1982-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the headlong rush to Canadianize the oil industry and indeed somehow every other industry in the country has resulted in a massive outflow of Canadian capital to the United States and elsewhere. This capital outflow has caused massive foreign borrowing at rates running as high as 2.5 per cent and today 5 per cent above American rates. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House directs that while the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is studying the profits and interest concerns of banks, the reference be extended to include an examination of how the National Energy Program, the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the bills now before the House that militate against foreign investment have contributed to the excessively high interest rates in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has again been publicly blaming the rise in western separatist sentiment on unspecified western politicians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid):
That, bearing in mind that there are none so blind as those who will not see, the Liberal government re-examine its centralist policies especially as they relate to energy, budgetary measures and the pursuit of socialist doctrines, to find out the real root cause of western alienation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On Saturday in Vancouver, and in Calgary on Monday, the United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Paul Robinson, in public addresses called on the Canadian government to buy warships, send another brigade of Canadian troops to Europe, purchase missiles for the F-18 fighter aircraft, and increase this country's defence budget beyond the 18 per cent per year planned for the next two years. This is unsolicited advice on the spending of taxpayers' money and a clear interference in Canadian affairs and policy making by the representative of the United States government. In light of the government's investigation of Sir John Ford's mild comments last year on the Constitution, comments that were not even made in public,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House condemns the direct interference in Canadian affairs by the U.S. Ambassador and calls on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ask the ambassador for an explanation of his behaviour and public remarks in Vancouver and Calgary, and that he protest to Washington this interference in Canadian affairs by its envoy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the potato producers of Ontario and in my riding of Grey-Simcoe are undergoing very difficult financial times, mainly because they have had their product undercut below cost by almost 50 per cent due to the dumping of

April 22, 1982
5.0.	43
potatoes in Ontario by the maritime potato producing provinces, mainly Prince Edward Island, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That Agriculture Canada take all necessary steps to establish a national potato marketing board to assure potato producers across Canada of a just and adequate return on their investment and at the same time guarantee consumers a continuing supply at a fair and just cost.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that most banks and financial institutions impose substantive penalties for the early retirement or prepayment of mortgages and short-term loans, and in light of the fact that this constitutes usury of the highest sort in today's financial climate, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki):
That the Minister of Finance immediately undertake such legislative or regulatory action as may be necessary to remove or restrain substantively the imposition of penalties for the retirement or prepayment of home mortgages and short-term loans by banks and financial institutions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


KENT ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Kent commission recommendations on newspapers are long overdue, and while the government drags its heels while more and more papers fall into fewer and fewer corporate hands; whereas Commissioner Kent indicated a need to limit the concentration of newspaper ownership but his proposals have so far fallen on deaf ears; whereas the public was invited to the original hearings but newspaper publishers, the group with a vested
interest in seeing the Kent commission sabotaged, have met with government officials on several occasions to discuss the recommendations; I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the minister of multiculturalism allow more public input into the Kent commission process, and that the government stop dragging its heels and get the Kent commission proposals before the public as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, whereas on Monday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in Vancouver, and on Tuesday separatists held a meeting in the Lower Mainland attended by at least 1,500 people, the largest crowd attracted by the WCC to date, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the Prime Minister stay away from British Columbia as his every visit adds high priced Liberal gasoline to an already hot separatist fire.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, it has been reported that it could cost the government $100 million a year to subsidize the domestic price of barley in eastern Canada under the corn competitive pricing formula. Recognizing that this subsidy is totally unnecessary since other programs already exist to move subsidized feed grains into this region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately abolish the corn competitive formula pricing arrangement and allow feed grains sold in Canada to be priced at the going export rate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 22, 1982


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I am sure the Minister of Transport would want to support. In view of the fact that in April, 1977, the B.C. Subsidy agreement for replacement ferry service was signed between Ottawa and British Columbia, and in view of the fact some $45 million has been given to British Columbia in these past five years under the agreement, and since the member of the provincial legislature for Prince Rupert, Mr. Graham Lea, was refused the right to an emergency debate on the continuation of the agreement by the Socreds earlier today in Victoria, despite rumours that these funds are to be diverted to Pier B.C. and B.C. Place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That this House call on the Minister of Transport to intervene in this matter and renegotiate the agreement, providing all particulars to the transport committee, and ensure that these funds are spent on northern B.C. routes as they were originally intended, keeping in mind, of course, that B.C. received only $11 million last year, while the east coast received $128 million.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Madam Speaker, 1 would like to remind my hon. colleague who referred to the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in connection with the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the committee was not sitting yesterday and therefore the member for Burnaby could not possibly have presented a motion.']
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre and I have questions for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who, I understand, is on his way to the chamber. Perhaps you might recognize us later in question period.



Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General who is just taking his seat. Since we must assume the Solicitor General is aware of the recommendation in the McDonald commission report, even those which have so far not been published, and can also assume that the Solicitor General is aware that one of those recommendations which is still not published which states that those who were involved in Operation Ham should
Oral Questions
have available to them all material that would help them in the preparation of their defence, and bearing in mind that one of the officers is now on trial, is the Solicitor General planning to release this material?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, one of the hon. members opposite recently issued a press release in which he commented on McDonald's reference to this background material which should be made available. I checked that and discovered on reading it-and the hon. member should have been able to discover it himself as well-that the reference was to material which was not public at the time that the third McDonald commission report was prepared, and which is now public. In other words, the material which the McDonald commission recommended be made public was in fact made public, is public, and is available for the use of the accused in that trial now going on in the province of Quebec.


EXTENT OF RELEASE
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, is the Solicitor General suggesting to me that all the material connected with the McDonald commission has been released, or is there a great deal of it being withheld because it would place some of his colleagues, past and present, in great difficulty-perhaps with the law-but certainly with Parliament for having evaded responsibilities which are manifestly theirs?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the McDonald commission report was edited-


Donald W. Munro: Edited?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and it was edited with the concurrence of the commissioners to delete matters which dealt with national security and international relations. But the reference which the McDonald commission itself made for giving material to members of the force, was to this background material, and what the McDonald commission was referring to was Part V, Chapter 3, of the second report. Part V, Chapter 3 of the second report has been made public. The recommendation which the McDonald commission made for giving access to material to accused members of the force has been fully implemented.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I gave the minister notice over the noon hour of my intention to ask this question. I hope he got the letter. It was very short notice, but I know the minister is aware of the issue. What is

April 22, 1982
Oral Questions
the present status of the Canada-Nova Scotia agricultural development agreement which has been in limbo now for almost a year and a half? The minister's own officials advised Nova Scotia agricultural officials that the agreement had to be processed by many federal officials before it came to the minister to be presented to the cabinet. Can the minister tell us where it is at the present time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it has received, as the hon. member stated, very serious consideration. One of the big problems, of which I am sure the hon. member is aware, is the priority the province of Nova Scotia gives to agriculture. It was number three on its ratings list for the cost-shared programs of the federal government and the province. I think part of that problem has been rectified. We hope to present something to the province of Nova Scotia in the not too distant future. There are still discussions going on and we hope it is going to be the kind of program which the province wants.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister in part for a part answer.


STEPS IN PROCESSING AGREEMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I am really trying to find out what priority the Government of Canada has in agriculture for Nova Scotia. The province has done its work. As I understand it, the minister's own officials said that the matter has to go through senior management of Agriculture Canada, then to deputies of the Department of Agriculture, and then be presented to the economic and regional development committee. We appreciate that with the re-organization of cabinet this has caused delay. Specifically, can the minister tell us whether the matter has gone through those different levels of senior management of agriculture and/or cleared the deputy ministers, and has the minister finally presented it to the responsible committee for approval?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is partly right again. First, the matter goes through the minister's office for approval. 1 approved the program for discussion some time ago. That is where it is at at the present time. I hope it will be in its final discussion stages in the not too distant future so we can present it. I realize it is an important program but, as I said earlier, if the province of Nova Scotia had given it top priority, as we give agriculture top priority in Canada, it would have been approved. For instance, the one for New Brunswick is ready for approval right now because that province gave it top priority.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He will know that the recent report of the Conference Board of Canada indicated that, as a result of the high interest rate policy of the federal government, rates of unemployment will continue to increase, consumer spending will decrease, and business investment will continue to decrease in Canada for the rest of 1982, well into 1983, and perhaps beyond that. Is the government's high interest rate policy intended eventually to reduce the rate of inflation in the country?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that the views expressed by the Conference Board are a little more complex than the simplified version he had to give because of the nature of the question period. Furthermore, the government is not pursuing a high interest rate policy; the hon. member should understand that interest rates in Canada are high because of very strong inflationary pressures. In addition, as a result of the dependence of our economy on the economies of our trading partners, high interest rates prevailing elsewhere affect our economy as well. If the hon. member supports the government's anti-inflationary policy and inflationary pressures continue to decline, he will find the Conference Board agreeing that interest rates will go down. Another conclusion is that this year will be seen as a period of transition to 1983, when an upswing in investment is expected, with more jobs and thus a drop in the unemployment rate.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE EFFECT OF INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on a number of occasions the Minister of Finance has indicated that the present monetary policy pursued by the government is intended to be a major step in the fight against inflation. If inflation is defined as when there are too many dollars chasing too few products, or when spending increases more rapidly than production, would the minister agree that while Canada and other nations have been attempting to reduce inflation by reducing spending, another approach to combating inflation would be to increase significantly the amount of production in the country?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in his first question the hon. member referred specifically to the Conference Board, and I am going to refer him to the Conference Board. There he will find the
April 22, 1982

answer to his question, since the Board is advising the government to maintain its policy of restraint as expressed in the fiscal plan set forth in the budget, and it is by maintaining the restrictions in the government's fiscal plan that the fight against inflation can be made yet more effective so that it will remove uncertainty among investors, thus increasing investment and creating jobs and consequently bringing about a drop in both the unemployment rate and our interest rates.


IMPACT OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, despite the minister's response and his continual reference to the Conference Board of Canada, while other countries are pursuing a monetary policy in their efforts to reduce inflation a country such as Canada has another alternative, and that is to increase production in the country. Why is the government not taking immediate steps to reduce the idle capacity in our economy which currently stands at 25 per cent, and refusing to require corporations like Toyota and Honda to source and assemble automobiles which they sell in the country, right here in Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as far as the question about negotiations with other countries on automobile manufacturing is concerned, the minister responsible for International Trade is always available to answer this type of question. Regarding the general economic situation and our production capacity, I have already made it clear to the hon. member that as long as we have a climate of uncertainty which is, in fact, caused by high interest rates, investment will drop and consumer spending and consumer demand will drop as well, so that idle production capacity is due to this climate of uncertainty. If we really want consumer demand to pick up, we must get rid of the uncertainty caused by high inflation rates.


DISASTERS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe-North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will know that my colleagues from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have continually questioned the government with respect to the Ocean Ranger tragedy. Last evening, nine weeks from the date of the tragedy, Canadians watched a television news report from the United States covering the U.S. Coast Guard hearings in Boston. This House welcomes
Oral Questions
their concern, but I suggest to the minister that Canadians find it offensive that Americans have acted promptly to determine why so many Canadians lost their lives when the Canadian inquiry will not even start until October. Does the minister not find that delay to be unconscionable and offensive?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada have set up a joint royal commission to investigate this tragedy. This has been agreed to by both governments and supported by all parties in this House. The royal commission is chaired by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, accompanied by five prominent Newfoundlanders. At the present time the commission is at work gathering information and conducting studies. As a matter of fact one member of the commission is present at the hearings in Boston. I would suggest to my hon. friend that it is not appropriate to ask me to reflect upon the members of such a prominent commission.


CANADA-UNITED STATES CO-OPERATION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, while Canadians are obtaining offices and hiring staff, the Americans have been able to get their inquiry under way. Was there ever any attempt to hold a joint inquiry with the U.S. Coast Guard so this matter could be acted upon immediately, since there will be lives at risk at sea next winter and the commission will not even be off the ground?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first, it has been determined that there will be full co-operation between the Canadian and the United States governments in this regard. Any information that we have is accessible to our American friends, and vice versa. As far as the internal investigation by the American Coastguard is concerned, it is being followed very closely and, obviously, when it comes up with recommendations they will be public and it will be up to the government to make sure that those recommendations which we find acceptable are put into effect without having to wait for the report from the royal commission. But again, our royal commission is one with a broad mandate and it wants to carry out a very full investigation, not only of the Ocean Ranger tragedy but also of practices aboard drilling rigs and platforms offshore. I think we should give that commission the necessary time to do its work.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-PETITION FOR BETTER SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. The minister will know that the joint inquiry will not get under way until October. According to press reports it may be three to four years before it reports. The minister will also know that yesterday in the House, a petition bearing 72,000 names was presented asking for

April 22, 1982
Oral Questions
increased search and rescue capabilities in Newfoundland, specifically two search and rescue vessels to serve the offshore and fixed wing aircraft support for rescue helicopters. Is the minister, on behalf of the government, prepared to act now before more lives are lost?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of Defence):: Madam Speaker, I read the petition tabled by the hon. member yesterday very carefully, I note that it was signed by some 72,00 Newfoundlanders who want to see improvements to search and rescue capabilities in Newfoundland. I can assure you that we have examined its intent already. My department is currently re-evaluating all the dispersement of our search and rescue capabilities on the east coast with the view to determining how we may improve the search and rescue capability in Newfoundland, without unduly depriving other areas of Canada due to the displacement of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft stationed there. I assure the hon. member that we are looking into it as we have much concern for their petition and we do want to see this matter resolved,


REQUEST THAT FIXED WING AIRCRAFT BE STATIONED IN EASTERN NEWFOUNDLAND
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, would the minister now give the House an assurance that the necessary navigational equipment, specifically radar equipment, is being placed on the three rescue helicopters in Newfoundland? They do not have that equipment at the present time. Will he also give the House an assurance that fixed wing aircraft will be stationed in eastern Newfoundland at all times in order to maximize the effectiveness of the helicopters and provide some element of protection for offshore workers and fishermen?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I cannot assure the hon. member that there will be fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland. I think we must first consider the evaluation done by my department of the entire SAR program to ensure that we do not deprive on area, and further that we do not cause shortfalls in other areas on the east coast. However, as far as equipment is concerned, I have mentioned it to the hon. member, in fact I wrote to him about it, and I believe there was what we call a late show on the subject, as well, when we gave him some additional details with respect to this matter. All of our helicopters are being updated with our SARCUP program. At the moment we are spending over $26 million. As far as the long-range radar improvement to instrumentation is concerned, this will be carried out. I will do what is possible to see that Newfoundland is equipped with one of these new helicopters, at least by the end of this summer.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I am now advised that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will not be in the House today, and I therefore direct my question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. During the period in which last November's budget was being prepared I am sure it was evident to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the Canadian automobile industry was heading into its third consecutive year of reduced sales, because there had already been many thousands of automobile workers laid off even prior to that November budget.
Can the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism advise us whether the Minister of Finance was aware that the budget's provisions, which would adversely affect an already severely depressed industry, could not be borne by that industry without adding many more thousands of automobile workers to the jobless list?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I think it is too easy to set up a cause-and-effect relationship between the budget and reduced sales of cars produced in Canada. I think the problem is a much broader one, namely, the state of the Canadian economy, and that because of high inflation and the general economic slowdown, Canadian consumers are buying fewer cars than they did in the past. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think it is a bit simplistic to establish a causal relationship between the budget and the problems of the automobile industry.


ESTIMATED LOSS OF SALES
William Herbert Jarvis: Maybe I could help the minister with that causal relationship, because the government took an already depressed industry and clobbered it with the capital cost allowance provisions in the budget.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism will be well aware of the thousands of lost sales and thousands of lost jobs, because the head of one car rental firm alone said that with respect to his industry 50,000 new vehicles would not be purchased because of the budget provisions, and that is just the car rental industry. Added to that, of course, are the fleet purchases and the individual purchasers of cars who take advantage of capital cost allowance. Now, instead of buying new cars, those lessees under contract are extending existing leases on old vehicles.
Having regard to the capacity of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to monitor the automobile industry, can the minister give us his estimate of the loss of new car and truck sales which is directly attributable to last November's budget provisions?
April 22, 1982


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I do not have that information.


CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary question. Yesterday, as the minister will be aware, the Minister of Finance made his fifth retreating announcement, that is, an announcement resulting in the thirty-second or thirty-third individual change to the budget. Having regard to the estimated 30,000 automobile workers directly employed by that industry who are now on permanent or temporary lay-off, and having regard to the additional 20,000 to 25,000 who are now jobless and who had been employed by dealerships across the country, I wonder if the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is in a position to advise us whether the capital cost allowance provisions of the budget are on the priority list for future budget changes. If they are not, I wonder if he could explain why they are not.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, it is not up to me to tell the House whether there will be budget changes and what those changes will be.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those of my colleague, the hon. member for Perth, directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. The Canadian Construction Association has advised the government that the budget proposals relating to capital cost allowances have a particularly negative impact on the construction industry in comparison to most other industries. Since the industry is desperately suffering from the high interest rate policy of the government, and currently has some 153,000 people out of work, would the minister state whether he is concerned with this problem and, if so, whether he is likely to propose yet another budget change to the Minister of Finance?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I just said that it was not up to me to provide information on possible budget changes, since that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions
In his question, the hon. member implied that the capital cost allowance no longer exists. I would like to point out that in his November budget, the Minister of Finance actually extended the application of this allowance.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister obviously does not understand the problem because there is a very serious problem relating to this industry, particularly as a result of the budget. That was the answer I was expecting from the minister.
My supplementary question also concerns the construction industry. This industry will be bearing an additional tax load because of the changes in the sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level. These sales taxes on the construction industry will not change, but will remain at 5 per cent, whereas other industries will see a reduction of one percentage point. Why is the government deliberately attacking this particular industry through the capital cost allowance changes and the sales tax changes, particularly when there are so many people in that industry who are out of work?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I do not really understand the hon. member's question, and I do not see why, in referring to the transfer of sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level, the hon. member does not want Canadian goods to be treated the same as imported goods.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: The minister does not understand!


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my questions are addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There have been rumours floating around northern Ontario that the minister is about to enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario for a temporary measure to alleviate unemployment being suffered by miners in northern Ontario. I want to ask the minister three questions, and the first is whether or not it is his intention to agree to extend the fisheries and forestries agreement, signed with the province of Ontario, to include unemployed miners? Has he been in negotiations with his opposite number in the province of Ontario, the minister of natural resources? If those negotiations have in fact been going on, how quickly will any recommendations be implemented?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the hon.

April 22, 1982
Oral Questions
member for Kenora-Rainy River that the Minister of State for Mines and I have been holding discussions with officials of the government of Ontario concerning the extension of Section 38 provisions, relating to job creation, to the mining industry. We have reached a basic agreement that that industry could be covered under Section 38 funds. We are now developing specific projects and proposals which will be reviewed by provincial officials, officials from my ministry and from the mining industry. They will be announced in due course. We have received several very good applications which I think will be able to provide some relief in the unemployment situation to the mining industry. We will keep Members of Parliament informed as those individual projects are confirmed.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST THAT SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS BE PLACED IN CANADA
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Petro-Canada television ads are urging Canadians to use PetroCan products because "It's Ours".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Yet, here we are, with over 1,200,000 unemployed, while PetroCan continues to place orders offshore in foreign yards in amounts in excess of $200 million for drill rig construction.


Walter David Baker: Now clap.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Press releases indicate that Husky Oil, a subsidiary of Nova, will be having three, perhaps four, offshore supply vessels built in Korea. Since we have in Canada both the capacity for ship and floating equipment construction, and the manpower to do the job, why are these jobs not done at home? Why do we let contracts slip out of our hands and place orders ourselves outside Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Petro-Canada has been very active in expanding the possibilities for Canadian industry to provide supplies for the oil and gas industry. For example, two service ships have been ordered from Marystown, Newfoundland, recently. An order was placed with Marine Industries in Sorel quite recently by Petro-Canada. There has also been an expansion at the Petro-Canada refinery in Montreal worth about $150 million. There are certainly many things that Petro-Canada is doing to encourage Canadian suppliers. At the same time, obviously, Canadian suppliers have to be competitive. Whenever orders can be placed with Canadian suppliers who are competitive and can meet delivery time, I am sure Petro-Canada will encourage Canadian manufacturers first.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, we well know that with the size of PetroCan, it is having some work done at home.


QUERY RESPECTING SUBSIDIES
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The marine industry estimates that $33 billion worth of work is to be done in floating equipment and ship vessel construction within the next ten years. What steps will the government or the minister's department take to ensure that Canadians get those jobs, not a PetroCan share but a fair share of that $33 billion? Will it go so far as to cut off subsidies for ship construction offshore?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I could almost say ditto to what he said. We, the ministers responsible for Crown corporations, are good Canadians. We do our job well. When we see a Crown company procuring material abroad, we intervene to find out if maximum efforts have been made to procure in Canada. It is only when we are convinced on matters of technology, delivery dates or things of that kind, are we satisfied that Canadians are not awarded contracts. That is the only way we can do it. There are other preoccupations, for example, building a port facility or a refinery on time. These must also be taken into account in the decision-making process.


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for International Trade. Just two days ago the United States International Trade Commission filed its report on "Condition Relating To The Importation of Canadian Softwood Lumber Into The United States" with the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, a topic of serious concern to our number one export industry. The report does not accuse Canada of subsidizing our lumber exports and is, in the view of most objective reviewers, both factually correct and fair.
My concern arises from the fact that a ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance used his privileged access to this important report to issue a widely publicized statement which is, even according to American sources, a misrepresentation of the report's tone and content and is thus unfairly to Canada's interest. Will the minister comment on the report and advise this House what action he and his colleagues are taking to correct the misrepresentation being spread in the United States, and thereby protect Canada's legitimate interest?
April 22, 1982


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, on April 19 the United States International Trade Commission made its report to the Senate Finance Committee. They have not commented on that report up to this time. They are now analysing it and possibly will comment in a couple of days.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, Senator Packwood, the senator I referred to, due to his privileged access to that report, even before parties which made major submissions to those hearings had a chance to get a copy, made statements totally at variance with the facts exemplified in the report, i urge the minister to get together with his colleagues, consult both industry and labour, and make some representations to the United States because Senator Packwood said he feels that, based on the study, the timber industry could petition the ITC and Department of Commerce for possible imposition of trade duties on Canadian lumber products sold in the United States.
I talked today with the IWA in Portland. They take a completely opposite view. So do the industry people to whom I have talked. Will the minister consult his colleagues and the industry and make immediate representations in an attempt to correct the mistaken impression now being so widely spread throughout the United States?


Edward C. Lumley: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, we have been following these discussions very closely, in Ottawa, Washington, and on the west coast of the United States. The situation is well in hand as far as we are concerned. Because one senator has allegedly made a specific comment, I do not think that will have the dramatic effect the hon. member thinks it will have on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee or on the United States Special Trade Representative who is ultimately responsible to Congress and the administration for actions in this regard.


PIPELINES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister knows that the Alaska gas pipeline project was to have been completed at the end of this year. He also knows it is not even started yet. There is some very disturbing news coming out of Alaska. For example, Senator Frank Murkowski now thinks that the project will be indefinitely delayed. My question to the minister is quite simple. When will this project start? When will construction of the Yukon section of the gas pipeline begin?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as soon as private enterprise in the United States has reached a satisfactory agreement with financial institutions. As my hon. colleague knows, the government of Canada has taken all the necessary steps to meet its commitments. The government of the United States has also taken steps to remove all legal and administrative obstacles to the project, and at the present time, everything depends on the promoters and financiers who are to put together a financing framework that will be acceptable to all parties, not only to distributors but also to the natural gas producers in Alaska.


PROVISION OF JOBS IN CANADA
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, the minister advised us earlier that there are about 220,000 man-years of desperately needed work in connection with this project, work that would go to Canadians from coast to coast, work in construction and manufacturing in the steel industry. I asked this question not too long ago. I ask it again. What has happened to those iron-clad guarantees that this work would be made available to Canadians? Are we to take it from his earlier answer that the Government of Canada is leaving it completely in the hands of American financiers and not doing anything to get this project to proceed?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in my previous reply to the hon. member I already indicated that the Canadian government had taken every action it could be expected to take, and that furthermore, the government had made a number of representations to the American administration and Congress. As a result of Canadian pressure, Congress and the administration have taken all the necessary steps to provide for the realization of this project by the private sector in the United States. At present, the last stage is in the hands of the private sector.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who will recall that only a short while ago the House was startled to learn of a $125 million write-off that the government had to take with respect to Consolidated Computers Corporation. Would he indicate to what extent he has investigated this loss and when he will be tabling any report that may be available setting out what exactly went wrong in this debacle?

April 22, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, anything the hon. member from York-Peel might say on this subject would be appreciated- since he had the problem on his desk during the whole time that he was president of the Treasury Board under a previous administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It is there still, for two years now.


Donald James Johnston: Appropriate action is being taken, Madam Speaker.


GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE TO CANADAIR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, this supplementary question is again to the President of the Treasury Board who must feel that our brief seven months in power are more significant than his two years in that office. Let me ask the President of the Treasury Board a further question, concerning Canadair, which as he knows has now been guaranteed, through this House, to the tune of $1,350 million. Can he assure the House that Canadair is viable, that a profit will be made, that the guarantee will not be called upon and, in any event, will he indicate whether he has checked with the Comptroller General of Canada who, only in August of 1980 indicated in a statement filed with the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates of this House that if Canadair was wound up at that time it could cost the government up to $400 million? Is that still the figure, or may we assume that it is much higher, now that we have increased the guarantee to $1,350 million?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe that hon. members opposite have had ample opportunities to question the minister responsible, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on all matters relating to Canadair, and I suggest that the hon. member reserve his question for that minister in the committee.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who is also responsible for reporting to this House on the Mirabel Airport peripheral lands. Yesterday he made a statement that he would have an answer in the first week of May on what is going to happen with that land. At the same time he denied that that land would be available to the farmers of the region.
I would like the minister to explain to the House what the government's position is with regard to that land and with regard to the farmers who are still on that land?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, questions in this House should be directed to the minister responsible for a certain area. In the case of the peripheral lands at Mirabel, the minister responsible is the Minister of Public Works, to whom the Societe immobiliere du Canada, which administers those peripheral lands at Mirabel Airport, reports. Obviously the question should be directed to that minister, and the hon. member knows that pretty well. He is simply indulging in some cheap political exploitation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would say that the cheap exploitation is of the farmers in that region. If you want the Minister of Public Works to answer the question, that is fine and dandy.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Would the hon. Minister of Public Works tell us what he is going to do for those farmers?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I was not in the House yesterday, so I did not hear that question. I assume that the hon. member is referring to an incident that took place recently concerning some farmers who had been renting lands from the company established by the Government of Canada. That is an issue that really stems from a legal relationship, a civil relationship between the residents in the area and an agency of the government. I assume that that matter is before the court and I would think that that is an appropriate forum for it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity of answering questions for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and also since the relevant civil service body comes under his particular jurisdiction in connection with this question.
About two weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a speech in Winnipeg in which he said that Canada is prepared to use food as a major foreign policy tool in its relations with other countries. Specifically, he went on to say that Canada would use grain embargos against countries threatening world peace. If this is the general policy of the government at this particular time, as enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board indicate whether his group, the grains group within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or any other group, is giving any thought to putting a mechanism in place whereby the farmer will not be adversely affected if in fact the government moves in the direction of a grain embargo?
April 22, 1982


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am too old and too experienced to try to answer this question without verifying first what it is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said and what it is that the minister of state responsible for the Wheat Board said. It seems to me rather to confuse the situation by accepting the interpretation given by the member for Lisgar, because 1 have no indication, and I do not think there is an indication, that the government has been practising politics with the sale of grain in the post or in recent times.


CONTINGENCY PLANNING
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is not that the Canadian government has been practising politics in terms of grain sales. It is that if we find ourselves either forced to or willing to go along with a grain embargo imposed by some other countries, obviously the group of people most adversely affected are the producers. Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that Canada would be prepared to use food as a political tool to go along with other countries, if in fact we should be requested to do so, is the government giving any consideration to putting in place a mechanism whereby the farmer himself would not be caught with falling world grain prices as happened some years ago?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when it did happen, and I am talking about an embargo in the case of the Soviet Union, for example, the federal government was led at the time by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and took the responsibility to compensate the farmers for what they had done for an overriding state objective of international policy. That promise, made by the then government, was honored by the government that came after it. However, may I take notice of the question and have a friendly discussion with the two other ministers mentioned and see if I can come up with a reasonable answer that will be satisfactory to the hon. member for Lisgar.
 * *


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What is the status of the government's plans to dump radioactive soil at Base Borden?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if 1 remember correctly, an injunction was requested by a number of citizens and subsequently granted by the court. The government has taken no further action and we are respecting the injunction.
Business of the House


FUTURE OF PROPOSAL
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, counsel for the Atomic Energy Control Board has indicated that he does not intend to contest the injuction. Is the minister saying that this decision was not made with his knowledge and consent, and is he saying to the House that the proposal to move the radioactive soil to Base Borden is still alive?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, counsel for the Atomic Energy Control Board has indicated that the government does not intend to contest this injunction, and that is the government's position as I said before.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader what the order of business will be for the remainder of this week and as far as he can take us into next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the business for this week and next week will be Bills C-103, C-108 and C-93.

Consequently, next week we shall continue the debate on the energy bills. There are two bills left, and we should be able to refer these to committee by the end of next week, at the latest. If debate is completed earlier, we shall resume the debate on second reading of Bill C-93, a measure to give the government authority to borrow funds.


Erik Nielsen: Can the government House leader give us any indication when the next allotted day will be designated by the government?

April 22, 1982
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, because of the House order dealing with the study at the second reading stage of the energy bills and the aspect of the time block involved, it is difficult, as the hon. member will understand, for me to state today that there will be or there will not be an allotted day next week; but I can assure my hon. colleague that if the government plans to have an allotted day next week, I will raise the matter with the hon. member first and give him sufficient notice.


Erik Nielsen: I have one last question, Madam Speaker. We are prepared to give unanimous consent today to a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the matter which has been raised often by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre; that is, the matter of street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, including Section 195.1 and Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Is the government prepared to bring forward that reference today? We are prepared to consent to its passage immediately without debate.
The second reference I understand the government might be prepared to move is one which would extend the life of the subcommittee on Latin American affairs. We are prepared to give our unanimous consent without debate to the extension of the life of that subcommittee as well.


