance the goals of Canadianization substantially, which I believe Canadians do support, and I tell the minister that, the

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
Liberal government, however, has in the most complicated and convoluted way possible chosen the worst of all possible worlds. Instead of using Petro-Canada, the Liberals have opted for an expensive and unworkable program of grant giveaways to their chosen friends in the private sector. This is Liberal Canadianization. It is phony and it is a sham. Consumers pay at the pump. The money comes out of the pockets of consumers. The government takes $6.5 billion of it and gives it away over five years in the form of grants to private Canadian oil companies whose express interest is to export the oil and gas once found. I will illustrate this point a little later in my speech.
Therefore, the question is: Energy security for whom, Mr. Speaker? It is not for the consumer or the taxpayer. They are getting hosed. We will propose during the course of this debate a simpler and more effective way based on predominant public ownership. We would use the $6.5 billion grant money to take over one of the large multinationals through Petro-Canada. We would take the remainder of the money, because there would be some left, and we would put it where it should go, that is, into real energy security. In other words, into energy conservation and alternates. I will come back to that in a moment. Also I want to make reference to the minister's speech.
The energy pattern in this country is to give grants and tax concessions to private companies. There is an energy crisis and they need these things. Private companies have to find oil and gas. They find oil and gas and they want to export it. They export the resources and then they need more grants and tax concessions in order to continue. When are we going to break this pattern? We will not break it unless we make Petro-Canada the predominant company.
Before I go into some details of how Liberal Canadianization works vis-a-vis Petro-Canada, I have some remarks with respect to the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I see him here in the House. I am amazed when I hear Tory policy on Petro-Canada. I remember back to the much lamented Joe Clark government, lamented by them but by no one else, in which the Conservative Party had not one, not two, but three policies on Petro-Canada. The first policy was to privatize the whole thing, that Petro-Canada was bad. I was going to say it was a political position, but it was almost a theological position that Petro-Canada was bad, even though other countries in the world, such as Mexico, Norway and Britain, had set up government-owned oil companies.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Would you like to move to any of them?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. member would listen to his policies on Petro-Canada, not many people would move to a country that has these kinds of policies. The first policy was to privatize Petro-Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Answer the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then the second policy was to privatize part of PetroCan. The third policy, which came into view during
the course of the 1980 election campaign, was that they did not know what they were going to do with it. The present Tory policy is that they still do not know what they are going to do with Petro-Canada. The Tories nit-pick at the kinds of people who are running the company and so on. What are the Tories going to do? Are they for it or against it? Are they going to vote for or against this bill? It is not good enough to take 40 minutes to throw out suggestions, as the hon. member for Calgary West did. Did we ring the bells for that? Is that what the big fight was about? We expected to hear some real policy from the Conservatives. I can imagine how difficult it must be for the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) to drive up to a Petro-Canada gas station in Calgary in their Lada automobiles and get served by a bilingual attendant and their gas measured in metric.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Would you answer the question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was not little Bob Rae and the NDP who knocked out the Clark government. It was the people of Canada. They had had enough and that is why the people threw them out. It was because of their stupid policies on Petro-Canada, among other things. It is not good enough to say: "Well, they threw them out in eastern Canada". They did not. People threw them out in western Canada also. In most of my colleagues' ridings in western Canada, the Conservative vote went down and the New Democratic vote went up. The Tories were not popular, and Petro-Canada was one of the reasons for that unpopularity.
I thought the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the Tory's previous energy critic, was starting to bring the Conservative party back from their allegiance to big oil. But with my friend, who is the new energy critic, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the Conservatives are back in the same old position of wanting to get rid of Petro-Canada and complete their free enterprise theology at all costs. What is the difference between a Tory and a dinosaur, Mr. Speaker? At least they bury dinosaurs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) laughing. He thinks he is going to get off lightly. Let me deal a little with this Liberal Canadianization policy. I want the minister to listen and 1 thank him for staying in the House to listen.
Mr. T. Trevor Eyton, President of Brascan Ltd. spoke recently to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. He gave a rare and accurate insight into modern corporate thinking about government investment in the economy. I put it to the minister that he agrees with this thinking. Mr. Eyton said that governments should invest their vast pools of capital in the private sector but leave the decision-making to businessmen. Mr. Eyton also said:
My suggestion is that governments should invest in private enterprise as substantial minority partners with the objective being to provide the requisite financing.
April 6, 1982

In other words, taxpayers-most of us-should provide the money but a small group of private entrepreneurs should control the projects. Preferably the projects should be the megaproject type. This philosophy exactly has been adopted by the Liberal government in its plan for energy security. In some instances the government will pay 93 per cent of the exploration costs for a minority 25 per cent control in the projects. Through the new grant system, taxpayers will put over four times the amount the company does for exploration on Canada Lands but gets only one quarter of an interest in the project.
This first bill is a smokescreen likely put up by the Liberals to embarrass my friends to the right on Petro-Canada. But you have to see the whole Liberal policy. This is a little more difficult dinosaur to deal with, but a dinosaur nevertheless.
One has to look at this project because, quite simply, the ordinary Canadian is being doubly hosed by this scheme. Consumers in my riding are now paying 41 cents a litre, compared to 37 cents in Blaine, Washington. Under the petroleum incentives program, known as PIP, the taxpayer is going to fork out $6.5 billion to the oil companies in the next five years. With medicare in jeopardy and student fees going up, this Liberal government has decided in its wisdom to dole out literally wheelbarrows of money to those poor oil companies. If I were the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is now in the House, I would in fact be concerned about this kind of money going out, especially when, as I pointed out the other day, all that money may not be coming in. Some of the money for the PIP grants will have to come from general revenue, which means out of the minister's budget eventually.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Dome Petroleum has indeed struck it rich, not by drilling in the Beaufort but by drilling right here in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: They were drilling in cabinet.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this process of tax breaks for oil companies is not new. The Liberals have used the taxpayer and consumer in the past to finance the multinationals' expansion and takeover of our energy industry. No other industrialized country has so much of its vital energy industry foreign owned and controlled. In 1980, for example, federal tax breaks to the petroleum industry were over $4.3 billion; income tax revenue is only $2.1 billion. Speaking at the University of Toronto on November 12, 1980-I have to say "Toronto" correctly, Mr. Speaker, in case I am mistaken for a Torontonian-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
It is true we have imposed new taxes on the oil industry. There have been complaints about this by the oil companies since the budget was brought down, but I can honestly say that their position was no worse in 1980 than it was in 1979, perhaps better.
It seems to me that 1982, in spite of all the yelling and screaming, will be a lot better. The netback for new oil under the October, 1980 National Energy Program was $7.19. After the September, 1981 agreement, it went up to $16.73. These
Petro-Canada Act
figures come from the minister's own department. So there is a significant netback.
The nominal corporate tax rate for the petroleum industry is supposed to be 36 per cent, Mr. Speaker. However, because of tax concessions to this wealthy industry, its effective tax rate has been only 10 per cent for the period 1974-80. Compare that to an income tax rate of 18 per cent in 1980 for a married taxpayer with two children and earned income of $25,000. They would like to scream, too, but they do not have the power, wealth and advertising ability of the oil companies. For the period 1977-80, federal tax concessions to the resource sector were over $13 billion; income tax collected was $5 billion. I do not just throw out those figures; they come from the Petroleum Monitoring Agency.
The question then arises; why so many tax breaks in the past? The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker: to provide energy security, as this bill and the other seven bills are going to provide. But look at what we have. After telling us in the early 1970s that we had enough oil for 300 years, thus permitting oil exports to the United States, we now have an oil shortage and it appears we may be moving to paying more than world price for a litre of gasoline. So the question is: What are we going to get this time?


Mr. Miller:: Another hosing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says another hosing. During a wheat pool meeting in Mozart, Saskatchewan, in 1953, when the CPR argued that the Crow rate was driving them into bankruptcy, a farmer by the name of Johnny Grimson jumped to his feet calling the CPR a bunch of "hosers", and its president a "hose-head". The term "hoser" came from the old practice of sucking gas out of barrels left in the field near tractors and, of course, it applied to sucking higher freight rates out of grain bins. So things really have not changed. A practitioner of the art becomes a boggy-eyed, sort of braindamaged hose-head or hoser. With apologies to Bob and Doug McKenzie, is this not exactly what the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is doing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: You are on the other end of his hose.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is sucking money out of our pockets and siphoning it off to the oil companies in the form of PIP grants. He is a hose-head because he has not learned the lessons of our recent energy history.
The new grants, Mr. Speaker, are supposed to help industry find new oil for our energy security, our future.


Marc Lalonde: Why don't you talk about the bill?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the minister will wait, he will see how this fits in with his Petro-Canada bill. Jack Gallagher, the chairman of Dome Petroleum-


David Charles Dingwall: Your friend.

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -told the CBC "Journal" on February 9, 1982-the hon. member should know Jack Gallagher; he is a good friend of that party.


David Charles Dingwall: You and Tommy Douglas.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is a good pal. Mr. Gallagher had this to
say:
Canada has lived and continues to prosper as an exporting nation, and there's nothing very different about oil or gas or wheat or anything else. If we can prove that Canada has a major surplus of oil, then there's no reason why we won't and can't export part of it.
There it is, Mr. Speaker, the same old pattern. The consumer and taxpayer give grants-grants instead of super-depletion allowances-to Dome and the company looks for oil to export. So again Liberal Canadianization, which is the main thrust of these bills, hoses the consumer and taxpayer. The government will grant a company up to 80 per cent of its exploration costs, and what does it get in return? A 25 per cent interest. For example, the government puts up $40 million for a project and gets 25 per cent ownership, whereas the private company puts up $10 million and gets 75 per cent ownership. What kind of deal is that? I ask even my friends to the right to examine that kind of deal. They are keen to have PIP grants and so on, so what kind of deal is that?
I address this part of my remarks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Wouldn't she like this money? The federal share for PIP grants in 1981-82 is $940 million; $1,040 million in 1982-83; $1,150 million in 1983-84; $1,480 million in 1984-85; $1,850 million in 1985-86. That is a total of $6,460 million from 1981 to 1986.


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The mathematics of the hon. member are always very interesting, but I suggest his research assistant has provided him with the wrong speech. We have a bill which deals very specifically with the PIP grants, which bill is called the Petroleum Administration Act. Today we are debating the Petro-Canada Act-P-e-t-r-o -C-a-n-a-d-a-and I would invite my hon. friend to talk about this bill, which provides for an increase in the capitalization of Petro-Canada, the creation of Canertech and the creation of Petro-Canada International. I submit his speech is completely out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi)):: The minister was very specific, but I am not sure it was a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the minister was once termed a brilliant minister, but he has one brilliant fault. If he would listen a little bit, he would see how things fit in. He just cannot see beyond his own views. The point is this, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister to listen; $6.5 billion in PIP grants is the basis of this scheme. This first bill is a minor part. Instead of giving the oil companies $6.5 billion, if that money were given to Petro-Canada, they could then move in and take over not Petrofina, but one of the major foreign oil companies, like Imperial Oil. That would be real Canadianization. A greater
role for Petro-Canada would lessen our vulnerability to private oil company blackmail.
One hears the argument that new taxes or less generous allowances will drive investment out of Canada. It seems to me that this argument forgets about one fact; that is, we have great potential for finding more oil in Canada. I invite hon. members to look at the situation in Norway and Britain, in the North Sea. For example, Norway has a more onerous tax regime, but the companies are still in the North Sea. Britain has a more onerous tax regime, but the companies are still there. We say that if the companies want to go after off shore oil, let them go after the off shore oil in Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea, but do not give away wheelbarrows full of public money with no guarantee that we would get equity and control. There should simply not be more giveaways to the oil companies.
I think the issue is even bigger because it does involve all the ramifications of Canadianization. As at the end of the first half of 1981, foreign ownership of oil and gas revenue was between 65 and 70 per cent. Foreign control was between 70 and 74 per cent. The assets of the oil industry have risen 359 per cent, from $14.6 billion in 1973 to $52.4 billion in 1980. The capital gains implicit in the growth have been mainly collected by foreign shareholders. We have permitted in this industry what no other industrialized country would permit, namely, foreign control of strategic commodities, oil and gas.
Who is responsible for this mess? The Liberal Party of Canada, with its continuous continentalist policies enacted by successive Liberal governments, is responsible. It even admits it. The minister, speaking in New York on November 18, 1980, said:
-I doubt that Americans would tolerate anything like 50 per cent foreign ownership in any major industry-let alone a vital, basic industry like oil and gas.
Yet the Liberals have tolerated this for a long time. In 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) campaigned on a promise of 50 per cent to 60 per cent Canadian ownership for all new energy projects. That was another broken promise, just like the cynical promise of cheap gasoline in the 1980 election campaign. But now, in 1981 and 1982, these same people who offered Canadians that policy in the past are offering a policy of Canadianization. Therefore, one must very carefully consider what they want to do with Petro-Canada and what they want to do with Canadianization.
The problem with Canadianization, as the Liberals define it, is that it is both too little and too late, and it is missing a great opportunity. This is the point I was trying to bring forward to the minister. Petro-Canada is there; why do we not use it? If we were enacting this bill with regard to Petro-Canada, we would use the bill to make Petro-Canada in fact the leading member of the oil industry in Canada.
In order to make this case, I think it is necessary to define public interest in energy. I say that the public interest in energy is to ensure a secure energy supply at reasonable prices.
April 6, 1982

