1982-04-27

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Reports are circulating that Vietnamese workers have been sent to work at industrial compounds south of Moscow as a means of covering a deficit in the Hanoi government's foreign currency reserves and Canadian government officials estimate that as many as 500,000 individuals may be involved in this manpower transaction. In view of the fact that they cannot obtain any information from the Soviet Union which would dispel these reports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House deplore such blatant disrespect for human rights, demand that both the Moscow and Hanoi governments cease this practice of slave labour, and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer this matter immediately to the International Labour Organization and Human Rights Commission of the United Nations for an investigation to ensure that human rights are upheld and the dignity of the person is respected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian leather shoe manufacturing industry has been thrown to the wolves by the government's lifting of its protection just when the industry was reaching a healthy stage of modernization and competitiveness. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the minister admit he made a mistake and announce a change in the shoe quotas so that some of the thousands laid off from the Canadian shoe industry can get back to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that on April 18, 1982, the Toronto Star stated that the Inuit had boycotted the patriation ceremony on Parliament Hill, and in its April 26 issue Maclean s magazine declared that the native people, including the Inuit, were "strikingly" absent from the patriation ceremony because they felt betrayed by the new Constitution, and given the fact that the Inuit were very much in attendance as an indication of our ongoing commitment to the patriation process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen):
That this House reprimand the Toronto Star and Maclean's magazine for their careless reporting and irresponsible misrepresentation of the Inuit position on the Constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The

April 27, 1982
Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Communications, together with the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd), have been avoiding and delaying discussions with farmers about the surplus land surrounding the Mirabel airport, in spite of the fact that the farmers came to Ottawa to present their cheque for rent arrears in return for an opportunity to discuss and negotiate the repurchase of expropriated lands. I move, seconded by the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Minister of Public Works contact the president of the Union of Agricultural Producers and the president of the Community for Information and Action Committee, accept their cheque for $105,000 and start negotiations concerning these lands to permit the expropriated farmers to live in their own homes, not in homes owned by the state.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the maturity and wisdom of the Saskatchewan electorate are to be congratulated for demonstrating to all Canadians that individual voters control government and not the other way around, and whereas the political universe is now unfolding as it should, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House sincerely congratulate Mr. Grant Devine and the people of Saskatchewan for achieving a well deserved victory yesterday and that we extend to Mr. Devine and his colleagues our heartfelt best wishes for a successful term of office.
"Happy Days are here again,
Saskatchewan has turned blue again.
Look out you Grits and NDP.
Happy Days are here again!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, in 196768 when the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power, the Liberals were a free enterprise party and the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and the NDP were the
socialists of Canada. During the years, the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP and their parties have cuddled up to each other. They embraced when the Prime Minister proposed unilateral patriation of the Constitution, and got right into bed with each other to keep property rights out of the Charter, and they have been existing common-law ever since. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzin-ga):
That this House deplores this shacking up by the Liberals and the NDP in a totalitarian brothel-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member for St. John's West.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and in view of the results of the Saskatchewan election yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House congratulates the Saskatchewan Liberal Party on achieving 5 per cent of the votes cast, despite the prime ministerial albatross hanging about the necks of all Liberals in Canada, and notes the wisdom of their not having the Prime Minister present in the province during that election, particularly when this House compares those results with the results achieved by the NDP in Newfoundland who were more broadly bent on April 6 by gaining only 3.7 per cent of the votes cast despite or because of the campaign presence of the MP for Oshawa, and that this House requests the Prime Minister to announce who will have priority in future Saskatchewan judicial, senatorial or more elevated appointments between those 64 defeated candidates of the Liberal Party or the 57 defeated members of the NDP of Saskatchewan.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House convey to the British government an expression of our approval for the manner in which the Royal naval task force, including the Royal Marines, carried out their operation in South Georgia last weekend with a minimum of bloodshed and casualties, thereby restoring the situation in that area that existed prior to the Argentinian aggression in the south Atlantic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 27, 1982


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This morning the Canadian Council of the Arts appealed to cabinet to send the issue of Pay-TV licensing back the CRTC for reconsideration on the grounds that the fragmented, multi-licence system okayed by the CRTC will restrict the amount of money which will be made available to Canadian film producers and will result in the loss of this great opportunity to raise our film production standards through the generation of Pay-TV revenues. Since the appeal of the CCA also points out the government's failure to provide the CRTC with any policy direction concerning this new revolutionary television service, which is the major reason we have this problem in the first place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the government now accept its responsibility for the licensing of this inappropriate system, and that it send the Pay-TV question back to the CRTC, this time with the concrete policy directives that it should have given to the commission in the first place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister advise the House if, when he and his colleagues who were sunning themselves at the Meach Lake resort last weekend, they had any meaningful discussions, or whether the report on that conference given by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice that Canadians will just have to hang in with unemployment, high interest, high taxes and more government, was correct? Were there any meaningful discussions and would the minister report same to the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that discussions among members of the government are normally kept confidential. The cabinet never meets without taking part in meaningful discussions.
Oral Questions


SITUATION IN CANADA VIS-A-VIS UNITED STATES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, that being the case, would the minister confirm the statement made by the Minister of State for Small Business, as reported in Montreal recently, "We are fearful that if there is a recovery in the United States we would not be able to join the band wagon"? Is it the government's view that the depression that he and his colleagues have caused in Canada is so entrenched that we are not capable of responding to any recovery in the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I noticed the comments made by the minister and I must say that his observations are very valid. I believe that the point he had in mind concerned the difference in cost and price performance between Canada and the United States.
If there is a recovery, and we have not succeeded in making progress in reducing inflation in the meantime, then our noncompetitiveness in other markets will, of course, prevent us from participating or would affect our ability to participate fully in any recovery that would take place. That is why I am constantly making the point that in order to get more jobs, achieve better incomes, and to sell more abroad, we have to pay much attention to costs and prices in our own Canadian economy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister correctly pointed out that our inflation rate last month was about 15 per cent on a monthly basis and the Americans had no inflation-as a matter of fact, negative inflation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, since the minister has been travelling around the country meeting businessmen, does he find the same situation as reported in the Toronto Star, where 55 per cent believe that the Canadian dollar is overpriced, and 60 per cent believe that profits and investments are going down? Does the minister have a new plan for recovery, or must we wait for fall to have a new budget and a new economic statement? Has the government abandoned 1982 and decided it will have to try again in 1983?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker; we are putting forward policy options all the time in an effort to meet the problems of the economy. We have not decided, like the Conservative Party, to defer the presentation of policy options until close to the next election.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has now told the House that he has no alternative but to remain inept, inactive

April 27, 1982
Oral Questions
and incompetent. His destructive policies make Attila the Hun look like an amateur.
If the government can intervene in the economy to choke off investment, strangle the energy industry and force Canadians out of their homes, jobs and businesses, why can the government not intervene in a more positive way? Why is he so unwilling to introduce budget measures which will reduce expenditures, bring down interest rates and restore incentives for growth and for jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member decides to ask some non-rhetorical questions, I will attempt to answer them. But if she continues to fill her questions with all kinds of personal references and political rhetoric, then I see no point in dealing with them.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF GROWTH PROGRAMS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. May I remind him that we hear from Canadians who tell us that the hardest thing they have ever done has been to lay off their employees, who tell us that their families are separated because they cannot cope with economic conditions, and who say they are fifth generation Canadians who are closing the doors of businesses started in this country by pioneers. I hope that is specific enough for the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: When will the minister show Canadians leadership? When will he help to restore confidence in the Canadian economy? When will he bring in new incentives and new programs for growth?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to tell the hon. member that at the present time the government is following a policy which is attempting to meet the main requirements of the Canadian economy. It is very easy, as hon. members of the opposition do every day, to get up and ask for new programs, as the hon. member has done today, and new incentives, and new expenditures. That is one face, one side of the double face on the opposition side. Then other hon. members will get up the following day to ask for measures to reduce inflation, to cut the deficit, and to take all sorts of steps in the direction of restraint.
May I depart from normal custom and ask the hon. member a rhetorical question? When will the Conservative Party get together and decide what its economic policy is in the country at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Just remember what happened to Blakeney: You guys are next.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the Minister of Finance. The Conservative Party is ready to take our economic policies to the voters at any time, as we did in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, once more, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the subject of the footwear industry.
I was informed today that the minister had personally received some very interesting comments from the Shoe Manufacturers Association and union members to the effect that the minister's procrastination would be fatal to the industry, and surely the minister realizes that delaying an urgently needed decision will also delay the industry's recovery during the next 12 months. Could the minister tell the House, in the light of the questions I put to him yesterday, whether he intends to announce a favourable decision this week?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, any decision based on our views of the information we have received from the industry will be a cabinet decision. I am therefore not in a position to indicate to my hon. friend that we shall be able to make an announcement this week. However, we feel this is a very important matter, and that is why the cabinet is giving very serious consideration to the latest information it has received.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
The minister said, if I understood correctly, that the question is now in cabinet but that no decision has been made. Since the industry provided employment for 30,000 workers in 1974, and those figures dropped to 14,500 in 1982; considering that many Liberals and opposition members, especially from Ontario and Quebec, because 50 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, of the workers in these two provinces are affected, and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources has admitted that he supports the request made by the footwear industry, is there sufficient pressure on the minister and does the minister have sufficient information to be able to make a decision and at least tell the House today, when, if not this week, the decision will be announced, before it is too late for this industry, which is simply asking for some of the fairness so widely touted by the Minister of Finance?
April 27, 1982


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the matter is being reviewed at the cabinet level, and we intend to announce the results of this review as soon as possible.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In releasing the Salvadoran journalist, Victor Regalado, after nine weeks' imprisonment, the immigration adjudicator implicitly accused the minister of having jailed the journalist without sufficient reason.
In response to this accusation, the minister published a press release containing malicious and entirely false allegations regarding Mr. Regalado.
Would the minister now be willing to withdraw the security certificate issued under Section 39 of the Immigration Act, a section that contravenes this country's basic principles of justice, since the certificate was clearly based on false information and lies?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not justified in characterizing the grounds I put forward to justify the certificate as being complete lies. There are real grounds on which I did it. If the evidence cannot be made public, it is for the very reason that Parliament provided Section 39 of the Immigration Act, recognizing circumstances in which it would not be in the national interest to make grounds public for decisions that had to be taken in the public interest.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, once again we see that the Solicitor General is no more than a dummy for the RCMP Security Service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The lawyers for Victor Regalado have urged the minister to suspend all deportation proceedings against Regalado for a period of at least one year to give him an opportunity to demonstrate clearly that the information obtained by the RCMP from the CIA and elsewhere is a tissue of lies. Will the minister agree to this very reasonable demand, or will he at the very least assure the House that Regalado will not be deported to any Latin American dictatorship in which his branding as a security risk in Canada will effectively be his death warrant?
Oral Questions


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that that step has already been taken. I indicated six or seven weeks ago that, in the case of Regalado, the fact that he was granted refugee status meant that we would not ask that he be returned to his country of origin, but that he would have an opportunity to find a third country. We have given him that choice and offer. It is up to him to take advantage of it whenever he wants. I think we are being as reasonable as we can possibly be.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. One of the major contributors to the record unemployment level in Canada, as the minister knows, is the Canadian auto industry, as a result of the government's lack of policies. It is presently operating in a vacuum. As the minister knows, 30 per cent of the assemblers in Canada are unemployed. Nearly 40 per cent of the auto parts manufacturers are unemployed as well. Will the minister tell us whether this very important matter was raised at Meach Lake this past weekend? If not, why not, considering the very important consequences it has on the economy as a whole? If it was, can the minister and his government now tell the industry, which has to know, what specific policies and positions he is prepared to take before further jobs are lost in that very important sector of our economy?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, while I cannot talk about subjects raised in discussions between ministers, I can confirm that the policy regarding the auto industry remains among our priority concerns and considerations.
I reject completely the premise of my hon. friend about lack of policy. Our policy has been to strengthen opportunities for further production and increases of activity in the industry, as exemplified by our arrangements with Chrysler and Ford, our special auto parts fund, and our arrangements with Volkswagen to have major activities here with 85 per cent Canadian content. Certainly this approach of expanding production, and strengthening opportunities for production and employment will continue to be at the forefront of our concerns and considerations for this very key industry.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, if that is the policy of the government, I suggest that ministers change it because that policy has contributed to 50,000 unemployed in that sector alone.

April 27, 1982
Oral Questions


NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPANESE
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for International Trade. As he knows, he has failed in every part as far as negotiations with the Japanese and the Japanese auto industry are concerned. The result, of course, is further unemployment in Canada. Next month he will be meeting in Paris with his counterpart from Japan. Has he received a mandate from his cabinet regarding the negotiations with his Japanese counterpart? If so, what positive steps is he prepared to take, without delaying the situation any further; and does that mandate include Canadian content regulations?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is fully aware of the representations that I made on behalf of our government to my counterpart when I was in Japan six weeks ago. Negotiations are ongoing at the official level. As I said to the hon. member on previous occasions, he will be one of the first to know if and when we receive the positive results to these negotiations.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capiiano):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the past the minister has expressed concern at the pressure the Canadiani-zation program has caused our financial system and our balance of payments. Is he satisfied that the Canadian chartered banks are in a position to finance further Canadianiza-tion and the energy projects necessary for energy self-sufficiency?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member correctly recalls that I was concerned last summer at the impact of financing by the banks of take-overs which particularly flow through the exchange markets. As a result of consultations with the banks, there was a conclusion that such take-overs generally would not be financed through the banks. To the best of my knowledge, the understanding reached at that time has been observed in the main. I have not had evidence of major takeovers since that time.


INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS OF CANADIAN BANKS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, in light of the present global conditions of banks and world credit, is the Minister of Finance satisfied that Canadian banks are not disproportionately extended or over-exposed in their international lendings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have kept in close
touch with the Inspector General of Banks and I have no reason to believe that any of the banks operating within the Canadian banking system are not in a viable position. I believe that each of them is viable, in the circumstances.


OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SERVICES IN NORTHWEST BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, regarding the same medical principle that I raised yesterday, which is always to err on the side of caution. I wrote on November 3, 1981, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, regarding allegations that an ophthalmologist examined 16 children in 17 minutes at a school in my constituency. On December 11, 1981, the minister wrote back to me and said the following:
' ... being the only resident eye specialist in northwest British Columbia he extends his services to the people of that area by visiting all cities, towns and villages in accordance with his schedule.
It is our understanding that his primary interest is limited to detection and treatment of the eye diseases amongst the entire population of northwest British Columbia.'
Perhaps the minister could explain to this House how it is possible for one physician to detect and treat eye disease amongst 80,000 Canadians, and whether in her view a physician's schedule is sufficient grounds to allow 16 children to be examined in 17 minutes?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have received notice of this question, because of its scientific dimension. I do not like that we play games, such as the one the member played yesterday. I often observe that he links-to serve his ideology

facts that are unrelated. Yesterday he said, in relation to the spraying of Agent Orange at Gagetown, New Brunswick, that we investigated people outside the military camp.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Monique Bégin: We did that deliberately. We took a broader context, to analyse all the human beings who live there. If he makes another false assertion like this today, I would prefer to receive notice. That seems to me to be elementary common sense. Then I can give the exact answer, because of the scientific components.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXAMINATION OF NATIVE PEOPLE
James Ross Fulton: scientific quibble that I am taking up with the minister. That is over 100 native patients in less than an hour. That same doctor then spent the same amount of time transferring the medical numbers for his records. It may be appropriate for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to quibble with my facts, but she has had five and one half months to look into this, and she has done nothing. It may be in the interest of her Social Credit or Conservative colleagues to do something. I wonder if she would tell this House just one thing, whether or not in her view 35 seconds is an appropriate amount of time for an ophthalmologist to look at a native patient's eyes.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I repeat to the member that I do not know the answer to that question. I have to go and check the facts. I cannot act like him and do away with the facts. Yesterday he also said that-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Monique Bégin: Yesterday he also said that outside-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Clark:: Write a letter. Send it to the newspapers.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, there are really only two principles involved on which I would like the minister to comment. One is that it is pretty clear that the doctor is grossly ripping off the medical system in Canada. The second is that native Canadians are not getting proper health care. My final supplementary is this. The physician in question, as the minister knows, is Dr. W. Jory, the President of the British Columbia Medical Association. That may be why the minister has waited five months and has done nothing. Would she tell us what she is going to do, and when?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, if one wants to have principles, I suppose they are much stronger if you have the basic knowledge behind them in the first place. I said I was going to look into the facts, and this is what I am going to do. The hon. member will have to wait because he forgot to use elementary common sense and give me notice of the question.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I must say in passing that I was very pleased yesterday to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asking a question and doing it so beautifully. 1 can assure the Minister of Veterans
Oral Questions
Affairs that if he were asking this question, he would be a lot tougher.
In any event, this year is the fortieth anniversary of the Dieppe Raid. I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has met with the President of the Dieppe Veterans Prisoners of War Association and I know the representations they made. Will the minister give some consideration to increasing the amount of the basic pension for the Dieppe POWs?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is true, I did meet with the President of the Dieppe Veterans and Prisoners of War Association. As the hon. member realizes, the question of the level of compensation for prisoners of war was the subject of the Hermann Report published in 1973. In accordance with that report, four levels of compensation were established for various prisoners of war, depending on the length of time they were imprisoned as well as the foreign power involved. As I said, I met with the president of the association and, as a result, I am prepared to give consideration to a review of the levels of pension that have been given to this group.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, if I may. Is the minister aware of the situation in Winnipeg concerning a Kenneth and Victoria Hayes? Revenue Canada tax collectors, have seized all their life savings which amount to $116,000, and are demanding another $84,000 on top of that. They have done all this in a very short period of time and under circumstances, Madam Speaker, which are highly questionable, to say the least.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want him to know, first of all, that I share his concern about this particular case. As he can appreciate, it is difficult for me to talk about the details of any case in Parliament and public even if I had the legal authority to do so. I have asked for a complete investigation into this case. I can assure him that I intend, first of all, to see that these people are treated entirely fairly under the law. I would further say to him that if he, or other members connected with this particular case, would like to sit down with me privately, I will be glad to go into further details with them.


DEPARTMENTAL POWERS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is a common practice for deputy ministers or senior officials in his department to act in this way, apparently without any concern for the

April 27, 1982
Oral Questions
people involved. 1 think this can rightly and objectively be said to be what happened in this case. These are almost Gestapo-like tactics that the people involved used on this Winnipeg couple. It is totally unfair. I should like to ask the minister whether this has happened very often. Does the department literally have the power to move in and seize records and bank statements as officials have done in this particular case?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the department does have the power to do that, but I believe that the law should be applied with sensitivity. In this particular case I intend to see that it is applied with sensitivity. I do not know all the facts of the case and I do not think it would be proper for me to discuss them here, if I did. However, if the hon. member would like to discuss this with me further I would be glad to do that in order that he and I may both be assured that fairness was done.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will realize that negotiations have been proceeding between France and Canada on the question of the boundaries between France and Canada surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which are most important for fishery items and mineral resources on the continental shelf, for some 11 years now.
Is it correct that a treaty was signed between France and Canada on May 26, 1972, by the ambassadors of the two countries, wherein the then Government of Canada agreed to a major and large area going to France with respect to the continental shelf off the south coast of Newfoundland? Was it also agreed that in a further large area France would have the right to decide what oil companies would have the rights to explore and develop, and where oil would go from that area if it was discovered there? Is that correct? If it is, and I am informed that it is, will the minister table or make public that agreement? Is that the reason we have not got anywhere in our negotiations with France in the past nine years, and is the government now afraid to push the matter, having conceded so much in the agreement of May 26, 1972?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the agreement to which my hon. friend refers. To the best of my knowledge the only agreements we have had with France have been with respect to fishing rights in the region and with respect to the delineation of the boundary on the landward side of Saint Pierre and Newfoundland, between those islands and Newfoundland, where the water boundary has been agreed upon. The matter was raised at the meeting here with Premier Mauroy. It was also raised by Foreign Minister Cheysson in
my talks with him. We agreed that we should proceed as quickly as possible with an attempt to delineate the boundaries of those islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Canadian position is that we accept the territorial sea for those islands but not the kind of economic zone which France is claiming for them.
With reference to the claim that these negotiations have been going on for eleven years, I would point out that it was only in 1976 that both Canada and France claimed the extended economic zones which gave rise to the problem, so even the problem itself, let alone the negotiations, has existed for only half the time that the hon. member mentioned.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister to do some home work. I can assure him that there was such an agreement signed by the ambassadors.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE MADE PUBLIC
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Does he realize that in the arbitration case between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the French Republic on the delimitation of their continental shelf that the International Court of Justice accepted that document as an agreement between France and Canada on the continental shelf?
Assuming that the minister will do his home work, would he then report to the House and make public this agreement? Would he also advise the House or the public what we are now claiming and exactly where the matter stands? Why did the Government of Canada betray east coast Canadians and the whole of Canada by signing such an agreement in May, 1972, without disclosing it to the world, and why did it keep it secret until this time?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, any betrayal is in the mind of the hon. member. The facts are as I have stated them. We recognize a 12-mile territorial sea for Saint Pierre and Miquelon as emerging international law requires us to do. We do not recognize the claim of 200 miles beyond that of an economic zone which they are claiming. It is precisely that dispute which is now under consideration by the two governments. I can assure the hon. member that we have vigorously supported the claims of the Canadian people in these negotiations.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister should know that over the past two to three years there have been repeated promises from
April 27, 1982

government that new, enlarged boundaries and guidelines should be created with respect to regional development incentive grants. In all that time, and despite all the promises, nothing has changed.
The minister must know that expansion of the grant program would provide incentives to industry either to locate in new areas or enlarge their existing facilities. This would help to solve the problems of job creation and regional disparity in many areas, particularly in Ontario, which are not now included in this program. Is the minister prepared to act on these many promises and announce changes involving the grant program which would result in the establishment of new and enlarged boundaries, which are especially necessary in Ontario?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the questions raised by my hon. friend are among those that are being looked at in the context of the reorganization of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the re-organization of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with a view to putting them together in one major, new department. We will have more to say about this in coming weeks and months.


