1982-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in February ten Liberal Members of Parliament from Montreal and two cabinet ministers demanded that the federal government take action to create jobs. They urged the government to stimulate the housing construction industry and create jobs for workers under the age of 25. No action has been taken by the Liberal government. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Liberal government take immediate action to stimulate the housing construction industry and create jobs for workers under the age of 25, in accordance with the request of 12 MPs from the Montreal area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in Vienna, Carlos Madero, the head of the Argentinian nuclear program, told the International Atomic Energy Agency that Argentina reserves the right to develop nuclear weapons. This admission makes a total mockery of Canada's bilateral Candu agreements with the junta, and underlines the hypocrisy of entering into nuclear sales agreements with military dictatorships which refuse to sign the U.N. nonproliferation treaty. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government add some bite to its incessant barking about world peace and disarmament by announcing a Canadian freeze on all nuclear dealings with Argentina at the Special U.N. Session on Disarmament, and that this House offer its sincere congratulations and gratitude to the east coast longshoremen who have refused to load uranium destined for Argentina.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, a group of eight Liberal Members of Parliament under the direction of the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. LaJig) have urged the Liberal government to lower interest rates. That group believes that Governor Bouey is only partly correct when he says you cannot lower interest rates. Since no meaningful action has been taken by the Liberal government to lower interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Liberal government take immediate action to lower interest rates in accordance with the demands of eight Liberal MPs under the direction of the hon. member for Kitchener.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, equity investment pessimism is pervasive in Canada. Canadians are investing their money outside Canada and in high-interestbearing bonds and certificates. This has substantively curtailed the ability to generate equity capital in Canada and has jeopardized the survival of small business in Canada because of the high cost of debt capital. A new budget is necessary to create confidence in the Canadian economy, and it must contain incentives for equity investment. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That any new budget abolish capital gains taxation on all equity investment in Canadian registered companies.

June 9, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND THAT NOVEMBER BUDGET BE WITHDRAWN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has indicated that the content of the budget indicates that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was unaware of the effect the budget might have. Subsequent events have proven the Minister of Agriculture to be correct. But no action has been taken by the Liberal government. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Minister of Finance withdraw his November 12 budget in its entirety, immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, on April 27, 15 Liberal MPs, including the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), suggested that "radically alternative ways of revitalizing the economy and offsetting current hardships should be considered." To date no such action has been taken by the Liberal government. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That the Liberal government recognize the quality of the advice, if not the source, and take immediate action to revitalize the economy and offset current hardships.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The
hon. member for Ottawa Centre recently describing himself as a "voice in the wilderness" stated:
There is a very, very great risk that if we do not clean up our act, when the recovery period comes we are not going to be able to participate.
He also stated:
He was not the only member of the Liberal caucus to voice concern over the government's handling of the growing economic issues.
No action has been taken by the Liberal government across the way. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Liberal government take action on the economy in accordance with the wishes of the members of the Conservative caucus and the hon. member opposite. This would assuage the conscience of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and allow him to sleep better at night along with 24 million other Canadians who want action from his colleagues as well.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Specific local initiatives between North American auto dealers, Local 480 of the United Steelworkers of America, and the Kootenay Savings Credit Union-industry, labour and financial institutions-are encouraging business and creating service and resource jobs by lowering interest rates 4 per cent, offering targeted sales incentives, and promoting sales and jobs in the Kootenays and elsewhere across Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House recognize the value of these constructive and co-operative initiatives being pursued by local labour, management, and Financial institutions within the West Kootenay-to lower interest rates, market Canadian products, spur consumer demand, and create jobs in Canada in the manufacturing, construction, forestry, mining and smelting industries; and that we further urge the government to listen and learn, work to establish trust-not industrial conflict-lower selected interest rates, and immediately launch a new strategy to get Canada back to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), a former minister in the government, stated publicly before he resigned as chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) got bad advice with respect to the budget. The Minister of Finance has refused to withdraw the budget. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Liberal government immediately withdraw the November 12, 1981, budget in its entirety.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) has stated that the capital gains aspect of the budget should be a priority for change. That comment was based upon the thinking of the hon. member's rural constituency. The Liberal government has made no change to alleviate the problems of farmers. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Liberal government take immediate action to alleviate the problems created for farmers by the November 12, 1981, budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of
Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has stated:
The country cannot endure another winter of unemployment like this last one.
Unemployment in Canada has reached a post-war record of 10.2 per cent, with over 1.25 million people without jobs. The Liberal government has taken no action to correct the situation. As John Steinbeck said:
Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Liberal government take immediate action to get Canadians back to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A number of cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), have expressed concern about statements made by judges on controversial subjects. Appeal Court Judge A. M. Monnin made disgusting racist comments May 18 in court, speaking of "drunken Indians", and further stating:
I practised up north in The Pas and that's all we have.
He also said:
If you eliminate all the evidence from drunken Indians I've heard in the past 26 years you would eliminate it all.
Because of these statements, and in view of the fact that this same judge is in charge of redistribution of federal ridings for the province of Manitoba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That we condemn Judge Monnin for his slurs against native people, that an investigation be ordered into this blatant racial prejudice with a view to seeking Judge Monnin's resignation, and further, that he be immediately removed from any responsibility for electoral redistribution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 9, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On Monday evening he told a national television audience that he was going to pay additional attention to improving the investment climate in Canada, and particularly to encouraging the productive investment climate in Canada, which would have the effect of generating new jobs. What specific plans or specific steps does the minister have in mind to implement that course of action?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to advise the hon. member when decisions are taken on any specific steps. I would point out to him that at the present time, as was revealed or disclosed in the final communique at the Versailles Summit, the leading impediment, or the major obstacle, to productive investment in the world today is the continued existence of high interest rates. The quickest way to resume productive investment would be to register some success in getting interest rates down.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We on this side of the House are encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Finance has finally recognized the need for improvement in the investment climate, and for improvement in the degree of confidence in Canada.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister could clarify some confusion which exists. Yesterday he indicated to the House that he planned no major changes in the government's economic policy which is driving the country into a depression, while outside the House he said that everything would be open for consideration and for discussion at the cabinet table, which further adds to the confusion and the uncertainty. Could the minister tell the House, the 1.25 million unemployed Canadians, and the thousands of people who are going bankrupt, what he intends to do, or will he continue his course of double-talk and do nothing to resolve these problems?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the same question was asked yesterday by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he inquired whether Canada was^ contemplating a significant change in economic policy. I replied to that question in some detail, and the same answer stands today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister gives the House a different answer than he gives outside the House. If the minister wants
to improve the investment climate in the country, he could start by withdrawing his disastrous budget; he could convince his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to change fundamentally the National Energy Program, or he could come up with some specific incentives for people to invest in the Canadian economy and to improve stability, rather than going around the country blaming working Canadians who are striving to keep their heads above water.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, if the minister will not admit the error of his ways and come up with something positive which would give Canadians a ray of hope or, if he refuses to do so, perhaps he might consider resigning and convincing his leader to resign also because that would restore confidence in the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I have said so often in reply to questions about resignations, it seems to be uppermost in the minds-
Some hofi. Members: Of Canadians.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of members of the Tory opposition. What they leave unstated, usually, is whose resignation. Usually it is their own leader who they have in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday Argentina said that it reserves the right to develop nuclear energy for military uses, a specific statement made by Admiral Madero, head of their National Atomic Energy Commission to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
Will the Government of Canada now put a stop-order on all further carrying out of the contract with Argentina for the construction of a Candu reactor in Argentina, and will it now refuse to carry on business as usual with Argentina which has committed armed aggression in the Falkland Islands? Will it put a stop order on the shipment of nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina? Now that the government has had confirmation that Argentina does not even pretend any longer to observe the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, will the government stop its business as usual with Argentina, in nuclear energy?
June 9, 1982


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for External Affairs has already answered my hon. friend's question in this regard. As far as the commitment by Argentina is concerned, the agreement is quite clear that it cannot use any fuel from the Canadian nuclear reactor for military purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It is firm. It is in the agreement. It is subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Europe visiting with his master, the Prime Minister, welcoming Spain into NATO. He was not here when I asked about that earlier.


USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR MILITARY PURPOSES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, does the minister realize that Argentina has now confirmed that it will develop nuclear energy for military purposes? Does he feel any responsibility to the people of the world community not to co-operate with a country which declares it will use nuclear energy for military purposes? Has he no responsibility to the United Kingdom, to the people of Canada, or to the U.N. disarmament conference? Is he going to be a collaborator and co-conspirator with the Argentine military in the development of nuclear energy for military purposes?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for External Affairs is in Bonn today with the Prime Minister who is presiding at a Summit meeting of the NATO countries. Canada is very actively participating under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: He is chairing a very important meeting concerning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which Canada is a very strong member and to which Canada is committed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: I reject the implications in the hon. member's question, in his introductory comments.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since his return from Versailles he has refused so far in this House to commit the government to producing new economic policies in the near future. Specifically, he has not told us we will have a new
Oral Questions
budget. In my questions to him I would like to raise specific areas which do not require a new budget but would require some action.
The first area concerns the important matter of bankruptcies. So far this year there have been almost 4,500 businesses that have gone bankrupt, representing a net loss of thousands of jobs to men and women across the country. The forecast is for this figure to increase each month in the months ahead. Since it is easier to preserve a well-functioning small business than it is to open one up after it has been forced to shut down, will the government in the next few days, or in the next week, bring in a program which will provide concrete assistance to small businesses in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to announce a new program for small business. If a decision is taken by the government it will be announced in the House, and the hon. member will have an opportunity to comment on it. As the hon. member knows, in the last budget a number of steps were taken to improve the situation of small business. The proper functioning of small business in Canada is a very important objective of government policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the whole country has seen the effect of those programs. We have lost almost 5,000 businesses since those programs were introduced. It is time the government recognized that its approaches are wrong and that we need new approaches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chenier:: What are yours?


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade, who was here just a moment ago, but I see that he is not in his seat. Here he comes.

There have been thousands of lay-offs in the automotive industry at Sainte-Therese, Windsor, Oakville and Oshawa, and the government has done nothing. My question to the minister is very simple.

Given the fact that other countries have said that automobile companies which want to sell in their nations must produce cars and parts in their nations proportionate to their sales, will the Government of Canada announce, within the next few days, or the next week, a specific policy which will

June 9, 1982
Oral Questions
say to multi-national companies selling cars in Canada that they must begin to produce cars and parts in this country proportionate to their sales?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge there is only one country in the world, among the industrialized nations, which actually has any import legislation relating to content provisions, and that is Australia. Australia is in a very unique situation because many tariffs are not bound in the GATT for Australia, so it is different for Australia than for Canada.
As the hon. member knows, we have asked the Japanese authorities to discuss this matter in detail in an effort to reach an agreement on a content proposal. Also the Prime Minister raised the auto issue with the Prime Minister of Japan at the Versailles Summit, and we are still hopeful that we will reach some kind of agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 would like to tell the minister that I will be glad to send him a list. There are countries such as France, Australia, Mexico and Brazil, which all have very tough requirements concerning production within their borders, whether sales take place or no sales take place. I will be happy to discuss the matter with the minister.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: My final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The dollar, once again, has gone down today. This will almost certainly mean that the Bank of Canada, following its past practice, will announce another interest rate increase in the bank rate tomorrow, which will lead to more shutdowns of businesses, which, in turn, will cause more job losses. Will the minister get in touch with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and instruct him not to announce another increase in the bank rate tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am in frequent consultation with the Governor of the Bank and will continue to have these consultations.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is evident that the minister's budgetary policies, which he is reluctant to replace,
and now his inconsistent skating exhibitions, which are far better than mine have ever been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -have not only reduced Canadian investor confidence to an all-time low, but have also created the highest unemployment level in our history. Therefore, in view of the fact that small business is the largest potential employer in Canada, and it is hit hardest by the government's high interest rate policies, will the minister assure the House and the small business community that he will reinstate the Small Business Development Bond program to its original form?
Do not give us any baloney by saying that it is too costly because, as the minister well knows, the Informetrica computer study concluded that the original bond program represented a $77 million net gain to the federal treasury in the first year of the program. Will he take action now instead of being the insensitive minister that he is to that community?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have answered this question maybe six or seven times in the last few months. I will repeat the answer that I have given in the past, that the small business bond has proved to be very effective. It has ensured that several billions of dollars in additional funds have been made available to small business at interest rates markedly lower than the market rates of interest.
The reason that we redesigned the bond was to ensure that the available funds provided by the banks through the tax system would be made available to firms most in need of financial assistance. That is the reason for the change. I understand the hon. member's concern that the bond be restored to its original shape, but if that is carried out I fear that those businesses most in need will be the first to suffer from the change that he recommends.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that the revised bond program is not working. Businesses cannot take advantage of it. He knows it has gone down by 94 per cent. He might as well have stayed with his Prime Minister in Spain to welcome that country into Nato.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the actions of the government have caused even further crises and unemployment in other industries such as the Canadian automotive industry, along with the recent Mickey Mouse tactic in Vancouver, can the minister explain or justify his
June 9, 1982

announcement to allow an increase in the capital cost allowance for daily car rental agencies, many of which are multinationals, while at the same time ignoring the additional $67,000 tax burden that this November 12 measure imposed on our domestic retail dealers, all of whom are small businessmen-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. members must discipline themselves. We must have questions and not speeches.