Pauline Jewett: Well, high time.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the first point raised by the hon. member for Yukon, we were ready to propose the reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. However, I had consultations and it seems it is too early for my colleague in the New Democratic Party to give his consent today, so we might have to come back later with this.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Yvon Pinard: I am told that a member of the NDP is not ready to give his consent at this stage.
In so far as the second question is concerned, I welcome the offer made by the opposition. I understand that the hon. member for Labelle will move the appropriate motion later on today, with a few corrections that will make it very clear that the committee will not be able to travel when the House is sitting.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I think there was another alteration to the reference of the subcommittee on latin American affairs, and that is that that committee would be reporting in a final way to the House on the completion of its extended mandate. Would I be correct in that assumption?


Yvon Pinard: I recall having read the long order of reference. My colleague is right in saying that there was an agreement to delete two words, and I think the deletion of those two words would have the effect the hon. member just mentioned.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, on the second last question raised by the Conservative House leader, I, as the acting House leader for the New Democratic Party, just saw the
reference a few minutes ago. Our House leader is not in the House. Our critic is not in the House. We cannot, of course, give unanimous consent without the necessary foreknowledge. I asked the assistant to the government House leader two days ago if there was business to be brought forward, and I was told there was nothing, so I assumed there was nothing.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member if he was not consulted. The consultations did not involve myself but the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary, and it was reported to me that the justice critic for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Burnaby, telephoned and wanted us to know he does not feel he has had sufficient time to consider this matter. He wants further consultation. That is why I said what I said.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby did call, after we received this notice just a few minutes ago. He did not have it in front of him and did not have a chance to check with anyone. That is not the way House business should be done. We believe there should be a committee on this matter and we have said so in the past; but we believe that with respect to any House business all parties should have equal notice and a chance to study matters.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can confirm for the House that both opposition parties were given notice at the same time, but I can understand that my hon. colleague may need a delay. I do not quarrel with that at all. If need be, we will come back with the same proposal tomorrow. This will probably allow the time required by the New Democratic Party justice critic.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I simply want to concur in the remarks made by the government House leader. I was indeed consulted by the Minister of Justice during the question period orally, and upon his oral request I gave that consent immediately. It was not until some time later that I received a written copy of the intended reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Since the matter has been one of concentrated attention in the House, since all opposition parties have been eager to get the matter referred to the standing committee and since the motion is very plain in its terms, I appeal to members of the New Democratic Party to give consent to that motion's being put now so that reference could be made to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I would just like the record to be clear as to what has gone on in the House here today. Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the hon. member for Burnaby moved that a subcommittee be struck to look into this precise matter. The Minister of Justice came over and sat down beside me briefly during question period and asked whether we would give unanimous consent. I called our justice critic, who had been given no notice of these terms of reference. The jiggery-pokery of the
April 22, 1982

hon. member for Yukon is interesting. He says the New Democratic Party is holding this up.


Madam Speaker:: Order. This period is for an exchange of information on government business, not to engage in debate.


Mr. Dubois:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to remind my hon. colleague who referred to the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in connection with the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the committee was not sitting yesterday and therefore the member for Burnaby could not possibly have presented a motion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 184 concerned citizens of Quesnel, British Columbia. The purpose of this petition is to protest the government's present fiscal policy and its November 1981 budget proposals. The nature of the petition is to urge the government to move boldly into new economic and budgetary plans which would reduce unemployment and bring us out of our deepening recession.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of this petition you will find it in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of the Speaker to allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible time in order that the flaws in the November budget and the government's economic program may be corrected.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from about 560 residents of the city of Toronto calling upon Parliament to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to refuse to allow the testing of Cruise missiles on Canadian soil.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-653, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Ferguson: The purpose of this bill is to update, amend and expand the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. In view of the fact that many farmers in Canada are caught in a cash flow squeeze, particularly those who are not able to recoup their production costs from the marketplace, and in view of the fact that many of these farmers are in danger of losing their farms, this bill will provide a mechanism whereby those farmers may not be forced off their land without due recourse. While many provinces have subsidies on interest rates and offer other programs, these are sadly lacking in Ontario in particular and this bill is urgently required.


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

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I move that the tenth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, presented to the House on Thursday, April 8, 1982, be concurred in.
All parties have discussed the issues raised in this report and 1 understand that it would be the disposition of the House to concur in it should it be amended by adding on the second page, after the words "August 1982", the words "provided that the House is not sitting"; and, two lines further down on page 2, to eliminate after the words "prepare a" the words "further Interim".


Madam Speaker:: This can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House consent to the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that the report be concurred in as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,498, 3,499, 3,731, 3,968, 4,049 and 4,155.

April 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has anyone in the Department of the Solicitor General or in the RCMP been approached, directly or indirectly, in any way for recommendations or suggestions for a person to be appointed Assistant Director of Security on Parliament Hill and, if so, what are all the details?
2.	Is it the policy of the government to promote the employment of former RCMP officers to security positions within the Parliament Buildings?
3.	Is it the policy of the government to promote the eventual abolition of all uniformed and un-uniformed Protective Staff on Parliament Hill and to have the operation taken over by the RCMP?


David P. Smith: In so far as it concerns the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
1.	There has been no official approach to them for a recommendation or suggestion for a person to be appointed Assistant Director of Security on Parliament Hill. They do not know if any person was approached unofficially for a personal opinion in this matter.
2 and 3. These matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Questions concerning them should be made to the Speaker.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did members of the RCMP at any time in the past six months enter the Parliament Buildings as escorts for visiting persons such as King Hussein?
2.	Did they receive permission to do this and (a) if so (i) from whom had they requested such permission (ii) by whom was it granted (b) if not, by whom was it refused?
3.	Is it government policy that the RCMP take over providing protection for visiting dignitaries within the Parliament Buildings and, if so, what are all the details?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. (a)(i) The Sergeant-at-Arms. (ii) The Sergeant-at-Arms. (b) Not applicable.
3.	This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Questions concerning it should be made to the Speaker.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	What was the grant in lieu of taxes for 1981 in respect to property described as lot 35, plan 470, of the city of Nepean referred to in a letter dated January 20, 1982 to the tenant of the National Capital Commission, File Reference GNO A-
6-62?
2.	What are the municipal taxes and rates payable by the commission and/or the tenant of the property?
3.	Does the grant in lieu of taxes fully pay the municipal rates and taxes assessed against the property and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Does the commission charge the tenant any rates or taxes in respect of the land and, if so, on what basis?
5.	Is there alleged to be owing an excess tax charge of $855.62 due for 1981 and, if so, for what reason?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 $1,013.87.
2.	$1,013.87.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes in part. The terms of the lease between the commission and the tenant of the property specify that the tenant is responsible for taxes in excess of the 1967 base year namely in excess of $158.25.
5.	Yes. There is an amount of $855.62 due from the tenant for 1981 taxes based on the above 1981 payment less the 1967 base year. ($1,013.87-$158.25)


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,558 which stated in part that "It is not in the public's interest" to divulge whether or not records of Soviet diplomatic travel movements are monitored by any branch of government for more than two years (a) what are all the reasons that the government considers it not to be in the public's interest (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest-ranking official who made such a decision and on what date was the decision made?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) It is the policy of the government neither to confirm nor deny whether any individual or group is the subject of an investigation.
(b) The answer to question No. 1,558 was signed by the Solicitor General and was answered in the House of Commons on February 1, 1982.


Mr. Corbett: Is it the policy of the Canadian National Railways to force (a) supervisory personnel into early retirement (b) senior supervisory personnel to accept positions of lower rating until their retirement?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
(a)	No. However, if an employee's job is redundant due to technological, organizational, or operational changes; changes in administrative procedures, services, or volume of business; or budget requirements; and such employee cannot be fitted into another position, then the employee may apply for early retirement.
(b)	In some circumstances, a senior supervisory position may become redundant due to the reasons mentioned above and the officer could elect to accept an alternative position, if available. In such cases the employee's pay, is ordinarily held at the same rate as that prior to the person's accepting a lower alternative position.
April 22, 1982


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	In 1981, what purchases of (a) formal china dinner service settings (b) family china (c) breakfast china tray sets did the Department of External Affairs make from Josiah Wedgwood and Son Ltd. of Willowdale?
2.	How many sets were purchased and what was the cost per set?
3.	Of what were the sets composed and of what quality were they?
4.	Were other pieces purchased and, if so, what were the pieces and what was the cost?
5.	What was the purpose of the purchases?
6.	Were tenders offered?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): 1. In 1981, the Department of External Affairs purchased from Josiah Wedgwood and Son Ltd. of Willow-dale, Ontario: (a) seven sets of formal china dinnerware service settings; (b) ten sets of family china; (c) Nil sets of breakfast china tray sets.
2.	The department purchased: (a) five sets of formal china dinnerware service settings, crested, at $6,689.15 per set; two sets of formal china dinnerware service settings, not crested, at $5,350.75 per set; (b) ten sets of family china at $1,239.50 per set; (c) Nil sets of breakfast china tray sets.
3.	The sets were composed of: (a) eighteen place settings of the Carlyn pattern of superior quality; (b) twelve place settings of the Conway pattern of medium quality; (c) Nil.
4.	Numerous replacement pieces, i.e. cups, saucers, bowls, plates, etc. were purchased for a total dollar value of $4,278.75.
5.	The purpose of the purchases was to provide appropriate china to enable Heads of Post to carry out formal entertaining responsibilities.
6.	A departmental committee, including officers from our protocol division and other senior officers, selected the specific patterns after viewing several other manufacturers' china.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-103, to amend
Energy Administration Act
the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I thought we were starting debate on Bill C-103.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member seek the floor? He has it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, at the end of the sitting the other day the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was speaking. I believe he was stopped in the middle of his speech and he has not risen to continue speaking. If he is not going to continue then I am rising as the first speaker.


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise to speak on this bill which was to be named the Petroleum Administration Act but will now be renamed the energy administration act. It is a bill that deals with energy taxation in Canada and it should really be renamed the "mugging of the consumers act" or perhaps even the "legislation of thievery at the gas pump act".


Mr. Huntington:: You are absolutely right.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It robs and plunders the poor Canadian consumer. It loots the consumer at the gas pump. That is what the bill does and we should make no mistake about that.
While the daily press hung on every moment of the bellringing, since we started the energy debate there has been very little interest in it and very few news stories. That is too bad because both the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party have offered some telling points about the whole energy scheme and the Canadianization of the industry and will make in this debate today some comments about taxation. The government has not shown much interest and has put up few speakers in reply. I am sorry that press reporters and commentators have not given the subject the kind of in-depth analysis it deserves.
These bills will affect Canadians in crucial ways and in many respects will change the whole energy industry and the country in very important ways. This is not an energy security bill; it is a taxation bill which will sock it to the Canadian consumer and refill the coffers of the government. Most of the money will go to a government that negligently emptied its coffers through its mismanagement and incompetence.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You put them in.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me deal with that matter of putting the government in. It was the Canadian people who put it in, and now the Canadian people have to judge-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You aided and abetted them.

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -whether it is living up to the promises it made. In fact, it is following the Conservative energy policy, which we objected to in the first place, of high taxation at the pumps. That is what the Conservative energy policy was.


Donald W. Munro: It was 18 cents at the pumps.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let us make no mistake about that. My friend to my right will have an opportunity to speak on this and I want to hear them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They will talk sense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let us make it quite clear that if you analyse what the Clark government policy was-


Donald W. Munro: It was 18 cents.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and what the Crosbie budget was, you will find that there were to be dramatic increases in energy prices over the third, fourth and fifth year of that so-called agreement with Alberta. The energy prices that the Conservatives were going to bring in were higher than those proposed by the Liberal government. I think the Canadian consumer is at the point of saying "a plague on both their houses".
These tax measures are not the type that the New Democratic Party believes in. They are something like a sales tax which is a regressive tax. Low income people, poor people, ordinary people have to spend more of their incomes on the necessities of life, such as food, lodging, heat, light and transportation, than people who have more money. I will go into more detail on these taxes that the government proposes through this bill and our criticism of them in a few minutes.
These taxes are already hurting the ordinary person and they are going to hurt more. People are asking why we have to pay more for gasoline here than we do across the border from Vancouver or Windsor. Well they should ask, because I think people feel that this thievery I spoke of is compounded by two things. First of all, there was a shameless promise in the last election by this government, supposedly to appeal to Ontario and eastern Canadian voters where apparently elections are won or lost-southern Ontario to be specific-that somehow the Liberal Party had the key to keeping energy prices low. I think it is pretty clear now that was not exactly what they had in mind. They certainly have not done it.
The second reason I think people are upset is that these prices are going up at the same time as the government proposes to give away an unprecedented amount of money to the oil industries. You know the oil industry, Mr. Speaker: "Give us more money and we will find more oil." Of course, when we do that they then want to export the oil. That has been the historical pattern in Canada and Canadians know it.
If you were to ask the person on the street they would say yes, we have given the industry a lot of money and they end up pressuring for exports, and an acquiescent National Energy Board and government allow the exports. We have just passed
a bill which authorizes $6.5 billion in PIP grants to the oil industry. I know there are certain segments in the industry, the small producers, who are now hurting and both I and my party have some sympathy for them. But in general this industry is controlled by the multinationals; by Exxon of New York, the largest company in the world, Royal Dutch Shell, and Texaco and Gulf of the United States. Some of that $6.5 billion will go to them.
That money, Mr. Speaker, is coming out of the pockets of Canadian consumers. It goes back to the government and then to the oil companies. This is the Liberal idea; they call it recycling.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: NDP socialism.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not NDP socialism. .


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What are they doing in Saskatchewan?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When the member gives me a chance I will point out how we will do it. It is Liberal Canadianization, Mr. Speaker, and I invite the hon. member to study the speeches of his own energy critic so that he can understand what that is. This Canadianization program, which involves taking money from us at the pumps and giving it back to the oil companies by way of PIP grants, is a sham and a fraud. It is a legal means of holding up the Canadian consumer at the pump and on his heating bill. There are alternatives and I hope in the course of my speech to point them out.
This act, Mr. Speaker, does essentially six things. It raises the oil export charge ceiling and confirms the charges imposed since May, 1979. It gives authority to turn over 50 per cent of the resulting revenue to the producing provinces. Secondly, it establishes a transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. Third, it implements changes to the petroleum compensation charge, thereby enabling the implementation of a blended price system for oil. Fourth, it establishes the authority for and termination of a special compensation charge relating to the cut-off of Alberta oil last year. Fifth, it ends the petroleum compensation board and continues and expands its function in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Sixth, it establishes the Canadian ownership special charge and the Canadian ownership account.
The operative word in those six items is the word "charge". We are going to be charged at the gas pump, on our heating bills, and we are going to be charged for planning. I now want to analyse each one of these charges and give the NDP position on them, and I invite my friend over there from Alberta to listen and give a reasoned response. I know that is asking a lot of him, but he just might rise to the occasion.
Firstly, the petroleum compensation charge is a mechanism whereby the blended price of oil is developed. It is a charge at the pump and is used to compensate refiners who import more expensive foreign oil. We have to import oil because we are self-sufficient in all forms of energy except oil. The question, I suppose, is why? The reason is that in the early 1970s we
April 22, 1982

exported one-half of our daily production, which was then called surplus. The oil industry told the National Energy Board, which in turn told the Government of Canada, that we had enough oil for 300 years. Then the OPEC crisis came along, and the oil industry then said: "Oh, we have enough oil for 11 years." They misled the Government of Canada, and now today we have all those television ads by oil company executives saying: "Trust us, we will look after you." The Canadian people do not believe that because they have been burned already, and every time they go to the pumps and pay this compensation charge they should keep that in mind.
The pattern, Mr. Speaker, and it is an historical one, is simple. The industry says we have a shortage, we need more money. They are given tax advantages like the super depletion allowance, they are given $6.5 billion in grants, and then they say we have lots of oil and now we have to export it. They then lobby the government and the government allows exports. We then have a shortage again, and how do you get rid of the shortage? You guessed it: we need more grants, more allowances. That is the pattern and it has to stop. If we were the Government of Canada we would stop it. We would stop taking money out of the consumer's pocket and recycling it back to the industry. The system is stupid, it makes no sense and has to be changed. That is the reason we must import foreign oil and pay for it.
Certain refiners in Canada are currently being overcompensated anywhere from $7 to $12 a barrel because they are buying cheaper oil on the spot market, whereas the compensation under this legislation and the existing system is based on the average world price of oil landed in Montreal. While the payments may average out for the industry as a whole, nevertheless certain refiners are receiving a windfall. There should be a more accurate system of calculating the compensation, or paying additional compensation where needed. In other words, we must compensate refiners for their actual costs.
I was looking at an article printed in "Quorum" and appearing in various newspapers. The article was written by W.A. Wilson. The heading of his article reads:"Oil subsidy should draw Tory, NDP wrath." I wonder whether this Mr. Wilson exists. I wonder where he lives. In the House of Commons for the last three weeks, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), myself and several other Conservative members have been asking questions in the House of Commons and have been before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts dealing precisely with this question. It makes me wonder where the journalists are these days when it comes to analysing issues.
This matter has been raised in the House of Commons. The government has been pressed on this. Therefore, I do not know where Mr. Wilson gets his information. Perhaps he is not around here in Ottawa and does not follow what happens in the House of Commons. If he were here, Mr. Wilson would know that the charge allows some refiners to buy foreign oil for less than the cost of Alberta oil. That is what the opposition has been saying. This procedure has resulted in shut-in oil
Energy Administration Act
production of 50,000 barrels per day in western Canada. That amount of shut-in oil could rise to 300,000 barrels per day. I know about this because I visited Saskatchewan recently. I talked with people in Saskatchewan and with the Saskatchewan government, who have brought pressure to bear on Ottawa to change the system of the petroleum compensation charge so there would not be shut-in oil in Saskatchewan. Crudely put-and pardon the pun, Mr. Speaker-this petroleum compensation system is really crazy. So far the government has asked only eastern refiners to give preference to western Canadian oil. The government has not shown any teeth on this.
Last night hon. members heard the Conservative critic, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, rant and rave about many things. He talked about the Western Canada Concept which causes people in the west a great deal of difficulty. I suggest hon. members opposite take a close look at this very legitimate grievance of western oil producers and western business. Frankly, I think the minister could react much more strongly on this issue.
I think the principal causes of the problem are twofold. First, there has been a substantial decline in oil consumption in Canada as well as in the United States. Second, there has been a signing of long-term contracts with the federal government's encouragement during the period of Lougheed's oil cutback. In effect, this deal has now boomeranged on the province of Alberta, of which some people think the minister is taking advantage. It is sort of "Lalonde's revenge", if you like. The deal also resulted in the difficulties out west and there is a great deal of pressure both on the minister of energy here and the minister of energy in Alberta to do something about them.
Those are probably the reasons we are into the shut-in oil situation. There will be pressure to alleviate the shut-in problem by exporting western Canadian light crude. There will be pressure in western Canada to export. The government should resist that pressure. Instead, it should take steps to make sure that Canadian oil is used in place of imported oil because that makes better sense. How do we do that? We could lower the petroleum compensation charge so there is more incentive to use Canadian crude oil. This would also result in cheaper gasoline at the pump. We could expand the capacity of the present transCanada pipeline system to allow more western oil to reach eastern markets. This suggestion would fit in with the long-term plan to bring in Beaufort Sea oil by pipeline to eastern markets.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was quoted in Ottawa's paper, The Citizen. The article's heading says: "Lalonde blames separatism on Western politicians". The minister of energy, from a west end Montreal riding, I understand, is reported to have said that western politicians are distorting facts and in fact not doing their job correctly. In spite of some early provocation today, I have not stood up and ranted and raved in any way. I have tried to analyse this petroleum compensation charge and I have set out

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
some concrete suggestions for improvement. You cannot say that western politicians are not doing their job. I just heard one of my constituents in the gallery agreeing with me.
The issue is costly to consumers. The present rate of compensation to importers is $17.32 per barrel. Who is paying that amount? The Canadian consumer, of course. The present petroleum compensation charge per barrel of oil consumed in Canada is $6.30. This means the consumer is paying 18 cents per gallon of gasoline for this charge. The cost of compensating purchases of foreign oil appears as appropriations in the Main Estimates. I invite members to look them. If hon. members do that, they will see that in the period 1980 to 1981, the amount set out is $3.16 billion; in the period 1981 to 1982, the amount is $5.16 billion; and the amount budgeted for 1982 to 1983 is $2.97 billion. That money does not come from thin air. It comes from the Canadian consumer who pays it at the gas pump. It comes from Canadian consumers when they pay their heating bills.
This is a bad situation and it must be changed. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I will propose amendments at the appropriate stage to deal with this problem. Let not Mr. Wilson and his colleagues say that opposition politicians are not prepared to deal with the problem. Let not the minister of energy say that western politicians do not take their duty to bring concrete suggestions to this government seriously. For a change, let this government listen and bring in some of these changes.
The second charge is the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. I know that this is a very difficult bill and I am trying to go through it to make everything as simple as I can in order to explain to the Canadian people who are watching and listening to us throughout the country what these things mean. They are understandable. I explained the petroleum compensation charge because we have to import foreign oil. I explained that we had to import foreign oil because we exported all our oil years ago. I have told the people how much all this costs, but I think people know that because they pay for it at the gas pump every three or four days.
What about the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge? That is a real mouthful, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of our party we object to this recovery charge being applied at this time. It is a transportation charge on aircraft, ships and so on. It should not be applied to the marine and shipping industry in Canada at this time. We advocate that Canadian water carriers be exempted from this charge since rail, air and road transportation in many ways is also exempted. The charge would bring fuel prices to world levels. Exemptions should remain until the government is committed to developing a Canadian flag merchant marine, until the government requires a minimum of 40 per cent of our international trade be carried in Canadian vessels and until shipping between Canadian ports is restricted to Canadian vessels.
We say the charge on Canadian vessels is discriminatory. In other words it should not apply to Canadian ships. Also that clause of the bill allows the federal government to set prices for
offshore oil and oil in the territories. We believe this should be done by negotiation with the concerned territorial and provincial governments, with a view to arriving at revenue-sharing agreements as was done with western provinces.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appears to have rejected co-operative federalism. He said recently that co-operative federalism was dead. It was a tragic mistake for the country and for the Liberal Party, the party of Pearson and of cooperative federalism. As he throws co-operative federalism out of the window, I suggest he risks ultimately throwing his own party out of the window. The Liberal Party has chosen to be a federal party, simply a national party, only interested in winning power on the national level. The Liberal Party appears to be dead in the west. As the Prime Minister picks fights with more and more provinces and throws out co-operative federalism, he runs the real risk of ultimately destroying any power base his party might have. That is not my problem; it is the problem of the party opposite and of the country.
Canadians are fed up with provincial premiers bashing the federal government and the Prime Minister bashing provincial premiers. If there is any message in the Prime Minister's confrontation with Mr. Levesque in terms of the reaction of Canadians, it is that they would like both of them to cool it. It affects the energy field. We recall that when we debated the Petroleum Administration Act in the House, the federal government imposed an oil price on Alberta before reaching an agreement with the province. Under the terms of the act as it then was, we were allowed a six-day debate. It was a good debate, but the problem was that the government did not listen to what opposition members said. If it had, it would have understood before making the deal with Alberta that there was a problem with some small oil and gas companies and with respect to the position taken by Canadian consumers. The clause in the bill which allows the government to set prices unilaterally for offshore and the north should not be implemented. Prices should be set after consultation with offshore provinces and the two territorial governments. I propose to bring in some amendments to the bill to cover that area.
Clause 16 in effect allows the federal government to set prices unilaterally for crude oil where agreement cannot be reached with the concerned provinces. We agree in principle that the federal government ought to have the final power to do this. I say this as a westerner. I believe in provinces having control of their resources. We have moved to have that included in the Constitution, but for a strategic commodity like energy it makes sense, if ultimately there cannot be an agreement with a province, for the federal government to have the final power.
What did the federal government do in this bill? With Clause 19 on page 12 it removed the opportunity for Parliament to debate such action. Again, this will hurt co-operative federalism. The government does not have any representatives from oil producing areas in the western part of the country. I
April 22, 1982

see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) entering the Chamber. I am talking about west of the Winnipeg city limits. Since the government has no western representatives, it should be very careful when dealing with gut issues in western Canada. But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who I call the six-foot Napoleon, blames separatism on western Canadian politicians! Clause 19 of this very complicated bill is important in terms of retaining cooperative federalism.
Next I should like to deal with the oil export charge. It was established in 1974 to ensure that when Canadian oil was exported the federal government received the difference between the domestic price and the rapidly rising export price which would have normally accrued to the exporter. The reason for this charge still holds true. There should be no price incentive to export domestic oil while Canada continues to be a net importer of oil. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan do not currently share in the export tax revenue, but because the federal government is committed to an equitable revenue-sharing system, the new act gives it authority to offer exporting provinces 50 per cent of the revenue gained through the export charge as of November, 1980. This is an example of co-operative federalism. We have no objection to it and we support it.
Another charge is the special compensation charge. Clause 39 contains a special charge on petroleum products levied from March 31, 1981 to September 21, 1981, to pay for extra imports of oil due to the decision of the Alberta government to cut back oil production during the bitter energy negotiations between the province and the federal government last year. This charge is no longer in effect because of the September, 1981 agreement. Since it is a fait accompli, the fact that it has been removed, we in the New Democratic Party do not have any objection to the clause.
However, I would not want to let the occasion pass without castigating the federal and provincial governments for their intransigence in the negotiations. When one thinks about it, that little example of co-operative federalism between Premier Lougheed and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cost Canadian consumers an extra $1.85 per barrel, or 6 cents per gallon, for gasoline over that period. Again, when politicians bash each other, ultimately the poor consumer suffers.
I heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre talk about the Western Canada Concept obtaining support in my province. For example, last night 1,200 people attended a meeting to protest. There are alternatives upon which ordinary Canadians can insist. They can insist upon better government. This unnecessary spat was a poor example of government that ended up costing consumers 6 cents extra per gallon for gasoline. By the way, the total collected by the federal tax was over $460 million. This was $142 million more than needed to pay for the extra imports. Did the government give back the $142 million to Canadian consumers? Obviously it did not. It overcharged us and then pocketed the rest of the money into general revenue, to be used for us but really to be spent on some rather strange things.
Energy Administration Act
The next charge is the Canadian ownership special charge. Revenue from the Canadian ownership special charge and from increases to the natural gas and natural gas liquids excise taxes will accumulate in the Canadian ownership account and be used to increase participation by the federal government in the petroleum industry. As I have said many times in the House, the New Democratic Party believes in government participation in the industry. That is why people like David Lewis and Tommy Douglas who represented this party moved for the establishment of Petro-Canada in the early 1970s. We believe that Petro-Canada must be put in the driver's seat to deal with multinational oil companies. Logic demands that this be done.
I quoted in the House an article by Geoffrey Simson who wrote in The Globe and Mail about the system which exists in Norway. There is no problem in Norway where Statoil is in the driver's seat from where it can direct the industry and its development. This does not preclude private sectors participating in the energy industry, but they are given a clear direction as to what course the industry should follow in order to have energy security and job availability for people in that country.
While Canadians should be pleased to see Petro-Canada signs going up, they should not be misled. As was pointed out to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation yesterday in questions I put to the vice-president of Petro-Canada as well as to the minister, the number one oil company in Canada is Imperial Oil, which is owned by Exxon in the United States. The number one Canadian oil company is not Petro-Canada, it is Dome Petroleum. Petro-Canada is number five.
We should not be misled because Petro-Canada is not in the driver's seat; nor has the federal government any intention of putting it there. During the committee hearing today I asked the former Canadian ambassador to the United States whether he would confirm what he said in his speech in the United States. Speaking for the Canadian government, he said that it would not make Petro-Canada the dominant player. That is government policy. As a matter of fact, if hon. members review the bill carefully, the Canadian ownership special charge has been reduced from a possible maximum of $4 a barrel to $1.15 a barrel. There have been similar reductions in the natural gas tax maximum.
This is a significant retreat from the October, 1980 budget and the National Energy Program. The government had indicated in both policies that in its pursuit of expanding the role of Petro-Canada or other Crown corporations in the energy field, it was prepared to raise the necessary funds for takeovers by this special levy. Since the levy is at its maximum, it appears there will be no more takeovers in the near future.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I heard some hon. member to my right say good. Well, if we do not have a takeover now or in the near future, we will never gain control and set a direction for our oil

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
industry in Canada. This Liberal Canadianization program, with its PIP grants, Canadian ownership rates and amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act, is convoluted, complicated and ultimately unworkable.
The most simple, straightforward and efficient method- and one which Canadians would understand-for accomplishing Canadianization is to use that $6.5 billion which will be given away to take over a major oil company like Imperial Oil. We would then have 50 per cent of the industry under Canadian control. We would not have to wait until 1990.
There is support for this idea. Mr. Robert Laxer of the Committee to Canadianize appeared before the committee this morning and produced a Gallup poll which indicated that 70 per cent of Canadians, I believe, wanted to make Petro-Canada the dominant player in the industry and to take over one of the foreign majors and, as well, to advance the target of 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990 to 75 per cent ownership by 1985. The only way to accomplish this is by taking public ownership of one of the majors. A move such as this by the government would be supported by Canadians.
I realize that the government is faced with a Conservative party which literally hates Petro-Canada and wishes to destroy it. This sentiment is quite evident when you listen to Conservative members in committee and in the House. We should continue with the thrust of the National Energy Program and not back off from it as this government is apparently doing. An example of government backing off is shown when it proposes to reduce its original maximum tax of $4 a barrel to $1.15 a barrel.
I will let other members deal with this issue but I would like to make two points in conclusion. I recently spoke to a clothing manufacturer in Vancouver. His clothing prices have not risen recently. I also talked to a small gas producer who told me that his prices have not gone up. Therefore, where is this inflation coming from? Why are the prices going up? The answer is that they are going up through government taxes, which I think is obvious. Statistics Canada recently said that the latest oil price increase was a key reason for another rise in the cost of living. The consumer price index indicated that the cost of energy-related items such as gasoline and home heating fuel rose by 5.4 per cent during March as the impact of the January increase in the wellhead price of crude oil hit at the consumer level. Prices are rising and inflation is increasing because the government is raising these energy taxes so frequently.
I suppose some members could say that you have to collect taxes in order to provide services. The Prime Minister constantly says this to us every time we ask him a question. While it is true that taxes must be collected, there are other means of taxation. A proper proportion of corporate income tax is never really collected from the oil companies. As a matter of fact, an average Canadian family with two children which earns $25,000 pays more in tax in percentage terms than the oil companies do. This situation is scandalous. Collecting taxes at the pump is a regressive form of taxation because it applies to average Canadians who pay a greater proportion of their income for food, heating and transit. That is why these taxes
are unsatisfactory. There are other ways to collect the money. I believe that the Liberal government stands indicted in the eyes of Canadians for having promised cheap energy prices and then delivering an energy pricing regime which is exactly the same as that which the Conservatives were going to introduce.
Finally, I conclude by replying to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre who is the Conservative energy critic. Incidentally, I notice that hardly any Liberal members have spoken to this energy issue-
[ Translation]
-and especially the francophone members from Quebec! The Quebec members never take part in discussions on energy legislation.