Canadianization, both for the Liberals and for the Conservatives, means privatization. The government proposes to replace large American companies with large Canadian companies. We are replacing the Rockefellers with the Gallaghers and the Blairs, all friends of the government. That is why I said that Dome had struck it rich in Ottawa. We have Petro-Canada, ready and waiting. But that is not the route that the Liberals are taking. They have chosen to go the route of the private sector. They say it will be a private Canadian sector. I even have my doubts about that. I think we will see corporate shells and we will see a lot of games being played and shuffling around so that the large multinationals which can afford to go up to the north and the off shore will still be in control of the developments there.
The main fault in Liberal Canadianization, it seems to me, is that the Canadian private sector of the energy industry has acted and will act no differently from the way the multinationals acted in the past. If we depend on the private sector, this time being Canadian, which I suppose is better in a sense than being American but not that much, we will be following the same old pattern I spoke about before. We will have the surpluses, allegedly the shortages, the tax concessions, the price increases, again the surpluses, again the shortages, again the pressure to export, and it will continue. That pattern is showing up again with natural gas, where there is pressure to export gas. Five years down the road, we will be paying higher prices for Arctic gas.
It seems to me that if the Liberals were really serious about Canadianization and about the public interest in this bill, they would bring in predominant public ownership. The reason is that predominant public ownership, through Petro-Canada, would mean that the people, through their elected representatives, their elected government, could set the course of energy development and we could get out of this Catch-22 situation that I spoke about.
We do not have to apologize for an active government presence in the energy industry because Canadians, the taxpayer and the consumer, have already financed virtually all of the expansion of the industry.
This is what the National Energy Program states at page 17:
-in general, price and tax policies have provided the industry with the cash flow necessary to finance its expenditures. This means that the oil consumer and the Canadian taxpayer have financed virtually all of the substantial expansion of this industry.
Historically, the tax system has not recouped the public investment. The value of this scarce resource will continue to go up, and this richest of industries will expand into nonenergy areas.
Canada could achieve a dominant position in the oil industry by taking over Imperial Oil instead of giving $6.5 billion in grants to the private companies. What would this accomplish? One thing it would accomplish would be the rather instantaneous achievement recognition of 50 per cent Canadian ownership, the goal of the government. The government wants 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. Instead of taking this
Petro-Canada Act
money and giving it out in PIP grants and to Dome and Nova, that $6.5 billion, or perhaps two-thirds of it, should be used by Petro-Canada to take a really big company like Imperial Oil under public ownership. Then the government would achieve its goal. If the government were really serious about Canadianization, that is what it would do.
It would also accomplish something else. It would accomplish what the government itself has been arguing, and what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources argues when he asks for 25 per cent equity. He says that we need 25 per cent equity because we want to be at the table and we want to have some control. If we want to be at the table and have some control, we should get 51 per cent equity and then we can really have control. If we were to do that, Petro-Canada would not be subjected to the whim of the multinationals, buying oil for its refineries, getting oil refined for its gas stations. Petro-Canada could, in fact, be like Imperial was in the past, the trend setter on prices. It might do things differently. It would be much more democratic, and we could challenge it in the House.
Therefore, the same people who got us into the mess over here, those in the Liberal Party, propose to lead us out of the mess. Their solution is to have 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. It is probably a solution which any other industrialized country would consider to be too little. The Liberal Canadianization means that energy decisions will be in private hands, even though the money is largely from the public. That is no solution at all. Therefore, I call it a phony and a sham.
The real solution would be to achieve predominant public ownership. A realistic scenario would be for Petro-Canada to take over Imperial Oil so that the government could become the leader in the field. Sometimes when one expresses that view in the House of Commons, one feels very alone, as though almost the entire House, with the exception of those in the New Democratic Party, is against one. However, I submit that there is support for that position in the country and that the politicians and the government are far behind public opinion concerning this measure.
In June 1981, the Committee for the Canadianization of the Petroleum Industry wrote these words to the Prime Minister:
-the majority of Canadians will support a determined and effective program to bring our energy resources under Canadian, particularly public, ownership and control which ensures that these resources are developed and utilized in the best interests of the nation-
On January 24, 1982, the committee said:
-Canada's goal must be increased to at least 75 per cent Canadian ownership of the vital petroleum industry by 1985 with Petro-Canada the largest oil company in the country.
This is not what this bill is doing-no way. The committee continued:
-we strongly urge the federal government to acquire one of the four major foreign-controlled companies as a new Crown corporation or as a component of Petro-Canada.

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
Where is it in this bill that gives Petro-Canada power or directs Petro-Canada to be the predominant oil company in the oil industry?


Marc Lalonde: That is what we are doing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not what you are doing at all. You are Canadianizing by giving $6.5 billion in PIP grants. That is the Liberal Canadianization program.


Marc Lalonde: You voted against that bill?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In a poll conducted by Gallup on this very question, 64 per cent of Canadians favoured the goal of 75 per cent Canadian ownership by 1985, and 23 per cent were opposed. So Canadians want more Canadian ownership. On government takeover of one of the big four, 55 per cent said yes and 28 per cent said no. So Canadians are way ahead of their government and they are miles ahead of the official opposition. Instead, the government gives us these complicated, unworkable, inequitable, bureaucratic COR and PIP programs.
If the government were really interested in energy security, I would submit, and it is reflected in this bill, the government could look more at the demand side, that is, look to conservation and alternative energy.
The Russian writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, once said that any gravedigger in the Ukraine could tell you that 12 worms would only gnaw one apple for so long. We are dealing with these non-renewable resources in oil and gas. If we had the wisdom of those village gravediggers, we would get into conservation and into alternatives in a big way.
I was listening, Mr. Speaker, while the minister was speaking and I noted he defended the Canertech. I may be wrong in what I heard him say, and I will no doubt be corrected if I am by the next speaker for the Liberal party, but it appeared to me that he was saying that Canertech had received $20 million and that it is the government's alternative energy corporation.


Marc Lalonde: And another $35 million.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And additional capital up to $35 million. Compare that with what Petro-Canada is being given, $500 million in authorized capital, going up to $5,500 million. It does indicate, in a rough way-


Marc Lalonde: You are against it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister says I am against it. I would like him to listen to the point I am making. The point I am trying to make is that perhaps we are spending too much, or we are weighing it too heavily on the supply side, that is, going out and finding oil and gas, when we could be spending some more money on the demand side, and at times, too, on the conservation side. The minister and the government were told the same thing by an all-party committee. My colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), will speak again on this matter, when his turn comes to speak, and no doubt he will give a much more witty speech than mine on the value of conservation.
I should tell the minister that a study by the Peace Research Institute showed that Canada's energy effectiveness ratio, that is, its total primary energy in relation to gross national product, is the poorest amongst the OECD countries and that we have the most dismal record in real energy conservation. I should say that it is improving, and we are all glad of that. The study says that Canada has merely slowed down rather than eliminated the waste; and that a massive program of conservation and efficiency and genuine commitment to renewable energy sources is needed if we are to reduce demand in striving to achieve energy self-sufficiency. So says the study.
There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why we cannot have an acceptable level of economic growth of over 3 per cent a year and an energy growth of 2 per cent a year.
A study conducted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the minister's own department, predicts that if an energy demand of 2 per cent is obtained by 1990, Canada would be saving energy equivalent to the combined annual output of five Syncrude-sized oil sands plants, plus 20 per cent of total annual gas production in 1985, plus 13 Pickering-sized nuclear plants, plus 8.5 million tons of coal.
Some energy experts say, Mr. Speaker, that we can achieve this with only modest adjustments to our lifestyle. Such adjustments include adopting more rigorous fuel mileage standards for automobiles. We will have something to say about that when that bill comes up, it will be one of the future bills that we will be debating. We could have the adjustment also of promoting a more extensive insulating program to make buildings air tight and providing more incentives to reduce waste in industry.
Again I would draw the attention of the minister to the discrepancy in figures in this bill for what is provided for the alternative energy corporation, as compared with what is provided to Petro-Canada to go out and find more oil. I do not object to Petro-Canada going out and exploring. I want to say, however, in response to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), that my experience of Petro-Canada is that it is staffed by some excellent people, who, thank God, are working for a Canadian corporation and for the Canadian public, rather than working for corporations whose parents are in Pittsburg and New York, directing the show. I think that is a good thing, and that young engineers and young people in the oil business are going to work for people who will pay them a good salary. I think what the member for Calgary West was spouting is nonsense.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that real energy security demands predominant public control through Petro-Canada. That is not what we are given. Real energy security means substantial emphasis on conservation. It means taking some of that $6.5 billion now earmarked as giveaway grants to private oil companies and putting it into Petro-Canada to take one of the majors under public control.
April 6, 1982

The question facing democratic politicians everywhere, I suppose, is what economic areas should be under state control and what areas should be left to the marketplace. It seems to me that the development of a strategic commodity such as oil is one area where we should have at least predominant public control. That does not mean control of the entire industry-we have not advocated that-it means predominant public control.
The minister prides himself or congratulates himself sometimes on being logical, and when he makes the argument for the 25 per cent equity, the fact that they have to be at the table, that they have to direct, that they have to know what is going on, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it would argue for predominant public control. This would regulate the industry, it is said, in one of the most overregulated industries in the country. That is not true. The industry can get around all the regulations. Look at the history of the National Energy Board, and the way it has been manipulated with respect to exports, especially on oil.
The way to do it, logically, I put this to the minister, is that we should have predominant public control. It makes sense. The public wants it. But the public should not be bamboozled by this flim flam, this unworkable sham of COR and PIP and all these grants, in which millions of dollars go out to an industry like this. They should not get it that way.
I conclude then, Mr. Speaker, by returning to the question: energy security for whom? The Liberal answer in this group of bills is security for the oil companies. The government money will take all the risks. What about the taxpayers and consumers? They will continue to get hosed. It is no wonder Canadians are becoming more cynical of this Liberal government energy policy. It certainly has not been as promised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: I hope to make some brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, on this first bill on energy that has been introduced in the House. To begin with, I would like to say that Petro-Canada is an essential key in the federal government's over-all energy plan. It will play a major role in terms of transferring regulation and control of the industry from the provinces to the federal government. It is in this area that I want to touch upon a few matters.
The minister has made sufficient speeches and published sufficient documents to give us the three goals of the National Energy Program. I would like to put forth six goals that tend to describe more adequately this very complex National Energy Program which very few people understand. I had hoped the program would have been implemented over a somewhat longer period than the short span in which it is being implemented. Some of the uncertainties and difficulties we will have to contend with would have been lessened.
In connection with the National Energy Program in which Petro-Canada plays such a vital role, I see the following objectives. The first is certainly Canadianization in two ways,
Petro-Canada Act
Canadianization in the public sector and Canadianization in the private sector. There are some ingenious policies in this legislation by which this will be done.
The second and more important characteristic of the National Energy Program is control and regulation of literally most aspects of the industry. More important is the transfer of that control from the provincial area of jurisdiction to the federal. That is an area that I am concerned about. I think there will be increasing problems as we go into the future.
The third policy of the National Energy Program is nationalization. The program in Bill C-48, the oil and gas bill, has two pronas, the first with regard to Canada lands, and the second part with regard to energy security legislation which we will be dealing with in the next several weeks. Through Bill C-48 there is an all-inclusive system of nationalizing at least 25 per cent of the industry on Canada lands. All new oil and gas industry on Canada lands from here on will be nationalized to the extent of 25 per cent, either through PetroCan or a new corporation. I do not say this is good or bad. Bill C-48 has been passed, and that is fact. This is what it will permit.
The question is how much of the existing industry in the provincial sector will be nationalized in the federal government program. Here is where Petro-Canada can and will play a rather significant role, hopefully, as the minister said on several occasions, in the oil sands, and by purchasing other companies. It is now rumoured that Petro-Canada will be purchasing British Petroleum after having purchased several other companies in the past. I will come to that area.
The fourth major policy area is revenue accumulation from the industry to the federal government, or central Canada if you wish, and the subsequent use of that revenue for redistribution of the wealth of this nation. Oil and gas tax dollars will now be used for social programs and many other programs requiring wealth distribution instead of entirely for maintaining energy self-sufficiency for the future.
One can argue whether such a commodity as energy, which is basic to the well-being of the entire society, should be used as a means for wealth redistribution. Some of that wealth redistribution will be done rather ingeniously in terms of Canadianizing industry. You collect through the PGRT tax and turn around through the PIP program and give and promote Canadianization. Some will be used for Canadianization. Some will be used for wealth redistribution.
The fifth over-all policy is some international assistance, using Canadian energy dollars through Petro-Canada International. The sixth is the energy substitution program through Canertech which will be structured in this legislation.
In connection with the effect of the National Energy Program on the industry under provincial jurisdiction, particularly Alberta, it has produced some results in the last several months, in effect over the last couple of years. The first result has been chaos. It has brought uncertainty as to who is in control, by how much, who is to take how much money, how much is to be left to the industry and how much is for the little
16220

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
industry as opposed to large industry. It has made predictability almost impossible. It is impossible for the industry to plan on a mid-term basis or for a longer term because it does not know where it is going.
If anything, the legislation is necessary at the earliest opportunity so that the industry knows what it has to contend with. In the area of massive capital requirement, nothing is more difficult than not being able to plan two, five, ten or fifteen years ahead without knowing the rules. Even though the rules may be poor, it is absolutely vital that they be established at the earliest opportunity and not be subject to change.
I remember when we had to deal with the industry with regard to the environment. They constantly talked of predictability. Even though the regulations were very tough, they asked that they be left in place and not changed. Even though they were tough regulations, they wanted them left for five or ten years so that they could plan.
The second matter which is general in the industry in connection with the provinces is a flight of capital and a shortage of capital. Some major industries have impounded their capital. They are not going to move ahead until there is a further definition in connection with the National Energy Program. This has caused a flight of some drilling companies, and particularly technological competence. We are losing technological competence which was created over the past 20 or 25 years and is second to none in the world. Some of this technological competence is leaving the provincial area of energy resources. It is because of uncertainty, instability, a lack of cash flow and so on. It is too bad. Some of this flight is outside the country. Indeed, foreign capital has stopped coming in.
In the provinces, particularly Alberta, there are now bankruptcies and business contractions in the oil and gas industry. Interest rates and debt loads are high.
If you have a system of exploration, you try to plan ahead. All of these smaller businesses have borrowed heavily and are having to re-finance at the high interest rates. We are getting an increasing number of bankruptcies and more business concentration because some small businesses simply have to sell to the larger corporations. We are having corporate concentration because of Canadianization on the one hand and economic instability on the other.
This has caused regional alienation. No issue has caused more alienation between the west and central Canada and now the east and central Canada than the energy issue. It involves large capital flows and large capital sums. It involves the ability of being master in your own house. The west, which has always wanted to be somewhat independent of central Canada, and the east, which is now demanding to keep the tools it had in its hand for creating its own economic climate, instead of them being taken over by central Canada. This is the general wisdom that is increasing in the west. Regional alienation is increasing in western Canada, because, again, it is being said that the centre is coming over to take control over western resources. I might say that non-renewable resources have a one way trip through the economy. The west is anxious to convert
their non-renewable resources into renewable resources, into dollars, into investments and into the accumulation of massive sums of money which can subsequently be revolved. The west is concerned about seeing a massive shift of money from their resources back to the centre and a redistribution of that wealth through a formula which is foreign to them.
The final effect is a change in mood out west from optimism to pessimism; a change in mood from excitement and enthusiasm to anger and disillusionment. Of course, this has given rise to political philosophies which are not necessary favorable to the stability of the country.
I do not want to comment too extensively on the Alberta-federal government agreement but I would say that there was obviously some juvenile and amateurish posturing during the negotiations which led up to that agreement. I have always been very disappointed that both Alsands and Cold Lake have been held for ransom with regard to the evolution of an agreement. I have always been unhappy that Alberta had decided upon a course of action to cut back on oil supply, which again was used as a club to evolve a national agreement. I found both actions unnecessary. Indeed, one finds that political perspectives change in this game whereby you may have a bad agreement for a couple of years but you can always renegotiate that agreement to get a better one later on.
I believe that the nature of the agreement will push the province of Alberta to venture into some rather different areas. If I were associated with Alberta I would consider very seriously not investing any money from the Heritage Fund into Alsands. There is not much point in Alberta investing money in a resource which it already controls. Section 92(a) of the new Constitution says very specifically that the legislature in each province may exclusively make laws in relationship to non-renewable resources. If I were the Alberta government and wanted to make sure that some of the money flowed back from the rest of Canada to Alberta and some measure of control was effected in Alberta over the entire nation with respect to the energy industry, I might be somewhat interested in seriously looking at purchasing Imperial Oil and converting it into an Alberta corporation and indeed controlling not only much of the play in Alberta but some of the play throughout the rest of Canada. Certainly, I would seriously think about proposing to the federal government that instead of having absolute control over Petro-Canada the federal government should give serious consideration to bringing the provinces in as co-owners of Petro-Canada. I asked this of the former Progressive Conservative government because the provinces then might be directly involved through the ownership of perhaps a third of Petro-Canada in establishing national energy policies directly rather than indirectly. If it is not possible to give some ownership of Petro-Canada to the provinces, perhaps one third shared equally among the ten provinces, surely they should be allowed to place a member on the board of directors of Petro-Canada so that they have a direct input into policies made by Petro-Canada due to its influence on the future of national energy self-sufficiency and the national energy policy.
April 6, 1982

I hope, as this debate unfolds and some of the other legislation comes before the House, that I will again have a chance to make some remarks, but 1 believe that it is appropriate to get this piece of legislation before committee at the earliest opportunity so that witnesses can be brought forward and a much better understanding of the National Energy Program can evolve at the earliest opportunity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long if the House is ready for the question, but I think you will discover that there will be another speaker from the other side after me.
This bill, Bill C-101, is the first of eight bills evolving from that enormous, outrageous and atrocious package that was originally presented to the House by an arrogant government. However, I wonder what we accomplished, because the hon. member from the New Democratic Party appeared to have written a speach in preparation for an omnibus bill, and the fact that it was broken up was not going to deter him from reading the speech which had been written for the omnibus bill. He went on and on to deal with all kinds of matters which had nothing to do with Bill C-101. After having listened to the hon. member it is hard to tell whether he is just dumb or doctrinaire.