Otto John Jelinek: Well, Madam Speaker, the minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Has there not been a question? I thought I heard one. The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I asked a question.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Neither the Chair nor a member can force a minister to answer a question. The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Otto John Jelinek: Give him a chance. He was asleep. Is he going to answer?


FISHERIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Throughout the Atlantic provinces, federal economic policies are strangling the fish industry. Bankrupt fish plants are throwing thousands of people out of work in east coast communities, like Georgetown, P.E.I.; Marystown, Newfoundland; Grand Manan, New Brunswick; and Weymouth, Nova Scotia. Given that the Kirby task force is investigating the long-term problems of the fishery, is the federal government planning any specific emergency measures in the interim to ensure the survival of the important fish industry and to get it back on its feet?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, in areas where the fishermen do not have an alternative counter to sell their fish, we have intervened. The most recent case is St. Anthony. In other areas such as Georgetown, I have no information that leads me to believe that, in spite of the fact that it is the height of the lobster season, fishermen are having any difficulty disposing of their catch. In some cases plants are being negotiated for, and I know that in the case of Georgetown there have been contacts with the company which owns the facility. I have indicated to the provincial minister that as much as it is within my power to intervene, I will try to find a solution. There are areas where owners of plants have decided not to reopen for other reasons. A good number had expanded to the point where there was no way the supply of fish could keep them going.


FUTURE OF FISH PLANT IN GEORGETOWN, P.E.I.
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries mentioned the fish plant at St. Anthony. In that instance the federal government established a Crown corporation to keep open the fish-processing plant at St.
Oral Questions
Anthony, Newfoundland, which is in the riding of the Minister of National Revenue. I would ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Fisheries why the federal government is not taking similar initiatives or action to open the Georgetown Seafoods plant in Prince Edward Island in the riding of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the absence of such action, are we to assume that, in the eyes of the federal government, we in Prince Edward Island are less important than the people in Canada's other island province?


Roméo LeBlanc: Frankly, Madam Speaker, I find the insinuation made by the hon. member rather offensive. He knows, and his provincial colleague knows, that we have been trying to find a solution to the Georgetown problem. The difficulty is that the suggested approach or avenue was to take six licences away from somebody else. 1 do not think hon. members would support me if I were to suggest that avenue.
On the question of St. Anthony, if the hon. member looks at the map he will see that the fishermen in that area have very few alternatives for almost one hundred miles. If he looks at that coast and the importance of St. Anthony to the fishermen of the area, and the fact that there is no other industry where the fishermen can sell their fish, perhaps he will understand why we tried to find a solution, rather than trying to make cheap political gains.


QUERY RESPECTING PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND SPAIN
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Can the minister tell the House whether an agreement will be signed with Spain, and whether that bilateral fisheries agreement will include a give-away of 5,000 metric tonnes of fish in our zones in exchange for a market that, at best, is worth $10 million? When is the government going to stop giving away fish in our zones?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would have expected that sort of question from the hon. member's colleague, the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland, who has been using this kind of demagoguery to destroy any kind of international regime outside the 200-mile zone, to try to destroy the leverage to get markets that are not dependent on the U.S. market and to have international fisheries relations which are somewhat more mature than the idea of catching fish, putting it in large warehouses, and then asking the federal government to pay the storage cost.
There have been discussions with the Spanish authorities. A possible agreement has been suggested. I have consulted the industry. I want to hear more from the industry and more from the provincial governments, some of which are taking the position that you slam the door on everybody, but you knock again when you need access to their markets. When I know what the Canadian industry and the provinces want to do, I will make a recommendation to my colleagues.

June 9, 1982
Oral Questions


BRITISH COLUMBIA SPORTS FISHING INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF PATROL PERSONNEL CUTBACKS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Eight of ten fisheries officers promised for the sports fishing industry have not been hired. Also, we have just learned that up to 37 person-years will be lost to the fisheries patrol vessels on the coast of British Columbia. Will the minister confirm that those patrol vessels will not be doing the job of patrolling the fishery and protecting the stock? Is he aware of the seriousness of those cutbacks in government person-years?


Roméo LeBlanc: Obviously, Madam Speaker, I will check the details. We always have trouble finding sufficient person-years to manage all the sectors and meet all the pressures in the industry, which is coast-wide and is subject to damage and to poaching. If I receive facts to support the hon. member's statement, I will make them known to the House.


NECESSITY FOR MANNING PATROL VESSELS
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, will the minister also consider that not only are those patrol vessels and crews responsible for patrolling the fisheries aspect of the industry, but they play a very important part in search and rescue? Will the minister look very carefully at his budget and any proposals that his department may have before Treasury Board, and give solid support to them? Will the minister confirm that he will fight for those person-years to protect the fisheries and the safety of fishermen?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am the minister who pushed very hard to have vessels in Transport, DND and Fisheries perform a number of tasks, including search and rescue. So I am very supportive of this program and I think, with my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence, that it has been very successful. There are limits to the number of person-years that we can dispose of, and I might say to you, Madam Speaker, that I am one of those ministers who always asks for more and sometimes does not get all he requests.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: My question is for the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It regards product labelling. In London in recent weeks concern has been voiced regarding subliminal recordings, possibly satanic messages, on some rock music recordings. Through various
recording techniques such as backward masking, subliminal messages have been conveyed to the public. For example, one of the most popular recordings on radio within the last decade, Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven", contains the following lines subliminally: "Here's to my sweet Satan" and "I sing because I live with Satan." Another line states, Madam Speaker: "There was a little child-".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am at a loss to find a question, but I hope there is one in there, because I cannot allow the hon. member more time.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I was trying to lay the foundation for the question, Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Would the minister be prepared-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: And if you would listen, you might learn something, too.


Mr. Nielsen:: A subliminal question?


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister must be aware that the major trading countries of the world have agreed to reduce their tariffs by an average of 40 per cent over the next several years, with the inevitable result that the United States based multinationals will be even more inclined to serve Canadian markets from abroad. With unemployment levels at record highs, exactly what action is the minister and his government prepared to take to reduce plant closings and to arrest the outflow of capital which could be used to put Canadians back to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to tariff adjustments being made by countries throughout the world. As he knows, Canada took part in the last round of negotiations on multilateral trade. We have accepted our obligations, and other countries have done so as well. That is the course we are following in that respect.
June 9, 1982


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, the minister has obviously not addressed the tragic situation facing the nation today. In my constituency alone at least three more factories are threatened with closure, by Liberal insensitivity and antiAmerican policy. Therefore, my supplementary question to the minister is this: what changes to the Foreign Investment Review Agency is his government considering which would reinstate an economic climate conducive to growth in the market place? Would the minister tell this House today?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, in the economic development document tabled last fall, we said we were conducting a review of the existing procedures under the Foreign Investment Review Act, to see whether these procedures could be made more smooth or more effective without in any way undermining the basic principles, for which there is a great deal of support in this country.
I am surprised by my hon. friend's question, because if there is a 40 per cent reduction in tariffs of GATT countries, it means greater opportunities for Canadian production. My hon. friend is expressing concern about tariff reductions, while some of his colleagues in the province of Ontario are calling for higher tariffs against Japanese cars. I repeat what I said last week: why don't you guys get your act together?


THE PRESS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. On May 25 when he unveiled his proposal to control the daily newspaper industry in Canada, he paid lip service to the concept of freedom of the press; and yet, within a week, the executive assistant to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told Southam News that the department had called in the police to find out the source of one of the Southam News' stories. Was the minister consulted about this action before it was taken? If so, does he consider it consistent with the lip service he gave to freedom of the press?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not believe we did pay lip service, I believe we put forward significant suggestions to protect a free press; and, no, I was not consulted.


NEWS SOURCES OF TORONTO NEWSPAPER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in that same speech the minister made this statement:
Oral Questions
I certainly agree that the government must at all costs avoid intruding or appearing to intrude in a manner intimidating to editorial freedom.
Was the Minister of State for Multiculturalism consulted before a new policy was adopted in the Prime Minister's office of badgering the Ottawa bureau of the Toronto Star for information regarding its sources for news stories and, if so, does he consider that consistent with the statement that he made in London?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, in my capacity to consider the Royal commission findings on concentration of the newspaper industry, I would obviously not be approached on any such matter as the member brings forward. I think it is insidious and dangerous to the principle of a free press to suggest, in a democracy, that a government does not have a right to express its concern publicly when it feels it has not been treated justly, or does not have a right to act within the criminal law when there appears to have been an abuse of that law. But that has nothing to do with the principle that, if one or two people own every newspaper in the country, then there will be no free press, and that is what we are fighting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In the last while the Solicitor General has found time to give advice to the Minister of Finance on his budget, to the Minister of Justice on the prosecution of German Canadians, and to a judge on the sterling qualities of some defendants.
Two weeks ago there was a riot in Collins Bay penitentiary, and two nights ago a prisoner was stabbed at Collins Bay. Has the minister been able to draw himself away from his other interests to give some attention to his department and to an investigation of what is going on at Collins Bay?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have been able to give time to the problems in my industry. In the case of the Collins Bay murder, the local police have been called in and are conducting a full investigation.


RIOT PREVENTION PRECAUTIONS
Benno Friesen: The
minister's officials are predicting what they call "a long, hot summer" in the prison system. What extra precautions is the Solicitor General taking to make sure that we do not have another repetition of the Matsqui incidents of some time ago?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, predictions of a long, hot summer are something of a self-
801 1 6-20

June 9, 1982
Oral Questions
fulfilling prophecy. I have not heard officials indicating that this would be a long, hot summer. In fact this is a summer in which our statistical returns show us that there are far fewer major incidents, in fact half the level of major incidents that there were as recently as two years ago. So, I am not expecting a long, hot summer but, of course, I can assure the House that the Correctional Service of Canada is taking all the steps that are appropriate to assure good order in our institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for postal service. As Saturday rural mail delivery in Quebec was discontinued as of June 5, last Saturday, and as a similar discontinuation of service for the rest of the country is under active consideration by Canada Post Corporation, would the minister explain to the House just how the Canada Post Corporation can possibly be considering such a cancellation of service to such a vitally important segment of the population as our rural population, who generally receive their weekly newspapers on Saturday and read them during the weekend? We have just seen our postal rates for first class mail almost doubled, and our second-class mail rate increased by 18 per cent. For these reasons would the minister assure the House that he has no plan for going ahead with such a disastrous curtailment of service?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I want to report to the hon. member that such a service is no longer in existence in many parts of Canada for a number of years. The administrative decision taken in the Quebec region was in order to put every service on an equal footing. The saving is substantial. As you know, the corporation has a mandate not only to improve services all across Canada but to become self-sufficient. The decision that has been taken by the corporation was decided following extensive consultations with the people concerned. In reality, the volume of mail delivered in these regions on Saturday was minimal and the costs were excessive compared to the service given.
[DOT] (M50)


INCREASE IN POSTAL RATES
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I should like to assure the minister that, no matter whether these services are provided in the province of Quebec or not, they are very important to the province of Ontario and, I am sure, to other provinces in this country.
With regard to the savings, as I have said, and as the minister knows only too well, the first-class postal rate was
recently raised from 17 cents to 30 cents, almost doubled, and is now nearly half as much again as similar service costs in the United States. The cost of second-class mail was increased by 18 per cent recently. For these reasons would he not agree that the Canadian public has been gouged enough to make up for losses on the postal service, and would he therefore assure the House that Saturday rural mail delivery will be continued?


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is labouring a point that has been extensively reviewed before a parliamentary committee when the estimates of the Crown corporation were presented. The hon. member should have made his representation then. I appreciate his concern that some classes of citizens could be deprived of a service, but unfortunately that service on Saturday was already cut off many months ago in many other parts of Canada. That is an internal decision of the corporation. I can only report the view of the hon. member to the corporation.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that there are thousands of Canadians who are paying something close to eight points above the inflation level for mortgages and that, as a result of the recession we are currently going through, frequently the mortgage is larger than the market value of their homes? Will the minister meet with the chartered banks and ask that they produce a program that will set a mortgage interest rate at no more than two percentage points above the rate of inflation, and allow those people access to the program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no objection to meeting with the Canadian Bankers' Association, but 1 fear that if one succeeded in implementing the proposal made by the hon. member there would be very little money available for mortgage development. Mortgage funds would dry up. I wonder who would step in to subsidize the mortgage between his proposed rate of 13 per cent and the mortgage rate? Has he given any thought to that and what it would cost?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have indeed given some thought to that, and the minister knows full well that the blended rate that the banks would be able to get, taking into account all their investments, would give them a yield at least five percentage points above the rate of inflation if they were to make mortgage money available under a program such as this.
June 9, 1982


HOUSING FINANCE POLICIES
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the minister whether he can explain to the Canadian people how it can be that the Government of Canada can find $2 billion plus for oil companies, and billions of dollars to lend to other countries for nuclear development at seven per cent and slightly above, when we cannot find money at two per cent above the inflation rate for mortgages?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, this question falls into that rhetorical category that we hear so frequently in the House of Commons. As the hon. member knows, the minister responsible for housing has introduced and has implemented a program that will provide assistance to persons in Canada who are not in a position to carry what are admittedly very high interest costs. In those cases a program of assistance is available.
Without taking on very large budgetary expenditures it is not possible to implement the program that the hon. member suggests. That is why it is not possible to accept his suggestion. It is a rather obvious suggestion, if one had unlimited funds.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with reference to the serious issue raised by the hon. member for London West regarding subliminal and satanic messages on records.
Would the minister be prepared to ask the recording industry to label such products, warning the public of such subliminal and unsuitable messages?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Speak of the devil!