I think that is scandalous. I hope that the Conservative member from Quebec will speak because we never hear from a Quebec member. Are they not interested in this Parliament? We never hear them speak about energy and I suggest that they do so. They are here just to vote, that is all. With the exception of one or two Liberal members, they are not interested or informed.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke of his concern over western separatism. We all share that concern. This country seems to be coming apart in terms of regionalism. However, when I listened to the hon. member, it was like a scene from Macbeth: strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage, signifying nothing. There was much strutting and fretting, but very few positive suggestions.
I am a western MP. I have seen this country and it is a wealthy and magnificent country. It is crazy that this country should break up or that this country should have Quebec separatism or western separatism. It is nonsense. There must be some reason for it. The reason is that we are not getting good government policy. There are better ways of dealing with our differences. There are great things ahead for this country if all the people work together. What a great struggle it would be to patriate our energy industry as we patriated our Constitution! What a magnificent challenge it would be! That is the kind of thing we could do. The people of Canada like Petro-Canada and they would support such a move. The polls are there, the statistics are there and the feeling is there to illustrate support. Other countries have shown what can be done. No country worth its maturity would permit its energy industry to be as foreign-controlled as our energy industry.
What do we hear every day? We hear the Conservatives raising arguments to give more money to a basically foreign-controlled industry. We hear the Liberals, who brought in a National Energy Program at the last gasp of the Trudeau administration, but they have broken off from it and have not proceeded. We could do it better and more simply. I say to the Canadian people out there that we could take some of the
April 22, 1982

money that we are about to give away to oil companies through Bill C-103 and use it to put into our own company, Petro-Canada, in which we are all shareholders. We could use it to expand Petro-Canada and to put Petro-Canada in the driver's seat. We can develop oil. We have oil in Canada. We have it in Hibernia and in the heavy oil sands. We have more heavy oil on the Saskatchewan-Alberta border than there is in Saudi Arabia. We have it. We have everything in this country.
On Saturday morning I am going back to my constituency. In my store-front office I see many people with problems. Many are immigrants and most are ordinary people. They are not sophisticated people. They do not understand all of these different taxes and they do not understand the cut and thrust of this debate in the House of Commons, but they understand that this is a magnificent country. That is why they came here. They understand that this country has the resources, but they do not understand why these politicians and this government cannot develop it for real energy security for Canada. That is the thrust of my speech today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes that the government should be given the right to increase the price of gasoline at the pump by a very considerable amount, following the increase of 28 cents per gallon at the pump which its taxes have brought about during the past two years. This is a ridiculous proposition. As we all know, during the past year there has been a world overproduction of oil, and this has caused world prices of oil to fall sharply. The taxes which the government has been adding to the price of gasoline at the pump during the past two years were supposed to pay for the increasing subsidy the government has been paying on the one-fifth of our oil requirements which could not be supplied by Canadian sources and must be bought from offshore. The subsidy was necessary so that all Canadians could enjoy the Canadian price. However, if the cost of the foreign oil we are subsidizing is falling, the taxes needed to pay for the subsidy should be decreasing also, not increasing. In other words, the price we pay for gasoline at the pump should be coming down at it has been doing in the United States and in most other countries, not going up.
For the government to seek the right to increase taxes to pay for a subsidy which is decreasing is simply ridiculous and should be refused by every hon. member of this House. I, most certainly, will be voting against this bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make a few points concerning this particular bill. At the outset, I should say that when one looks at the contents of this particular piece of legislation, one immediately finds that it is really not an energy bill or a petroleum administration bill. It is indeed a taxation bill. Quite frankly, all Liberals should hang their heads in shame while asking us to approve this measure, because it could more appropriately be called "an act to facilitate a massive tax grab", rather than a bill aimed at providing energy security.
Energy Administration Act
The bill is entitled, "An Act to Amend the Petroleum Administration Act", and it will have the effect of changing that title to read "The Energy Administration Act". The only thing that is administrative about it is the fact that huge taxes will be collected from the consumers of Canada, many of which are questionable, many of which are unwieldy, and many of which are very damaging and detrimental, not only to the economy but, indeed, to the petroleum industry of Canada as well.
There are essentially six different varieties of confiscation included in this particular measure: an oil export charge; a tax on transportation fuel; a petroleum compensation charge, a levy to a maximum of $ 12 per barrel which will be to cover the import oil compensation; there are provisions for retroactive authority to cover the special compensation charge. The bill covers a tax to fund the Canadian ownership charge. It provides the government authority to amend the pricing terms of the Syncrude agreement. It all amounts to a massive tax rip-off at the expense of the Canadian consumer. It is clearly another of those examples of a dramatic increase in the level of indirect taxation.
The effects of the budget and the provisions enshrined in this piece of legislation will be to double the level of indirect taxation on individual Canadians. It really also demonstrates the stupidity of this government's energy policy when Canadian consumers are being asked to pay taxes of the order of 20 cents to 25 cents a gallon to subsidize oil which is imported at world prices from the OPEC countries, from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela and Mexico, while western Canadian production is shut in, throwing people out of work, creating bankruptcies, business failures and business cutbacks, causing people to lose their homes and causing communities which have thrived on the vitality of the oil industry in the west to falter.
One must examine this situation in the light of whether it is simply an act of stupidity or whether it is a deliberate attack upon the people of Canada. My colleague suggests that it is malicious. Many people in western Canada firmly believe this is an attack by the federal government on western resources. It is nothing more than a deliberate mischievous attack upon a resource, the economy and the livehlihood of western Canadians. It is drying up economic opportunities which western Canadians felt were on the horizon. The eighties were to have been the decade of tremendous growth, development and opportunity in terms of broadening the economic base and increasing the manufacturing and processing sectors so that more and more Canadians who were born, raised and educated in western Canada could fulfil their potential and their dreams. They could make their homes, establish their businesses and fulfil their careers with a sense of satisfaction and fulfilment.
The deliberate attack by this government in terms of its proposed National Energy Program, taxation policies and budgetary policies enshrined in October, 1980 and November,

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
1981 have caused a sense of hopelessness and despair, frustration, anger and outrage. This is causing a deep sense of alienation and aggravation in western Canada.
It is within that environment that we are now witnessing a growing tide of western separatism. Only if one lives there and speaks to the people can one sense their frustration and anger. Only then can you get a full appreciation of it. This is why we are seeing attendances at rallies of the Western Canada Concept in the thousands, at least in the hundreds.
I understand that in British Columbia in the last two or three days there have been massive rallies in some of the smaller communities with attendances of well over 1,000 people. They are simply information meetings. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that those people who are attending these meetings are there for more than simply information. They are looking for an avenue or a mechanism to vent their frustration and anger.
I am pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is in the chamber. While his constituency does not penetrate the deep west, as it is in Winnipeg, I am sure he has had reports of what is occurring. I invite him to read the editorial pages and to contact his friends in the Liberal Party and other parties to talk about this very important issue. He is in a position of influence within cabinet. I implore this minister and his colleagues to realize that something must be done in order to remove this kind of feeling, which is taking off like wildfire. It will require more than simply a gesture; it will require some fundamental shifts in government policy. We cannot afford division, discord and disharmony in this country and expect it to function in a way that all regions and all citizens have a similar opportunity to achieve their full potential.
We have a situation where we now import in excess of 500,000 barrels of oil a day at world prices, $40 a barrel. At the same time, we are told that during the month of April something like 300,000 barrels of oil a day will be shut in in the province of Alberta. Simply put, we are buying oil at $40 a barrel from offshore sources and leaving 300,000 barrels of potential oil shut in in the province of Alberta. This would cost the domestic consumer $23.50 a barrel. It simply does not make sense.
We are not asking for a handout. Nor are we asking for a policy that favours the west. We want a commonsense policy. How silly, ridiculous and stupid can this government be? This is simply a matter for good common sense.
In the province of Saskatchewan and in some areas of Alberta heavy oil and low-producing wells are located. I am told that in Saskatchewan there are some 8,500 producing wells, 5,500 of which produce less than 20 barrels a day. We are therefore talking about small amounts from individual oil wells. However, the labour component is very high. The labour component in terms of collection devices, the distribution system, makes this oil production entity very important to western Canada in terms of providing jobs, strengthening the business community and vitalizing it. Those production
facilities are very labour-intensive. That business has literally dried up.
The New Democratic Party supports the general thrust and objectives of the National Energy Program. I find that rather strange. It is the general objectives and thrust of the National Energy Program that have literally destroyed the oil industry in Saskatchewan and virtually destroyed the heavy oil and the industry which produced the very light crude in Alberta.
This is why we do not have on stream a Cold Lake heavy oil facility, a heavy oil upgrading facility onstream in the Lloyd-minister area or an Alsands project onstream. This is because of this government's failure to recognize the realities of the oil industry. There is certainly not much experience in this cabinet in Ottawa with regard to what it takes to make an oil well produce, get the oil out of the ground, refine it and put into the gas tanks of the consumers.
We are very heavily reliant on imports to provide our source of supply. That is further eroding the value of the dollar. It is further eroding our balance of payments, contributing to high interest rates, destroying confidence in the economy, increasing the outflow of Canadian investment capital, reducing employment opportunities and straining the patience of Canadians. In a letter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada pointed out the serious difficulties facing the oil production sector in western Canada. Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from this letter which is dated March 5, 1982. It says:
The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada (IPAC) is gravely concerned with the deteriorating market for all Canadian crude oils. Many of our members have been drastically hurt as a result of the loss of production income which seriously affects financing of exploration and production programs.
We all know that the exploration has been reduced by anywhere from 25 per cent to 30 per cent in the year 1981. That is another one of the major job-producing sectors of the petroleum industry. That will be reduced by a further 10 per cent or 15 per cent this year.
It goes on to say:
Many factors impact on the determination of market demand for Canadian crude oil. IPAC is concerned with the effect of the Oil Import Compensation Program, which subsidizes imported crude oil.
For example, our analysis indicates that refiners import foreign heavy crude oil at a net cost of $9. to $12. per barrel less than comparable quality Canadian crudes due to the subsidy.
The inordinately high subsidy paid by Canadian consumers is effectively encouraging crude oil imports, while precluding the production of domestic crude oil. Canadian producers are therefore being forced to shut in their production due to lack of markets. Any subsidy program that encourages foreign crude oil imports, at the expense of Canadian production, requires immediate correction.
Immediate correction, it says. This was dated back on March 5. Over a month has elapsed and nothing has been done. This situation deteriorates further day by day and nothing has been done to correct it. That is absolutely shameful. That is why the Liberal members opposite, who have been asked to vote in support of this measure, should hang their heads in shame.
April 22, 1982

The second reason why they should hang their heads in shame is over the betrayal of their leader to uphold the election commitment that was taken during the last election campaign.
I have many quotes here, Mr. Speaker, which bear repeating. It really makes a farce out of the whole campaign process. It is little wonder, when the leader of the country was out appealing to Canadians to support him because he was going to keep oil prices down, that he had his followers, who were running for office, doing the same thing; but when they got into office they turned around and really socked it to the consumers.
Look at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in Toronto on February 8, 1980:
So right from the start, right from the very beginning of a new Liberal government, you will know that the cost of gasoline will not rise by 32 cents a gallon this year. With the 18 cents gone, we will negotiate an oil pricing agreement with the provinces for a price increase of less than $4 a barrel. That would mean less than the 14 cents increase in a gallon of gasoline that the Tories are bringing in this year.
He went on to say in Kamloops, on February 6, 1980:
Liberals would do things differently. First of all, that unfair and unjust 18 cents a gallon gas tax, that 25 cents a gallon diesel tax would not be reimposed. They're unfair, they're unnecessary and they're gone, as far as we are concerned.
Then there were his remarks at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, on February 5, 1980:
For firsts, we will not reimpose the 18 cents a gallon or the 25 cents a gallon tax. That's inequitable, it's damaging to the economy and as far as we're concerned it's gone. And we will work out with the producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, a "made in Canada" price for oil and gas and that means a price that will not, as the Tories would have it, that will not automatically be pegged to world prices.
He goes on and on and on. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The fact of the matter is that in that first year there was an increase far in excess of the 14 cents promised. It was more like 28 or 29 cents a gallon. We all know what has happened since then. To date we have had 15 different price increases in the price of gasoline. The tax increases alone in 1981 exceeded more than 32 cents a gallon, almost double the 18 cents that we had proposed. In fact, the latest statistics that I have, show that the national average price of gasoline per gallon in 1979, at the time that this government defeated our government, was $1.14 a gallon; today it is roughly $2 per gallon. Included in that $2 is a provision for a series of taxes which total 60 cents a gallon. That is, 60 cents a gallon of the $2 goes directly into federal government coffers. That is a very good chunk of the total price one pays at the pump.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that in effect, while we have a domestic crude oil price of $23.50, roughly 65 per cent of the world price, we are paying more than the world price at the retail level. What is becoming increasingly disturbing is the fact that while we have prices at the pumps on the increase here in Canada, our counterparts in the United States are finding their prices falling. As a matter of fact, we understand that in the city of Seattle the price of gasoline is roughly 13 cents a gallon lower than what it is in Vancouver.
The Liberal members across should hang their heads in shame because of the betrayal of the election promise. They
Energy Administration Act
have no intention of fulfilling it. This Prime Minister had no intention of doing so, and his major spokesman, his Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), had no intention of fulfilling that election promise. They betrayed the Canadian people with this sleazy tactic. It was sleazy. It has been used as an instrument to divide and to drive a wedge into confederation. I know what they were saying during the last election campaign: "Oh, we are not going to pay that excess tax to build up the coffers of Lougheed's trust fund." That is what they were saying. They were saying: "We cannot afford to make the government of Alberta super rich; we do not mind their getting a fair price, we do not mind their getting rich; but we cannot afford to see them getting super rich."
Well, what they did in the course of their campaign, and what they have done since they formed the government, is divide and further erode the sense of partnership, the sense of togetherness in this country. In effect, they have driven a wedge into confederation. I say to my Liberal friends opposite that they should hang their heads in shame when they are asked to stand and vote in support of this particular measure.
My friend who has just entered the House has been pleading the case for the farmer and I commend him for it. I had a good opportunity of sitting in committee when he challenged the Governor of the Bank of Canada on the high interest rate policy. I know he does it with deep concern and conviction. I would ask him to consider doing something similar to his Minister of Finance and his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of the price of diesel fuel-60 cents per gallon in federal tax is being paid by every farmer every time he fills his diesel tractor or combine.
That 60 cents is far too much. There has always been relief for the farmer because he is a producer of food. We have always supported a cheap food policy. We know that the farmers do not have the luxury of passing on these additional costs to the consumer because many of their products are sold on the export market. But 60 cents a gallon is far too much for the farmer to pay in the form of a federal tax. That is another massive revenue grab. For the average farmer in western Canada it means that he has to dig out of his pocket roughly $4,000 to pay into the federal government coffers for that 60 cents a gallon tax that they have imposed upon farm fuel prices. That is grossly unfair. I am sure he would consider it grossly unfair, but I have not heard him say anything about it. It is not the Governor of the Bank of Canada that has imposed this but his own colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Let us look at fertilizer, Mr. Speaker. The price of natural gas has a direct impact on the price of fertilizer. They tell me that the federal tax component on production of fertilizer works out anywhere from $25 to $40 a tonne and by 1985 that will increase to about $72 a tonne. That is some 35 per cent of the total cost. That, too, is unfair because the farmer does not have the opportunity of passing that cost on.

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
We in western Canada also have a grossly unfair pricing structure for fertilizer. The fertilizer manufactured in western Canada and exported to the United States is selling at a price level of between $30 and $60 per tonne less in the United States than it is in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said yesterday that that is the free market system working. When he acknowledges that the excessive amount of fertilizer produced in Alberta and Saskatchewan has to be sold in the United States at competitive prices, that simply demonstrates to me that there is not a free marketplace, that the forces of the free market are not working in western Canada because there is either some price fixing or some kind of monopoly. Competitive forces simply are not evident. If they are not evident, surely the minister responsible for farmers and the production of food and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) have a duty and obligation to look into this matter. If this is the market system at work, there is certainly something wrong. In my view, the competitive market system is not at work, and there should be protection for the producers of Canada. We should not tolerate this kind of price gouging.
The farmer is getting it at every end. He is getting it in fertilizer prices, home heating fuel prices and natural gas prices, and he is experiencing an excessive and exorbitant imposition of tax on the diesel fuel he burns in his tractor. That is unfair and it cannot continue.
I hope some hon. members opposite who represent producers as their constituents will think twice before they vote in favour of this particular measure, or at least bring in an amendment which would provide exemptions and some relief for the farmers of Canada. We can bring in amendments. The government will not allow its members to vote with us, but I invite hon. members opposite to do just that. There is no question that we would support them.
This massive rip-off of consumers is something we did not hear much about during the last election campaign. It is no wonder people are losing faith in politicians and the political institutions of this country. When we consider the stupidity of some policies, the blatant deception which occurred during the last election campaign and the lack of confidence in leadership which exists in this country, we see clearly that it is no wonder that there is a sense of hopelessness and despair and a sense that things will get worse before they get better. Canadians are very despondent and frustrated by the fact that there is no hope on the horizon because of the silly and asinine policies which are in effect. We are not asking for anything dramatic. We are asking for nothing in the way of favouritism. We are just asking for a little commonsense.
We are debating here a Canadian ownership charge, and that brings me to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was something which was urgently needed to provide oil self-sufficiency to the country. The creature was created at a cost of some $4 billion. Today we are more reliant on imported oil than we were a year ago, and a year ago we were more reliant on imported oil than the year before.
What has Petro-Canada done? It has taken over going concerns at very heavy cost to the people of Canada. Petro-Canada is involved in places like Tanzania, Senegal, Kenya, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Pakistan and many other countries of the world, but we do not see Petro-Canada doing any pioneering or trail-blazing here in Canada. Petro-Canada has done nothing to improve our level of self-sufficiency. It puts out nice ads. Petro-Canada can hire American advertising consultants to define its trademarks, and so forth but Petro-Canada has become a joke.
No one really expects Petro-Canada to wave a magic wand and provide us with energy self-sufficiency. Petro-Canada has hired a number of bureaucrats and more government appointments have been made. Petro-Canada has become another reward centre for the diminishing number of people who have some sympathy for the Liberal cause. The whole philosophy and attitude of the government is that it should corral revenue so that the government can impose central control, assert authority, determine where growth will take place and in what region, how resources are to be developed, who will get the nod to do such development and who the winners and losers will be. The price we are paying for that kind of philosophy is seen in the growing numbers of people on unemployment rolls, the growing numbers of people who are losing their homes and the growing numbers of businesses closing their doors. Farm bankruptcies are up 50 per cent this year over last year. What is happening is that while the productive labour force is being reduced, the non-productive government labour force is being increased. The March 22 editorial of The Financial Times points that out:
But the policies of the Trudeau government in this recession are having a curious effect: the producers are losing their jobs and the non-producers are cruising through unscathed.
The layoffs announced week-by-week by hard-hit companies are almost all among producers. There are 133,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Canada than there were a year ago, according to Statistics Canada. Jobs in primary industry have dropped by 41,000. Construction jobs are down 17,000.
On the other hand, the category of "public administration" had 770,000 jobs in February, 26,000 more than four months earlier on a seasonally-adjusted basis.
The article goes on:
A year ago the federal staff numbered about 329,000. Ottawa expects this to grow to 334,000 by the end of this month. And the government is planning to have 345,000 employees by a year from now. To be comparable, these totals include postal workers.
Not only does the number of bureaucrats grow throughout recessions but it continues to grow in times-such as the present-when the government proclaims that it is following a policy of restraint.
In the past year, for instance, the federal energy department has added 656 new employees, a 17 per cent increase. And that doesn't count the 1,639 employees added by Petro-Canada.
What are companies in the private sector doing? They have to lay people off. Because of the decline in the petroleum industry, a reduction in the work force is necessary. We have a paradox. The government payroll is exploding, and the private sector-the productive sector-payroll is on the decline. Oil companies are being squeezed by falling demand and rising taxes, while at the same time there is an explosion of jobs in
April 22, 1982

the non-productive government sector. That is essentially what is happening in this country.
As I said in a speech earlier this week, the productive labour force in Canada is reducing. Production in this country is reducing. We have not had any new wealth generated over the last five years, and unless we start generating some new wealth, unless we start encouraging production and productivity and unless we can experience some real growth in this country, we will be in very, very serious trouble. We cannot continue to redistribute wealth. We have to create and generate some new wealth, and that is something this government is not doing.
I want to turn now to what I consider another classic example of stupidity and discrimination, and it has to do with the treatment of fuel tax with respect to Canadian air carriers. We are all aware that there has been a transportation fuel compensation recovery charge levied against our airlines and our ships which are involved in export trade. This primarily affects the ships employed in the coastal trade and service on the Great Lakes. We know that some $50 million in taxes has been imposed on internationally schedule and charter services. Because the tax is discriminatory and has violated bilateral agreements made with other countries, the government decided to rebate some $46 million of export fuel taxes to the foreign carriers that serve Canada but it has refused to treat Canadian carriers in the same way. There is a double standard, Mr. Speaker, and it just does not make sense. The decision places Canadian carriers at a severe financial disadvantage relative to foreign competitors. This threatens the financial health of Canadian airlines at a time of seriously depressed earnings.
This case has a long history, Mr. Speaker. The Air Transport Association of Canada warned the government at the time that this action would be in clear violation of the bilateral agreements. Foreign governments made representations to the Canadian authorities and they finally agreed to the exemption. But it has not been provided to Canadian carriers, Mr. Speaker, so again there is a double standard which works to Canadians' disadvantage.
This bill proposes that a tax of approximately eight cents per litre or 36 cents per gallon be imposed upon the supplier-a sort of income tax on refiners and/or suppliers. It blatantly interferes with contract negotiations between airlines and their suppliers.
Until now, fuel products exported in the east were levied a charge to recover compensation on the originally imported oil. This charge will extend this treatment to the west and will impose it on all Canadian aircraft leaving Canada. There is no reference to the level of the charge to be levied. The export charge on diesel type fuels, called middle distillates, was about $113 per cubic meter while the fuel compensation recovery charge for February was only in the $47 to $68 range. There are differences in the recovery charge for the type of user and point of departure. The charge on the east coast for marine
Energy Administration Act
diesel is $78.35 while the charge for the west coast is $47.20 for February.
We have to ask why the bill does not mention that different classes of users will be charged different amounts. The bill should speak to this and the minister should explain the difference between the two costs.
The bill does not speak to the adjustments that have been made to the charge with respect to airlines. The government has indicated that this charge will no longer be levied on aircraft and that they will use the income tax system to capture back the same amount as the charge, yet the bill is silent on this point. A charge of nil for February is insufficient to guarantee that the charge will never be levied again.
There is confusion and discrimination in this, Mr. Speaker. The airlines are not arguing about the fact that the taxes are to be imposed but about the method in which they are being imposed. They believe that this constitutes a gross interference in contract negotiations between the airlines and the suppliers of fuel. This demonstrates again the effects that a myriad of regulations, excessive costs, a variety of taxes, levies and surcharges will have and they have to be coped with in the consideration of this legislation. It is a bureaucrat's and accountant's haven but it is a burden to anyone who wants to live up to the spirit and letter of the law.
We are in the final throes of debating a program which, as I said the other day, will go down in history as the major manmade disaster of the 1980s-the National Energy Program. This series of bills should be considered with a great deal of caution and care and there should be the greatest input possible from the people who will be affected by them, directly or indirectly, and that is the people in the industry. I refer not only to the multinationals and the big oil companies but to the average individual and the average company that is part and parcel of this network that is the petroleum industry in Canada.
This has become a very important and viable industry, Mr. Speaker. While my province and western Canada have an agricultural based economy, in places like Vegreville, Lloyd-minister, Wainwright, Vermilion, Cold Lake, Leduc, Wetaski-win, the oil industry, in various forms, is a very important component of the health of the whole economy. It provides an economic spin-off, a tax base and an economic development base. We need all of these in western Canada to provide some security so that our economy will not be dependent on one industry or another.
That component of our economy has been hurt very badly. People who have invested their lifetime earnings in aspects of the oil service, drilling and exploration industry have been hurt very badly. Companies that have been in existence for 10 or 20 years have been forced to lay-off large numbers of people. In some cases they have been forced to close their doors. All this because of a man-made, deliberate policy which is seen as an attack on the west and an attack upon industry.
The agricultural industry and the oil industry have worked hand in hand, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there have been times

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
when producers have been in royal battle with the oil companies and the exploration and drilling companies about determining a fair value for rights of way, damage to crops and so forth, but essentially the industries have developed side by side.
The Alberta publication "Wheat Pool Budget" recently reprinted an editorial from the Brooks Bulletin which I think is worth putting on the record. It summarizes, in layman's language, the serious and combined impact of the budgets of 1980, 1981 and the National Energy Program. Under the heading "Let's do Something" it reads as follows:
It has been a relatively short time since the Budget and National Energy Program were delivered to the Canadian people. In this time, residents of Canada have gone from the inquisitive to the unbelieving.
In the short span of 16 months, many businesses have gone under-the victims of high interest rates. Many farms and ranches have followed suit.
Today, people meeting on the street no longer follow the customary greeting whith a smile. Now they ask each other how they are surviving.
We have watched helplessly as businesses closed their doors and silently disappeared. We have listened on the phone while well-respected business people tell us they just don't have the funds to pay an account. We have heard about the countless hardships a farmer has mastered throughout his life-until now.
We have watched while our country's once strong economic situation turned for the worse.
As we recently read: "The price of this human misery is unbecoming to our Canadian talent and potential. Clearly our nation is out of touch with reality."
We must do something to pull the federal government's cloak of uncertainty back from the economic window and instil the peace of mind that Canadians only a short while ago enjoyed.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) a moving and masterful exposition of the depth of the dangers our country faces. I congratulate him on that speech and, sir, as I speak in the same vein as the hon. member, I hope you will interpret my remarks as coming out of the depth of the west. For indeed, Sir, virtually every member of this House from western Canada feels the same as myself, the hon. member for Vegreville and the others who have spoken in this debate.
In the light of statistical indicators, Mr. Speaker, it is evident the federal government's record on economic affairs is abysmal. But on energy matters the record is horrendous. Energy policies have been constructed out of political expend-iency or gross misreading of the economy and the country's total needs. It was political expediency which led the government to embark on the ill-advised policy of shielding the Canadian consumer from the effects of OPEC price increases in 1973. It gave the consumer the illusion that he lived in the best of all possible worlds. The Canadian consumer did not learn to conserve, industry was not helped to adjust to the new reality, and the government did not push for self-sufficiency with the force it should have. Now, finally, the consumer is painfully waking up, and industry has to make adjustments in often tragic ways.
On energy matters, of which this bill is a prime example, the government is still acting in a woefully erroneous fashion. Let me put it plainly: the national energy policy is an unmitigated disaster, not just for my province, but for the whole country.
As a Canadian I am truly saddened to see what is happening in my country; not only the loss of jobs, but the fear which is sweeping across the land. Millions of Canadians today fear for their continued employment. What is worse, as the Gallup poll has just shown, a large section of the public fears that if they do lose their jobs, they will not be able to get another one. What kind of society is that?
As an Albertan I am angered at the loss of potential. The national energy policy ignores the needs and aspirations of all Canadians and has its deepest negative effects on Alberta. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I stand for Canadianization, greater control of the industry in Canadian hands. As the Conservative party finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), stated publicly on July 21, 1981, "this is an economic fact of life and the reversal of a process which has occurred in Canada over the past 100 years".
But, sir, Canadianization should not be confused with nationalization. Yet that is what the government is doing. It is softening up the stock market and buying into the industry at depressed price levels. Surely it is open for all to see how oil share prices declined when the NEP was announced. Virtually the only major stock which did not lose was Petrofina, which the government later purchased at a grossly inflated price. Yes, Canadianization should be our goal, but not through nationalization or the strategy this government is following. "Canadian owned" does not and ought not mean "Canadian government owned". The Canadian private sector ought to be encouraged to invest in the energy industry.
This, Mr. Speaker, is why the Progressive Conservative Party in 1979 proposed the Canadian common stock investment plan. Canadians investing in Canada was the object of that plan. Small investors were to be encouraged to participate in Canadian-owned companies. RRSPs were to be encouraged to purchase Canadian stocks. We were even planning, as is well known, to offer shares in Petro-Canada to Canadians at $10 a share, not the $120 which the government is asking for shares in a PetroCan subsidiary. The present government has not even looked at this kind of measure. Instead by imposing a 25 per cent retroactive back-in on federal lands, it has made prospective investors ask: Will our money be safe there?
It is this lack of investor confidence, this basic uncertainty about the Canadian government's intentions, which is causing many firms to sell out and others to move to the United States. Small Canadian firms would rather be involved here in Canada if conditions permitted them to be, but they go to the United States because their policies make energy investment increasingly attractive. We now find that 12 per cent of the oil and natural gas exploration in the United States is being undertaken by Canadian companies, and that is why I, as an Albertan, am angry. Most of the companies which have moved to the United States have moved from Alberta. Two hundred and thirty-one oil drilling rigs have lefts since the NEP was announced, along with 111 service rigs. That is as if in Ontario or Quebec small factories employing 40 or 50 had closed down one by one. Drilling activity in 1981 was up 26 per cent over
April 22, 1982

1980 in the United States, and it was down by the same amount in Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger)-Airports-Future of Dorval and Mirabel; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Bankruptcies-(a) Increase in number-(b) Request that government take action; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Foreign Investment Review Agency-(a) Takeover of White Farm Equipment Company by Texas firm, (b) Patents for Canadian-produced combine, (c) Possibility of Canadian control.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers).
[DOT] (UOO)