An hon. Member:: Both.


Harvie Andre: The New Democratic Party is obviously stuck in its reactionary posture. They have one answer for every problem: more government agencies, more Crown corporations, more state ownership, more regulations, and they call that progressive. Socialism was a progressive and new idea 60 years ago, and it looked attractive then. Even 40 years ago it was an idea which seemed to provide some hope for people who were in the midst of a depression. However, you would think that after 60 years of experience with socialism around the world where it has not worked anywhere at any time, people would learn from it. In a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, Northrop Frye said that the only way that you can see the future is by looking into the rear-view mirror. Apparently, the NDP looks back, sees the experience of 60 years of socialism in the Soviet Union, and in other countries to a lesser degree, and refuses to learn from that experience that socialism simply does not work. It has never worked. It has been tried extensively in many cultures and in all kinds of countries and it has not worked. It will not work. It certainly has not worked in the oil industry. There is not one state-owned oil company in the world, of which there are many because there are many people in other countries with the same philosophy as the NDP who insist that state oil companies are the direction in which to head, that comes anywhere close to the performance of a privately-owned oil company of equal size. However, the NDP say we should do the same thing. It makes you wonder why they do not learn from that experience.
Petro- Canada Act
This bill proposes to transfer another $5 billion to Petro-Canada. My colleague from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) commented in his remarks on the fact that at this time in Canadian history, with the economy in the state it is in, on the day after we voted on a bill which would take $5 billion out of moneys available for education and health care, it seems perverse for us to be transferring $5 billion over to a group of people who are not accountable to the House or to the people of Canada in any respect. They are people who are appointed by the minister. One such person is Joel Bell, a good friend of the Liberal Party. He knows nothing about the oil industry, but he is a good friend of the Liberal party. I could go down the list. Interestingly enough, some people who initially joined Petro-Canada did know the oil industry and were knowledgeable and could have made a contribution, but they quit. Don Wolcott is an expert oil man. He has a tremendous reputation. He knows how to find oil. He did not last very long. He quit. The president of Petro-Canada, Andy Janisch, is an expert oil man with an excellent reputation. He knows how to find oil. He quit and joined Canadian Superior, a 100 per cent foreign-owned oil company. When Mr. Janisch quit, I understand there were seven vice-presidents who submitted their resignations but were talked out of resigning at that point in time because of the damage their resignations would do to the company. Yet my friends here, the socialists, say we should give them more money and more authority and let them run the whole show. That kind of thinking boggles the mind. One has to assume it is simply doctrinaire thinking based on a complete lack of understanding.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the spokesman for the New Democratic Party on energy matters, pooh-poohed the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West, about the staff of Petro-Canada. I was watching Calgary television a couple of months ago when a television reporter asked a question of the graduating class of chemical engineers at the University of Calgary. There were 30 or 40 chemical engineers there. The television reporter asked the class to assume they had two job offers, one from Petro-Canada and one from Shell. The Petro-Canada offer was S200 a month more than the one from Shell. He asked how many would accept the job from Petro-Canada. There was not one. He asked how many would accept the job offer from Shell, and the whole class said, "hurray". That is the attitude of Canada's brightest and sharpest in the community which knows Petro-Canada best. The energy critic for the New Democratic Party says Petro-Canada has outstanding personnel, and that he knows it. He knows from nothing.
Petro-Canada was touted by the NDP as being a possible price setter. Indeed, it is. It has the highest priced gasoline in the country. In every community in which Petro-Canada operates its prices are at a high level. Petro-Canada is a price leader everywhere. The Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketing Association is anxious to present evidence that

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
Petro-Canada is predatory and is driving Canadian independents out of business. The association is anxious to present that evidence, and we are anxious to hear it.
Petro-Canada did the Mexico deal. It bought oil from Mexico. It signed a contract which lets Mexico set the quality and the price. Now we have a marvellous contract; we are paying world price for oil of inferior quality compared with oil shut in in the province of Saskatchewan because there is no market. The Mexican stuff has driven it out. And we want more of that, according to the government and the New Democratic Party.
If Crown corporations are the answer to our energy problems, we should not have any problems with anything in Canada because there are 460 Crown corporations. Nobody knows the number for sure. Last evening the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was asked in committee how many Crown corporations there are. He could not tell us. The minister responsible could not tell us how many Crown corporations the taxpayers of Canada own. He was asked how many have been created since his government took office in 1980. He could not answer that either. He thought it was some dozens, but he did not know how many. If Crown corporations are the answer to Canada's problems, then with over 460 Crown corporations why do we have any problems left? They are not the answer. They have not been the answer in any country which has resorted to that vehicle as a way by which to address economic problems.
Crown corporations are the vehicle for those who want to exercise power. They are a marvellous way by which the government and senior bureaucrats-those who feel they know better than the rest of us-can intrude, exercise authority and direct the lives of individual Canadians. That is fundamentally what socialism is about. There is a fundamental lack of trust in the people. Socialists do not trust the people.


Mr. Mayer:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: They do not believe people can make decisions as to how to spend their money, as to what to invest in or as to how to run their lives. There is a lack of belief that people can be trusted, and if people are not trusted, Big Brother has to be brought in to run their lives for them. That is what this bill is all about. That is why we cannot go along with granting to Petro-Canada $5 billion more.
If Crown corporations had spent our money wisely in the past, we might say there is some justification, but let us think back to the Fina deal. In 1980, Fina shares were selling at about $40. They were selling at about $50 in August of that year. We paid $120 in January of 1981. Since August of 1980 the shares of oil companies have about halved. If Fina had gone with the market and was still privately owned, its shares today would be trading at in the vicinity of $25. Petro-Canada paid $120, five times as much-


Charles James Mayer: The people of Canada paid that.


Harvie Andre: -as the market says the shares are worth today. We paid $1.7 billion for something the market says is worth
about $300 million today. Some insiders made a lot of profit from that-and hair on them-and the Belgians certainly came out of that smelling like roses but, by cracky, if the taxpayers of Canada have $700 million or $800 million to give away in foreign aid, I can think of countries much more needy than Belgium. We could have spent that money much more wisely than sending it to Belgium, which is what happened when Petro-Canada got excited about buying Petro-Fina at an incredibly exorbitant price. The reason Petro-Canada could do that was, of course, because we, the taxpayers, are paying for it. Petro-Canada does not have any shareholders to worry about. It does not have any bottom line to worry about. We have not seen Petro-Canada's 1981 report on how it performed last year, but I would bet a few dollars that there was some red ink. And that was when Petro-Canada was given everything and paid for nothing, which is not the case with most companies.
The other aspect of this bill which bothers me is that a director shall be paid by the corporation remuneration fixed by the governor in council. Directors are usually, I think almost exclusively, paid fees. That used to be the case. For some reason the government wants to pay a salary. Is it because it wants to find a more direct way of remunerating Mr. Phelps or others like Mr. Phelps, or are there some defeated Liberal candidates who need jobs? What is this about?


William James Kempling: Pork barrel.


Harvie Andre: It is another pork barrel, I am sure. I suppose Mr. Phelps' mortgage must be coming due, and we have to find some way to give him the cash to pay off his mortgage. I do not know what it is, but this certainly is a concern to me.
Much more could be said about this, and perhaps should be said about this, but given the time and the fact that there are seven more bills and other features of this so-called energy security package which will devastate Canadians and Canadian taxpayers even more, we will reserve some of our fire power for those other pieces of legislation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard speeches from members of the opposition, particularly the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I think it is quite evident why those individuals and the parties to which they belong sit in opposition. It is clear that the Canadian people do not buy what those two parties are attempting to sell. In fact, the people have overwhelmingly bought the policies of this government. The hon. member for Calgary West seems to be fighting the 1980 election all over again, but he and his party have done absolutely nothing since that time.


Charles James Mayer: Why don't you make the case for Petro-Canada and tell us how great it is?


David Charles Dingwall: They talk about the ringing of the bells having saved money. Mr. Speaker, absolutely no money was
April 6, 1982

saved; in fact, the Progressive Conservative Party cost Canadian taxpayers $300,000 through being on strike with full pay. That is what they did. We know where the Conservatives stand-they are anti-Petro-Canada and pro-multinational. Of course the New Democratic Party is locked in with that group of obstructionists which is against the PIP grant. That is absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Supposedly they would prefer the old depletion allowance that we took away.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway reiterated that he did not think the PIP grants were useful to industry. I should like to tell him that the PIP program is going to be very useful, particularly in Atlantic Canada. Many companies there are coming forward to make sure that they can fit in the PIP program with the exploration and activity that is taking place on the east coast. The government ought to be commended for that. But the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway wants to destroy the free enterprise system. That is not the intention of the government, Mr. Speaker; we believe that we are assisting it. I imagine the hon. member would prefer that we go back to the Regina Manifesto.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) talked about the $5 billion as being a transfer to Petro-Canada which is taking place now. That is not the case. As he ought to know, Petro-Canada is planning for the future and for the benefit of all Canadians. As the situation warrants it will be called upon to use the money that this bill authorizes. Therefore I reject his statement.
Bill C-101, an act to amend the Petro-Canada Act, is not a long or complex bill. It consists of a few clauses, most of which are technical in nature, serving to clarify and consolidate the act. There are a few changes which are not of major significance, such as the provision for payment to the directors of the corporation for the many tasks undertaken in addition to attending meetings and the payment of money that it lent in connection with the Cold Lake program. Finally, there are three areas in which significant initiatives are proposed, although it must be acknowledged that these are not new initiatives. All of them were announced or indicated in the National Energy Program.
These three initiatives are amendments to allot funds for Canertech-and obviously hon. members opposite are not in favour of that-to permit the allocation of start-up funds to Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation and to raise the authorized share capital of Petro-Canada.
Speaking of the first initiative, the bill now before us provides authority for repayment of capital that Petro-Canada has advanced to its subsidiary Canertech, and also the payment for services it has provided to the new corporation during its start-up period.
As for Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, it has yet to receive start-up funds. This bill provides for up to $60 million of the $250 million that has been allocated to it for the four-year period ending 1984-85.
Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation may be a world first. There have been a number of bilateral agreements for petroleum development assistance and technology
Petro-Canada Act
transfer, but it probably represents the first permanent agency to provide development assistance. It is an existing idea that has been well received by the countries of the Third World and by international assistance agencies. Again, the Government of Canada ought to be commended for taking these new bold initiatives.
In the nine years since the international oil price began to climb, severe adjustment problems have not been confined to the developed countries with high energy costs. They have also occurred in middle-income countries where opportunities for economic development were often based on the increased use of imported oil. These middle-income countries, often dependent upon the export of a few commodities or manufactures for their foreign exchange, have found it difficult to cope with the tenfold increase in the price of oil. The repercussions have been severe.
For a number of obvious reasons, the large oil companies have little incentive to search for small fields in remote locations. Although there are excellent petroleum prospects in the Third World, exploration in these countries has been at a low level-not at the level that their geological potential would warrant. The countries need an assessment of their petroleum resources but they lack the knowledge and technology to do this. Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation can assist a few countries in their search for oil. It can provide the experience and the technology to assess the petroleum potential and to drill. It may also have a role in the development of the fields it discovers, but the greatest need will remain the need for assistance in exploration. Once a field has been found, the host country will find it comparatively easy to borrow development capital against proven reserves or to interest an oil company in operating the field.
This Crown corporation responds to a pressing need for development assistance that is recognized both by the countries of the Third World and by international organizations and agencies. This iniative will probably be imitated in the development assistance programs of other countries, and 1 am confident that members of the House, including hon. members opposite, will support the funding of Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation as is provided in this bill.
There are many parallels that could be drawn between the Canadian experience and the experience of oil-importing Third World countries. Canada has had the advantage of a rich and diverse energy endowment combined with the wealth and human resources and it should have taken full advantage of that endowment.


Charles James Mayer: And we have energy policies to lock them in the ground.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would tell the hon. member opposite to stop rattling his chain. He is becoming a bit of a nuisance to all hon. members.
Nonetheless, we have been an oil importing nation and we have faced the problem of assessing and developing our frontier petroleum resources.

April 6, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
Over 20 years ago, when the full oil and gas potential of the Canadian frontiers was unknown, the federal government's resource management regime encouraged exploration. The pace was often slower than we had hoped, but in the end it was successful to a certain extent. Now the new oil and gas act promises to accelerate activity on the Canada lands. Oil and gas were found, and the good news of these discoveries is one of the factors which has required the major thrust of Bill C-101, the increase in the authorized common share capital of Petro-Canada.
To produce oil and gas from frontier locations will require huge investments. Petro-Canada has an interest in many of the discoveries and it must be able to pay its share of development costs. Also, it has a stake in other important oil projects such as Alsands, but it does not have the same access to capital markets as its private sector partners. It cannot issue shares in the private market and must rely on equity contributions from the Government of Canada to meet its responsibilities.
While petroleum developments form a large part of its financial responsibilities, exploration is also significant, and the corporation needs access to additional capital if it is to maintain its interests and its holdings. Continued participation by Petro-Canada in the search for and development of new oil sources is a fundamental part of the oil supply and Canadiani-zation objectives of the National Energy Program. Not only does this Crown corporation give the people of Canada a share in the ownership of the oil and gas industry, it will take the lead in providing Canadian companies with opportunities to participate in energy projects. Joint ventures are already underway, and more such opportunities will be provided as Petro-Canada obtains the necessary funds to undertake its share of exploration and development. Where would Sable Island or Hibernia be if it were not for Petro-Canada; let hon. members opposite respond to that one.
[DOT]


Harvie Andre: Mobil found Hibernia.