REQUEST THAT NEW BOUNDARIES BE ESTABLISHED
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister's predecessor was acutely aware of problems connected with the existing boundaries in Ontario and had promised on many occasions that solutions were forthcoming. I see him nodding his head. Will the minister give his assurance that the endless departmental examination of the issue will now cease and that plans to create new boundaries or enlarge existing ones in Ontario will be implemented at once?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this is something we are working on and I hope to have some things to say about it in coming weeks.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Ontario Hydro has applied to the National Energy Board to export massive amounts of electricity to New Jersey over the next ten years. The federal department of the environment has argued strenuously that Ontario Hydro's plans will greatly increase acid rain-causing emissions. Will the minister confirm that the National Energy Board has now approved
Oral Questions
Ontario Hydro's application despite the dire warnings of the department of the environment in that connection?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the National Energy Board is due to release its report some time today. I suggest we wait for that report.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He will know the details of the National Energy Board decision because he has prepared a press release on the subject for issuance at four o'clock this afternoon. Does he intend to appeal the decision of the National Energy Board to cabinet? If cabinet confirms the National Energy Board decision in light of any appeal the Minister of the Environment might launch, will he tender his resignation, since such an outcome from cabinet would totally undermine his moral authority on the important and urgent subject of acid rain?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, there are several questions contained within that single question. As my colleague said, I believe that the National Energy Board will release its report today and 1 expect that I shall have some comment to make when it does so. In any case, the question will automatically come to cabinet because of its importance.


PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who in July, 1980, approved the pre-build of the Alaska highway gas pipeline when he was warned financial guarantees were not in place which would enable the building of the entire line. In view of the fact there is an announcement imminent of a significant delay, two to four years, which really means this project is on its deathbed, is the minister still prepared to give this House his assurances, ironclad or otherwise, that the entire line can be financed?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I understand that financing arrangements have been made, to the tune of some $24 billion, in the United States. I understand that at present there are some problems between the partners which are being discussed and negotiated. I suggest we should wait for the reports about those discussions.

April 27, 1982
Oral Questions ENERGY


FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the government's whole economic strategy appears to be based on jobs from energy megaproject spin-offs. Clearly the Alaska highway gas pipeline is having financing problems, and Alsands is on the ropes. Can the minister confirm that Shell has pulled out of the Alsands consortium, and can he tell us what will happen to the government's economic strategy in view of the potential collapse of these megaprojects?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I hope the NDP will make up its mind; some days it is against the Alaska gas pipeline and Alsands, and some days it is for them. I am not asking them for the impossible, that is, to make up their minds on anything, but I would like to tell my hon. friend that the reports he has referred to appear to be unfounded. The Alberta Minister of Energy and myself met with the companies last night. We had discussions. The companies are considering a number of possibilities, and we expect to get news very shortly.


HOUSING
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Last Saturday, in an advertisement in the Montreal press, the corporation invited people to renovate their homes and take advantage of a forgivable loan of up to 10 per cent of the costs, up to a maximum of $3,000. Could the minister inform the House whether people who have already used urea formaldehyde foam and have certain problems would also be eligible for this program and be able to take advantage of this generous scheme?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it has been asked by other members of the House and obviously other people are interested. The $30-million program, designed to assist in renovation, was in essence a job-creation program. The government therefore thought, in order to get this program operative as soon as possible, that it would be designated to items of renovation in homes other than under the urea formaldehyde program which, as you know, is a separate program under the leadership of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the assurances given by President Reagan at last summer's economic conference, that the United States government expected to make very important reductions in its interest rates by the end of last year, have proved to be no more soundly founded than the assurance given by the American President to our Prime Minister a year ago that they intended to co-operate closely with Canada in controlling emissions which create acid rain, does the Prime Minister intend at this summer's economic conference not to be misled by any of these bland assurances, and intends now with his government to start working out a Canadian program for lowering interest rates and stimulating the economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I regret the hon. member's use of words indicating that I was misled by bland assurances.


George Harris Hees: Those were the kindest I could use.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The President of the United States was voicing his view of the way the economy of his country would develop over the coming months. It is true he gave assurances tending in the direction the hon. member stated, but I think this is an occasion to remind the hon. member that even the great United States cannot always implement the economic policies they would like.
As strong as they are in the world, Madam Speaker, and their economy is of course much more self-reliant than ours, they are still faced with very difficult economic problems, and even such a strong president as President Reagan-of a conservative philosophy which I am sure basically is admired by the hon. member-cannot bring his country out of the dire straits it is in.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF CANADIAN DESIGNED PROGRAM
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, as a Conservative government in the early 1960s pulled the country out of very severe recession by a plan of its own making, does the Prime Minister not think it is incumbent upon him to try to show the Canadian people that his government is made of equal fibre and can undertake such a Canadian program, instead of relying on "Big Brother" to pull us out of our present serious recession, something which "Big Brother" has made very clear he has no intention of doing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is making an historical omission when he talks about that period. He realizes, of course, that there was a world-wide recovery at that point and that the then Canadian government naturally went along with the over-all trend. If the government of that time had been so
April 27, 1982

impeccable, it is hard to explain why the hon. member would have departed from that government. I am sure he must have disagreed with its basic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell us, when he decided to lay charges against Crown corporations in the uranium cartel matter, whether he knew those Crown corporations could claim immunity?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, it is evidently a problem which existed at that time as it exists at this time. In fact, at that time there was a decision of the court not to grant the corporation immunity, in the case of the CBC. The position we are taking in this case is that we can prosecute Crown corporations like private corporations.


CLAIM OF CROWN IMMUNITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, when the minister brought charges against those Crown corporations did he know that they could claim Crown immunity?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there are many defences which any citizen or Crown corporation can take. This is one which existed at that time. It is not sure that they will win or lose in court, but the advice I received from the commission, and from the lawyers who advised the commission, was that it was absolutely proper to prosecute Crown corporations, so I did.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is obviously proper, according to this Minister of Justice, to lay charges against a Crown corporation when he knows in advance they will be protected against the consequences of those charges, as ordinary Canadians would not be. My supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh, come on, ask another one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has declined four times to answer that question. I would now like to give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources an opportunity to answer the question.
Oral Questions


INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNSEL FOR URANIUM CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: My
question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relates to Uranium Canada, which he knows is a "shell" corporation with no assets, no offices, no employees, and no directors except the minister. Will the minister tell this House who is instructing counsel on behalf of Uranium Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the more the Leader of the Opposition speaks, the more clearly he shows why he failed in his law studies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Minister of Justice has stated quite clearly that when he laid the charges they were laid upon the advice of counsel from the Department of Justice. The advice he had at the time was that he could lay those charges, established on a case that had been decided. The Minister of Justice stated that quite clearly, and the Leader of the Opposition completely misrepresented and distorted what the Minister of Justice said. Then he did not even have the courage to come back to the Minister of Justice again but diverted the question to me, which I am most happy to answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer it then.


Walter David Baker: Give it a try.


Marc Lalonde: Uranium Canada Limited has a board of directors. That is something else which my hon. friend, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, does not appear to know. Counsel for Uranium Canada is acting on the instructions of the board of directors of Uranium Canada, which is not me. I am the shareholder. I am not the board of directors.


QUERY RESPECTING IDENTITY OF INSTRUCTOR OF COUNSEL
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if I might read from the decision of the relevant Ontario court, it reads:
On May 1, 1981, all the qualifying shares of the directors of Uranium Canada Limited were transferred to, and are now presently held by, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in trust for Her Majesty, the Queen, in right of Canada.
There is one director. It is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister, who is the only director of this "shell" corporation, now tell the House of Commons who instructed that Crown corporation to plead Crown immunity against the charges brought by his colleague in cabinet who knew at the time he brought the charges that that defence could be invoked to protect Crown corporations from the kind of treatment which ordinary Canadian companies have to face in courts? Who instructed counsel for Uranium Canada?

April 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating that he would flunk his law exam today even more than at the time of his studies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition does not appear to know the difference between a shareholder and a director of a corporation. I will be very happy to give him that free advice after question period.
Second, the Leader of the Opposition does not appear to know that under the Canada Business Corporations Act, which has been amended by this Parliament, directors are no longer required to own shares in order to be directors.


Mr. Nielsen:: You are the only shareholder.


Marc Lalonde: Therefore, you can be a director of a Crown corporation established under the Canada Business Corporations Act and not have a single share. That is part of the act passed by this Parliament which the Leader of the Opposition has not bothered to read.


PRIVILEGE
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege or a point of order concerning unparliamentary language used in this House on April 21 against myself. I have already written to you, Madam Speaker, to give you notice of the fact that I wanted to raise this point of order today because my schedule has not permitted me to stay in the House after question period to speak on this point until today. I am sorry for the delay between the time of the infraction of the rules of the House and the time of this discussion, but I find it more regrettable that this type of disrespect for the rules of the House of Commons should arise at all.
I would like to thank the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) for having raised the issue immediately at the time when the incident occurred and for reserving my right to raise a question of privilege.
I spoke in support of Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. The member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) spoke against it. 1 addressed this House first and explained the content and intent of Bill C-103, a piece of legislation founded like so many other aspects of this government's energy policy upon principles of equity and fairness-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is absolute nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: -founded on the simple notion that the rich should share with the poor; that is those blessed with abundant natural resources should aid those who have less.


Marc Lalonde: When I concluded my remarks, Madam Speaker, the member opposite from Calgary Centre rose in his place. I remained in the House as long as I could to hear his remarks. I would characterize that part of his speech which 1 heard as confused, but at least it was delivered in parliamentary language. The hon. member for Calgary Centre was wrong but he was not disrespectful of the traditions of this House.
Part of the way through his lengthy remarks, I was forced by other business to leave this House. When I did so the hon. member from Calgary Centre adopted a far different speaking style and word usage than I had heard. The record of this House of that day is found on pages 16476 to 16481 of Hansard. They reveal that the Mr. Hyde mentality of the Dr. Jekyll for Calgary Centre once more got the better of him.
After I left the House on April 21 the language of the hon. member for Calgary Centre appeared to degenerate into words and expressions some of which were unparliamentary, some of which were unfortunate and most of which were uninformed. In at least three different places the record of this House of April 21, 1982, clearly demonstrates that the hon. member for Calgary Centre used language which beyond any shadow of a doubt violates my privileges as a member of this House.
First, on page 16477 the hon. member speaks of the "downright dishonesty of the minister".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are not helping the Chair by applauding when words like this are invoked. This particular instance happened at least a week ago and it will be difficult for the Chair to rule on it. It would be helpful if the House listened to the point of order or the question of privilege. The notice given to me said the matter was a question of privilege but the hon. member has referred to it also as a point of order. In any event, I am taking the matter as being a question of privilege unless the minister tells me otherwise. I would like hon. members to assist me by listening to this question of privilege so that I can decide whether there is any reason to intervene.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to remind the Chair that you have many times stated that if an hon. member cannot lay his question of privilege or point of order before you within the space of five lines of Hansard, then there is something wrong.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, and I remind hon. members on the other side that sometimes they have occupied up to one and a half hours of time on a single question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: But they had some substance to them.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
April 27, 1982


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have outlined the first occurrence. Second, on the same page Hansard records the member as accusing me of falsehoods. Third, further down on the same page the hon. member for Calgary Centre accuses me of uttering deceits, dishonesty and statements that are known to be untrue.
There can be no doubt that the three quotations I have just read are no more than gratuitous and slanderous attacks on a fellow hon. member of this House and, as such, are a breach of parliamentary privilege. They violate the basic principles of parliamentary language and proceedings which lie at the very foundation of orderly debate in a parliamentary democracy. The rules and the precedents are unanimous in their condemnation of this sort of language.
On April 24, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome made this assessment of how debate should be conducted in Parliament:
We must adhere to a certain standard of language and a certain standard of conduct in the House, in order to maintain a proper standard of dignity in respect to the debates here. Inevitably, every time we get away from the substance of debate and cross over into the area of personal reflection, on the one side or the other, we always run a very high risk of putting that whole sense of dignity and decorum in jeopardy.
As soon as I left the House on April 21, the hon. member for Calgary Centre clearly crossed that line so well described in the passage I have just quoted. Because he could not understand and cannot yet understand the substance of the energy program of the government, he turned to ad hominem rhetoric of the worst kind.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have the gist of the hon. minister's question of privilege and I will interrupt him at this point. He referred to language which was used by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), as reported in Hansard of April 21. Since the hon. minister gave me some idea of what his question of privilege was all about I referred to Hansard of that date. I must say that I have one particular problem with this question of privilege. It is not that the language used cannot be qualified as unparliamentary, because I believe it was unparliamentary. No member can accuse another member of "absolute falsehood" or say that an hon. member is "downright dishonest". As I read this, it is not accusing the minister obliquely of downright dishonesty but quite directly.
My problem with this particular question of privilege is that it was not dealt with at the time it occurred. Unparliamentary language should be dealt with when it occurs because it is only at that point that one can assess the tone or the atmosphere of the House and especially the kind of disturbance which that kind of language might create in the House. I remind hon. members that there are two elements in dealing with the matter of unparliamentary language. It is the language itself, whether it derogates from what is considered to be parliamentary or from the spirit of what is considered to be parliamentary. I urge hon. members not only to think of the actual list-
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
because I think it needs to be updated-but to think of the spirit of decorum which is required by hon. members in the House.
Because the matter was not dealt with immediately, it is very difficult for me to ask the hon. member to withdraw a week later, although if he wished to do so, I would find it completely within the spirit of parliamentary behaviour. But I remind hon. members that I deplore excessive uses of language, and I do not feel they are conducive to orderly debate in the House.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, in his specious question of privilege the minister made a number of comments about the National Energy Program.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that I am not being too hard on him by asking him to withdraw his words now, but I will certainly not allow any comment on what I have just said or on the question of privilege.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I was not commenting upon your judgment or upon what you have just said. In raising his question of privilege, the minister made a number of editorial statements regarding general policy upon which I will not comment now.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time to debate those statements.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, you will recall, on reading Hansard of April 21, that I raised the point of order when I heard the hon. member opposite voice the allegations to which the minister is referring. At the time, I indicated that I had clearly heard what the minister is now referring to, namely, the allegations made by the hon. member. The hon. member then denied the fact he had said anything unparliamentary. He said, and I quote from page 16477:


Harvie Andre: I will have to examine the blues. I certainly do not want to use any unparliamentary language ...


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I merely wish to point out to the minister that I had considered the comments he made at the time he himself raised the point of order. Hansard, which I have in front of me, clearly indicates that the minister then called upon the Speaker to straighten out the situation. The Speaker gave a ruling to the best of his knowledge. He ruled on the situation as he understood it. 1 do not wish to reconsider that ruling. If the point of order had been raised much sooner, and if the minister had then persisted in requesting a revision of the Speaker's ruling 1 believe it would have been possible to settle the matter then and there. But since a week has passed, I do not think it would be in the best interests of the House to reconsider this matter.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, may I remind you that I wrote to you at the first opportunity after reading Hansard-

April 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I thought I had made myself clear. If the minister felt that the matter was so urgent, he should have come to the House the following day and raised his question of privilege or have it raised by someone else. I would therefore ask hon. members to refrain from commenting further on this matter, since I have now given a ruling.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: On this question of raising it at the earliest opportunity, I refer Madam Speaker to page 348 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May.


Some hon. Members:: Madam Speaker has ruled!


David P. Smith: It reads:
A matter which is postponed to suit the convenience of the House or to secure the attendance of a member implicated, or to give the Speaker an opportunity to consider it fully-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I am very sorry, but I have given a ruling on the matter. I would like to have the hon. members' co-operation.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, without wishing to reflect on the ruling you just made, I believe it is important that the House should get some clarification on whether the ruling you have given in this very specific case or the citation just quoted by my parliamentary secretary should apply in a case where a member or a minister raises a question of privilege. I do not want to dispute your ruling or refer to it in any way, but we have here a ruling by the Speaker and a statement by Erskine May, and I should like to know which of the two should apply.


Madam Speaker:: I can provide the minister with some clarification by quoting a case I have here in English, which entirely supports the ruling I have just made, namely-

The proper time to raise such a point of order, that is about unparliamentary language, is when the words are used and not afterwards.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on another subject. After consultation with the Clerk of the House, I believe this would be the appropriate time to seek unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion to refer the question of prostitution, a very difficult-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The proper time would be when motions are called.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I wish to table a copy of correspondence on the purchase of two stacker-reclaimers from the Mitsubishi Company by Ridley Terminals Inc., a corporation with which the National Harbours Board is involved. One of our Canadian companies, Stephens-Adamson, objected to the purchase, and there was an exchange of correspondence between Stephens-Adamson and the National Harbours Board on the subject. That is the document I wish to table in the House.


PETITION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadian Action for Nicaragua, representing over 5,000 Canadians from all parts of Canada, supporting the right of Nicaraguans to self-determination and condemning outside threats against the sovereignty and people of Nicaragua.

[ Translation]


UREA FORMALDEHYDE INSULATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-109, to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, this motion arises out of a proposal that was
April 27, 1982

made in this chamber last Thursday by the government and which we believe had been agreed to by the official opposition.
It is a question of referring the whole issue of solicitation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration in conjunction with Bill C-53 which is presently before the committee. 1 understood that at that time we had the consent of the official opposition to this proposal. We did not obtain the consent of the third party in the House, but they have now had four days and they had requested a certain amount of time to consider it. I hope that we would have unanimous consent of the House at this time to proceed with this matter so that we can get on with the very important business of dealing with solicitation.
The motion, Madam Speaker, moves:
That it be an introduction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution and including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard, and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I had given your Honour notice that I had intended to seek unanimous consent to move a motion very much in similar terms to those which have been discussed earlier.


Madam Speaker:: We will deal with this motion first. We must deal with one motion at a time. Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I believe this motion is debatable. I woud like to propose the following.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It has not been proposed yet. It would be debatable after it has been proposed.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I move the adoption by unanimous consent of the motion previously posed, without debate.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to give that consent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, certainly the motion is before the House and my understanding is that it is debatable pursuant to the rules. I wish to speak to it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understood the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) to indicate very clearly that we were willing to move the motion and give it unanimous consent provided there is no debate. If there is debate, there is no consent.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, surely the important matter is to get the issue properly before the Standing Committee. The government is prepared to do that in keeping with an undertaking given by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to the
Motions
repeated requests of the member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) because of the pressing nature of the problem. Surely the New Democratic Party would be prepared to have that reference go to committee as quickly as possible. We are prepared to give unanimous consent to have that reference immediately so that that committee can commence work as quickly as possible on this very pressing subject.


Mr. Deans:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that at the time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the motion, he made no reference to that unanimous consent being given subject to the matter being dealt with without debate. The record will clearly show that the only time that the parliamentary secretary mentioned "without debate" was after he had, in fact, moved the motion for the second time.
I want to make it clear that we want to deal with the matter and we want to refer a motion to the committee to deal with prostitution. However, we do not propose to have the matter shunted off without any consideration by the House of Commons. We therefore intend to debate it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I respect what my hon. friend said but it is clear that the intent in what was said, and the spirit of the whole discussion, was that this motion was to be put, provided there is no debate and there is unanimous consent. There being no unanimous consent, we cannot agree to the motion being discussed or put. It was a condition for moving the motion.