André Ouellet: 1 believe this is a very important matter and I will discuss it with my officials to find out if there is misleading advertising in these presentations. If necessary we will contact the companies and take appropriate measures.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the AntiDumping Tribunal, the Minister of Finance. Last week the Trent Rubber plant in Lindsay was forced to lay off indefinitely 30 full-time employees, and reduce its three-shift operation
Oral Questions
to a two-shift operation. This was due to what it considers unfair dumping of rubber products in Canada by South Korea.
I am sure that I do not need to remind the minister of the kind of hardship this imposes on these previously long-term employees. Could the minister tell me if the investigation requested by the company has begun, and how long does he expect this company will have to wait for its conclusion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will make inquiries of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and provide the hon. member with the information he requests at the earliest possible date.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which is supplementary to those posed earlier relating to Argentina and Canada's continuing policy of sending nuclear fuel bundles to a country where the head of its Atomic Energy Commission has announced that it reserves the right to use nuclear energy for what he calls non-prescribed military uses. That is a new announcement this week. Does the Government of Canada intend to continue to send nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina which is at war, after it has announced that it is going to consider using these materials for military purposes?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition refers to an article which appeared today in The Citizen, I would remind him that it refers to a statement made by Admiral Carlos Castro Madero who reiterated Argentina's support for the objectives of the International Atomic Energy Agency, its commitment to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes and the fact that it had submitted all of its relevant nuclear facilities to agency safeguards.
Canadian nonproliferation and safeguards policy expressly demands that nuclear items supplied by Canada shall be used for peaceful purposes only and not put to any explosive use.


John Carnell Crosbie: They didn't even invade the Falklands! It was a mirage!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Argentinians also said they would not invade the Falkland Islands, and they did.


QUERY RESPECTING REASON FOR EXPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Argentinians have never signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I will put my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Acting Prime Minister, if he wants to accept his responsibility. I ask one of the ministers why there is a different standard for Argentina when, in

June 9, 1982
Oral Questions
the case of Pakistan, the mere fear that Canadian materials would be used for military purposes caused us to stop a contract with Pakistan? Why is Canada sending nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina when the head of the Atomic Energy Commission has just said they are going to be using their nuclear capacity for military purposes? Why is that being done by Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it would be more helpful if the Leader of the Opposition knew how to read and read exactly what has been said. Again Argentina, in its January, 1976, nuclear co-operation agreement with Canada, gave us assurances.


Some hon. Members:: Ironclad?


Marc Lalonde: In addition there is the relevant safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. In that agreement Argentina has undertaken that nuclear items supplied by Canada shall not be used for the manufacture of any nuclear weapons, to further any other military purpose, or for the manufacture of any other explosive device. That is under the supervision and control of inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who control nothing.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we had exactly those same assurances from Pakistan. When the threat was made, the supplies were cancelled. Why is there a double standard? Why does the Government of Canada insist on sending nuclear material to Argentina which is at war with Great Britain?


Marc Lalonde: Again the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is wrong in his facts. We did not have the same agreement with Pakistan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REPORTED STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT OF ARGENTINA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have listened with care to what the minister has just said. I have a copy of an exchange between the assistant to the President of Argentina and a questioner. In the concluding part of a question reference was made that the industrial capacity for the development of nuclear weapons for military purposes was a necessity. The last sentence of the question says:
Is that an over-interpretation of what you said?
That is, that they needed the potential for nuclear weaponry.
I repeat, the question was:
Is that an over-interpretation of what you said?
The assistant to the President of Argentina replied:
Right.
In other words, they want it for nuclear weapon purposes. If that is the case, how can the minister get up before the House today and give us the incredible kind of assurances he has tried to pass off?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, because Argentina has not signed the nonproliferation treaty there is nothing indeed to prevent Argentina from developing on its own, with its own resources, expertise for the military aspects of nuclear fission. They can do that on their own. Under the agreements we have, since 1975 I believe, with Argentina, there is a commitment, covered by the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Commission, that they cannot use any of the facilities provided by Canadian technology for any military purpose. That is the fact, and I invite my hon. friends to check that.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and sixty-seventh Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-26, an act to revive E.G. Klein Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Chretien:: Madam Speaker, I had given notice to the Chair that I wanted to raise a question of privilege, but the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will not be in the House and has asked me to wait until Monday. 1 have informed him that I intend to raise this point Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
f English]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
June 9, 1982
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,119, 4,184 and 4,245.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Does VIA Rail Canada Inc. have regularly scheduled runs between Toronto and Kitchener and, if so, how many runs a day in each direction?
2.	How long is the trip supposed to take?
3.	In January, 1982, how many trips was VIA Rail scheduled to make in either direction between Kitchener and Toronto and how many arrived behind schedule?
4.	In January 1982, what was the average delay experienced on the run?
5.	Did VIA Rail receive a letter from a group of Kitchener passengers that stated in part "We trust that regular delays of 25 minutes on a 95-minute run are unacceptable to VIA's management?"
6.	Are regular delays of 25 minutes on a 95-minute run acceptable to VIA Rail's management?
7.	Are actions being taken by VIA Rail's management to correct the problems being experienced on the run and, if so (a) what are such actions (b) by what date will they have been taken?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc., advises as follows:
1.	Yes. Four trains daily from Toronto to Kitchener and return; one train daily, except Sunday, from Toronto to Kitchener and return.
Train No.	Train No.
661 - 1 hr. 35 min.	660-1 hr. 38 min.
663-1 hr. 30 min.	664-1 hr. 42 min.
665-1 hr. 35 min.	666-1 hr. 36 min.
667-1 hr. 35 min.	668-1 hr. 42 min.
669-1 hr. 35 min.	670-1 hr. 35 min.
3.	Toronto-Kitchener:	147 trips; 114 arrived behind
schedule. Kitchener-Toronto: 145 trips; 77 arrived behind schedule.
4.	Average delay outbound-34.4 minutes; average delay inbound-31.9 minutes.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7.	Following action has been taken or will be instituted:
(a)	Arrangements made with the operating railway (CN Rail) to review the despatching of passenger trains on the Toronto to London via Stratford service, in order to set up better "meets" where possible.
(b)	Commencing June 1 (summer timetable), train service has been adjusted to overcome bottlenecks to permit train 665 to depart ahead of GO Transit's first afternoon train to Georgetown, and in the case of Kitchener to allow train 665 to discharge passengers and depart prior to the arrival of train 668. In addition, schedule departure of train 661 from Toronto will be changed to overcome meet problems associated with GO Transit between Hal west and Toronto.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Taylor: 1.	Were any parliamentarians who are presently holding office in Canada barred from entering the United States between January 1, 1945 and December 31, 1981 and, if so, in each case, what was his/her name?
2.	For the same period, were any legislators in Canada barred from entering the United States and, if so, in each case, what was his/her name and what is his/her present position?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: The
practice of admitting or refusing entry of persons into the United States from Canada is a matter which relates solely to the legislative and administrative authority of the government of the United States.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981, what tonnage of cement was exported and what amount was destined to the United States?
2.	Is it known whether an appreciable quantity of cement consigned to the United States is resold to another country?
3.	Does the government monitor price changes in exported cement?
4.	Was there an increase in the export of cement to Saudi Arabia in 1980 and, if so, to what does the government attribute the increase?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: in so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Canadian exports in 1980 of standard portland cement totalled 1,527,508 tonnes including 1,451,863 tonnes exported to the United States, (b) Canadian exports in 1981 of standard portland cement totalled 1,578,684 tonnes including 1,513,404 tonnes exported to the United States.
2.	Cement industry specialists believe that no appreciable quantity of Canadian cement exported to the United States is subsequently exported to another country.
3.	No.
4.	Canadian exports of standard portland cement to Saudi Arabia increased from 17 tonnes in 1979 to 68,947 tonnes in 1980. The government is unable to comment on commercial transactions by private sector companies since any such intervention may unduly affect their opportunities in the marketplace.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the Government and the province of New Brunswick under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the Government and the province of Nova Scotia under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I hope to conclude my remarks within a reasonable period of time because of course there is an over-all limit to our debate on the energy bills.
I do not want to repeat anything that I said last night, but let me just say that there can be no settlement of the offshore dispute, there can be no development of the Hibernia and Hebron oil fields off the coast of Newfoundland, until there is
a political accommodation. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that there will never be a political accommodation while we have a minister of energy, mines and resources who acts as this minister has acted.
I now refer to The Evening Telegram of Wednesday April 7, 1982, with the headline "Tory tide sweeps Newfoundland". In that paper, after the great victory of the Peckford government on April 6, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was asked for his comments, and I quote now from the CP story headed, "Lalonde says the Tories lied". That was the conciliatory position that the minister took after the people of Newfoundland overwhelmingly gave an endorsement to the position of the Newfoundland government on the offshore dispute. The article says:
The sweeping Conservative victory in Newfoundland's general election will not change the federal government's position in the dispute over control and management of offshore resources. Energy Minister Marc Lalonde said Tuesday.
Lalonde, accusing Premier Brian Peckford's Conservatives of resorting to "outright lies'' during the 22-day campaign, said the election results mean nothing as far as Ottawa is concerned.
"Our principles remain the same," he told reporters. "We have no new proposals to put forward."
Lalonde said the federal government held back from intervening in the campaign even though there were "a lot of misrepresentations .. . frankly outright lies" from Conservatives about the federal position on offshore resources.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that there is now just about a state of war between the province of Newfoundland, the last province to enter confederation, and this government here in Ottawa which thinks it can ignore the majority opinion of the people of the province of Newfoundland, developed and delivered overwhelmingly in the election of April 6? Then they have a federal minister say that the government has lied and he will not change his position whatsoever as a result of that election victory. Then they have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), Mr. Speaker, go down to Newfoundland on May 19 and make an announcement. There is a picture of the Minister of Justice down in Newfoundland threatening the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -telling the people of Newfoundland that he was going to take this matter out of the purview of the Newfoundland courts and bring it to the courts in Ottawa. There is a picture-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows what I am about to indicate to him. I can keep it brief. Perhaps he can keep his remarks in the category of "tell" and not in the category of "show and tell".


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 accept your injunction, Mr. Speaker, because, of course, your rulings are known for their sagacity.
June 9, 1982


David P. Smith: That's thin ice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: On the opposite side of the House we have "assidy". In the Chair we have sagacity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the atmosphere. Hon. members over there can bellow and shout but it will mean that I will keep speaking all day and all night. 1 have unlimited time. Or hon. members can let me conclude my remarks because I have a few pertinent things to say.
That, Mr. Speaker, sets the background as to how the government of Newfoundland has been cheated by the government opposite in a negotiation on something that could split this country apart and which could endanger confederation as it is now in Newfoundland.
Just to put things in perspective I want to give you some economic facts. Why is it that the government of Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland want so badly to have the administration and control of these offshore resources? 1 will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Do you know that right now, today, the official unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 16.1 per cent? We are told there are 38,000 unemployed people in Newfoundland and the actual official rate is 17 per cent. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the rate in reality, not the official rate, is double that? I refer you to the study done by the Economic Council of Canada in 1980. It is entitled "Newfoundland-From Dependency to Self-Reliance. On page 48 we find:
During the month of March when seasonal unemployment in Newfoundland is high, for every four individuals counted as unemployed, there may be three others with rather similar socio-economic characteristics and recent job experience who want a job but are not actively searching work.
People know there are no jobs even if they seek them. The official rate today is not 16.1 per cent. The actual unemployment rate in Newfoundland today, as sure as I am standing here, and let me be struck down if I am not telling the truth, is 32 or 33 per cent. That is why the government of Newfoundland wants to have control and administration of its own resources. That is why this is such an important matter to the people of Newfoundland.
Let me refer you to the magazine entitled Au courant. It is put out by the Economic Council of Canada. It is Volume 1, No. 2, Fall, 1980. It deals with the Newfoundland situation as well. I look now at page 4. Do not think, Mr. Speaker, and let no member opposite think, that we are lazy in Newfoundland, because Au courant reports as follows:
First, the work ethic is very much alive in Newfoundland. Compared with their Ontario counterparts, unemployed Newfoundlanders made a greater effort to find work. More than Ontarians, Newfoundlanders search for jobs outside of their own locality and even outside the province. Newfoundlanders are also more mobile than Ontarians. They are not only willing to work elsewhere in the province or outside the province, but they have proven that willingness by holding such jobs in the past.
Petroleum Administration Act
That is an excerpt from a report prepared by the Economic Council of Canada. We do not have this unemployment problem because we are lazy louts, because we are too lazy to get out of our way and because we want unemployment insurance. We want work. This government here in Ottawa is keeping us from getting work. This Liberal government is dedicated to keeping us ignorant and poor and is forcing us to continue for another 100 years looking for work everywhere on the globe. That is what this issue is about, Mr. Speaker. That was from page 4. 1 am moving on to page 9 of the same magazine.
Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the cabinet meeting over there. They do not have enough decency to carry on their conversations outside.


André Ouellet: Why don't you go to hell?


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister of "oozlette" should go outside if he wants to have a conversation now.


André Ouellet: What about the other people?


John Carnell Crosbie: Then we have the minister who is supposed to be the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray). Let him listen and learn of the conditions in Newfoundland. He was the one who killed the synchrolift for the Newfoundland dockyards and tried to stop employment in Newfoundland.