David Charles Dingwall: Petro-Canada is a new company with a very heavy emphasis upon frontier exploration, non-conventional oil, and research and development for unique Canadian conditions. As with a similar ambitious young company in the private sector, it needs more money than is provided by its cash flow. Without the same access to capital markets which would be enjoyed by a privately-owned company, it must look to its sole shareholder, the Government of Canada. Also, if it is to plan effectively, it must have its capitalization assured.
The bill proposes an authorized capital ceiling of $5.5 billion, but as $500 million has already been issued and a further $100 million contributed in respect to the interest in Panarctic Oil Ltd., the total additional capital provided by the bill is $4.9 billion. In considering this figure it is useful to remember that $4.9 billion of new funds is a very small share of the total energy expenditures of roughly more than $300 billion which is predicted for the country in this decade.
Petro-Canada has not enjoyed the support of all hon. members of the House in the past, particularly those in the Conservative Party of Canada, but it has enjoyed the support of the people of Canada who are far superior in their intellect and their ability to grasp the difficult situations and issues which Canadians must face. I am confident that Canadians across the country support the idea that Petro-Canada should take an active role in frontier exploration and development, in non-conventional oil, and in research and development. I am confident they feel that Petro-Canada should have the capital to undertake its share of the energy developments which will give the country the oil self-sufficiency to which its rich energy endowment entitles it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Energy, Mines and Resources
Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, if you will give me the floor, I will make a good speech on why they should have voted in another way, but I always respect democracy and wish good luck-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker


Miss MacDonald:: Tell us about the Newfoundland election, Marc. Give us the results.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: This is not your night, is it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell us all about the offshore. Tell us about Hibernia.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Newfoundland.


Marc Lalonde: -Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Chicken.


Marc Lalonde: -has been introduced to provide the Government of Canada with the ability to move quickly and decisively to deliver on our Canadianization commitments and to take advantage of opportunities to meet the energy needs of Canadians.
The amendment will give the government the authority to establish new Crown corporations in the energy field.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal information. I wonder if we could get that bearer of glad tidings, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), to give us the results of the Newfoundland election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Albert Proud: Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker: they elected no separatists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: How many?


Marc Lalonde: In our view it strikes the proper balance between providing the government with the authority necessary to effectively manage our national energy challenges while at the same time providing parliament with the new powers to scrutinize or even revoke the use of this authority. It should be emphasized that the provision in this bill to establish such corporations is limited. Corporations to be acquired must be federally incorporated companies. Companies that are either acquired or incorporated may only be established as

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
Crown corporations for the purposes strictly limited to the energy sector as described in the bill.
The bill sets out these purposes as follows:
1)	To explore for, develop, produce, gather, handle, refine, process, purchase, sell, import, export, distribute, store and transport all types of fuel and energy,
2)	To produce, distribute and market energy conservation technology,
3)	To conduct or engage or participate in energy research and energy conservation research,
4)	To acquire and hold shares or assets of organizations carrying on these activities.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is the reason?


Marc Lalonde: We have introduced a bill which explicitly gives authority to parliament to reverse the decision to proceed with the establishment of a Crown corporation. It will be remembered that the previous government tried to dismantle a Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, without legislation.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is false.


Marc Lalonde: In the past it has been our practice for ministers to set up Crown corporations by merely arranging for incorporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act. What we are proposing is a mechanism whereby there will be specific parliamentary authority to create corporations in the energy field and where there will be a very specific provision giving parliament the right to negate the decision of the government to create a Crown corporation in the energy field specifically.


Charles Joseph Clark: When can parliament not do that?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: 1 must also emphasize the fact that the takeover or the incorporation of such a company must be approved by the Governor in Council and that the order in council enacting this approval may be revoked by a negative resolution of Parliament, which could reverse the decision to set up such a corporation. Under the provisions of this bill, any order in council must be tabled in Parliament no later than the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament following the date it has been laid. The order in council comes into force on the thirteenth sitting day of Parliament following the date it has been laid before Parliament unless a motion to revoke it is addressed to the Speaker of either House. A negative resolution may be submitted by members of the opposition at any time during the nineteen days after the order in council is laid. In other words, before coming into force, the order in council must be laid before Parliament, where a negative resolution to revoke it can be submitted during the next nineteen sitting days of Parliament.

A motion to revoke an order to establish or acquire energy corporations would be considered by the House of Commons or the Senate upon presentation of such a motion signed by not less than 30 members of the House or not less than 15 members of the Senate. Members of the House will remember that under the provisions of Bill C-94 a negative resolution would
have required the signatures of 50 or more members of the House of Commons or 20 or more members of the Senate. The new members, 30 in the House of Commons and 15 in the Senate, make parliamentary scrutiny of the powers exercised under this amendment even easier than was provided in Bill C-94.


Mr. Beatty:: It is 50 and 20.


Marc Lalonde: In the bill before the House it is 30 in the House of Commons and 20 in the Senate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Have you changed it again?


Marc Lalonde: As everybody knows, this bill is part of the legislation aimed at ensuring energy security in Canada. This amendment to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act will provide the government, under the control of Parliament, with one of the tools required to make the best possible use of the privileged position of Canada as concerns energy, namely the use of public corporations to complement the private sector in a climate of free competition.

The government does not foresee the need for frequent use of this provision. We do not envisage a major increase in the share of the oil and gas industry owned by the national government. As we stated in the National Energy Program, an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the federal government was desirable, and substantial progress has been made in that area. This bill represents no new initiative toward public ownership of oil and gas. Rather, it is introduced in order to provide the government with the flexibility to establish corporations in the energy industry in order to take advantage of specific opportunities and to address specific problems.
Petro-Canada is now participating in the full range of activities and providing the full range of services of a national petroleum company. It will remain the principal direct policy instrument of the Government of Canada in the oil and gas industry. But, as was noted in the National Energy Program, the government is committed to competition. Competition is the lifeblood of the industry, and we owe it to consumers to ensure that competition is preserved both in the privately-owned sector and in the smaller publicly-owned sector.

The Canada Oil and Gas Act, passed by the House of Commons last December and given royal assent on March 5 this year, provides that the federal government will retain a Crown share of 25 per cent in oil interests in the Canada lands. This share may be transferred to a designated Crown corporation prior to the authorization of the system for producing oil or gas. To encourage competition in the public sector, it may be desirable to transfer Crown shares in oil and gas on Canada lands to a Crown corporation other than Petro-Canada. The
April 6, 1982

bill will enable the government to establish new Crown corporations that will be responsible for holding and managing these assets for their owners, that is, all Canadians. Looking into the future, I would hazard a guess that it may be preferable to establish Crown corporations that are regionally based and hold Crown shares in specific Canada lands. As a result of the location of their offices and staff, and through the membership of their board of directors, these corporations could have firsthand knowledge of the energy requirements of the regions in question and be truly conscious of their needs, while managing their assets for the benefit of all Canadians.
In addition to Crown corporations to which would be transferred part of the assets represented by Crown shares in Canada lands, we might also need a Crown corporation other than Petro-Canada that would own and manage energy-oriented companies the Government of Canada might decide to acquire. In fact, Petro-Canada could act as an agent for such purchases, but its effectiveness as an instrument of the government might be reduced if it made too many acquisitions. A new Crown corporation might be necessary to stimulate competition in the public sector of the industry, and quick action would be necessary to make the transaction a success.

As members of the House will know, Petro-Canada has a subsidiary, Canertech, which is an investment corporation in the field of renewable energy and conservation technologies. I mention Canertech because it is another example of a potential use of the powers granted under this amendment. In this case, I am not speaking about a hypothetical situation, as I was when referring to the acquisition of petroleum companies, or a situation in which the action required is in the future, as is the case with the issue of which corporation is to hold Crown shares under the Canada Oil and Gas Act, but rather a situation where the amendments may prove useful in allowing Canertech to evolve as an independent Crown corporation.
As I mentioned, Canertech has its head office in Winnipeg. It is small in size, as is appropriate for its job. At present it is a subsidiary of Petro-Canada and it has benefited from corporate services, which would have been difficult for it to establish within itself during the start-up period. As time goes on, it might be preferable for Canertech to become a truly autonomous and independent corporation.
These are the main objectives and characteristics of the particular bill. As 1 indicated at the beginning of my remarks, it formalizes and brings Parliament more into play than has been the situation in the past, when we have seen cases where governments and ministers were creating Crown corporations without referring to Parliament. The bill will ensure that in the limited sector of energy the minister and the government can create energy corporations and Parliament has the possibility of a negative resolution to annul the decision, if it so wishes.
Energy, Mines and Resources

I therefore ask the members of this House to consider giving this bill second reading, because it will provide the government with one of the tools it needs to develop its energy policy. Of course, its applications are limited, in the case of new corporations, to the establishment of energy corporations, and where acquisitions are concerned, to the purchase of corporations established under federal legislation. In both cases, such transactions must be approved by the governor in council, by cabinet, and may be the subject of a negative resolution by Parliament. Still, it is an instrument that can be used to resolve quickly a number of specific problems and to take advantage of opportunities as they are offered. I believe that Canadians agree that their government should have such tools at its disposal in order to ensure the energy security of our country.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the impasse when the minister first introduced the energy security bill, hon. members on this side of the House said that there were several elements of the bill which could be dealt with differently. Some of the elements of the bill were unobjectionable, others we felt were unwise, and others we felt were of questionable morality, such as the provision which would amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and allow the seizure and sale of people's shares without their consent. Other elements of the bill, though, were downright dangerous. The provision introduced by the minister which we are debating now in the form of Bill C-102 falls into the category of being downright dangerous. I intend to deal with that question as we go along over the course of the evening.
One thing which certainly struck my curiosity, as the minister was making his comment, was his suggestion that there was provision in the bill for a negative resolution to be put down in either House, either in the Senate or in the House of Commons, on the strength of 30 signatures of members of the House of Commons or 15 signatures of members of the Senate. Yet, last evening I came into the House and I asked for a copy of the bill which had been tabled by the minister, and I found that it provided for a motion for disallowance on the strength of 50 signatures in the House of Commons or 20 signatures in the Senate.
I have in my hands what the Table says is the House copy of Bill C-102. Clause 7(2) reads as follows:
An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after it has been laid before Parliament pursuant to that subsection unless before the twentieth sitting day of Parliament after the order has been laid before Parliament a motion for the consideration of either House, to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than 50 members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House and by not less than 20 members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
When I raised this issue with the minister, during his comments, he said that in fact the bill we are debating tonight

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
has a provision for 30 and 50. Indeed, in the printed version of the bill which was distributed today to members, Bill C-102, those numbers have been changed to 30 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate.
This raises serious procedural questions which I think hon. members on this side may well want to raise; that is, where did the change take place, and on whose authority was the change made? The Table indicates that the bill, which was tabled by the minister in the House and circulated, contains the figures of 50 members of the House and 20 members of the Senate. I do not know on whose authority the change was made. Perhaps the minister could rise at this point and explain how it happened.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot give a particular explanation for the point raised by the hon. member, because Bill C-102 which I have with me provides, as he mentioned, for 30 members of the House of Commons and not less than 15 members of the Senate. This is the bill which the government approved. There may have been an error in the tabling or in the distribution. I would certainly be very happy to co-operate with the Chair in exploring the matter. If there is a technical problem, or if there has been an error anywhere, I would certainly be happy to indicate right now-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Which bill is before the House?


Marc Lalonde: -that when the bill goes to committee, the government will move an amendment to ensure that it is 30 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to know which bill I am debating.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty which arises here is that while the minister, the government, and other members may have in their possession a bill which stipulates 30 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate, the fact remains that in so far as the official records of the House are concerned the bill tabled yesterday specified 50 members of the House of Commons and 20 members of the Senate. Naturally the question that arises is which bill is the House seized of, or which bill are we debating? The minister cannot hold out the assurance that he will amend a bill which is not before us and that would appear to be the case.
The minister cannot explain how the slip-up occurred. I cannot understand how instructions would have been given by the government to print the bill in the first place with the formula in that clause stipulated as 50 members of the House and 20 members of the Senate. Obviously there was either a typographical error or a change of policy, because what we have printed before members now is quite different than what we have in the possession of the House.
As a practical solution, I might suggest, if the government is advancing a bill based on the 30-15 formula, that we might seek unanimous consent to revert so that the government would be enabled to replace the bill tabled with the bill it wants us to debate. That could be achieved by unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) nodding his head. The Chair is in possession of the bill which, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), have indicated, refers to 50 members of the House of Commons and 20 members of the Senate. If I understand the mood of the House, it may be that the minister would put an amendment to correct those two figures, and the House would then debate on the understanding that those are the figures. Is that what the hon. member for Yukon proposes?


Marc Lalonde: No, no.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing something quite different. I am proposing that the bill tabled be withdrawn by consent, and that the government table the bill apparently before us, which appears to be based on the different fraction. I think the minister owes an explanation to the House as to why the 50-20 split was in the original bill tabled yesterday and why there is a difference in those figures today. Was this a change of heart, or was it a typographical error? Had the government reconsidered the unreasonableness of the 50-20 formula and thought perhaps that 30-15 was more reasonable? I think the minister owes us some explanation.


Marc Lalonde: 15. If there is unanimous consent, I will be very happy to move that this be done.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it would be interesting for all of us to know how this conversion on the road to Damascus took place overnight. As far as my party is concerned, we still think that 30 members for a negative motion is excessive. It is far in excess of those required in the Petroleum Administration Act. We do not like the idea of a negative motion at all. We know about the introduction of Bill C-102. It can be debated, but the exact numbers involves another discussion which I think can take place during the debate.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we would be very pleased to accept the suggestion from the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). But if the minister is prepared to withdraw his bill of last evening and ask for unanimous consent for introduction of today's bill. We would certainly try to accommodate him.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent would have to be obtained for both stages, namely the withdrawal of the existing bill as tabled and the introduction of the bill that is apparently now in possession of members. We would certainly be prepared, since it was our suggestion, to give that kind of consent, particularly in light of this amazing conversion to humility by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is discovering qualities that have always been there. I am happy they are becoming more and more perceptible to him. On the basis of this suggestion, if it is understood that we are proceeding at the same stage with the text that members have in their possession, I move, that the bill which is on the table be replaced by Bill C-102, which members have in their hands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, and that the bill be replaced by the one as presently distributed to members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde):
That Bill C-102, as tabled yesterday, be removed from consideration before the House of Commons and be replaced by the one presently distributed to members.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Chair should also note that as a consequential result of the order of business of the House as just transacted, it will be understood that the times applicable to the House order which was passed with respect to the energy bills will be adjusted by the time used by the minister
Energy, Mines and Resources
and also the time used by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) on Bill C-102 to date.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This leaves the Chair in a somewhat difficult position. I believe the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is referring to the block debate time which was allotted to the discussion of the several bills. 1 am not certain how long ago the debate began. Perhaps we can agree that the time used on that edition of Bill C-102, which no longer exists, is 20 minutes?