Erik Nielsen: I believe the Chair may be now confronted with a problem. Of course, we have been willing to see the matter consented to without debate, but if I heard accurately, the motion was put and is now before the House. For the New Democratic Party to be denied the right to debate it now, it would mean that the motion had not been put at all. However, it was put and it is now before the House. I think the Chair may have a problem in that regard.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 want to join with the House leader for the official opposition in saying quite clearly that when unanimous consent was sought there was no indication that this would be dealt with without debate. The motion is now before the House. The only way in which it can be withdrawn would be with unanimous consent, which we are not prepared to give. We intend to debate it. The matter is now before the House and we ask you to proceed with that order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, you have not yet read the motion and consequently there is no problem. We shall not present the motion because there is no unanimous consent for a debate. I believe that solves the problem.

April 27, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: I want to make it clear to the House that yes, the motion was proposed by the hon. parliamentary secretary and I believe that he read it. I understood that he was reading it so that hon. members would be aware of what it contained. I assume that hon. members could not give their unanimous consent without knowing what it contained.
I have no knowledge of any negotiations that might have taken place before hon. members came to this House. The hon. parliamentary secretary has given the House an idea of what the motion contained, but it had not been put to the House by the Chair. That now requires the unanimous consent of the House.
Does the House give the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice unanimous consent to put his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary does not have unanimous consent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want it to be very clearly understood that we are prepared to have this matter debated in the House today and referred to the committee today.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is not before the House. There has been no unanimous consent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,748, 3,161, 3,310 and 3,765.

MR. MAURICE MacDONALD


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP, in company with Calgary City Police, at any time raid the home of Mr. Maurice MacDonald, a shooting instructor and gun collector, and, if so (a) was his home ransacked (b) were his firearms seized by the RCMP (c) what was the purpose of the exercise and who authorized it?
2.	Was Mr. MacDonald suspected of a crime and (a) if so, what was it (b) if not, for what reason was he treated in that fashion?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. A member of the RCMP in company with the Calgary City Police attended the home of Mr. Maurice MacDonald, (a) His home was not ransacked, (b) His firearms were not seized by the RCMP. (c) The purpose of the exercise was to obtain evidence that a crime had been committed acting under the authority of a search warrant obtained by Calgary City Police.
2.	Yes. (a) Theft-Section 292 of the Criminal Code, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. R. Michael Warren, president of the Canada Post Corporation, send out CNCP communications to various people headed "A message from Canada Post Corporation" and, if so (a) what was the cost to the taxpayer (b) how many persons received the message dated October 15, 1981, and in what categories did they fall (c) for what reason was the message not sent by regular mail and was one reason that Mr. Warren believed regular mail to be too slow (d) does the message fall into the category of a propaganda exercise for the benefit of the corporation and in what way could it possibly contribute to improving the postal service?
2.	Was it essential that the message be sent with haste and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I. Yes, a message was sent via Telepost, (a) Costs were underwritten as a joint project of Canada Post and CNCP Telecommunications.
(b)	It was addressed to about 1,000 mayors and reeves of Ontario communities as well as members of the provincial legislature and Ontario members of the House of Commons.
(c)	and (d) The message, as a joint project of Canada Post and CNCP Telecommunications, was sent as a low profile promotion of the product "Telepost" which is a co-operative business venture of the two corporate bodies.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year 1981-82, what is the estimated number of person-years to be allocated to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for duties paid in whole or in part by provinces and municipalities?
2.	What is the estimated cost to the government for the provision of this service and what amount is expected to be received from the provinces and municipalities who request and obtain such service from the RCMP?
3.	What is the duration of the agreement covering this service?
4.	Were estimates prepared of the expenses and revenues for the period of the agreement and, if so, what were the amounts?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Provincial, 6,953; municipal, 2,824.
2.	Estimated Total Cost:	$412,383,000
Estimated Revenues from provinces and municipalities:	$285,831,000
This covers a 15-month period (October 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981) due to a change in billing procedure and is a one-time occurrence in 1981-82.
3.	Ten years.
4.	Estimates of expenditures and revenues for the ten-year duration of the Policing Agreements with the Provinces and Municipalities have not been completed.

April 27, 1982


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there an RCMP security File on the Prime Minister and, if so, during the transfer from RCMP security to the new civilian Security Service, will it be destroyed, altered or changed in any way?
2.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,230 which declares that the government will not guarantee that security Files will not be destroyed, altered or changed in any way, is the reason for this policy because of the existence of a File on the Prime Minister?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The Security Service properly maintains files on a number of persons which it must do in order to carry out its responsibilities to national security. The mere existence of a file does not, however, necessarily connote improper activity on the part of a file subject. In effect, Security Service files are held without prejudice and in the strictest confidence. To do otherwise would be a disservice to many local law-abiding Canadians and, for this reason, it has been the long-standing policy of the Security Service to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a file on any individual.
The McDonald commission of inquiry recommended that the individual file holdings of the Security Service be reduced. I have instructed a review of the current Security Service file retention policy with this objective in mind but not at the expense of affecting Canada's ability to conduct proper national security investigations. I can assure this House that no Security Service file will be destroyed, altered or changed in any way simply because of the prominence or otherwise of the individual involved.
2. No.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to hon. members of this House on a few important aspects of Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), which we are currently debating. As you know,
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
the National Energy Board is one of the main instruments that the Government of Canada has for bringing influence to bear on energy development in our country. The board, in fact, regulates certain activities and operations of companies or individuals wanting to promote that development. Your Honour also knows that this bill to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3) is one of the necessary legislative measures for implementing the essential elements of the National Energy Program, which is the framework on which our whole energy future will be built.
The aim of the National Energy Program is to provide a new impetus, a vital thrust, to Canadian energy development as a whole. Its objectives are fairness, security and participation, which are essential to Canada for its economic development and for its freedom of action on the international scene. It is therefore to be expected that the act which serves as the vehicle for achieving some of these objectives will improve and fine tune the federal government's principal instrument in the energy field, namely, the jurisdiction and powers of the National Energy Board.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to deal more specifically with Clauses 12 and 30 of Bill C-108 which give additional powers to the National Energy Board with respect to international and interprovincial power lines. In doing so, I am thinking especially of the citizens of my own province, the province of Quebec, for whom these provisions have raised a number of questions, leading to an often stormy debate. There have been many erroneous statements on this subject, and today I wish to take this opportunity in the House to clarify the situation. Before explaining the nature of the bill, I would like to spend a few minutes on some technical explanations. Up to about ten years ago, transmission of electricity over long distances was very difficult. Alternating current was used, and to keep the voltage in the lines constant, many relays were needed along the entire transmission route. Since construction and operation of these relays was expensive, it was often found preferable to build power lines over short distances, either between two points in the same province or between two points in neighbouring provinces that were close enough. At the time there was no particular urgency for having special regulations for long international or interprovincial power lines.
In the last ten or 15 years, however, power transmission technology has made tremendous progress. It became possible to transmit very high voltage electricity using direct current instead of alternating current, so that relays were no longer necessary. Some of the most important technological advances in this area took place here in Canada and more specifically in Quebec and Manitoba, two provinces that have developed highly advanced technology for the transmission of electric power over long distances. It is now feasible to transmit electric power over very long distances and, today electric

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
power can be transmitted over 1,500 or even 2,000 kilometres, something that was absolutely impossible a few decades ago. Consequently, problems are now arising that did not exist before. In fact, transmission lines have now become quite similar to pipelines. Oil and gas are transported across Canada over long distances; for instance, oil is brought from Alberta to Montreal across the provinces, thanks to a pipeline that is regulated by the National Energy Board. The same applies to natural gas. The natural gas pipeline runs from Alberta across the provinces, bringing the gas to Montreal, and soon to Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. This pipeline crosses the provinces under the provisions of national, federal legislation, and expropriation authority is conferred on oil and gas companies pursuant to a provision of a federal act, subject to authorization by the National Energy Board. So that is the situation with respect to oil and gas carried across Canada, and now, thanks to technological progress, we have a situation where electric power can be transmitted across the country, over rivers, across the plains and the mountains, across regions and provinces.
The main objective of the amendments we are proposing to the National Energy Board Act is to give the board the same powers and jurisdiction over power transmission lines it now has with respect to pipelines. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the powers we are conferring under the proposed legislation are not even as extensive as those that apply to pipelines. At the present time, the National Energy Board has certain powers with respect to international power lines. The act in question prescribes that the board must hold public hearings when an applicant wishes to export electric power or construct international power lines. For instance, today the National Energy Board is to publish its decision whether or not to authorize the exportation of electric power by Ontario Hydro from Ontario to the United States in fact, to one specific state. The decision the National Energy Board is to hand down today is based on public hearings and is made pursuant to the provisions of the National Energy Board Act.
If we examine present practice and the present act, it is clear that Parliament has for some time been legislating with respect to electric power lines, and it is entirely erroneous to say what some people have implied in Quebec, that this was an entirely new step, something that had never existed before and that would constitute, as it were, an exceptional decision in the area of electric power, as though we had never passed any legislation on power transmission. In fact, the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over international or interprovincial electric power transmission, and Parliament has many times had occasion to exercise this jurisdiction.
The board has authority not only over the transmission of power from Canada to the United States, but it may also authorize construction of a power line for this purpose, by regulating its route, judging whether the line is in the public
interest both present and future by hearing any objections raised to the construction of the line and finally, by establishing the conditions deemed necessary for the implementation of the entire undertaking.
Mr. Speaker, these powers are already included in the National Energy Board Act. It is not a matter of inventing new powers or trying to attribute new powers to the National Energy Board Act, since these powers already exist in the Act and are specifically defined in Section 20 and Sections 40 to 46.
However, the act does fall short in one area. I shall explain. Where pipelines are concerned, the National Energy Board Act contains provisions conferring certain general powers and imposing certain obligations on a company operating a pipeline, but there are no similar provisions to cover the case of a power transmission line. Some of these general powers and duties concern the acquisition, including acquisition by expropriation, and the transfer of property required for the construction and operation of the pipeline. These provisions are set forth in Part V of the National Energy Board Act. One of the proposed amendments is meant to compensate for the shortcoming I mentioned earlier, so that the provisions of Part V, namely, the sections conferring general powers or imposing general duties on pipeljne companies, will also apply to persons operating international power lines.
Mr. Speaker, in this bill to amend the National Energy Board Act, we are simply proposing, as I said before, a system, similar to the present one for pipelines, which regulates the acquisition, including acquisition by expropriation, and transfer of property for the construction of electric power lines. We are not proposing a single power or jurisdiction more than those existing at the present time with respect to oil and gas pipelines, and I would remind the House again that this power is not exercised by the Government of Canada nor by the National Energy Board because they are not the ones that proceed with expropriation.
If we look at what is now happening in Quebec with respect to the gas pipeline, for instance, we find that the Trans-Quebec and Maritimes gas pipeline now under construction, which should reach Trois-Rivieres before the end of this year and Quebec City, I hope, some time next year, we find that what is happening is that TQM, the company building the gas pipeline under the licence it was given by the National Energy Board, is proceeding with the expropriation of the land it needs to build the gas pipeline, meanwhile complying with the provincial legislation in effect in Quebec, including environmental legislation and provisions for the protection of farmland, and so forth. It has been clear during the past months and the past year that TQM has had to comply with the provincial laws in effect which govern certain aspects of activities within the province. And the same thing happens when a pipeline is built, whether in Quebec or elsewhere. When a line is extended, the company involved is subject not only to federal legislation, but
April 27, 1982

also to whatever provincial legislation is applicable. What is proposed in this bill, where it is provided that the same powers be granted for power lines as those already given to the National Energy Board for oil and gas pipelines, is simply that the practice followed, for instance, by TQM in Quebec when building the gas pipeline, as I mentioned earlier, should also apply to an international or interprovincial power line. Once again, what we are proposing is simply a system similar to the one already in place for pipelines, especially as concerns the expropriation or disposal of land. That is the purpose of Clause 12, which simply states that Part V of the National Energy Board Act applies to international power lines. It will also apply to interprovincial power lines designated by the governor in council.
As for the construction of interprovincial lines, the situation at this time is quite different from that which applies to international lines. For the moment, the Board has virtually no jurisdiction in this regard. Clause 30 of the bill now under consideration will change this situation by effectively considering an interprovincial line designated by the governor in council as an international line. In other words, once a power line has been designated, the Board will be empowered to issue or cancel the certificate authorizing construction, to set specific conditions for the certificate, to hold public hearings and to approve the expropriation of land. To summarize, once an interprovincial line has been designated, the provisions concerning international power lines will also apply to this line. The designation of interprovincial power lines seems to have caused difficulties to some people. I would like to make it quite clear that the government will only make a decision concerning such lines after taking into account the interests of the provinces involved and having judged that the national interest requires that these lines be designated. The federal government does not intend to take unilateral action in this regard and, under normal conditions, the government would eventually proceed to designate a line only at the request of one or more than one province. In addition, it is important to note that this power of designation will apply only to future lines, to lines still to be built, and cannot apply to any existing interprovincial power line.
The extension of Part V to international power lines, which I mentioned earlier, has, however, given rise to ridiculous charges. We have been accused of interfering with the powers of certain provincial governments, of wanting to sell out the energy resources of some provinces and of interfering with their territorial integrity. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to point out that such accusations are completely false and demagogic. The decision to give the operators of international power lines the same powers and the same duties as those given to pipeline companies was made following a request by an Alberta company, now called TransAlta Utilities and formerly Calgary Power. This company wanted to sell electricity to the United States and to make sure that the construction of the high tension line between Alberta and the neighbouring American states would not meet with any undue
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
difficulty. We examined the matter carefully and discovered that the federal legislation did not provide the necessary powers to make such sales possible. That trade, Mr. Speaker, as I said, can, on occasion, prove vital for the economy of a region and beneficial to the over-all Canadian trade balance. We simply wanted to establish a principle. These new legislative provisions are not made for or against anybody, be it Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec or Newfoundland. They can apply today in Alberta, tomorrow in Quebec, the day after in British Columbia or Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that because of these amendments we have been accused specifically of interference in the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute over the Labrador power transmission. As a member from Quebec, I must state I have been following the debate with much attention, much interest and on a number of occasions with much regret, seeing how some points were being made and how the demagogic approach often prevailed. I would like to take this opportunity on second reading to explain the situation in greater detail to this House and the Canadian people. With regard to the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute, there can be no doubt the soundest solution economically speaking is the transmission of Labrador power southward through the existing Hydro Quebec network. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about that, either in Quebec, in Newfoundland or anywhere else.
The most sensible, reasonable, intelligent, economical solution is the transmission of the Labrador power through the Hydro-Quebec network. However, the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland goes far beyond the issue of such possible power transmission. It is an old, deep, very complex problem with major political ramifications provincially, either in Quebec or, perhaps more so, in Newfoundland.
Some aspects of the problem have to do with the transmission of hydroelectric power, namely. Could Newfoundland make sure that its power could be freely transmitted to potential clients other than Quebec? Other aspects involve other debates, other disputes between Newfoundland and Quebec concerning the kilowatt rate of power sold to Quebec, especially under the existing Quebec-Newfoundland agreement dealing with the power generated from the Churchill Falls dam.
Other debates, they deal with the matter of whether or not the Quebec-Newfoundland agreement should be adhered to, or perhaps renegotiated. Finally, a number of other technical and financial questions with far-reaching implications stem in various degrees from that dispute. There is no need to remind this House that the problems between Quebec and Newfoundland have been there for a number of years, nearly a decade; matters have been referred to the courts, certain cases are now

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
before the Supreme Court of Canada. Others are still before lower courts, and there is no solution in sight between the two governments. As I said, there are currently two cases before the courts in Newfoundland and Quebec, dealing with some aspect or other of that dispute, and each party, each provincial government uses every means available to either delay or rush the case before the courts. At any rate, these cases have been before the courts for quite a number of years.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal has just ruled in favour of that province in a third action but an appeal has been lodged against it before the Supreme Court of Canada.
I wish to emphasize that the federal government does not wish to intervene or take sides in that conflict. We did not attempt to mediate. We have left both provincial governments fight it out in court and did nothing to support one party rather than the other. In fact, we feel that both parties have much to lose in carrying on that confrontation. After ten years of legal proceedings the problem is still not resolved and in the meantime there has been no other development on the Quebec North Shore or on the Churchill River. Every year over the past ten years, the people of Newfoundland and Quebec have been losing hundreds of million dollars in revenue because their governments have been unable to come to an agreement.
Each year, thousands of construction jobs in Quebec or Newfoundland have been lost or have not been created, because the provincial governments could not agree about the development of the Churchill River or other rivers on the Quebec North Shore and for ten years the governments and people of Newfoundland and Quebec have been the real losers. God knows that right now they would be very pleased with the few thousands jobs the construction of dams on either the North Shore or on the Churchill River could create for them. Unfortunately, both provincial governments have wasted the last two years over legal proceedings and squabbles, which have doubtless helped a number of lawyers earn a living but has done little to provide jobs for construction workers.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the verdict may be in the actions in abeyance, nobody will be the winner. In the medium term, I would say that the apparent victory of either government may eventually turn against its best interests. I say this with full knowledge of the facts and as sincerely as possible. If the federal government were to intervene in that matter, it would only be to try to bring both parties together because we firmly believe that negotiation is the best answer.
A negotiated agreement involving mutually acceptable compromises would certainly prove more beneficial to the citizens of both Newfoundland and Quebec than any legal victory that could only result in bitterness and frustration. A negotiated agreement would result in many long-lasting advantages. The consequences of a confrontation would poison the atmosphere.
We have contacted both provincial governments and offered to help them resume negotiations on an agreed-upon basis. Here and now, Mr. Speaker, we repeat our offer. We do not want to interfere or intervene in any way, but we suggest again to both governments that if they feel that the Government of Canada can play a useful role towards reaching a negotiated agreement between them, we would do the utmost to help the governments of these neighbouring provinces get together again. I should like to emphasize that these two clauses of Bill C-108 apparently have been received very favourably by a majority of the House. In fact, during this most unfortunate break in our proceedings caused by the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), the energy critic of the Progressive Conservative Party, confirmed the relevance of these two clauses on an open line program. I should like to repeat here the statement which was made by the energy critic of the Progressive Conservative Party. Here is what the member for Calgary West said, and I quote:
Yes-
-sorry, from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)-
The energy critic of the Progressive Conservative Party made the following statement:
Yes, that's a part of the bill that 1 would recommend to my caucus. I am ready to recommend to my party caucus not to delay for any length of time this part of the bill, but on the contrary to deal with it as expeditiously as possible.
I should like to repeat that those are the very words he used:
Yes, that's a part of the bill that I would recommend to my caucus.
This statement by the hon. member who is the energy critic of the Progressive Conservative Party is perfectly clear and we hope that our consideration of these clauses will not last forever. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make our position clear on this issue, if 1 may. In my previous remarks, I have tried to show the situation as it really is in this bill which is now before the House, a situation which I should like to summarize again. First of all, I want to insist that the provisions of the bill which is now before the House are consistent with the powers vested in the Parliament of Canada in the area of international and interprovincial trade. Nobody has yet suggested that the Parliament of Canada lacked the authority to legislate in this respect. As a matter of fact, it is one of the responsibilities of Parliament to ensure that free international and interprovincial trade exists in Canada. Parliament must see to it that there is no impediment to international and interprovincial trade and that there is no barrier, actual or symbolic, to the free flow of goods between our provinces. If the Parliament of Canada did not have that power, it might be inferred that, to all intents and purposes, the country does not exist. That power is a basic and fundamental element of the very existence of a country worthy of the name. Therefore, the authority, the jurisdiction and the
April 27, 1982

responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to ensure the freedom of international and interprovincial trade are clear and undisputable.
Second, I want to emphasize once again that those provisions are identical to the ones Parliament has been applying for decades with respect to oil and gas pipelines and if 1 may say, for the greater good of Quebec, without the government of that province ever raising any objection. The same can be said about the powers the Canadian government has been exercising for more than a century over railway construction. And to come back again to oil and gas pipelines, the companies that build them also abide by the relevant provincial legislation.
Third, those provisions go even further than those that already apply to the pipelines, in two respects. One, they cannot apply to any existing pipeline, and two, they could apply to any future pipeline only after specific designation by the governor in council when the line involves interprovincial transport.
Fourth, the act will in no way affect the Hydro-Quebec network. I want to make that point clear because once again all kinds of irresponsible statements were made when the matter was brought up. The Hydro-Quebec network is not and will not be in any way affected by this provision. The existing and future Hydro-Quebec network is and will remain completely under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government. When the Newfoundland government asked us to legislate in that regard, it asked two things of us: First, to amend the act so that an autonomous power transmission line may be built and second, to take on the responsibility of compelling Hydro-Quebec or any other provincial hydro company to transport any hydro power which Newfoundland, for instance, might generate. We indicated at that time that we were willing to act on the first request which is in keeping with present practices with regard to pipeline construction. Our response to the second request, was first, that we did not think we could have jurisdictional authority over a provincial agency for the transportation of power over its own network and, second, that such a practice could only be successful in so far as the provincial body would be willing to co-operate and that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect the Parliament of Canada to impose such an obligation on a reluctant provincial agency. Consequently, we rejected the second request and went along with the first. This is extremely important and the people of Quebec are reminded that this provision cannot affect the integrity of the Hydro-Quebec network; it constitutes a guarantee for the present and the future.
Fifth, this act can in no way jeopardize the existing contract between Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland with regard to Churchill Falls. All this controversy now existing between Newfoundland and Quebec as regards the Churchill Falls contract is a civil law affair between the two provinces; the point is whether this contract is valid, whether it can be changed or not, but the bill now before us does not affect it in
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
any way. The actual dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland in this regard remains unsettled and it will be ruled upon by the courts unless some agreement is reached between the two provinces in the meantime. The purpose of this legislation would be the prospective development of new hydro resources that are not subjected, at the present time, to the contract between Quebec and Newfoundland. Therefore, there is no reason to worry or get excited, because the bill before us does not in the least affect the matter of the existing contract for power transmission between Quebec and Newfoundland.
Sixth, as 1 said before, these provisions are not specific to those two provinces. They have a wider scope and can apply to any province in Canada; as a matter of fact, these provisions have been brought forward in the House following a request from Calgary Power some time ago in connection with the export of power to the United States through British Columbia.
Seventh, it has been argued that there was a big difference between pipelines and power lines. In particular, I heard it said in Quebec that this difference comes from the fact that power lines were paid for by Hydro-Quebec, by the province, by the provincial taxpayers, and that the federal government has no financial input in the construction of power lines. On the other hand, it is argued that the federal government does contribute to the financing of pipelines. I must say that this argument is groundless for a very simple reason: in most cases, the government of Canada does not contribute any more to the cost of pipeline, designed to carry gas or oil, than to the cost of power lines. We are going to help to a large extent building the Quebec pipeline in order to ensure that Quebecers and Mari-timers will get natural gas at the same price as people in Toronto. We have decided to support this proposed natural gas pipeline. However, all the pipelines which have been built throughout Canada were built without any financial contribution from the Canadian government. Once again, this argument does not hold water. It is truly impossible to differentiate between electric power lines and pipelines on the basis of the financial contribution or non-contribution of the Canadian government.
My eighth point is that some have suggested that the situation is different with regard to electricity on the one hand and oil and gas on the other. It is as though electricity has a certain magical quality not to be found in oil or natural gas. It is obvious to any fair-minded observer that electricity is just another of the many forms of energy. In fact, as we all know, in many cases, one type can be substituted for another, for instance to heat buildings and homes, oil, gas or electricity can be used, and all we have here are three different forms of energy which are very common in Canada and which most citizens use at one time or another in their daily lives.
Some seem to be suggesting that because electricity is involved, it is not good enough that the Parliament of Canada