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Orders Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43, 5, 54, 34, 83, 71, 89, 36, 94, 88, 49, and 76 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all questionnaires given to public servants and all studies made by the Treasury Board in 1980 and 1981 in connection with day care centres.
He said: First, I would like to thank the seconder of the motion for enabling me to speak on it. He is not aware of my remarks and has not expressed any approval of what I am going to say, and for that matter he has not expressed any opinion. He has simply, by seconding the motion, given me the opportunity to speak.
I want to make it quite clear that the subject is not day care centres. I want to say, as I have said in this House previously, that the issue is administration, control, government spending, government procedures and for that matter even House procedures. These are the topics I will be discussing this afternoon.
Day Care Centres
Before departing from the words "day care centre", let me reiterate what I have said previously in this House. I want to see a system of day care centres throughout the public service.
I want to see them efficiently operated and I want to see a subsidy program provided, either at the provincial or federal level or at both levels of government so that these day care centres will be accessible to all children of public servants and not just to those whose parents have large enough incomes to afford to pay what I consider to be very high cost.
Putting that aside, let us look at what I consider is the issue I want to discuss this afternoon. Why, as a start, did I transfer motion No. 86 for debate and not allow any further time for the production of the documents asked for in the motion? Simply because I have put several notices on the Order Paper. Notice of motion No. 85 and this one called for documents from the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction program in the last fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.
On February 24, the motion was agreed to. I thought I would be receiving the required documents. I was completely amazed at what was handed to me. I received two sheets of paper which were generalities and were, in effect, a reiteration of what started this exercise, namely a news release dated June 26, 1981. In fact, attached to those two sheets of paper was the news release of June 26, 1981. That was the answer to the motion. That was the answer to what I consider was the order of the House to produce estimates and plans for the day care centre so we could see ourselves what costs were envisaged and what plans were being made.
I brought up this matter in the House and discussed it. The Speaker, and I do not take issue with the ruling, said there was nothing she could do. However, what it does for me is clearly illustrate that a motion passed by this House which becomes an order of the House is valueless. Nothing is produced. Nothing need be produced and there is no means by which a member can ensure the production of documents.
I was particularly annoyed because I had seen certain of the documents. As a result of my comments made in the House and as a result of some pressure I brought to bear on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), the plans which I had already seen and which I assume are the only plans were produced for me. I was able to review them. They are very extensive. They are very well put together. Along with them I received what purports to be a fairly extensive specification.
I now know why these documents were not tabled. It is because they are in one language only, the English language. I suggest that we have gone past the stage where documents for use on the Hill should be in only one of our official languages. I asked myself how any workman who just happens to be unilingual French is able to understand either the plans or the specifications. But apart from that, I have still not seen any estimates. Being a construction man, I am aware that when one attends to demolition, to all kinds of renovation work, moves libraries, messenger services, does landscaping and
16510

April 22, 1982
Day Care Centres
builds fences, some fairly detailed estimates ordinarily should be prepared. What we were given was a global figure.
I eventually got this information in a letter from the Minister of Public Works. The subject of the letter is the day care centre. The issue is not the day care centre itself; it is the way we handle costs. The cost shown for the architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural and outside play areas is $210,000. That is a nice global figure. Next we find fees and miscellaneous costs including management and contingency sums, for another $30,000. That totals $240,000. That figure was produced in a committee hearing as being the cost to public works of doing this work in one of our buildings on the Hill.
Being always somewhat cautious when figures are bandied around in such global fashion, I enquired and found out that there is another cost involved namely the cost of related work including the relocation of the branch library-we would not have had to relocate the branch library if we had not been building the day care centre-the messenger service and the traffic control services, which will be in the order of $80,000. When we are spending $80 billion, I suppose $80,000 is relatively insignificant, but it bothers me. It bothers me because as far as I am concerned when we spend money here it is coming out of my pocket in the form of taxes and I want to see better control.
But that is not the end. We now have $240,000 plus $80,000 which equals $320,000. Loose equipment and furniture will be purchased separately. I do not know how much that will be, I have no idea. But we are now looking at an expenditure in the order of $400,000 for 40 children, or $10,000 per head.
I love children, Mr. Speaker. I want every child in this country to have the opportunity my two children had of going to a day care centre and receiving that kind of advanced training before attending primary school. But to tell me, a construction man, that we have to spend $10,000 per head for every child going to a day care centre is, I suggest, absolutely ludicrous. 1 object and I object very strongly.
What is worse is found in a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who writes:
According to what I have been told, the day care centre in the Confederation Building will be run by a board of directors independent of the House of Commons administration.
That is probably a good thing. The Minister's letter continues:
-moderate-income employees, earning $15,000 or $20,000 a year, are far less able to pay the day care fees than a higher-income person.
That is absolutely correct, particularly when one finds that person is ordinarily a single family parent with two children. The cost to that person will be $650 a month for 12 months. We should look at the total. It is absolutely beyond the reach of most employees on the Hill. The minister went on to say:
I have therefore asked my officials if employees using the Confederation Building day care centre (and similar centres at other places of employment)-
We must remember that this is an example for the country. This is what we will hopefully be able to do throughout the public service as an employer. She continued:
-might be eligible for subsidies but would be cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Then a memo in this connection was attached, and she went on to say:
As you will see, it is possible for CAP cost-sharing to be available for children enrolled in the centre. However, most federal employees would probably not be eligible for subsidies because their incomes would exceed the levels that have been set by the province of Ontario.
Essentially day care centres are in the provincial sphere of jurisdiction. The province is responsible for the control, the province decides the level to which they will be subsidized, and the province in that regard also sets the amount of participation of the federal government because the federal government pays 50 per cent of whatever the province decides to pay.
To ascertain exactly what kind of organization would be running the centre, I put questions. First I should explain once again that it is not because this is a day care centre which we pass every day; I am looking at examples of the way we operate and the money we spend for what we will be doing in the entire public service. I want it kept in that perspective. If we are to establish boards for every day care centre in different departments of government, apparently this is the manner in which they will be set up, through independent boards. I asked how the board was selected, who decided on the membership, and why there were no men on the board.
We have been fighting so-called discrimination. Normally when we think of discrimination, it is in the terms that women are not considered equal. I object as a male from being excluded from the consideration of what will happen to my children or the children of other people. I have every right to do so. I was not given an answer. In fact, the response was simple: "Ask the board." I asked the board who selected it and why its members were all women. Frankly, I think the whole matter is becoming somewhat ludicrous.


Mr. Blaikie:: What was the answer?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I did not obtain an answer, because obtaining an answer here is sometimes a very lengthy process.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We know that better than you.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am called upon to speak in the House long before the answer finally comes to me.
This centre, which will be the example in the public service, will be entirely self-supporting. How can we say that it will be entirely self-supporting when the cost is $10,000 per child at the outset? The interest on those moneys alone is at least $1,500 per annum per child. There are public funds involved, and since they will not be recovered, it is not self-supporting at the onset. Therefore, as government policy, why do we not accept that we will be involved in a considerable expenditure of funds and say, in all fairness to the population, that we should add the required subsidies to ensure that the facilities are available to everyone on an equal basis? How can we expect
April 22, 1982

any of the ladies who work in our cafeterias, or even the men who drive our buses, to have the necessary funds to put their children into this very expensive, very nice, very attractive and very laudable day care centre? They will not have access to it, and on that basis I think it is something at which the government must look. I feel it is discriminatory.
I have raised several points this afternoon. Before we go any further, we must look at our total approach. The memorandum or the communique issued on June 26 should be followed up with a reasonably good study of exactly what we are getting into. Having identified what initial costs are involved, we should look at what additional costs will have to be added to construction costs in order to make the centre accessible to all employees. Furthermore, there should be a little more consultation with the province of Ontario. The centre is to be licensed by the day nurseries branch of the Ontario Department of Social and Family Services. This is fine. I suppose it means that they will be responsible for the general overhaul of its facilities to ensure that they are suitable and presumably ensure that it is run according to good standards. I think I have made my point. We have spent a lot of money and we are continuing to do so.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to one item which bothers me somewhat. The procedures by which we operate on a fiscal basis whereby everything ends on March 31, I find irritating. I have discussed, for example, control of costs with the Auditor General. It will be realized that any construction which goes over a year's end finds costs in two different fiscal years. Under those circumstances it is very difficult to put together a package. We must add to that the fact that moneys are coming out of three completely different pockets-one for the construction, one for the moving of library, messenger services and so on, and one for the supply of furniture and various fixtures. One can see that it will probably be at least the autum of 1983 before we as Members of Parliament will see the dollars involved. I do not consider that a very satisfactory procedure. I plead with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to put the cards on the table, to tell us precisely what is involved and to tell us precisely what is his intention. He should assure us that it is government policy, if it is going into the field of day care centres, to ensure that day care facilities are available to all public service employees regardless of their levels of income.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for his concern about accessibility to the day care centre being constructed on the Hill. If I understand correctly, at this point there will be no subsidized spaces in the day care centre, but there is some hope that there might be some in the future.
This is an excellent opportunity to impress upon not only one government member, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, but upon all government members who are present, the need for a national day care act. In this case, if there was an appropriate act, it would provide guidelines for the provision of subsidized spaces in this day care centre as in all other day care centres
Day Care Centres
which exist or come into existence, whether they be in the public service or anywhere else.
Today I would like to take the opportunity to put some facts on the record with regard to day care in Canada and to make some suggestions from the New Democratic Party point of view. In this regard, I would like to refer generally to the analysis of day care in Canada which is found in the annual health and welfare publication, "Status of Day Care in Canada." I would refer particularly to the one which was recently released which has some interesting statistics.
The amount of licensed or supervised day care space increased in 1980 by 16.8 per cent. Non-commercial space increased by 33 per cent and commercial space decreased by
3.7	per cent. This was the reverse from the year before when the growth in space was concentrated in the "day care for profit" sector.
Infant day care centres continue to be the big loser. It is estimated that in 1980 there were 229,000 children under the age of two whose mothers were in the labour force. A total of
3.8	per cent of these children are receiving group care or approved family day care service. As of March, 1980 there were an estimated 531,000 children aged two to six of working mothers. The data indicates that that 15.77 per cent of these children are enrolled in day care services. The conglomerate figures show that of the 760,000 children under the age of six whose mothers are in the work force, only 12.6 per cent of them are in approved day care spaces. This was a marginal improvement over the previous year's figures of 12.04 per cent. The fact remains that fully 88 per cent of Canada's children under the age of six whose mothers are in the labour force are left in unlicensed child care arrangements.
A further breakdown of day care centre spaces reveals that the overwhelming percentage of day care spaces are being utilized by children between the ages of two and six, some 79.94 per cent. Spaces for children under the age of two represent 5.38 per cent of all centre spaces, which is down by 400 spaces from 1979. This represents an acute problem for parents with infants.
Our short-term, low-benefit maternity benefits make day care that much more essential. We passed a resolution at our federal convention in 1979 calling for an increased federal share of cost sharing for infant day care spaces as a mechanism for increasing accessibility to this very important kind of care.
I will now give a few provincial comparisons, for those who may be interested. As indicated in this study, each province has its own mix of day care delivery, as we might expect. Ontario and Alberta are the only two provinces which have publicly owned-that is to say, municipally owned-day care centres. The municipalities in both of these provinces have had an active involvement in the delivery of day care services and, in both provinces, contribute to the cost of day care.

April 22, 1982
Day Care Centres
Non-profit day care centres are predominant in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. In Saskatchewan, only parent co-operatives qualify for licensing. In Ontario, commercial and non-profit centres are approximately equal in numbers. Commercial centres in Alberta outnumber non-profit centres by two to one. In five of ten provinces, that is Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, one half or more of the spaces are commercial, principally serving the needs of full fee-paying parents.
As I have mentioned, in light of the great need which remains to be met in terms of providing day care services in Canada, we have passed a number of resolutions in our party having to do with this concern. I would like to indicate one resolution for the record which was passed at the federal convention of 1979 which continues to be New Democratic Party policy:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP reaffirm its 1971 commitment that an NDP Federal Government would enact a national Child Care Act; commit itself to the philosophy of child care as a public service, and initiate an educational campaign in support of this philosophy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the meantime, as a matter of urgency, the NDP press for:
(1)	initiatives on the part of the Federal Government by offering preferential cost-sharing schemes (ie. paying 75 per cent of the capital cost of building child care centres, 80 per cent of the cost of child care staff, increasing the federal part of cost-sharing child care services for infants and handicapped children) thereby increasing the accessibility and quality of childcare;
(2)	the encouragement of provincial and municipal governments to make child care a higher budgetary priority and to institute a ceiling on child care fees charged to parents;
The fourth point in this resolution stated:
(4) legislation be passed requiring employers to fund quality day care centres in the workplace.
Policy resolutions are always an indication of rough intention. I believe that these policies which were passed by the national convention of the NDP are worthy of consideration.
I would like to dwell for a minute on a matter which concerns me, not just with respect to day care but to nursing homes and anything having to do with the provision of human services, for that matter. It concerns the ongoing debate about whether or not such services can be provided adequately within the context of profit-making institutions. While we have always had profit-oriented day care centres, we see more of them coming into being, especially now since we see multinational day care corporations such as Kindercare moving into this field. They obviously see it as an area in which they might be able to make money.
I would like to reflect for a moment on some of the drawbacks to profit-oriented day care. First, since fees are limited by what parents can afford to pay, making a profit from day care necessitates cutting back on the quality of day care provided. Another point is that the issue of quality of care is primary given the argument that good quality care cannot be provided on a profit-making basis. For instance, a recent investigation into the expenditures of profit-oriented day care centres in the United States concluded that:
For-profit centres typically spend much less per child than do non-profit centres. According to the 1977 Abt. data, average annual expenditures per child are about 30 per cent lower in for-profit centres than in non-profit centres.
Most of these expenditure savings are made through lower staff salaries. Lower salaries tend to mean less trained and less experienced staff and a higher turnover which disrupts relationships within the day care centre.
A 1979 Toronto survey of 30 for-profit and 91 non-profit centres found that staff salaries were significantly lower in for-profit centres. This same survey found that for-profit oriented centres provided fewer staff benefits, including paid vacation, sick leave, pension plans, life insurance and in the case of Ontario, OHIP payments. In Edmonton, a survey by health inspectors reported that almost half the for-profit centres were not providing adequate care. In Ottawa, purchase of service agreements has just been withdrawn from two profit oriented centres due to misuse of funds.
A further criticism of for-profit centres is that they do not encourage or, in some cases, even permit parental involvement. The special nature of day care in providing care for very young children makes the involvement of parents in the substitute care particularly desirable. Apart from the lack of parental involvement and questionable quality of present centres, the continued growth of for-profit day care, particularly corporate centres, as I have mentioned, raises the possibility of future lobbying activity to lower standards in day care.
I want to say that even though I have outlined many of the inadequacies which arise as a result of operating day care centres according to the profit motive, I would still have some concern even if it could be demonstrated to me that profit-oriented day care centres do provide good quality care from time to time. I am concerned about the long-range trend which is particularly in evidence in the United States, but I am also concerned that it might become a trend here to perceive human services as a new and challenging field for the marketplace. I am concerned that we will see more and more of this as traditional sources of capital and profit move into the Third World, as we try to export pollution and some of the more negative consequences of industrial society, and that here in North America we will see a move toward more commercialization of human services. We will see this through multinational corporations involved in nursing home care and in the provision of day care, and in the provision of health services, so that finally no area of human activity will be left untouched by this particular manner of regard for human life and all things will be turned into commodities in the marketplace.
It would be a mistake to see my concern about profit-oriented day care as part and parcel of the old and sometimes boring debate between those who would like to see something done by the private sector and those who would like to see something done by the public sector. As I mentioned in the energy debate just a few days ago, our debates in this country must transcend those two caricatures, because I am not interested in a broad, monolithic, all-pervasive multinational human service industry. But, neither am I interested in a broad, monolithic, all-pervasive, government-run bureaucratic human service industry either. What we should advocate in
April 22, 1982

this country is that all day care centres be run as far as possible on a parent involved basis, a community involved basis. We should look to smaller scale, more co-operative, community based enterprises, particularly when we are concerned with something as important as child care. So that is what I have in mind. We need to transcend the debate over which bureaucracy is to run our lives, whether public bureaucracy or private bureaucracy, as it is a sort of rut that we tend to get into here due to certain, long-standing ideological battles.
That is about all I have to say on this matter. I did not want to get into the details of what the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Elerbert) said concerning the day care centre which is now on the Hill; I will leave that for another day. However, 1 wanted to take this opportunity to put on the record our concern that no leadership is being shown by the federal government in the matter of ensuring adequate child care services for Canadians right across the country. We think the federal government ought to show some leadership in the way it previously did with regard to health care and other human services. This should be done, particularly in light of today's economic conditions when many women must go out to work, whether they like it or not.
A number of factors are involved, including the economic factor. Many times both parents must go out to work simply to make ends meet, not simply because there is any particular moment of liberation. Perhaps there is also the factor of changes taking place in the perception of the role of women in our society. Both of these factors are combining to create the need for more options when it comes to child care.
Those who lament the passing of the traditional perception of the family ought simultaneously to lament the fact that the particular economic system in which we live has brought us to the point where couples cannot afford to have one or the other spouse, whether it be the man or the woman, staying home to provide child care. When we say that the need for day care is compulsory rather than voluntary, 1 think that although this need is to be regretted, it is necessary. To the extent that it opens up opportunities for women in particular and for married couples in general to pursue different employment alternatives and other courses of action in their lives, 1 think the provision of day care is a good thing and the need ought to be met on that basis as well.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the time allotted to the hon. member has not expired, I wonder whether he would accept a question from me.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Surely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed? It is agreed.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is generally accepted that this type of care for children is within the provincial sphere of influence and that federal intervention is either financial, through the Canada Assistance Plan, or, in the present case, as an employer, has the New Democratic
Day Care Centres
Party looked at the jurisdictional problem, particularly considering the fact that there is a variation of treatment from province to province and that all children across this country do not have access to similar centres because of the difference in provincial treatment? Has the New Democratic Party considered the jurisdictional problem and has it come up with any recommendations?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, by virtue of our intention to have a national child care act, we have indicated it is possible this is an area in which there might be joint federal-provincial responsibility; indeed, there already is joint responsibility. As the hon. member for Vaudreuil mentioned once before, certain day care spaces are already under federal responsibility in so far as they are cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. The problem of the federal government concerning that particular type of day care is that it is only available to people who meet the criterion for assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan of being in need or likely to be in need.
What we are saying is that all day care ought to be seen as a necessary social service rather than a welfare or handout provision for certain families. In many cases, the people who now qualify for social assistance or who meet the criterion set by the provinces to show that they are in need or likely to be in need qualify for day care. Of course, people with a lot of money qualify for day care because they can pay for it; but the people in the middle are the ones who really find it difficult and must make difficult decisions as to whether or not they can recover enough money from their jobs to have some left over after they have paid for day care. However, if the federal government provided some leadership and some money, I do not think it would have much difficulty with the provinces in trying to provide some leadership in that area.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am very pleased to be able to speak for just a few moments in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who has a habit of bringing some very interesting motions to the House of Commons. It is interesting that he, being a Liberal, is always bringing motions that an order of the House issue for copies of all questionnaires given to public servants and all studies made by Treasury Board in 1981 in connection with day care centres and other matters. I would have thought as a Liberal he could just open his mouth quietly in caucus and the documentation would flow out. I thought these denial of information requests were something endemic to our side of the House. I now find that the caucus system we hear about is not as open as it should be.
My friend used a phrase in the course of his interesting speech that was important. I followed his speech and, I must say, generally approved. I think I can quote him correctly. He said it was time the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) came clean and told us exactly what is going on. That is true.

April 22, 1982
Day Care Centres
As I go about my constituency and this general area, in this era when women are trying to break out of occupations heretofore reserved to women, trying to exercise professional talents that have been gained because they have ventured educationally and are prepared to venture otherwise into areas heretofore occupied by men or believed to be the domain of men, I am amazed at the tremendous interest in the provision of day care.
Day care serves two social obligations that are mixed and are not really in conflict. First, there is an obligation to recognize the importance of providing every opportunity to equalize opportunities to the greatest possible degree with regard to participation in the work force. Second, the caring and rearing of children, although it is a primary obligation of the family, is not just an obligation of the family but an obligation of society as well. As society evolves, so must our institutions.
I have not seen copies of the documents and questionnaires which my friend has asked for. I am interested in seeing them. The essence of his motion and the questions he asks is that when dealing with day care in terms of the public service, it must be dealt with on a fair, reasonable and universal basis. There cannot be one system, whether it is here in the House of Commons or anywhere else in the public service, for the well-to-do, or no system or a different system for those who are not so well-to-do. That is the matter which concerns me.
Opportunities for work ought to be equal regardless of the economic status of the person whose family requires day care. They ought to be open in a systemic sense to all of those who require day care.
I congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I have done this on other occasions. I join him in his request for information with respect to this matter. It is important. Every time one goes around one's constituency, one finds how important this question and issue is, and the solutions we seek.
I repeat, there is a mixed obligation toward the maintenance, rearing and care of children. Although it is primary, it is just not the obligation of the family. The community has an obligation to ensure that in a changing world children are granted proper care. Opportunities must be given to those who without those facilities would not be able to advance equally with others.
I commend my hon. friend. I will not take any more time of the House. 1 hope that someone on the government side will stand up and say to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, "Here are your documents"; and when he gets them, that he will share them with me.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak this afternoon in the "Hal Herbert hour". 1 will preface my remarks by pointing out to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that no studies have been produced or made public, for the simple reason that no studies were done in 1980, 1981, before or after, by Treasury Board. The absence of these studies should not reflect badly on the department nor on the
way in which our fabled caucus works internally behind closed doors.
I wish to divide my remarks this afternoon into three sections. First, in a very general way I will deal with women in the workplace and the relationship of this government to them. Second, I will deal in a general way with day care centres and the reasons for them. Third, I will deal with the experience of this government in handling day care within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Females in the workplace is a topic that all of us in this House take seriously. We do so because not only are females a large percentage of today's work force, but every study I have ever read indicates they will become an increasingly larger component of the work force in the years that lie ahead. Unfortunately, there are a number of forces that historically and physiologically work against full and complete participation by females in the work force.
The cultural disadvantage that I am alluding to is that traditionally we have reserved the best or highest paying jobs for males. We tend in our promoting practices, consciously or unconsciously, to choose male applicants over female applicants. Physiologically, a woman is disadvantaged, or at least her working life is complicated, by the fact that quite often she has to bear the simultaneous dual role of worker and mother. I wish to state for the record this afternoon that this government and this party is committed to fighting the first cultural disadvantage and to help women reach a satisfactory accommodation of the second disadvantage.
This is a Liberal government, this is a Liberal Party and the essence of Liberalism is to liberate. I would like everyone in this House to know that this government is dedicated to liberation of women in the workplace, whether it be the federal workplace in Ottawa or other federal workplaces across Canada, or in the marketplace in general.
There is evidence of that statement, Mr. Speaker. There is the creation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the creation of the Office of Equal Opportunities which was established in 1971, the announcement by Treasury Board in 1975 of a policy to promote a greater representation of females in the federal work force.
Furthermore, I would bring your attention to the publication of a plan of action in 1979 and to the pronouncement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in June, 1981, of the day care policy-to which the hon. member from Vaudreuil alluded earlier in his speech. I would hope that there is no one in this House who would believe that day care is a luxury. All too often when talking privately in a party or a gathering of some sort, we hear people complain about the cost of day care, as if day care were a luxury that we could not afford.
I would argue that day care, far from being a luxury, is indeed a necessity, not only a social necessity but an economic
April 22, 1982

necessity. That latter statement, that day care is an economic necessity, is a point that needs to be stressed this afternoon and at any time when a debate arises over the need for day care centres.
For example, an employer-or a body like an employer, such as this government is-should recognize that the creation of day care centres on site, in the workplace, has significant economic advantages to that company. For example, day care centres certainly attract employees. A company's ability to get good employees is enhanced if the prospective employees know and understand that there will be facilities at the work site for their children. Day care centres already in operation in the work force prove conclusively that they lead to lower absten-teeism.
Absenteeism today is a growing problem in the work force. I have talked to businessmen in my riding about their labour situation. One of the criticisms that I hear most often is that it is hard to get good employees. Secondly, it is hard to keep them working on the job consistently day after day. They may work for a week, for a month or so, take a few days off, come back again and then take some more days off, for any number of reasons. Employers have found that if they can provide day care centres, absenteeism is cut significantly.
I would hope that in the future many of those businessmen who presently complain about absenteeism will understand the attraction of building into their work site day care facilities so that their employees will have a more compelling reason to come to work than they apparently have now.
Continuing in this vein, Mr. Speaker, studies indicate that the presence of day care centres improves employee attitudes towards the sponsoring organization; in other words, employee morale builds up with the introduction of day care centres. Such an increase in morale, of course, brings increased productivity.
How often have members stood in this House and argued that the essence of the fight against inflation ultimately is increased productivity? I am not going to argue that the emergence of day care centres across the marketplace in Canada will suddenly and dramatically decrease inflation. 1 will argue that widespread introduction of day care centres into the marketplace will be one of the important tools the government and private industry can utilize to help to combat this pernicious spectre of inflation which seems impossible to defeat.
In addition the introduction of day care centres lowers the job turnover rate. Those employers 1 was talking about earlier who were worried about this persistent problem of employee turnover-here today and gone tomorrow-will find that particular difficulty of doing business significantly reduced if day care centres are introduced in their particular business.
The government, of course, is not directly involved in the placement of day care centres in private industry. The member for Vaudreuil indicated earlier, quite accurately, that we do not have jurisdiction to get directly involved in the day care
Energy Administration Act
issue. That we do not have direct jurisdiction in this field does not mean that this government has not played a role in spreading day care services throughout the country. In 1980 alone, through the Canada Assistance Plan, approximately $40 million has been channelled to provinces and to municipalities to help them create and run day care centres within their respective jurisdictions. To some people that may not be enough money but I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that it is an excellent start and 1 would hope this government in future years will involve itself in even larger amounts.
Getting down specifically to the topic raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, I would like to indicate that Treasury Board approved of a pilot project that contemplated the creation, within the federal civil service anywhere in Canada, of three day care centres. I would like to point out this afternoon, lest there be any confusion in the minds of the members present today or to anyone who may read Hansard, that the day care centre in the Confederation Building is not one of those projects. It is an independent, separate project undertaken at the inspiration and under the leadership of Madam Speaker, but not Treasury Board, not this government.


Walter David Baker: Ah, you don't want to take responsibility for that one, do you?


Norman Kelly: The pilot project which was approved by Treasury Board has had three responses. The departments which expressed interest are Environment Canada, Energy, Mines and Resources, and Employment and Immigration. Of those three, Treasury Board approval has been given to but one, that is, Environment Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the House will now revert to Government Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments during which I spoke on this bill before private members' hour I began to make a point as to why I and many other members of the House, particularly those from western Canada, are today feeling the anger we do when we see the potential of Canada being so seriously hurt as a result of the

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
economic and energy policies of this government. Those policies, and particularly the National Energy Program, are literally driving the Canadian energy industry out of the country.
I told you, Sir, that since the National Energy Program was announced, 231 oil drilling rigs have left the province of Alberta and, along with them, 111 service rigs. I mentioned that in the United States drilling activity in 1981 was up 26 per cent over 1980, but that in Canada it was down by the same amount.


Mr. Chenier:: Talk about now.


Douglas Roche: During 1982 the decline will be even greater, 33 per cent below the 1980 figure.


Mr. MacLaren:: It is down 20 per cent in the United States, and dropping.


