1982-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is taxing the people of Canada on items contained in the November 12 budget on the strength of a non-debatable Ways and Means motion, the necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax or the extension of an existing tax, etc., and before a law is passed by the House of Commons and Senate. Without a law being passed, the government issued a leaflet telling the people who may be affected to fill in their income tax forms on the basis of the information in the leaflet. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House condemns this totalitarian act which is completely contrary to the Magna Carta and in addition undermines the justice system in Canada.
Should not Canada have an impeachment law to protect the people in such cases?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, unemployment rates have reached an all-time high, and this has caused an extraordinary burden on staff in unemployment offices as they are literally unable to keep up with the huge increase in applications for benefits. This inefficiency has caused a real hardship on those whose survival depends on these cheques. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the minister responsible for employment immediately transfer person-years to offices experiencing more than a 40 per cent increase in applications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, on February 23, at a special meeting called by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development were assured by the minister that the Tait report on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be brought before cabinet for a decision within three weeks. Twelve weeks have now passed since that meeting and still nothing has happened. In 1980 a number of Cree children died of gastroenteritis, a condition predisposed by deplorable sanitary conditions in Cree villages. In view of the fact that health officials have warned that a repeat of the 1980 outbreak has every chance of occurring this summer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his cabinet colleagues recognize the urgency of this situation and act immediately on the recommendations of the Tait report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE HUMANITIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Governor General's awards were announced in the important field of writing.

May 18, 1982

In view of the fact that the degree of civilization of a nation depends not only on its social justice, but also on its creativity-

-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the House congratulate this year's winners of the Governor General's awards for distinguished writing and thank them for their enriching the lives of Canadians and of those who live beyond our shores.


Madam Speaker:: If the House wishes to applaud these writers, it is free to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, every thinking Canadian knows that technological upgrading of Canadian manufacturing processes and products is the necessary prerequisite to economic recovery, sustained growth and Canadian jobs, but these jobs call for educated and trained people. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Finance renounce immediately the ill-considered cutbacks in Financial aid to Canada's community colleges and universities so that talented Canadian young people can receive the teaching, and the training which is their right and which will provide Canada with the skills it desperately needs to counteract 15 years of Liberal shortsightedness in buying from other nations those things which could be produced by educated and trained Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, ten Members of Parliament from Montreal, including two senior cabinet ministers, have decided that the economic policies produced by the government are so inept that they are intending to call public hearings into what might be done to solve the increasing unemployment problems. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House does congratulate Members of Parliament from Montreal and does demand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister of whatever it is from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who bear responsibility as cabinet ministers for the actions of the government to come clear with their constituents and with the people of Canada and resign their cabinet positions so that the
public hearings that they will be conducting and the criticism that might be levied will appear honest and forthright.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Peguis Indian Band in Manitoba suffers from a housing backlog of 120 units and now faces a cutback of more than 50 per cent in its 1982-83 housing allocation, whereas the Winnipeg regional director-general of Indian Affairs, Mr. Brian Veinot, has refused to negotiate in good faith with the band, even threatening to cut off housing grants entirely unless the band, with an unemployment rate of 90 per cent, seeks loans for reserve housing, and whereas the band has been forced to mount an ongoing demonstration outside the Indian Affairs offices to pressure Mr. Veinot to negotiate in good faith, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development direct Mr. Veinot to come out from under the rug and negotiate in good faith to solve the Peguis housing crisis and that the minister and the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development launch a full investigation of the operation of the regional office of the Department of Indian Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The House will probably recall that two months ago, ten government members, including two ministers, had the audacity to ask, in a joint letter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), that additional efforts be made to stimulate the housing sector. The House will also recall that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking for the government to those unfortunate members, said that next time he would only accept a letter of resignation. Now a few days ago, more or less the same group started to meet with
May 18, 1982

Quebecers and Quebec organizations to find out what the situation was and, you will agree, better late than never. In the circumstances, in order to confer a degree of credibility on this action taken on behalf of Quebecers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the House unanimously urge the Prime Minister to give Quebecers the assurance that this time, recommendations made by the group of Members of Parliament will not only be considered but also implemented, if the members ever have the courage to make the recommendations public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Mr. Edgar Ritchie has stated that Arthur Erickson was not recommended to design the new Canadian embassy in Washington because "his project did not measure up to others," and in view of the fact that the government cannot answer such questions as how ethical it is to establish a selection committee that will have no real role, or to ask for costly submissions from architects for a project they cannot win, or for Erickson to accept the project that the panel has decided he is not the best qualified to design, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That Erickson's commission be revoked by the Prime Minister and the recommended firm of Zeidler Roberts be appointed so that, as the Edmonton Journal has observed, we will not have an embassy that looks like a pork barrel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT (NO. 2) DEMAND FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Liberal and Conservative attempts to disenfranchise Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward Allan Miller: -have been exposed by the introduction of Bill C-113. A 5.30 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. poll closure in western Canada will prevent fair access to the polls for working parents, organized and unorganized labour, farmers, and people working in small businesses. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen):
That Bill C-l 13 be withdrawn so the government can consult Canadians from coast to coast to consider alternatives to restrictive polling hours, alternatives such as stricter black-out provisions and penalties, withholding count results, delayed counting, or other propositions that could meet electoral needs and still not discriminate against voters in any region.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, when Peguis Indians protested inadequate housing on their reserve, with as many as 15 people crammed into one house, the Manitoba Regional Director of Indian Affairs said, "I can do nothing about your housing; conditions on the Peguis are no different from many other reserves in Canada." The regional director for British Columbia admits that his budget falls $30 million short of the identified needs of the Indian people. Indian people in New Brunswick tell of cutbacks in community development programs, education programs and recreation programs. The James Bay Cree continue to live in substandard conditions. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House demand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development go back to Treasury Board and obtain adequate funds so that he can meet his commitments to the Indian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions HEALTH

May 18, 1982


SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF DISCOVERY OF INSULIN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that diabetes is a major health problem and is ranked as the fifth leading cause of death in Canada, and it has been estimated that there are some 130 million victims of diabetes world-wide, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That since Canada and Canadians are justly proud that two Canadians, Doctors Frederick Banting and Charles Best, discovered insulin as an effective means of controlling diabetes, this House proclaims 1982, which is the 50th anniversary of this miracle discovery, as "The Diamond Jubilee of the Use of Insulin on Human Beings."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepcan-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On May 13, the President of the Privy Council stated that the government would be in a position to tell the House its intentions with respect to Bill C-43 on freedom of information. Would the Prime Minister now advise the House of his government's intention respecting that bill and the principle of freedom of information, and is his government now prepared to proceed with the bill, or is it the intention of the government to allow it to die on the Order Paper?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Privy Council 1 want to repeat his assurance to the House that it is our intention to present that bill before the end of this session, and to express the hope that we will get more co-operation from the opposition parties in getting it passed expeditiously than we did the previous time around.


OPPOSITION COMMITMENT TO SPEEDY PASSAGE-REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE STUDY BE COMPLETED
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister has consulted his Minister of Communications, he knows that an undertaking has been given by our party that the bill could proceed speedily through the committee and could be dealt with at report stage and third reading
stage in the House in one day. Having been given that commitment, will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Communications to go forthwith to the committee to have that bill completed at the committee stage, and will he instruct the government House leader to schedule that bill for completion in this House forthwith-in fact, within the next two weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the House leader of the opposition would be prepared to turn that into a House order on which there could be agreement by all parties-that after the bill emerged from the committee it would be dealt with at all stages in one day- 1 can assure him that the government would be prepared to do that. 1 do not necessarily say in two weeks, but I say before the end of June.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION ON TIMETABLE WITH NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I consulted with the House leader and the members of my party prior to today's sitting of the House. The Prime Minister has that commitment. With that commitment from us, will the Prime Minister undertake to consult with members of the New Democratic Party to see whether they agree in the same way?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you very much. It is not often I get applause from the other side, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: On this one you deserve it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am happy hon. members think I deserve applause. I will continue to try to do better every day. Now if we could hear from the members of the New Democratic Party, we would know if we could give them a bit of applause.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Benjamin:: No problem.


REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF SECTION 41(2) OF FEDERAL COURT ACT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the silent Minister of Communications who, ostensibly, has some responsibility in connection with freedom of information. As the minister will know, this is the most secretive, manipulative government in the history of our country. Its action are the antithesis of openness, particularly with respect to Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. The government has been using this device to obstruct justice and not to allow accused persons to have access to information which would afford them proper defences and fair trials. With respect to the package to be brought before the House I want to ask the minister whether he is now prepared to commit his government to including a revocation of Section 41(2). If he is
May 18, 1982

not able to make a commitment to get this bill through and if he cannot handle his job, will he do the honourable thing and resign?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. question for his-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: That was obviously a slip of the tongue, Madam Speaker. What we need is better members so that we are not asked silly questions.
The question of Section 41(2) is indeed part of the bill on access to information. There is a number of amendments to Section 41(2) proposed in the bill which is presently before the House. As the Prime Minister indicated, and as the House leader indicated last week, we expect to be in a position to take a final decision on whether we will be bringing amendments back to the House when the bill is brought back from the committee, and the hon. member will be able to see at that time exactly what is the status of the new Section 36.1.