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
be able to guarantee that the transmission of power from one province to another country or another province can be governed or regulated by the Canadian Parliament, when for over 50 years, Parliament has governed the movement of gas and oil from coast to coast and from one province to another. According to them, it is unthinkable that the province of Newfoundland, for instance, if it had a customer such as New York State that was interested in buying a lot of electricity, could sign a contract with this customer to transmit the power of the Lower Churchill, which is not yet developed, from Newfoundland to New York State by a power line through Quebec, without the Quebec government being entitled to say: I am sorry, but I forbid you to pass through my territory unless you sell me all your hydroelectric power so that I can then use what I need and sell the rest to someone else.
I have heard this argument from many Quebecers to whom I have spoken and I have asked them one question, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that they generally could not reply because they have not thought about it that way. I asked them what they would say about a situation such as the following. We, in Quebec, need natural gas. As everyone knows, the gas pipeline will soon be extended from Montreal to Trois-Rivieres, to Quebec City and to various other regions in Quebec. We clearly need this natural gas. It has to come from Alberta where there is a surplus, and we, in Quebec, want to have access to this natural gas. What happens at the present time is quite simple. There is a gas distribution company, a pipeline company, which takes the gas in Alberta and brings it through the various provinces to Quebec where consumers can get it because it comes under federal legislation and federal jurisdiction. What would be our reaction in Quebec if the premier of Saskatchewan were to say: "I am sorry, Mr. Lougheed, but you are going through my territory, you are violating my territorial integrity, and I cannot allow you to go through here. What I shall do is to purchase your natural gas, then I shall take what I need myself and sell the surplus to Manitoba, and the price I obtain is no business of yours, Mr. Lougheed. I shall buy your gas at a set price, but what happens afterwards is none of your business."
Then, the same thing would happen in Manitoba. Mr. Pawley, the new Manitoba premier would say: "I shall buy all your natural gas, Mr. Devine, take what I need and sell the surplus at a small profit to Mr. Davis." And Mr. Davis would do the same thing: "I buy all your gas, Mr. Pawley, I take what I need, I go to Mr. Levesque and say: Mr. Levesque, I have quite a lot of natural gas to sell you, but I shall make a small profit since it goes over my territory and affects my territorial integrity. I am therefore entitled to some compensation because you are going through my territory." You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the price that Quebec would have to pay for oil and natural gas if each province were in some way to veto the transmission through its territory of a form of energy on its way to another province. I submit that no one in Canada could seriously suggest that we could accept as a
country-and exist as a country-a system under which each province could practically have a right of veto on power transmission through its province to another province, or even become the sole buyer of that form of energy and resell the surplus to another province at a profit.
Clearly, this has been rejected by the Canadian people as a whole, it would be so far-fetched that nobody will argue or submit that such a system could be acceptable. However, let us realize that the end result is much the same if we accept the argument that power could not be transmitted through a province to another province or country, without the producing provinces having to sell all of its product to the neighbouring province, the province in between client and producer. But again in practice, what happens is that there are agreements. As I said, the most sensible, normal, decent and economical way is to have a contract between two provincial hydros, at a reasonable price, the power being taken in by the power grid and a certain quantity resold to another country or province. This, in my view, is what should be hoped for at this point in the case of the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute. It is an unfortunate dispute, and as I said, a dispute the cost of which has been borne by Quebecers and Newfoundlanders, and a very high cost at that.
I would urge once again, as I have done privately, the two energy ministers to reopen negotiations on a broad basis. I personally indicated to the Newfoundland government that I viewed as excessive the position taken by that government to refuse to discuss the development of the Lower Churchill River and North Shore rivers unless the existing Churchill Falls contract between Quebec and Newfoundland is reopened, and that I viewed as deserving favourable consideration by the Newfoundland government the proposal made by the Quebec government, under which that government, especially over the last few months and even the last few weeks, showed its readiness to improve the Newfoundland-Quebec contract concerning Churchill Falls within the framework of a general agreement on the Churchill river and North Shore rivers development, I will pursue my efforts to try and convince both governments to sit at the table and realize it is in their mutual interest to reach an agreement not only on the famous Upper Churchill contract but also on over-all hydroelectric development in eastern Quebec, northeastern Quebec and Labrador.
I feel that such an agreement between the two provinces would have positive economic benefits in the order of hundreds of millions and even billions for Quebec and Newfoundland, not to mention the tens of thousands of construction jobs that would be created for citizens in Quebec, Newfoundland and also Ontario and many other provinces, because such developments have spin-offs across Canada, with turbines and all kinds of made-in-Canada items having to be ordered, since such a development would have a probable Canadian content of approximately 90 per cent.
April 27, 1982

It is truly a political and economic disaster for our country that after almost ten years of legal proceedings between the two provinces, the stalemate is complete. God knows that both provinces suffer from a high level of unemployment at present. God knows that both provinces could gain from the economic activity brought about by those developments. 1 am thinking at any rate of Quebec where the James Bay development project is somewhat idling, where there are fewer workers than in the past, while many of them could undoubtedly find employment on North Shore rivers or even on the Churchill River. I am thinking, of course, of the large number of unemployed in Newfoundland who could also benefit from jobs created under an agreement between both governments and the carrying out of those huge hydroelectric development projects.
I will conclude by saying that I hope and pray the two governments will agree to get together and go back to the negotiating table to try and arrive at a deal which would cover the whole question of the existing contract between Newfoundland and Quebec about the Upper Churchill development, the Lower Churchill development as well as the development of the North Shore rivers. I believe the citizens of Newfoundland and Quebec would greatly benefit by such an agreement.
Bill C-108 does not deal only with these specific powers that we want to grant to the National Energy Board; it amends a number of other sections of the National Energy Board Act. One of my colleagues will explain those amendments in greater detail to the House, or I will do so in committee or at third reading. However, I would like to go over some of them quickly.
The amendment which removes from the board's jurisdiction the power to determine oil and natural gas export prices and gives it to the governor in council is quite understandable. The almost constant fluctuation in prices on the international scene has made this question a highly political one. It is, therefore, up to the political authority of this country to assume responsibility for it and not leave it with a quasijudicial body.
Another amendment gives authority to the board to allocate oil and gas supplies to the various regions of the country. The objective, which is very simple, is to provide for future situations where Canadian oil demand might slightly exceed available supplies. Of course, the situation need not be a crisis. However, simple fairness demands that the board have the power to enable it to deal with an equitable allocation of the available resources between shippers, between provinces and among producers or producing areas.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the principal amendments we are proposing to the National Energy Board Act. I would like to repeat that the amendments we are asking this House to approve will help accelerate the implementation of certain
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
elements of the National Energy Program, which is essential if we are to achieve energy security. This objective is vital to the wellbeing and future prosperity of Canadians, and I am certain that with the help of all Canadians there will be no let up in our pursuit of it. I will be very happy to appear before the special committee of this House which has been set up to hear the views of hon. members and to discuss the content of this particular bill with them.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois)-Energy-Inquiry whether Quebec percentage of gasoline tax is greater than percentage collected by Alberta; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-Finance-Processing of income tax returns, (b) Delay in payment of refunds; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Emergency Measures-Limits of Crown prerogative, (b) Avenues of redress.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, after the many speeches and bills on energy resources, I could not remain silent with respect to this bill which is so important to a province like Quebec and, of course, to the rest of Canada as well.
I listened very attentively to the minister's presentation, which I found both very straightforward and very interesting. However, there is one comment I must make right away. The minister was comparing electric power to natural gas, and he implied that carrying natural gas or oil or whatever by pipeline is similar to the transmission of electric power. If I remember correctly, the procedures for establishing this method of supply from west to east were determined with the agreement of the

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
provinces concerned. In the case of the bill being considered in the House today, there is a definite lack of similarity. Normally, I think, the National Energy Board has a very important role to play in developing our resources, and I feel that it should respond to, assist and even supplement the objectives and priorities that have been set by provinces, persons or companies. Here, the federal government has created a tool for the exploration and management of our natural resources for the benefit of the Canadian people.
I also heard the minister explain earlier in very simple terms what might happen if each province were allowed to purchase natural gas from a neighbouring province, take a profit and route it to Quebec City. However, the minister forgot a very basic factor, and this is inexcusable because he knows perfectly well that the objections raised by his own province are based on the fact that it has almost unlimited hydroelectric resources. And the minister failed to mention the consequences of this bill if it were to be ratified without the consent of both provinces. I think that this was a voluntary oversight which is extremely important if not essential for the people of Quebec. He is aware of the conditions in Quebec. He knows why Quebec objects but I should thank him and even congratulate him for emphasizing that the best solution would surely be that both provinces should come to an agreement. There is no doubt then that we would applaud a bill resulting from a negotiated agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland. Like the minister, we regret the dispute existing between Newfoundland and Quebec and both my Quebec and Newfoundland colleagues should be quite interested in a settlement and in a bill which would fulfil the aspirations of both provinces and which would be consistent, of course, with national legislation. The minister has carefully avoided saying that he does not want to intervene in provincial matters but nevertheless, it remains that if he decides to answer Newfoundland's call, he will not be fulfilling the wishes of Quebec. The minister should honestly and objectively try to pursue that possibility and arrange a settlement between the two provinces. But it is not by provoking one of the reluctant provinces with an Ottawa-imposed bill. The minister is certainly well aware that from the psychological point of view, this bill will be regarded by thousands of Quebecers as utterly unacceptable, and that the best solution would be the one he said he hoped for, namely, a negotiated settlement between the two provinces. But I have felt that under the present system, I certainly could not ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for an understanding government and co-operative federalism. There are probably a number of ministers who are more open to and eager for true federalism.
I think that the minister representing Quebec should take this opportunity to prevail upon those two provinces to come to an agreement; there is no doubt that under a federal system such as ours, the federal government has both the duty and responsibility to help them carry out such a great project as the development of our natural resources in the interest of all the provincial partners within this country. Because the minister stated that this bill is important and because it seems
he introduced it halfheartedly, I feel, both as a Quebecer and as an elected Member of this Parliament, that I should urge all hon. members to make a special effort and in view of the bill which is now before the House, give the minister the time and the opportunity to make his proposal work. His intentions are most honourable, I am sure, for he has recognized that the best solution would be a negotiated settlement between Newfoundland and Quebec, and that the Quebec government has shown a degree of flexibility both on the possible reexamination of a contract which was entered into quite a long time ago and on the shared development of other hydroelectric projects.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I beg my hon. colleagues from Quebec and the other provinces for a six-month hoist on this bill. We are aware of the dilemma a number of hon. members are in because at the same time they must defend the interests of their respective provinces while defending those of all Canadians. We want to represent the interests of the provinces and try to adjust them to a national objective that would allow the ten provinces of this country to feel at home in Canada and want to be a part of this wonderful country.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel that it we rush the passing of this bill, we will antagonize one of the two provinces and possibly others, but one in particular that is represented here by 74 out of 75 hon. members, and whose people make up 25 per cent of the total Canadian population. I think I am being fair and equally mindful of the interests of Quebec, Newfoundland and Canada in requesting hon. members in this House for a hoist on the present bill with an amendment which 1 am about to read, Mr. Speaker; here it is:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would have noticed that I have just taken the Chair. Consequently, I only began to pay attention a moment ago. I believe he has put a motion for a six-month hoist on the present bill, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). 1 will read the motion.

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-108, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."

The Chair wishes to consult for a moment with one of the Table officers to determine whether this is consistent with the fact that we have a House order before us. As soon as I have
April 27, 1982

completed that consultation, I will determine whether the motion is in order or not.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted my position to be known and I am sure it is shared by the Opposition members as well, because I think that by asking the government for a six-month postponement, 1 am also going along with the comments made earlier by the minister when he again asked Quebec and Newfoundland to return to the negotiation table. As the minister is well aware, if his bill were to be passed quickly, it would place his own province in a difficult position with respect to the development of its hydroelectric resources and sales abroad. Of course, this should not be interpreted as meaning that I am opposed to Newfoundland developing its resources, quite the opposite. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and in the hope that all the members of this House will realize the relevancy and also the dangers of this bill, and I know that my Quebec colleagues are aware of the original objection, not only of the provincial government but also of thousands of Quebecers concerning the interpretation of this bill, and also of the position Quebec would be in if this bill were approved before an agreement is negotiated with the province of Newfoundland-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), but the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Olivier:: I rise on a point of order and apologize to my colleague for Joliette for interrupting him, but this is not at all my purpose. I simply want a clarification, Mr. Speaker. Have we now gone on to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Joliette or are we still discussing the bill now under consideration in accordance with the House order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I shall inform the House presently of the decision made concerning the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette. For the time being, I am accepting generally that the hon. member should deal both with the bill and the motion. However, the hon. member for Longueuil is quite right. Until the Chair has decided whether or not the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Joliette is in order or not, technically, it cannot be discussed. With the understanding of the House, I shall continue to recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, to help you out, 1 shall go on asking my friends opposite to realize the need for a postponement instead of provoking an obstinate stance and even a kind of revolt in our own province concerning legislation which would not be shared by the Quebec government or the government of Newfoundland. The same could also apply to any other province. The minister in charge stressed that the Newfoundland-Quebec problem does not date back to 1976 but goes back several years earlier. It is therefore my view that
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
it can be referred to quite objectively, Mr. Speaker, and I have no intention of branding anyone as a traitor on the occasion of this debate. But I would like my Quebec colleagues to take this opportunity to accept a six-month hoist on second reading, because of the consequences it could have on a province such as mine. And it is my hope that if such a proposal was accepted, and this goes for Newfoundland as much as Quebec, with the awareness of the governments' intentions, I feel there could be a resumption of negotiations and there might be a new urgency to negotiate and agree on the importance of a mutual settlement.
If I understood right, you are nodding that my amendment is accepted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I regret that I persist in interrupting the hon. member. Perhaps we may deal with the motion now before us. I have read the motion to hon. members and have indicated that it is, in fact, a six-month hoist on the present bill.
Hon. members will notice that I have had an opportunity to consult with the Table officers. The motion is found to be in order. Accordingly, I think it is worth commenting briefly on the procedures which will take place shortly so that hon. members will feel comfortable about how we proceed.
The motion will come up for a vote at the same time as the present bill under debate comes up for a vote. According to the terms of the House order, that could be no later than 8.07 o'clock tonight. It could, of course, be earlier if no hon. members seek to have the floor in order to continue debate I would first have to put the question on the six-month hoist motion. Depending on whether that motion fails or succeeds, we would either proceed or not proceed with putting the motion on the second reading of the bill.
I am making some comment because the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has quite validly pointed out on a point of order that once a motion is before the House it ought to be debated. Indeed, that is technically correct. The six-month hoist motion which is now before the House is the subject matter of debate.
However, the tradition of the House has been that because it is a technical motion, nonetheless, in the debate on such a motion the Chair has not called hon. members out of order if, at the same time, they want to continue discussing the bill which was under debate as well. Unless otherwise instructed by hon. members, the Chair will be very flexible in permitting debate, whether on the motion or on the bill itself.
I trust, then, that hon. members are now fully informed as to the procedures we will be following.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on this side of the House to interrupt the honorable member for Joliette

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
(Mr. La Salle), let alone restricting him in this debate. We simply wanted a clarification. We did not wish the order of this House amended and the hon. member for Joliette can go on.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, clearly my amendment changes nothing to the legislation, aside from deferring the bill for six months. I would not like to waste the time of the House of course, because I know other members have comments to make on this, but I shall never prevail enough upon my colleagues from both sides of the House to accept my invitation because this proposal is in keeping with our responsibilities and objective of finding an acceptable compromise so that any legislation we pass may meet with the approval of the provinces. It should and could.
I think that we could then show that we fully realize the problem which Quebec and Newfoundland are facing and we will urge the minister concerned as well as the government of Canada to come to an arrangement and reach their objective. I do not think that I will make further comment on that legislation today but I hope that the amendment which I tabled will be favourably received by a majority in this House because such amendment provides an opportunity to avoid serious problems and we know that if it were negatived it could be interpreted in my province as a provocation directed against thousands of Quebecers to avoid those problems. If I am to take the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who stated this afternoon that at no time would he intervene in a provincial issue, I hope he will hear my appeal and agree to a six-month hoist which should be put to good use for the benefit of both provinces involved and all Canadians.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to make some comments on Bill C-108. I am glad to have had the opportunity of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I did not hear all that he said, but I certainly heard the last part and I want to comment on that later on.
First, I want to trace the involvement of the federal government in this important hydro development in Labrador. This bill does not deal, of course, with the present Upper Churchill Falls development, the megawatts flowing through the Hydro-Quebec grid to the New York market and elsewhere.
There is a contract between two hydro bodies, and it has been alleged that that contract is certainly unfair to my province. I support that position. I do feel that a re-examination of that contract is in order. There is no question but that Newfoundland is not extracting from the sale of that resource its fair share as the owner of the hydro resource. That contract must be re-examined and changed in favour of Newfoundland, however it is done. The present contract is unfair to the province. It must be re-examined and changed to give the
owners of that resource a fairer share of the return from that resource.
However, the contract was negotiated, not with the federal government but between two governments and, indeed, two hydroelectric distributors. To talk about that is to talk about history.
From the point of view of the national government, I would like to refer back several years to a federal-provincial conference. I believe it was held in western Canada. Out of that federal-provincial conference came the agreement on the part of the Government of Canada to become a partner in the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. The Lower Churchill Development Corporation is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. We are equal partners in that enterprise even though we do not own that resource. The claim has been made from time to time that ownership of resources is very important. However, in this particular case, even though we do not own the resource, it is quite clear that the rivers are owned by the provinces and that the produce from those rivers is owned by those provinces within whose boundaries the rivers flow.
Canada became a partner in that enterprise because we saw that the development of that resource was important, not only to Newfoundland and to Quebec but, indeed, to the entire country, as an alternate source of clean and perpetual energy and that it was a good investment for the people of Canada. Therefore, we became partners in order to develop possibly 10,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity in the entire Labrador area. Thus far Canada has put between $6 million and $8 million into that Lower Churchill Development Corporation, basically in order to upgrade engineering studies and marketing surveys because we felt that was important. Of course, this had to be done before a package could be put together. So there has been an investment of that amount of money by this government.
Similarly, in the budget before the budget of last November, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) put aside $200 million as the share of the Government of Canada in the equity of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation for that Lower Churchill project. Again, that was a financial contribution by the Government of Canada to that very important project. Now, today, we have this legislation before us which is further evidence of the commitment of this government to pushing forward that hydroelectric development.
This legislation was placed before us by a minister from the province of Quebec. I want to congratulate him for bringing forward the legislation and to give him all the support I can concerning this legislation. He recognizes, coming from the province of Quebec, that the interests of Newfoundland, Quebec and, indeed, the country, as he said in his speech, can be served by pushing forward this hydroelectric development by all possible means.
What we have here is legislation which would permit a power corridor across Quebec for hydroelectric development in
April 27, 1982