Douglas Roche: Oil stays locked up in the ground. An estimated 300,000 barrels a day are locked up. That oil could save Canada $12 million a day. That oil would spell prosperity for the whole country. Instead, we import oil from abroad. We import it from Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and we spend $6 million daily subsidizing the price of that oil. What kind of madness is that? Does the ghost of Kafka walk silentfooted through the bureaucratic corridors into the minds of the policy makers?
When we have Canadian oil left in the ground, why do we subsidize the price of imported foreign oil? We began that subsidy originally so that the consumer in the east would not have to pay higher prices than the consumer in the west. The eastern consumer then, as now, largely used imported oil. Yet today Canadians all over our country are paying more for their gas than the unshielded American consumer who has had to pay world prices ever since those prices started rising. In short, we are being asked to support a wrong-headed policy.
In this bill there is a section on the petroleum compensation charge. It is presently levied at $6.30 a barrel, which translates into 24 cents a gallon at the pump. What we are being asked to do is authorize the government to raise it to double that amount, 48 cents a gallon at the pump, so that foreign producers benefit when our own oil sits in the ground.
That is not all. We are also being asked to authorize a levy of $1.15 per barrel, or four cents a gallon at the pump, so that the government can continue to finance a misguided policy of Canadianization through nationalization, not through the private sector. The present gas price is $2 per gallon. How much higher can the price go? Do Canadians realize that of that $2, $1.35 goes toward taxes? That is a full 67 per cent of the price consumers pay for gasoline. What more clearly demonstrates the suffocating intrusion of government at all levels of our economy than that devastating statistic? I will repeat it; 67 per cent of what the consumer pays for gasoline goes straight to government through taxes.
In 1980 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) berated the Progressive Conservatives for suggesting an 18 cents a gallon excise tax increase on gasoline, yet in 1981 federal taxes
increased by 32 cents. Surely there are some supporters of the government opposite whose self-respect cannot swallow that. Surely they realize that it breeds in people deep political cynicism, and surely hon. members opposite will have to pay a political price for this mismanagement. In short, the people of Canada keep on paying more, not because the oil companies want them to but because the government demands it.
The increase to the consumer which is the result of the National Energy Program and the federal-provincial pricing agreements has been dramatic. That increase has not gone to the oil industry. What the industry faces now is diminished returns. Last year's cash flow declined by 35 per cent, and earnings declined similarly. Now Shell Canada Resources Limited informs us that investment in western Canada will be $2 billion per year less than in the pre-NEP era. This is not the road to the goal of energy self-sufficiency; it is the road to economic disaster.
Recognizing that the oil industry is in trouble, the Alberta government recently announced royalty rollbacks of $5.4 billion over the next five years. In 1982 alone Alberta will forgo $530 million in royalties. It will further grant $505 million in royalty tax credits to small producers and $250 million to well servicing companies. That is a responsive and positive act by the provincial government.
Now we ask, why does the federal government not take corresponding steps to spur the industry, for example, by lowering industry taxes? I am not asking the federal government to line the pockets of oil producers; rather, I am simply asking the government to look at an industry which is truly troubled, upon which the prosperity of my province depends, and because all provinces are intertwined in today's economy, the prosperity of all Canada is being affected.
The money we spend on imported oil is money which leaves the country. The capital which is attracted elsewhere is capital which leaves the country. This cash outflow keeps the dollar low and interest rates high, and high interest rates mean houses which have to be given up when mortgages come up for renewal and businesses which have to close down and go into bankruptcy. In Alberta, business bankruptcies last year were 39 per cent higher than in 1980. They are higher again this year. Unemployment is rising also. It now stands at 6.7 per cent, when a year ago it was 3.5 per cent.
A few days ago the Edmonton Journal reported:
Alberta's slumping energy industry has cancelled job offers to 27 engineers graduating from the University of Alberta.
Last year 90 per cent of engineering graduates found jobs upon graduation. This year only 50 per cent will be successful.
The Journal commented on the Alberta royalty rollback, and stated:
What started in 1980 as a federal grab for resource revenue from Alberta through the NEP concluded this week with a federal win. Alberta did not give in to industry by retreating on royalties; it gave in to Marc Lalonde.
April 22, 1982

That is the kind of statement that is finding growing empathy with Albertans. That is a fact of political life that I find extremely worrisome, for it is this fact that is provoking the spectre of separatism.
In the near decade that I have been a member of the House of Commons, I have warned of rising alienation in the west. On February 26, 1973, I spoke of western resentment at being treated as a hinterland by Ottawa. I spoke of the western desire for "an even break". I spoke of the need for economic justice. I said "Western development must transcend politics."
That is a theme that I have pursued during the years. But politics has apparently triumphed over good sense, for public policies have not recognized the reality of the new west. Western needs have not been met and what is worse, public policies are crippling our development, dashing the legitimate hopes of those who believe in free enterprise and know that free enterprise was the way in which the west was first built.
On December 19, 1980, I warned the House that the flame of separatism was growing in the west. I pleaded for tools for western MPs to fight this threat. We did not get any. Again, on June 8, 1981, I returned to the subject. I urged the government "to review its policies before it is too late." Otherwise, separatism might become a viable political force. I warned, that "a great collision of forces is coming unless a new spirit of accommodation is injected into policies and on-going negotiations."
If hon. members opposite will not listen to me, would they at least listen to one of my constituents, Mr. John Allen, who has written to me. His is one of many, many letters of anguish that I have received. After asking why a government that has practically ruined the oil industry in western Canada should now be allowed to nationalize the same industry, he writes as follows:
The intelligent choice of remaining one strong nation seems to be irrevocably lost through a mismanaged or maybe cunningly mismanaged federal government that has all regional areas at each other's throat, and who will probably never really trust each other again.
If I was the only person who thought this way you might say I was a crackpot, a radical, or someone suffering from paranoia, but nearly everyone I talk to who cares about the west or even Canada as one nation is angered and concerned and at a loss to know really where to turn for help, or what to do to help ourselves.
When Liberal members opposite spoke in the House concerning the threat of separatism in Quebec, the federal government took them very seriously. The government responded and gave Quebec MPs the tools to fight separatism. Why will those very Quebec members, who understand all too well the meaning of separatism, not respond to the demand for government policies that will stop the growth of separatism in another, equally precious, region of our country?
I urge members, and the government, to listen when I say that separatism is on the verge of becoming a viable political force in western Canada. The clock has moved to within a few minutes of midnight. I urge members to rise above partisanship and recognize the danger that confronts our nation. There is a separatist government in Quebec and a separatist party is gaining credibility in the west. This is no time for scoring cheap political points. This is no time for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to be accusing western MPs of feeding western separatism. Together, we need
Energy Administration Act
to fight that growing force. We need your help. The Canadian dream is threatening to become a nightmare.
How hollow will the Constitution events of the past weekend appear in history if the return of the Constitution to Canada is followed by the corrosive growth of separatism. Energy policies that promote growth, development, jobs and an economic future for everyone are essential. This energy bill penalizes incentive. We must replace it with energy policies that promote incentive. Give us those tools, and western separatism will never have a chance.
I close, Mr. Speaker, by telling you I am not going to give up on Canada. This country is too great. I have too much invested in Canada. My great-grandfather came to this country from Ireland and I am not going to dismiss the heritage that I have received because of problems-problems that come not out of our country but out of the government that is currently administering-and, I say advisedly- mismanaging this great country.
How dare this government continue. We want to achieve the potential that Canada has as we enter the final years of the twentieth century in a new era of technology which could be the instrument to unite and develop this great country.
What we need is a sense of direction, a desire to rebuild, a sense of self-esteem, of our worth as Canadians. We need the tools and the energy which will help us build, not destroy one another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate today and comment on the National Energy Program. The effects of that program are far-reaching. They extend far beyond any previous government programs of taxation of the consumer and the oil industry as a whole. It is for this reason that Canadians should look closely at the NEP and question the seemingly endless list of taxes this government is adamant about passing on to hard-pressed consumers. From the consumer who fills up his car or uses oil to heat his home, to the small Canadian-owned energy company trying to keep its head above water, the story is the same. The NEP is slowly killing off the industry, slowly but surely strangling it to death.
In the last couple of years the government has driven billions of dollars of investment out of Canada and raised taxes almost beyond the breaking point. Every time the consumer turns around, the price of gas and fuel oil goes up because of an unwarranted increase in federal taxes. Since June, 1980, consumers have been forced to accept increases of 28 cents a gallon, and through the NEP the government intends to slap on a further 52 cents without ever having to justify or explain the increase. In total, consumers will have to pay 80 cents a gallon in federal taxes, which is an incredible price to ask them to pay.

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
There is no doubt in my mind the taxes outlined in the NEP are completely unwarranted. We have the petroleum compensation charge, the petroleum and gas revenue charge, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the Canadian ownership charge, and the federal excise and sales taxes. My God, Mr. Speaker, every time someone fills up with gas or fuel oil they have to pay these extra taxes, after which there is little left in their pockets. These taxes are bleeding the consumer dry and making it difficult for him to meet his other financial commitments. They simply cannot take much more of this heavy and wholly unnecessary taxation.
We have been told time and time again that Canadian gasoline prices would be kept below world prices. They will not exceed 75 per cent of the world price. However, the present situation speaks for itself. That promise, like many others, has been cast aside. While the international price of oil continues to fall because of the oil glut, Canadian prices continue to rise because of federal tax increases. Anyone who drives across the border will see that the price of gasoline is cheaper there, even when the rate of exchange is taken into consideration. Perhaps the answer to why we have all these taxes is that it is just avarice and greed on the part of government which is trying to extract as much money as possible from over-burdened taxpayers in order to finance some dubious government programs which do not have legitimate priority or should not have been included in government expenditures. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to two glaring examples. The first is the recent loan to Russia of some $600 million at an interest rate of less than 10 per cent to finance the gas pipeline. The other is the loan of some $47 million at low interest rates to Algeria to build, of all things, a monument. This money could have been better used to alleviate the dire straits and financial difficulties of many of our farmers. Our hard-pressed housing industry could have used some of that money. However, because of a twisted sense of priority, these two groups along with others are to be denied.
1 firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that charity begins at home. We should make sure our own house is not wanting before we gallivant across the four corners of the world squandering the taxpayers' money to prop up countries whose ideology is opposed or even hostile to ours.
The National Energy Program is supposed to increase Canadian ownership of the energy industry to the extent of 50 per cent by 1990. We are also promised energy self-sufficiency. Those are worthy goals and hard to disagree with, and have long been supported by our party. However, the NEP has had just the opposite effect. It has done a great deal to force Canadian companies out of Canada, and in so doing push back any hope of self-sufficiency for years to come. In the last 15 months or so some 270 drilling and service rigs left Canada, taking with them the technical expertise which in the 1970s accounted for 70 per cent of our oil and gas discoveries. Many of them will not return to Canada, nor will many of the Canadian entrepreneurs. The jobs they would have created, the secondary spinoffs which are so important to the recovery of our economy, are now being enjoyed by the Americans. Mr. William Mackness of the influential firm of Pitfield, Mackay, Ross estimated that in the first year after introduction of the NEP $17 billion in capital left Canada. With a massive outflow of capital of that kind how is the oil industry supposed to be Canadianized? How is it to survive?
While this is happening Canadians are faced with a very disturbing and unnecessary reliance on uncertain supplies of foreign oil. The government seems to want to leave Alberta oil in the ground to the tune of some 300,000 barrels a day, and to delay exploration for new resources. Again I ask, what has happened to the goal of Canadianization? I believe the answer is quite simple: the oil industry is being taxed to death, just like consumers. In the last year alone the government collected $8 billion in taxes under the NEP. The hardest hit are the Canadian-owned independent oil and gas companies, the companies which are supposed to form the cornerstone of the government's Canadianization program. According to Petroleum Monitoring Agency figures, Canadian-owned companies suffered a 52 per cent drop in income in the first half of 1981. There is no question in my mind that this government is not interested in helping Canadian independent companies grow and flourish in the oil industry. Instead, it seems intent on taxing these companies to death. I ask you, where is the common sense?
I would now like to speak briefly about the petroleum compensation charge. A close look at this part of the bill shows that a program of taxation to pay for foreign oil is an ambiguous plan, to say the least. What we have here is a description of the maximum tax which can be charged to pay for imported
oil.	At present it is $6.30 a barrel, but the ceiling can be increased whenever the minister wants it to $12 a barrel. The impact at the pump for consumers is another 24 cents a gallon.
I do not believe this is what Canadians bargained for or what they want. Again there is no question, in my opinion, that the discretionary power given to the minister is dangerous. Nowhere in the bill is there any provision that ties in with what is charged through the petroleum compensation charge to the quantity of oil that is imported. As it stands, the government has the authority to charge as much as it wants for as long as it wants, and the tax is not tied to the cost and the amount of imported oil.
What the government is doing is demanding a blank cheque signed by the taxpayers of Canada. What nonsense. No individual or businessman would ever do business in this way. To top if off, as of now, the government has more than $1.4 billion in this fund. Yet by this tax the government insists on this form of taxation even with the fund being $1.4 billion in the black.
To me this is greed of the highest order. To make matters even worse, there are no assurances that the moneys raised through the petroleum compensation charge are earmarked necessarily to buy foreign oil. To me this represents fraud of the highest magnitude and is the taking of money from the
April 22, 1982

Canadian taxpayers under false pretenses, and it should not be tolerated.
I strongly protest the authority of the minister to raise taxes at will. What is needed in this bill is a statement of principles, a clearly spelled out set of principles so as to balance out and equate the level of tax collected under the petroleum compensation charge with the amount of oil that is imported. I do not believe that any government purposely goes out and plans to shut down the oil industry and create complex havoc and uncertainty.
Having said that, I find it extremely difficult to equate common sense with the decision taken by this government in this regard. The reason I say this is that the government, despite good advice from various sources from knowledgeable people all across our land has damaged our economy. It refuses to look around to see the devastation it has created.
I believe that Canadians should pay a fair price for energy while the government moves toward energy self-sufficiency. I believe this is an important and worthwhile objective. But I also fervently believe that the government, through the National Energy Program is creating chaos in the industry and is needlessly over-taxing consumers. What is equally alarming is that we are not moving toward self-sufficiency, especially when we are importing more and more oil. Not too long ago, this government defined a fair or reasonable tax on energy as anything that did not exceed an 18-cent tax. Now that definition has changed where we will be paying at least 80-cents in tax on a gallon of gas as well and an 80-cent tax on a gallon of fuel oil.
The government has introduced many taxes, but there is only one taxpayer, the Canadian people. The taxpayer can only pay so much. You cannot get blood out of a stone no matter how hard that stone is squeezed. A tax rebellion in Canada is not impossible. It can happen here.
My advice to this government is to get its head out of the sand and take a good hard look at the real world. Then, we hope, common sense might prevail again.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, every time I speak on an energy bill I cannot help but think about just how differently I see energy from the way the government sees it. When I look at it in terms of the area I represent, I think of jobs, of opportunities, of cash flowing through my community and of the spin-offs into other industries in the area, whereas the government seems to think only of energy and of the energy sector as nothing more than a source of revenue, of capital and of being able somehow to deal with the huge deficit it has built up over the years.
I take particular interest in speaking to Bill C-103 because it is one of the bills that flowed out of the hard work done during the ringing of the bells to break down Bill C-94 into workable and debatable pieces of legislation, legislation which could be looked at and considered in some kind of a reasonable format where we could talk about the various elements of it in some detail instead of having to look at the matter in the omnibus fashion in which it was presented to us a few weeks ago. I have a few objections to this bill which stand out in particular. The first one has to be taxes. This bill is really nothing more than a
Energy Administration Act
tax bill, a grab for revenues. It is a grab for revenues at a time when people all across Canada are losing their jobs, their homes, their businesses and anything that would allow them any opportunity to pay taxes. But the government is increasing taxes.
The second area of concern that I have with this bill is that more money is being collected through the petroleum compensation charge than is necessary. The government is taking a greater share of taxes than it really needs.
There is a third area that I do not like about this particular bill and that I do not like about this particular government. A certain trend and approach has been developed by this government in the way it governs. We have seen so much ministerial discretion, and so much done by order in council and so much done behind closed doors. As we study this bill we find that is the format, the approach, the method and technique used in this particular bill.
Looking at the first concern I have, the matter of taxes, we find at the present time the petroleum compensation charge already being levied is around 24 cents a gallon. Bill C-103 will allow the government to almost double that amount, to increase the charge by almost another 24 cents a gallon.
At 24 cents that amount is half what was originally intended in the legislation that was before the House before we started ringing the bells. Already the government has taken the time to pause a little because it knows there will be a little more public scrutiny. The public will have a chance to look at these particular taxes. Therefore, from the first piece of legislation which the government introduced at the time of the bells until now it has cut the taxes in half.
The Canadian ownership charge, the charge that was used to enable Petro-Canada to buy Petrofina, has already been levied on consumers at the rate of about 4 cents a gallon. That amount is also to be increased. But once again it has been cut by roughly half of what was originally brought forward in Bill C-94, the bill which caused the ringing of the bells. This Canadian ownership charge when it was introduced was introduced by the minister with the promise that it would be in effect for about a year and a half only. If we take a good look at Bill C-103, we find that there is no mention of a time limit on the Canadian ownership charge. In fact, all indications are that this particular fund will be increased. It is to become the minister's cookie jar. it will be his source of funds to spend at his own discretion. It will be applied in various circumstances to make purchases, to buy shares, to buy bonds, to buy little oil companies and service stations, and to buy any number of things the minister sees fit to buy. He will have his own little fund to use.
Another tax with which we have been dealing is the oil export charge. It can now be set under the jurisdiction of the bill without the advice of the National Energy Board. Once again it is an example of taxes being set behind closed doors or

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
without the advice of a legitimate board. The National Energy Board will no longer provide advice on this particular charge. The oil export charge and the revenues it brought to the government were promised to be split with the provinces. Producing provinces were to receive one half of those revenues. But when we look at Clause 11 of Bill C-103, we find no mention of that fact or no guarantee and, once again, the terms of the taxes are to be set by order in council.
Let us look at some of the taxes imposed upon petroleum products in the country. There is the petroleum and gas revenue tax which is approximately 12 per cent on all oil and gas production. There is the incremental oil revenue tax which amounts to about $2.50 per barrel this year and will increase next year. There is the federal sales tax on gasoline which is now running at 9 per cent. It is applied the moment a gallon of gasoline leaves the refinery. In addition, there is the excise tax on gasoline of about 1.5 cents per litre. All the way through we see nothing but taxes on taxes on taxes.
In Bill C-103 the government also saw fit to remove parliamentary debate in a large number of areas. Now we will have taxes set by order in council, as I have mentioned, and taxes set behind closed doors, taxes without debate, taxes without discussion by parliamentarians and, therefore, taxes without input from Canadians. There is an exception, that is, the fact that any "major" purchase can be debated in the House of Commons. It sounds good until we start looking into it carefully. Then we discover that the debate is limited to three hours- the minister speaks for 40 minutes, our critic speaks for 40 minutes, and then the critic of the New Democratic Party. What chance will I have as a backbencher? I represent an area which is dramatically affected by energy, but what chance will I have to speak on tax reforms or pieces of legislation which will come before Parliament? It will not be very much. There will not be much opportunity for input. In other words, my constituents will have very little opportunity to have their concerns expressed because we are limited to three hours of debate.
Another item which I find interesting about the bill is that all taxes and charges will be retroactive to October 1980. We find that taxes have already been collected for various charges and levies throughout the bill without legislation. Bill C-103 is the legislation for that but it is a retroactive piece of legislation. If we look at the total federal government tax take, we find that at present it is running about 60 cents per gallon. If we break that down to litres, which everyone is forced to buy in now, it works out to about 13 cents per litre. If we assume that we are working on about 39 cents per litre for gasoline, about 13 cents or roughly one third is being consumed by federal taxes. Approximately one third of the cost at the gasoline pumps is federal taxes.
The government's reason for collecting these taxes is most disturbing. It is motivated by a greed for more revenue in an attempt to cover the deficit which it has allowed to build up over the last decade. It is an attempt to obtain more money to support absurd spending habits, such as loans to Russia, monuments in other parts of the world, and building sewer systems in cities which are sinking. The government is not
interested in taking any of this revenue and putting it to work in the country. It is not interested in using it for exploration, the development of the industry, or to create jobs. We know that if one rig is operating it employs approximately 30 people.
A short time ago I spoke in the House on an energy bill. 1 talked about the number of wells which will be developed in the United States next year. The number is somewhere around 10,000 wells, which will create employment opportunity, and sprinkle capital throughout the economy, locally, regionally and nationally, revenue we will not see in Canada. Instead, the Government of Canada is reaching out and taking taxes. Our consumers are already being taxed to death.
Several comments were made today about the 1980 election promise to keep prices below world levels. In fact, there is an agreement to keep oil prices below 75 or 85 per cent of world price. The difference is really significant when we compare Canada with the United States. United States prices are actually below those of Canada, yet the United States has already gone to the world price. What is the reason for this? Very simply it is taxes. We are not anywhere near 75 per cent of world price per barrel of oil today, yet our prices are already surpassing a number of American cities. For example, in Seattle gas is 13 cents per gallon cheaper than it is in Vancouver. Where are they? They are moving toward the world price and we are trailing far behind. In fact the difference is nothing more than taxes.
Almost daily I receive letters from my constituents referring to the high costs of energy and of heating homes. These costs have escalated rapidly, but if we look at the bill we find that the government has the opportunity to raise the tax per gigajoule of gas by 14 cents from time to time. My constituents are in an area which is dependent upon a large amount of gas to heat their homes. They have already been hit with high taxes, and now they find that from time to time, by order in council, the government can slap on another 14 cents per gigajoule. It is getting to the point where it is difficult for my constituents to drive their motor vehicles. This may not be so significant in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal because of readily available bus and train services to commute to work, but in an area such as the one I represent people require their vehicles. Since your neighbor is more than two or three miles away in many cases, there is no such thing as a car pool. In my area, a vehicle is a necessity. It is our sole form of transportation for commuting to work or buying supplies. Every small increase in tax which raises the price of fuel dramatically affects people in our part of the country.
Farmers are seriously affected by these taxes because they must fuel to plant their crops and then harvest them. One of the main components of fertilizer which farmers use is none other than natural gas. In fact, farmers need fuel to dry their grain because grain that is not dried brings a much lower price. Fuel is needed wherever you turn, and wherever you turn you must pay federal taxes.
April 22, 1982

The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who spoke earlier mentioned the fact that if these taxes on gas and fuel are broken down, the cost to each farmer in western Canada is about $4,000 extra per year. This represents federal taxes which go directly into the federal coffers. My constituents are being taxed to death on something which is a necessity. They are being taxed to almost the same extent as they are for luxuries such as cigarettes and liquor-things we consider to be expendable. As well, we are being taxed at incredibly high rates on goods that are absolutely necessary. I believe that what will occur is that the way of life in these regions will change, and it will not be for the better. It will force farmers to pull in their horns and our business people to cut back.
When I commenced my remarks I mentioned that the government has been collecting more petroleum compensation charges than necessary. I will briefly expand on that subject. Statistics Canada figures indicate that the government has been collecting $5,688 billion in oil import compensation. If we review that figure, we find that the government only paid out $4,265 billion. Those mathematics indicate that there has been more collected than expended by $1,423 billion. If that figure is broken down to a tax per gallon, the result is about 7 cents per gallon too much tax. If that is broken down even further and regarded in terms of total tax collected and tax surplus, it equals almost one dollar in every five dollars that is surplus. That is 20 per cent too much which could have gone back into the hands of our farmers, consumers and senior citizens who must heat their homes, drive their cars and do all those things that require the use of petroleum energy.
Why has this happened? First, it has happened because there has been a decline in demand for oil and its related products in Canada. The reason for this decline is that we have begun to purchase smaller cars and better insulate our homes. All Canadians have started to become energy conservation conscious. We have started to think in terms of how we can all personally save some energy and conserve on gas and oil. The undertaking of those conservation methods have resulted in a decline in demand for petroleum products. Canada presently imports about 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Those tax dollars which have been collected through our import compensation charge have been used to reimburse importers.
The difficulty we are facing now is that while our consumption is declining we are continuing to import the same amount of fuel. The resulting over supply affects my region in Canada very seriously because oil is left in the ground. While it is still under the ground there is no possibility for creating jobs or for obtaining revenue nor can there be any economic spin-offs throughout our region. Instead, we are creating jobs outside of Canada. Taxpayers are unnecessarily paying the same amount for these imports, while money is spent outside of Canada at a time when we are creating no wealth and no opportunity to collect taxes from those people who are working and spending money. We are left with nothing.
I would like to deal for a moment with some of the ministerial discretions which are provided for in the bill. At page 8 of the bill under Clause 18.3 which is being amended, it states
Energy Administration Act
that, "The Governor in Council may, by regulation ..." and it goes on. At page 11, the clause to be amended is clause 23.1. Again, the governor in council is given tremendous powers. It is stated:
Where no agreement is entered into under Section 22 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the Governor in Council is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the Governor in Council, may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this Part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province.
In other words, it is done by order in council, behind closed doors.
If you look at page 21 of the bill at subclause 4 of clause 33 you will find another example of ministerial discretion. If you read the amendment to Section 65.22 of the bill, once again you see that the minister can increase taxes by order in council, make changes to those taxes and impose regulations.
I am very concerned about these measures because my idea of democracy means that people have a right to make a claim and state their claim through their Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament who represent the various regions of the country have an opportunity to discuss those taxes and vote on them in a democracy. They are supposed to have an opportunity to express their concerns about tax measures. However, that opportunity is taken away throughout this bill because changes can be made secretly in the dark.
I find page 29 of the bill particularly significant. It clearly illustrates the approach the government takes to govern. It is an illustration of the government's priorities and how it would deal with legislation. Subclause 4 provides that when debate does come to the House, it is limited to three hours. As I mentioned, that three hours is virtually useless. Such little time prevents a backbencher like me from getting up and stating my position. If one looks further into subclause 8, one finds that if the House of Commons fails to pass it but the Senate passes it, it is considered to have been passed. That becomes fascinating when one looks at the system which has been set up in this country. We have a Senate which is appointed by a prime minister. Its members are not elected, they are not answerable to anyone and they are not responsible to anyone, but they can vote one way and legislation becomes law.
I suppose that in every cloud there is a bit of a silver lining. I have tried to find one in this particular bill, but I must admit that the only silver lining I can find is that now some of these hon. members opposite, who have been quietly and passively sitting on the government benches, voting for increased taxes on their constituents, will suddenly have to give justification for their action. They will have to go home to their constituents and say, "I voted to increase your taxes by 24 cents a gallon. I increased the cost of your car fuel. I increased the cost of heating your home." Some of their constituents are farmers, and the Liberals know of their difficulties. They will now have to go home and say to them, "I just voted an increase

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
in your taxes which will push up your costs. Your fertilizer costs will go up", and they will have to defend that in their own ridings. That is the only silver lining that I see in this particular cloud.
When I go back to speak to my people in my part of the country, they tell me that they are not happy about these taxes. They are angry. I know that those people over there will go back to their ridings and will have to defend their actions. I am anxious to see them do that. I am anxious to see these people who have been silent for so long having to defend these taxes which are not necessary at this time, these taxes which are exorbitant, these taxes which are hurting the Canadian people. Therefore, I will find it very easy to vote against this particular bill.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-103, an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. The main act which this bill seeks to amend was passed by the House of Commons seven years ago almost to the day, in April of 1975. It had three stated purposes, according to the government. The first was to impose a charge on exports of crude oil and petroleum products in order to discourage such exports from being sold at bargain basement prices and, of course, to raise revenue for Canadian energy goals. The second purpose was to provide compensation for the importation of petroleum. Eastern Canada was then, and it continues to be now, highly reliant on foreign supplied petroleum which is much more expensive than domestically supplied petroleum available in other parts of the country. Thus, the government instituted a means of subsidizing the cost of foreign petroleum so as to standardize prices to the consumer from one part of the country to another. Finally, the act sought to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and in export trade. The government apparently did not want different prices being charged by different producing provinces or companies for the same petroleum products, either within Canada or for export.
Later, in April 1978-and April seems to be a special month for this act-the Petroleum Administration Act was amended to allow certain types of Canadian oil to receive the same compensation as foreign oil. I am referring, in particular, to oil from the Syncrude and Suncor plants in Alberta. The government was authorized to impose a special levy to a maximum of $1 per barrel on all oil produced in Canada or imported into Canada to pay for the subsidy.
Now we have yet another bill to amend the Petroleum Compensation Act. In fact, the government is proposing to overhaul completely the Petroleum Compensation Act. Its title is to be changed to the "Energy Administration Act". Of special concern to myself and to other Progressive Conservative members of Parliament and, I believe, to Canadians right across the country, are two particular provisions devised to authorize the federal government to impose hefty energy taxes on consumers which are already being collected without legal authority. The first one is the petroleum compensation charge. It is currently being levied at $6.30 a barrel, and that charge has increased the price of gasoline at the pump by no less than 24 cents a gallon. Only about $1 per barrel or four cents a
gallon of that amount has yet received legal authority. According to experts, every time the price of oil goes up $ 1 a barrel at the wellhead, we get a corresponding increase at the pump for gasoline of about four cents.
The bill before us seeks to provide the required authority retroactively. The present government is making a practice of this. It announces an energy tax and then immediately collects it. Normally, the tax is effective immediately. But the government does not get around to seeking from Parliament the legal authority for the increase until weeks, months, or, in some cases, years afterward. In effect, Canadians are paying huge energy taxes which the government had no legal authority to impose. As if such a provision were not offensive enough, the government is seeking in this case to give itself a blank cheque to increase the charge even higher to a maximum of $12 a barrel or about 48 cents a gallon at the pump. That is one hefty tax.
The second hefty energy tax contemplated in the bill before us concerns the so-called Canadian ownership charge. It was instituted to raise money from the Canadian consumer for Petro-Canada's purchase of Petro-Fina. In this case, the levy is $1.15 a barrel, or about four cents a gallon at the pump. In a few minutes I hope to have occasion to talk about the purchase by Petro-Canada of Petro-Fina. However, for the moment let me just say that what we have here is a scandalous, ill-disguised tax grab by the Trudeau government at the expense of the average Canadian.
In the last election, the Liberal party promised the electorate, "Vote Liberal and energy prices will come down. Vote Liberal to keep energy prices down". That was the slogan. Since then, the government has imposed a bewildering array of energy taxes, a total of 14 separate ones to date. Fourteen separate energy taxes have been imposed on the Canadian consumer since the Trudeau government was brought back into office in February, 1980. By the end of 1982, gasoline prices are expected to be twice as high as those in effect when the Liberals conspired to defeat the Clark government for proposing to raise gasoline prices by only 18 cents a gallon. The Liberal party and the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons conspired to defeat the Clark government on the shallow and transparent grounds that the Clark government was proposing an 18-cent a gallon increase in the price of gasoline. Yet, by the end of 1985, the price of gasoline will be three times higher than that charged when the Clark government was in office.
At the time of the defeat, the price in my home town of Charlottetown for regular unleaded gasoline was $1.26 a gallon. The date was December, 1979. The price was pretty much the same for the same product in cities of varying size across the country. The price today is $2.25, an increase of 99 cents a gallon. A full 60 cents of the 99-cent increase is directly attributable to federal energy taxes. I would be the First to admit that some of the increase is the result of provincial taxes. Some is the result of the increased return to the
April 22, 1982

industry. There are road taxes, all kinds of things lumped in. The bottom line, though, is that we have had a 99-cent increase in the price of gasoline since the February 1980 election, of which 60 cents is directly attributable to federal energy taxes. Former finance minister John Crosbie's 18 cent a gallon increase looks very good today by comparison.
In the same vein, the price of home heating oil in Charlottetown at the time the Clark government was defeated was 74.2 cents a gallon. Again, that was roughly comparable to the price for the same product in other cities across the country. Since then the Trudeau government has pushed it up to $1.40 a gallon, an increase of 66 cents, again largely because of federal taxes.
This government's shameless imposition of steadily heavier energy taxes after winning an election on a commitment to keep energy prices down has been the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people in the history of the country. The closest parallel was the introduction of wage and price controls by the same Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) within months of winning the 1974 election on an equally categorical commitment against controls.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Crosbie budget energy tax on which the Trudeau party defeated the Clark government did not apply to home heating oil, only to gasoline. The Liberal Party in the February 1980 election deliberately led people to believe that somehow the 18-cent a gallon excise tax applied equally to oil and gasoline. It did not. What is more, the Crosbie budget proposed an energy tax credit for low and middle-income consumers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I know it is quite tiresome to have to refer to members or leaders of parties by their riding or their titles. I have now heard the hon. member mention seven or eight times different members by name. This occupant of the Chair thinks we ought to change the rules. However, in the meantime I am here to see that they are observed. I would ask the hon. member to attempt to respect those rules.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I respect your ruling, Sir, and I will defer to your good judgment on this matter. However, I hope you will appreciate that 1 am referring to a particular budget that is most easily identified as the Crosbie budget as distinct from the MacEachen budget or the Turner budget or the Chretien budget. We have had many budgets in recent years, and to talk about a 1979 budget or 1981 budget does not shed much light on the subject. With Your Honour's approval and indulgence and for the convenience of exposition, may 1 be allowed the handle "Crosbie budget", since I am not referring to a specific member of the House in my remarks, only to his budget?
Let me continue my comments about the energy tax credit in the federal budget of December 1979 by saying that it was for low-income and middle-income consumers. The purpose was to cushion the effect of any increase in energy prices due to federal taxes. As part of that program, there was a rebate for fishermen and farmers so that the increase for many Canadians, particularly those who used energy for their day-to-day livelihood, was substantially lower than 18 cents.
Energy Administration Act
The present government has applied its energy taxes on home heating fuel as brutally as it has done on gasoline. It has adamantly refused to introduce any kind of energy tax credit to cushion that blow. I ask myself how these people can live with themselves. In less than six years the Liberals have won two general federal elections on specific commitments they have totally refused to honour.
Such apostasy breeds public contempt not only for the politicians responsible for it but also for the political system itself. If politicians in Canada are held in low regard, and I fear they probably are, the present Prime Minister and his spineless followers are largely responsible. Having connived and manipulated their way back into power, they are now exercising it without any reference to what they said while in opposition or to what they promised in the last election.
Let us not forget what the Liberals actually promised in the last election. I have in my hand an advertisement that appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian on Saturday, February 16, 1980. It appeared in practically every other newspaper in the country, especially the larger ones. The ad was placed two days before voting day. In bold type it says that "Liberals will implement a program to achieve energy security at a fair price for Canadians". I do not know your definition of "fair", Mr. Speaker. I know my definition. I know what any reasonable definition of "fair" is. Let me show how they defined it. I quote from the ad as follows:
Liberals flatly reject the 18-cent increase in the gasoline excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuels ... Under a Liberal administration, the increase will be less than half of what the Conservatives plan to impose on Canadians.
The ad was referring to gasoline prices in 1980. The clear inference, though, was that under a re-elected Liberal administration, the public would experience lower gasoline taxes than those proposed by the Crosbie budget for the following four year period.
Time does not permit me to quote at length what the Liberal candidates on Prince Edward Island said in the last election on energy prices. However, I can well remember their pious denunciations of the Progressive Conservative government of the day for its 18-cent a gallon excise tax on gasoline.
Federal members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island of all political stripes have a tradition, which goes back many years, of not attacking one another in Ottawa. We operate on the principle that, because there are so few of us against so many, at least in the context of such a large House numerically, our time would be put to better use if we fought for our tiny province rather than against one another. In that spririt, I intend no attacks on my colleagues on the government side. They are all good fellows. I respect the two Liberal members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, and I mean them no offence. But I recall the outrage that was expressed by the present member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) when he was a candidate in the last election, in the opposition. He attacked with great excitement the Crosbie budget proposal for an 18cent a gallon increase in gasoline. I wonder, where is his outrage now that his own party has imposed energy taxes