André Ouellet: What about your two colleagues over there?


John Carnell Crosbie: You haven't even got the manners of an ignorant lout. Go outside if you want to talk.


André Ouellet: Two of your colleagues are talking. That is how important you are in your own party. They do not even listen to you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I thought that minister had a contribution to make to anything, I would sit down and let him speak. He never speaks in this House. He oozes. That is all he ever does in this House.


André Ouellet: Just listen to him.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister responsible for the Post Office should keep his mouth shut.
On page 9 of Au courant we find the following:
Ul benefits in the province amount to $408 for every Newfoundlander; the comparable figure for all Canada is $169. A scant one-fortieth of personal income in Canada comes from unemployment insurance; in Newfoundland, UI is the source of one twelfth of personal income.
Do you understand that, Mr. Speaker, that in my province one twelfth of all personal income comes from unemployment insurance? Do you think we want that condition to go on forever? The average for Canada is one fortieth, but in Newfoundland it is one twelfth. It might suit the Liberal government to believe that we are satisfied in Newfoundland with

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
unemployment insurance. But, believe me, we are not. We do not want Liberal handouts; we want work and we want the opportunity to work. We want to earn income, and that is what this struggle over the offshore is all about, because unless Newfoundland has the control and the administration of the offshore it will never have work. Our people will be like gypsies for the rest of their lives looking for work and leaving their wives and children behind.
I will quote now from a column written by Mr. Don McGil-livray of Southam News. His article is written about the report. He writes about the average earned income in 1978, and let me stress the words "earned income". His column, in part, reads:
In 1978, the average earned income for Canadians was $6,928. The comparable average income per Newfoundlander was $3,710 or 53.6 per cent of the national average.
The earned income in Newfoundland is 53 per cent of earned income for the rest of Canada. Is it any wonder that we want justice? Is it any wonder that we want opportunities? Is it any wonder that we detest the government that sits in this House and tries to keep us from being in a position where we can earn our own way and make a contribution to the rest of Canada?
Let me give you some other figures, Mr. Speaker. The per capita income in Newfoundland is two thirds of the national average. That is because of transfer payments. We are grateful, of course, to be a part of Canada and to be receiving these kinds of payments, but we do not want always to be dependent upon the rest of Canada. When we have a chance to become independent and make a contribution, why is there a government in Canada-and there is a Newfoundlander who sits in its ranks, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), who wants to stop us from ever being independent in Newfoundland-


Mr. Rompkey:: Tell us about the hydro corridor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't open your mouth, my son, or I will have to clean you up. I have no time for you. I have bigger game than you; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Newfoundland's per capita income is two thirds of the national average. In family incomes, Newfoundlanders have 80 per cent of the national average. We are glad about that. We are glad to be part of confederation and part of the social security system. But now our turn is coming. We want our place in the sun. We want to make our contribution to Canada. We brought with us all of the wealth and the riches which the Government of Canada now wants to take and to control so that we will not have control over our own destiny and we will always be beholden to the Government of Canada. That is not good enough. It is not going to work. No courts can solve it. Only a politically reasonable settlement can solve it.
That brings me to a proposal which the Government of Newfoundland made on January 25, 1982. This proposal was never responded to by the Government of Canada. The lordly minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is here today for a brief few fleeting moments, never responded to the Newfoundland proposal. I do not have time to go into it
in any great detail. But for any members who want copies of the proposal, I can provide them. This proposal was more than reasonable. The Government of Newfoundland said that it would like to receive 75 per cent of the total government oil revenues, the traditional share received by the western provinces, until its fiscal and economic situation reached the equivalent of that which pertains across Canada. When that point was reached, the federal government would take more and we would take less. In the economic formula that point would be reached when we in Newfoundland had the same national earned income and the same national unemployment rate as the rest of Canada had. Is that not fair? Are we to receive less as long as our earned income is less than the Canadian average and as long as our unemployment is worse than the Canadian average? Is there anything unfair or improper about that proposal? Of course not.
Then it went on. They wanted joint management. Newfoundland did not claim that it wanted absolute ownership and control. It suggested a seven-member joint agency in which each government would have three members, with an independent chairman and a board to administer it which could not be overridden by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who can override the Nova Scotia board whenever he wants. They wanted joint management. Joint means joint; no one is superior to the other. This is what Newfoundland suggested, but members on the government side of the House would not even respond to that reasonable suggestion.
As 1 say, I do not have the time to go into all the points. They said that they wanted legislative ratification. They wanted the question of legal ownership set aside for as long as an agreement was entered into. I should like to refer to a few other brief points in the Newfoundland proposal. I will refer to a synopsis of it now, the March 16, 1982, analysis of that proposal. At page 8 it reads:
-we wished to negotiate a broad attack on unemployment using oil as the focus.
Some people think that Premier Peckford is a bit too harsh, a bit too extreme and a bit too excitable. Well, he is harsh, extreme and excitable because he is worried and concerned about the people of Newfoundland. He wants to use the offshore to negotiate a broad attack on unemployment, using oil as the focus. I say, "Premier Peckford, carry on. Whatever the controversy or the criticism is, you are trying to do something for your own fellow Newfoundlanders to put them on their feet, so that they do not have to tip their hats or bow their heads to anyone".
At page 9 it reads:
The Province must be in a position to influence the pace and manner of development and to ensure that the traditional industries of the Province are protected.
Surely to God anyone who has gone to Scotland and has seen what happened in Aberdeen, or anyone who has gone to Norway, will know what the effects of the offshore are on the

June 9, 1982

inshore. The local government or the provincial government must be in a position to control building and to control the pace of development. They have to supply the infrastructure, the roads, the water and sewage and all these things. They have to be provided by the province. We have to protect our traditional industry, the fishery. Are we to let the fishery go just because the greedy-guts federal Government of Canada now wants to hurdle on with the development of Hibernia since the Beaufort is in trouble and the Minister of Energy has assassinated the Alsands tar sands plant, has suffocated the Cold Lake heavy oil plant and has set back the oil and gas industry in Canada by years? Are we in Newfoundland to suffer? Are we to give them control and now let them rush, no matter what happens on land in Newfoundland, to get the oil out of Hibernia? Never, it will not happen. It does not matter what legal decisions are arrived at.
At page 10 in the same document it reads:
It must be remembered that, even if an offshore agreement was signed with the federal government today, there would be no resource revenues for the province for five or six years .. . until production starts.
We are not talking about immediate wealth for Newfoundland. There is no wealth. It will be five or six years before the province will get a penny if an agreement is signed this year. The province is in dire straits financially, as are most provinces. This is no bonanza for Newfoundland. We will not rush off to the banks and start banking our money. It will be five or six years before there will be any revenue for Newfoundland, even if there were an agreement this year.
Then the document goes on to point out that every proposal advanced by the Government of Canada included federal ownership as the underlying premise. Then at page 13 it points out what the Newfoundland proposal recognized, that our earned income was only half the national average and the need for the tax burden to be reduced on Newfoundlanders. We in Newfoundland have the highest sales taxes in the country and the highest cost of living. The cost of living is 17 per cent higher. It is higher in St. John's than it is on the mainland. We have the lowest incomes and the highest cost of living. We want that changed before we reduce the revenue which should come to Newfoundland from offshore oil and gas. Also it indicated that the provincial debt should be retired. We have a very heavy debt burden.
The document went on to indicate that capital expenditures should be financed from revenue rather than from borrowing, and that the provincial income should be diversified to provide for the day when the resources run out. Is that unreasonable? No, it is not unreasonable. Revenue sharing has to be based upon equity, as was indicated on page 14.
My final quote from this document is at page 17. It reads:
In summary then, the present federal proposal is faulty because it:
(1)	has no assurance of permanence;
(2)	represents total federal control not joint management;
(3)	denies the Province a constructive partnership role;
(4)	fails to acknowledge the Province's right to a fair share in resource
revenues and offers instead a new form of welfare payment; and
Petroleum Administration Act
(5)	fails to provide a comprehensive commitment to a program of economic development based on offshore resource development.
That is what was wrong with the federal proposal.
The federal government would not respond to that proposal. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would not respond to it. The Newfoundland Government said two things.
It wanted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to stick to his promise to set aside the question of ownership while negotiations went on, and to set it aside if an agreement was reached.
It wanted the federal government to agree again to that, after its treachery in the SIU case. The second thing it wanted was a response from the federal government as to what was wrong with that proposal. I have the document right here. They wanted the federal government to say what was wrong with that proposal for settlement which they presented on January 25. That is all they wanted from the federal government, but the Prime Minister, in his surprise attack on May 20 when he referred this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, ignored all that and said that they were setting down pre-conditions which he could not meet.
Let me move on to May 19. I will not get into the question of the Minister of Justice and what he did when he was asked a question on May 19. I have put down a private members motion, which I am expecting the government to call in the House shortly, about the conduct of the Minister of Justice who misled this House.


Mr. Tousignant;: You will probably ask him to resign.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, my dear friend, the Minister of Justice will never meet the challenge. He has turned pale and has run so far that we cannot even catch a glimpse of him.
I have a motion. It is the government's obligation to call this motion, which accuses the Minister of Justice of misleading the House. I will not say in what manner because we will get into a little hassle over whether or not it is parliamentary. I have asked for it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the committee report to the House as to whether the conduct of the minister was consistent with that expected of a minister of the Crown. Unless the Minister of Justice is a complete poltroon, or unless he wants to confess that he misled the House on the day in question, I am expecting the government to vote for my motion as soon as it gives it time to be debated. Then we can put this matter to the test and see.


Mr. Collenette:: Speak to the bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am going to speak to the bill.


David Michael Collenette: Then do it now.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to speak about the Minister of Justice. He is a hopeless case. He is afraid to be here and to get involved in this debate.
I will skip the question of what went on on May 19, but on May 20 the government put out a misleading press release when it referred this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
I have a copy of the release in my hand. This copy of the release was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada registry. Never in our history, as far as I could find out, has a political document of the Minister of Justice ever been filed in the registry of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a political insult to the Supreme Court of Canada. The docket number was 17096, and it was filed on May 20, 1982. It was a statement by the Minister of Justice on the Newfoundland offshore reference. It was a disgraceful piece of action by someone, either in the minister's department or in that registry, to put that in the docket with the notices of motions and other documents. It indicated that the Government of Canada had filed that day with the Supreme Court of Canada a reference concerning jurisdiction over seabed resources in the Hibernia area offshore Newfoundland. That was not the truth; that was an untrue statement. It is not just the Hibernia area. Everyone in the country knows the Hibernia area to mean the Hibernia oil well or the Hibernia oil field.
Also I have here an affidavit of Steven M. Millan.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it Mr. Speaker's intention to ask the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to speak to Bill C-103, which does not deal with the offshore issue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) put his intervention as a question to the Chair. I am a bit awkward about replying directly in that fashion to members who may want to question the Chair. The argument about relevance is extremely difficult. I have been paying attention to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I think the only thing I could say is that if he will attempt to direct his remarks toward the bill, it would probably be of assistance. But I will not find that the hon. member is not relevant.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know that they do not want to listen to the truth. Bill C-103 defines Canada lands. They have defined Canada lands to include the Hibernia area and all the east coast of Newfoundland and the Labrador offshore area. How can any feeble-minded twit from the government benches opposite suggest that it is not relevant for me to discuss the area that is included in Canada lands?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I should have said honourable twit.
I refer to an affidavit of Steven M. Millan, executive director of the Petroleum Directorate in Newfoundland. He has examined the order in council, and the area described in it comprises 819.9 square acres or approximately 212,000 hectares-this is for the government opposite since they only deal in hectares-and 35 square miles is the area. In that area is the Hibernia oil field, the Nautilus geological structure, the Terra Nova geological structure, the west Ben Nevis and the Ben Nevis geological structure which are all oil fields, or potential oil fields. Therefore, this is not just a reference about
the Hibernia oil field, as was pretended by the minister in his release and as was stated by the Prime Minister in his letter. They know not how to be accurate when it comes to describing the facts or telling the truth.
There are pictures of the structure, but 1 dare not show them to the House since that apparently is not in order. It is also pointed out in the affadavit that even if there was an agreement reached now it would be three to five years before all the environmental and development plans could be approved. It would be over five years before there could be any production. What is the rush? What is the hurry, in other words, for the federal government to slam-bang this into the Supreme Court of Canada when the field, at best, could not be developed for another five years? It will have a life of about 25 years from first to final production.
Incidentally, as you know-I think I mentioned this last night-it was on February 12 that Newfoundland referred this matter to the Newfoundland court of appeal. We are even given false information in the Prime Minister's statement and the minister's press release on May 20. The tissue of deceit, deception and false information clouds the whole issue. One of the questions is this: is there a precedent in the history of this mighty dominion, our confederation, or has there ever been one case or situation where the Government of Canada intervened when a provincial government made a reference to its highest provincial court? Has there ever been a case in our history when the Government of Canada, against the objections of a province, took it out of the hands of the highest provincial court of appeal and referred the case instead to the Supreme Court of Canada without the consent of that province?
I will tell you that the Library of Parliament, legal authorities working for the province of Newfoundland and other people here have not found one precedent. Did that deter this Minister of Justice? Did that deter the man who is supposed to be the fountain of our justice system? It did not. He went to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on May 27. In giving testimony at that meeting he stated, quite improperly and falsely, that there were precedents. He cited six or eight precedents which, he said, applied to this situation. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Perrault of the other House, spoke in the other place and said there were 12 precedents. Senator Flynn of the other House had the Library of Parliament check into this. He could not believe his ears that the government was claiming that there were 12 precedents of the Government of Canada stepping in against the will of a provincial government to take a matter and refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada although it had been already before the highest court of the province. The report of the Library of Parliament was attached to the Senate Hansard of June 2. If you turn to the appendix of the Senate Hansard of June 2, you will find, on the last page called "A Critical Analysis of Reference Case Precedents", that the research branch of the Library of Parliament had considered all these cases and states:
June 9, 1982