Newfoundland. We all agree, as I believe I heard the hon. member for Joliette agree, that this is not the optimum solution either, from a practical point of view. Although I do not have the exact, up-to-date figures from an economics point of view, 1 suspect that the figures would show that a separate transmission line across Quebec for Labrador power is marginally economical and that the most economical method would be to pipe the hydroelectric power through the Quebec-Hydro grid to market at a cost which would ensure a fair and reasonable return to Newfoundland. That certainly must be established. I believe that can be done and that it would be the optimum and most economical solution. I hope it can be done by bringing the three governments together.
Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) offered his offices to bring together Newfoundland, Quebec and Canada in order to see if an agreement can be worked out which would be beneficial to Newfoundland, Quebec and Canada in the development of the total hydroelectric resource which is so important to all of us. I hope that that can be done. I urge all governments involved to come together co-operatively to seek a common solution.
We are behind this effort as the Government of Canada, financially and otherwise, because we believe it would be a good deal for this country. The Minister of Finance has said that he is prepared to invest money and capital in this project. 1 hope that the governments can come together to seek that cooperative solution. But if that cannot happen, what we have on the books as of today is legislation which gives equality to Newfoundland. That is the real importance of this legislation. What we are talking about here is a matter of principle that all Canadians hold to be important, the right of a province to develop and sell a resource, the right of equality.
In his speech the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources laid out how he sees the principle of equality applying here. He asked how the people of Quebec would feel with regard to natural gas coming across another province if that province did not agree to have it pass through that province to be received in the province of Quebec. I believe the people of Quebec understand that argument.
Putting aside the present government of Quebec, I believe the people of Quebec are fair and reasonable people. They want equality in this country. They have fought, and rightly so, for equality. My colleagues on this side of the House have fought for equality in language rights. We now have that equality. The language of the two founding peoples of this country are equal. That is the issue here. The people of Quebec appreciate that principle.
The hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) and I share territory in that great area of the Canadian shield which encompasses both Labrador and Quebec. His people in Fer-mont and my people in Labrador City visit frequently. They talk together and share sports and social activities. There are no barriers there. Sometimes they speak in French, sometimes
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
in English. The point is they understand and there is no barrier between them. They understand the principle embodied in this bill, and that is equality.
That is all Newfoundland asks. It asks to be equal in law with other provinces which have the right to develop and export a natural resource. We are talking about rights, equality and a chance. What is involved in this bill may not be the optimum solution, but it is important that it be established because it is a matter of rights and equality.
I would not want to delay the establishment of that important principle by this House. Far too long we have put off establishing the principle that hydroelectric development should be equal to natural gas, oil or any other natural resource. I am in favour of this bill being read and voted on as quickly as possible.
We cannot delay this principle or delay equality. We must have it now. In a sense, there has already been a delay. Draft legislation was before this House last spring. Throughout the summer, fall and winter, people and governments had the chance to study what the Government of Canada intended and wanted. That draft legislation was put forward and examined. It could have been commented on. In a sense, there was a delay in the period during which the legislation was examined.
I do not think the people of Quebec would see this as a provocation but rather as a chance to establish equal rights. They understand that principle. From my point of view and that of the people of my province, this bill is very important. It should be debated quickly and voted on without delay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), perhaps I can make a correction. Earlier I indicated that under the House order covering the energy bills, debate would not continue past 8.07. I have subsequently been advised that is incorrect. In fact, the time will be 7.57.
Also, from recollection I believe, and 1 will verify it now, that the hon. member who is about to take the floor on behalf of the New Democratic Party will not have more than 29 minutes to speak. I see a nod at the Table. This is the extent of time remaining available to the hon. member's party.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when you said that I would only have 29 minutes, I noted muted applause in the chamber. I want to speak on Bill C-108 and say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we are opposed to this bill for three reasons. In the course of my remarks, I will also address some remarks to the adjournment motion.
First, the bill drops the provision which was in the draft bill and the National Energy Program which promised that the degree of Canadian ownership of energy companies wishing to export oil and gas would be a factor in deciding whether an export licence was issued. This is backtracking by the government on the promise to promote Canadianization of the oil industry that was set out in the National Energy Program. I will come back to that in a moment.

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
Second, the bill still allows export licences for oil and gas to run for 25 years. In view of what can only be called the dismal record of the National Energy Board in its supply projections, we believe that maximum is too high. Ten years would be more appropriate. We will therefore be introducing the appropriate amendment at the proper time.
Third, the bill allows the federal government, through the National Energy Board, to expropriate provincial land to construct an electric power corridor. As has already been said, this power now exists for oil and gas pipelines. However, this power could be invoked by the federal government to take sides in the current dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland over the Churchill Falls power agreement. We on this side want to see a negotiated settlement rather than the possibility of this new power being applied in the dispute.
We believe this bill is premature. I will go into the reasons for that in a few minutes. We believe it will be perceived as an interference in the affairs of Newfoundland and Quebec. Accordingly, we will support the Conservative amendment introduced a few moments ago by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
Let me deal with these points in detail and as succinctly as 1 can. Clause 24, which is found on page 13 of the bill, amends Section 83. It drops the provision which gave the National Energy Board the authority to consider the degree of Canadian participation in oil and gas to be exported. Again, this is backtracking from the original commitment of Canadianiza-tion in the National Energy Program. That program was brought down in October, 1980. I quote from page 50 of the program:
The National Energy Board will be asked to take Canadian ownership levels into account, from now on, in considering export applications. The Government of Canada would prefer that in granting such licences, the Board would give preference to Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled firms.
There was a commitment to Canadianize, that is, a commitment to look at those Canadian companies which wanted to export gas in particular. A number of small Canadian companies have shut-in gas. They should have the same chance to export as the big boys. The original draft of this bill was prepared to give that chance. That measure should be reinstated in this bill. This is one of the fundamental reasons why we oppose this bill.
Clause 26 on page 13 amends Section 85. It still allows an export licence for gas to run for a maximum of 25 years. Clause 22 also brings oil under this provision. Under Section 83, the National Energy Board is supposed to allow exports only after assuring itself they are surplus to our future requirements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has a dismal record on this. This is the same board that recommended to the minister that we had over 300 years' supply of oil. Now we have an oil shortage. That is part of the reason why we have this energy problem in Canada. Oil is the only substance of which we are energy short. We exported in the early 1970s, at
one time, half of our daily production. We were misled into doing that. The board did not project properly and we were stuck with some long-term export contracts. We literally exported away all our surplus oil, at tremendous and incredible cost to the Canadian consumer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to warn that the same thing may happen with natural gas. We say we have a surplus of gas, but that surplus may be gone sooner than we expect.
Let me just give you chapter and verse, Mr. Speaker. In June, 1971 the then minister of energy predicted that we had 900 years' worth of natural gas and 400 years' worth of oil. Massive exports were authorized in the late 1970s by the National Energy Board and the cabinet. Mr. Eric Kierans, who served in the cabinet at that time, wrote a very interesting article entitled "The Day the Cabinet was Misled". He said:
The NEB based its conclusion on figures supplied by the petroleum industry which was, and still is, dominated by the multinational oil companies.
That is what we have been arguing in this House for so long, that Petro-Canada must be in the driver's seat so that this domination will never happen again.
In the 1970s, Canada was exporting nearly one-half its daily oil production to the United States. In 1974 the NEB revised its position and stated there would be an oil shortfall by 1982. In 1974-75 the NEB revised its position and stated that we would need Arctic gas in 1983, that we would be running short of gas by 1985. In 1975 the NEB said oil exports would have to be eliminated by the end of 1981. In 1977 the NEB said we would have an oil shortfall by 1985.
In 1979 the NEB recommended, and the Conservative government approved, additional natural gas exports based on the conclusion that there was one-third more in natural gas reserves than was previously estimated. In 1981 the NEB supply and demand report stated that we have a ten-year supply of conventional oil from established reserves and that for gas, supplies from current reserves would be adequate to meet domestic and export requirements for the next ten years.
I quote from that report:
There does not appear to be any surplus available at this time to support new export.
These are just a few examples of the bad forecasting shown by the National Energy Board. What we would propose, on what we say is a weakness in this bill, is that these long-term contracts should be shortened.
I want to say a few words, with respect to the third reason we are against this bill, a matter to which much of the debate has been addressed this afternoon.

The other reason why the New Democratic Party is against Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act, is that it will make it possible for the federal government to get involved in a strictly provincial dispute and to favour one province to the detriment of another. Under this bill, the federal government will have the authority, through the National Energy Board, to expropriate part of the Quebec territory for the
April 27, 1982

purpose of constructing an electrical power corridor to export electricity elsewhere in Canada or in the United States. We feel that this new authority of the Board will result in a direct intervention of the Liberal federal government in the Churchill Falls dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland. The federal government could use its new powers for constructing a corridor on Quebec territory, at the request of the Newfoundland government. But without Quebec's consent, such a unilateral action would be a denial of co-operative federalism. The NDP, therefore, stands firm in its conviction that this dispute should be settled through negotiations between the parties, even if arbitration is necessary. My party cannot accept that the federal government should impose unilaterally its own solution one way or another. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how hon. members from the Liberal Party representing Quebec can support a bill which challenges the territorial integrity of their province. How can they still pretend to be the legitimate protectors of their fellow Quebecers' interests?

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in his speech said that he did not want to get involved in this dispute. But he also said that he was asked by the government of Newfoundland to bring in this bill. There are obvious reasons why the government of Newfoundland wanted this bill, that is, as a club in its dispute with Quebec.
Clearly, the most contentious part of this bill is the power that will be granted to the National Energy Board to expropriate land for the purpose of constructing an electrical power corridor. It is true that the NEB already has this power over oil and gas pipelines. The minister said that, and I agree. The problem is that if Quebec does not give Newfoundland a better deal on the Churchill Falls contract, the NEB could step in and give Newfoundland a hydro corridor through Quebec for the export of Labrador power. The power is there in the bill and it could be used. The federal government has jumped into a snake pit, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, because both Newfoundland and Quebec, to put it very mildly, have very strong views on this issue.
Two principles are involved, Mr. Speaker. In our view, there is the principle that the federal government must have an overriding right to legislate on energy, for the national good. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources put it well, Mr. Speaker. For example, if Saskatchewan had blocked the oil pipeline from Alberta to Manitoba and Ontario, the federal government would have had the right at some point to step in and ensure that Canadian oil flowed to eastern consumers. Therefore, this power that has been put in the bill, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, is constitutionally within the federal domain. We agree with that and we think he is right.
There is another principle involved, one that is equally important, Mr. Speaker, in a federal state. The federal government should not favour one side or the other in a dispute between two provinces. Unfortunately, in this case the two principles clash. We in the New Democratic Party believe that this bill is premature. We wonder why the Liberal Party is
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
proceeding with it when Newfoundland and Quebec are presently negotiating the Churchill Falls contract. Is this, Mr. Speaker, part of the Trudeau-Levesque blood feud? I hope not. We prefer negotiation and the principles of co-operative federalism that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) apparently has thrown out of the window.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, so shortly after Quebec was isolated in the Constitution agreement, we need to offer to Quebec an olive branch rather than-if I may mix my metaphors-waving a red flag to a bull. We need to offer an olive branch; this surely is not the time for anything else. That is why I differ fundamentally with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Let us be clear then, Mr. Speaker. Under this 65-year contract which was negotiated in 1969-I think it commenced about 1976-Hydro-Quebec purchased Churchill Falls power from Newfoundland. It purchased it at 3.6 mills per kilowatt hour. That power is presently being sold by Quebec to the United States for 30 mills to 40 mills per kilowatt hour. That is a very bad deal for Newfoundlanders.
I understand the Quebec argument, Mr. Speaker. Quebec argues that Hydro-Quebec took all the capital risks involved in the project. They did. Quebec completed a bad deal contract, for example, by exporting over a long period of time cheap energy to Ontario. That is true. Also, the 1927 court decision to give Labrador to Newfoundland is disputed by Quebec. I understand that. But let us, however, call a spade a spade. This is a bad deal and it needs renegotiation.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on. We should give them a chance, it seems to me, before bringing in this controversial measure. That is we support the amendment proposing a six-month hoist.
It is extremely unlikely that the bill would bring a speedy resolution of the problem. Instead, the issue could be tied up in the courts for years. I wish the minister were here as I would put the argument to him that the bill is counterproductive and will not lead to a settlement. Rather, it raises a lot of problems. Furthermore, the legislation does not deal with the real problems, which for people living in Labrador are high unemployment, poor social services, alienation from the power base of St. John's and people having no say over their own lives. I suspect that people on the Quebec side of the border have the same problems.
We must ask ourselves if the economic problems will be solved as a result of this bill. I believe that they will not and that people will be put against each other on the grounds of which side of the border they live on. St. John's and Quebec City share the same problems. They need similar regional development plans to get away from the boom and bust economies of their hinterlands in Labrador and northeastern Quebec. Both provinces should share in the development of that region. As Newfoundland needs Quebec's agreement on its equitable arrangements for the transmission of electricity,
16670

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
so Quebec needs Newfoundland's approval for the development of generating capacity on the five rivers whose head waters lie in Labrador. They have mutual interests.
The fundamental fault in the legislation is that it attempts to provide a legal solution to a political question. As a consequence of this, we are asked to choose between two alternatives, neither of which addresses the real problem or will provide practical solutions. This is not the time to bring in a bill of this nature. We need co-operative federalism now more than ever.
This party wants to see the dispute settled by negotiation between the two provinces. I have said that I think the contract should be renegotiated. If these negotiations fail then the issue should be put to a board of arbitration. Only after the total breakdown of negotiations should we even consider the exercise of federal power. In other words, the exercise of federal power, which I support in principle, should only be used as a condition precedent after the breakdown of the negotiations.
I should like to conclude by quoting a great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The same quotation was used by Mackenzie King, speaking in the House of Commons on the conscription crisis. I wish I had the quotation in French but I do not. I think it was made in English. It pertains to the situation today, Mr. Speaker. I would ask hon. members opposite, especially those from Quebec, to think about this. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that if there is anything to which he had devoted his political life, it was to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. That is what we should be doing in this Newfoundland-Quebec dispute. We should not take any steps that would not promote unity, harmony and amity. This is where I disagree with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We should not take any steps that could even be perceived to promote disunity, disharmony and bad relations between two provinces that have much to do together.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks will be in connection with the motion for a six-month hoist moved by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I support the motion wholeheartedly for several reasons, some of which have already been discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who put them very cogently.
I should like to remind the House that the function of the federal government in a federal system is not to get mixed up in disputes between two provinces and to take one side or the other. The minister is well aware of this, as he has shown by twice repeating his argument on the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute.
One of the reasons for giving the bill a six-month hoist is that every member of the Conservative Party was behind the National Energy Board legislation. It is this party's legislation, put on the books in 1959 in an effort to head off the very problems that have arisen. The problems have arisen because the original legislation was not enforced.
The whole development concept held by this party in 195758-59 was that we should bring this country together by tying
up the energy sources of all parts of the country. Then we should give Canadians the first chance to have access to those resources and we should devote all our technical knowledge to assessing the resources of the country and getting the maximum benefit from them.
In general, the legislation of 1959 gave the National Energy Board two duties. First of all, it was to be a court of record on questions of adjudicating the technical details of certificates of convenience and so on. Over the last 25 years the National Energy Board has done a fairly good job in this respect, although at times it has seemed a little slow.
For the first ten years of the board's life it did not exercise its advisory function even though the act is very clear on this. In the relevant section the word "shall" is repeated six times and the duties of the board are outlined.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Department of Justice took a very active part in drafting the legislation. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was then attached to the Department of Justice, so I am sure he will remember how hard the politicians fought to get clear-cut instructions for this independent board. There is a weakness in the act, however, because the word "may" was left in. The word "shall" appears six times but then the word "may" appears. Section 23 of the National Energy Board Act reads as follows:
Studies and reports of the board made under this part may be made public with the approval of the Minister.
I support the motion for a six-month hoist because when an amendment is proposed to such a strategic act in the history of resource development in Canada, it should be enforced. When I inquired in 1972 why this was not being done, I was told that the people on the energy board were not competent enough. The truth was that some civil servants in the department decided that they wanted the right to make these decisions and to advise the government about the future of energy. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made reference to this.
I do not particularly blame the board. It is tough to work under a group of civil servants or mandarins that do not insist upon the requirements of the act being carried out and, of course, there is no future in the civil service for those who do not bow their heads to this small group of mandarins. The amendment which is dealt with by Bill C-108 should address the question of the fundamental powers of the board. If those powers are allocated to the board, then we must make sure that it exercises them.
Before I come to the main thrust of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the amendment ignores international law. On page 2, at lines 17 and 18, the bill gives jurisdiction to the board for the development of oil resources at the bottom of the sea for a distance of 200 nautical miles. In God's name, who put 200 nautical miles into the National Energy Board Act? Under international law the resources at the bottom of the sea belong to the people who live beside the sea, as far out as they can physically develop them. That remains the law and it has been ratified by all nations. Sure
April 27, 1982

enough, a few civil servants in several countries have conspired for the last 20 years to get that changed and to limit it. These amendments to the law of the sea which are being put forward to the United Nations are stealing the property of the Canadian people off our shores. Here we have a group of so-called lawyers drafting legislation like this which puts in words like "two hundred nautical miles" in Clause 1. That phrase appears again in Clause 28.
I say with all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that if this government does not stand up and take control of these nitwits who call themselves lawyers and who write into regulations something which is not right, then this government deserves to go down to defeat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thacker:: The sooner the better.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We fought hard to get control of these undersea resources, and a group which was not elected and never advised their ministers accurately, conspired with their colleagues in other countries to give it away without even telling their innocent ministers what the truth is. The offshore belongs to us under international law, as the offshore of the United States belongs to them, and where we meet halfway we will draw a line. It is all in the terms here. So once again 1 say to members of the House: stand up and do your duty here and do not let these drafters get away with that type of nonsense.
We drafted this bill 25 years ago to lay the framework for a great development program in Canada. We wanted to put in the means of moving all types of energy back and forth across Canada, and we went to the various regions of the country to lay out these programs, which were accepted. If you look at the record, in the fall of 1957, a few months after the government changed, we put through the House the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. It laid down that the people of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island had to have some form of concerted energy development. They agreed, both Liberal and Conservative provinces, to that act. We got agreement from all provinces, including Quebec, that we should work together and have a national power grid from one end of the country to the other, from the Yukon River in the northwest to the Churchill in the east. They called it the Hamilton line. That power grid is the key to the dilemma in which the government finds itself today in relation to the dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) was quite sincere when he said, let us try and put this thing forward and hope that Quebec will not see it as an insult or as taking sides. But the truth is that Quebec already sees it as an insult, already sees it as the federal government's interfering with them. How can we get away from that? Give this bill a six-month hoist and bring back amendments which will have the NEB playing an active part in putting into effect across
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
Canada a national power grid, and the principle on which it will operate is that of a common carrier. That, to the uninitiated, means that once you build that great power grid in cooperation with all the provinces, every person will have the right to use that grid, whether it be a power line or a pipeline.
When you look at this bill carefully you find that an oil or natural gas carrier must be a common carrier; there is no monopoly held by one company or one province. But when we go into the amendment we have before us we see a technical and legal device whereby an interprovincial power line is called an international power line, which would give the federal government jurisdiction, giving it the right to come into a province and do certain things. That was not in the original bill because of the fact, as the minister stated, that we did not have the technical expertise or knowledge at that time and we were trying hard to get it before we added powers to the NEB under the act. This amendment adds that power but does it by the trick of calling it an international power line as opposed to "interprovincial". However, they missed out on the essential which makes legislation like this work. Once you go into a monopoly for the carrying of anything, you create in effect a great danger to this country. To prevent that, we should accept the principle of the common carrier. And if we could just get this legislation out of the House for a little while, then maybe the minister, who is very intelligent, could go back and look at these debates we had 25 years ago. Perhaps he could get from the government files a report which was submitted in 1963, and have a look at it. That report was done on behalf of the ten provinces, including Quebec, with the full support of the Duplessis administration and later on the Lesage administration. All that information lies in government vaults, and it lays down the economic alternatives in building a national power grid.
By doing this through the national power grid you would not be interfering with Newfoundland and Quebec; by using this principle you would not be isolating Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick from access to this power. You can see the realization of what many people have hoped and dreamed for, the full development of the Churchill River, the Fundy tides, utilization of coal, and access to low-cost liquified natural fuels, all pooled into one great power grid moving energy up and down the country. It would make the job of building this nation so much easier. We should look at the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act as a framework for solving the differences between Newfoundland and Quebec, and then extend that all across the country. Without doing anything to hurt future generations, we would have an efficient method of moving energy across the country, and it would go a tremendous distance toward giving us energy independence. There has never been an energy crisis in Canada. There has always been and there will always be enough energy if we do not muck it up. It is just a question of building the machinery to move it around at low cost to give Canadians the big advantage their future demands they should have.