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
several times greater than the 18-cent tax he savaged with such delight while in opposition. In an interview in the Charlottetown Guardian on 22 January 1980, my own Liberal opponent in Hillsborough, another fine fellow, said that the Crosbie budget would:
-have had a drastic effect on senior citizens and people on fixed incomes, and lower income people and the lower middie-income people.
I have no intention of refighting the 1980 election. Once was enough. But, I cannot help but ask myself this: if my opponent were here today, would he be any different from the dozens of Liberal backbenchers in the House of Commons who mindlessly applaud every inane justification for steadily increasing energy taxes from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and other members of the cabinet?
How many of them will refuse now to stand in their places and speak against high energy taxes in the way they did when fighting the last election? How many of them owe their seats to the blatant lies-may I put it more politely, Sir, the deliberate misrepresentations-that were propagated like dandelions in the last election? How many of them would survive an election if it were actually held now on the government energy taxes?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not one.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I doubt that many of them would be returned, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians have a right to ask what they are getting in return for the burdensome energy taxes imposed on them since the last election. They can be forgiven for having no confidence in this government's capacity to use the revenue wisely. Indeed, it has made a complete hash-I do not think that is an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker-of energy policies in the last decade. No country in the free industrialized world has adjusted more slowly or more ineptly than has Canada to the formation of the OPEC cartel in 1973. We have had a whole decade-just short of that by a year-to adjust to the formation of that cartel based in the Middle East to force up quickly, energy costs without much forewarning. But Canada has dithered and procrastinated, and it has refused to take the steps necessary to adjust to the new reality.
Contrast Canada's performance vis-a-vis the 1973 OPEC cartel formation with that of Japan, for example. Japan has practically no capacity to generate energy. It is 90 per cent dependent on energy supplies from abroad. Yet by steadily adjusting to higher world energy prices from the very beginning-it did not wait a decade, it began immediately-Japan has kept its economy buoyant. Canada, which was self-reliant in oil production as recently as 1974, is now a net importer of oil, largely because of its sluggish response to the OPEC cartel.
As recently as 1974, this country was self-reliant, self-sufficient in oil. Our recent scramble to bring energy prices in line with economic forces throughout the world is causing enormous dislocations, one of the most serious of which is near
run-away inflation. At a time when we are wrestling with 12 per cent inflation in Canada, Japan enjoys a rate of only 3.1 per cent.
The Clark government tried to make up for the failure of the Trudeau government to protect our country's interests against the stranglehold of the OPEC cartel between 1973 and 1979. Recognizing as it did that the Canadian government did very little between 1973 when the cartel was formed and 1979 when the Progressive Conservatives took office, the Clark government did what it could to catch up for lost time. The defeat of the Progressive Conservative government, followed by two years of wrangling with Alberta over an energy agreement, further set back Canada's goal of energy self-sufficiency based on a realistic energy price structure.
The government's ill-conceived Canadianization policy threatens to put us out of the running altogether. One of the unfortunate aspects of the debate on Canadianization is that somehow the word itself has become debased. All of us are in favour of Canadianization. All of us are in favour of getting more control over our resources and our energy capacity. None of us revels in the reality that much of our resources are controlled by other countries, principally the United States. So, of course, there is virtually unanimity in this House that we should take certain steps to patriate our energy industry. The question is, how to do that. This government, through its ineptitude, has retarded that process by bringing the industry itself to its knees. The government's ill-conceived Canadianization policy threatens to put us behind, rather than ahead, in patriating our energy industry.
As long as the government insists on buying up existing oil companies at the expense of encouraging new resource exploration and development in Canada, we will continue to fall further and further behind. Too much of our scarce investment capital is being used to buy up existing companies, rather than encouraging companies to go out and explore, develop and create new energy wealth for us and for sale in international markets. I ask, what earthly purpose is served by buying up service stations, as the government did with the Petro-Fina purchase, when that action adds not a drop of oil to domestic supplies? Such stupidity merely places greater demand on scarce investment capital, thereby driving up inflation even higher, through upward pressure on interest rates.
If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-103 will compound Canada's serious energy problems. No wonder the government tried to sneak it through the House in a lump with some 14 other energy-related pieces of legislation in the form of one massive omnibus bill that would have required but one vote. That is what the government did. It took distinct pieces of legislation, important pieces of legislation, rolled them all into one, presented them to the House as an omnibus bill requiring only one vote, rather than as many as 15, in a way that denied the fact that there were distinct principles involved from one piece of legislation to another. So a member of this House was put in the invidious position of having to vote for all of them at
April 22, 1982

once, or vote against all of them, even though he or she might have been in favour of some provisions and against others. That is a denial of the democratic process. That is a denial of parliamentary democracy. Equally offensive is the fact that the government took tax measures and lumped them with nontax measures so that non-tax measures, which ordinarily would go through the standing committee process, would be whipped through the Committee of the Whole instead. That is the way tax measures are normally handled. By circumventing the standing committee process the government tried to deny the public an opportunity-until we stopped the government-to meet with Members of Parliament, so as to discuss their concerns and make suggestions for changes in the energy legislation. The whole witness process was threatened because of the offensive way the government went about presenting its energy legislation in the form of an omnibus bill.
1 for one am proud of the role-


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member completes his speech, I wonder if he would accept a question.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Certainly.


Paul Edmund McRae: In discussing increases in the cost of gasoline and fuel oil across the country is the hon. member aware of the fact that between February 1980 and roughly the summer of 1981 oil prices more than doubled? The oil equalization charge is an equalization program whereby communities or provinces in the east or on the Atlantic coast pay the same price paid by people in the rest of the country. Is the hon. member aware of that, and would he estimate what part that plays in the 99 cent increase in gasoline prices he talks about?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I am from the Atlantic region. No doubt that fact has prompted the hon. member who has asked me this question to pose the question. No part of the country has been more disadvantaged by the government's energy policies than my part of the country.


Miss Begin:: Shame.


Thomas Michael McMillan: In the 1980 election campaign we were promised that energy prices would remain low. In December of 1979 the price of regular unleaded gasoline in my city of Charlottetown was $1.26. Today the price for the same product, regular unleaded gasoline, is 99 cents higher. Of that 99 cents, 60 cents is directly attributable to federal energy taxes. The hon. member has the unmitigated gall to suggest that we in the Atlantic region or, for that matter, any Canadian should be humble and should go to the federal government on bended knee to thank it for its beneficence.


Monique Bégin: Yes, you should.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The truth is that our economy has practically been brought to its knees because of increased energy taxes not only on gasoline but also on home heating oil. In the last election campaign, fishermen, farmers and small business people were promised by the Liberal Party that if they voted
Energy Administration Act
Liberal the price of energy would come down. We have seen the results. We have seen energy prices in Canada skyrocket, and again that is largely because of energy taxes imposed by this Liberal government on Canadian consumers.
As I said, no part of the country has been more disadvantaged by that policy than the Atlantic provinces because we are highly dependent on oil. We use oil even for the generation of electricity, and every time this government imposes a tax on oil, it reverberates right through the economy. It affects the price of gasoline at the pump, it affects the senior citizen trying to heat his or her home, and it affects businesses, because these added energy costs are reflected in their costs of operation, and those latter costs in turn must be passed on to consumers. It is no wonder inflation has skyrocketed more in the Atlantic region than in any other part of the country.
I am proud of the role my party played in blocking the transparent effort of this government to come to the House and present 14 or 15 pieces of diverse legislation as though they were one and required only one vote. The government attempted to circumvent the standing committee process. It lumped tax measures on to non-tax measures. It tried to sneak unpopular measures on the backs of popular ones. It tried to force Members of Parliament into the invidious position of having to vote for the whole package or against the whole package, even though most hon. members favoured some aspects and did not favour others. I am proud of the role my party played in preventing that steam-rolling of Parliament. Thanks to the Progressive Conservative blockade of the government's steamroller, Parliament now has an opportunity to scrutinize this particular bill before us now. It has an opportunity to review it and all the others which have since been hived off from the omnibus bill. We have an opportunity to look at each bill on its own merits. We have an opportunity to discuss the distinct principles peculiar to each of them and to exercise our right to vote against some while voting in a different way on others. That is a restoration of parliamentary democracy, and it is a lasting and glorious tribute to the leadership of my party that the rights of Parliament were restored.
For my part, I will exercise my right to vote against Bill C-103, and I urge all hon. members to do so as well.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is a very real pleasure for me to speak to the House about Bill C-103 to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, because this is a bill by which the Liberal Party of Canada reaches the pinnacle of deceit as far as the people of Canada are concerned. There may be Canadians out there who felt the Liberal Party reached the pinnacle of deceit in 1976 after campaigning in 1974 on the basis that it would never ever bring in wage and price controls and then bringing in wage and price controls in a complete reversal of its promise and pledge to the people in 1974.
In 1979 and 1980 the Liberals lied their way across Ontario and lied their way across Canada.

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act


Mr. Dingwall:: Unparliamentary.


Mr. Gauthier:: Are you listening, Mr. Speaker?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us take a look at this bill. It proposes to give to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) the authority to impose taxes of 52 cents per gallon on gasoline and heating oil. That may come as a shock to many people. Of the 52 cents the government proposes to tax the people of Canada it is already imposing a tax of 28 cents a gallon without any parliamentary approval.
There is one good thing about this bill, and I think it should be brought to the attention of the people. The provisions of this bill are not as bad as those originally contained in Bill C-94, which proposed that the minister be given authority to impose taxes on gasoline to the tune of 98 cents per gallon. It was that provision, among others, that caused the Progressive Conservative Party to bring parliament to a halt and demand that Bill C-94 be split into ten different bills.


David Charles Dingwall: A boycott. On strike!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The bill was split into eight different bills despite the very, very strong statements by the government House leader to the effect, "We will not split the bill. We will forge ahead. What is the matter with ten bills wrapped in one? The people are with us." The House knows that the Liberal party, through its House leader, capitulated to democracy. It found that the public of Canada understood, far better than it thought, that the time had come for the Liberal Party to start listening to it.
The tax grab on gasoline made by the federal government totalled 60 cents per gallon as of March this year. Under the Liberal Party the federal government's tax grab on heating oil totalled 40 cents per gallon as of March this year.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question but that one of the reasons the Liberal Party is forging ahead with forced metrication is that it wants to deal in litres as much as possible and not in gallons because the 18 cents per gallon burns it very hard. It knows that it passed the 18 cents per gallon point long ago.
This bill proposes that the government's tax grab, under the Liberal Party's policy, be higher than the current sky high levels. It seeks to approve retroactively the special compensation charge that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources imposed when he was unable to come to an agreement with the province of Alberta. It is no wonder that the minister was not able to come to any agreement with the province of Alberta. It is hard to figure out how he could ever come to much of an agreement with anybody. It is obvious that he has applied his usual method of confrontation and bulldozing ahead. His lack of reason is evident in the way he negotiates things. That is why he has had such difficulty with the Alsands project, a project which means so very very much to the people of Canada. The Alsands project is not just an Alberta project; it
is a Canadian project, one which would put Canadians to work right across the country.
In my riding of Simcoe North, Fahramet Limited, which produces refractor tubes used in refineries, has had to lay off people because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cannot come to an agreement with anybody.
In December 1979 the price of gasoline in Toronto was $1.18 per gallon. By December 1981 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, under the Liberal party's high energy tax policy, managed to get it up to $1.89 per gallon. That is an increase of 71 cents per gallon in two years when the Liberals promised the increase would be less than 18 cents per gallon.
My friend who put gas in the tank and I chatted a little. He had been to Florida for a holiday. He told me that he paid as little as $1.13 per gallon on that trip, and that is the Canadian gallon, Mr. Speaker. Under the great policies of the Liberal party, it has managed to get the price of our gasoline up to $2.00 per gallon.
You will remember that during the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals focused on the figure of 18 cents. For a moment I should like the House to focus on the figure 16 cents. In a little over two years the Liberal Party has been responsible for 16 increases in the price of gas. I am not asking you to focus your attention on the kind of increase, Mr. Speaker-we know they amount to 71 cents in two years-but to focus on the number of times the price has been increased. There have been more increases in the price of gasoline under the Liberal Party than there have been budget retreats by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He is off again, consulting. He has made five retreats since December 13 and we can count the number of changes to be in the thirties.
There is something to be said for the Liberal party and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker-16 increases in a little over two years from a party which said it would never increase the price of gas by 18 cents!
In December 1979 the price of heating oil was 69 cents per gallon in Toronto. Under the Liberal Party, the party which lied its way across Toronto, lied its way across Ontario, lied its way across Canada, the price has gone to $1.22 per gallon, an increase of 53 cents per gallon in the two years since that party promised it would be less than 18 cents per gallon.
In the election campaign the Liberals talked about 18 cents per gallon with great glee. They did not focus on a matter called the refundable energy tax credit. In the budget which the Liberal party criticized and complained about and said would never do, the energy tax credit paid to Canadians to cushion the impact of high prices on low and middle-income families would have been up to $80 for each adult and $30 for each child under 18. The credits would have been refundable so that families who paid little or no federal tax would have received the full benefits. That was for families with an income of $21,380.
The Liberal party, which said it would not tax Canadians 18 cents per gallon, for once may be said to have told the truth- if you consider that it did not stop at 18 cents. I see you are
April 22, 1982

nodding your head, Mr. Speaker. That is actually what happened. They told the truth. In that one instance they did not stop at that 18 cents but went on and on and on. The Progressive Conservative policy, which it laid out truthfully, was to give people an energy tax credit, but the Liberals said "We won't raise the price of gasoline." They never said anything about heating oil, they just went ahead and did it.
I am pleased to take part in this debate for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker. During the 1979-80 campaign my Liberal opponent waxed long and loud throughout Simcoe North with respect to the price of gasoline and the tax on gasoline. He came to my riding from metropolitan Toronto. We did not call him a parachute candidate; he had a hobby farm in the area for several years and used to come there on weekends. We wondered why he did not go back to his riding in Scarborough on the weekends, but all that became very clear when we realized he was elected in 1974 on the Liberal platform of: "We will not put in wage and price controls." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you had campaigned in 1974 on that platform would you want to go back to your riding on weekends? Obviously not.
His name was Allan Martin. He was very plain about what the Liberal Party was and was not going to do. He put it right on the record. The Liberals will not sock it to the ordinary taxpayer by imposing an 18-cent excise tax on gas, he said. He was right; they did not stop at 18 cents. Two more increases and they will have a total of 18 increases, let alone an 18-cent tax. So Mr. Martin trooped around Simco North saying he was concerned about the effect of this 18-cent excise tax on northern Ontario. He said that area was attempting to promote industrial expansion, revitalize the economy and provide needed jobs. Isn't that heavy? Isn't that something? That Liberal candidate went across Simcoe North promising that they would not increase the price of gasoline by 18 cents. "Not us, we won't stop there", is what he should have said. Well, he is still in the riding, fortunately, although I do not see much of him anymore. 1 kind of liked passing the time of day with him when I got the chance, and we could talk about the 18 cents. How is the 18 cents going, Allan? Does he feel as strongly about it now as he did then? This is kind of amusing. He had a little symposium after the last budget-can you imagine that-inviting people to spend I think $10 for lunch and a look at the last budget. How could you eat after looking at it? You have seen what it has done to the Minister of Finance; it caused a disappearing act. However, he had a few people there. I am sure he was carried out on the backs of the businessmen, home owners and farmers of Simcoe North to great cheers when he told them what the budget said.
I certainly hope that he will be around come the next election, although I have to say that with some reservations, Mr. Speaker, because we were fortunate enough to have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the riding last night, speaking to the Simcoe North Liberal Association. They rented a bigger phone booth this time. If that candidate can survice the Minister of Agriculture, he may be back. We run a list on this side as to which ministers we want to come into our
Energy Administration Act
ridings, and that minister is one of them. The other one is the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), who will be in my riding tomorrow in Penetanguishene. I think he is going to help our cause considerably.
It was not just candidates in individual ridings who tried to play this game with the Canadian people. The Liberal Party, in a questionnaire put out by the Financial Post, said the 18cent excise tax was unfair, inflationary and would lead to the loss of a significant number of jobs in the Canadian economy. Well, having said that, they jacked up the price of gasoline by 71 cents a gallon and really proved it. They managed to get unemployment to its greatest height since the 1930s. They now have what they call the hidden unemployed; it is not hidden if you cannot put food on the table, but they call it the hidden unemployed. They have proven what 71 cents a gallon will do to Canada's economy.
My party lost that election on that promise, which was just as popular as the 1974 promise not to introduce wage and price controls. That promise interests me because I feel that the Liberal lie of the 1970s was: "We will not introduce wage and price controls". The Liberal lie of the 1980s was: "We will not increase the price of gasoline 18 cents a gallon." The taxes which the Liberal Party has laid on the economy of Canada in the price of gasoline have been inflationary. We have the highest inflation we have had in years. If anyone is looking for new records for this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to break, there is one.
I want to speak now, Mr. Speaker, about this energy legislation in a broad context. What has the Liberal energy policy done for the country? Well, they managed to increase the price of gasoline by 71 cents a gallon. They have singlehandedly been responsible for moving hundreds of oil rigs out of western Canada along with their operating personnel and expertise. That represents jobs, and not just in Alberta. Many members of my party from Ontario and the maritimes have gone to Alberta at the invitation of our western colleagues and we saw what it means to move an oil rig. Members on the other side have no idea what that means. It takes between 20 and 40 trucks of all different shapes and sizes to move one of those rigs. I do not know an awful lot about engineering, but it is quite obvious to me that when you set down 20 to 40 truckloads of steel, you do not pick up the rig and bring it back very easily. That is what the Liberal Party has managed to do for Alberta.
They talk about the megaprojects which are going to solve all their problems. Well, I think they might solve some but, good grief, you have to have one first. These tar sands plants mean as much to Ontario as they do to Alberta. As far as we in the Conservative party are concerned, this is a joint venture because in Ontario-in the ridings represented by many of the people on the other side of the House as well as in my party- there are jobs generated when a tar sands project is put into place. But what do we have? We have excuse after excuse after excuse from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as to why they cannot put one of those things
COMMONS DEBATES__________________April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
together. I guess maybe it is because the minister cannot make threats. We have partners in those very valuable projects pulling out day in and day out because they cannot operate with someone who does not understand business and does not want everybody to have a job.
That reminds me, of the time when I was in the oil fields looking at a rig. A chap got off one of those trucks with dials and hoses-which my friends from Alberta understand so well, and I do not-came over and said "Doug, how are you?" I did not recognize him, but he introduced himself. He said to me, "You remember when I used to sell printing down the street in Orillia. 1 have been out here for a year now and I am making more money than I ever did or could make with my training. I am outdoors all the time and I am enjoying the job. It is going very well. I hope you fellows will do everything you can to persuade the Liberals that there is room for jobs for people from all over Canada in Alberta. We want to continue to work." But what are we doing? The Liberals single-handedly shut down the oil fields out west. While they are shutting down oil fields out west, and with that jobs are lost, what are we doing? We are importing foreign oil. What a terrific idea. You shut down what you have and you pay a subsidy to import what somebody else has. What a terrific idea. It reminds me of a story of someone who was losing money on each item that he sold and he tried to make it up on volume. Another terrific idea.
We have solved one problem, Mr. Speaker. Remember when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) had all those customs people at the border checking cars coming into Canada? Well, we were able to lay them off. There is no problem now. All those Americans are not coming into Canada to get gas any more. Americans have had to hire many more people on their side of the border because Canadians now are going to the States to get gas. Why? Because of our terrific energy policy.
I do not agree with what OPEC is doing. But OPEC has an interesting concept which is as old as any economic policy. That concept is that if you have a product which somebody else wants, you sell it. For instance, you are sitting there with nothing but sand and oil. You find that you cannot sell the sand, but you can sell the oil. That is interesting. The Liberal Party's concept is that if you have a product, you legislate it, legislate it and legislate it and hope that by the time all the bureaucrats have the legislation in place, the product will be out a date, as is coal and kerosene, and extinct like the dinosaur. The thinking of the Liberal Party as to how you sell what you have stinks. It is a dinosaur energy policy. All it does is legislate. Did Henry Ford ever legislate anything? Of course not, he built things. What is this Liberal Party doing? It is legislating energy to death. What do we have? What we have is bill after bill after bill on energy. We do not have any industrial strategy, any fisheries strategy, any agricultural
strategy or any small business strategy. All we have is energy legislation.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing I want in the world is some bureaucrat trying to figure out where to drill for oil. By the time the bureaucrats get that figured out we will be on to uranium power, solar power or whatever.
I see that I am running out of time, but I know that my friends on the other side are listening to me with great interest and so I do not want to cut my speech short. Therefore, I will recap for the sake of those on the other side. I want to leave the Liberal Party with the same message the people of Canada will give them in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The price of gasoline rose 28 cents a gallon in 1980. In 1981, the price of gasoline rose 48 cents a gallon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If the time comes that we will need advice from those on the other side on how to make speeches, they will want to have practised what they preach.


Mr. Kempling:: They are mute. They never speak.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I wondered when the Liberals would wake up to the fact that all of Canada knows that they lie.
I want to conclude by saying that we are going to vote against this bill because of the terrible increase in taxes that it proposes, the burden that it puts on the consumers, but basically because the Liberal Party lied to the people of Canada.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in the debate on Bill C-103 to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, I find it quite extraordinary that the first thing the government wants to do is to change the name of the act. It is now to be the energy administration act.
In view of the problems that were created for the government by its attempted bootlegging of Parliament and of the original energy bill, I am surprised at the effort the government is making now to try to bring in a bill with the name of the Energy Administration Act. I do not know what is wrong with the Petroleum Administration Act. I noted that yesterday the minister in his remarks told us what he wanted this bill to do. He said that, first, it would establish a new ceiling for the petroleum compensation charge on refiners and importers; second, that it would establish a new oil export charge ceiling; third, that it would establish the Canadian ownership special charge; and fourth, that it would establish the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge on marine and aviation fuel used by carriers in international transportation. This bill does not sound as though it were any kind of administration bill or even energy bill. It sounds to me more like a tax bill. The four principles stated at the outset by the minister all have to do with establishing some kind of a charge for the taxpayers of Canada.
April 22, 1982

I ran across a column today written by Mr. Roy Farran, who writes a column regularly in The Edmonton Journal. In his column of April 16, he starts off with this paragraph:
Politicians would do an enormous favour to the nation if they would quit lying and start telling the truth.
Any chance of Canada's becoming energy self-sufficient before 1990 has been blown long ago.
I know because of the dates-the minister spoke yesterday and Mr. Farran wrote this column last week-that Mr. Farran could not have read the minister's speech before he wrote that column. But in reading his remarks, one might think that he had been referring exactly to what the minister had been saying here in the House. What else did the minister say? The minister continued, with syrup oozing from every pore, as follows:
Our oil and gas pricing schedule, as created in consultation with the provinces, reflects the sense of realism and fairness which characterizes our energy program. Our pricing system has three essential advantages over the regime proposed by the previous Conservative government in 1980. It ensures that prices rise gradually and predictably so that consumers and the Canadian economy in general are given time to adjust. It ensures oil pricing fairness on a national level by providing a blended price to all regions of the country, and it results in a consumer price which has been and will continue to be lower than that paid by people of most other countries.
1 think that may be the part to which Mr. Farran was referring in his opening paragraph.
Fet us go back and examine some of the minister's phrases. He said, "It ensures that prices rise gradually and predictably." He might have said that prices will rise inexorably, mercilessly or even unnecessarily. I think those adverbs would describe the price rises more accurately than the words of the minister.
He went on to talk about the government's policy of "providing a blended price to all regions of the country". 1 do not know what he meant by "blended", but we could substitute the words "equally high". The minister could have said that the policy would provide an equally high price to all regions of the country. I do not care from where hon. members opposite come; they will suffer in the same way all across the country.
The minister also said that the price would "continue to be lower than that paid by people of most other countries". That may be true. I do not know what countries the minister was counting or not counting, but he could have said that the price he was proposing would not be lower than the price proposed by the previous Conservative government to which he referred. Certainly it is not lower than the price which now exists in the United States, our neighbour to the south.
What else did the minister say? He went on to talk about the proposals of the Conservative government. I hope he knows them well. He said:
The Conservative government proposed in 1979 to pay one price to producers of oil in Canada except synthetic oil, regardless of the cost of developing and producing different types of oil. Moreover, the price was directly linked to 85 per cent of the international price, whatever the international price might be, thereby directly exposing Canadian consumers to the uncertainties of international oil prices regardless of the consequences to the country's economy.
Energy Administration Act
In other words, he said there was one price to producers of oil whether old or new oil. In the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Falonde), I ask his colleagues why that is unusual. The marketplace does not distinguish between old and new. I ask hon. members opposite to consider whether old houses are cheaper than new ones, whether old shares of a company are cheaper than new shares of the same company, whether old labour is cheaper than new labour. The answer is obvious. The marketplace attaches the same price to old as to new. For the minister to suggest that there is something wrong with paying one price does not make sense at all.
He also said that the Conservative price was linked to 85 per cent of the world price. Under this government, Canadian consumers and taxpayers-we are all consumers, we are all taxpayers-are directly linked to 100 per cent of the world price. We are now buying on the world market on long contracts. As a result of this policy and the policy to have the subsidy provided by the federal treasury, we are now in a position of exporting more than $3 billion from Canada in tax payments to foreign oil producers.
I referred to the estimates for the 1981 fiscal year before coming to the chamber this evening. The amount was $3.2 billion, in 1982, it was $5.2 billion. In the estimates for the 1983 fiscal year, the amount was $3 billion. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) earlier referred to the fact that the National Energy Program was a massive tax grab on the part of the government, put upon the poor, long suffering taxpayers of Canada. He was so right. I wonder whether he knew how right he was.
Every year Revenue Canada puts out a very interesting book entitled, "Taxation Statistics". It contains a table summarizing all income tax returns of individuals by income. I wonder whether taxpayers realize that approximately $4 billion, on average over the three years about which I am talking, represents the amount of personal federal income taxes paid by Canadian taxpayers who earned $17,000 or less. I wonder whether Canadian taxpayers realize that there are 11,300,000 people who in the last year for which statistics are available, 1978, had total incomes of $17,000 or less. This represents 78.95 per cent of all individual Canadian taxpayers. I wonder whether these 11,300,000 Canadian taxpayers, or 78.95 per cent of the total, realize that they paid $4 billion in order to subsidize the oil import program of the government.
To put it another way, we often hear, especially from hon. members to my left, about the number of taxpayers who earn over $50,000 and do not pay taxes. There happened to be 118,000 taxpayers that year who earned over $50,000. The tax grab of the government would have taken or did take more than twice the amount of taxes which all 118,000 taxpayers paid in 1978 in the form of federal income taxes.
The minister also said we would have been "exposing Canadian consumers to the uncertainties of international oil prices regardless of the consequences to the country's economy." Fet us look at the economy. First, I should like to return to the column of Mr. Farran in the Edmonton Journal,