OBSERVANCE OF SPIRIT OF LEGISLATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Earlier in this part of his tenure he issued a directive to all government departments, all public servants and all ministers, that notwithstanding the fact that the freedom of information bill had not been passed, the spirit of the legislation was to be followed.
In view of the fact that yesterday the Solicitor General indicated in the House that because the freedom of information bill had not been passed-and that was the only reason- he felt obliged to invoke Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, whereas if the legislation had been in place-Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is consulting with his today, if you do not mind. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether that directive stands, and will he direct the Solicitor General to release documents for the fair defence of accused persons in the province of Quebec, in the spirit of the freedom of information bill? The Solicitor General is apparently reluctant to do so as the bill has not been passed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 would want to defer to the Solicitor General to know to what document the hon. member is referring. If they are documents which are not intended-for instance cabinet minutes-to be produced to the court, the answer would have to be no. I would have to know to what documents he is referring. Perhaps he could pose a supplementary question to the Solicitor General.


REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN TRIAL OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE OFFICERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Solicitor General.
Oral Questions
Yesterday the minister gave us the insane proposition that if the freedom of information bill had been passed he would have released the documents with respect to the RCMP officers on trial and hung out to dry by this government in the province of Quebec. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister indicates there is a directive, will he now reverse his decision and allow those documents to be produced for the RCMP officers in question?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote to me, as he did to all other ministers, asking us to be guided by the access to information legislation as if it were in effect. The difficulty in dealing with the documents that I had before me was that the access to information law provides new machinery which I would rely upon if it were law, but upon which I cannot rely until it is enacted by the House. I am governed by the access to information law as far as I can be.
The presence of a bill does not create machinery for going to a court, such as the access to information bill would provide, to weigh considerations of public interest of disclosure or nondisclosure. If the access to information law were in place it would have machinery which I would be able to follow. But it is not in place, so while I follow the policy of access to information law I cannot use the machinery that that law would create if it were in effect.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, first of all, in response to the question raised by the Prime Minister I should like to say that we join completely with the official opposition in offering assurances that there would be most speedy debate on the freedom of information bill if the government would only bring it forward.


An hon. Member:: One day?


John Edward Broadbent: There would be a one-day debate if the government would produce that bill.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday I asked him a question about the new formula to be used in determining natural gas supplies in Canada. He is aware that the present formula refers only to present reserves, that is to say, reserves known to exist. The National Energy Board recklessly wants to change that formula by including unproven reserves in its calculations. Considering that this will really put into jeopardy the energy future of Canada by relying on guesstimates about our gas supplies, will the minister give unequivocal assurances to the

May 18, 1982
Oral Questions
House that he will not agree to the change proposed by the NEB?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have already agreed to the change made by the NEB.


REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE IN FORMULA
John Edward Broadbent: 
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Board has recommended taking into account not only established reserves but also what is known as trend gas, which is-


Some hon. Members:: Unknown!


Marc Lalonde: If the Leader of the New Democratic Party will hold his horses, he will get the answer he is looking for. We are taking into account not only established reserves but what is known as trend gas. This change in the formula will allow the NEB to establish the potential surplus. That having been done, the NEB is now going to hold hearings on the various export applications before it, and also on whether or not there is a surplus which can be exported. At the present time there is no conclusion that there should be more export licences approved, or that there is-


John Edward Broadbent: That is why they changed the formula.


Marc Lalonde: -a definite surplus to be exported. My hon. friend will have to wait for the result of the next two phases of the NEB hearings. After that we will know whether there is a large surplus which can be exported, and who the successful applicants are. For the time being the Board has made a change in the formula which, in the view of the Board, takes into account in a more realistic way the reserves which are available in Canada.


EXPORT OF LOW-COST GAS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows this is extremely serious; it goes to the heart of the energy future of the country. He also knows that under the existing formula the NEB itself has said we do not have a surplus, therefore it is changing the formula. Will the minister
admit that, under the proposed formula he has sanctioned, Canadians could end up in the years ahead, having sold off our low-cost gas on the hypothetical possibility that some reserves will materialize in the future, having gotten rid of our low-cost gas and having replaced it with very high-cost gas, or possibly no gas at all in the future? Is that what the minister is committing himself to?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: 
THE ECONOMY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Would the Minister of State-


John Carnell Crosbie: For nothing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -advise this House whether the public hearings that he and his colleagues from Montreal are holding are conducted by him in his capacity as Minister of State?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that question cannot be answered by the hon. minister since it does not pertain to his ministerial duties.


Mr. Andre:: What are they?


John Carnell Crosbie: What are his responsibilities?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling, but 1 am asking him a question with respect to his capacity as Minister of State. If that is not permitted, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister?


Madam Speaker:: That is fine.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister advise whether members of Parliament from Montreal, including the Minister of State and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, are conducting public hearings on government business, as members of the government, as to concerns with respect to unemployment and economic matters affecting people throughout Canada? Are these government inquiries, or are they private ventures by the members on their own?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that in our system of government the members of the executive are also members of Parliament, and they can and do act in both capacities.


Harvie Andre: In which capacity are they acting?
May 18, 1982


RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that members of the government in our system are collectively responsible for government policy and direction, is it the Prime Minister's view of democracy and our parliamentary system that Members of the government are entitled to act differently than members of Parliament and say things to some people in their private capacity, and different things to some people in their ministerial capacity? How do we differentiate between a member of the government and a member of Parliament, in his government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously in their statements of policy any minister has to respect the policy of the government. However, the ministers mentioned by the hon. member are involved in consultation. We believe in consultation, and I encourage my ministers to continue with it.


THE ECONOMY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, to continue in the same vein, I also wish to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I imagine he is well aware that the same, or more or less the same, group of ten which signed a letter that was thrown out by decision of the Prime Minister, that the same group which includes two ministers who are receiving representations from Quebec organizations and private citizens to the effect that the present policy followed by the Minister of Finance is unacceptable. In the circumstances, to confer some credibility on this group, could the Prime Minister give Quebecers the assurance that he is willing not only to receive but also to implement recommendations the group may make if it ever has the courage to make these recommendations publicly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 am really surprised at this kind of question. The ministers are involved in a consultation process, which is nothing new, and these two ministers are certainly not the first to do so. Since I became Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, myself and other ministers have been accustomed to consulting the people and to receiving briefs and representations from individuals, which are then passed on to the government through caucus or directly discussed in cabinet. This is continuing, and although the party opposite may claim to receive its knowledge from a divine source, we do not. We prefer to consult the prople, and we will continue to do so.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THREE UNION LEADERS
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the Canadian people know perfectly well how the recommendation for stimulating the housing sector that was made by two ministers and ten Members of Parliament was received. In view of that experience, the people of Quebec have every reason to be concerned about the value of the exercise. I merely wish to ask the Prime Minister, to give Quebecers some comfort-lest they think this is another smokescreen like the previous exercise-whether or not he is willing, at least out of respect for Quebecers and the group of ten, to give them the assurance that he will consider the proposals resulting from this exercise and will also implement the recommendations made by three union leaders and endorsed by the head of the Liberal caucus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when we consult the people, and political suggestions are made, either by union leaders or the general public, it is the duty of Members of Parliament to make such representations known in caucus. In cabinet, ministers have a duty to indicate they have received certain representations and to discuss these. I can assure the hon. member and the public that this is done, and what the opposition criticized in the action taken by the ten a few months ago was that they made such representations publicly in a letter addressed to the government. So-


Roch La Salle: You were criticized for not meeting a basic need, although this was requested by your own members. The answer should not be that difficult.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The question I would like to put to him is an informational one. This morning Dr. Stuart Smith, chairman of the Science Council of Canada, released a rather striking report called "Planning Now For an Information Society. Tomorrow is too Late". In this report Dr. Smith states that we are falling far behind in the modern technologies, and many sectors of our manufacturing industries soon will become obsolete if we do not move and plan. By 1985 in computers alone we will have a trade deficit of billions of dollars.
In light of this report, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is planning in order to meet these new technologies? What kind of development does the Prime Minister envisage for the future? Are we going to rely on

May 18, 1982
Oral Questions
branch plant economy, or is the government going to rely on importing these new technologies from abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the House has heard the Minister of State for Science and Technology indicate many times in past months the policy of the government in the area of research and development. He knows that we are increasing funds to be spent in that area at a considerable rate. He knows also that there have been many policy statements by the minister. In so far as Dr. Smith's publication this morning is concerned, I have not had time to take notice of it. However, I am sure the minister will be in the House presently and will be prepared to deal with it.


PUBLIC FUNDING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, this is a question of over-all government policy. What Dr. Smith is saying in the report is that, despite a few moves, Canada is falling far behind Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Because these other countries are investing a lot of public money and there is a lot of public intervention in the economy in these fields, is the Prime Minister prepared to say today whether or not our government is prepared for significant public intervention and public investment to guarantee there is a future for Canada in these new industries so that goods are produced here in Canada and not imported from abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking for a declaration of intentions. It should be clear, from what I understand the report itself says, that Canada until now has been doing very well in certain fields of high technology. For instance, in communication satellites we are among the best in the world. In transmission of high voltage electricity we are among the best in the world. In many areas of computer technology we are the best in the world. We will continue being the best in the world under the aegis of this government.


FISHERIES
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He will be aware of the surprising decision that was taken by the European Parliament some months ago with respect to banning Canadian seal products in the European Economic Community. Can the minister inform the House what action or position the government will be taking with respect to protecting the position of Atlantic Canadians concerning these products?