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
I hope the minister will go back to the drawing board and consider the concept of a national power grid with the principle of a common carrier. There is much law on that topic. If he is going to amend the original act, let him at the same time make sure members of the National Energy Board do their duty by carrying out the provisions of the act, building up the expertise and making projections. There will then be some sort of advice in the hands of the government on which to make decisions.
Finally, Canadians fought hard to win jurisdiction over the bottom of the sea. Canadians fought for this right. We brought the great powers to our support, reluctant though they were. Eighty-six nations in Geneva voted unanimously for the resolution in 1958 which was later approved by the United Nations. What we proposed and fought for is now the international law of the world. And any time anyone infringes on that law we have the right to take them to court at The Hague. We have a right to impose our will because what is off our shores is ours.
I hope this knowledge will get into the hands of the drafters of legislation in the Department of Justice and in other departments. I hope they will get away from this business of assuming that because there is a bunch of nitwits trying to reform something that it is law. It is only law when legislation is passed. Meanwhile, we own our offshore property and no one touches it. The British fleet off the Falkland Islands is teaching that lesson to one country in the southern hemisphere which was caught carrying out a little bit of imperialistic aggression just a month ago.
I think we in Canada can do no less. What is ours is ours unless we give it up by agreement.
I hope these views will be taken seriously by hon. members and that the government will give us a six-month hoist on this legislation in order to make a better bill out of it.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time, but I have a few remarks to address on Bill C-108. It is typical of too many bills drafted by this minister and his officials in the department. Bill C-108 is one of the eight divisions of Bill C-94 which in itself is almost an omnibus bill in the sense of mixing apples and oranges and confusing the issue.
The minister spent most of his time dealing with the provisions having to do with putting power lines under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board in the same way that gas and oil pipelines are. I do not think anybody in the House, wherever they are or wherever they sit, would argue against the notion that we should, in fact, be a common market in Canada. What applies to pipelines applies to power utilities, and the minister covered all of those points very eloquently. I will not repeat them other than to say there is a fundamental, bottom line equity to that element, and certainly no reasonable person could oppose that.
In terms of the situation between Quebec and Newfoundland at this time, the real source of contention is that awful contract which was signed by a Liberal premier of Newfoundland, which really does shortchange Newfoundland. There is no question that contract shortchanges Newfoundland and it
shortchanges Newfoundland badly. This bill does not deal with that, nor does it address the real sore in the circumstances.
One would think, over the last eight and a half years, that if we have learned anything about energy in this country we should have learned that unilateralism does not work. Big Brother in Ottawa cannot unilaterally impose its will. Every time it tries, whether it is by putting a price freeze on crude oil in western Canada or by trying to impose a taxation regime in opposition to the province of British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan, it fails. When that is done, it causes bickering, retaliation and uncertainty. Lay-offs and loss of jobs result. There are no winners as a result of unilateral action. In Canada, a federal state, there is no alternative to negotiation, painful as it is, and especially if you happen to be a federal bureaucrat and believe that you have the right answers, to negotiate is painful. It is much better to have the power and to be able to say, "We can do it." But Canada does not work that way. Until the drafters of legislation recognize that, we will carry on with this interminable debating, arguing, fighting, loss of national will and purpose, which further weaken the fabric of this country and cause more and more Canadians to look at extreme options, such as the Western Canada Concept etc. We have had enough of that. We do not need any more of that. What we need is a government to take its responsibilities seriously and to start negotiating. But the real crunch in this bill is not the electricity portion, which really has nothing to do with the National Energy Program, but it is the parts that deal with oil and gas. Clause 26(2) of this bill will provide to the governor in council-in other words, to the same officials who brought us that disastrous National Energy Program which has caused the departure from this country of $17 billion at least and which has caused thousands and thousands of people to be put out of work and has put off our energy self-sufficiency for a decade or two-the control over the price of exported gas and oil.
The minister said in the House that the reason for the government's wanting to do it was that the question is political. He said it is a political question. The price of gas and oil is determined by a marketplace, not a perfect marketplace, but a marketplace that is being influenced by OPEC and others, but a marketplace nonetheless.
We export oil and gas to the United States, basically. Some time in the future maybe we will export some liquefied products to other countries. But we have one customer, and that customer, the U.S. has a deregulated market. There is the mixing of supply and demand and thereby a market price. If we want to sell into that market, we have to satisfy that market price. To say the pricing of gas and oil for export is a political question, and therefore is to be put in the hands of those officials who drafted the Nationl Energy Program, is absurd. More power is what the officials are seeking. It is power so they can go to the government of British Columbia and say, "I know you have some natural gas you want to export, but we think this is the price." The producers in British
April 27, 1982

Columbia might want to say, "That is not what the market says," but the official will say, "That is too bad. We have the power. We are deciding the price." They could go to the producers of shut-in heavy oil in Saskatchewan and say, "We are going to allow you to export that heavy oil but only at this price." But the producers, who know more about the market and who have forgotten more about marketing than those officials will ever learn, will say, "But that is not the market price." But this bill will state, "Give the power to those officials to do whatever they want".
No responsible parliamentarian could vote for that delegation of authority to those people, when there is a clear admission that what is involved is politics. The minister said that it was a political question to keep Premier Bennett, Premier Lougheed and now Premier-elect Devine in place. This is what this absurd provision is all about.
What is even worse is that on page 16 the same officials are allowed to allocate gas and oil in the country. They shall decide who shall get it. The minister said that this would be done in the event of shortages, but the bill does not say anything about shortages. The bill indicates that the governor in council shall allocate gas and oil. What happens when a province has a dispute with the federal government about taxes, as occurred recently? We will be asked to put authority in the hands of the minister. We will be asked to put a club in his hands which says, "Look, folks, you will have to see it my way or else under the authority granted by this provision we will allocate gas and oil in the way which will do your province a great deal of damage." This provision will affect consumers, utilities, companies, provinces, regions and cities. The city of Medicine Hat is currently suing the government over the natural gas and gas liquids tax. Under this provision the minister could say, "Look, Medicine Hat, stop your suit or we will not allocate gas to you. We now have the power to allocate who shall use gas and oil in the country."
We are being asked to put this power in the hands of the people who introduced the National Energy Program which brought the country's economy to its knees. No self-respecting Member of Parliament should be asked to vote for the provision, especially no self-respecting Member of Parliament who is concerned about the country.
Finally, Clause 30 on page 19 reads in part:
The governor in council may by regulation exempt any oil or gas or any kind, quality or class thereof. .. from the operation ... of this act.
This means that the National Energy Board may in fact have all its authority taken away if it does not behave itself. Then we will have a body which purports to be a semi-judicial body. It will have that visage or claim to be that, but in fact it will have no such power because of this provision. It will mean a total politicization of the National Energy Board-it will pretend to be one thing for the benefit of the public but will be nothing more than an instrument of government.
Even worse is Section 89(1) on page 19 which reads:
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect and may ... designate any product resulting from the processing or refining of oil or coal as an oil product; and ... any product resulting from the processing of gas as a gas product.
I have just described any product resulting from the processing of oil or gas. I have described 90 per cent of the products in any department store. I think my shirt is cotton, but if it were polyester I have described it. I have described rubber heels of shoes, automobile tires, nylons, plastic combs, everything based on oil and natural gas. A huge array of products can be designated by the governor in council as falling within the ambit of the act.
I should like to refer to what was said by the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. They are negotiating with the Japanese because they want to sell some petrochemicals to them. It will be of benefit to the Canadian economy; it will generate jobs and foreign exchange. In other words, it is very beneficial to Canada. The Japanese are not fools. They have read this provision. They could say, "How can we sign a contract with you for polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride when it says in the act that the same people who brought in the national energy policy with its 25 per cent confiscation on behalf of Petro-Canada can, without parliamentary approval or without asking anyone, put those products under the direct control of the act? We could find our supplies cut off." This is what the potential purchasers in Japan are saying to the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. It would be nice to give them some comfort, but how can we, given the track record?
The minister talked a long time about electricity. The reality is that the bill neuters the National Energy Board. This bill puts in the hands of officials the power to set price and to allocate quantities for oil and gas in a way which I believe may well be unconstitutional and will certainly lead to more friction between producing and consuming provinces. It will not contribute to tranquil relationships in the energy sector. Although the minister talked about electricity, he did not include it in the items he would take under the power of the federal government. Why was electricity not included under these powers? Many people who are WCC members know exactly why. This is the sad thing about what is happening here. This is why any self-respecting Canadian who is concerned about what is happening and knows a little about the energy situation and the responsibilities of the National Energy Board has to vote against the bill. This is why we put forth the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Out of courtesy to the Chair, some hon. members have called for the question to be put. If it is the will of the House that the question now be put, it will be put on the motion for the six-month hoist of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I see the parliamentary secretary is seeking the floor,

April 27, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
but if there is a proposal with respect to deferring the vote and the bells, the Chair would serve the House well by putting the question, dealing with the yeas and nays, and if at that point there was a motion to defer the vote until eight o'clock, perhaps it could be entertained. If that is an agreeable way to proceed, I will put the motion now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was not party to consultations on this question, but I understand that it was agreed we would adjourn now, return at eight o'clock, and put the question at that time. If unanmimous consent could be sought, I believe Your Honour would find it forthcoming.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is disposition on all sides of the House to an order which would permit us to adjourn for the supper break and deal with all matters at eight o'clock.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, that is the result of the discussions which we have had. We will adjourn now, ring the bells at eight o'clock, and the question will be put then.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that in my normal co-operative way, I intend to agree with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then we will consider that the motion has been put in that fashion by the hon. parliamentary secretary. If there is unanimous consent, I will now leave the chair until eight o'clock. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then at eight o'clock we will put all questions necessary.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. La Salle) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
[Stage Direction]
April 27, 1982
Taxation

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government bills (Commons):
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-93, an act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am having difficulty speaking over the din on the other side. If I did not get any seats in Saskatchewan, I would be worried, too.


Charles Joseph Clark: Or British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba.


Walter David Baker: I have a question with respect to my status in rising at this time, and it is a matter I want to have cleared up. You will recall that on March 31, 1982, when we had a few moments while waiting for the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, I rose in the course of the debate on a grievance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: I am speaking on a point of order. After some insults, taunts and noises from the other side, which is not unusual, you indicated that I had the floor and could proceed with respect to that grievance. Somehow, somewhere in the middle of the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) rose in his place and was recognized for some purpose or other. He then, without his minister anywhere in the House, attempted, I think surreptitiously, to bring on a government order to intervene and interrupt me on the floor during the course of that grievance. Following that I was asked whether I was speaking to this matter and I answered yes. At that time my feeling was I was speaking to the grievance on which I had the floor and on which I had been interrupted. The debate then went on and on and on. I have to say to you, Madam Speaker, that in the course of that debate and through all of the interruptions which finally ended with the announcement that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was here, it was and still is my understanding that, notwithstanding the intervention by the government in an attempt to cut off debate, I was still speaking on that grievance. I was not, as you will note on page 16030 of Hansard and the following pages, doing anything else but carrying on with the matter which I first raised in order to fill that hiatus in time between the end of the vote and the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. We knew that was happening because the tables had been moved and it was in fact general knowledge.
That is the position, Madam Speaker, that I left that night, that my grievance ended when we had to take the call of the hon. Deputy to the Governor General. It ended then but it carried on all through that period of time. I would hope that my understanding would be upheld by the Chair in any ruling,
and I think before we enter into the debate I would like to have that matter cleared up by the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it surprises me that the hon. member does not know on what he was speaking.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Nonsense! You know better than that.


Yvon Pinard: It is clear from the record that the hon. member should know he was speaking on Bill C-93.


Walter David Baker: It was not even clear to the government.


Yvon Pinard: On page 16030 of Hansard, after a point of order was raised by my parliamentary secretary, you asked for order. You said:
Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has asked me to call the following order:
Then the Order was called as follows:
On the Order: Government bills (Commons):
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-93, an act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.
That is in the record. Then you say, Madam Speaker:
Is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seeking the floor to speak on this matter?
You were referring to Bill C-93, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said:
Yes, Madam Speaker.
Then some hon. members said:
Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: And then the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said:
It is very interesting that the government should attempt to cut off debate on the economy-
Madam Speaker, to remind the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, as he has already said himself, he was speaking on the economy. He was speaking on Bill C-93 which had just been called, and you had given him the floor to speak in the debate. Therefore, I would like to reassure the hon. member that he was speaking on Bill C-93, and we are very anxious to hear from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: If he has any doubt about what he was debating, we are willing to give him consent that what he was saying be considered as being said on Bill C-93.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. I was speaking about the economy.


Erik Nielsen: That is the subject of the grievance.

April 27, 1982


Walter David Baker: But what he has forgotten about is that the subject matter of the bill relates to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds. It would be helpful if the hon. member could remember the subject matter of the bill which, incidentally, ministers were not here to introduce on that evening.
Naturally, I am in the hands of the Chair. But I believe the matter is open to the interpretation that I have asked the Chair to put on it, that is, that it was a grievance relating to the general economy. Not once did I talk in that debate about the statute law relating to certain taxes or to provide other authority for the raising of funds. Not once did I do that. And the parliamentary secretary took great pains to omit telling the Chair that that was the case.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I just want to reinforce two points. First, that the subject matter of the grievance raised in the initial instance by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was the economy. There is no doubt about that. The second point is more important. He had proceeded with his grievance for some time in the House during very roisterous circumstances, to say the least. As the Chair will recall, there were various specious points of order raised and questions of privilege. Roughly halfway between the time when the grievance was first raised and The Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod arrived, the parliamentary secretary rose.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is not possible to interrupt a grievance which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was speaking to at the time by using a point of order for the purpose of slicing the grievance at that stage by introducing a government order. I make that submission to you. In our practice you cannot interrupt that process. The grievance procedure process itself has been in disuse since 1968, except upon extremely rare occasions. That is what was done here. The parliamentary secretary, after about five or ten minutes of the grievance discussion, intervened on a point of order to have the government order read.
I suggest there have been oversights in the past which the Chair itself has drawn to the attention of the House, For instance, the exchange between a member on our side and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when the Chair allowed certain questions to be asked and then prevented subsequent questions on the same subject. The Chair will recognize that.
I suggest that in the confusion of the discussion of that grievance the Order was called on a point that was not in keeping with our customary practices in this place. In fact, what I am suggesting to you, Madam Speaker, is that the Order should not have been called and it should not be on the record as such. There was no opportunity to raise it at that time because the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrived and the vote was taken. The Order has not been called again until today.
In my final submission, may I suggest to you that it would be a very bad precedent to allow the government's position to
Taxation
be adopted and placed on the records of this place. It will mean that this remnant of past procedures prior to 1968 when grievances were allowed in very rare circumstances will be completely wiped out if the Chair finds that it was proper to put the Order, Bill C-93, to the House on that occasion.
I strongly submit that the matter under discussion was a grievance and that it was incapable of being interrupted by a point of order for the purpose of calling a government order, and I suggest the Chair should so find and thus avoid the very undesirable precedent of eliminating completely the grievance procedure. That is precisely what a contrary ruling would mean. Once again, the opposition would be seriously weakened by another tool of the opposition being denied to it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I just want to speak very briefly on this point. It might be very helpful to you and to the House if we read the rest of the record of that date as recorded in Hansard, part of which was read by the government House leader (Mr. Pinard). Your Honour will find on page 16031 that the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) intervened to say:
Many of us would like to be involved in the debate, if 1 only knew at which point I could have the floor. Certainly members on all sides welcome the opportunity to speak in this House.
I should point out that this was well after the intervention made by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Order was called and Your Honour then said:
If I may give the hon. member clarification in this period when we are awaiting a message from the other place, it is a time when grievances may be expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That process had begun when the parliamentary secretary asked me to put a certain motion to the House, which I have. Debate has begun on that motion I think, although I am not sure whether that is the motion being debated. But the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did get up and he has the floor.
Down at the bottom of page 16031, Madam Speaker, you were forced to intervene again after some attempts to get attention from the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier).
After that, Madam Speaker, you said:
I wish that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would be allowed to explain the grievance that he wishes to raise in the House. I understand that hon. members are perhaps not willing to hear this grievance, but as Speaker of this House, I must hear it. This is a time when grievances can be brought before the House. I have recognized the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and I wish that hon. members would respect that.
At that point it seems clear that you had found we were in the middle of a grievance procedure. That grievance procedure was ended only by the appearance of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
That reading from the record of your own remarks and findings of that night may well help you to resolve the question raised by my colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Madam Speaker:: We can all recognize that was a very confusing period in the House during a hiatus created because the House Order had not been transmitted to all officers of the House. Of course, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 27, 1982
Taxation
Baker) took advantage of the situation to air a grievance, a procedure which has not been used very often but is quite legitimate. The discussions went on with several interruptions. But at one point the government did call a government order. During the course of the proceedings which followed some members still spoke on the grievance. At one point I did recognize that debate had started on the government order, although I was not sure the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton realized that he was to speak on it. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) quoted that part of Hansard wherein the Chair felt the House was on the government order but was not sure whether the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was really debating it. It was a very confused situation, with many hon. members yelling back and forth. As I often say, this is not the best way of conducting debate in the House of Commons, but of course those situations occur. Perhaps the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton might be heard at a later time or now, if he should like to continue and speak on the Order which was just called; I could still recognize him. If he wanted to resume debate now, I would recognize him for that purpose.
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank you very much. I think you indicated clearly in what you said that things are not always in the House as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) may think they are. Indeed there is some doubt about it. The matter of grievance is an old process. It was one used by me prior to 1978 in a matter dealing with the hon. Mr. Judd Buchanan. I do not want to proceed with the grievance; I should like to exercise the right Madam Speaker has given me to take part in the debate.
I think it is most unusual to have the opportunity of beginning a debate like this on a bill which is most unusual. I thank Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity. The government may regret arguing, as it has done, that it is a grievance because we are in a very interesting time in Canadian public life. Approximately 25 hours ago all of us were sitting with bated breath wondering what would happen in the province of Saskatchewan.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would invite the hon. member to speak to Bill C-93.


Erik Nielsen: He is doing just that.