-whether a question has been referred by the central government to the Supreme Court of Canada for adjudication while the same question or a similar question is pending on a reference before a provincial court of appeal. In addition, it is appropriate to examine the attitude of the provincial government as to whether it supported the reference by the central government, or whether it opposed it and decided to continue with its own reference before its own court of appeal.
It took every case cited by Senator Perrault and every case cited falsely to the House of Commons Justice Committee by the Minister of Justice. In every case, not one is relevant to that issue. The only case which even appears to be in the same league at all is the 1932 Radio Broadcasting Act. In that case, the matter was referred by the central government to the Supreme Court of Canada without any opposition from the province of Quebec to that reference. The reference to the Quebec court of appeal did not proceed because the Quebec government preferred to have the matter proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
All 12 of those references cited by the highest legal officer in this land, given to the leader of the government in the Senate to mislead the Senate, were used by him to mislead the hon. members of the House and the Justice Committee and were not precedents at all. It is unprecedented that the head of a judicial system in Canada should carry on in such a careless manner. If we suppose that he did not know that these cases were not references, he should then dismiss all of his staff who advise him. He should do that because, knowingly or not knowingly, he misled the House of Commons Justice Committee and he allowed the government leader in the Senate to do the same.
If that were not bad enough, while he was doing that he said, as recorded at page 8917 of the Justice Committee hearings, that there was a good precedent created by the prime minister of Canada, Mr. Bennett. That is the case to which 1 just referred, which is not a precedent at all.
He had this insulting remark to make about Senator Lang of the other House. Senator Lang had introduced a resolution in the other House which deplored the actions of the government in going ahead with this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I refer you to the Senate debates on May 20 as reported at page 4160 where Senator Lang moved a motion that the Senate deplores the decision of the Government of Canada to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the question of jurisdiction over the seabed resources off Newfoundland called Hibernia while at the same time the appeal court of Newfoundland is seized with the matter that includes this very question.
Senator Lang is a Liberal member of the Senate, but he is a man who has a strong sense of respect for the judicial institutions of this country. He is not a toady of the Prime Minister. He is not a tame tabby or a little pussycat of the Liberal caucus. He is an independent man who moved that motion.
The Minister of Justice, who has never practised law or, if he has, it has not been for the last 17 years-just to show you the breadth and dimension of this man who heads our justice system-said, "It is evident that Senator Lang is retired. He does not work as hard as he used to because he would have
Petroleum Administration Act
found that very easy." In other words, he would have found those precedents that supported the federal action. In the first place, the precedents do not support the federal government's action. In the second place, Senator Lang is not retired. He still practises in Toronto. He has more brains, more nerve, and more gumption in his little finger than the Minister of Justice has in his whole body. If you include the rest of the cabinet, Senator Lang would be far ahead of the 34 of them put together. That is the kind of denigrating remark that this small-minded Minister of Justice made about Senator Lang because he moved this motion in the Senate. He continued with all this misleading evidence about these references, which the Library of Parliament research branch has shown to be false.
The Hon. Eugene Forsey went through all the precedents as well. I hold a list from the former Senator who finds exactly the same thing. None of those 12 precedents were relevant. None of them are on all fours with the Newfoundland case. Mr. Forsey has reviewed them, and I daresay no one will say that he is not a worker.
Senator Eric Cook of Newfoundland quit the Liberal Party because he could no longer stand for this kind of action when the federal government referred this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. Senator Cook is one of our foremost legal luminaries in Newfoundland and is a man with more backbone and courage than any thousands of others whom I could name. He finally quit the Liberal Party because he could no longer take it. Incidentally, I heard a report of his being denigrated by one of the reporters in our press gallery who said on a radio program, "Who is Senator Cook?" "What has he ever done", this twit asked? This person from central Canada, who I doubt has ever been to Newfoundland, tried to insult Senator Cook and asked, "What does it matter whether Senator Cook had left the Liberal Party or not?" Well, what matters is this: it shows that in our Dominion there are people who believe in principle and still have the courage to carry out their principles, who are prepared to leave the party they have lived with all their lives and have supported and worked for, because they can no longer take what is happening. That takes people of courage. That takes more courage and more character than that particular cretin from the press gallery will ever exhibit. Senator Cook's resignation is a great loss to the Liberal Party of Canada, believe you me.
I know that, unfortunately, we are limited in time. I just want to make one more reference to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: You see, I do not think I have repeated myself more than once or twice in this debate. That shows how much there is to say, because 1 want to ensure that the people of Canada and hon. members of the House who care to listen understand. This is not some greedy, grasping group of people down in Newfoundland trying to take something from Canadians that it is not their right to take, or trying to keep from

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
Canadians some resources which all Canadians should share. This is a group of people in Newfoundland trying to struggle to haul themselves up by their bootstraps. Anyone who has looked at our history and seen what we have been through will realize why there was a 61 per cent vole for the Peck ford administration on April 6, and will realize what will happen to the five Liberal members who now sit in the House and have turned their backs on the people of Newfoundland while sitting here. I cannot wait for that next election to come.


Bill Rompkey: Tell us about the hydro corridor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Pardon?


Bill Rompkey: Talk about standing up for Newfoundland on the hydro corridor.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hydro transmission matter is widely understood in Newfoundland. You are trying to cut the guts out of the National Energy Board and are throwing in this little hydro clause as a sop. No one has been fooled by that, and no one thinks that hon. members opposite are friends of Newfoundland. Well, there might be a few out of the 620,000 people down in Newfoundland who think they are interested in Newfoundland.
The former Senator Forsey, who is widely regarded as a constitutional authority, said this about what the Government of Canada has done:
The Dominion government's action is, as far as 1 know, unprecedented. It is in marked contrast to the procedure that government itself followed on the patriation resolutions. It is certainly irregular. It interferes with the normal judicial procedure by virtually removing from the Newfoundland Court of Appeal an essential part of the question placed before it. It is highly improper. It is a tactic that undermines the whole judicial system.
Unfortunately, our justice system is headed by the present Minister of Justice who does not understand and who has shown by his behaviour that he is quite prepared to interfere with our court system and the judiciary whenever he thinks it is to his political advantage. He is a man who can insult and denigrate a judge and criticize him obliquely without giving it a second thought. If we had a proper Minister of Justice who had any character or backbone, this incident would never have happened.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal has set October 6 of this fall as the date when all of the documents and factums are to be in and when it will set the date for the hearing of the issue referred to it by the Newfoundland government, which involves the whole offshore area. The issues in that case are not one bit different from the one concerning the matter which the federal government has now sent to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has now set the date for its hearing at November 27, I believe. In my view, it was a very bad mistake by the Supreme Court of Canada to set that matter down to be heard while the case is still before the Newfoundland Court of Appeal and a decision has not yet been rendered. They were put in a very difficult position.


An hon. Member:: Come on, wind down.


John Carnell Crosbie: My friend to the left wants me to wind down. This is exactly what 1 am doing. They only reason I am doing that, of course, is that we agreed to a certain limited number of hours to deal with these energy bills and there are other hon. members on this side of the House who have a contribution to make.
There is no issue more important to this country than the issue I am speaking on now, because this is an issue which will not be settled for a long time yet and will not be settled unless we have a different government or see a complete change of attitude in the hon. members who sit opposite. It may, in fact, endanger our confederation unless there are changes in attitude.
So I will now wind up. 1 think I have done my best to try to explain the offshore issue to hon. members of this House.
1 will quote from an editorial in the London Free Press of May 24, 1982. It starts off by discussing whether or not the federal Minister of Justice deliberately misled the House of Commons, and said that, whether or not he did, "he certainly was less than candid." I think we can all agree with that. The editorial goes on to state:
But Crosbie is right to call for an investigation of Chretien's remarks. It would be useful for a parliamentary committee to review the standards of candour to be expected when ministers of the Crown respond to questions in the Commons.
It is very necessary to review the standards of candour to be expected when ministers of the Crown respond to questions in the Commons.
One of the most startling, highly unusual explanations of the Minister of Justice for the answer he had given to the questions on May 19 was when he said that in his mind there had been certain conditions. He now feels that whatever, is in his mind, of course, is something that he has said. He said, "There was a decision which had been made with some conditions attached. 1 just said there was no decision because some conditions had to be met". The minister said there was no decision because, although there was a decision, there were some conditions which had to be met. The standards of candour of ministers should definitely be reviewed. 1 am hoping the government will vote for my motion when it comes forward, when the government gives it time, if it has the courage to do that.
The editorial goes on to state:
As for the oil and gas court case, there is nothing illegal about the reference to the Supreme Court, but it is of questionable propriety.
That is quite right and exactly on point. At the end, in reference to the Newfoundland court, the editorial states:
Out of respect for that court and in the absence of any compelling need for a quick and definitive decision, the Trudeau government should have left the matter alone, while reserving the right to appeal an adverse ruling to the supreme court of Canada.
That is also quite right, and I highly recommend that the government rehabilitate itself in part by withdrawing the reference it has made and waiting until the Newfoundland Supreme Court deals with the matter. It should then be appealed in the normal way, to be heard in 1983, here in Canada. The government will not see any quicker development
June 9, 1982

of the Hibernia or the Hebron or any other oil field of eastern Canada by following the route it is taking. In addition to that, it has shaken the judicial system in Canada to its foundations. The government is on the wrong course. The people of Newfoundland have right and justice on their side. They want to be able to earn their own income and they want their turn in the sun. Only the kind of settlement that our party proposes for them will be the kind of settlement to settle this issue in a manner which is true to the nature of Canadian confederation. That is why it is important that this government either completely reverse itself or have the courage now to go to the electorate of Canada to see whether the people approve of the kinds of actions it has taken in the last two years and three months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Spadina.


Mr. Heap:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. This will be a matter for the hon. member for Spadina to decide upon, I think. Ordinarily, the Chair looks from left to right, and in the debate on Bill C-103 there has been a tendency by the occupant of the Chair to look to the left, more usually. I just noticed that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) is on his feet, but I have already recognized the hon. member for Spadina. Would the hon. member care to follow the usual procedure in going from left to right, and I will recognize him after the minister?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Well, Mr. Speaker, can I have an indication as to whether the minister, in speaking for the government, will attempt to match the length of time of the hon. member who spoke before? If so, perhaps we could make our plans accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the Minister of National Revenue.


Bill Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 want to thank the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) as well. I want to say at the beginning that I do not intend to match the time used by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He said that he shed some heat on this question, and I hope I can shed some light.
I want to deal in the beginning, however, with the issue of courage because that has been raised as an essential element, courage on the part of the hon. member for St. John's West, courage in the sense of Newfoundland standing up against Canada. Canada is portrayed by the hon. member for St. John's West and other politicians in my province as being the enemy. You are courageous if you agree with the hon. member for St. John's West and the Premier of Newfoundland. However, if you hold a different position, you are somehow lacking in courage. You are considered not courageous and not standing up for your province. In my opinion, that smacks of demagoguery and I do not accept it. There are two points of
Petroleum Administration Act
view and I hope I can put the other point of view on the record today.
In terms of courage and standing up for Newfoundland, I want to ask the hon. member for St. John's West where was he standing up for Newfoundland when this government introduced in this House a bill to give Newfoundland the right to transmit hydro power across the province of Quebec to market. Where was he when that happened? That bill was put forward by a minister from Quebec and voted on by 74 Members of Parliament from Quebec from this side.
The hon. member for St. John's West took his courage in his hands and sat down for Newfoundland. That is what he did. He abstained. His party voted against it. The Conservative Party of Canada voted against the right of Newfoundland to have a hydro corridor to transmit power to market.
The hon. member for St. John's West, who talks so much about courage and for standing up for Newfoundland, sat down. He abstained. He did not vote for that. Let that be on the record. In the years to come, the record will bear out who in this House has courage, who has not, and who stands up for Newfoundland. The Government of Canada, we on this side of the House, want what is best for Newfoundland and Labrador.
This bill encourages Canadianization of the oil industry. It is a step toward self-sufficiency. We have to rely on all sources of oil if Canada is going to be self-sufficient.
I want to talk, as did the hon. member for St. John's West, about the offshore issue because it is crucial to my province at this time. 1 want to talk about the recent reference to the Supreme Court and about why there was no other option at this time but for the Government of Canada to proceed to the Supreme Court with a direct reference on ownership and the jurisdiction of those offshore resources.
There was no other option. For 14 years we tried to negotiate a settlement, a political settlement between the two levels of government. All the attempts over those 14 years failed. In order to get the matter resolved quickly, to get development going, to create jobs and revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador, if ownership is what is important, let us get it settled as quickly as possible. Let us get it settled in court.
Eventually it has to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, and a judgment has to be rendered. It does not matter what the Newfoundland court decides. Therefore, our position was to put the ownership issue in court if it was the important consideration. It can only be decided in court. I cannot decide ownership, nor can the opposition or the people of Newfoundland. Only the Supreme Court of Canada can decide ownership. The ownership issue cannot be put aside. Nobody can guarantee that the ownership issue can be put aside forever. Anybody can bring that issue to court.
A case in point is the S1U case. It was not the Government of Canada or the government of Newfoundland which brought the SIU case before the Supreme Court. It need not be a government which goes to court. Anybody can go to court. An