Mr. Parent:: Good question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, we became convinced that the European vote was very much the result of misinformation and misunderstanding. We offered to open the issue of the EEC on the basis that the population of seals was not in danger and that a scientific committee of a reputable international organization would look into the question. We have also told the Commission that if they want to send reputable scientists, pathologists and others to have a look at the method used to kill seals, we are perfectly open to that proposal. We believe that good information will solve this matter, and not emotion and photography.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EDUCATION
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Every knowledgeable Canadian knows that product and process research precedes and leads to increased sales of goods and increased jobs in the country which does the research. Research is done by people, trained people, people whose skills are developed in our community colleges and universities. Why has the minister undermined the very future of Canada by drastically cutting support for the education of young Canadians in his disastrous budget, and will he reverse his ill-considered cutback immediately?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the first part of his question which was very informative. I wish the second part had been up to the same standard, especially when the hon. member said that we had made cutbacks to the support of post-secondary education in the provinces. We have not made any such cutbacks. We debated that issue very fully in the House of Commons. That bill has been enacted and is now the law in the land.


James Gordon Gilchrist: That is one of the minister's black is white answers, Madam Speaker.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the questions asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville concerning Dr. Stuart Smith, the new chairman of the Science Council of Canada. Dr. Smith is proving to be more a thinking Canadian than a Liberal and has called for a commitment to technological
May 18, 1982

development instead of "pitching the boat to and fro" by dabbling with monetary policy. Dr. Smith contends that 100,000 jobs would be created and that the $21 billion deficit in manufactured goods this year could be cut in half. Will the Minister of Finance, therefore, take this good advice and restore vitally needed educational support for young Canadians so that these 100,000 jobs will be filled by trained Canadians, not by people from foreign lands?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by Dr. Smith. I would refer the hon. member and Dr. Smith to the document tabled at the time of the budget entitled, "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s"-in which was outlined very clearly the approach of the government to research and technology in Canada. Probably both Dr. Smith and my hon. friend would be further inspired by reading that very interesting paper.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. 1 should like to ask the minister to clear up speculation that the provincial office of DREE is being moved out of the provincial capital of New Brunswick. Any move to place distance between a multi-purpose development body like DREE, or its successor, and the New Brunswick government would appear to downgrade the co-operative role DREE has always played and for which it has always justly been given great credit in New Brunswick. Will the minister tell the House whether or not it is his intention to move the provincial office of DREE out of the provincial capital of New Brunswick? Is he considering such a move, or a reduction in staff at this office?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, in the course of developing ideas for the most effective integration of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce, officials have been looking at a number of options. I will be reviewing them shortly, but no final decisions have been taken on them. However, I can assure my hon. friend that the new department will be a very vigorous, active and supportive presence in the province of New Brunswick in future, as it is now and as it has been in the past.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, the minister's clarification is just as clear as muddy water. The minister will appreciate the apprehension of the people of New Brunswick because he will recall that the gutting of the rail passenger service followed
Oral Questions
rumours and studies like this, and that the people were denied any meaningful input.


POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF RELOCATION
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, will the minister be specific and tell the House exactly how many people employed by the DREE office in Fredericton may be required to move, forced to sell their homes and to try to buy new ones when mortgage interest rates are at an all-time high? Is he prepared to sacrifice the efficiency of DREE and provincial co-operation to fulfil a bureaucratic nightmare?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, no final decisions have been taken with respect to the location of offices in the province. I will certainly keep the concerns of my hon. friend in mind.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Last week, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, the minister said that the decision on the Tait report which was before cabinet would come down in a reasonable amount of time. That report has been before cabinet for 12 weeks. We were assured in committee by the Cree this morning that their situation is desperate. Could the minister give us a very firm commitment today on when we might hear the cabinet's decision on the Tait report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, soon; very soon.


SAFETY OF WATER SUPPLY
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, in a letter dated March 19, 1982, to the chief of the Paint Hills Band, the minister stated that the water supply for that village was now safe because of measures taken by his department last summer, but on March 9 staff from the Quebec ministry of the environment found that the water was heavily contaminated, so contaminated that it must be boiled for washing clothes. Could the minister tell us what measures he took last summer to make the water safe? I want to remind the Minister that in that village four children died in the summer of 1980 from gastroenteritis caused by the same type of contamination that is in the water right now. What will the minister do about this deplorable situation?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member

May 18, 1982
Oral Questions
should be aware that 1 personally visited that particular village.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I saw the director general and we built funds into the budget and insisted that he get our offices to look at that particular project. Allocation was made to correct the situation. The hon. member said that it has not been corrected. I will check into the matter and report back to him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As he will know, Canada desperately needs more veterinarians right across the country, especially in the Atlantic provinces which have no veterinary college. Now the only English-speaking veterinary college east of Saskatoon, Ontario's veterinary college in Guelph, is starved for funds and consequently risks losing its accreditation because of plunging standards. Given the supreme importance of veterinary medicine to the agricultural and fisheries industries, what will the federal government do to respond to the crisis in this important area of national concern?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have the same concern as he has that we have proper educational facilities for people to train to be veterinarians and to study marine biology. Several years ago we proposed the sharing of that kind of a program in the maritimes. They selected an independent commission to select a site. The independent commissioners selected a site in Prince Edward Island, and then the provinces could not agree among themselves where the school should be, so I had to withdraw the funds from the appropriations of my department because they were not being spent. At that time there was not the shortage they said. The veterinarians association of Canada indicated that there was not the shortage which we foresaw when we proposed the building of the school. We participated in the OAC, in funding the school at Guelph and also the school at Saskatoon. We provided the same provisions for the school to be built some place in the Atlantic region, but it is up to them to make that decision.


DISAGREEMENT ON LOCATION OF NEW VETERINARY COLLEGE IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the failure of the four Atlantic provinces to agree on a site for the proposed Atlantic regional veterinary college, how does the federal government intend to break the stalemate? Does it consider it important to break the
stalemate which has caused this long-awaited project to flounder? For example, is the federal government actively pursuing the possibility of private investment funding of the college, to get it off the ground?
Hon E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows very well that we met a group from his province who were making that proposal. They will be making a written submission to us in the very near future. I understand that it is finished or is about to be finished, and that they want to arrange another meeting as soon as they can. But I think the tragic thing is that in the Atlantic provinces every province is under Tory administration and they cannot agree among themselves where it should be; I think that is the tragic part of it.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION WILL PREVAIL OVER NEW POWERS GIVEN TO NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Quebec Minister of Energy, who was in Ottawa yesterday, stated that with the passing of Bill C-108, the powers of the National Energy Board with respect to foreign exports of hydroelectric power will be increased. He added that decisions by the National Energy Board will constitutionally take precedence over provincial legislation relating to farmland and the environment. Can the minister give the House the assurance that when Bill C-108 is adopted, the powers of the National Energy Board with respect to the issuing of foreign export licences for hydroelectric power will remain as they are now and that, as the minister stated himself during the debate on second reading, provincial legislation shall prevail over the new powers conferred on the National Energy Board?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in the debate in the House on this subject, 1 indicated that the powers to be conferred under this bill on the National Energy Board relate directly to the authority of Parliament over matters concerning interprovincial and international trade, and that the powers the National Energy Board would be obtaining are the equivalent of, or actually fewer than, those the Board already has with respect to oil and gas pipelines. Therefore, the National Energy Board will have powers that are equivalent to existing ones relating to oil and gas.
As for the second part of the hon. member's question, he will also recall that I mentioned the same practice now being followed for oil and gas pipelines would also apply to the transmission of hydroelectric power. The point is that we must
May 18, 1982

have equivalent and fair procedures applying to various forms of energy, whether electricity, natural gas or oil.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday nine members of the Business Council on National Issues publically urged the Prime Minister to impose wage and salary guidelines on public employees, of less than seven per cent. Given the fact that if this principle were applied to all Canadians, and that the salary of one of the members of that delegation which made the proposal, the chairman of Bell Canada, last year was $626,000, his increase would be more than the total income of two typical public sector employees. That demonstrates the hypocrisy of these proposals. How does the Prime Minister rationalize his call for the same kind of restraint on the salaries of public servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot give a rationale for the statement to which the hon. member refers because 1 have not read it, although I was notified that such a statement was made. I would point out to the hon. member that the government has expressed the view that if we all try to get settlements at the same rate as inflation, inflation is not likely to come down. That is why I proposed a scheme to the provinces in February whereby we would not give 7 per cent but perhaps freeze entirely those in the upper brackets, and give more than 7 per cent, perhaps something like CPI, to those in the lower brackets.
I repeat that the proposal did not make much headway with the provinces or, I believe, with the NDP. But I do think there is much to be said for government's giving an example of restraint and making the argument with the Canadian people that if we all expect to keep up with inflation, inflation will never come down and interest rates, therefore, will never come down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: We had the same kind of argument from the Prime Minister in 1975 when he imposed the so-called wage and price controls. In that period when we had the wage and price controls, unemployment rose from 6.9 per cent in 1975 to almost 8.5 per cent in 1978, and at the end of the control period inflation was back to what it was when the Prime Minister imposed the controls.


EFFECT OF WAGE CONTROLS ON INFLATION
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, given the fact that inflation at the present time is running at
Oral Questions
11.6 per cent, why does the Prime Minister hope that he will achieve better results if we adopt the present proposal than we achieved last time when they were such a failure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is correct to say that they were a failure. The member will recall when controls were brought in, and I would remind him that it was the ten provincial premiers who were meeting for two summers in a row who were begging the federal government to do something exceptional about inflation.
When the controls were brought in, wage settlements were running in the area of 12 per cent for the federal sector, 14 per cent for the private sector, I believe 18 per cent for the provincial sector, and something like 25 or 26 per cent for the municipal sector. When we emerged from controls, settlements were considerably below that. They were, as the hon. member said, around 8 per cent or 9 per cent.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who will know that there are news reports today indicating that the federal government is considering a unilateral reference on offshore resource ownership to the Supreme Court of Canada, and is considering doing that as early as this week. Is that the case?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, if the government does make a decision to that effect, it will be announced as soon as it has been made. No decision has been made at this time.