Walter David Baker: The hon. gentleman cannot go back on his word. He forgets, of course, that there is more to Canada than just central Canada when we are talking about borrowing authority. There is western Canada about which some people forget. There is great concern about this unusual bill in all parts of the country. Whether or not hon. members
on the back benches of the party opposite realize it, this is the first time in Canadian legislative history when there has been put together a borrowing bill on the one hand and a tax bill on the other in the same bill. This is the first time. It is just that kind of thing which has caused the Liberal Party of Canada to be eroded in public confidence province by province by province. This is why last night in Saskatchewan it got zilch; that is why it received zilch in that vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It got 4 per cent of the vote, that is one more percentage of the vote than the separatists. That is some record in Saskatchewan! Let us not be mystified about the intentions of Canadians with respect to economic matters as they relate to tax bills, the budget and the general economic circumstances of the government which make them see fit somehow or other to take this unprecedented step.
I am very happy to have the opportunity of speaking in the debate tonight and I am happy that that point is clear. As the President of the Privy Council said, I believe this bill deals with taxation, the right of the government to extract money, the right of the government to borrow money to put Canadian people further and further in debt, to pile debt upon debt and increase the deficit. All these matters indicate the facts that the country is out of control and that the government is out of control.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is asleep. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is walking around in a Cape Breton fog. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has nothing better to do than to raise specious points of privilege today when the national energy policy is driving drilling rigs out of Canada. That is what we are talking about. If hon. members opposite have their perspective so centred on central Canada that they forget there are regions of the country which are suffering from their economic policy, they do not deserve to be in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This is what the people of Canada are facing. "Economic Gloom Deepens" was the title of a story which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 22, 1982. There is not an hon. member opposite who has not returned to his or her riding, gone out in public in the sunshine and talked with people. There is not one of them who has not met small business people, farmers, workers, owners of companies, investors and even bankers who are not concerned about what is happening in the country. What do these mugs of Meach Lake do about it? They went up to the retreat in the Gatineau Hills, probably in the riding of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau). He should have gone. He could have sorted them out. He is an ordinary guy. He does not live the high life. He does not live on that great mountain at Meach Lake from where he can look, in grandeur, like a duke over his kingdom. He gets the devil from his constituents. He is not really responsible for it, although I believe he is in part because he supports the government vote after vote after vote,
April 27, 1982

just as the New Democratic Party has supported the government vote after vote after vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: This is why the Liberals lost in Saskatchewan. This is why they are down to a corporal's guard in Saskatchewan. They do not like common-law marriages in Saskatchewan. This is why, this is why.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: What did the Prime Minister and this planning and priorities committee, that great mystery group of the Liberal cabinet, do up in Meach Lake on the weekend? They might as well have drilled a hole in the ice and fished. The Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) was the spokesman for the government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) spoke for the government. It was not the Minister of Finance who spoke for the government. It was not the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) who spoke for the government. It was not even the Prime Minister who spoke for the government. They sent the Secretary of State. What did he say?


Mr. Epp:: Not much.


Walter David Baker: First of all he has no credit to say anything about the economy; he almost wrecked the economy of Nova Scotia when he was there as premier. What did he say? He said that there would be no change in their policy. Hon. members on the back benches of the Liberal Party and the ten members who sent the courageous letter to the Minister of Finance should remember that there will be no change. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), wherever he might be, should remember that there will be no change in economic policy. I will tell them why they should remember it. It is because the people of Canada will not forget. Small businessmen in central Canada, in western Canada and in eastern Canada will not forget. They will learn how to curse the government in both official languages for its economic policy.


Erik Nielsen: And a few others too.


Walter David Baker: And a few others as well. I travel in my riding to speak with the farmers there. For the first time farms, which have been in the same families for four and five generations, farms with centennial signs on them that have been there since Confederation, are having a tough time. They cannot operate, build or grow, if there is not money at reasonable rates; they cannot buy equipment or compete with others. What does the small businessman or woman say-the entrepreneur, the cutting edge of employment opportunities, investment, development and building? If he were able to stand here and speak for himself, he would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and all members that this government is bankrupt in ideas. He said to me, "Surely with all the promises that it made about getting its economic house together it cannot stand and let this happen to me and let me lose my investment." That is what is happening. Every time the
Taxation
slippery Minister of Finance oils his way through that fog and fails to answer a question in the House of Commons, it is another nail in the Liberals' coffin.
I want to say to those Liberal backbenchers that there is a limit to the amount of snake oil which will be bought by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Canadians have had their fill of snake oil. In February of 1980, the Liberals were elected to office on a number of promises. The Liberals said, "Elect us and we will keep the oil and gas prices down." The member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, was denuded of a great deal of his power for good reason. He said that if interest rates went above the rate that they were at that time-13 per cent, I believe-and he was minister, he would resign. Well, he still sits there.
The Liberals said to trust them and not to believe the budget which was introduced by the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The Liberals told Canadians not to believe what the Conservatives had to say about the tax credit for the high and rising cost of fuel. They said not to believe the Conservatives when they proposed to bring in property tax legislation to help home owners. They urged Canadians to support them in their filibuster of that Conservative legislation. They travelled throughout the country telling Canadians this.
Interest rates have risen from 13 per cent to 19 per cent today and in some areas it has gone to 24 per cent. Interest rates go through the roof if you try to secure secondary financing. That is the economic situation today, and it is a challenge to any government which really cares, but this government is beyond caring. This government is beyond seeing and beyond credibility. In fact, this government is incredible. It has no right to govern a country like this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If you want to hear about economic matters in this debate, I will tell you about economic matters because I live with those taxpayers. I go to my riding. 1 do not hide out at Meach Lake. I feel for the farmers and small-business men. I visit the apartment buildings in Bay-shore and Parkwood Hills in my riding and see how rents are going up and up for people who would only like a choice in housing but do not have that choice.
I ask those Liberal backbenchers, "When will you stand up and speak for the people who sent you here? Why do you not stand up for the Canadians who voted for you in good faith? They did that in other parts of Canada. Why are you so blind, stupid and voiceless in the House of Commons?" Those are questions I must ask them. I realize it is difficult for them but every so often they must put cabinet opportunities behind them

April 27, 1982
Taxation
to stand up and speak the truth. They would not be the first group of parliamentarians to do that.
There are other parliaments in the world. When the President of the Privy Council finds it convenient, he will say that we must think about the Mother of Parliament. The difference between our Parliament and the Mother of Parliament at Westminster is that the government there must pay attention to its parliament because it has purpose and tradition. In the United Kingdom, the backbenchers of the Conservative Party, Labour Party and the Social Democratic Party as well have a tradition of speaking up when the government is not functioning in its people's best interest. They do not hide in the caucus room. They come out of the closet and speak on the floor of their House of Commons.
That is the purpose of this place. 1 invite those backbenchers, the ten who wrote the letter, to stand up, gather their courage and discuss problems that affect their country and the people who sent them here. Although ministers cannot speak out in that manner while they are members of the ministry, there must be some who care and are concerned about our situation. There must be some who do not believe the stories spread in this House every day by the Minister of Finance. They ought not to be in the government if they believe that.
There is no gratification to being in government if you must sell out your principles and sell out your electors to stay there. There is no reward in being a parliamentary secretary if it means remaining silent in the back benches. There is nothing about this place that is not representative.
There are some members opposite, who are no longer parliamentary secretaries, who should speak up. But silence seems to prevail on that side of the House.
I wish I were able to quote from a letter which was written to me by one of my constituents. He said that he was a Liberal but not a "Trudeau Liberal", if I may use that label in accordance with the rules of the House. He told me that he was in the Liberal Party years ago and was lamenting, as much as criticizing, that he followed the Right Hon. Lester Pearson because he loved and understood what confederation was all about. He said that he followed the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent because of his great sensitivity and his understanding of Parliament. However, in his letter he described how he despaired about what had happened to his party. Although he has not joined our party, he has surely left the Liberal Party. He will find no refuge in the New Democratic Party because they are, in fact, a facsimile of the Liberal Party, once you look a little closer at them. The people of Saskatchewan discovered that.
He despairs and wonders what has happened to his party and its sense of independence. He wonders what has happened to its principles because, as I have read the history of the Parliament of Canada at the time of Laurier, St. Laurent and Pearson, I find that those were men who sincerely cared about Canada. They stood for the average people, not for government intervention. They stood for the principles which some members state. According to my constituent, it is not the same party which he is still asked to support but now refuses to support. If a party is going to govern, it must deserve to be the
government. In order to do this, it must respond to the conditions in the country and it must be believed.
Let us review what has happened in Canada since the present Prime Minister became leader. The Liberal Party of Canada allowed itself to fall under the thumb of Liberal Party philosophies which did not exist during the time of St. Laurent and Pearson. Let us look at what has happened to the country as a result of this government's policies. In 1968, when the seeds were planted at the beginning of the golden years of the present Prime Minister, and took root in the minds of the gullible, the total number of unemployed Canadians was 351,000. The most recent 1982 figures show the total number of people unemployed in Canada has risen to 1,069,000. That is an increase from 4.5 per cent unemployed, which was considered high at that time, to an absolutely incredible and unacceptable 9 per cent. Those are figures supplied by Statistics Canada. That is an incredible record. Everyone on the other side and every thoughtful person knows the figures. Not only do they refer to human misery, not only do they refer to uncertainty, not only do they refer to loss of opportunity, the failure to live up to promises-


Mr. Riis:: It is the Liberal platform.


Walter David Baker: Well, the Liberal platform, such as it is, is made of balsa wood. Not only do they refer to all of that, but they also refer to a record. It is a record for which they will have to answer, and from time to time they have been answering for it across the country. They are answering for it now across the country. I do not believe Dr. Gallup, but I do not suspect that we would be seeing the present trends evidenced by the Gallup polls if there were a believable government. I do not believe it at all. However, in the face of that trend which has meant social disaster for many families, the Liberals go to Meach Lake in those luxurious surroundings. It was there twice. They met in those luxurious surroundings-


An hon. Member:: How was it?


Walter David Baker: Well, the hon. member will never get there, so I will tell him later. The Liberals discussed the economy and, in the face of statistics which reflect human misery, the Secretary of State said, "We will not do anything. We will stick to our course." We do not yet know how many people must go bankrupt, how many people or how many farmers must go down the drain before they will stop it. Is that believable from a government which really cares? Does the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) really believe that it is a caring government across the way which he blindly supports? I like the hon. member for London-Middlesex but I fear for his vision. I know a good optician downtown who could fix his eyes.
When one considers youth unemployment, one finds that the figures are even worse. The youth unemployment rate in 1968 was 7.4 per cent. It was 3 per cent higher than the rate for
April 27, 1982

adults in 1968. Today, the youth unemployment rate stands at an astounding 15.8 per cent, which is twice the rate for others.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And they do nothing.


Walter David Baker: Those are the people to whom we said, "Get your education. Go to school. Learn a trade. Take your degree. Become apprenticed to someone. Work on a farm. Do these things and work, and the world is your oyster." However, what do we give them? We give them a grand opportunity to enjoy unemployment insurance as long as it lasts. When one speaks in terms of percentages, one does not think of people, but there are people behind the percentages. Then, after UIC has run out, we give them another marvelous privilege. We put them on the municipal welfare rolls.
If I find fault with the Minister of Finance, it is not that he is the Minister of Finance, because I get along well with him on a personal basis; rather, it is because he is such an out-oftouch Minister of Finance. I rather like the guy and my heart goes out to him, but he is very out of touch with the real world. He has never met a payroll in his life. He never held a job outside of the university or the government. However, the government put that man in charge of finance in combination with Ian Stewart, the deputy minister of Finance, and this combination has proven to be lethal to the business sector of Canada. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There are some brains in the Ministry of Finance and some good public servants who understand the ways of the world. However, when the government wanted to find a minister who would work together with such a deputy minister in order to trot out all the little pet theories which have gone on and on, someone who would soak it up like a sponge, they found him in the man from Cape Breton who never met a payroll in his life.
I will tell Your Honour that I am learning, you are learning, Mr. Speaker, your friends are learning and my people are learning that that combination is lethal for the country, and that is the problem. It is only pride. I know many of the backbenchers in the Liberal Party well. I cannot believe that those people have not urged the minister and pleaded with him to withdraw that budget. I see them smiling. They are recalling their conversations with the minister, their letters and their prayers to the minister. Candles have been lit in every cathedral in the country so that he would withdraw the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They still want that.


Erik Nielsen: They do it every Wednesday in their caucus.


Walter David Baker: They should continue to urge him to withdraw the budget. However, it would be very effective if some of them were to get on their hind legs and speak in this debate in the House of Commons and say, "Withdraw the budget, Mr. Minister of Finance". That is
Taxation
what we must hear. That would make it happen. I want the people who elected my friends in the Liberal Party to understand that their silence, their blind support, maintains in effect the worst budget since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is the situation we are in. Equally, 1 want them to know that if those same people in the back benches of the Liberal Party who showed courage and a streak of independence when it came to the Constitution debate would show that same streak of independence now, we could rewrite the history of this country. We could give some new hope to some of the people to whom I have referred. It is important, as we reopen this debate, that we remember that.
Some people in the United States say that their inflation rate is coming down. I do not know if any hon. members have accompanied their wives to-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The negative rate.


Walter David Baker: My hon. friend says, "The negative rate".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is 15 per cent in Canada.


An hon. Member:: It is the same interest rate, Don.


Walter David Baker: I take it from a source in the cabinet that the inflation rate is making quite a difference in the United States, but I will illustrate the situation in Canada. In 1968, when the Prime Minister took office, the inflation rate was 4.2 per cent. It is now 11.6 per cent. Our current account deficit is growing. Our interest rates have doubled in that period of time. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is there one good inscription in economic terms that we can carve on the political headstone of the Prime Minister? There is not one. That is the history through which my friends in the Liberal Party are living and which they are blindly supporting. Some of them may survive, but many will not.
I do not support the Western Canada Concept, but hon. members should speak to the people of western Canada as I have done. I was in the city of Lethbridge not too long ago and I spoke to some of the people there. What do they say? They say that the government has no respect for them, that no one listens in Ottawa and that no one seems to understand their problems. They want to build their provinces. The cutting edge of the development of Canada is out there. They want to build. They want policies which will induce investment. They do not want the drilling rigs to leave. They also say that no one in Ottawa will listen to them in economic terms. That is why that political phenomenon is developing in western Canada. 1 hope it has been nipped in the bud in Saskatchewan. I say that I sincerely hope that what has happened in Saskatchewan will nip it in the bud in Alberta, British Columbia and wherever it is occurring.
This country is much greater than any person in the House of Commons, no matter what kind of halo he or she has around

April 27, 1982
Taxation
his or her head. This country is better than its government. This country deserves a better government. The backbenchers of the Liberal Party deserve better leadership than the economic ministers and the present Prime Minister. That is what is happening and that is why there was a change in Saskatchewan. That is why there are no Liberal votes west of the Manitoba-Ontario border except in a couple of areas.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And there will not be any after the next election either.


Walter David Baker: It will not be any better out there. I want to say to the Liberal Party that unless it changes course, there will be dammed few in Ontario either. I am a little worried about the Liberal Party in terms of the province of Quebec as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why worry?


Walter David Baker: Well, I am worried because, quite frankly, I do not want to see the alternative of Members of Parliament who are devoted to breaking up the country running federally. I do not want to see that. I would rather see a misguided Grit than a separatist, although they may be equally damaging to the country, because we might be able to get some sense into the backbench members. However, that could very well happen. In eastern Canada, the Liberal Party is dying. Why? It is because it has become irrelevant. When the mudlarks from Meach Lake come down out of the hills and say, "We will do nothing about what is wrong with this country, we will not address the economic problems, we have nailed our colours to the mast and we will sail with the ship until it goes beneath the waves", that government has become irrelevant. The only thing it has is power. It does not have the principles to use that power correctly in the country's best interests.
I have a document in my hand which I am prepared to put in the time I have and to the extent I can. It contains some alarming statistics. They are such that there can be no justification for a government asking for the unprecedented right to borrow such large sums of money at one time and impose excise taxes all at the same time. There is no justification for it.
I have dealt with interest rates, inflation and unemployment. I will now turn to the energy policy. I feel badly for some Canadians. When they voted on the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) those people in the gallery thought, "My God, that fellow Crosbie will nail us for 18 cents". Those people in the gallery never believed this government would get them for 90 cents. A man from my constituency came into the House of Commons. He turned his pockets out as a gesture toward the government. A person was hauled out of the House of Commons the other day because he voiced some dispute with the government.
Honesty is a marvelous thing. There were a lot of things in the budget of my friend, the hon. member for St. John's West,
that some members have forgotten. There was help for small business, a small business development bond that meant something, that was not a parachute to catch the stricken and the disabled but really meant something for small business, the energy tax credit which would have cushioned the energy cost to home owners, and mortgage interest. In addition, there was help with municipal taxes, capital gains relief for farmers, and northern tax benefits that had been neglected.
There was a whole host of things in that budget that would have helped certain beleaguered endangered sectors of the economy. It was not perfect. However, more and more Canadians are saying that that budget, at least in terms of its approach, was a lot better and more honest than the Cape Breton disaster of November 12, 1981. That is the worst budget. One does not need a Ph.D. in economics or be a Member of Parliament or a tax expert to realize the country in hurting. It is hurting because the government has not had sense enough to see what it needs.
What does this country need? It needs encouragement for Canadian entrepreneurs. You do not have to kick the little people in the seat of their pants. You do not have to tax the benefits they receive on their life insurance. Those benefits are an encouragement to save. You do not have to hit the medical or dental premiums that are paid by employers. At the same time, you use the tax system to create incentives where you want those incentives to be.
It is not the role of government to have its fingers in every pie. It need not intervene in every place of business. The role of government is to create an atmosphere where hard-working, entrepreneurial Canadians can do some things for themselves. That is the role of government.
Everywhere this government has put its finger, it has messed things up. Why? Not because of ill will. It just does not understand. How can you expect public servants to understand business in the same way as business people understand business? If I were a public servant, I would not understand it either. It is like asking a doctor to practise law or a lawyer to practise medicine.
The business sector has its role. Labour has its part to play. How can you inspire a sense of partnership in the country if you run around the country and say that co-operative federalism is dead and our history means nothing, if you assail the interests of organized labour and make the business sector, not the big corporations but the small businessmen, distrust government? If you so conduct yourself, the other two sectors, and everyone else will distrust government. That is where we are.
I am not in power now. I am not now a member of a government, but I was once and with the grace of God I will some day be a member of a good government once again. What this country needs is a responsive government that is prepared to match its rhetoric with reality and policies. I ask the fugitives from Meach Lake, where is that matching of rhetoric with policies? Where are the new things that are needed?
April 27, 1982

The Minister of Finance brought in a package that he said would open up the budget process. Read it and you will see that the clam still stays pretty closed. There is even some opportunity for a little skulduggery. I am not accusing the minister of that, but there is that opportunity.
If the economic and tax committee of this House of Commons had first had an opportunity to hear the forecast for the economy that was released on budget night, do you believe it would have approved the National Energy Program? Do you believe that if the members of this House of Commons, experienced in the ways of this place and some experienced in business, had been allowed through an open budget process to give advice to the government on what economic policies should be followed; they would have approved a National Energy Program such as we have? Do you believe the members of this House of Commons are as stupid as the government and would accept a recommendation the likes of which was reproduced in the budget of November 12?
Is there anyone in the House of Commons who believes that the members of the House would advise the Minister of Finance to take such a stance from which he would have to retract and suffer the humiliation of having to withdraw at one crack 17 sections of a budget which had been touted as the best thing since sliced bread just a month before? Day after day, as surely as every day passes on the calendar, one little thing is withdrawn. My friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) told me that 30 items have been withdrawn from that budget. Does that show confidence in the Minister of Finance, the Department of Finance, and the government?
If we had an open budget process, do you honestly think the House of Commons would have given that kind of advice to the Minister of Finance? No. That would not have happened. That is what happens when you play your cards close to your vest. The Minister of Finance played his cards so close to his vest that he got ingrown cards. That is the problem.
I know my time is coming to a finish. However, let me say that this government is so undeserving of the double whammy on the Canadian taxpayer that is contained in Bill C-93 that it is not the intention of this party to allow this to occur. I hope, before this debate is finished, that some backbenchers on the other side will have the guts, courage and concern as well as a feeling for the people who sent them here, to stand up on their hind legs and say to the Minister of Finance, "Enough, withdraw this abomination. Rethink it for the good of this country."


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to begin by saying that it is very difficult at this point in 1982 to consider giving the government borrowing authority. It is very difficult for me, as a representative of an industrial area that is suffering untold miseries, primarily as a result of this government's economic policy, to consider seriously granting to the government the right to borrow even more money, more money that they will spend, undoubtedly in the same way that they have spent much of the taxpayers' dollars that have been raised over the course of the past few years, and many of the
Taxation
dollars that they have borrowed over the course of the last few years.
I spent four days in Hamilton last week, Mr. Speaker, and I must confess that they were four days of immense educational value. I met with people from almost every walk of life. I set up meetings from early in the morning on Monday last through until late on Thursday evening of that same week. I met with young people in high schools. They asked me where they were going to find a job when they graduated at the end of this winter, where they were going to go to find employment, employment they had to have in order to begin to realize the dream that most of us have considered until now to be a reality-that dream that if you work hard in Canada you can provide for yourself and look forward to a reasonable future.
I went from there and I sat down with manufacturers of shoes, to discuss with them the problems they were having, problems of trying to maintain a viable industry in the face of low-grade, cheap imports. These people were asking, not that the government stop the imports, but simply that there be a reasonable quota allowance of imports into Canada. Why? Because they wanted to protect those jobs in that community. They wanted to try to roll back the lay-offs that had become the order of the day in the shoe industry. They wanted to try to find a way to avoid the problems that had overtaken almost half of the entire industry across the country, much of it in the province of Quebec. They were asking for government assistance at this point, but not in the form of dollars, they were not looking for handouts. They were looking for understanding, they were looking for an opportunity to do what they do well, in the country that they have chosen to operate in, provide jobs for Canadians, top grade footwear for Canadians, and guarantee that there would be some stability in the industry.
I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that they made the point: "Oh, yes, it may be true today that you can get a cheaper shoe or a cheaper piece of footwear from offshore" but they said to me, and they are right: "On the day there ceases to be a domestic manufacturing sector, the price of the footwear from offshore will automatically go up. The only thing keeping that price down at the moment is the fact that they are trying to undercut the Canadian manufacturers and put them out of business." That is true. And the government, for reasons I do not quite understand, are prepared to allow this to happen.
I left Susan Shoes, but I will come back to them later. I left and went to sit down with the chief executive officer, the president of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and we talked about the problems of rationalizing the rubber industry. We had a discussion about their efforts in international markets all over the world. We talked about the rationalization process that they had undertaken. They pointed out to me- something that I already knew-that they had been able to increase the level of employment in the Hamilton plant from 1,100 about a year ago to almost 1,700 now. That was done on the basis that they were going to rationalize their productive capacity in such a way as to cut costs. They were going to be more productive, they were going to meet world markets.