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
oil company can go to court and get the ownership issue decided. If that is the important issue, it can ask the court to decide.
It cannot be put aside forever. Nobody can guarantee that. At some point in time it may be decided. If that is the case, why not decide it quickly and get it out of the way?
Newfoundland has nothing to lose with this action. There are those who say that Newfoundland has a good case, that it has a unique case. They say that Newfoundland came into confederation with certain resources. I believe that Newfoundland has a unique case. If that is true, then what have they to fear in the judgment of the Supreme Court? What have they to fear in a reference to the Supreme Court? If the case is good and just, there is nothing to fear from a judgment by the courts.
If Newfoundland wins, then it has ownership and can operate as if it were Alberta. Elowever, if Newfoundland loses, it can still have a political deal. Where is the loss for Newfoundland? In this action Newfoundland is in a winning position no matter what happens. If it wins, it has ownership and can act like Alberta. If it loses, it can still make a political deal.
What is important is the deal. I do not believe that ownership is the important issue. I have never been able to understand why pure, bald legal ownership is the important issue. Let me give a case in point.
The opposition, including the hon. member for St. John's West, wants to make this government appear to be the enemy of Newfoundland and Labrador, this government which just opened up the St. Anthony fish plant in spite of the fact the Newfoundland government decided it would probably not issue a licence to that plant. That province has the highest rate of unemployment in Canada. There are 900 people out of work in St. Anthony. This government wanted to solve that problem, but it indicated it might not issue a licence. They would like us to appear to be the enemy. Are we the enemy of St. Anthony for wanting to put 900 people back to work in that community?
We were also the enemy when we created the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. Several years ago this government, this leader and this cabinet created the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, a 50-50 partnership of Canada and Newfoundland to harvest the hydro resources of the Lower Churchill River. The question of ownership is quite clear. Newfoundland owns every drop of water in that river. Who controls it? Who has jurisdiction? Who are the partners in the Lower Churchill Development Corporation? Canada and Newfoundland.
There is adequate precedent. There is no reason why the Lower Churchill Development Corporation cannot be a model for the offshore. Ownership does not have to be the overriding and overbearing issue. I do not believe that ownership is what is important. What is important is a deal, a settlement.
In that regard, I differ very little from what I heard the hon. member for St. John's West say. After you strip away all the rhetoric, all the denigration of this side, all the attempt to
make us appear to be cowards for not standing up for Newfoundland and to make this government the enemy of Newfoundland, the bottom line of what he said was that it does not matter what the Supreme Court decides. That is what I heard him say. I agree with that.
What is important is a political deal. We have a deal with British Columbia, one with Alberta, one with Saskatchewan and one with Nova Scotia. For 14 years we have been trying to get a deal with Newfoundland. We must have that deal no matter what the Supreme court decides. That is the important issue. We must have a deal with Newfoundland that is good for Canada and good for Newfoundland, a deal that will stand up over time no matter what the courts decide. That is the important line. I want to repeat it again.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) went to Newfoundland to tell the people there exactly what we were doing and why. That is what he said in his release, and that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in his letter, that we want a deal that will stand up no matter what the courts decide.
What are the elements of that deal? For us they have not changed. Essentially there are two. The first is maximum revenues to Newfoundland, 100 per cent of the possible revenues to the government of Newfoundland. Why would we ask otherwise? Even if from a moral point of view, we should not give 100 per cent of the revenue to Newfoundland, and we should, look at the practicality. Equalization payments will flow to Newfoundland in any case. It is much better to have Newfoundland economically independent, standing on its own two feet financially. I thoroughly agree with that, as does the Government of Canada. That is why one of our principal negotiation positions has been 100 per cent of the possible revenues going to Newfoundland. What we would take out probably would be the federal corporation tax and no more. Indeed, in that settlement, Newfoundland might get more, and probably would get more than if it owned the resource, because Alberta now gets 23 per cent for a barrel of oil. Whereas in Newfoundland, if a proper deal were made, we could get more out of the deal than Alberta presently gets who owns the resource inshore.
So the first negotiating position is maximum revenues to Newfoundland. The second one is along the lines that I have already indicated, along the lines of the model of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, that is, a joint administration. It is not Newfoundland or Canada, it is Newfoundland and Canada. We are fortunate to be part of a federation whereby we can have a government that is strong enough to help us when we need to get something developed in our province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: We need the Government of Canada. I do not need to tell Newfoundlanders what Canada has meant to them since 1949. One of the Premiers of Newfoundland has
June 9, 1982

called confederation a blessing. That is the case, Mr. Speaker, It is not simply a matter of handouts, it is our right to expect that, it is our right to expect that Canada will help us now. And she will, if we will give her half a chance. What we want is a joint board, a joint administration on the part of Canada and Newfoundland. It does not have to be the Nova Scotia deal. In the Nova Scotia deal I understand that the power given to Nova Scotia was in the form of a veto.


John Carnell Crosbie: No veto. Look at the agreement again.


Bill Rompkey: That is a possibility. My understanding is that Nova Scotia can hold any decision up for a period of time if they do not like it. That is power, power to Nova Scotia.


John Carnell Crosbie: Try and be truthful. There is no veto by Nova Scotia.


Bill Rompkey: If that is not acceptable to Newfoundland, then there are other options.


John Carnell Crosbie: Tell the truth in your speech.


Bill Rompkey: We went through the 1980 election, Mr. Speaker, and since that time, on the basis of a joint administration between Canada and Newfoundland. I do not want to talk about the details.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister is misleading the House. Can he point to any section in that Nova Scotia agreement that gives them a veto over decisions? The power is in the hand of the Government of Canada and the minister. The minister is misleading the House, unless he can point to a clause.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, in the Nova Scotia agreement 1 mentioned an option, an option.


John Carnell Crosbie: You said "veto".


Bill Rompkey: There are other options. Newfoundland can have its own unique deal if it so desires, a deal that will be set on that basic principle of a joint administration between Canada and Newfoundland. It does not have to be the Nova Scotia deal, it can be a different deal, a unique deal, specifically for Newfoundland. But you cannot negotiate a deal if you walk away from the table. That is exactly what happened.
We are being accused now of putting an issue in court. It was the government of Newfoundland who put that issue in court, Mr. Speaker. It was the government of Newfoundland who walked away from the negotiating table and put that issue in court. What we are saying now is, if it is in court, let us settle it as speedily as possible. We want to get back to the bargaining table because we want on this side what is best for Newfoundland. I have already cited instances of that. There is a need for oil development now in Newfoundland. It is not going to be the saviour and there will be difficulties. Let us not underestimate that. There is a direct conflict between oil and fish. Let us not paper over the difficulties that we have, let us not paper over the fears of many of our people.
Petroleum Administration Act
I know there are people with money invested who want to get going on the offshore. But there are also a lot of people in small fishing communities in Newfoundland who fear what might happen as a result of that development. That is another reason 1 think that we need the power and the support of the Government of Canada in transport, in national defence, in environmental protection, to make sure that we have the laws of both governments on our side.
There is a need to create jobs, there is a need to create wealth. My colleague to the left of me now-who was formerly the minister of regional economic expansion-has said many times that the people whom I represent are among those in Canada who need help most. They need real help, real dollars, real jobs, and the way to give them those jobs is to develop that resource. Let us get it going quickly, let us not put if off, let us not procrastinate, let us not wait for another day. There is need in Newfoundland, there is a need in Canada for that oil development. We have to have the resources in the Beaufort Sea and the resources of the Arctic and the resources offshore, if we are going to be self-sufficient. We can be self-sufficient in Canada. We have tremendous resources, if only we would stop arguing and fighting among ourselves and start working together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: If only we could do that, Mr. Speaker. We are our own greatest enemy in that sense. We are our own greatest enemy in the sense that we have so much to be thankful for, so many resources. We continually fight among ourselves and delay the development of those resources which could bring us such great wealth and such great power and such a great economy.
So there is a need in Newfoundland, there is a need in Canada; and both those needs can be addressed and both those needs can be resolved. That is so if we can have a deal, if we can sit down at the same table and work things out, as we did on the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. We did it in Newfoundland. If we can work things out as we did in British Columbia, work things out as we did in Saskatchewan, work things out as we did in Nova Scotia, work things out as we did in Baie Verte in my province a little while ago on the asbestos mine. In that last case the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada sat down together at a table and worked out a deal. It is possible, it can be done, with men of good will and men of vision, Mr. Speaker. That is what has to be done with the offshore. 1 do not think we should play the game of making friends and enemies, who is for us and who is against us, who has courage and who has not. That is rhetoric. What the people of Newfoundland want now is some wisdom and some good will and an earnest desire to develop their resources for Newfoundland and for Canada. There has to be federal involvement. I would urge the government of Newfoundland to come back to the bargaining table.
The leaders of the churches in Newfoundland recently sent a telex to the Prime Minister and a telex to the Premier of

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
Newfoundland. 1 will not read the whole of it, but I will read part of it, Mr. Speaker. It says this:
-the process of negotiation is the obvious method of reconciling differences and producing some real agreement ... If this is impossible ... it is all the more important that the issues be clearly and decisively resolved by placing them before the courts of the land in some mutually agreed way.
In some mutually agreed way. If there has got to be a reference, let it be a joint reference. We asked for that. We would have preferred that, I think it is fair to say. "It is all the more important," they say. The bottom line in the telex from the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church and the Anglican Church in Newfoundland is this:
-to enter immediately into serious and meaningful discussions on offshore jurisdiction. If as a result of such discussions they see no alternative but to put the matter before the courts, we would urge that they do this in a manner which recognizes the legitimate interests and concerns of both parties.
In other words, there is a case for Canada, there is a case for Newfoundland. In other words I think what they are saying is, and I support it-and I did not hear the hon. member for St. John's West not support it; as a matter of fact, if there was a bottom line in his speech it was exactly the same-that this can really only be solved, this offshore question, by negotiation. There really has to be a political settlement, no matter what the courts decide. I would urge Newfoundland to come back to the table, I would urge them to sit down in good faith, with some vision and with some wisdom, and strike a deal that is good for us in all parts of the country.
We do not have to choose our citizenship. I do not have to choose between being a Newfoundlander and being a Canadian. I can be both at the same time, and I can work both for my province and for my country. I think that is possible, and I think that those around that table at that time will be able to do the same thing. That is what has to be done, Mr. Speaker. I urge now that rhetoric be put aside and that all of us who really have the best interest of Newfoundland at heart come to the table and start negotiating that deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. minister a question just as he is finishing. Is the minister saying that the Government of Canada is now prepared to discuss this and to give a response to the Government of Newfoundland in connection with its proposal of January 25, 1982, which up to now it has refused to respond to? Is the minister prepared to put aside the question of ownership while the negotiations continue and if an agreement is reached? Is that what the minister is saying?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, all sort of responses are possible if you are sitting at the table, if you are discussing, if you are having a conversation, if you are negotiating. All kinds of responses are possible then, but if you are not negotiating, responses become very difficult. I do not think we should be negotiating at arm's length and I do not think we should be negotiating through the media. I think if we have good will and the interests of Newfoundlanders at heart and if we come
back to the table with no pre-conditions, then there will be a response. I do not think the Government of Canada has had an opportunity to give a response.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why not?