REASONS FOR POSSIBLE REFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have a situation here where that matter has already been referred to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland as long ago as February. Is the Minister of Justice telling us that the Government of Canada does not want to give the Supreme Court of Newfoundland the opportunity to be heard? Is he telling us that the Government of Canada is actively considering a reference which will, in effect, be a direct insult to the Supreme Court and the people of Newfoundland? Is that what he is saying?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I have any comment to make to the hon. Leader of the
17534

May 18, 1982
Oral Questions
Opposition. He is just speculating, and I cannot argue on speculation.


Miss MacDonald:: Deny it, then.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Justice deny that the Government of Canada is considering a unilateral reference of the offshore resource question to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, when the right hon. member says "unilateral reference to the Supreme Court", I remember some months ago when the Leader of the Opposition was urging us to refer directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would it be bad today when a year ago he was arguing that we should go to the Supreme Court?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION OF REFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada considering a direct unilateral reference of the offshore question to the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a simple question. Yes or no?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said that there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question. The question that the right hon. member is asking me today is a very surprising one. He used to tell us that the best thing to do in difficult circumstances was go to the Supreme Court. Now, if I decide to take his advice for once, I hope he will applaud me.


Mr. Nielsen:: Are you?


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Citing the government's own figures, the indication is that farm bankruptcies have increased by 70 per cent during the same term this year compared to the same term last year. I am certain that the minister should know that Canadian agriculture faces the worst financial crisis since Confederation. It is obvious that existing programs are
not appropriate. FCC funds have been exhausted, and the banks are not issuing any small business bonds. In view of this situation, what new programs is the minister considering bringing forth shortly and, if there is no assistance forthcoming, perhaps the minister might provide some information as to what we might tell some of these young farmers who are going down the tube?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member states that nothing was done. He knows full well that it took some time to amend the Farm Credit Act. His party was responsible for ringing the bells for three weeks so that legislation could not have third reading and could not move ahead with that legislation. He now indicates a sign of urgency that something should be done. I agree that there is a need. The Farm Credit Corporation gave me a report yesterday. They are moving rapidly in that area where many members want them to head, to raise funds to loan money. The hon. member does know that some of the markets have improved rapidly over the last couple of weeks. Prices have improved for them in many areas, especially in the red meat industry.
When he says that all agriculture is in worse condition than it was before, he knows full well that bankruptcies in agriculture, if he wants to compare them to any other sector, such as small business, are not as great. There is hurt out there, and we are doing something about it.


TAXES ON FUEL USED IN PRODUCTION OF FOOD
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture knows that one of the major components contributing to this agricultural massacre is the high level of fuel prices caused by the high level of federal government taxes, what specific representations has he made on behalf of the farmers of Canada to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to encourage him to reduce this massive rip-off at the expense of the producers of food in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes representations about the high energy costs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Taxes.


Eugene Whelan: We have made a study of this. We have made surveys of the crops being planted this spring. In the areas where farmers are already planting there is hardly an acre that is left unplanted. We are planting crops as much as we ever have. We also have had discussions about what we can do to reduce energy costs to the producers of foodstuffs in Canada.
May 18, 1982

[DOT]	(1500)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-112, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Madam Speaker:: It being three o'clock in the afternoon, the House, pursuant to the provisions of the order of Thursday, May 13, 1982, will now proceed with the deferred recorded division on a motion for second reading and referral to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-113, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[DOT]	(1510)
Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried. Therefore, the bill is referred to a Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of over

May 18, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Blenkarn
300 residents of Ontario, most of them constituents in the riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. The purpose of the petition is to indicate to the Elouse of Commons the opposition of these residents to the pace of the federal government's metrication policy. The petitioners hope the federal government will reconsider its policy and slow down its forced march to metric.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 4,313 Yukon workers, is to indicate to the government that unreasonable rate increases for electricity have been inflicted upon them.
The nature of the petition is to demand that these unreasonable rate increases for electricity in the north be alleviated. These rate increases are caused solely by the flumbing, bumbling and gross mismanagement of the Ottawa-controlled NCPC. These rate increases could be alleviated by concurring in the report of the subcommittee on the NCPC of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition to be in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their plea and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present the following petition:
The PETITION of the undersigned of the Town of Bracebridge in the Province of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your Petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.


[Stage Direction]
THAT the Private Member's Bill, C-451, regarding gun control legislation which deals with the number of firearms in circulation in this country and to control the number of firearms in Canada,
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your Petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose this legislation and deal directly with the present gun laws which are cumbersome, expensive to administer, and ineffective except to harass law abiding people.
AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker I rise on a question of privilege. The question arises out of the question period. I do not raise this question of privilege to
interfere in any way with the ruling Your Honour made during the question period but to seek some clarification.
Your Honour will recall that in the question period I put the question to the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), who represents the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, about public hearings the minister is apparently conducting in the Montreal area of the province of Quebec. We have no indication as to what exactly are the duties of this minister, but presumably his duties relate to the province of Quebec and matters of government concern in that province and, indeed, in the whole country. If the minister is conducting public hearings- according to the information we have the Minister of State is involved in those hearings-presumably he has been directed by the government to hold those hearings. My question to the minister was about what seems to be his responsibility.
Your Honour will appreciate that we have no House order or any direction as to what the minister really is doing, and my concern is about what we can ask the minister. He is conducting hearings. Presumably they are Crown hearings because the minister is a minister of the Crown, and my question was to inquire as to the nature of the hearings the government-


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 must quote to the hon. member Beauchesne's Citation 361:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
The hon. member does not have the basis of a question of privilege. He received answers to his questions from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I do not know whether those answers satisfied him, but that is not for me to judge. I was only applying the practices of this House in not allowing the question to be addressed to that particular minister. I allowed it to be directed to another minister, in this case the Prime Minister, and I think that should satisfy the hon. member entirely.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: No. That is the ruling. That is it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a question of clarification, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: No. I am sorry. That is it. I am sure 1 am applying the practices of this House exactly. In answer to the hon. member's question of privilege, that is my decision.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just want to make absolutely certain I understand the nature of your ruling.


Mr. Pinard:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think it is fair, Madam Speaker, and I am not being argumentative, but I think it is important for the House to know the exact nature of the ruling.
May 18, 1982

The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made a statement in the House of Commons that this minister has particular responsibility for the province of Quebec. This was not a question we directed, for example, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) about any responsibility he may have in Prince Edward Island. If in fact the responsibilities of the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), as stated by the Prime Minister, are for the province of Quebec, does that not of itself allow us to ask questions respecting the performance of that minister vis-a-vis the province of Quebec? That is the only clarification I would like to get.


Madam Speaker:: I think what I just quoted is quite clear, and I will read it again for the hon. member. Citation 361 reads:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
That is quite clear. I do not think I can make it any clearer.


Mr. Nowlan:: What is his capacity?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I also rise on a point of clarification respecting your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: No, no. Order. I cannot-


Donald W. Munro: But if there are public funds involved, Madam Speaker, how do we determine-


Madam Speaker:: It is quite easy to determine. In this particular case I interrupted the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and did not allow him to ask a particular question of a particular minister. That is quite clear, so I do not think hon. members need further clarification. If another situation presents itself in the House, we will rule on that one.


Donald W. Munro: Is the minister unquestionable?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Take away his ministerial pay, then.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,819, 2,840, 2,858, 2,867, 2,892, 2,893, 2,894, 2,910, 2,915, 2,925, 2,926, 2,935, 2,948, 2,963, 2,978, 3,130, 3,132, 4,152 and 4,210.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Finance at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $187,834 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. (a)
and (b) Treasury Board Policy: Chapter 110 sub-chapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual-Conditions Governing Education, Training and Development, including Subsidization.
2.	Nil.
3.	(a) and (b) Nil. (c) 100 per cent.
4.	Nil.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Transport at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $115,844 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) Sound needs identification by managers, plus the use of career review boards and training committees, are the major vehicles used to establish education leave for employees. The selection process is governed by Transport Canada's policy on Education Leave, PM3-2(13) and by its policy on Training and Development PM5-2, Part 11(4). The administration of costs of such leave is governed by Treasury Board's Personnel Management Manual Chapter 110, sub-

May 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
chapter 5 (PMM 110-5) on Human Resources Education, Training and Development.
(i)	PMM 110-5 (3), (4), (11)
(ii)	PMM 110-5 (II)
(iii)	PMM 110-5 (11)
(b) The guidelines contained in PM3-2(13) and PM5-2, part 11(4) are used to determine whether the skills to be acquired are needed on a permanent basis.
2.	None.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) None.
4.	It is 8.3 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the Public Service Commission at page 32.33, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $11,448 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: (a) The Public Service Commission has not in fiscal year 1979-80, concluded any Hospitality contract of a value more than $2,000.
(b)	The Public Service Commission is using the Treasury Board directive on hospitality (Chapter 360 of the Administrative Policy Manual) and Chapter 3.11 of the P.S.C. Financial Administration Manual, to determine when a payment for hospitality is to be made.
(c)	Of the $11,448 paid for hospitality as reported in 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, the percentages by category are as follows:		
(i)	Foreign visitors	4.29(ii)	Canadian businessman	19.62(iii)	Provincial public servants	10.32(iv)	Federal public servants	60.03(v)	Ministerial exempt staff	information not available(vi)	Members of Parliament	.97(vii)	Members of Provincial Parliament, Legislation assemblies and the National assembly	included in category (iii)(viii)	Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General	Nil(ix)	Federal Crown corporation executives	included in category (iv)(x)	Provincial Crown corporation executives	included in category (iii)(xi)	Members of federal commissions, boards and councils	4.77(xii)	Any other categories	Nil 100.00


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-HOSPITALITY SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of External Affairs at page 32.10, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (b) of the $4,350,250 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories (c) what percentage of the $4,350,250 was used for hospitality (i) inside (ii) outside Canada?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) Yes. With respect to hospitality extended within Canada, the Department of External Affairs follows directives and guidelines set out in chapter 360 of Administrative Policy Manual. Hospitality extended outside of Canada is governed by directives and guidelines set out in two Treasury Board Directives: (A) Head of Post Directive, T.B. Minute 692275, October 1, 1968. (B) Foreign Service Official Hospitality Directive, T.B. Minute 694890 February 12, 1970.
(b)	The department does not maintain precise statistics on the occupational background of individuals invited to official functions. As a general rule the department tries to ensure that, for any particular function, 40 per cent of the guests are foreign dignitaries, no more than 30 per cent are federal civil servants and 30 per cent are Canadians who are not federal civil servants.
(c)	(i) 92 per cent, (ii) 8 per cent.