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
wherein he told us what happened to the Canadian economy. He said:
What do you think it means when Imperial pulls out a petro-chemical plant near Edmonton, when half the companies withdraw from the third oil sands plant, when Imperial disperses its team at Cold Lake, when Shell sells off subsidiaries, when oil lease sales drop by half?
Why do you think Alberta energy shares fell from $25 to $10?
I ask the government why it thinks the shares of First Calgary Petroleums, a company which I happen to know, which were selling at $6 a little over a year ago on the Toronto Stock Exchange have sold as low as $1.10 this year? Dozens of other companies have been decimated on the stock exchange.
What does that do to the economy and to investors in Canada? The drop in the value of shares on the Toronto stock exchange since the beginning of the fall-off in stock prices last year is over $50 billion. You can imagine what effect that could have had on the deficit in Canada. Try as the government might, it has not been able to build the deficit up to much over $15 billion in one year. This $50 billion which has been cut from Toronto stock exchange shares would go about half way to retiring the national debt of this country. It is a very sizeable amount.
If all these investors are losing money, somebody must be gaining. But I say that no one gains and, in fact, all Canadians are losing. The taxpayers are losing. What is occurring is that investors are unable to invest money. The provisions in the National Energy Program are so unpalatable that investors are incapable of investing. As a result, explorers in natural resources are unable to explore. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that many oil rigs have left Canada, taking with them all their related jobs to the United States where the drilling climate is much more favourable.
Although I do not have the figures immediately available, Statistics Canada released figures which indicated that the outflow of capital from Canada and the rate of increase in that outflow of capital was astounding. In fact, it is up to $18 billion during the current fiscal year. The reason for this large outflow is that investors who were investing in Canada are no longer doing so and alternatively are taking their money and investing in a better climate, such as that in the United States. In order to make Canada attractive and to ensure that our balance of payments will not completely fall out of bed, the government has forced high interest rates to be paid. It is surely a symptom of the problems faced by the Government and Canada when the rates of Canada Savings Bonds, which have been gilt-edged security for most Canadians on most occasions, have soared to 19'/2 per cent.
While the government has not been able to resolve its dilemma, and with the 1916 per cent interest rate that has caused the highest sales of Canada Savings Bonds in years- probably decades-there has been a shortage of funds which would have been available for other areas where investment is required. One such area is housing mortgages. People are not able to obtain mortgages because of the large amount of money which has been invested in savings bonds. Why would an investor want to invest in a mortgage at 17 per cent, 18 per
cent or 19 per cent when Canada Savings Bonds will give him a liquid return of 1916 per cent?
I thought the minister's remarks yesterday were about as sensible as those he made today. I was listening to the news when the minister was questioned on going into a meeting with the Alberta minister of energy. He said, after being approached by the press for a comment, "I have nothing to say at this time." He then went into the meeting. When the minister emerged from the meeting some time later he was again approached by the reporters. He said, "I have nothing to add to what I have already said." He probably did not have anything to say when he was inside the room either.
I have referred to the long term contracts into which the government induced Canadian companies to enter. As a result of these long term contracts we now have the ridiculous situation where Canadians are paying inflated prices on old contracts. While the government did not want to pay the same price for old oil as it did for new oil, it is alright for us to pay a higher price for old oil on contract while the world price for oil is falling. The situation as it exists now is that spot market oil prices are so attractive Canadian oil-principally Alberta oil, but oil in Saskatchewan and British Columbia as well-is shut-in to the extent of 300,000 barrels a day. It is no surprise, therefore, that the stock prices have been decimated. If the sales revenue of a company is removed how will it be able to cover its fixed costs, particularly its very high borrowing costs in the form of Canadian interest rates?
We know that Canadian taxpayers pay an import charge on oil. A fact which recently came to light is that New Brunswick, for example, can burn subsidized oil to produce electricity which it then exports to the United States with no recovery. Although this bill will impose a certain form of tax on exported energy, I cannot see anything in it about taxing electricity or other forms of energy which is exported after being produced with subsidized imported oil.
We have recently heard about truckers who have modified their vehicles so they can fill their tanks in Canada with subsidized oil, make their runs into the deep south of the United States and return to Canada without having to refill their tanks. This bill proposes to tax aircraft and ships leaving Canada but it makes no mention of trucks.
The transportation fuel compensation recovery charge is designed to stop aircraft in transit from obtaining subsidized fuel. However, an analysis of the bill, as I see it, would indicate that probably it will not be applied to aircraft. It is likely that some international carriers complained so much about that particular measure it was withdrawn. The compensation recovery charge will not apply to energy exported in other forms, such as electricity, as I have already mentioned.
The minister also commented that the opposition continually attacks the government's pricing system on the basis of gasoline prices at the pump. The government's spokesman never bothered to point out to the general public that the Government of Canada does not control retail gasoline prices. That is a very strange claim for a government minister to make in
April 22, 1982

1982, when his government went to great lengths during the 1980 election campaign to criticize and say what an absolutely terrible proposal was made by the conservatives to increase the cost of gasoline at the pumps by 18 cents a gallon. They said that Canadians should never have to pay that price, and all they had to do was elect a Liberal government in order to have lower prices at the gasoline pump. The minister now claims that the federal government does not control retail gasoline prices. It makes you wonder, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague, the member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) made reference to the emotional remarks of our colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I agree that it is a very emotional issue, for different reasons, for different hon. members. My own emotion is that this is a terrible and a sad program because it is destroying the oil industry in Canada. Not only is it destroying the oil industry in Canada, but the destruction of that industry has led directly to the recession and the high interest rates of today.
We have already seen, through this government's policies, destruction of the work ethic of a whole generation of Canadians, with unemployment insurance payments rising to well over $4 billion. We do not know where on earth this will end during the current and future fiscal years.
We might ask, "What next", from a government which likes to attack these principles. As a chartered accountant, I look at what the government is doing to established accounting principles. It is not making a new attack on accounting principles. We have already heard this government state that a loss is not a loss. It started that attack ten years ago when it decided to pass a policy which meant that if one invested in a business such as a factory, and if there were sales revenues, one could deduct one's capital cost allowance on the factory from other income or any income. However, this government decided back in 1971 or 1972 that a loss created by capital cost allowance in housing was not deductible from other income like other losses. The result was predictable to everyone except the government opposite. The supply of investment in housing dried up. What happened? We do not have any supply of rental housing, and therefore we do not have any vacancy to speak of in rental housing now we have high rental rates, just because the government tried to buck the long established principles, in this case, accounting principles.
This is the same government that stated that an expense is not an expense. That was stated in the most recent November 12 budget in relation to interest payment. That was stated in many former budgets, but until very recently, concerning tax legislation, the government said that a spouse's wage paid by an unincorporated business was not an expense. We have accounting principles which state that if one pays out money to earn income, that is an expense. However, that is a principle which does not bother this government opposite.
Of course, the effect of the provision in the November 12 budget that interest expenses paid are not deductible from other income will almost totally cut off investment in small
Energy Administration Act
Canadian enterprises. How can anyone afford to borrow money to invest in a small Canadian enterprise? Let us not forget that small Canadian enterprises provide something like two-thirds of the jobs in Canada. How will anyone be able to do that when the interest paid on one's borrowings is not a deductible expense, by decree of the dictator over there?
That is the same group opposite which says that a loss is not a loss when referring to the profit or loss on sale of personal assets. If one sells a collection, or something of particular value, and makes a capital gain-a profit-that is taxable. However, if one has a loss on the very same asset, because it happens to be a personal asset, that loss is not a loss and one cannot deduct it, regardless of how it arose or whether one has any other income. The same government says that a loss is not a loss if a farmer, who is trying to build up a farm, happens to have another occupation, because then of course he is not a full-time farmer and is deemed to be a hobby farmer. Those are principles that we can afford to change.
The same government opposite, when doing its own accounts, has changed the accounting principles to say that a liability is not a liability. I see that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is here, and he knows very well that his own department states that a liability is not a liability; not when it is arising out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and that liability is not disclosed in the financial statements of Canada.
I suppose these attacks on principle could be expected. But now, under the National Energy Program, this government has a new attack and has decided to adopt a new principle. It has decided that accountants do not know how to account. That change in principle arises out of the petroleum incentives program and the petroleum and gas revenue tax, or the PGRT, as it is known.
I have in my hand an accounting guideline dated February, 1982. It is an accounting guideline produced by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants which most people recognize as the accounting authority in this country. I cannot read the whole guideline, but the highlighted paragraphs state:
The Petroleum Incentives are expenditure oriented and therefore should be taken into income in the same manner as the exploration and development expenditures that they support.
Further on, in relation to the PGRT, it states:
The Accounting Research Steering Committee believes that, because the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax is a tax on revenue, it should be charged to income at the same time as the related petroleum and gas revenue is taken into income. It should be shown as a reduction of gross revenue or an operating expense or part of government levies.
I do not expect all hon. members of the House to understand what the Institute of Chartered Accountants is stating in that bulletin, but the point is that members of the profession who do the accounting for the oil industry to know what that means and they do know how it should be handled. However, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not like that idea because it would not treat those items as he wanted. As a result, he has written to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants to say that it had better change its accounting

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
principles and advice or he will legislate it into doing so. I have heard that from the profession, but I would like to read a little clipping from the Financial Post of April 3, 1982, which states:
The accounting profession may have won one battle with Ottawa, but lost the war. It's understood that a letter has gone to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants saying the government won't prescribe Petroleum Incentives Program accounting rules, as expected, but it may reconsider the CICA's power to set accounting standards for federally incorporated companies.
Therefore, what the government is telling the accounting profession is that it does not like its principles, and if the accounting profession does not change its principles, then the government will change them. I suppose, with all the changes the government has already made to principles, which I have reiterated, we should not be surprised, nor should it surprise us, I suggest, when we look at this government's performance in past election campaigns. Some of my colleagues have referred to the 1974 campaign as a blatant example. The campaign promises of no wage and price controls in 1974 translated into wage and price controls in 1975. In 1980, the lower gasoline prices promised by the then Liberal opposition translated, for the poor, gullible consuming taxpayer, into much, much higher gasoline prices.
If we analyse the increases resulting from the petroleum compensation charge alone, which have meant price increases at the pump of 24 cents per gallon, added to the Canadian ownership charge used to pay for the purchase of Petro-Canada, which comes to four cents a gallon, we find there has been an increase of 28 cents a gallon-from those two taxes alone. This particular bill is proposing that the maximum petroleum compensation charge could amount to another 24 cents a gallon, which would bring us to 52 cents a gallon as a result of only two or three taxes.
My colleague from Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) told us of the number of tax increases there have been. This is really quite startling. When we have a government led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has just put his personal view on a new Constitution of Canada ahead of all government business, I do not see how these aberrations I am talking about can be surprising.
When the Prime Minister talked during an election campaign about constitutional reform he lost a lot of votes. I refer to 1972 when the Liberal Party lost its majority. In fact, it only retained its government position with a scant two seats. That was because it was talking about constitutional reform, and people were not very much interested in it. In 1979 when he again climbed on the constitutional horse he lost his government position. When he did not talk about constitutional reform in 1974 or 1980, he won. Then he brought in his ideas on constitutional reform
After the constitutional celebrations last weekend someone asked, wasn't it wonderful that we now have our new Constitution, and are we not a lot better off? I asked the questioner whether he was better off or whether I am better off. We now
have a limited number of rights because the Charter of Rights limits rights. When we did not have a Charter of Rights we did not have limited rights. We now have things missing, such as the right to own property.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Rather than address his remarks to the Constitution, which has been passed, I would ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the bill.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have been addressing my remarks to the bill for 35 minutes. I was using this illustration to show the lack of principle displayed by the government. I will carry on. I am coming to the end of my remarks in any event. I know that the constitutional debate is over, but the National Energy Program debate goes on. I hope that my reference to other actions of the government will not disrupt the Chair again.
What is clear from all of the examples I have given about principles and the Constitution is that the Prime Minister has lost touch with the views, wishes, desires and aspirations of the people of Canada. He has talked about retiring. I do not think he will, but I wish he would, and take his government with him. If he did that, we could attempt to get Canada working again. We cannot do that under the policies of the present government and a program like the current National Energy Program. If we got rid of this government we would have a chance to restore the housing industry and the oil industry. We could stop paying out billions of dollars, and it will be tens of billions before this is over, to foreign oil producers. The government says it is reducing the price for Canadian consumers. They assume Canadian consumers are not Canadian taxpayers. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but this is ridiculous. The $3 billion comes out of the pocket of the consumer of this country and goes out of this country, to the detriment of our international standing and our economy. If it could do that, we could start giving Canadians a break instead of breaking Canadians.
The policies I have been referring to are very hard on all Canadians.
I referred to the decline in the stock market. Stock prices are the way they are because values have disappeared. These companies which have been trying to do something in Canada are stuck with an enormous debt load and enormous interest rates. These are some problems we have to get resolve before we will see any changes in the economy and in the present recession; in fact it may be the present depression.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence of a very distinguished
April 22, 1982

visitor in our gallery, namely, the Hon. Mr. Griffin, Attorney General of South Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENERGY ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the House leaders who, in reaching the agreement to debate legislation on the energy question, recognized my need to speak on this matter. I also want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the constitutional debate is not over. It has hardly begun. This legislation is going to accelerate action in that area more than you think, so I intend to touch on it this evening.
May 1 say that during the constitutional debate I always spoke as a Canadian. On Bill C-103, I am going to speak as an Albertan and a western Canadian. I have no other choice if I am going to be true to the electoral base that has elected me over the last 14 years. I will speak generally rather than specifically to the principles and the application of this bill, as I perceive them to be.
The intent of the energy taxation measures within this bill is to economically weaken Alberta, if not the entire west. The energy agreement signed between Alberta and Ottawa in September last is a partial betrayal of the great vision of the west and its growth. The intent of this energy taxation bill, which results from this agreement, is to shift massive amounts of money from provincially-owned resources to the federal coffers, and second, to indirectly impose federal regulatory controls over provincially-owned resources, regardless of Sections 50 and 51 of the new Constitution.
The September 1 agreement, forced on Alberta, in my opinion, is good for the federal government and central Canada, but devastating in the short term for a once healthy western gas and oil industry and, correspondingly, the western provinces. It is an underhanded blow to the evolution and build-up of major financial institutions located and controlled in the west.
In my estimation, the federal energy taxation policies in this bill will skin off the top to Ottawa in excess of $1 trillion during the lifetime of Alberta's conventional oil and gas resources. This taxation is nothing less than a disguised royalty. When applied to heavy oils and oil sands, this skim-off will be many trillions of dollars over the next hundred or two hundred years.
The September, 1981, agreement is for a period of five years. It must then be terminated and renegotiated. If the
Energy Administration Act
agreement is extended and the tax is increased, the west will not grow as a California or a Texas in Canada, as some of us have envisioned. It will grow and mature as the institutions of central Canada dictate that it should. This is not acceptable to most westerners. The concept of equalization which is now embedded in the Constitution is a great concept, and I accept it. But over-equalization is bondage, both for the giver and the receiver, for it is better that people and capital flow together and accumulate to where there is opportunity in this vast nation. Reverse flows of people and capital in any nation, large or small, is counter-productive. That is what will happen with this legislation.
Last year, on June 20, 1981, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) rode home on the same airplane with me. We got into a spat over "What does Alberta want"? I wrote my views on the matter, and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody responded, and both articles appeared in the Edmonton Journal. Let me state briefly what I said in my article. I said:
'What does Alberta want? Well, Alberta wants what all of western Canada wants-equity, leverage, some real political clout in Ottawa, economic interdependence through economic partnership. It wants to be a dynamic growing part of Canada. Some 70 per cent of Canada's land mass lies west and north of the western Ontario border. This vast area is inhabitated by approximately seven million people. Its wealth is immense. It contains vast areas of good productive land, enormous fresh water, mineral, forest and energy resources. The beauty of the landscape is unsurpassed. But this vast area is represented in Ottawa by 79 MPs out of a total of 282.
Seventy-seven from the four provinces and two from the north.
Its political clout in Ottawa is very minimal so it must depend largely on provincial governments for its leverage at the centre. Western Canada wants a fair deal on freight rates, resources, and representation in the national institutions.
As the political clout at the centre is minimal, western Canada then must use the clout of the Constitution itself-the clout of owning its vast resources. That is why ownership of resources and pricing of energy resources in particular is so absolutely vital to western Canada and Alberta.
In Alberta, we are getting an influx of 80,000 people per year and this is rising quickly.
Not any more, because of the collapse of the oil industry and the mega projects.
Alberta must build 40,000 housing units per year requiring $3.5 billion of annual capital just to house this influx. We are building a vast and complicated infrastructure, reviving old towns, building new towns, highways, bridges, airports, cities, etc. The capital required is enormous-of the order of $5 to $6 billion annually.
This vast infrastructure is being built as we convert the Alberta society from supplying conventional oil to an infinitely more complex one, supplying heavy oils, oil sands oil, gas petrochemicals and wood and pulp materials. This supply of resources is primarily for central Canada. We can build this costly infrastructure with money recirculated from Bay Street and even Wall Street, or else we can charge enough for our oil and gas to generate a capital pool which then can be used to finance this vast infrastructure.
That's what Alberta wants. That's what Alberta is doing. Financing infrastructure, house mortgages,-

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
Do members in the House know that $5 billion or $6 billion of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund is invested in mortgages in Alberta?
-hospitals, complex educational institutions, research facilities, etc., with money from its own capital pool generated from its own non-renewable resources.
And why shouldn't Alberta do it? Should it mortgage its soul to the central Canadian money barons while building a superstructure to house Canadians moving to Alberta who are engaged in mega buck energy projects to feed all Canada? No, a thousand times no, the Alberta government would be accused of treason if it did not respond to the challenge. But it is not all roses-Alberta is leading the nation in rape, divorce, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, suicide, neglect and veneral disease.
-in coping with this massive influx.
Furthermore, in building these vast mega buck complexes like Syncrude, we place a severe strain, through accelerated inflation, on Alberta's conventional industries such as agriculture. Significant amounts of generated capital from oil resources must be used to effectively cope with these problems and permit other industries like agriculture to cope with the capital shortage, high interests rates, competition for services imposed on them by the mega buck projects.'
That was in June, 1981. Then the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody responded to me. What has happened since I wrote that article? Well, the Ottawa-Alberta energy agreement was signed on September 1, 1981. Then the Cold Lake heavy oil project died. The Judy Creek tertiary oil recovery project also died. Then the conventional oil industry went into sad retreat because of excessive government taxation and excessive royalties. Now the Alsands project has died and only awaits burial. I guarantee that there is no way of saving the Alsands project, because at today's rate of financing $13.5 billion, you would need $40 per barrel just to pay the interest rate on that money. It can only be financed by government financing. I do not know where the federal government is going to find $7 billion or $8 billion to finance Alsands. I do not see the Alberta government doing it. It needs every billion dollars it has to deal with its own conventional oil industry. If Alsands is to be saved, the federal government had better think of where it is going to find $7 billion or $8 billion to save Alsands. This is a sad retreat on all fronts effectively, affecting literally all aspects of the Canadian economy, increasing unemployment and deepening the recession. I say it is economic madness. Mr. Speaker, the federal government's formula for forced redistribution of the wealth of the nation has interfered massively with the Canadian process of wealth production in Canada.
We will be reaching something like a peak of all three levels of government taking 45 per cent of the gross national product this year. That is just too high. This energy agreement, manoeuvred and spawned between a single province and the federal government, sets in motion a new process for federal-provincial co-operation and accord. This is a dangerous precedent. Energy is vital to all of the nation, in every province; and the final agreement should have been ratified simultaneously by all provinces. One can ask why. Mr. Speaker, it is because every provincial government uses oil products, such as gasoline, as a massive source of taxation, as the minister indicated in the last few days. As we know, in Quebec alone the taxation on a gallon of gasoline is some 72 cents. Every government in Canada feeds massively on this industry in terms of taxation.
This agreement and the energy program of the federal government has spawned a new movement of dissent and anger in the west. It is real and gathering momentum, and at times it is scary. There are other directions and moves which are fomenting at this time, and it is appropriate to ask what the west wants. What does it want? It wants unity without bondage, justice without bias and opportunity without begging. The NEP and the energy security legislation has hurt the pride, enthusiasm and optimism of the west. The west wants constitutional protection against the repetition of this type of federal government policy and increasingly will be asking for it. The energy agreement will increase western tensions and demands, and I say again constitutional changes will be demanded, as they are being demanded now.
The Constitution has been patriated. That was a magnificent accomplishment. The fundamental rights of Canadians are entrenched. That is a remarkable accomplishment. A formula for constitutional amendment is entrenched. In my estimation it is a formula which will centralize powers even more. With the patriation of the Constitution the vision of a new nation is before us all, and we can build a nation of equality, diversity and regional balance. If we do not, then the very constitutional weapons and powers we have patriated will move this nation toward regional tension and instability.
The National Energy Program has impacted on Canada at a most inopportune time because the next several years will be a difficult period of entrenching constitutional language rights and fundamental rights and freedoms.
The political perspectives and institutional structures within Canada will, and must, change and adopt increasing regional identification.
I just want to repeat very briefly what I said on March 10, 1980, while speaking on the constitutional resolution in terms of regional representation, and particularly with respect to growth in relation to resources. I said:
This nation, Canada, will increasingly evolve, and its interdependence will increasingly grow as a co-operative quasi economic and social federation of five natural regions.
Co-operative federalism is not dead. It needs revival and renewal.
Within these regions, provinces shall co-operate and compete, shall integrate transportation and energy and other systems and shall evolve somewhat different and unique social and cultural systems. And over all, all these regions shall form the umbrella of a reorganized national Parliament.
The relationship of the national umbrella and the regional well-being, aspirations and growth will be dynamic, changing and challenging. This, then, is, and will continue to be, the essence of Canada.
Constitutional change and evolution will in the future proceed under a new format different from that prevalent over the last 115 years. Patriation itself will not be bartered and used as ransom for acceptance of a package, including the division of powers, as was done in the past. Rather, constitutional reform will henceforth be identified more with singleissue campaigns on issues such as energy. At the most two or
April 22, 1982

three issues will be considered at any one time, and these limited issue campaigns will take on regional colouration and perspective and will give rise to issue-oriented political movements and parties.
Yes, it will be an area of regional parties and regional politics imposed on the national scene with considerable fervour and force. In fact, I might say that Quebec and its discipline of political power and influence through almost total allegiance to a single party has established a precedent which will be followed in other regions of Canada. This format, enhanced by the National Energy Program, will see the Liberal Party move more than ever toward becoming a regional party. It does not have a role to play in the west so long as this energy legislation is in place. And the west is spawning a new regional party by drawing together a coalition of many political perspectives angered by the National Energy Program. It is and will continue to be increasingly moulded through dissatisfaction, anger, disillusionment and frustration as the ambitions of the west are thwarted, its desires tempered and its dynamics stifled by central Canadian government perspectives.
We need new national policies, new accords and revised political institutions at the centre. Unity will be strained as the west demands constitutional changes to influence policy at the centre, particularly policies such as the energy policy we are dealing with today. The west will not stand to be throttled again as it was by the National Energy Program. It will demand constitutional change to deal with matters like this.
First of all, it will surely demand a major Senate structural reform to give the west no less than 40 per cent representation in a much more meaningful and active Senate. It will demand changes to permit equitable, effective and meaningful representation by population in the House of Commons. It will demand a better regionally-balanced Supreme Court with some provincial appointments and, perhaps, sitting regionally at times. It will demand a restructured Bank of Canada with more regional policy input, and the gradual entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution through a provincial opting in-clause will be demanded. Much greater clarity of limitation of federal taxation of provincial resources while in transit provincially, interprovincially or internationally, as energy resources are, will be demanded.
I will say something else: there will begin to be a demand for a constitutional limitation of federal government taxation in each province, limited to something below 20 per cent of the gross annual provincial product in each or any province. Western Canada will be demanding more rapid evolution, sector by sector, of a free trade area with the United States, as was strongly recommended by the Senate standing committee chaired by Senator George van Roggen. Of course, we need to trade more north and south because of the vastness of this nation. No single federal policy direction has exercised and angered the west more in relation to future demands for constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government than the National Energy Program and related legislation.
Energy Administration Act
In conclusion, I will say that I do not support this energy taxation legislation which has caused so much division in my part of this nation. I was very proud to be a member of this House during a most productive period leading up to the patriation of the Constitution. I think we were all proud to be members of the House during that period. But I am not proud to be a member of the House that brought forth this type of legislation which so affects a massive industry in which one out of every four employed Albertans works, directly or indirectly. This industry has been hit very hard by this legislation.
I should like to end on a less serious note, Mr. Speaker. The government's energy policy and economic direction reminds me of a little poem by an unknown author. It makes me think of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), when they get up to answer questions in the House. It is very short and it goes like this:
There was a dashound once so long He hadn't any notion How long it took to notify His tail of his emotion;
And so it happened while his eyes Were filled with tears and sadness His little tail kept wagging on Because of previous gladness.
So much of the federal government's economic policy relates to happier years. A very difficult time is ahead of us. The problem of the economy has to be solved by some of the most brilliant minds of the nation. It is time that the government started to look seriously at the problem of turning the economy of the country around.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, we are in a recession that should never have happened, and it looks as though it will last longer than any recession has since the last war. It is also going to hurt more than any recession since the last war. The blame for this can be laid on federal measures which have followed, one after the other, but the National Energy Program is the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. It is the way that the National Energy Program has been handled, rather than the down slope of the business cycle, that is to blame for this disastrous recession. The deterrents of the economies of other countries and the soaring interest rates should have been offset by the provisions of a better rate of return on the production of gas and oil and would have helped employment and increased the national income.
Practically gove is the increasing development and investment in the search for these resources, thanks to the National Energy Program, with decreases in 1981 of up to 40 per cent, and the same this year. This development and investment has now gone outside Canada, except where the government has taken up the slack.
Surely it must be realized that the grasping and clutching hands of government, which are increasingly taking their pick of the private businesses, are repeating the actions of Italy in the 1920s and 1930s, action which in Canada has resulted in

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
decline in growth of the economy and, even more, is heading our country into a corporate state.
The Canadian airlines are hurting because of the transportation fuel export recovery charge which used to be levied on all international airline traffic. Now, because of a United States challenge, these charges have been dropped. Also, the government has agreed to refund to all international airlines the total charges collected over the last year. However, the government will not refund this charge to Canadian carriers despite the fact that this charge was originally conceived to place the Canadian carriers on an equal footing with their international counterparts.
Surely it must be recognized that the government has violated every single promise that was made in this regard during the 1980 election campaign. Where now can you see the cheap gas and heating oil for Canadians that it promised during that campaign? United States citizens are paying world prices for gasoline and heating oil and they know they are paying world prices. But in Canada we pay more than they do in the United States! Can the government explain this? Certainly not by quoting the price of crude oil. This does not go into our furnaces nor into our automobiles.
The government, since October 1980, in the guise of nationalism, started taking over the Canadian petroleum industry, supposedly so that Canadians could control and benefit from the exploitation of Canadian resources. This, however, was only because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues want government ownership and thereby have given themselves a blank cheque to spend as much as $50 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money. That translates to upwards of $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
What should have been done instead was to provide better incentives for companies and individuals in Canada to acquire control of foreign-owned companies or even provide more effective tax laws and industry regulations. Surely, if investment had been free to flow to where it could obtain the maximum return, the benefits to all parts of the country would have been greater than the costs since incurred.
It is certainly unfortunate that the government perceived nationalism as a force to be harnessed to political advantage. One wonders whether the government recognizes all the implications of its insistence that market forces can be subordinated to political direction.
Canada's interest rates had stopped well short of the American highs during the early run up, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) blames high American interest rates for Canada's recession. Can he truly believe this? The National Energy Program diverted foreign investment away from Canada and domestic investment out of Canada. The budget of 1981, designed to close tax loopholes, following on the heels of the National Energy Program in 1980, strengthened the government's control over the uses to which investment would be put, that is, whatever investment remained after most had fled the country because of the National Energy Program.
The attitude of the government is that all the world is wrong not to help it in its royal right to pursue the corporate state.
The recovery of the United States from its recession used to be the springboard for Canada's recovery from its own recession. Canada's resources would be purchased by the United States-our best market, incidentally-and this would mean re-employment in forest and mining industries. But more than this is needed. High infusions of new capital are needed, but from where will it come? Certainly not from Canadian corporations; they have already invested in the United States. Those that have not invested in the United States are victims of inflation and taxes. They have no funds to invest, anywhere.
Federal intervention in the economy has brought on the recession and now, because of the state of the economy, further intervention by the government is being claimed as justified. It is a vicious circle.
The present problem is the shutdown of the Alsands project. It means the lay-off of thousands of Canadian workers; the exodus of half of the country's petroleum drilling industry south of our borders and, the bankruptcy of dozens of companies. As a consequence, $17 billion of capital has fled the country and 300,000 barrels of Canadian production per day has been shut in.
The energy program was concocted by a small group of theorists who believe state control is more important than energy production and who found a minister who shared both their philosophic bias and their profound ignorance of the way the energy industry works.
It must be realized that the tightly regulated petroleum marketing system has resulted in the federal government's subsidizing the importation of a very large volume of foreign crude oil while equivalent volumes are available but are not being produced in western Canada. This is a heavy cost to the public because the subsidies being paid go out of the country to help a foreign economy. If that money had been invested in Alsands, it would flow into the Canadian economy. Surely the government knows this could be changed to domestic production, even though it would involve drastic changes in the present regulations. By this action, which the government seems reluctant to take, money would be available for much needed job creation, which money the government claims it does not now have.
Last September, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said the energy agreement would:
-provide significant stimulus for new tar sands projects.
Then his department said:
-to ensure that new megaprojects go ahead in the oilsands ... the agreement provides for generous prices on future oil discoveries-
Obviously, to quote an Edmonton columnist, the minister was totally wrong. Investors need income from present production or other tax incentives to undertake this enormous but essential project.
April 22, 1982


Mr. Irwin:: You want the oil companies to have more tax incentives.
Mr. Fret/: Ottawa controls price and the larger part of corporate taxation. Alsands will probably die unless Ottawa allows corporations to deduct investments in Alsands from other income and gives some reasonable assurance on price. The minister should meet his national responsibility by saving Alsands. He should follow the example of Peter Lougheed. Last September's energy agreement between Edmonton and Ottawa was fatally flawed, and now Alberta is paying to fix it. Simply put, and I quote the Edmonton Journal:
Last fall's agreement crushed Alberta's energy industry by taxing it to death.
A recent softening in world prices does not explain the problem. Canada is still raising energy prices toward world levels. No, the disaster was a fundamental miscalculations on taxes.
So Alberta has come to the rescue of our conventional oil and gas industry as it did in 1974 when Ottawa first grabbed successfully for a larger energy share. Now what? That question is for the minister. He has taken his pound of flesh, will he now give the needed blood transfusion to save unconventional oil, the Alsands project? Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
When shallow critics denounce the profit motive inherent in our system of private enterprise, they ignore the fact that it is an economic support of every human right we possess and without it, all rights would soon disappear.
I want to refer to four parts of that quote, the first of which is the profit motive. This government believes that it should tax industry to death. The second is private enterprise, and this government believes in socialist enterprises. The third is economic support, and Canadians have had the props knocked out from under them by this government. The fourth is that all rights would soon disappear. Mr. Eisenhower was indeed a prophet.
In Bill C-103 the government is trying to catch and make legal what is illegal. This time it introduced a notice of ways and means, and so suddenly something which was not a tax is now defined as a tax. The Canadian ownership charge is another little sneaky tax which amounts to 4 cents per gallon or $800 million a year. It is being used to pay for the purchase of Petrofina, a company the shares of which were trading at about $40 until some people who were lucky, or knew somebody, bid them up to about $80. Then along came Petro-Can to pay $120 per share. 1 would like to know who those people were who bid the shares up from $40 to $80. In the early summer of 1980 they were worth $40, and a few other oil companies were trading around that price, but now they are around $20. We can say, therefore, that had Petro-Can not bought Petrofina for $120 per share, one could probably buy a share today for about $20 or $25. The government paid about four or five times what the market shows the company is really worth.