Erik Nielsen: The table is keeping a record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member has suggested that the record will indicate the amount of time and that it will be added to the block time under the previous House order. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I am even more reasonable than that, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that the time already used in discussing the bogus bill be applied to the real bill.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, since we are not going anywhere anyway, I think it pertinent to point out to the Chair that the ultimate disposition of this bill on June 30 will take place no matter what we do in the meantime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposal by the hon. member for Yukon. Is there unanimous consent thereto?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, now that we have been able to clean up the minister's mistake, I want to leave no misunderstanding on the part of the minister or members of the House on any side that members of my party were opposed to the bill as it was introduced by the minister and we are opposed to the bill as it stands today. We believe it is a dangerous bill, that it is one which does not deserve the support of Canadians, and that it is a bill which does not deserve the support of members of this House of Commons.
I think it important to note what the minister has been trying to do. A further comparison could be made. The bill introduced yesterday in the House of Commons was a draft dated March 26. Sometime between March 26 and today the government changed its mind on this question of a negative resolution. The government decided to attempt to make the threshold lower before a negative resolution could be put down.
It is worth comparing this bill to the energy security bill which divided Parliament for two weeks and prevented Members of Parliament from doing their jobs. In that bill there was no provision whatever for a negative resolution on this issue to be put before either of the Houses of Parliament. Instead, there has been a succession of changes of mind on the part of this minister who recognized that if he left this bill the way it

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
stood before it would become apparent to all Canadians that the minister was attempting to do an end run on Parliament.
In the course of my remarks tonight, what I want to do is point out that, notwithstanding the cosmetics and the trappings of parliamentary democracy, which the minister has attempted to introduce here, the minister is setting a very dangerous precedent. He is attempting to undermine the ability of parliamentarians to control the way in which the public purse is used. He is attempting to create a mechanism which will allow for the uncontrolled proliferation of Crown corporations in future.
What does this bill do, Mr. Speaker? The first thing it provides is that the government will be able in future to incorporate an unlimited number of Crown corporations, presumably, and predominantly, in the energy field. But, as I will suggest later, the scope could extend well beyond the field of energy. This policy will allow uncontrolled proliferation of Crown corporations. It is a policy which has been under attack in the past by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, by the Auditor General, by the Lambert commission and by members of Parliament from all sides of the House. I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is leaving the House. I do not blame him for trying to slip out discreetly as we get into a matter which falls directly under his jurisdiction.
Within six months, of the Clark government taking office, we tabled in Parliament a comprehensive bill designed to bring some element of accountability and control to Crown corporations. Yet what we find today, more than two years after the Liberal government was restored to office, after two years of assurances from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that he takes this matter seriously, is that we have yet to see any comprehensive legislation designed to protect the rights of Parliament and put in place the sort of accountability and control suggested by the Lambert Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General himself.
It is not a new problem, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General, back in his annual report of 1976, pointed out how serious the lack of financial control and accountability of Crown corporations was. It is now some six years later, but we are no better off today than we were then. We are no better off than we were after a succession of incidents leading to special inquiries into AECL, Air Canada, Polysar or other corporations where it was felt actions were taken not becoming a Crown corporation. In that time, with the exception of the nine months in which we were in office, apparently nothing of substance has taken place to try to bring some regime of accountability and control to Crown corporations.
We do not even know in any official way, Mr. Speaker, how many wholly-owned Crown corporations there are. The President of the Treasury Board has the responsibility for Crown corporations, and last evening I asked him how many corporations does the government own 100 per cent of. His answer was that he did not know, he could not tell us, he would try to count them.


Marc Lalonde: He is out there counting now.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Probably the most accurate guess which can be made is that the government probably has 170 wholly-owned Crown corporations at the present time. But that is only a guess; there is no way in which we can be sure. Not all Crown corporations are even listed in the schedules to the Financial Administration Act, a point made often by various groups looking at this particular issue. There is no way that this Parliament knows how many are wholly owned by the Government of Canada, and what does that say for the ability of members on any side to discharge their responsibility on behalf of their constituents? It says that we have been seriously weakened in our ability to protect the interests of Canadians, to protect the integrity of the taxpayers' dollars, and to do our job in reprepresenting our constituents on these matters of public concern.
The first thing this bill will do, Mr. Speaker, is to allow the creation of an unlimited number of new Crown corporations. That is something which apparently the President of the Treasury Board approves of. How will this be done? First of all, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will go to three of his colleagues and ask them to sign an order in council. The signatures of four cabinet members will constitute the authorization for an order in council. That will give all the necessary authority for the minister to put the machinery into effect to create yet another and another new Crown corporation.
The next measure is a new one introduced by the minister in the new draft of the bill. That order in council will be tabled in Parliament and brought before us. Members of Parliament and Senators, whether it is 50 and 30, or 15 and 20, will have the ability to sign a negative resolution, put it before Parliament, and ask that a vote be held. This is the minister's token concession to parliamentary democracy. He sees this as the role of Parliament in controlling Crown corporations.


An hon. Member:: Wonderful scheme.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We will be allowed to put down a negative resolution and have a three-hour debate in the House of Commons. Assume for a minute, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wants to spend $1 billion of the taxpayers' money to buy a new company and incorporate it as a Crown corporation. How would this be done? First of all, by an order in council giving him authority and by tabling the order in the House, and if members objected we would have three hours to debate the government's intention. This would be done without any legislation being put before us, without spelling out in any way what the mandate of the Crown corporation would be, without putting any limitations upon the authority of the government to act in this way. We would only have three hours to debate whether or not the taxpayers' money should be used in this way.
Assume, Mr. Speaker, that in those three hours a majority of members of the House raised concerns, convinced their colleagues and voted that this order should be nullified, that
April 6, 1982

we should strike it down and deny the government authority to incorporate a new Crown corporation to spend perhaps $1 billion of the taxpayers' money. What would happen then? Mr. Speaker, according to the bill, the motion which we passed in the House would be sent to the other place, where the senators would be given a similar time to consider it. If a majority of senators concurred in the decision made by a majority of the members here that the government should not be allowed to spend public funds in this way, then the order would be null and void. It would be struck down and they would not be allowed to continue. But-and here is the interesting wrinkle-if the Senate decided they did not agree with members of the House, the government would have the authority on the strength of the Senate's failing to concur in the motion moved in the House.
This is an interesting constitutional question, Mr. Speaker, and one which the minister would be well advised to look at very closely. We would have a situation where the government would be going to the Senate to seek the parliamentary authority necessary to spend hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of tax dollars. I would suggest to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources-


Mr. Huntington:: Who is not here.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -that there is serious doubt as to the constitutionality of this measure. What they are attempting to do is something which the Senate is specifically prohibited from doing: authorizing public moneys to be spent. If this goes forward, it is entirely possible that the courts of Canada may strike it down and say that the government is attempting to do something for which it has no authority. It is attempting in this bill to give authority to the Senate which it does not have today.
Even if that were not the case, Mr. Speaker, even if there were not serious doubts as to the constitutionality of this measure, the principle would surely be odious. Instead of coming to Parliament with a bill in which they spelled out the mandate of a Crown corporation, allowing it to be debated and go into standing committees of the House where witnesses could be called, instead of allowing us to vote on the measures and defeat them if we decide they should not go forward, they are reversing the onus and saying that Parliament tonight, if we pass this measure, is granting to the government for all time carte blanche to do whatever it wants unless a majority of both Houses of Parliament put themselves on record as saying in a specific case: no, you cannot do it.
I wish you had been there, Mr. Speaker, when I had the opportunity to have an exchange with the President of the Treasury Board. I asked him whether this measure was one he accepted as the minister responsible for trying to bring in a regime to enhance the accountability of Crown corporations and plug Parliament back into the picture. We have been left out, as the Auditor General has pointed out, and as members here have pointed out on numerous occasions. I asked him if he agreed that Parliament's role as envisaged in this legislation was satisfactory. He said yes, on two grounds. One is that the
Energy, Mines and Resources
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could not unilaterally incorporate a new Crown corporation; he would need the consent of at least three other members of cabinet. That would be hard to get, no doubt. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he said Parliament is giving its consent. If we pass Bill C-102 tonight, we are saying for all time that if the minister wants to incorporate a new Crown corporation, that is okay with us. The minister says: that is satisfactory, it means Parliament has been sufficiently plugged into the process again.
If that is satisfactory to the President of the Treasury Board, if he believes it is adequate and Parliament is discharging its responsibility when we simply write a blank cheque to the minister, then I ask him: why are we debating other pieces of legislation? At the beginning of each parliamentary session, why do we not simply pass a bill delegating authority to the government to do whatever it wants? It sounds ludicrous, does it not? It seems to be an odd thing to even discuss. Yet that is precisely what we are doing in this instance.


Frederick John King: Disgusting!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We do not follow that procedure because we believe that Parliament has the responsibility, not simply to give a broad granting of power to the government to do whatever it wants, but the responsibility, on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the people of Canada, to examine specific measures which are brought before Parliament by the government and to closely question the government, to make amendments and to make suggestions for improvements before the government goes ahead and acts on that authority. That is the serious flaw in this bill. The President of the Treasury Board cannot be expected to be taken seriously by anyone if he says that the regime of accountability here, if the procedure is followed to plug Parliament back into this bill, is satisfactory to ensure that Members of Parliament will do their job.


Frederick John King: Are you listening, Donald?


Henry Perrin Beatty: One might say that even if Members of Parliament do not have the ability to vote on a bill spelling out what the Crown corporation is to do, surely this is something that is desirable. Your Honour will recall that VIA Rail was created as a Crown corporation by using a dollar vote in the estimates. In two successive annual reports, the President of VIA Rail has said that one of the most serious problems of his corporation is that its mandate was never spelled out. The corporation does not know what is expected of it by the government and by Parliament.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has recommended, in more than one report, that the government come back if it wants a rail passenger corporation to become a Crown corporation. The government could come back to Parliament bringing legislation spelling out the mandate of the corporation. We will not be allowed to do that in the energy field in the future. That is to be denied Parliament. Surely, the next question we must ask

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
ourselves is, well, if the government is to spend funds on a Crown corporation, if it is to buy one in the private sector, does Parliament not have the authority to question the minister about the expenditure of those funds, to hold him accountable, to demand that he give some adequate explanation? The answer is, no. It is not apparent from reading Bill 102, as it stands. Your Honour must look at it in the context of the energy security bill, Bill C-94, now withdrawn, now dismembered, now being introduced by its various parts. When this section allowing the creation of unlimited Crown corporations is juxtaposed with the Canadian ownership account provisions of Bill C-94, Section 65.26, one finds that the government, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is permitted to spend money from the so-called Canadian ownership fund, to take tax dollars which have been taken from Canadians, and hold them in a separate fund. That money can be spent to acquire the shares in a new corporation. Section 65.26(3)(b) states:
-subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and in accordance with such terms and conditions, if any, as he may, on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance prescribe, such amounts as are from time to time required by the Minister for investment in shares, debentures, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of any person in order to increase Canadian public ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada through share and property acquisitions and to repay loans or expenses incurred for that purpose.
If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants to create or buy another multi-billion dollar oil company or company operating in any other energy-related field, all that he need do is to reach into the Canadian ownership fund to take money to use at his own discretion to purchase this new Crown corporation or he can simply go out and incorporate a new Crown corporation under the terms of the Canada Business Corporations Act.
What this means is that once again, in the expenditure of conceivably billions of the taxpayers' dollars, Parliament is being cut out. Parliament is being denied the opportunity to protect the tax dollars of our constituents which are held by us in trust on their behalf. We are being prevented from discharging our responsibility there. This is the minister's idea of plugging Parliament back in, ensuring that Parliament can discharge its responsibilities. Well, what are its responsibilities? We do not know. When the Lambert commission, the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, looked at the whole question of control of Crown corporations, it was quite explicit. On page 333 of its report, it states:
ideally. Parliament should approve the mandate for every Crown corporation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It goes on to state:
-as indeed the case where individual constituents acts are used to establish a Crown Corporation. Involvement of Parliament at the moment of creation provides no guarantee, however, that the mandate will clearly define the nature of the task, the objectives to be met, and the powers to be delegated.
The commission further stresses that point. On page 334, it states:
Parliament should give prior approval, in the departmental or constituent act, to permit a minister to recommend to the Governor in Council the incorporation of a company under the Canada Business Corporation Act.
The Lambert commission recommended a similar regime to apply to subsidiaries of Crown corporations. If the President of the Treasury Board were speaking this evening, he would say, "That is surely what we are doing tonight. We are saying in this act that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be able to do precisely that". I would invite the minister to speak to Mr. Justice Lambert and ask him whether, when he discussed the need for Parliament to give prior approval, he meant that the prior approval would come in the form of a blank cheque to be drawn on the account of the taxpayers of Canada.


Frederick John King: Totally irresponsible!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The government is making a serious attack on the ability of Parliament to protect the public purse. It is worth asking ourselves, where could the public purse come into risk? After the minister has bypassed Parliament in the creation of these new Crown corporations, after he has bypassed Parliament in financing them through the Canadian ownership fund which does not come into the estimates of Parliament and does not have to be voted upon by Parliament, that is surely where the liability of Canadians ends. However, that is not the case. If one reads Bill C-102, one finds that Clause 1 will add Section 6 to the Energy, Mines and Resources Act, and Clause 6(3) will read as follows:
A corporation is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty and its powers may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
It is rather arcane language, but not something which the average Canadian would feel is particularly objectionable. What does it mean? It means that a Crown corporation is being created for which the taxpayers of Canada will be responsible if the government acts in a way which is irresponsible. The people who will have to pay the bills at the end of the day are the taxpayers of Canada. All the debts incurred by those Crown corporations set up under this bill will become liabilities of the Government of Canada. Consequently, they will have to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
Therefore, once again, we find that without Parliament being plugged in, the taxpayer gets stung. What is interesting is that these Crown corporations will be incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. However, the decision to grant the agent of Her Majesty status goes directly against one of the principles in the Canada Business Corporations Act. That is the principle of a corporate veil. If Your Honour incorporated a private company today, and if it went bankrupt, the shareholders of that company would not be liable for the debts of the company. The principle of a corporate veil is included in the Canada Business Corporations Act. There is a difference here. The shareholders of those Crown corporations, the people of Canada, will be responsible for every penny of liability incurred by these new Crown corporations acting as agents of Her Majesty.
April 6, 1982