DPW-MARINE PROGRAM
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the marine program-capital at page 32.29, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference
May 18, 1982

to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the 343 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: (a) and
(b) The increase in other types of services in 1979-80 is a result of not reporting expenditures in as great a detail as in 1978-79.
Reported in Public Accouts	1978-79	1979-80Other types of services	$ 3,410	$15,103Printing services	12,587	8,120*Photographic services	1,281*	1,276*Professional fees	-	4,958*Sundries	1,092*	749*Secretarial services	1,037*	-$15,997	$15,103
* Included above in other types of services
The comparable figure for 1978-79 is $15,997 which reflects a decrease of $894 in 1979-80.
(c) One payment was made in excess of $2,000 to Dominion Blue Print and Reprographics, Vancouver, British Columbia, for printing services in the amount of $3,000.


DPW-MARINE PROGRAM-OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the marine program-Operations and Maintenance at page 32.29, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the Department explain the 2,531 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Paul James Cosgrove: (a) and
(b) The seeming increase in other types of services in 1979-80 is a result of different reporting methods.
Reported in Public Accounts	1978-79	1979-80Other types of services	$ 2,389	$62,865Architectural services	14,273	14,088*Caretaking services	16,278	17,361*Data processing services	12,218	-Exhibits design consultant services	8,769	-Garbage removal services	4,452	3,687*Legal services	6,892	894*Photographic services	2,302	2,434*Printing services	8,201	3,349*Snow removal services	4,361	3,409*Training education services	4,345	3,274*
Order Paper Questions
Secretarial and clerical services	1,914*	13,378*Sundries	475*	991*$84,480	$62,865
* Included above in other types of services
The comparable figure for 1978-79 is $84,480 as compared to $62,865 in 1979-80 which represents a decrease of $21,615 in 1979-80.
(c) Payments over $2,000 were as follows: Robert Letour-neau, Lauzon Quebec-snow removal, $2,208; Star Cleaners Ltd., New Westminster, British Columbia-laundry & dry cleaning, $3,973; Johnson, Sustronik, Weinstein and Associates Ltd., Toronto, Ontario-architectural fees, $14,018.


DPW-PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Professional and Technical Services Program at page 32.27, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the 654 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Paul James Cosgrove: (a) and
(b) The increase in other types of services in 1979-80 is a result of not reporting expenditures in as great a detail as in 1978-79.
Reported in Public Accounts	1978-79	1979-80Other types of services	$ 3,240	$24,446Hospitality services	4,846	957*Motion picture services	53,972	6,124*Registration fees	15,018	16,581*Sundries	3,240*	784*$77,076	$24,446
* Included above in other types of services
The comparable figure for 1978-79 is $77,076 as compared to $24,446 in 1979-80 which represents a decrease of $52,630 in 1979-80.
(c) The only payment over $2,000 was to the National Film Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for motion picture services-$2,765.
dot-ASSESSORS FEES


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Marine Transportation Program at page

May 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to assessors fees (a) how does the department explain the 354 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) The increase in expenditures was due to an increase in the number of formal investigations into shipping casualties over the previous year. The following formal investigations were held in 1979-80, pursuant to Section 552 of the Canada Shipping Act:
(1)	George Davies, Robert C. H. Reed and Pierre A. Boisseau were appointed by the minister as assessors for the formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fire aboard the Canadian vessel Cartiercliffe Hall in Lake Superior on June 5, 1979.
(2)	G. Rousseau and D. R. Jones were appointed by the minister as assessors for the formal investigation into the collision between the vessels Cielo Bianco, Algobay and Pointe Marguerite in the Bay of Sept-Iles, Quebec on November 14, 1978.
(3)	David J. Fraser, R. T. Dodge and T. H. Goodyear were appointed by the minister as assessors for the formal investigation into the disappearance of the f.v. Barracudina and crew in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on or about November 26, 1978.
(b) Pierre A. Boisseau, $7,923; George H. Davies, $10,600; Thomas R. Dodge, $9,200; David J. Fraser, $5,600; David J. Fraser in trust for Maritime Marine Consultants Ltd., $3,400; Gas Turbine Corporation, $5,562; Thomas H. Goodyear, $8,800; Public Works, $2,500; D. R. Jones, $11,400; Labora-toire B-Sol Ltee, $5,116; Robert C. H. Reed, $9,600; Gaston Rousseau, $10,200.


DOT-MARINE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Marine Transportation Services Program at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photography services (a) how does the department explain the 113 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) The increase in the cost of photography services in 1979-80 was due to the increase in formal investigations into shipping casualties, the grounding of the oil tanker Kurdistan, and the associated requirement for additional pictures.
(b) Operations-oriented photographic services only. Due to an error in the classification of an expenditure, an amount of $23,755 paid to Sullivan Construction for the rental of heavy equipment required for the Kurdistan incident was included in the amount reported for photography services. Therefore the 1979-80 public accounts should have shown only $46,453 which represents an increase of 41 per cent over 1978-79.
(c) Canadian Government Photo Centre, $8,302.


DIAND-OTHER TYPES OF SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 32.15, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department account for the 8,716 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


John Carr Munro: (a) The expenditures under the "other services" classification increased because of the amendments to the reporting requirements for professional and special services as specified by the Public Accounts Instructions Manual. Previously, aggregate payments for a particular service classification equal to or exceeding $2,000 were listed separately. The Public Accounts Instruction Manual now requires that if the aggregate payments for a particular service classification are not equal to or more than $25,000, the payments will be included in the "other services" classification. Also, under the "other services" classification, only recipients of payments equal to or exceeding $25,000 are now listed, whereas previously, this was required for recipients of $2,000 or more.
(b)	Other services include expenditures for the following: engineering services $9,522, training educational services $68,191, scientific services $2,654, laundry dry cleaning and related services $322, motion picture production and distribution $1,466, photo service except motion pictures $50,722, storage and warehousing $360, hospitality $9,951 and membership fees $2,027 for a total of $145,215. Due to an administrative oversight, educational services and photo service except motion pictures were not reported separately. In light of the small amount involved as compared to the total expenditures of $131,000,000 on professional and special services for the department, it would not appear significant that these services were not highlighted in this statement.
(c)	Since the Public Accounts Instruction Manual requires that a list be maintained of all individuals or organizations whose aggregate payments meet or exceed $25,000, a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 is not readily available. The requested information would have to be requested from our regional offices, and the cost in time and money is not warranted in light of the specified requirements for public accounts.


DIAND-PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 32.15, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other services (a) how does the department account for the 3960 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?
May 18, 1982


John Carr Munro: (a) The expenditures under the "other services" classification increased because of the amendments to the reporting requirements for professional and special services as specified by the Public Accounts Instructions Manual. Previously, aggregate payments for a particular service classification equal to or exceeding $2,000 were listed separately. The Public Accounts Instruction Manual now requires that if the aggregate payments for a particular service classification are not equal to or more than $25,000, the payments will be included in the "other services" classification. Also, under the "other services" classification, only recipients of payments equal to or exceeding $25,000 are now listed, whereas previously, this was required for recipients of $2,000 or more.
(b)	Other services include expenditures for the following: hospital services $14,905, storage and warehousing $19,019, hospitality $22,054 and memberships fees $5,599 for a total of $61,577.
(c)	Since the Public Accounts Instruction Manual requires that a list be maintained of all individuals or organizations whose aggregate payments meet or exceed $25,000, a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 is not readily available. This information would have to be requested from our regional offices and the cost in time and money does not warrant it, in light of the specified requirements for public accounts.