Bill Rompkey: Because there is nobody at the table to respond to. I am saying we should get back to the negotiating table. Other deals have been struck, and we could have a deal as well.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have chosen this occasion to speak in opposition to Bill C-103, especially because it is an example of what the government's policy is doing to the working people of Canada. In that I include Newfoundland and not least the Province of Ontario of which I represent a part, the mainly working-class riding of Spadina.
This bill deals in part with taxes in relation to the oil industry, the maritime taxes, the airline taxes, taxes for oil compensation, taxes on ownership and so on, while other bills deal with grants and huge giveaways to the richest and most powerful corporations in the world. This bill deals with the method by which the government collects billions of dollars from the working men and women of the country and hands them over to the oil companies.
All this can be illustrated by some figures covering the last two years, Mr. Speaker. In 1980 the average home burned about 4,500 litres of heating oil and would have paid about $400 for it; in 1981 that would have cost $1,170, and in March of this year it would have cost $1,275. In the same way, a family in which the breadwinner has to commute to work by automobile, in 1980 would have paid $216 for about 2,700 litres of gasoline, the following year it would have cost $945, and as of March this year it would have cost $1,030. These expenses which totalled $616 two years ago now total $2,305, so there is a difference of nearly $1,700. That comes out of the pockets of working men and women-if they are lucky enough to have a place to live and a job. In other words, the original cost of a little over $600 has more than tripled in two years.
In the over-all picture there has been a 30 per cent rise in the cost of living, all of which comes from the increase in the price of oil. This is happening at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) daily tell working people to restrain their demands, not to ask for more money. They expect these people to pay 30 per cent more for necessities within two years because the government is taxing them for oil, but they are not to ask for any more money to help pay that tax. In fact, a large part of that increase in the price of oil comes from taxes.
It is interesting that Imperial Oil and its friends are putting out advertisements which, with the usual kinds of half truths, say that $3 out of every $5 of the cost of gasoline goes for taxes. That may well be true, but what Imperial oil and its friends try to hide from the working people of this country is that every cent of the taxes they pay to the federal government is returned to them, and more besides.
June 9, 1982

In the three years between 1977 and 1980 this government, and the short and unlamented government of the Conservative Party which had six months in which to make matters as much worse as it could-in tax concessions to the oil companies gave them $13 billion at a time when only $5 billion was collected from them. In other words, the giveaway by the Liberal and Conservative governments to the corporate welfare bums that are the oil companies, was $8 billion or almost $700 per worker in this country.
This year the government plans to give away much more. It was announced a couple of weeks ago that Imperial Oil and its friends would receive an extra $2 billion. The government has already taken $1.3 billion out of transfer payments to the provinces for health and education and has given it to the oil companies. In fact, what it is doing is offering the oil companies a subsidy of 80 to 93 cents on the dollar for a great deal of their exploration activities.
We have heard a lot of preaching from members on my right about how the oil companies know where to find oil, but they do not like to practise what they preach because they ask the working people to pay 80 per cent to 93 per cent of the cost of finding that oil. Then when the oil is found, using the taxes of working people, Imperial Oil and its friends to my right in this chamber, want to own the whole thing and cream off the total profit.
The whole system is now collapsing around the ears of the Prime Minister and the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). It has been admitted by the Prime Minister and half admitted by his deputy, who has had to come back from Europe to try to hold the fort on the other side of the House that the fight against inflation was a tragic mistake. All the brave words that the Prime Minister and members on the government front benches have been spouting day after day for the last eight months were not true they now admit. This was their prime argument for enforcing misery on the working people of the country, and now they admit it was a tragic mistake. They have admitted that interest rates are too high and could go higher. They admit that bankruptcies have risen at a rate no one can remember unless they lived in the 1930s. They admit that unemployment has risen at a rate we have not heard of except in the 1930s and that all those evils are still increasing.
The government made cuts to health, education and housing and other services that working people need. It has broken promise after promise, such as the one to fund urban mass transit for the cities of Canada. This government will fund urban mass transit in New York City but not in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It has admitted that factories are shutting down. We have lost about 350,000 jobs in less than a year, and the manufacturing industries which serve the Canadian people are in decline and laying off people by the tens of thousands. The government has absolutely no remedy because its only goal for the last eight months, as its members
Petroleum Administration Act
themselves said, was to fight inflation. The government has now admitted that was a complete mistake.
The Minister of Finance claimed he was going to reduce the deficit, but it in fact has come close to doubling it since he made that claim in November. All that time the one obligation this government honoured is the one to give taxpayers' money to Imperial Oil and its friends. The taxpayers are not in this case the corporations; they are the same people who originally produced the wealth of Imperial Oil and its friends. That system is falling down around the ears of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance, and around the ears of the Leader of the Opposition and members on his front benches who have admitted publicly that they have no alternative policies and no alternative to high interest rates. They will not lift a finger to cut the profits of the banks or the oil companies who funded their election campaigns. In fact, they are racing each other to give them more. They have only one solution to the problem they created with their huge giveaway of the working people's taxes: cut the workers' pay. Of course, the Minister of Finance told us in the last couple of days that he really does not want to legislate a wage freeze. Well, all you have to remember is the election campaign of 1974 when the Prime Minister ridiculed the idea of a wage freeze and won back his majority government by promising not to implement a wage freeze which the Conservative campaign was placing front and centre. One has to give the Conservatives credit for having been honest. They asked for a wage freeze and, had they been put in office, undoubtedly would have enacted one. But the Prime Minister promised no wage freeze and within a year he froze wages. In other words, the Liberals practise what the Tories preach. We have no reason to believe the statements of the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance when they tell us they do not have a wage freeze in mind. We have every reason to believe they are simply trying to con us, trying to lull the working people of Canada into trusting them so that overnight, as before, the Prime Minister can say we have been living beyond our means so he is going to tighten your belt. He will not tighten the belts of the oil companies or the banks; he will tighten the belts of the people who produce the wealth of this country.
There is a steady campaign, Mr. Speaker, headed by this government, to misrepresent and vilify the working people of Canada. At every point the government ignores the question of profits and points incessantly at wages and salaries as the cause of our economic troubles. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, just after he received his fat raise to $104,000, made a speech in which he said the minimum wage is one of the causes of inflation. He condemns a worker who wants to get $3 an hour for his work as being a cause of inflation. This government is being forced from bad to worse by its absolute adherence and loyalty to the corporate welfare bums. We have the pathetic spectacle of the former President of El Salvador, Napoleon Duarte, lamenting that his friends in El Salvador's assembly, elected in a fraudulent vote, and his friends in Washington who helped do it, have wiped out the land reform

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Administration Act
program on which he staked his reputation. That is very similar to hearing our Prime Minister say that this whole antiinflation fight, on which he and his government staked their reputation and risked the future of this country, is a tragic mistake. Just as Duarte's mistake came out of standing rigidly by the land owners of his country, so the Prime Minister's mistake comes from standing rigidly by the corporate welfare bums of Canada, the oil companies and the banks. He will not reduce by one penny the money he chooses to give them after he has taken it in taxes which do not even have a legal foundation. He has not passed the laws but he is collecting the taxes which he hands over to the corporations.
In spite of his brilliance, the Prime Minister of this country will go down in history as a failure. Like the unfortunate President of El Salvador, the Prime Minister has sold our country to people who do not care about Canada, most of whom do not live here and do not care two hoots who starves to death in Canada, and he will go down in history as an enemy of the Canadian people.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I spoke rather extensively on this bill during second reading so it is not my intention to do so again this afternoon. However, I want to make a couple of points. First of all, the $2 billion rebate to the oil and gas industry which was just recently announced is not sufficient to restore confidence in the industry, particularly on provincial lands. Something more is necessary.
A lady came to see me in my constituency office over the weekend. She told me that several years ago the governments of this nation offered working Canadians the possibility for equity investment in the oil and gas industry. In particular she mentioned the Alberta Gas Trunk Line which is now the Nova Corporation. Every Albertan was given the opportunity for equity investment in that corporation, in the tremendous growth of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. She also mentioned the Alberta energy company in which Albertans were given the opportunity for equity investment.
What I want to touch on briefly is the need for equity investment in our nation to get our economy moving. Right now Canada is sustaining itself primarily on debt investment. Debt investment creates a tremendous burden on small corporations and even on large corporations. For example, it was stated recently that the debt servicing of most companies in relation to net income went up from somewhere around 25 per cent to something like 66 per cent per annum.
Our economy is in real difficulty because of the fact that capital investment today is debt capital. Because interest rates are very high, a tremendous burden is placed on all areas of the business cycle, from the smallest corporation to the largest corporation.
The lady who came to visit me asked me when Canada would be getting round to permitting the working people of Canada to invest on an equity basis in Canadian industry instead of providing, literally, all the incentives for them to put their money into bonds, bank accounts and debt equities, through which they can gain a substantive amount of interest.
I told her that I would come back to this House and try to put a resolution before it in that connection. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, today I moved, the following:
Madam Speaker, equity investment pessimism is pervasive in Canada. Canadians are investing their money outside of Canada and in high-interestbearing bonds and certificates. This has substantively curtailed the ability for equity capital generation in Canada and has jeopardized the survival of small business in Canada because of the high cost of debt capital. A new budget is necessary to create confidence in the Canadian economy, and it must contain incentives for equity investment. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That any new budget abolish capital gains taxation on all equity investment
in Canadian registered companies.
Because this is a taxation bill and because we are dealing with the energy industry, which industry needs other incentives today just as so many industries do too, I want to touch on the matter of abolishing capital gains. Capital gains taxation netted the federal government, both from a personal and corporate point of view, $195 million in 1975, $275 million in 1976, $320 million in 1977 and $450 million in 1978. 1 do not have the intervening figures for the last couple of years because they are still being worked on, but today the stock market has reached a new low.
Let me say that for the next several years the capital gains taxation process at the federal level will collect very few dollars because losses will be extremely high in every aspect of Canadian society this year and the next several years. If there ever was a time to use the capital gains regime to create some investor confidence, particularly in the equity market, it is today. If there ever was a time to use this tool, it should be used today because it would cost the government very little in terms of generated revenue. It is a tax that will have a very slight effect on the collection of revenues in the next several years, as the cost of collection almost exceeds what is collected. Therefore, it can be used justifiably as an incentive for growth and equity investment.
I would recommend strongly that the federal government look very seriously at the removal of capital gains taxation as an incentive for equity investment and therefore growth of the Canadian market. This will keep Canadian dollars in Canada for investment in Canada on an equity basis rather than investment as debt capital.
I want to make a point again for the second time which has to do with this energy legislation. It is the same point that I made before in connection with the Canadianization of the industry, particularly Canadianization on provincial lands. As I have said, 1 do not have any difficulty with the federal government moving substantively into the area of Canadianization of the oil and gas industry on Canadian lands where there is a single jurisdiction. But I have increasing difficulty with a policy initiated at the federal level, which is then thrust upon the provinces, having to do with provincial resources in order to Canadianize those resources.
I say again to the government that it should consider very seriously whether it wishes to extend this Canadianization program in a substantive way as it has done with the oil and
June 9, 1982

gas industry on provincial lands. This, more than any other aspect of this energy legislation, is causing instability. It is causing pessimism. It is the antithesis of good equity investment. I suggest that the federal government should think seriously of whether it really wants to force its ideological direction on Canadianization on the corporate structure on provincial lands. I say again that I have no difficulty in doing it where there is a single jurisdiction with regard to Canadian lands. But when it comes to provincial lands, it is a retardant for the regeneration of the economy. I suggest the federal government re-examine its position.
There are many other areas of this legislation about which I could speak. I spoke extensively when we debated the principle of the legislation so I will not go into that again, except to say that the Canadian economy has to be revitalized at the earliest opportunity or we will slide into a level of recession or depression not known since the 1930s. I think some stimulative measures have to be taken at the earliest possible date, stimulative measures in the area of equity investment and not debt investment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) entered the House after the beginning of the division. I ask to have his name taken off the list in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The orders of the House provide that a member should be in his chair to hear the question put. Was the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) in the chair to hear the question put?


Mr. King:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member says he was. It is the practice of the House to accept the word of an hon. member. The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I was just going to say the same thing I heard from the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood the point of order raised. He was certainly not on the floor of the House when the division was called. He should be asked about this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what 1 just said, namely that the hon. member may have misunderstood the point of order raised. There is no doubt that we all saw him, and he knows he was not on the floor of the House when the division was called. I realize he just rushed back from Paris or Strasbourg, but that is no excuse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made a statement and it is the practice of the House to accept the word of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 8, 1982, consideration of Bill C-104, respecting Petroleum Incentives and Canadian Ownership and Control Determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Lalonde).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the next hon. member to speak, the Chair, as a result of the renumbering of the motions listed on today's notice paper at report stage of Bill C-104, would like to revise its statement made to the House yesterday when this bill was first considered. As hon. members are aware. Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the minister, has been proposed and is now before the House. Therefore, my statement will relate to Motions Nos. 2 to 16 inclusive.
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 5, previously Motion No. 4, as indiated by the Chair yesterday, causes some procedural problems as to its acceptability. The Chair indicated to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that the motion seems to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, and to this end referred the hon. member to Citation 773(7) of Beau-chesne's fifth edition. The hon. member strenuously argued in favour of his motion. However, with all due respect to the hon. member, I must inform him that he has not convinced the Chair that the motion does not offend the financial initiative of the Crown, particularly when he said, and here I quote from the hon. member's own words as reported at page 18241 of Hansard for yesterday:
I now see I was mistaken, because there is a section that deals with payments.
I thought that was excluded.
Under the circumstances, I must rule that motion No. 5 is not acceptable.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be debated and voted on separately-
Motions Nos. 8 and 16 should be debated together and voted on separately.
Motion No. 9 should be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 will be debated together and voted on as follows: (a) Motion No. 10 by itself; (b) as Motion No. 11 is consequential on No. 12, a vote on No. 12 will also dispose of No. 11.
Motion No. 13 should be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 should be debated together and voted on separately.
June 9, 1982