Therefore, we find yet again that Parliament is making commitments in its name, in the name of the people of Canada, without being directly involved, without having the opportunity to fully debate and without having the opportunity to amend and make specific proposals. Surely, as if this were not bad enough, we should also ask ourselves, was the minister correct? Was he factual? I will choose my words carefully. Did he factually inform the House when he said in his remarks earlier that these corporations would be limited to the energy field? If one asks the minister that question, he will refer you to the bill, to Clause (1), paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f). He read them out. All of those deal with the energy field. His argument is that these new Crown corporations will be expected to confine themselves strictly to the energy field. Is it true? Mr. Speaker, it is not true. The Crown corporations, because they will be incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, will have the powers of a natural person. That means that they will have the ability to go into any field they like such as private energy or transportation. They can buy an airplane company, they can set up a radio station, they can purchase a newspaper. If they want to control supply, they can go and buy a pulp and paper mill. All of this is allowed under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The sections in here which list the various broad-ranging powers in the energy field that can be exercised by these companies in no way limit the scope of these companies to get into new areas.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is giving carte blanche for public funds to be spent to purchase and create new Crown corporations of an unlimited number, not just in the energy field but corporations which will have the authority to move into any field in or out of Canada when they so desire. That is what this bill will do. 1 would suggest, with due respect, that when the minister says to the House that the bill would be restricted to the energy field, he should consult with his legal advisers, because that simply is not the case. Is that the sort of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which the House of Commons should be approving? I think not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Surely if we are discharging our responsibility, we have the job on behalf of our constituents, to demand that the minister indicate what Crown corporations he wants to set up, what will be their responsibilities, what will be the cost to the taxpayers, what will be the limitations on their powers. We do not know. It is carte blanche which Parliament is being asked to give tonight.
What if the new Crown corporations that are being created want to keep the spirit of what the minister said? What if someone refers to Hansard and finds, even though we know what the Canada Business Corporations Act said, the minister said that these corporations will be restricted to the energy field, the incredibly broad-ranging powers within the energy field. Is he going to do that? What then can a Crown corporation do if it wants to stick to the energy field but it wants to be
Energy, Mines and Resources
involved in other areas as well? What can it do? It can incorporate a subsidiary. Under the Canada Business Corporations Act, this Crown corporation can go out and create a subsidiary in any field whatsoever. The minister says, here we have control. The President of the Treasury Board was so impressed with this last evening.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cannot create a new Crown corporation without the consent of the governor in council. Is the governor in council's consent required when these new Crown corporations incorporate subsidiaries? It is not. The bill is mute on that. Under the Canada Business Corporations Act, any number of new subsidiaries can be set up. Is Parliament to be consulted? Will the order, which did not exist be laid before Parliament so that we can have a debate in Parliament as to whether or not it should be allowed? No, there is no order. It cannot be laid before Parliament. You cannot have even the very limited powers of a negative resolution which has been proposed by the minister.
These subsidiary corporations can be involved in any field, they can incur debts in the name of Her Majesty, they can go well beyond any scope that was considered by Parliament. Parliament will not have the power to intervene.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Parliament cannot intervene because it will not come up before Parliament. It will not come back to the President of the Treasury Board to be considered. He will not have the opportunity in the case of the subsidiary, to be one of the three other ministers of the Crown who join with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in signing an order in council-because there will be no order in council.
How can Parliament be expected to approve a measure of this nature? Is that adequate? Are we discharging our responsibility? Is the President of the Treasury Board, after two years of being charged with the responsibility for drawing up comprehensive legislation, to bring some element of accountability to Crown corporations, doing his job?


An hon. Member:: No! He ought to be ashamed of himself.


Henry Perrin Beatty: When the President of the Treasury Board was a private member, what was his responsibility to Parliament? He was the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. And what committee of Parliament has been more active than the Public Accounts committee in putting reports before Parliament and saying to Members of Parliament that action must be taken to bring in a regime of accountability for Crown corporations? That was when he was a private member; that was when he was allowed to have ideas of his own. Now he is a member of the cabinet, he is not allowed to express those ideas. He is responsible now for defending whatever the cabinet decides. He is the one to whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave the responsibility for a regime of accountability by Crown corporations. And this is the regime of accountability, this is the way he believes Parliament should be involved.


An hon. Member:: He ought to be ashamed.

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources


Henry Perrin Beatty: This is the way in which he feels he should protect the moneys of the taxpayers of Canada. Surely we are entitled to ask, Mr. Speaker, what he has done over the course of the past two years.
The minister did not spell it out. When he spoke to us a few minutes ago, he did not indicate what his intention was, what sort of Crown corporations will be created. Will the President of the Treasury Board be getting up in this debate to tell us that they have had a full discussion in cabinet and that they know what Crown corporations will be created? Does he know? If he does, surely he should share that information with Parliament? If he does not, how can he conceivably be expected to be taken seriously by Members of Parliament when he asks us to support this bill?
It is just impossible, Mr. Speaker, to understand how the President of the Treasury Board does not feel that he has direct responsibility.
What more do we need, other than the evidence of the behaviour of some Crown corporations in recent years, to recognize that what Mr. Lambert talked about, what the Auditor-General talked about, and what the Public Accounts committee talked about, is essential. Do we need more evidence than the questions which have been raised in the House of Commons of recent days about Uranium Canada, a shell corporation, and agent of Her Majesty, acting on behalf of the Government of Canada, which has been charged with crimes by the Government of Canada because of the creation of an energy cartel a corporation which is pleading that it cannot be prosecuted because it has a Crown immunity? What better indication do we need as members of Parliament to convince us that we do not do our jobs properly unless we supervise the actions of these Crown corporations?
What more evidence do we need, Mr. Speaker, than the AECL incident to indicate that members of Parliament were not doing their job in properly scrutinizing the activities of that Crown corporation, that we needed the authority to do that?


An hon. Member:: The Polysar case.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What more evidence do we need than the Polysar case, or the Air Canada case? I believe that in the Air Canada case there was a new Crown corporation set up by the directors of Air Canada which cost the taxpayers $9 million. What more evidence do we need that Members of Parliament, if they are to discharge their responsibilities, must be given a role to play and must be able to have some regime of accountability on how this money is being spent.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board what more evidence did he need to have than Consolidated Computer, which I believe-and he can correct me if I am wrong-was wholly owned, ultimately, by the Government of Canada, a corporation for whose liabilities the Government of Canada certainly is responsible up to, I believe, $100 million.


An hon. Member:: $105 million.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, $105 million. What more evidence do we need, then, to suggest that when public funds are being used the Parliament of Canada should have some role in ensuring that they are being properly used? What more evidence do we need that the President of the Treasury Board or the ministers of the Crown should have the ability and the responsibility to discharge a public trust and ensure that public funds are properly spent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: When the members of the government ask us to support this measure, when they ask us to allow unlimited tax dollars to be spent in the future without parliamentary scrutiny, when they ask for the unlimited proliferation of Crown corporations, let them discuss Consolidated Computer with their constituents who are losing their farms or losing a home or losing their businesses or their jobs, because the Government of Canada says they do not have enough money for them to help out. What are they going to say to justify the $100 million that was lost in Consolidated Computer because of the government's mishandling of the Crown corporation?


An hon. Member:: One hundred and twenty-five million.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is $125 million, my colleague says. How are they going to tell their constituents that the money is not available there to help them because the government has spent it, has dropped it down the sink, in Consolidated Computer?


An hon. Member:: They do not care.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Surely no minister should be allowed to come before the House with a straight face and ask us to pass a measure like this with that effect upon Canadian taxpayers? It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that the measure before the House is a dangerous in-run on Parliament. What they are doing is creating a rule which will enable the government for all time, if anyone questions the legitimacy of these Crown corporations, to say that Parliament approved it. They can say that Parliament said it was all right. They can refer us to Bill C-102, the blank cheque we have written for the government. For all time they will be able to say that Parliament approved it. Surely we should ask ourselves before Parliament approves it how that authority will be used in the future.
What is incredible, if you have watched the Prime Minister defend ministers of the Crown on various issues is that he likes to say the minister was discharging his responsibility, doing what Parliament asked him to do when Parliament gave him the power. He has used that example in an number of instances. No doubt in future when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources incorporates new corporations and runs up new debts on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, his response will be that that minister was doing his duty as laid upon him and required of him by Parliament.
Parliament imposes no duty on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tonight. Parliament simply writes a
April 6, 1982

blank cheque for him to spend tax dollars as he sees fit, to extend the control of government into areas where today it is not involved directly without further parliamentary approval. If we do that, we have been very negligent in our responsibility-
When the parliamentary impasse ended a couple of weeks ago after two weeks of the bells ringing and Parliament being in a position where it was impossible to conduct business, the first order of business placed before the House was the issue of parliamentary reform. You were present in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when members on all sides of the House got up and said that they support Parliament. They believed it was essential that we have reform of this institution to ensure that they could do their job on behalf of those who sent them here. It was said that it is meaningful when on election night people in Thunder Bay elected my colleague as he had some role to play, when people from Vancouver elected my colleague and when people from Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe elected me. We said that exercise of their franchise would be meaningful and amount to something and that Parliament would be able to discharge the responsibilities expected of it by our constituents.
We all paid lip service to Parliamentary reform, to responsibility and to our duties to our country and our constituents. What sort of parliamentary reform can the government be talking about when the most important reform is to put in place a legislative end-run on Parliament for the future? It is giving itself a blank cheque, allowing itself to do virtually whatever it wants in terms of Crown corporations in the future. It is ensuring that Parliament, which is impotent today, will be more impotent tomorrow.
We are simply giving away what authority has not already been taken away from us by the members of the executive. That is their idea of parliamentary reform. It is their idea of what members of the House of Commons and the Senate should be doing. It is their idea of what their backbenchers should be doing, that they have no authority to look into matters of this sort.
Members on all sides of this House had a chance to participate in that debate. All of us went on record saying that we wanted to strengthen Parliament, make it more meaningful, make it a place where decisions were made which are crucial to the future of Canada.
The onus is on everyone who participated in that debate and on every Member of Parliament who reads this bill, to search his soul and ask himself whether we are serving Parliament and the people who sent us here when we give away that power for all time. Should we pass this measure which is probably unconstitutional, a matter which is definitely unparliamentary? It clearly evades the spirit of Parliament and clearly undermines the role of Parliament. It flies in the face of the recommendations of parliamentary committees, a royal commission, the Auditor General, and statements of repeated governments, not just the Conservative government but the Liberal government as well, the Liberal government prior to 1979 and the Liberal government of today of which the
Energy, Mines and Resources
President of the Treasury Board has the responsibility for Crown corporations.
Surely we have to ask ourselves whether we are doing our job if we allow this to go forward. When the vote is taken on this issue, members on this side of the House will be voting against this bill. I suggest that members on any side of the House who are concerned about Parliament and their responsibilities to the people of Canada will join us in saying that this measure must not be allowed to pass.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate tonight. I congratulate the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) on an excellent speech. Like his party, my party has no intention of supporting this measure.
Frankly, there are certain things in the measure that intrigue us. For example, we like the idea that we should have a Crown corporation to do a number of things that are outlined in Clause 1, such as explore, develop, produce, gather, refine and process in the energy field. We like the idea of the distribution and marketing of energy conservation technology.
I do not see how anybody could be against that. The only question is whether the government should be involved and have a piece of the action or whether a private corporation should have it in its entirety. It refers to acquiring and holding shares of an activity referred to in the previous paragraphs, and all the rest of it. However, as the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe said, the bill goes much too far. We like it for those things I just outlined. We like it because it discusses the possibility of new corporations in the alternative energy field and in the conservation field. How could anybody object to that since we need incentives in that area?
It means the government might even be contemplating increased support for renewables and conservation. I hope so. The record so far in this area has been dismal. This afternoon the minister said that EMR has directed $500 million into it. Compare that to what is going to be put into PIPs, the petroleum incentives program, and you balance $500 million as opposed to $6,000 million. You can see where their priorities are. The government is four square on the supply side regardless of the consequences, economic, social, environmental or otherwise. They are certainly not determined to limit demand.
As the minister said, it is important for Crown corporations to compete and complement the private sector. It is important, provided they do that, but I am not certain they are going to do that. I would like to think they are going to do it. How can we be certain?
If we are going to require that sort of openness accountability and freedom of information for public corporations and Crown corporations, the same rules should apply to all private corporations, that are on the dole, that is receiving tax expenditures. I refer to CPR, Dome Petroleum, Chrysler Corporation, Massey and all the private oil companies.
If we are going to ask of Crown corporations complete openness and accountability for public funds, we should ask the same when public funds and tax expenditures go into

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
private corporations. We should be doing that. There are some things we like about this bill. I have outlined some of them. We feel that the public sector has a real role to play in the energy field.
In many ways the minister copped out. Probably he was wooed with the siren song of Esso. Sometimes I think the minister is "Esso-teric".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: However, there are some things we do not like. I would like to outline some. They were detailed extremely well by the previous speaker. We object to the myth and the blank cheque approach. We object to the method by which they could create any number of new corporations and present them to the House without any further discussion. Is the expression ipso facto-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what the lawyers say.


Mark Willson Rose: They should be ashamed of themselves. A separate bill is no longer required. A new corporation is not created the way Petro-Canada was. The minister simply announces it, and unless 30 or 50-I do not know what the numbers are, it was 50 last night and 30 today, I hope it will be 10 tomorrow-but a number of members must stand up to object, which is, in effect, a negative motion.
Does that mean that a bill comes here so we can proceed from its second reading stage to committee to examine expert witnesses? No, not at all. What has occurred is that we are presented with this piece of legislation, and unless many people object to it-when it goes to committee my party will move that the requirement for 30 members of the House be reduced to 10 in accordance with the Tory administration act-are we able to call expert witnesses to explain what is contemplated by this bill? No, we cannot. Instead of a five-hour debate, we will have a three-hour debate, and then the matter is finished. The members opposite will steamroll over us. They will have performed their function as voting machines in support of the government.


An hon. Member:: To govern.