DOT-REPRODUCING AND PRINTING SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport at page 32.38, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to reproducing and printing services (a) how does the department explain the 690 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (d) for what reason did the Department require these services?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) As of April, 1978, a program was undertaken to convert to the French language all didactical instruments utilized at the Transport Canada Training Institute currently located at Cornwall, Ontario. The program for the conversion of work instruments, which was allotted a budget of approximately $800 thousand a year for three years, was responsible for the substantial increase in the cost of reproducing and printing services in the departmental administration program during the 1979-80 fiscal year.
(b), (c) and (d)
Contractor	Amount Nature of Contract

Type of Service: Reproducing and Printing Services
Order Paper Questions
Contractor	Amount	Nature of Contract
Government of Canada	$	
National Film Board	33,640	Bilingual conversion of didactical film for air traffic controlPublic Archives	7,982	Microfilm servicesSecretary of State	2,528	Translation of work instrumentsSupply and Services	29,546	Production of graphicsIntel Consultants Ltd.	6,314	Editing and rewriting of technical material for conversion of work instrumentsMarc Productions	14,084	Transposition of Morse code to FrenchMediabec Inc.	130,857	-Conversion of course in applied mathematics for mechanics in the Canadian Coast Guard-Laurentian Region. -Production of catalogue of world-wide didactical material.Offline Support Inc.	4,114	Xerox 1200 computer printing


HEALTH PROTECTION PROGRAM-PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the Health Protection Program at page 32.22, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photography services (a) what services does this entail (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) Photography services consists of the production of slides and the development and/or printing of photographs, slides and pictures for health education and information.
(b)	The following services were provided: (1) development and/or printing, which includes film processing, enlargements and duplicating; and (2) production of slides, which includes their scripting and assembly.
(c)	The following amounts were paid for each type of service: (1) development and/or printing, $11,781, (2) production of slides, $9,526.
A total of $9,526 was paid to the National Film Board Canada. No other payments in excess of $2,000 were made.


PUBLIC ARCHIVES-UNINSURED LOSSES
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the Public Archives of Canada in footnote No. 18 at page 13.4, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the two-way radio lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the two-way radio?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Public Archives as follows:
1. On January 29, 1980, the commissionaire at the post used the radio on a patrol at 1015 hours and did not have occasion
Data Crown Ltd.
2,264 Microfilm services

May 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
to use the radio again during his shift as he became busy at the dock area. It was not until 1645 hours, same date, that the radio was missed from its place in the cubicle.
(a)	During the intervening period (1015 hours-1645 hours) there were many persons in the area or passing through the dock area who could have removed the radio while the commissionaire was busily engaged elsewhere in the area. The theft was reported to the Ottawa City Police but an investigation into the loss over the succeeding two days failed to reveal the identity of the person(s) responsible for the illegal removal of the radio. To date no trace of the radio has been found.
(b)	Not applicable.
(c)	See (a) above.
(d)	Yes.
(e)	Procedures now require the commissionaire to carry the radio with him whenever he is out of his cubicle on duties within the shipping/receiving dock area.
2. The radio is used to maintain contact with the main post during the security and fire patrol of the building.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Labour under the departmental program at page 32.18, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: (a) Costs were for the purchase of various prints of films, filmstrips, plus the charges for the booking and distribution of films for the Industrial Relations Film Library administered jointly by the National Film Board and Labour Canada.
(b)	Various audiences; bookings arranged through National Film Board.
(c)	None.


ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the statement of operations of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority for the year ended December 31, 1979 at page 10, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, which notes that the authority had a net operating loss of $124,613 during the year and that the stated objective of the authority was "to operate and maintain a safe and efficient pilotage service" (a) how does the authority explain the fact that it has operated at a significant loss in each of the past three years, since this is contrary to the objective of operating an efficient service (b) since the level of the deficit has been diminishing, on what date does the Authority anticipate becoming a net contributor to the Equity of Canada (c) is the Authority taking measures to ensure that it will be operating at a profit as soon as possible and, if so, what are the measures?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Atlantic Pilotage Authority advises as follows:
(a)	The Atlantic Pilotage Authority has operated at a loss in each of the past three years (1977, 1978, 1979) because the tariff increases which were instituted in 1976, 1977 and 1979 were not sufficient to recoup expenditures in 1977, 1978 and 1979. The tariff increases levied in those years were felt to be fair and reasonable and therefore within the objectives of the authority.
The level of expenditures experienced in the three-year period are also considered reasonable: 1977 as compared to
1976	indicates a 3 per cent decrease; 1978 as compared to
1977	an 8 per cent increase; 1979 as compared to 1978 a 6 per cent increase.
The pilotage tariffs in the Atlantic region were historically low for a number of years and in order to bring about economic self-sufficiency it was felt reasonable to levy gradual increases over an extended period of time rather than large increases over a short period of time.
(b)	The authority has not relied on government monetary support since the 1979-80 fiscal year and does not anticipate receiving contributions from the government in the future.
(c)	The authority is taking measures to ensure it will be operating at a profit as soon as possible. A profit of $115,358 is budgeted for 1981.
The measures being taken are: (1) continual monitoring of pilotage activity as it relates to pilots' workload and the number of pilots on strength; (2) planned contracting out of pilot boat service in order to increase efficiency; (3) a new tariff, to be published soon, and to become effective January 1, 1982; (4) these measures will ensure the Authority continues to operate in an efficient manner and without financial assistance from the government of Canada.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to item 6 of the notes to financial statements of Air Canada for the year ended December 31, 1979 at page 8, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, which states " ... the cost of shares purchased exceeds the underlying net book value of Nordair Ltd.'s assets by S5 million at the date of purchase" (a) was an appraisal made of Nordair's aircraft to support the payment of $5 million more than the share value in Nordair's books (b) on what date will the amortization of the $5 million commence and how will the amortization be treated in the accounts of Air Canada?
2.	Did Air Canada integrate the operations of Nordair Ltd. into its own operations and, if not, is there a duplication of such operations?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1. (a) Yes. The appraisals were made by independent third parties and were corroborated by studies carried out by Air Canada specialists.
(b) The amortization of the $5 million commenced on the date of acquisition and is reflected as a reduction of Air Canada's share of Nordair's profit under the equity accounting method.
May 18, 1982

2. Air Canada did not integrate the operations of Nordair into its own because of the different nature of regional operations. Duplication has resulted in direct competition on the Montreal-Rouyn, Montreal-Toronto, and segments of the Toronto-Winnipeg routes.


PROPANE VEHICLE GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. Mazankowski: Under the Propane Vehicle Grant Program (a) how many applications were received and how many grants were awarded (b) what amount was dispensed (c) how many applications were rejected and for what reasons?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
(a) 4,208 vehicles applied for grants and 2,645 grants were awarded, (b) $1,053,600. (c) Twenty applications have been rejected due to the fact that applications were submitted for ineligible vehicles (i.e., off-road vehicles, such as forklifts, or in cases of dual fuel conversions) or duplicate claims were submitted for the same vehicle.


WINNIPEG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. McKenzie: Did the government enter into any negotiations through the International Air Transport Association in an attempt to establish Winnipeg International Airport as a base for transpolar commercial air travel between North America and Europe and (a) if so (i) at what location and on what dates were the meetings held (ii) what were any agreements reached (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) are there any other negotiations planned or in progress?


Jesse Philip Flis: Transport Canada advises as follows: No. (a) Not applicable. (b)(i) and (ii) The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is an industry organization of the world's schedule airlines, and as such, the Government of Canada does not enter into any negotiations with the association. There are no inter-governmental negotiations planned or in progress involving the establishment of Winnipeg International Airport as a base for transpolar commercial air travel between North America and Europe.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petro- Canada Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-101, to amend the Petro-Canada Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) was on his feet to speak at report stage so I wonder if the Chair might recognize him now.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I believe that I have the concurrence of House leaders and members of the House to move four amendments. I would assume that they would then be discussed at report stage ad seriatim.


Madam Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member wants to waive the normal notice that he would give and is asking for unanimous consent so that these motions could be presented to the House now. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Merci, Madam Speaker.
I move:
Motion No. 1
That on page 2, line 2, clause 1, the word "four" be deleted and replaced by the word "two".
Motion No. 2
That in clause 1, page 1, line 14, the word "thousand" be deleted, and in line 15 the word "hundred" be inserted immediately following the word "six".
Motion No. 3
That on page 1, line 19, clause 1, the word "shall" be deleted and replaced by the word "may".
Motion No. 4
That on page 2, line 10, clause 2, the words "and Parliament" be inserted immediately following the word "Finance".


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Calgary West want to debate one motion at a time?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Madam Speaker. The first motion reads as follows:
That on page 2, line 2, clause 1, the word "four" be deleted and replaced by the word "two".
Unless members have the bill before them, Mr. Speaker, they may have difficulty in assessing the impact that this would have. In Bill C-101 the government has proposed that in addition to the $600 million which has been given to Petro-