April 27, 1982
Taxation
Again they needed the government to do something for them. They needed a quid pro quo, so to speak, they needed an opportunity to import from their plant in another part of the world, on an equivalent basis for what they were exporting out of the country, so that they could get rationalization in both areas. And they wanted the government to assist them in achieving that end. They have waited nine months, nearly a year by now, and nothing has happened.
I want to make a point about this. The people 1 was speaking to were, in this case, the chief executive officer of the company, and in the case of the footwear company, the vice president. I also met with the unions who represented the workers in the plant in both cases, and in each case they were in full support of the effort put forward to get the government to recognize the economic problem of that particular industry and of that particular industry sector.
I then went and sat down with the employee representatives of National Steel Car, the manufacturers of hopper cars. They have been closed down virtually for the last year, as the member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) knows. They are awaiting for what the government has clearly indicated for some time, its intention to purchase approximately 1,200 hopper cars to cover the movement of grain in every year for the next five years. They were saying to me: "If it really is the government's intention to do that, if the government really intends to purchase those cars, would it not make sense, since we are in such economic chaos at the moment, and since we are in such a downturn, for the government to move up its program of purchase and begin the purchase this year and provide some employment in this plant?" Such a decision by the government would also mean employment in the plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia. Then there would be an opportunity for people to go to work.
In every single one of the instances that I came into contact with, Mr. Speaker, during the course of those four days, those people were talking to me about their desire to find a job, their desire to have a a job they could go to every day, a job that would be productive, a job that would be good for Canada, a job that would enable them to pay their own way, to plan their own future. When I proposed to the government that perhaps the government could consider these measures, and other measures that I intend to talk about as this debate goes on, the government said: "Well, we will think about it, we will think about it."
The government then went on its merry way, following its high interest rate policy, following its high unemployment policy, following its high unemployment policy, following its high bankruptcy policy, following it right down the path to ruination. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very frustrating. What we in the NDP are proposing, at least on this side of the House and, I imagine, supported by a number of members on other sides of the House, in the Conservative Party and in the Liberal Party, too are proposals that I think are reasonable, sensible and workable. They are suggestions as to how we can
improve Canada's economy, how we can get that turn-around, how we can provide those job opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that it is ten o'clock. I wonder if I might adjourn the debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on April 7 last, I had the opportunity to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House. The gasoline war was then raging in Quebec and many Quebecers were asking themselves many questions about the distribution of taxes collected by various governments in connection with gas prices. It was then obvious that many gas retailers in Quebec who had gone on the so-called gas strike were specifically demanding to oil companies that are not necessarily Canadian to reduce their profits and give them more money, and were also asking the Quebec government to cancel the notorious tax it has been levying on Quebecers since November 17, 1981.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and more specifically in connection with the price paid by Quebecers for gas, except in a few towns bordering on other Canadian provinces, such as Ontario and New Brunswick, where Quebecers were allowed to pay less for their gas after that notorious tax of 30 cents a gallon or 6 cents a litre, if you like, was cancelled, it was perhaps advisable at that time to determine what price was actually being paid by Quebecers, a price set by the separatist Quebec government which claims to be acting in the best interests of Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind Quebecers that the budget of November 12, 1981, granted certain tax exemptions to Quebecers with a family by exempting from tax those in certain income groups, by increasing basic deductions and also by increasing the child tax credit for subsequent years. What happened to Quebecers a few days later, on November 17, 1981 ? Their own government asked them to pay an additional tax of 30 cents a gallon on gasoline, and within the next few days, tabled a bill to increase the rates of Hydro-Quebec by about 16 per cent.
On the one hand, Quebec men and women got tax cuts in the federal budget, and on the other hand, their own government, which is supposed to protect their interests and help
April 27, 1982

them in this difficult period, imposed a higher tax on gasoline, which means that we hold the record for personal income tax because Quebecers now pay 20 per cent more than the residents of certain provinces, such as Ontario, and we even pay more than the people of Prince Edward Island. We really are the champions as far as income tax is concerned, and with this surtax introduced by the province of Quebec on November 17, we became once more the over-all champions when it comes to paying taxes.
What was important at the time, and that is why I asked my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was that throughout the energy negotiations, the present Quebec government had never objected to prices at the gas pumps being the same as world prices. The question we can ask and the explanation we can give Quebecers is very simple. The Quebec energy minister has never objected to this situation because, in view of the provincial tax on gasoline, the higher the price, the more taxes can be collected. They are the champions of indirect taxation. Of course, everyone will recall that since they came to power in 1976, they have held the record in this regard. This is why, when the Canadian government talks of keeping gasoline prices at 75 per cent of world prices, the Quebec government does not complain too loudly, but it would still prefer . . . and as for supporting Alberta when it was asking for world prices, the Quebec government did not object too much because it meant that its own tax on gasoline would increase. According to these figures, Quebecers must all pay over and above what their fellow Canadians are paying. We are champions. We hold the record for indirect taxation, and when gas retailers went on strike in early April, more specifically on April 7th, we wondered just how much the Quebec government was collecting from Quebecers by means of this additional tax which was implemented on November 17, 1981, and which caused Quebecers to pay more than other Canadians. In spite of the National Energy Policy which aimed at keeping Canadian prices below world prices, Quebecers were penalized by their own government, the separatist PQ government in Quebec, and became the champions of high gas prices. It was not good enough for them to hold the record for income tax, they were made the champions of record high prices for gas; that is the reason why gas retailers in Temis-couata were right on April 7th to pressure the Quebec government into reducing and cutting this unfair tax and make all other Quebecers aware of their true situation compared to that of other Canadians. That is also the reason why I asked on April 7, 1982, what the cut was the Quebec government was taking at the pumps compared with that of the federal government and even the Alberta government.
That is the reason why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources provided these figures and why, returning tonight to this issue, 1 should like to ask the minister to provide the House with more detailed information on the share collected by each of the provinces. Are Quebecers really favoured by their provincial government, especially since the introduction
Adjournment Debate
of that notorious tax on November 17, 1981? That is my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, let me first explain why car owners in the province of Quebec are at a disadvantage, as far as the price of gas is concerned, compared with car owners in other provinces. That situation is due to the fact that the provincial tax on gas, also called road tax, is an ad valorem tax, a tax in relation to value. This means that the Quebec government increases taxes without saying so. Because, in November 1981, the Quebec government imposed a 40 per cent ad valorem tax on gas, twice as much exactly as the previous rate. It should be noted that the ad valorem tax on gas in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario remained at the 20 per cent rate, while that in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island was slightly higher at 22 per cent, but only 16 per cent in New Brunswick. Better still, there is no such tax in Alberta, and the tax in Nova Scotia is levied at a fixed rate and is generally one of the lowest in Canada. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, gas prices in Quebec are the highest in Canada. For example, at the end of March, regular leaded gas in Montreal was selling on average at 45.2 cents per litre as opposed to 41.9 in Vancouver, 40.8 in Winnipeg, 40.9 in Toronto and 41.6 in St. John, New Brunswick. Therefore, the price gap between Toronto and Montreal was more than 20 cents per gallon. Concerning revenues derived by both levels of government and industry, what is the meaning of that price gap on the very high ad valorem tax on gas? In order to answer the question, one only has to refer to the following example. Based on a 47 cents per litre retail price in Montreal and 41.3 cents in Toronto, the Ontario government would levy 6.3 cents per litre, while the Quebec government would levy 13 cents. At the same time, the producing province would levy 5.4 cents per litre sold in either provinces. In other words, the producing provinces, Alberta in this case, would receive 13 per cent of revenues derived from sales in Ontario, and 11.4 per cent from sales in Quebec. The federal government's share of tax revenues on sales in Ontario would be 19 per cent, while it would be lower than 17 per cent of sales in Quebec. In summary, percentage-wise, the share levied by Quebec on revenues would be almost as high as the combined shares of the federal and Alberta governments levied on gas sold in Quebec.
Worse still, by reason of the high levy taken by the Quebec government on revenues, gas dealers did not even get a sufficient profit margin on sales, and that is why they went on strike early this month. This flies in the face of common sense and good government, but it is signed Charron, Parizeau and Levesque. What else can we wait for if not for an opportunity to prove to them that Quebecers are tired of being the most highly taxed in order to pay for independence.

April 27, 1982
Adjournment Debate


FINANCE-PROCESSING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. (B) DELAY IN PAYMENT OF REFUNDS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1982, I posed two questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). My questions concerned the fact that Revenue Canada had issued a bulletin in which it instructed Canadians to file their 1981 income tax returns as though the November, 1981 budget were in fact law.
The reason for taking that action was that several major provisions in the budget of November 12, 1981, were retroactive to the 1981 tax year. I am thinking, in particular, of provisions related to income-averaging annuity contracts, capital cost allowance, registered retirement savings plans, etc.
Yet, having instructed Canadians to file their 1981 income tax returns on the basis of the November budget, Revenue Canada then ordered its own officials in regional tax offices right across the country to stockpile any returns affected by the budget until it was legislated into law. Revenue Canada's motivation for wishing to set aside such returns for later processing was the confusion surrounding the November budget. The Minister of Finance has been making so many retreats on, and changes to, his budget that not even Revenue Canada officials know where the budget stands at any given time.
Revenue Canada's instructions, however, meant that thousands of Canadians whose 1981 income tax returns were affected by the budget would have to wait unduly for any tax refunds owed them. Indeed, reliable estimates indicate that the Minister of Finance may not be able to get his act together on the budget until as late as next fall. Some Canadians might have to wait until then for their returns.
The Minister of Finance, in reply to my two questions, totally denied that there was any confusion about his budget and, therefore, that any tax refunds were being delayed by the budget. But, sir, nothing could be further from the truth.
In response to the public interest aroused by my own statements in the House of Commons, and statements made by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), Revenue Canada was pressed into reversing itself on the matter of tax refunds. Instead of stockpiling returns affected by the budget, the department replaced its earlier bulletin with instructions to its regional offices to follow the following procedure. Henceforth, those taxpayers would be expected to file their 1981 tax returns on the basis of the November, 1981 budget, but their returns would not be stockpiled, as planned earlier. Rather, Revenue Canada will process their returns no less than three times; once under the pre-budget tax rules, and a second time on the basis of the November budget. A refund will then be paid to the taxpayers on the basis of the lesser amount. The same returns will be processed a third time after the budget becomes law. If a further refund is due it would be paid by Revenue Canada at that time.
I followed up my questions on April 5 to the Minister of Finance with questions to the Minister of National Revenue on April 7. In reply he stated that there has been no "hold-up" in refunds, no "stockpiling". He was wrong, dead wrong. There had been stockpiling of tax refunds until we in the Official Opposition protested the practice.
The fact that there is no longer any stockpiling of returns is because the federal government and the Minister of National Revenue, in particular, changed their minds. In the face of parliamentary pressure from us in the official opposition, Revenue Canada is now following a new procedure in order to get people's refunds out with less delay than otherwise would have been the case.
While welcoming that favourable outcome, I remain convinced that a much simpler procedure would be to change the effective date of the budget so that no taxpayers' returns would be affected by it in the 1981 tax year. In that fashion all tax returns could be processed in the most expeditious way possible.
In conclusion, the government says that only a handful of Canadian taxpayers need be concerned about the budget impacting on their 1981 tax returns. The figure of 200,000 is frequently bandied about. I believe it is actually higher, because more than 200,000 taxpayers borrow money to pay premiums for their registered retirement savings plans. In any event, whether the figure is 200,000 or many more, the number is not so large that the government would lose a lot of revenue should it decide to change the effective date of the November 12, 1981 budget in order to simplify the process of adjudicating 1981 tax returns and getting out refunds to people who qualify for them. Therefore, I continue to urge that wise course of action and hope the government will be enlightened, wise, reasonable and flexible enough to take that worthy suggestion.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all that I should like to rely as well on the understanding and cooperation of the hon. member as on the usual and real understanding and co-operation of Canadian taxpayers.
Before answering the question of the hon. member, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue,
I should like to remind hon. members that our tax system is a self-assessing system under which specific deadlines must be strictly met. That, indeed, is one of the keys to the success of Revenue Canada. In addition, I must congratulate the civil servants of that department on their performance in surpassing themselves every year, that is, in collecting more money while reducing costs. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member is concerned about the impact the provisions of the last budget might have on the processing of income tax returns for 1981. It is all the more regrettable that as a result of his concern many Canadians might ask themselves unnecessary questions about
April 27, 1982

the matter. I must say I find his assessment of the number of taxpayers involved at 200,000 a little bold in view of the fact that it has no valid basis. I think he should start dealing with facts and stop worrying and causing concern. Here are the facts: No tax refund will be delayed because of the budget. None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the mailing of income tax refunds is moving along pretty well. To this date, there has been a greater number of refunds than last year. Those taxpayers who would be affected by the November 1981 budget are urged to fill out their tax returns according to the changes relating to 1981. They should attach to their income tax return a letter specifying the budgetary proposals which affect them. As I said earlier, it is explained in the information material published before-and today it is confirmed by facts-that the changes affect a mere handful of taxpayers as far as the 1981 tax returns are concerned. Where budgetary proposals impose new limitations to certain deductions the department will consider them according to the proposed legislation.
On the other hand, where budgetary proposals are more lenient, the returns will be subject to the provisions of the existing legislation. Those returns will be identified and treated in the same manner. Once the budget is adopted by Parliament, the Department will make all the necessary adjustments for all those returns.
The normal procedure will be followed and, as far as possible, we will try to keep to a minimum any delay in the mailing of refunds to Canadian taxpayers. This information is clear and it defines a course of action which all Canadians, including the hon. member, can and must understand.


EMERGENCY MEASURES-LIMITS OF CROWN PREROGATIVE (B) AVENUES OF REDRESS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, Order in Council 1981-1305 is the order in council which empowers the government under the emergency planning legislation, or council order to establish internment camps. The order is dangerous and Draconian, not because of the subject matter or that it is not necessary to plan for emergencies, but because that particular order in council, and its provisions, is so open-ended in its scope of powers and so subtle and devious in its terms of reference. It is dangerous and Draconian.
Let me just illustrate by reading the heading at the beginning of the order in council. It reads, "Other than statutory authority". What does that mean to a layman? Does that mean a power or authority other than law? That means nothing to a layman. One must turn to other sources to derive the meaning.
In this case, we can turn to a letter from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. There we find that the power comes from Crown prerogative, or what
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Nixon used to call "executive privilege". In a letter to that committee, the President of the Privy Council said:
The Civil Emergency Measures Planning Order C.R.C. c. 1334, was made pursuant to the Crown prerogative-
Crown Prerogative simply means that it is the power by which the Prime Minister can do what he thinks necessary in what is deemed to be an emergency. I realize that the customs and statutes have somewhat limited those particular powers of the Crown prerogative, but it is a very loose and easily misunderstood term. That is why I rose in my place in the House on March 31 to ask the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard on page 16005:
-what the limits of Crown prerogatives are in this context. Does he have a legal opinion regarding the limits of this power under the new constitution?
The Prime Minister said, among other things:
Certainly I am on sound ground in saying that any prerogative, royal or otherwise, can be limited by statute. That would be the position I would take.
He said, "can be limited by statute". At the outset, it is ominous for him to say, "can be limited by statute". I have to ask why he did not say, "will be, should be" or even "may be".
The letter from the President of the Privy Council is much more specific. That letter, dated March 19, reads as follows:
If Parliament were dissolved, or if the pace of the prices at hand did not allow the time to assemble Parliament, the government would be forced to act in reliance on the Crown prerogative to the extent that it provided a legal basis for authority to act.
What is the legal basis for the power to act? I was concerned about that particular provision and, therefore, went to the government research branch of the Library of Parliament to ask them to conduct a study of that provision. I would like to read a short segment of that study. Page four of the study indicates:
By far the majority of crises in British history were met by parliamentary action; with strong cabinet and a majority government, necessary legislation to delegate powers can be quickly passed without resort to arbitrary action without the authority of Parliament. However, the possibility of independent executive action always exists. As noted, such actions may be found to be legal as an exercise of the royal prerogative or by virtue of a common law duty to protect the realm. The courts would determine the legality of such actions.
In other circumstances, there may be no legal basis for executive action, and yet the courts may be prevented from considering the issue. Under the British constitutional system in which Parliament is supreme, executive acts can be rendered legal ex post facto, by passage of an indemnity act. Such a statute protects officials from prosecution or civil proceedings, and this precludes judicial determination of the legality of the actions.
It then refers to invocation of the law of necessity. I know that this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) loves to invoke the law of necessity; but the point is that in such circumstances the courts may be prevented from considering the issue.
That led me to the supplementary question I asked the Prime Minister at that time. He has repeatedly said that the new charter would always contain provision for resort to the courts. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has indicated in this House that the procedure in relation to this emergency planning order

April 27, 1982
Adjournment Debate
eliminates due process in the court, because the government has already worked out a five-step process which does not include court procedure. That bothers me.
Then I find that, according to the tradition or the convention of the Royal prerogative, it is possible to provide retroactive legality to hitherto illegal action, and that by invocation of the law of necessity the courts can be prevented from looking into a matter which would otherwise be considered illegal. This is what worries me about the Crown prerogative. I think the people of Canada deserve a clear indication as to what the limits of the Crown prerogative would be if the government invoked these emergency planning measures.


David P. Smith: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that in his opening statement he again misstated the facts, although unintentionally, I am sure. He said that Planning Order 1981-1305 empowered the government to establish civilian internment camps. That is not correct. If the government has this authority, and it would only use it in wartime, it is certainly not because of this planning order. It may be as a result of the War Measures Act which would come into play in a wartime situation.
However, what this planning order does is to allocate to various ministers the responsibility for drawing up plans. It does not give the government any authority it does not already possess. It could well be that after drawing up those plans the ministers may come to the conclusion that legislation is required and would have to be passed. However, the government is not given any authority by this order in council it did not have before.
The hon. member noted that the emergency planning order was made pursuant to the Crown prerogative. He asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what the limits of the Crown prerogative are in this context. The Prime Minister replied that he would have to examine the order to determine the prerogative which is involved.
We have reviewed this matter and I can inform hon. members that the prerogative authority for the emergency planning order is that which is commonly known as the prime ministerial prerogative. It is a settled convention of government that the Prime Minister may from time to time allocate, amend or clarify working responsibilities of ministers of the Crown by
virtue of this prerogative. This same principle underlies the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the act on whose authority the previous civil emergency measures Planning Order PC-1965-1041 was revoked.
I might also say that I requested the research branch of the Library of Parliament to compile a paper on the validity of the emergency planning order. I would be happy to show my friend a copy if he has not already seen it. It quite clearly confirmed that this was a legitimate order within that prerogative.
The hon. member went on to ask the Prime Minister about the recourse to the courts of those who may be interned in wartime. He noted that the anticipated internal safeguards and procedures I outlined in my statement to this House on December 17 did not make explicit reference to the right to appeal to the courts. I did not include this right because it goes, almost without saying, that an individual in such circumstances may make representations to the appropriate judicial tribunal. Since I spoke on that occasion, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been approved to give constitutional expression to this right.
The Prime Minister has himself undertaken to reassure the hon. member of the primacy of the charter in relation to any emergency act, regulation, or order. I know of no broader guarantee that anyone could offer on this subject.
The charter takes precedence not only over statutory authority but also over the emergency authority remaining in the prerogative of the Crown. I hope the hon. member will be reassured to know that this government is not in the business of planning to undertake measures plainly inconsistent with the charter. As I indicated earlier, the government intends that the security of the state be preserved by measures that also allow the maximum possible liberty of individual Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.32 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 28, 1982