Mark Willson Rose: Those members cannot govern at all. They are voting machines. The 30 members in the cabinet are the ones who govern. Do not try to convince us that we elect a democratic government, because I know what happens.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He knows very well.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Mac-Bain) knows very well what happens. What we see is a potential steam roller effect where future initiatives to be taken for alternative energy could be killed.
As was said previously, parliamentary accountability is necessary. We must have that because there are too many horror stories like that of Consolidated Computer. Even though it was not a Crown corporation, it made off with $125
million. On my way from the airport I saw a sign on the street for Nabu Corporation which obtained CCI for $800,000. It is worth $125 million. That is an example of parliamentary accountability.
We have never needed parliamentary accountability more than today, and the minister has the audacity to walk in the House with a bare-faced grab for power to change the manner in which Crown corporations are instituted.
This government has certainly proven in the past that it is either unwilling or incapable of taking initiatives which I believe are very important. It is our party's view that the whole approach to the energy question, regardless of the established Crown corporations which I will not get into again, is quite simply headed in the wrong direction. We believe that the government is doing it all wrong and we have evidence to prove that.
I had occasion to be on the parliamentary task force committee which was set up by the government. We spent a year examining methods by which Canada might ensure its own energy self-sufficiency. Its recommendations were completely ignored, which is another matter I will come to shortly.
The government has certainly proven that it is unwilling or incapable of following through on any initiatives to relieve our energy crisis, even in the middle run if not the short run. I will give some examples to illustrate why I believe that. The government introduced the PUSH program with great fanfare. That program was the demonstration of solar heating technology in government buildings. The government announced in 1978 that it would spend $125 million on PUSH over a five-year period. We are now into the fourth year of the program and you would be ashamed and shocked, Mr. Speaker, to see that it has spent $23 million out of $125 million. That is mere tokenism.
A year ago, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a super-insulation demonstration program. It was supposed to provide grants up to $5 thousand per unit to cover design and construction costs of superinsulation projects. It has been over a year and nothing has happened. The government is still negotiating with the builders. It has displayed a complete lack of action almost to the extent of being criminal.
There is the task force report to which I referred earlier. The report of that task force, which was under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), was tabled almost a year ago. The report contained 65 recommendations. I would like to read the guidelines which were developed by that excellent task force, which was made up of an all-party committee, including the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). This report was described as little short of outstanding. This committee, cost approximately $800,000, and not a word from the minister-


Marc Lalonde: It was your expense.
April 6, 1982


Mark Willson Rose: We did not hear a word from the minister. There is no money for health or housing. We see great amounts of money being spent to bore holes in the Beaufort Sea.
The committee made seven recommendations. First, we should make every effort to reduce energy demand by practising conservation. The minister is completely occupied with the supply side of the energy question. All that he can think about is Hibernia and drilling more holes in one area and causing more environmental risks somewhere else. He does not give much attention to trying to reduce the demand. We are told by many people, including people in his own department, that if he injected the same amount of money into alternatives and substitutes he would be much better off. But he ignores that advice. He walks into the House with this inadequate bill tonight and expects us to accept it. We cannot do it.
I think these suggestions are worth looking at as guidelines for development which were made by a parliamentary committee, including a majority of the minister's own members, to suggest where we should be heading. Either this committee was correct democratically or it was all wrong. The second suggestion of the committee was that, in the long term, energy should be derived primarily from renewable or inexhaustible resources of energy. What does the minister do with respect to the second question? He spends $6.5 billion on the PIPs program. What does that accomplish? That only provides for the exploration and discovery of finite and non-renewable resources.
The third suggestion was that the production of the primary energy we require should be achieved with as little environmental disruption as possible. What will happen when there is a blowout in Beaufort and Hibernia or off the coast of Labrador? An environmental atrocity could occur, but it is of no concern because it relates to the supply side of energy. There is no consideration for smaller automobiles, less gas or conservation by giving a grant equivalent to what is being given to PIPs. We are concerned only with the supply side.
Fourth, we must achieve a greater diversity in Canada's energy mix. Is the government giving incentives for propane, transport fuel, or electrifying our railways? Some of those alternatives should be considered. I do not believe that we can completely get rid of the megaprojects, but certainly there must be a better balance to what the government is doing.
The fifth suggestion states that we must recognize regional differences in energy resources and in energy requirements. This would make oil and gas exploration sensible, along with substitution in Atlantic Canada. It may not make sense in other parts of Canada, but since we are very rich in resources we must achieve a mix and take care of things that are nonrenewable.
Sixth, we must address strategic concerns in formulating energy policy. How do we solve the problem if we are suddenly cut off? The minister says to give more money to the oil companies to do more drilling in Hibernia or offshore. That may be part of the solution but it is onesided.
The final suggestion was that we must consider the social implications of bringing about major changes in Canada's
Energy, Mines and Resources
energy system. What will the social implications be? I will outline two or three. First, it makes sense to decentralize our energy systems. Does it really make more sense to send a welder up to the Beaufort Sea than to provide a manufacturing base for that welder in conservation techniques in Waterloo or Vancouver or somewhere else? What about the social and family disruption? What about the environmental disruption?
We had a committee which looked at Canada's energy problem from a very loyal and perhaps even a nationalistic point of view. We looked at the Canada energy system for approximately a year and heard from expert witnesses. It is a little disappointing that its recommendations have been almost completely ignored.
The committee called for a minister of state for conservation and renewables. Why would we do that? We did that for the same reason a minister of state, was appointed in charge of mines under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. We need someone whose main task would be to look after certain things which are considered important, such as conservation. Everyone tells us it is far cheaper to conserve a barrel of oil than to find a new one. At marginal prices the cost would be about one-quarter to one-half the cost.
We could go into solar. We have not provided incentives for solar. We have subsidized electricity, gas, petroleum and a number of other conventional hard path energy systems. The government pay anywhere from 10 per cent to 50 per cent of their actual value, yet we expected solar to stand on its own. That is not practical, and yet we know that the solar industry is capable of tremendous expansion. With a minimum of $250 million over a five-year period we could provide up to 100,000 jobs at the rate of about $2,500 in public funds per job. In a country which needs energy and in a country which is filled with unemployed, why do we not try some of these things instead of constantly being caught up with the same old habit pattern of finding more oil to burn in more gas guzzlers to provide more money for the multinationals to export to their home state? We are asking the government to look at a few things like that.


Mr. MacBain:: Look this way, Mark. We are watching. We want to see you.


Mark Willson Rose: My friend, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, was on the alternative energy committee, and he knows why we did what we did. But what he does not know-and if he does, he has not said so-is why the government has not moved to implement the recommendations of that committee after more than a year. Why do we not have something in line with that excellent report? Why is that?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a Lalonde power grab.


Mark Willson Rose: If we really want energy security we should not be bothered with the kind of nonsense which comes in this one bill or the eight other bills. It does not matter; energy security

April 6, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
for Canada can be found, at least in part, in the alternative energy committee study and recommendations, and yet it has been ignored. There has not been one official statement about the whole thing.
This afternoon in debate on an earlier bill the minister beat his breast about Canertech. He said it is a tremendous thing and will do everything for everybody, including people who live in foreign countries. What money was provided for Canertech? For alternatives and conservation $20 million was provided and perhaps $15 million to spend overseas.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Six thousand five hundred million for PIPs.


Mark Willson Rose: Let me put this in perspective. The cost to Mobil for drilling one dry well off the coast of Labrador was $30 million. What the minister is prepared to put into Canertech is roughly equal to Mobil's one dry well. That points out to me the bias toward the supply side.
Why are we not doing these things? Why are we not putting more money into alternatives, conservation and renewables? The answer is that we are suffering from megamania. Marc's megamania: that is the objective. That is the policy of the government, from Senator Bud Olson right on down. First there is oil megamania. The government is throwing money at the multinationals to develop tar sands without even demanding equivalent equity for the investment. We can talk about Syncrude, Alsands or strikes by the oil companies. It does not matter; the government will put up the bucks. The people of Canada will put up the bucks, and the multinationals will get the equity. If the model is Syncrude, we can see that is what will happen. The problem now is that the price of oil has fallen. There is an oil glut, and all the big high rollers are bailing out because 19 per cent is not good enough for them.
The next is nuclear megamania. Whether we are underfunding solar programs, PUSH and the super insulation program, there is a great grab bag of strange cabinet ministers going all over the world trying to sell the Candu reactor to "democracies" such as Egypt, Argentina of recent fame, Kuwait and Korea. And with loan financing; it would make the average house buyer turn green. We are giving it to them at 7 per cent or so.


Mr. Fulton:: Two per cent.


Mark Willson Rose: Effectively 7 per cent. No. The government borrows money at 16 per cent and gives it to Mexico for 7 per cent if they will only buy our reactor, which they will not. Nobody will. I think the total we wrote off last year was $800 million to AECL debt, and this year we are continuing that crazy budget of two-thirds of our research budget in energy going to nuclear. In total, we have spent over $4 billion on the nuclear program.
I could mention coal megamania in British Columbia, where the federal government is going to put up $1 billion. It puts up $20 million for Canertech but $1 billion to Northeast Coal or
1,000	million.


James Ross Fulton: Subsidizing the export of cheap coal.


Mark Willson Rose: Subsidize anybody; that is their middle name.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mark "Subsidize".


Mark Willson Rose: We could call him "Marc Subsidize Lalonde".


Arthur Allister MacBain: I was talking about Mark Rose, by the way.


Mark Willson Rose: We subsidize practically every form of energy there is. I have here a little study entitled "Energy Reference Cost Premiums-A Draft Working Paper". I am glad the hon. member brought this up. This was a study undertaken in 1980 for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The study attempted to show the real cost of oil, natural gas and electricity as opposed to the cost the consumer was actually paying. The author of this paper came to the conclusion that for every dollar of oil products Canadians bought at the pump in 1980 the actual cost should have been $1.65. The people in my riding do not object to that because if they have to drive miles and miles to work, they are rather pleased their cost is subsidized.
The study also talks about natural gas. We are probably paying about one third of the actual cost. If we want to talk about electricity, the cost depends on the province involved, but the price is probably 20 per cent to 50 per cent of the cost. We do not object to the subsidizing of energy, but if we are going to subsidize energy-and I did not even talk about nuclear energy-let us subsidize all forms of energy, including solar, so that we can create many more jobs. We need to commercialize solar now. We need to move from the beginning, experimental to the manufacturing stages. Do hon. members know what the sales over last year in active solar in the world were? They were something like $4 billion. Are we in on that? We are in on it very little, but that is the way we should be going.
What I am saying is that there is not enough money to develop the alternatives. The hon. member for Niagara Falls will recall that no province in Canada will see by 1990 more than 5 per cent of its energy coming from any kind of alternative, so in spite of this window we have between, for example, 1990 and 2000 and in spite of the time we have to prepare the oil sands plants, gasohol plants, methanol plants and all the other alternatives, we are not doing anything nearly enough to balance Canada energy systems. We are still spending all our money on PIP programs and running around poking holes in the bottom of the sea, regardless of the consequences.
I think the government has ignored the benefits we can get from conservation and renewables. Why should we prefer the alternatives and the renewables, Mr. Speaker? First of all, because they are benign; they are decentralized; they do not pollute the air or water as do coal and thermal plants, and they are labour intensive. For about $100,000 or about $50,000 they can provide a job, compared with the almost $1 million it takes to produce a permanent job in the tar sands plants. There is a regional distribution of jobs. People can work on the spot and not have to travel to and fro or live in some trailer
April 6, 1982

camp far away from their homes and families. There is little social disruption. Renewables and conservation do not impinge on the native rights or lifestyles. There are a lot of attractive sides to the proposition, and we should be moving in that direction.
We cannot shut off the pump, as was done in Quebec yesterday, and say, "We are not going to sell any more gasoline". No one is suggesting that we should get away from the internal combustion engine. We are suggesting, however, that our energy policy is lopsided, if not wrongheaded. It is going in the wrong direction for the twentieth century. The population of the world today is ten times what it was in our grandparents' time.
Earlier today the minister spoke about helping the developing countries. But Mr. Speaker, there are, for instance, 15 million people in Kenya and within 10 years they will run out of fuel. That does not mean oil and gas for their cars, or nuclear power or whatever. They do not have any power grids so they are not concerned with nuclear energy. They are concerned with wood, and their forests will be gone in 10 years.
We do not seem to realize how our energy appetites have changed, Mr. Speaker. The use of non-renewable energy is a relatively new practice. Coal was discovered and began to be used in fair amounts in 1780, only 200 years ago; natural gas in 1820; oil in 1870-and we are nearly out of that source already. Of course we will hunt for more, but everyone knows that it is finite. We did not discover hydro until 1890 and nuclear energy until 1950.
As a nation that is absolutely loaded, absolutely spoiled with resources, we should be giving leadership to other countries on how to turn the energy mix around. I do not think that this bill or any of the bills in the package, is designed to do that. It is designed to carry on our energy gluttony like a drunken sailor. We are continuing to consume vast amounts of energy for reasons we probably cannot defend in a world of over three billion people. I would ask hon. members to think about that.
I do not know whether we convince anybody with our speeches but I do know that if we do not change our ways they will be changed for us. I think we have almost 20 years to do something about this. It would be a mistake to lust after the same kind of energy system that we have had for the past 30 years. We should be doing more in the realm of conservation and alternatives while we have the chance.
We like some of the things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, but we deplore the lack of accountability and the way the minister is proceeding. We like some parts but we do not like others so we are not going to vote for it and we will continue to speak against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me I should like to make some comments on the bill before the House. I think that the government sometimes becomes unduly complacent about the activities of
Energy, Mines and Resources
Crown corporations and specifically about Crown corporations that seem to become almost sacred cows or pets within the government organization itself.
I need only cite the case of Consolidated Computer Inc. Most members of the government will shudder at that example of mismanagement. Only a few months ago we learned for the first time that the people of Canada would be required to write off a further $94 million of indebtedness. Until then, there had been no disclosure of that type of liability.
I mention that example because the bill before us tonight would give unbelievable power to the government of the day to create more Crown corporations virtually at will. I think that we must press the government on two points, Mr. Speaker. If it feels that parliament should empower it to create such Crown corporations, then I believe there should be a suitable Crown corporations act which would ensure that in future they are administered properly. The possibility of such legislation has been discussed at length in the House and in committees, and from time to time the government has given lip service to the concept. We have yet to see such a bill, and in fact there is every indication that the idea has at best been stalled or perhaps even killed. There is little likelihood of it being presented in this parliament, apparently.
I suggest that the absence of such a bill warrants every member of the House saying to the minister that he refuses to give the minister authority to bring new Crown corporations into existence until a bill is produced that will ensure better administration and control of them in the future.
Is it not odd that we are being asked to approve legislation which would give the government virtually carte blanche to create Crown corporations when it is not even clear that they would be included in the schedule to the Financial Administration Act as is the normal practice? That is another deficiency in the bill, or at least it is a deficiency in the legislative program offered by the government to the House.
I remember when this party was in power, Mr. Speaker, that I was startled by the answer when I asked how many Crown corporations there were. The public servant I questioned answered with a straight face, "Frankly, we cannot tell you." First of all I thought he was joking and meant that we had better start counting them. But he was not joking; the previous government had literally lost control to the point that it did not know what Crown corporations were being incorporated at will by various departments. Now the government is asking us to pass a bill that will authorize it to continue creating Crown corporations as it was doing, rather quietly and secretly, within its departments.
Let me give you an example of how that was done, Mr. Speaker, connected with Consolidated Computer Inc. In that case the government decided it needed a finance vehicle, so it incorporated the company. The shares were actually given to three hospitals in Toronto, which were never even informed that they were the beneficiaries.

April 6, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
Let me continue with my remarks later, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier I had consultations with House leaders and we agreed to revert to introduction of bills in order to allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to introduce an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of bills for that purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say on behalf of my party that we have had discussions and that we give our consent. I think this is the third time tonight we have had to do this to patch up mistakes on the other side. In the interest of co-operation, as always, we agree.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course we are perfect and never make mistakes, so we will agree.


Yvon Pinard: Therefore, the minister is ready to introduce the bill. It is not a mistake; it is to render a service to the opposition.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) referred to a mistake earlier tonight. I was informed by the Table officers that there was no mistake on the government side. I expect the Speaker will clarify the situation. It may be that my colleagues on the other side made a mistake in grabbing a bill which was not the right one.