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
Canada for the purpose of capitalization, another $4,900 million of taxpayers' money be given to its board of directors in the form of capitalization. From evidence given in committee it is clear that Petro-Canada needs an infusion of capital. If it is to continue with the mandate granted to it by Parliament it needs something in the order of $2,000 million as quickly as possible. The projections which the president of the Crown corporation laid before the committee showed that it would need additional capital in the years ahead.
This is a public policy issue which has been before this chamber on several occasions over several years. The question is whether the capital required by Petro-Canada should always come from the pockets of the taxpayers or whether a portion of that capital requirement should be freely given by Canadians who would like to invest in the corporation. I think the nature of that choice is exemplified by this amendment.
Sooner or later independent, elected members of this chamber will have to recognize, when they want to spend $5,500 million for the purchase of business assets, including service stations, that the taxpayers of the country do not have unlimited amounts of money. If we in this chamber choose to spend money on buying service stations, then we have to give up the opportunity to purchase hospital beds.
I wonder how many of us have consulted our constituents asking them, do you want to pay taxes to your government so that it can buy service stations, or do you want to pay taxes to your government so that it can help senior citizens who are in need? Do you want to pay taxes to your government to buy service stations, or do you want to pay taxes to your government so that it can provide better medical care? Do you want to pay taxes to your government so that it can provide jobs, or would you rather pay taxes to your government so that it can buy service stations?
We are not dealing with a small amount of money here, Mr. Speaker. What the bill seeks is that the taxpayers of the country give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) permission to take $5,500 million out of their pockets and not spend it on pensions, not spend it on tax cuts, not spend it on job creation, not spend it on hospital beds but instead, give it to the board of directors of Petro-Canada. With this money they can go down the street in Ottawa, in Oshawa, in Toronto or in Halifax and say to someone who owns a service station, "We have lots of taxpayers' dollars, so if you want to sell your service station we will take those taxpayers' dollars and buy it." The next thing is that they will use taxpayers' money to drive the Canadian who owns a service station across the street, out of business.
Petro-Canada has an unlimited amount in its hip pocket because elected Members of Parliament choose to provide the board of directors with that kind of money. In committee we heard testimony to the effect that Petro-Canada is doing just that. This crown corporation, using taxpayers' money, is cutting prices on some corners and driving Canadian-owned service stations out of business. People who have put ten or twenty or thirty years of their lives into a small business
cannot compete with a Crown corporation that has unlimited resources because it has access to the taxpayers' purse.
It is interesting that members of this House have historically voted to create the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, partly because it was to be a window on the industry and a source of advice to the government of the day. If we were to look at the Order Paper and Notices today, we would find a series of energy bills that have been reported from committee to the House. That committee has worked a lot of hard hours in bringing witnesses before it to hear testimony.
The bill we are looking at today, Mr. Speaker, affects PetroCan in a direct way. The amazing thing about the bill is that the government chose not to amend so much as a single comma in that legislation. If you look at the other bills on the Order Paper you will find the government is moving amendments. I was on the committee and witnesses told us there were things wrong with each piece of legislation, including this bill. But the government is not proposing any amendments to the bill regardless of the testimony of witnesses.
I spoke about a window, Mr. Speaker. If you read the transcripts of the committee hearings, what we have here is a very powerful body of appointed people on the PetroCan board of directors who advise the government on energy policy. A remarkable characteristic of each and every piece of energy legislation before us is that PetroCan will benefit. It will benefit more than the majority of other companies in the energy field. We have a window, Mr. Speaker, but when you stand back and look at how it is used, it should be clear that it is a biased window, one which is distorting Canadian energy policy so that a single corporation called PetroCan can supposedly get bigger and become healthier. Does it matter if that energy policy is hurting all those other companies? Does it really matter to the board of directors of PetroCan that there are several thousand Canadians out of work today because the advice those directors have been giving the government has been followed? Does it matter to them that in towns like Brooks, Alberta, or Kindersley, Saskatchewan, Canadians who have struggled for many years and built themselves a small welding shop and employed two or three people, have gone bankrupt and closed their doors? Is that the responsibility of those appointed people in PetroCan? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in part it is. But they do not have the responsibility of caring about that. They might as individuals, but it is the elected members of the House of Commons who have the responsibility to examine the impact of this proposed legislation, both direct and indirect.
In the last election, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP successfully sold the Canadian people on the view that this party was against the expansion of a company called PetroCan. I think most members of the NDP and the Liberal Party believed that; they certainly said it a lot. Their energy critic, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, certainly told them that. But the reality was that that was a lie. It had nothing to do with reality. In its brief period in government the
May 18, 1982

Conservative Party proposed that legislation should be passed which would encourage Canadians to voluntarily, through share offerings, provide the capital to PetroCan in order to make it the biggest in the country, as fast as the national will would allow. If we think about that, what would be the difference today? Do Canadians realize that every gallon of heating oil which goes into their house costs a little bit more because the government is giving it to PetroCan? Do Canadians really understand that every gallon of gasoline which goes into their car costs a little bit more because the government is giving it to PetroCan?


Mr. Kristiansen:: And Gulf, Shell and Esso.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Do Canadians really understand that everything which travels by truck, such as the food they eat and the furniture they buy, everything which travels by rail, such as the wheat which makes our bread, and everything that travels by plane or by water costs them a little bit more because the Liberals and the NDP want to give more money to PetroCan? They want to take it out of the pockets of Canadians, but as they do they make everything we consume more expensive. Would that be true if private investors, pension plans-and individual Canadians were providing the money as equity for PetroCan?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You had better believe it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It would not be true. Well, the NDP says "you had better believe it". Canadians are paying this money through taxes. We are collecting it from the senior citizen who is struggling in this time of inflation to hang on to his home. We are making the cost of heating that home more expensive so we can give the money to PetroCan, when in fact right from day one there was never any need for taxpayers to pay that bill. Individual Canadians would pay that bill and the members over there would have the money to start creating jobs in their ridings, or increase pensions. Members opposite should look at my amendment. Essentially it says that the taxpayers of this country shall be saved the expenditure of $2 billion. That is two thousand million dollars! If you pay 20 per cent interest on that-and a lot of home owners are-that is $400 million a year. That money could be available to cut taxes a little bit. That money could be available to put into our health care system, or it could be available to put into pensions. But the NDP does not really believe in pensions. The NDP does not really believe in health care systems. The NDP believes that governments should be collecting money from the pockets of taxpayers to buy service stations and to compete with other service station operators, the little people of this country who own the small businesses. That is what the NDP believes in.
The money has already been borrowed and it is already costing Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year. But do you know where that money goes, Mr. Speaker? It goes to Germany, the Arab states, Switzerland and New York. It goes right out of this country in the form of interest payments, payments which do not have to be made. If the Liberal government had not borrowed the money, the government would not have to make the interest payments and the
Petro-Canada Act
taxpayers would not have to pick up the cost. That mentality of the Liberal government is allowed to continue.
When I was elected to this chamber, 17 cents out of every tax dollar collected went to pay that interest, large portions of it went right out of the country. Less than three years later, 22 cents out of every tax dollar goes to pay interest, again a large proportion leaves the country. What does that process do? It causes the value of the dollar to drop. That is just one of the things that happens. If our dollar is worth only 81 cents or 82 cents, then everything we import is more expensive. Our dollar is so weak that the government tells us we have to keep interest rates high to protect it. These interest rates are 18 per cent or 19 per cent. What do you think these high interest rates do to our economy, Mr. Speaker? When the corner grocery store has to borrow money to put groceries on the shelf and has to pay 18 per cent or 19 per cent interest, that corner grocery store has to charge more for its groceries. The same thing happens with the car dealer around the corner. When he brings cars to his lot, he has to finance them and he has to charge more for his automobiles. What about the furniture dealer? The furniture dealer has to put furniture in his shop and he has to pay interest on his goods. You, the consumer, has to pay more for the piece of furniture or the dishwasher or whatever.
The government is running a deficit this year which people estimate to be in the order of $15 billion. The amount of money this government wants to give to Petro-Canada is one third of that amount. Interest at the rate of 20 per cent on $15 billion amounts to $3 billion. Those amounts are so huge that people cannot comprehend them.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said in this chamber and in committee that she would like the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to find $700 million more so that pensioners, our senior citizens, those who are really hurting, could be helped. But that is just one quarter of the amount of increased interest payments. Just think about it, it is only one quarter of the increased interest payments.
We should have a government with the courage to make a choice by deciding what is the best way to spend taxpayers' dollars. We should have a government that knows you cannot have everything. Faced with a choice, how many Liberal members opposite, for instance with $100 million to spend, would choose one of the following on which to spend it: pensions, medical care, a reduction in taxes or the buying of service stations? Are there any members opposite who would pick as their first choice the buying of service stations? I ask members opposite or members of the NDP, is that the social priority in Canada today, to buy service stations? Is the buying of service stations more important than the creation of jobs? Is the buying of service stations more important than the provision of education to our young people? That is what this bill is all about.
Members of Parliament in the New Democratic Party and in the Liberal Party of Canada are determined to make the public policy choice that the buying of service stations is more