Mr. Taylor:: With the taxpayers' money.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: That is right, but it is not declared in the Blue Books and Estimates in a way which might alert the public to
Energy Administration Act
what is happening so that they may make a judgment. The government does not want people looking at the record, it does not want spending to go up because it wants to claim that it is holding expenditures down. So this sharp Canadian ownership charge is created in a sharp, sneaky account, outside the regular government accounts, and the money pours in. That means the minister or his appointee at Petro-Can can have $800 million per year to play with and buy more companies.
All we know is that every time we fill our tank at the pump, four cents a gallon goes into a pot for the minister and his cronies to play with. Apparently we do not have the right to know. We are only Members of Parliament, elected by the people of Canada, and that does not give us any right to ask questions about how that money is being spent or should be spent.
We also have the petroleum compensation payments, the spending part of the petroleum compensation charge, amounting to 24 cents a gallon. That money is being used to subsidize oil imported from Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, non-subsidized oil produced by Canadians is shut in to the extent of 300,000 barrels a day. We subsidize Pemex and Aramco while Canadian producers-western Canadians, I admit, but Canadian producers-are closed out. It is costing one company, Oakwood Petroleums, which is 100 per cent Canadian owned, a million dollars a month.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that our party is going to vote against this bill.


David Charles Dingwall: You are kidding.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I want to leave you with a quote from Andrew Carnegie, a great industrialist and philanthropist, who said:
-individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth, and the law of competition; these are the results of human experience. The soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit.
This is the government which took away ownership of private property in the Charter of Rights; taxes away the wealth of individual Canadians, small businesses and corporations; renders infertile the soil for investment, "the soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit".


Ron Irwin: Would the hon. member answer a question, Mr. Speaker?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: No, Mr. Speaker.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My privilege as a member of this House was impugned when the hon. member said that we took away the right of property. It was the provincial ministers, one of which-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I am having a hard time getting started on my speech tonight.

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
Be that as it may, just toward the end of his speech my colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), said that we were going to vote against this bill and the hon. member on the other side said, "Oh, you are kidding." I must say that in the next election when he looks at his voting record during this terrible legislation that has been going through, he will be the one who will be wondering who is kidding whom. 1 just wanted to point that out. He had better be careful that it does not get into Hansard.
What we are talking about tonight is a catch-up bill. It is sort of a catch up, a tax grab, or whatever you want to call it. But what the government is doing is legalizing something which it has been taking from Canadians for 26 months. The Liberal government has the attitude, as the public does, of using the credit card system. In other words, charge it now and we will catch up later. The Liberals say, "We do not have to worry about it because we have a big majority. We can do whatever we want. We can run this country as we want to. We do not give a damn about the Canadian citizen."


An hon. Member:: You don't.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am talking about you people over there.
In this bill we are talking about a made-in-Canada policy. This made-in-Canada policy is doing an amazing job of destroying the Canadian oil industry. This government has another "made-in" policy. The other "made-in" policy is the "made-in-Japan" policy for automobiles. This policy is ruining the automobile industry and it is putting 200,000 people out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Hon. members over there can make a lot of noise about this, but my constituents are being hurt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about the steel industry and all the others?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I say to hon. members over there that they should go to Hamilton, Algoma and Oshawa and they will find out whether the people there think they are funny. Those people are unemployed because of the Liberal government and its incompetence.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the bill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: This government has also brought in a Canadian-made interest rate policy. This has destroyed the balance of industry in this country and it is also destroying every Canadian.
The legislation we are discussing tonight, which is Bill C-103, provides equalization. We are trying to talk about equalization. I would say it can better be described as total destruction of the Canadian economy through government intervention. That is precisely what Bill C-103 is. It is a clear criminal intervention by the government.
I wish the minister were here in the House. But I hope he reads what I have to say.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Where is he?


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has created sufficient havoc in Canada, so why does he not resign and give this country a chance? It is a wonderful country. It is a country we can do something with.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: We do not need people yelling from the other side of this House who are saying that communism is a great thing either, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why does the hon. member not stand up and speak properly?


Thomas Scott Fennell: If the hon. members so interested in speaking, why does he not have the guts to come to his place and give a speech?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Get back to your seat if you want to heckle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario has the floor.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Let us talk about the oil export charge. This charge finally legitimizes a tax that has been imposed since October, 1980, on the Canadian people. The charge is broad enough to allow the government to raise the charge to $55 a barrel. What is left for the oil industry? There will be a negative balance. The government may increase this charge any time at its will. It can be done at the beginning of the month, the middle of the month, or the end of the month. The government does not care. It will do it any time. That is how this government operates. This export charge really eliminates the necessity of having the National Energy Board. I wish the minister of energy were here because I could ask him whether there was any purpose in continuing to have the National Energy Board keeping all those people on the payroll. Why does the minister not get rid of the National Energy Board? The reason is that the minister and Ed Clark have the whole thing in their own hands. They have eliminated the necessity of a board that would use a price, a price at which we could export without infringing upon our requirements. Why does the minister not get rid of the National Energy Board now? Why does he spend that money? The National Energy Board is just a shell. The whole thing is a shell. That is how it all turns out, Mr. Speaker. Theoretically, and I say theoretically, that 50 per cent of the oil export charge is to go back to the provinces. But nowhere specifically in that bill is the government required to give that amount back to the provinces. The provinces have no protection. The federal government can say that a product can be exported from a province, it can say how much the province can export, it can say at what price, and the federal government can impose any amount of export tax up to
April 22, 1982

$55 a barrell and not give one red cent back. The government says this is fair pool. I understand the government reduced the amount under this export charge from what was originally proposed in Bill C-94. The government has reduced the amount so that it can get the bill through the House this time. But as soon as this bill is passed and everybody is happy, the government will turn around and say, "Let us put the charge up another $100." There is no reality to the economics of the oil industry in this country.
Now we come to the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. I wish I could get an answer to why there is a different amount for the east coast, which is $78.35, and for the west coast, which is $47.20. There is no logic in that. There is absolutely no logic. I wish I could get some explanation to that. I wish someone in the Liberal Party would explain why there are different amounts for different parts of the country. 1 note that airplanes are to be exempted and the government is going to give all the money back it charged the airlines over the past year. This government got the Americans mad enough that now this government is going to have to hand back the money. The government has done everything to insult our best neighbour. So what is the government going to do? The government is going to give the airlines their money back. It is just tokenism.
But what happened to trains? I understand the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) does not believe there will be trains in the future. He is cancelling train service all across Canada. But what about trains? Why can boats, airplanes and everything else have legislation, but not trains? Is it because the trains are government owned? The train service is such a loser because it is run by the government that it really does not matter.
Then we come to the petroleum compensation charge. This is a tax that I really cannot understand. I really cannot. This tax simply subsidizes the multinationals to import foreign crude at the expense of Canadian crude. Furthermore, it discourages multinationals from going out to find new sources of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Hon. members opposite can criticize multinational corporations, but they have been in bed with them for a long time. In the early days of oil development in the west, who found oil in Canada? It was not Canadians who found it, it was the multinationals. I am not criticizing them because they were fairly paid, but I am saying that we should not subsidize the multinationals to import oil and discourage them from finding additional oil in Canada, so that we will have selfsufficiency in the future for our children and grandchildren. At the present time it amounts to a charge to the Canadian public of 24 cents per gallon for fuel oil and gasoline, and a further 24 cents which the government can charge through order in council. Also the amount was reduced from $20 per barrel to $12 per barrel. It really means nothing, it is absolute tokenism. The government has reduced it from $20 to $12, but next week or as soon as the bill is passed, it will probably bring in a new
Energy Administration Act
Ways and Means motion, with legislation following 18 months later. This is what the government does now with everything. For example, it brought in Ways and Means budget followed by legislation much later. The budget of November 12 left people in confusion; no one knows what is going on. Today I received a telephone call from a gentleman on this very point who said, "What is your gut feeling about the budget?" I said that my gut feeling was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is so intransigent that there is no chance he will back off; he will just pacify Canadians by giving them more time.
Turning to the Canadian ownership charge, let me first indicate that it is a real beauty! It was reduced from $4 per barrel to $1.15 and 15 cents per Mcf on gas. The government cuts back all these things in order to get the bill through the House quickly, but we must not kid ourselves-they will go back up. Let us look at what the Canadian ownership charge has done to Canada. We are supposedly talking about Canadi-anization to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada, but first I should like to refer to a Statistics Canada chart which indicates that in 1979 there was an outflow of $3,933,000 out of the country. In 1980 it went to $4,200,000 and in 1981, to $18,600,000. This is how Canadianized the oil industry has become! It is Canadianized in other countries, not in Canada. Hiram Walker is a prime example. The company spent some $500 million buying up assets in the United States. I understand that they were not the greatest assets, but the company purchased them in any event. Another example is Home Oil. Everyone thinks Home Oil is a great company, but it bought up interests in the United States. Many companies are down in the United States buying up interests there because their netback here is so bad. Last year $31 billion came back to nonresidents of Canada, at the same time that the government was paying out interest to service the debt on government bonds and on money deposits, to keep interest rates high. This year that cost will amount to $6.3 billion. Not only did we lose $18 billion in Canadian capital, we have lost an additional $6.3 billion to service the debt. The ownership charge is a fraud. It is not creating Canadian ownership, it is destroying it. The outflow is not slowing, it is increasing. The government has removed any risk-taking money from Canada and shipped it elsewhere. It brought in passive money to cover high interest government debt. It is a disgraceful situation. The Canadian ownership charge is a joke; it makes a fool of Canada.
We continue to import 400,000 barrels of oil per day. We are paying $17 per barrel, which perhaps recently dropped to about $14 per barrel, in the form of compensation. There are 400,000 barrels per day locked in, in western Canada. Perhaps the government is smart to keep it locked in, because it is not allowing any companies to develop new reserves. We must remember that new reserves are being developed in the north, in the Beaufort Sea and off the east coast. Eventually we will end up with a lot of oil, but today we are importing 400,000 barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, from Mexico-"Mexico mud" as I call it-and from Venezuela. The fact of the matter

April 22, 1982
Energy Administration Act
is that we are paying 24 cents per gallon to import it. Every time anyone in Canada fills up his or her oil or gas tank, he or she pays 24 cents per gallon for the privilege of importing oil which is not required.
The government is actually exporting $6 billion per year out of the country. In the last few minutes I have referred to $18 billion which has left by way of investment and $6 billion on interest on bonds and so on. This total $24 billion or one fifth of our national debt, so we will see the debt rise another one fifth this year. If the $6 billion had remained in Canada, it would create jobs and help solve unemployment problems which are crippling the country.
This is a serious situation with which we must deal. To put it in another way, $16 million per day is being paid out, of which Canadian taxpayers are paying $7 million. It is a $7 million extra grab of the Liberal government. This is for a Canadian-made price. On this one item, 24 cents is being paid for a Canadian-made price. We were thrown out for 18 cents and they are getting 73 cents!
At the present time when someone pulls up to a gas pump, 80 per cent of the price paid per gallon of gasoline goes to federal and provincial taxes. There are 10,000 shut-in gas wells in the west. Can one imagine how much gas that is? They are messing around on the Q & M Pipeline on the east coast. They cannot make up their mind on how, when or where to put it in. There are 10,000 shut-in gas wells which could be supplying that demand forever. They are worried that it will not be needed because of Sable Island. Let us be realistic. If there is a surplus, would it not be more marvelous if the valves were simply changed around on the pipeline and the gas shipped back to Quebec? It would reduce the cost of gas in Quebec because it would not have so far to travel from the east coast to Quebec as it would from western Canada to Quebec. We should keep it in mind as it is a very important point. The other serious reason is that due to the government grab on this, Canada is presently giving the smallest netback for producing oil of any country in the world. This is a pathetic situation which is very difficult for Canadians to understand. Since it takes so much time to read this bill, the average Canadian will not do it and will rely on us to read it for him. It is easy to read this bill because it is so bad that it can be quickly dismissed.
I refer to the Canadian ownership charge as the Petro-Canada grab. My colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) referred to the price the government would pay for Petrofina today. The most foolish thing the Liberal government did was to buy a multinational too soon. It knew how bad the National Energy Program was and the disastrous effects it would have on the industry. It knew perfectly well that $50 billion would be written off on the stock. Still, it paid 120 dollars for some stock which it could have purchased today for 20 dollars, which would have been a good deal. Not only that, it bought the wrong company. It purchased a company which would enable it to put up its service stations signs across Canada with the Liberal red maple leaf. But it did not create one job. Did it buy reserves? No. The Liberals bought service stations. They bought a distribution organization. There is not
one multinational corporation in the world which makes money out of its marketing operations, and this can be clearly demonstrated in any financial statement.
The government calls Canadian ownership Canadianization. Everywhere else in the world, particularly in those countries which respect the socialist international, this program is called nationalization. It is nationalization which is achieved by taking money out of the pockets of Canadians for which they will never receive one red cent in benefit. These companies will turn into loss leaders so quickly that we will not know what happened to them.
This is not Canadianization. Canadianization means looking back to our roots to see how our country began. This country was started by private enterprise and entrepreneurs. This is not Canadianization. It is government intervention and nationalization. Nationalization has not worked in one country in the world and it will not work here. It is a disgrace. The Canadian ownership charge, which I will call a slush fund because that is how the government treats it, does not have a beginning or an end. It will just continue to be another tax grab by the Liberal government.
We on this side of the House, as well as all Canadians, were originally told by the Liberal government that Petrofina would be paid off in 18 months at a cost of 4 cents per gallon. First, if the government had bought Petrofina at the right price it would have cost one cent a gallon for 18 months. But the government had to buy at the top end of the market. What will happen is that the government will buy other corporations which will ultimately become non-profit organizations. Also, these organizations will no longer pay taxes and help support the Canadian economy. Canadian taxpayers will have to pay for these non-profit organizations in order to keep them in business. There will be no concern for the consequences because the Liberals do not care about Canadians. Canadians are now aware of this fact, and since they are hurting right now they will not forget it.
This bill was primarily established to provide revenue for the government, and the cost to Canadians is of no concern to it. If this bill is passed, this charge could be doubled or quadrupled or changed in any way the government sees fit. There are very few defences that we have in the House to stop this bill from being passed while the government has a majority.
The Canadian ownership charge could also be called a Crown corporation subsidy. One manner in which this bill could be used is to bail out Crown corporations like Canadair. For example, in February of 1981 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) the fact that Canadair was in serious financial trouble. He only ridiculed me and prevented me from continuing with my point of order. I indicated to the minister that the undercarriage the airplanes it was constructing was too heavy, the plane was not designed properly and the Lear specs were not followed properly, which forced the company into serious financial trouble. I asked the minister what he was going to do
April 22, 1982

about it. What we found out was that the company went into bankruptcy. But to protect their Liberal butts, spelled b-u-t-t-s, they bailed Canadiar out for $1.5 billion. The company is not even worth $1.5 billion let alone being bailed out for that amount.
Another example relates to the energy sector and indicates what likely will happen to Petro-Canada and all other Crown corporations the government will create. Eldorado Mines commenced the Beaver Lodge mine but did not realize the small amount of uranium which existed there. Therefore, the mine had to be shut down at a loss of $500 million. That company was put into bankruptcy as well, but the Liberals solved that problem very quickly and discreetly by simply taking some stock pile from its own account-$400 million worth-and putting it into Eldorado, and then converting that to capital to prevent any interest being paid, thereby bailing out Eldorado. This is typical of what happens to Crown corporations.
This bill demonstrates the damages which could be caused by the National Energy Program. We have had enough time to see what the National Energy Program has done.
The members to my left are the ones who should be concerned about the effects of this bill. I represent union people in my riding, and my next door neighbor happens to be the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Unemployment is hurting people in our area and that unemployment was caused by too many tax grabs by the Liberal government which left too little to the industry, which therefore had to cut back and shut down its operations.
Some 253 drilling and service rigs have left Canada and 311 remain idle. Two years ago, roughly that number was being manufactured in Canada out of steel and other related products. Those products were being manufactured in Ontario and Quebec and workers in those provinces are being hurt because those rigs have left.
Furthermore, the automobile industry is being shut down because every time a job is lost in the west, two more are lost in Ontario. That is the well-known multiplier effect. The government states that it will provide great initiative through Bill C-103 and Canadian ownership to provide handouts when and if it wants. Handouts will never replace private initiative. Private initiative made this country work. Government intervention is destroying this country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, on February 13, 1980, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) invited all hon. members to send him their comments on the Dorval-Mirabel issue. Considering the number of times I have raised this very important subject, I could be accused of abusing the minister's invitation. In fact, last Tuesday in the House I was hoping the minister would accept an invitation from me and from participants in the economic summit on Greater Montreal to publish the cost-benefit study on solution 6, with other studies relevant to the Dorval-Mirabel question, before the minister announces his decision this May.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister has refused this request, made not only by me but also by the Montreal Economic Promotion Committee, known as COPEM, which includes the Chambre de commerce du district de Montreal, the Montreal Board of Trade, and by the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, the Chairman of the Montreal Urban Community, the mayors of Montreal Island and the South Shore, the Quebec Federation of Labour, the Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union, the Quebec Travel Agents Association, the Montreal Convention and Visitors Bureau, eight major Canadian airlines, the Air Transport Association of Canada and the Societe pour le progres de la Rive Sud, under the chairmanship of my good friend Mr. Rene Delarue. All the people I just mentioned and those they represent will not be able to look at this major study before the final announcement of the minister's decision. Even the members of this House will not have a copy of the study, which, if it were immediately available, might ease the present tension and enable those with concern for this decision to remove the clouds of uncertainty that prevail today.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the ideal solution in the short term is an improved status quo, meaning that there would be no transfers of flights between Dorval and Mirabel, that the necessary improvements would be continued at Dorval and that provision will be made for improved access to Mirabel. In my opinion, any artificial channelling of traffic to Mirabel would merely discourage passengers from other regions in Canada from going to Montreal. I think it would be unwise to fragment domestic traffic by obliging part of it to go through Mirabel. According to studies by Air Canada which I support unless I get evidence to the contrary, many Montrealers travelling to the West and the United States prefer to go to Toronto by Rapidair and take advantage of the greater choice of flights offered to the Toronto market instead of making do with a limited number of departures from Montreal.
Both carriers and passengers would suffer financial losses. Passengers would have to pay more, because of the trip to Mirabel, until a satisfactory infrastructure is complete. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Mirabel is nowhere near having the rapid transit system and highway network it needs to fulfill its potential and become a world-class airport. Mr. Speaker,
16542

April 22, 1982
Adjournment Debate
the customer is paying and he should have a choice in the matter. And if the customer is given a choice, he will always prefer airports with easy access, and otherwise he will always try to avoid the airport until such access is available no matter how attractive it may seem on paper. Mr. Speaker, many international carriers involved in both passenger and freight services want to come to Mirabel and Montreal. My message to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) this evening is very clear and very straightforward. I think it is obvious that the Minister of Transport should, as he did for Air India and Royal Air Maroc, concentrate on facilitating the entry of such airlines and reducing landing fees for Mirabel. Landing fees are discouraging many carriers, both Canadian and international, from coming to Mirabel, because they are the highest in Canada and also among the highest in the world. The solution must be sought in attracting new markets and not in artificial transfers of a few flights which would create more problems than it would solve.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), I want to thank the hon. member for giving this important issue the attention it warrants. The hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), as shown by his earlier comments, is very familiar with the subject Dorval-Mirabel and represents the views of his constituents in an informed and straightforward manner.
The Mirabel-Dorval solution must be one that recognizes the long-term socio-economic development of the Montreal area. There can be no doubt about the importance of proper airport facilities to the economic well being of a community. Both Mirabel and Dorval offer distinct advantages. Mirabel offers the convenience of a 24-hour operation, an efficient cargo facility and virtually unlimited room for expansion. Dorval offers proximity, an established operation and a local industrial base.
The cost of any solution to the two-airport question must also be assessed. The hon. member has correctly referred to the so-called "Option 6" on which a detailed cost-benefit study is now being finalized. In his answer, the minister confirmed that he intends to make the results public when he is in a position to announce his general approach with respect to Mirabel. He has said previously that he intends to do so by the end of May.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for La Prairie, who is also the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, for the leadership he is showing on the Dorval-Mirabel issue and on other transportation matters.


BANKRUPTCIES-INCREASE IN NUMBER. (B) REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last week, while Members of Parliament were taking their Easter break, Statistics Canada reported that we had achieved a
record in the month of March, a record of which none of us can be proud. In the month of March, for the first time in the history of Canada, there were more than 1,000 business bankruptcies, an increase of more than 40 per cent over the same month in 1981. This is a trend which has been accelerating over the last four or five months. There is no indication that that trend is going to slacken.
What we are seeing is not just greater numbers of bankruptcies, but a very significant change in the kind of companies which are declaring bankruptcy. In many cases these are not new companies with inexperienced management, but companies which have been in business for 25, 50 or more years. They have been very successful businesses. Let me put on record a few of the thousands which have gone bankrupt in recent months. This is but a very small fraction of what is happening from one end of Canada to the other.
A few days ago, in Winnipeg, the Victoria Leather Jacket Company, which had been in business for more than 50 years and which employed 300 people, a company owned by the present owner of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey team, went bankrupt.
In the city of Montreal a clothing manufacturing company which had been in business for 90 years, the Freedman Company, which employed at the time it was most productive and most profitable more than 800 workers, went bankrupt.
In Winnipeg, a few days ago, Wolch Limited, a clothing wholesale company which had been in business for 60 years, went bankrupt.
In every newspaper in this country one can see advertisements announcing bankruptcy sales. Here are two which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 10, 1982. One says "Liquidation Sale" in Winkler, Manitoba, one of the most productive farming communities in western Canada. This liquidation sale is of all the assets of the former New J Industries Ltd., auctioning off press brake shears, welders, presses and vehicles.
In the same newspaper there is another advertisement dealing with a "Receivers Sale" in Winnipeg for Baltic Industries Ltd., auctioning off lathes, milling machine, radial and vertical drills, and so on.
Why are these companies going bankrupt? One gets the same report when one reads the business pages of the Toronto Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette or the Vancouver Sun or the Financial Post or the Financial Times. They are going bankrupt for two reasons. First of all, it is because of the recession which is world-wide. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the inordinately high interest rates.
What is happening is that companies which manufacture or wholesale goods are finding that they cannot afford to produce the goods they formerly produced, paying for the raw materials and the labour, because to do that as they formerly did would mean going to the bank and borrowing the money at
April 22, 1982

20 per cent or more in interest. Customers are not buying in the quantities in which they used to buy, not only because sales are down but because they cannot afford to pay for the merchandise when they get it. They cannot afford the kind of interest rates which the banks are charging.
As I have indicated, we have over 1,000 companies which went bankrupt in the month of March alone. For every company that goes bankrupt there are probably two, or three or four which avoid bankruptcy by going out of business, by ending the lease for the premises which they had, and by selling off their merchandise. Tens of thousands of workers are unemployed, workers who worked for these bankrupt firms, for these companies up to the time they went bankrupt. They have gone bankrupt because of the interest rates.
What does the minister say when you tell him this? He says: "We cannot do anything about high interest rates until we bring down inflation." We have lived with the government's policy of high interest rates. We have lived with Bank of Canada Governor Bouey's high interest rates for half a dozen years, and what we have is inflation at an all-time high, well over 12.5 per cent; unemployment at the highest level, the highest percentage, the highest number that we have ever had-the highest number since before World War II. That makes one and one quarter million unemployed, according to the official figures. As we know, there are another 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed who are not counted because they have given up trying to find work.
When I say that high interest rates are responsible for most bankruptcies, I am not speaking for myself alone. I am not speaking from a very radical, unorthodox position. Let me just quote a couple of sentences from the submission given to the Ontario government-similar to the submission made to the federal government-by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This submission was made to the Ontario government in February of this year. Let me quote as follows:
High interest rates have had their part to play in the massive increase in bankruptcies and the decision of countless other firms to simply back up. High interest rates have become overwhelmingly the most important problem faced by our member firms.
The federation went on to say:
When asked-


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


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is something awe-inspiring about speaking to this very large gathering here tonight. I feel that what the hon. member has just pointed out is extremely important, and that whatever side of the House we happen to be on this evening, all hon. members agree that the economic situation is extremely difficult. We are also keenly aware of the fact that some people are
Adjournment Debate
being particularly affected by the depressed state of the economy. For some it may mean unemployment, for others bankruptcy. However, we must be careful, Mr. Speaker. We all know that there have been bankruptcies in this country and there will be more, not only in Canada but also in other countries. What should be stressed is the action the government is taking to assist small and medium-size businesses that are more severely affected by the economic situation and thus more vulnerable to bankruptcy. At the present time, the Ministry of State (Small Businesses) has a formula for providing loans at lower interest rates, while another formula provides that interest paid on loans is tax-deductible. Obviously, this type of assistance for small and medium-size businesses cannot change the fact that people are spending less, because with the present lack of confidence in the economy-and as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated recently-if this confidence cannot be restored because prices keep rising and inflation continues to get out of hand, people tend to keep their money and salt it away in a high interest-bearing account so that there is no input at the supply and demand level of the economy.
This largely explains the present unbalanced situation being experienced by some small and medium-size businesses, and earlier, the hon. member clearly explained this phenomenon. High interest rates are obliging these businesses to keep inventories low and to be better administrators than would be the case, I suppose, when business is booming. We are certainly aware of these problems in my region, in Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles, Schefferville, Fermont, Gagnon, Havre-Saint-Pierre and Baie-Comeau. It should also be pointed out that most very strictly managed businesses can come through these problems. Even more encouraging, in spite of the present situation, which we admit is extremely difficult, is the fact that some people are succeeding in launching new businesses. It is true that there have been many bankruptcies, but on the other hand, we must not forget that the Department has programs which-


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY-TAKEOVER OF WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY BY TEXAS FIRM. (B) PATENTS FOR CANADIAN PRODUCED COMBINE. (C) POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN CONTROL
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my few remarks this evening relate to a question I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) a couple of weeks ago with respect to the proposed takeover of White Farm Equipment in Brantford, Ontario, in my constituency, by TIC Corporation of Dallas, Texas.
When I first got word of this move by a minority shareholder to get total control of this Canadian firm-I was approached by an anonymous source but one who is impeccable as far as knowledge is concerned, who told me that the intention of TIC of Dallas was to take over control of the Canadian operation in Brantford, and within the next six to

April 22, 1982
Adjournment Debate
nine months phase it out gradually and then shut it down-I immediately went to the minister. I raised the issue in the House. I discussed the matter with the minister's officials in FIRA, in TIC, and the Enterprise Development Board. I put up quite a fight because I was afraid my information would prove correct. As I say, it came from an impeccable source, a very reliable source, but not from within the company itself. It came from a person who had worked with that company.
TIC protested and said that it was not going to shut the company down or phase it out. But at that time it refused to put anything in writing. The only weapon we had with which to fight the takeover was FIRA.
One other point is very important, Mr. Speaker. The White Farm Equipment Company in Brantford produces the 9700 Axial Flow combine. A lot of Canadian tax dollars went into producing, researching and developing it. I did not want the patents to go out of the country if the company itself was to go out of the country. Consequently, Mr. Nixon, the member of the provincial legislature for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I, even though we belong to two different parties, put up a united front. However, at Queen's Park in Toronto the Tories were quite prepared to let TIC of Dallas take over the company regardless of what promises were made, verbally or in written form.
Fortunately the federal government was wiser. It took three weeks to hammer out a deal with TIC and force it to put some of the following conditions into print. As a result of the battle that Mr. Nixon and I fought, as a result of the minister's courage in this matter, and as a result of using FIRA and the regulations pertaining thereto, we now have a written agreement by TIC of Dallas, even though it has been given the right to take over the company. The following written guarantees in legal, contractual form have been agreed to. The work force will remain at approximately 1,200 workers; all future research and development will be carried on in Canada; the employees' pension fund will be maintained; the employees' supplementary health benefit plan will be maintained; the patents to and manufacturing of the 9,700 Axial Flow combine will remain in Canada and all future manufacture of combines and combine development and combine related products will remain in Canada.
If the federal government had not stepped in, if I had not raised the issue in the House, if Mr. Nixon, a Liberal at Queen's Park, had not raised the issue, I fear that the deal would have gone through without these guarantees. Certainly if Mr. Walker, the provincial minister of industry and trade in Toronto, had his way, TIC of Dallas would have complete control today, without these written guarantees.
I am satisfied, at this point at least, that we have done everything we possibly can to guarantee the productivity at White Farm Equipment Company in Brantford. We have done everything we can to guaranteeing jobs in Brantford, even
though the workers were forced out of work for three weeks while the deal was being arranged.
Tonight, rather than being in an adversary position against the government, I am actually thanking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for the courageous stand he took, and his departmental officials in FIRA for fighting the take-over in such a way as to make sure that, if it had to occur, these guarantees and many others I have not got time to include would be written into the contract.
The only thing that concerns me at this point, as far as the press release and the appendices are concerned, is that there is no mention that all this work that is guaranteed in the agreement will take place in Brantford. All it says in the press release is that the research and development and the jobs will be retained in Canada.
I sincerely hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to enlighten me on this, and guarantee that in this agreement where it says "Canada", it means Brantford and the White Farm Equipment Company in Brantford insofar as present productivity and present labour levels are concerned.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the comments made by the hon. member, first because he has confirmed the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is doing a great job in certain areas, and we can see that this can and often does have very positive results. I would also like to say that this shows the importance of the role of parliamentarians since the hon. member said himself this evening that the fact of having asked a question in the House may have speeded up matters in this case. I therefore think that it is interesting to see that the questions asked by the hon. member can be referred directly to the minister and to the officials involved. We should therefore be grateful to the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and those who examine foreign investment because they have done a marvelous job, as the hon. member said earlier, and this has finally brought about a happy conclusion to this matter.
I would have liked the hon. member to ask specifically whether the whole industry will indeed be concentrated in Brantford and if all the operations will be maintained in Brantford, but there is no question of relocating the whole economic activity of this industry. However, I shall check personally tomorrow with the Department to provide an official answer and be quite certain that there is no misunderstanding concerning the official location of the industry. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the plant should normally begin operating within a few days or as soon as economic recovery can be ascertained and we can verify that the various commitments made by TIC Investments have truly been met. I therefore believe that the necessary work has been
April 22, 1982

done well and that I shall be able tomorrow to confirm for the hon. member the precise location of all the operations of the company.	Adjournment Debate Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.	At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 23, 1982