Harvie Andre: No, no, no!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Otto Jeiinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my statements this evening are based upon questions which I put to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) on March 25, 1982, concerning Japanese automotive imports into Canada and the government's negotiations with Japan. The statements could just as well be made in relation to questions of mine and my colleagues of last week, last month, and indeed over the last two years, because basically the answers are always the same. The Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) continually say they are not concerned with what is happening, that negotiations are still underway or that they have succeeded in negotiating with the Japanese, again and again.
This situation has been ongoing for over two years, during which time tens of thousands of jobs in the Canadian automotive industry have been lost and tens of thousands of indefinite lay-offs have taken place within this very important industrial sector of the economy. Obviously this can no longer continue to happen.
My questions to the government are very simple. How much longer is the government prepared to continue to negotiate unsuccessfully with the Japanese, whether in regard to voluntary reductions, quotas, Canadian content, Japanese investment in Canada, or a variety of other factors which come into play? How long will this go on before some unilateral action is taken by the government? The thousands of unemployed Canadians who are suffering as a result of lack of action by the government and the thousands of unemployed Canadians who are suffering as a result of the obvious failure of both the Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in this area, can no longer tolerate this situation. If we are to trade fairly with the Japanese, it is obvious that the government must take a much tougher stance.
The minister just a half hour ago in committee was asked, "Do the Japanese practise fair trade?" The minister replied, "No, they do not practise fair trade." We are trying to practise fair trade with a nation that is not practising fair trade, as admitted by the minister. It is time for the minister and for the government to get tough.
April 6, 1982

The same minister of international trade just half an hour ago in committee stated again that he was quite concerned with the fact that only 3 per cent of our manufactured goods are shipped to Japan. Yet in contradictory statements in this House he has said, "if there is going to be any form of protectionism, it will hurt our trade with the Japanese". We only export 3 per cent of our manufactured goods to Japan, yet many of our natural resources being shipped there. We are not doing ourselves any favours by selling Japan our natural resources. They need our natural resources. We are selling them at very low prices; prices even lower than those of Australia and New Zealand.
Why is it that Canada is virtually the only nation in the industrialized world with absolutely no control over the auto industry? Let me put a few examples on the record. Australia has 85 per cent local content in its imports. The United Kingdom has a 10.8 per cent share of Japanese imports; Germany has a 5.7 per cent share of Japanese imports; France has a 2.2 per cent share; Spain has 63 per cent local content; Venezuela has 51 per cent, and Brazil has 95 per cent local content. The list goes on and on.
Canada is the only nation in the whole industrialized world that has not had the guts to take a positive step in this regard. As a result, Canada is losing tens of thousands of jobs right across the country. The automobile industry is responsible for one out of seven jobs in Canada. It is responsible for one out of six jobs in Ontario. How much longer does the industry have to wait before some unilateral action is taken? When will the government come up with a specific policy, and what will that policy be? When will it be implemented? Are we going to have Canadian content regulations? Will we have incentives for the Japanese to invest in Canada and manufacture cars here, or will we simply allow the automotive industry to disappear totally from the face of this nation, ruining the industrial base in this country? These are very simple questions.
In closing I must say that the time is long overdue to end negotiations, to take a much tougher stand and come up with some of the answers to my questions, and those posed by the industry, the Canadian auto parts manufacturers, the UAW, the province of Ontario or the big three. This government must come up with answers before more jobs are lost.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) has answered the hon. member on several occasions. The minister was in Japan from March 16 to March 19 and met with the Japanese minister of international affairs. He indicated that he put forth three positions to the Japanese.
First he would want an extension of the so-called "weather forecast" system for passenger cars, which means virtual restriction and prohibition. Second, he wanted the extension of that system to cover commercial vehicles. Third, he wanted meaningful discussions with the Japanese leading to an agreement vis-a-vis Canadian content. The hon. member
Adjournment Debate
knows that the Japanese government has turned down these three positions although not entirely. The Japanese did agree to continue negotiations and we will be negotiating with them.


Otto John Jelinek: Further negotiations? It has been two years now.


Ron Irwin: There are no free rides, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member should know this. He is talking about the automobile industry today, but let us look at the textile industry. In 1979, because we have tariffs, it cost the Canadian consumer-someone pays-$467 million. In the next five years Biggs and Wood estimated that because we have tariffs and quotas it will cost the consumer $2.5 billion.


Otto John Jelinek: Have you ever heard of duty remission?


Ron Irwin: Whether you call it duty remission, restrictions, or quotas, it will always cost someone something.


Otto John Jelinek: Not if you have duty remission.


Ron Irwin: Pehaps he wants to look good today, but two years from now he will be saying the same thing about the automobile industry as he is now saying about the textile industry. Whether we are considering Sysco, Chrysler, Mas-sey-Ferguson, or a Malibu, it is not restrictions or prohibitions which count, but, rather, it is the quality of the product sold on the world market for a profit.
We are traders, Mr. Speaker, and I remind the hon. member that the Japanese are good customers. In 1980 we sold them over $4 billion in goods, and only purchased $2.7 billion from them. There was a balance in our favour of $1.3 billion. What does he suggest that we buy from the Japanese if we do not buy automobiles? There are no suggestions because he does not know. While he is at it-and there are no Liberals in western Canada-I would like to know what westerners think about his position on the sale of their goods to Japan which he is now saying should be restricted. What does he say about that? Does he want a restriction on those sales? If so, he should stand up in this House and say what goods in what areas and in what constituencies, rather than trying to look good to the automobile industry here in Ontario and, at the same time, failing to point out what constituencies in western Canada would be affected. He does not have the courage. He does not know. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


William James Kempling: That will look good in Windsor.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS-URANIUM PRICE FIXING TRIAL-QUERY RESPECTING CROWN IMMUNITY. (B) INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNSEL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in connection with a question I posed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 25 of this year. It concerned a situation which, on the basis of documented evidence and questions in this House, involved a very clear question of cover-up on the part of this

April 6, 1982
Adjournment Debate
government with respect to its involvement in the uranium cartel.
If we look back at the record of this government with respect to its involvement in that cartel, Mr. Speaker, it is clear there has been an admission by the Prime Minister that indeed the government was involved in a price-fixing scheme, or cartel. This is quite different from a situation, such as international trade agreements, where there is disclosure, publication and full public knowledge. In those cases the people of the countries involved, indeed their legislative bodies, will involve themselves in arrangements respecting the setting of floor prices, or prices in general, of commodities. There are a lot of examples of quite proper international agreements on floor prices. The international wheat agreement is one which comes to mind. However, those kinds of agreements are always in the public view. They are not concluded in secret smoke-filled rooms in a capital of one of the countries involved. This is the situation which existed with respect to the uranium cartel. It was a secret agreement. There was no public knowledge.
The government has admitted that it has been involved in this whole matter. Of course, the question arises as to whether or not this cartel arrangement, which one can describe as a secret arrangement, had consequences to the consumer in Canada. We have been trying to obtain information on the floor of the House of Commons with respect to this agreement. No information has been forthcoming. There was an attempt to thwart the inquiries made by people in opposition, and secrecy prevailed. There was an attempt to cover up any indication as to exactly what transpired.
Let me give hon. members a little history in case they have forgotten the extent to which this government has gone to cover up its involvement in this cartel arrangement. The government issued a gag order prohibiting discussion by any official of any circumstance relating to the alleged offences. In this country, where we take pride in our free speech, a law was passed by order in council of this government which made it an offence for any official to discuss the arrangements made for this price-fixing agreement.
There was a failure on the part of the government to release
60,000	documents relevant to the prosecution of any charged in connection with domestic price-fixing. There was a failure on the part of the government to make public the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Bertrand commission, which investigated the domestic price-fixing. It was alleged by the Crown in the right of the minister of justice and attorney general who was prosecuting, that government agencies or Crown corporations were involved. There was a failure on the part of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to take any responsibility for the actions of the government's Crown corporations, Uranium Canada Limited and Eldorado Nuclear Limited, which were charged as co-conspirators after this investigation by Mr. Bertrand. Now there has been an attempt by the government to extricate those Crown corporations from prosecution by allowing them to claim Crown immunity.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has tried to distance himself from this whole sordid mess. He says, of course, that he has no part in this matter and that somehow things are going along without his knowledge or intervention. Indeed, he indicates that this attempt to extricate the Crown corporations from prosecution is really not his idea; rather, it is a matter which sort of developed by magic, and somehow the corporations are winging it in terms of putting in a defence. He indicates that he has no part or interest in this whole matter and that, of course, these corporations are quite apart from the government.
1 think we should look at what is being submitted on behalf of the Crown corporation in question, by Uranium Canada Limited, through affidavit and other supporting material. Uranium Canada has admitted that it has no assets except the sum of $9 representing the payment of the qualifying shares of the former members of the board of directors. It has no separate place of business, and conduct of its affairs lies within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has no employees of its own. On May 1, 1981, it stated that all of the qualifying shares of the directors of Uranium Canada Limited were transferred to and are now presently held by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in trust for Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
It is evident by affidavit and submission to the court that the direction and administrative control of the activity of Uranium Canada Limited directly resides with the minister and the governor in council. Uranium Canada Limited has no discretion in the matter. Further, for operational and practical purposes, the company is within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Accordingly, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the governor in council direct the mind and will of Uranium Canada Limited. Finally, it is stated that Uranium Canada Limited is a mere servant of the Crown whose acts are directly and completely controlled and determined by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as the governor in council.
Let me explain. The "governor in council" means the cabinet of this country. The company enjoys the status of the Crown. It is the submission of the company that it is directed by the minister, but the minister refuses to accept ministerial responsibility in respect to this matter and continues to cover up. Today I want some answers from the parliamentary secretary as to precisely what the government is trying to cover up. What has it got to hide concerning this whole sordid mess?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that I am somewhat appalled by the substance of the remarks by the hon. member, for his assertions are completely ridiculous. It is mere witch-hunting, and his innuendo is certainly not acceptable.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am taking it right out of your own documents.
April 6, 1982


David Charles Dingwall: When this question was initially raised by the hon. member on March 25, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson), replied that the government has always proceeded in accordance with the laws of this country and has done so in this particular litigation proceeding.
Later on during the question period on that same day a similar question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the immunity of the Crown in this case. The Prime Minister replied by saying that since the matter is before the courts it would be improper to answer the question.
On March 29, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) raised a question relating to the Uranium price-fixing trial, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), stated that, as far as he knew, no instructions had been given to Uranium Canada. He continued to say that the company was being prosecuted, with other companies, and that presumably those lawyers defending Uranium Canada are using all the arguments that they can to defend their case.
On March 30 an opposition member asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to instruct Uranium Canada's counsel to withdraw the technical defence of Crown immunity, allowing Uranium Canada to partake in the same kind of trial its co-defendants are subject to. In response to this, the minister pointed out that this matter was before the courts, and that it is improper to bring before the House of Commons quotes from arguments used by counsel before the courts. He pointed out that it is a long established rule that Parliamentarians abstain from commenting on a particular case which is before the courts. The minister also took the opportunity at that time to reiterate what he had said the preceding day; that he had never given any instruction to Uranium Canada or its counsel and he had no intention of doing so in the future.
On April 1, the opposition was still posing questions on the Uranium Canada trial. At that time the minister repeated what he had said on numerous previous occasions, that he had not given Uranium Canada any instructions in relation to the court case and he would not interfere with the judicial process or in the operations of the board of directors of the Crown corporation.
I suggest respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member take note of these comments and not continue with his innuendo, his witch-hunting and his ridiculous assertions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLITICAL PARTIES-FORMER AFFILIATION OF MANITOBA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I raised a question today, Mr. Speaker, as I did on March 29 in this House, reported in Hansard at page 15901, in which I asked the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada, whether members of provincial cabinets had a security check done on them prior to their
Adjournment Debate
entering cabinet. There was a somewhat lighter side to it. I believe I did not use my words quite correctly at that time, and I think I had the Attorney General of Canada just a little concerned that the accusation 1 was making was directed at him. In no way was that the case.
The question arises from the past membership in the Communist party of the Attorney General of Manitoba. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time I asked the question, that it is a sensitive matter, that it is not a new revelation I am making public, but that it is a matter which has been in the public domain for many years. In fact, that past membership had been confirmed by the Attorney General of Manitoba himself.
Recent revelations from United States authorities show that the Manitoba Attorney General is still on a restricted list of persons who might wish to enter that country. That revelation was made as recently as March 23, 1982, in a front page story in the Winnipeg Free Press. In that story, a spokesman for the department of immigration and naturalization service of the United States department of justice, indicated to that paper that the Manitoba attorney general, if he should wish to enter the United States, would be required to have a waiver and is still listed as an undesirable visitor.
When a member of this House joins the federal cabinet, the leader of the party forming the government, the prime minister, has the option to ask for a security check of members entering that cabinet. I am not saying that that has been done by all prime ministers or that that has been done in all cases, but it has been done at the federal level. For those of us who entered the cabinet, for instance, in 1979, that was a criterion.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that for a person who entered the cabinet at that time and took his responsibilities seriously, it did give a person a certain sense of confidence that that security check had been done. One felt that at least there was no impediment to fulfilling one's responsibilities to the people of Canada and to the House.
My question is straightforward. I am not on a witch-hunt. I am not trying to accuse someone of anything that has not been in the public domain. However, because attorneys general sit down with the Attorney General of Canada, or the Solicitor General of Canada, at different periods of time and sensitive information could in fact be passed from one level to the other, it is important that two questions be answered tonight by the parliamentary secretary. Was a security check done specifically on the Attorney General of Manitoba whom I mentioned earlier? Is it a general practice of provincial government in general that certain security checks are done before members are invited into their cabinets?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, following the election of the present government in Manitoba late last year, Mr. Roland Penner was appointed attorney general of that province. It is our understanding that

April 6, 1982
Adjournment Debate
he is a well-known former professor specializing in labour law at the University of Manitoba law school and that he is no stranger to the public eye, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) indicated. He was the first chairman and a strong defender of Manitoba's legal aid program. Often maintaining a high profile on controversial issues, he is apparently known for his wit, intelligence and hard work.
Mr. Penner's association with the intellectual and political left has been well noted and goes back to his family and early days in north Winnipeg. His father, Jacob Penner, was an active Marxist. After service in the Canadian armed forces in World War II and an undergraduate degree earned in 1949, Roland Penner spent ten years operating what was called a left-wing bookstore in Manitoba.
It is our understanding that he gave up his membership in the Communist party in the early 1960s, although following his graduation from law school he practised law with Joe Zuken, a long-time member of Winnipeg city council who is considered by some to be one of western Canada's leading leftwing politicians.
In the early 1970s the NDP government in Manitoba awarded Mr. Penner a Q.C. His most recent appointment, of
course, has been as attorney general in Premier Pawley's New Democratic Party government. In a recent interview, Mr. Penner was asked whether he felt that in relation to his political views he has been misrepresented. His answer was as follows:
What I have always resented from the past is the notion of a label, for anybody. This person is a communist, therefore it follows that this person must believe this.... I resent labelling in any area and I simply want to be defined by what I do, rather than by what I was or even by what I say.
In response to the two specific questions raised by the hon. member for Provencher, I would like to say first that I have no knowledge of whether the hon. provincial attorney general is the subject of any security files. Second, as far as this government is concerned, it continues to do business with the government of Manitoba in exactly the same fashion as it will continue to do business and has done business in the past with other provincial governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 7, 1982