The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the floor when the debate was interrupted on June 8 for the vote.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to add to those I made on the petroleum incentives program and the Canadian ownership rate or so-called COR program. I indicated yesterday my guess is that this program may last for two years and that then it will simply collapse.
It will collapse, first, because of the political pressures that will be brought to bear having to do with the grants. As the New Democratic Party members continually demonstrate, they cannot draw the distinction between the taxes and grants. They conclude somehow that therefore this grant program represents an extraordinary gift to the oil industry and that the pressures in that regard will be tremendous. That simple-minded approach, unfortunately, is going to be frequently heard in this House, resulting in sufficient pressure, I think, to weaken this program very substantially.
Second, the red tape associated with this program, the incredibly complex regulations and applications forms necessary to fulfil the goals of this program, are just so horrendous that the administrative cost and the difficulty of handling this program are also going to contribute to its demise.
There is also a third reason, Mr. Speaker. The third reason is that we were given testimony by the Canadian Bar Association that this program is in violation of the new charter of rights. It is in violation of the Constitution of Canada. The Canadian Bar Association gave two arguments why it is in violation. First, the recipients of the grant program, in order to receive the maximum, must be resident Canadians. As the Canadian Bar Association points out, there is no provision in the charter of rights to distinguish between Canadians on the ground of residency. That is the effect of this program-a Canadian is a Canadian. There is no way legally to distinguish between them, yet this bill tries to do so.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association points out that the program may be in violation of the charter of rights because of the freedom of association the charter guarantees. The grants provided under the PIP portion, based on the Canadian ownership rate portion, are given to corporations whose degree of Canadian ownership is at a sufficient level. In reality, a corporation is but a piece of paper; it exists for the benefit of its shareholders. What the act would do is say that if you, as a Canadian, associated yourself with shareholders who in aggregate represent more than 75 per cent of the shareholders of that corporation, then you are eligible for a grant. But if you associate with shareholders who in aggregate do not represent more than 75 per cent of the shareholders of the corporation, then you are not eligible. Therefore, this program discriminates in regard to the types of associations that Canadians are part of. The Canadian Bar Association has pointed out that this is in violation of the Canadian charter of rights.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
We are not going to spend a great deal of time debating this portion of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The government has brought in some 15 amendments to try to improve a piece of trash. The effort is probably wasted because the whole thing will collapse within a year or two. In the meantime, the country will have lost untold billions of dollars, tens of thousands of jobs and the credibility of the government will have suffered. That will be the sum total of this little exercise dreamed up by that group of bright PhDs who sat down, in total ignorance of the Canadian industry, to design this program. They have wasted billions of dollars of this country's money and have wreaked havoc on the industry. That is a sad situation. Any reasonable person would suggest we need changes to prevent that kind of uncontrolled, bureaucratic stupidity from damaging the country in this way in the future.
That having been said, we do not have any particular problems with the amendments proposed by the government. Motion No. 16, which appears at our insistence, provides for judicial review of arbitrary decisions, so we are in favour of that. The others are technical in nature and attempt to improve what is not a very good piece of legislation. I think the government has put a new coat of paint on an old jalopy that will come to a grinding halt within a year or two anyway.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on one of the amendments that we discussed at several stages in committee, the judicial review-


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but we should be dealing with each amendment as we go along, not all amendments at once. We are dealing with Amendment No. 1, so we cannot debate No. 16.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has some difficulty because the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) seemed to indicate that, from the viewpoint of his party, it might be possible to present several motions seriatim. I was not sure of his intention and I subsequently recognized the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). To that extent I can say the debate is on Motion No. 1 and no other.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in the House order which covers this matter. With respect to the amendments that were introduced through the negotiating process, it was agreed they could be brought forward in a block and discussed in a block, or in any fashion we chose to discuss them. The same privilege is extended to each party in the House. We are not following normal procedures; we are following a House order which contemplated a debate such as that which is taking place now.
We might not have much time to discuss all the amendments and that is why the order was made in this way, with the understanding that it would enable members who wished to address any particular amendment out of sequence to do so.

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding. If the hon. member could point that out in the House order, then I would go along with it. Unless he can, I think it would make sense to proceed as we did with the other bills. I do not know why we are changing the procedure now. If the hon. member can point out where the House order says that, I can go along with it; but if not. I insist that we be relevant.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was present at those negotiations and I have that particular advantage over the hon. member, who wants to change the whole intent of the House order. The idea was to use a block approach. The House order contains a clause which was inserted in the absence of the hon. member who is raising this point. It provides that all parties will co-operate and assist in achieving the intent of the House order. I do not have the wording before me but there is a special clause in the order and this is one of the occasions it was intended to meet.
The time allotted to the NDP as well as that allotted to this party within which these matters may be debated is rapidly expiring. That is precisely the reason for the clause being inserted in the House order.
If the suggestion of the hon. member is followed, it may well be that we would never get beyond the first amendment. The time would expire and that would be the end of it. We would have no opportunity to debate the other amendments. That was the reason for the clause in the House order. I suggest that the Chair follow the clause in the House order and allow the debate to continue.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it has been the practice since we commenced this entire debate on the various pieces of legislation that the vote on every amendment called be deferred to the end of report stage and then voted upon.
I think the Chair has been extremely "liberal" in allowing hon. members on both sides some leeway. If their debate is not completely and totally on the particular motion before the House, the Chair has been very co-operative in allowing members to continue with the debate. It has allowed members on both sides of the House to behave in that fashion. That is the understanding and the spirit in which I understand the agreement.
Therefore the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is correct; as I understand it, we are on motion No. 1. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has concluded his remarks, and he made reference to other amendments. I think it is in order for other members to comment on Motion No. 1, then the question will be called and we will go on to Motion No. 2.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I was at just about all the meetings and negotiations over the bell-ringing.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not rubbish. I was at most of the meetings except for the one weekend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and the meetings went on all week.


Erik Nielsen: All weekend.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the truth were known, the deal was hammered out on Friday but the hon. member wanted to carry it on. But that is not the point. While the hon. member was in the Yukon last week the debate was moving along quite smoothly; we were dealing with bill after bill. When the hon. member gets back we now have difficulties.
All I am asking is that the member deal with Motion No. 1 as we have been dealing with all our motions, properly. If you do not do that, the debate is all over the place. It seems to me that is reasonable and in accordance with House rules. Essentially this agreement was that we would have a block of time, and that is what we decided. There would be no time limits. That is why the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) went on for an hour and forty minutes on offshore. All I am asking is that we go through the bill amendment by amendment, and the agreement has not changed that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that is what we are doing. We are on Motion No. 1. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). His comments may not be totally and completely in line with all of Motion No. 1. The Chair has been extremely co-operative and very relaxed in allowing hon. members, if they so desire, to make a few comments on another aspect of the bill. I find nothing wrong with the procedure we have adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have in front of me the House order of March 22. I should think the paragraph to which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) refers and which, although he has not done so specifically, the parliamentary secretary is probably referring to as well, is paragraph (1), which says in part:
Each party shall be entitled to participate in the debates at report stage and third reading stage of the said bills .. . and each party may apportion this time as between the debates at report stage and third reading stage in such manner as it determines.
The Chair is well disposed towards the remarks of both the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Yukon. I think I contributed to the difficulty here. There is no question that the occupants of the chair during the past two weeks, or whatever the time has been, have accorded to hon. members the widest possible latitude. The House order does not precisely provide for that. The difficulty begins to arise when one hon. member, particularly one who was representing his party in this regard, raises the question of relevancy.
In the circumstances, perhaps the best way to proceed would be for the Chair to suggest that it will continue the latitude which has been the practice over the past several weeks, but should the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) find this is not satisfactory, I think he should take the opportunity to have further consultations with the other
June 9, 1982

parties and then, if necessary, involve the Chair in a ruling. The Chair has no instructions or information officially from the parties in the House on this matter. So I am going to rule, if I may call it that, in favour of the widest possible latitude; but 1 tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in light of the fact there is so little time left today, I am sure this matter can be fixed tomorrow if he still regards it as a problem.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad you clarified (he situation because you and I have had discussions previously about staying on the subject. It was going to be extremely difficult for me to stand up here and refer to the difference between "density" and "gravity" for any extended period of time. I have spoken a number of times on these bills at this point, and 1 have intentionally stayed on the motion; but on this one I am afraid I was stuck, and 1 did not know if we had any other speakers to stand up. However, now that you have given me the broad scope I will take advantage of it. When you give me an inch, I will take a mile!
I had the honour, Mr. Speaker, to sit on the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation for some six weeks. I believe our party represented the Canadian public extremely well in that period. We did not accomplish what we would have liked, which was basically to abolish the bills altogether, but we did accomplish small points, one of which had to do with Bill C-104 and the amendment concerning judicial review.
During our hearings on this bill we were told so often that we did not need any special clause in here because this was provided for under the Federal Court Act. Finally they relented and gave in to judicial review. The reason we were pushing for that is very simple. These bills give the minister the most unbelievable authority to do whatever he wants, when he wants, without any discussion in Parliament. The serious fear we had was that the House of Commons was losing importance. We were frightened and scared. We deal so often with dictatorial rule, and this bill was giving too much power to any minister. At one point we referred to the fact that perhaps we might get a worse minister than we have now, although I personally could not imagine a worse minister than the one we have right now. It was something we were and are frightened of. It gives total control to the minister, but thank heavens there was some common sense in the Ministry of Justice, through the gentleman that represented that department, which allowed us to get that phrase back in.
What we are talking about in the bill and its amendments, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt to replace tax incentives with PIP grants. The government also has in this bill what is called COR, which refers to the Canadian ownership rate. All 1 can say is that these PIP grants, based on COR, have effectively removed in excess of $8 billion of investment from Canada.
Gulf Canada appeared before the committee and I asked them whether they ever considered breaking their corporation down so they could have a 50 per cent or greater Canadian ownership. 1 asked the same thing of Texaco, only I phrased it a little differently. 1 said that perhaps they should go back and re-incorporate McCall Frontenac, which was one of the first
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
companies they bought, and provide Canadian ownership in that way. They explained to me very simply that it did not really matter how it was done, but it would not work in their situation because this government was determined to remove that multinational expertise in finding oil in this country.
In the second part of this bill is the heading "Canada lands". What are PIP grants doing? They are taking funds directly out of provincial coffers and putting them toward Canada lands. Canada lands can best be described as the Beaufort Sea and the offshore, which we now refer to as Sable Island and Hibernia. The minister has made a fatal mistake in this program. He has put so much emphasis on the fact that we will become oil self-sufficient through those two areas that the cash flow has been removed from the balance of the industry which would develop traditional oil fields. The megaprojects have also been killed. You might challenge me on that, Mr. Speaker, because this bill has removed the tax incentives and the cash flow and thus eliminated the megaprojects.
I asked the chairman of Imperial Oil why his company suspended the Cold Lake project. His answer was: "Because of the National Energy Program." The same question was asked of Gulf Canada and we were given the same answer. Texaco was asked why that company was not going into the Beaufort Sea and the North Sea. Texaco is concerned because it does not feel the investment is worth the return it would get. Representatives of Home Oil were asked questions. They said Home had only one option. Home is Canadian owned and receives 80 cents on every dollar of investment. But Home's representatives told us that even with 80 cents on every dollar, and even if Home finds immense pools of oil, in 1990 it will still cost $100 a barrel to bring the product onshore. In the minister's review 1 believe the maximum price is $72, but he has dropped that amount for 1990.
He zeroed in on one single potential that we have in this country, and I am referring to the frontier and the offshore. The megaprojects have been destroyed. We have destroyed drilling in the west on traditional lands. We have removed the incentive from the oil industry. Let me just give you an example. 1 have been challenged about this in committee, but I have the figures which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) says he uses. These are his figures. They are very simple. On May 25, 1982, there were 110 drilling rigs operating in the west. On May 26, 1981, there were 250 drilling rigs operating. That tells you what these PIP grants are doing, and PIP grants can still be obtained retroactively. One hundred and forty out of 250 drilling rigs have gone. Over 60 per cent of the operating drilling rigs in the west have left. This bill is not going to fly, it is going to destroy Canada.
In the committee hearings in April, I said that 70 drilling rigs were operating, but I was told at that time by one of the brilliant men in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that my figures were wrong and really there were

June 9, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
370 rigs operating. 1 got a copy of Oilweek and brought it to the committee hearings and showed the evidence that 70 drilling rigs were operating. The PIP grants themselves have done only one thing. They have removed the need for geologists in Canada and instead have created a tremendous need for accountants and lawyers.
I do not know if any hon. members in this House have reviewed the forms-I see one who has-which everyone has to sign to get these PIP grants. There are 27 forms involved. Let me explain what happens. Under this legislation, if there are 24 different corporations involved in one well, those 24 corporations have to file 27 returns. That to me is super bureaucracy. Think of the people we can employ reading forms and think of the people we can employ to fill in those forms!
IPAC represents the small oil companies in Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Association represents a group of larger Canadian companies and both associations appeared before our committee hearings. Representatives of those associations told us that the PIP grants will not solve our problem, but when an 11 per cent or 12 per cent PGRT is levied-and thank goodness the IORT has been removed-together with other taxes that have been imposed on the industry, there is no cash flow left. It is fine to get a PIP grant of 35 per cent in the west if you are 75 per cent Canadian owned, but if there is no cash flow the company cannot apply for this grant because the company cannot afford to borrow 65 per cent of the cost of drilling a well at 18 per cent from the bank.
This bill is an abomination. 1 think there are certain points in it that are prejudicial to Canadian citizens. I am referring to pension funds that have been invested in such companies as Imperial Oil, Gulf and Texaco. Those pension funds have
invested people's money and because those companies are American controlled there is no PIP grant available for a traditional oil field, or 25 per cent if it is frontier or off the coast. Of that 25 per cent though, 25 per cent has to be given back to Petro-Canada. People with money in pension funds are suffering because of this bill.
Another group of people who are suffering are those who have retired and those who have moved south. Perhaps they have moved to Arizona for health reasons. Those people are hurt because they do not get any credit.
Once the government brought in this energy bill, it destroyed the market to such an extent that people could not reinvest their money because prices dropped so quickly. Dome is a prime example of that. In the United States today Dome's shares fell below $5, which caused a raft of margin calls. It is a serious situation when a company like that is driven down that far. But Dome helped itself by trying to help the Liberal government to Canadianize the industry. Dome is a fine company and I hope the government will help it out, but I hope the government is not going to help Dome the way I have been hearing it will. The government will probably lend Dome $1 billion and take a piece of the action. That proves to me what Canadianization of the oil industry is. It is nationalization and it is removing the private sector.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 10, 1982