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
important than the health of home owners, because that is what this bill is all about. I see the minister responsible for housing is in the chamber. We will probably have the Minister of National Health and Welfare voting for this bill once more. We will probably see her standing up during the voting process and, in effect, saying, "Yes, the expenditure of tax funds to buy service stations is more important than the expenditure of tax funds to provide better quality medical care." Each Liberal member opposite later today will be asked by this whip and his House leader to support the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his personal public policy choice that the buying of service stations is more important than health, more important than job creation and more important than pensions. Given past performance, members of the Liberal Party, including 74 from the province of Quebec, will stand up and say, "Yes, the minister of energy is right. Buying service stations is more important than health care or pensions."
Interestingly enough, members of the New Democratic Party have consistently through their speeches-and if we hear one of them later today speaking on this bill, we will hear the same thing again-tried to cover up the fact that the choice is service stations or pensions; service stations or health; service stations or education. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
Members of the Liberal Party stood in this House five or six weeks ago and in effect said, "We will cut transfers to the provinces to the tune of $5.7 billion." Just a few days later, they stand up and support this bill to take $5.5 billion-an almost identical amount-which is to be given to the board of directors of Petro-Canada. It is being taken away from health care, social services, adolescents in trouble and from services to senior citizens. It will be taken away from all of those potential recipients and it will be given to the board of directors of Petro-Canada so they can go out and buy more service stations. That has happened within the space of a week. It is a graphic example of the will of the Liberal Party of Canada. That party has progressed over a period of years to the point where its willingness to support a bad idea simply to maintain a particularly bad cabinet minister in office causes its members to take leave of their common sense. It is interesting to meet them in the halls and to speak with them individually. I ask hon. members opposite whether they would choose to purchase service stations or to give more money to senior citizens? I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) whether he is content with purchasing service stations rather than providing relief to the victims of UFFI? Will he rise later in the House and vote to give that money to the service stations rather than for other purposes? Has he clearly identified for himself that that is the public policy choice?
When the House votes for this particular piece of legislation, it guarantees that for the next three years, and perhaps longer, every consumer commodity in the country will cost more than it needs to cost. Every piece of food that we consume, everything involving heat and every plastic product made with petroleum, will cost each and every Canadian more money than they would have cost if this bill were defeated and not
passed. This is the issue which lies behind the bill. Because of the financial circumstances of the government, it will have to borrow that money. The bill will provide the corporation with the mandate to expand, but the government and Canadian taxpayers will have to borrow more money. This may cause interest rates to remain higher than they would normally which, in turn, will affect the cost of everything we use. That money will have to be borrowed abroad, which will have some impact on the value of the Canadian dollar and will make everything we import more expensive. Those are the consequences of standing in the House of Commons today and voting for this bill.
Sometimes we have to vote for pieces of legislation which increase expenses, but if there is one crystal clear example which has come to our attention in the last 12 months that we do not have to borrow that money and take it out of the pockets of taxpayers, surely it is this one. There are pension funds and individual Canadians who would welcome the opportunity to invest in Petro-Canada, to invest in that maple leaf which flies on its service stations. All we have to do is to allow the corporation to seek some or all of the capital it requires in the money markets. It is a well-endowed corporation; its potential is enormous. It could easily become the biggest oil company in the country, but we do not have to do it with the money of taxpayers, we do not have to do it with the borrowings of taxpayers, we do not have to drive up the cost of everything we use. We must simply allow people to put some of their savings into the growth of Petro-Canada.
This was our vision in 1979. It is a vision which wears well. It is probably more true today as a necessity than it was in 1979. The financial situation of the government was better in 1979 than it is in 1982. We are on the wrong path whenever we have the choice of allowing people to accomplish voluntarily a desirable objective and we compel them to do so. I would choose to make it voluntary, but in this particular instance there are individual Canadians, pension funds and small Canadian companies that, given the opportunity to become shareholders in Petro-Canada, would do so. Surely hon. members opposite could bring some pressure to bear on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to allow at least part of the growth of that company to occur in that way, to save Canadian taxpayers that amount of money, and to free up money for pensions and health care rather than to purchase service stations.
There is now a public record of advice and information which has been gathered by the special committee on energy. Nowhere in the record is there an indication that what I have suggested to the House at this time could not be done or would not be a good idea. We are the victims of the stubbornness of a single vision of a single man. We cannot escape from fulfilling the obligation which we assumed when we ran for public office-to act on behalf of our constituents in the public good. That is our obligation, that is our responsibility. We do not have to support one man who is on a bad track. We can bring him to his senses and we can bring cabinet to its senses. Then
May 18, 1982

we can start to make the kinds of choices which I believe brought most of us to the chamber-some sense of responsibility for the economic health of the nation and for the less advantaged people in the nation. We could start to help those who need help. Surely our electorate did not send us here to make the choice that their dollars should be used on a priority basis for the purchase of service stations rather than for the provision of education, health care or pensions. Surely we did not come here with that in mind and we do not run campaigns on that basis.
Then why should we feel any sense of compulsion to stand in the chamber today and support the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his determination to use the dollars of taxpayers on a priority basis to purchase things that we do not need as a nation rather than to use tax dollars to purchase and to provide things which are really necessary in the nation?
The Conservative Party rang the bells of the House for 16 days for several reasons, but the primary one was to split Bill C-94, and it was split into eight parts. Once that split had occurred, we could call witnesses before a committee to help us know what was right and what was wrong with each of these eight pieces of legislation. The government acknowledges that there is a great deal wrong with Bill C-102 and Bill C-104. The House will get to those bills before much longer, but the government is proposing massive changes to the two pieces of legislation.
In the case of Bill C-101, the government, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the officials of Petro-Canada have ignored every piece of advice which was given to the committee. This legislation will become law in exactly the same manner as it was originally worded, unless the members in this Chamber decide collectively that it should not become law.
I moved a series of four amendments, but the first one, the replacement of the word "four" by the word "two", is the significant amendment in regard to saving the consumers of Canada some money and in restoring a philosophy of public expenditures which puts people ahead of pride. It is a philosophy which puts people ahead of the minister, and I urge members of this Chamber to vote for this amendment. I look forward to the opportunity of bringing the three remaining amendments to the attention of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Petro- Canada Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the amendment defeated on division.
The question is now on amendment No. 2.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. What Bill C-101 says is that the equity capital for Canada shall be issued in the form of shares, each of which is worth $100,000. I would hope that members of the House would see the day where, in the best interest of the taxpayers of Canada, they would want to sell some of those shares to Canadians to get back some of the invested money and use it for other purposes. The effect of my amendment would simply be to change the par value of those shares from $100,000 each to $100.00 each. This would be an amount that many Canadians could afford. Some day in the future, instead of the government owning all those shares, if we wanted individual Canadians to own part of that company, we could sell them those shares at $100.00 par value, rather than restrict the sale to large corporations which can afford to pay $100,000.
Perhaps there is a member of the Liberal Party who could afford one share at $100,000, but I could not afford it and I do not believe most of the members of my caucus could either. I know that most of my constituents and, in fact, very few Canadians could afford that amount.
All we are asking for in this amendment, which I hope all hon. members will agree with, is to provide an opportunity for every Canadian to participate in Petro-Canada at some future date. This amendment does not change the total amount; it just makes the issuance of the shares worth $100.00 each instead of $100,00 each. That would provide an opportunity for the average Canadian to participate in Petro-Canada instead of just the big multinationals or large corporations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the amendment defeated on division.
The question is now on amendment No. 3.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simply to help the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is very brief. The way in which the clause is now worded requires the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to do something with which he may not agree. All that we on this side of the House are attempting to do is to allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to have some option by replacing the word "shall", which in legal terms is a requirement, with the word "may", which would provide a

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
future minister of energy, mines and resources with some flexibility and not require him to do something with which he may disagree. That is the purpose of this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the amendment defeated on division.
The question is now on amendment No. 4.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, to really understand the implication of the clause it must be carefully read. The clause with which we are concerned, as it appears in this bill, allows a small group of appointed people-the board of directors of Petro-Canada and a couple of appointed ministers of the Crown-the ability to borrow money.


An hon. Member:: Just like a corporation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I heard a member from the NDP say, "The same as a private corporation." Perhaps he should check with his party's energy critic, because it is not the same. We moved a motion to restrict the borrowing of the corporation to the limits of its assets.. That is the discipline of a private corporation. Money is lent to private corporations up to the amount of its assets, but what is provided for in this particular piece of legislation-which is quite disturbing and should be disturbing to every member in the House-is that there is a small group of appointed people who can borrow an unlimited amount of money.
Earlier, the House expressed its opinion that $5,500 million of taxpayers' money should be given in the form of equity to Petro-Canada. If we do not change this clause, that same board of directors, with the concurrence of a couple of appointed Cabinet ministers, will be able to borrow $20 billion, $40 billion or $100 billion more. Do the members opposite realize that it is the Crown-


An hon. Member:: The customers.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is the taxpayers of the nation whose money is being put at risk, and no elected body has the power to stop that action. If there is one fundamental element to our system of government, it is that people who are to be taxed have the right to choose who shall do the taxing. They have the right to vote for one person rather than another in the expectation that the elected person has been given by them the power to tax. However, in the clause as it is in this bill, appointed people shall determine what taxes shall be paid in the future, and elected people will have no power, no responsibility and no authority to say whether they are right or wrong.
We on this side of the House in the Conservative Party of Canada think that that is dead wrong. Our kind of democracy exists and hopefully flourishes because one of its principles is that we have the power to elect those who will have the power to take things away from us, such as our freedom, in the sense of criminal law, and our money, in the sense of taxation law. Then, if the people we elect take our freedom or our money away from us, we can get rid of them at the next election and choose people who approach the world with a little more sensitivity and sense.
In Bill C-101 with regard to Petro-Canada, the government is seeking to give appointed people the authority to tax us in the future, because today the government borrows money without checking with us, the elected people, and makes us responsible for paying it back in the future, and we never have a say as to whether borrowing it was a good or a bad idea. If hon. members of the New Democratic Party think that appointed people should be able to tax Canadians, then let them have the courage to put it out in a pamphlet. Let them have the courage to go to the electorate and say, "Elected people should not have any responsibility for determining taxes. Hand it over to appointed people and let them decide what taxes we shall pay." If we leave this piece of legislation alone, that will be the principle to which we agree.
All I am seeking to do in my amendment is to assert that that matter concerning this large amount of money which is to be borrowed today and paid back tomorrow by the taxpayers of this country should be brought to this chamber, to the Parliament of Canada, to the elected body, and be approved or rejected by the people who were elected to come here to approve or reject taxation.


David P. Smith: That is what we are doing today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The parliamentary secretary to the Liberal House leader shouts, "That is what we are doing today." Well, if one believes that elected people are the only ones who should be allowed to tax, then one must vote for the amendment that I have proposed. If one shouts, "Nay", then one is asserting that appointed people should be able to put the taxpayers at risk and should, in effect, be able to tax Canadians in the future. That is what a "Nay" means. A "Yea" means that this is a democracy and that elected people should be the only ones allowed to tax. A "Nay" means that elected people should be given power to tax. I urge every hon. member in this chamber to vote "Yea" for this amendment for that reason.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
May 18, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Kempling:: On division!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated on division.


Paul James Cosgrove: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Kempling: On division.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is report stage and no debate is permitted at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Paul James Cosgrove: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of pain to the hon. member for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -is it Calgary South or Calgary West? I forget just where-


Some hon. Members:: Everywhere.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -because I do not think there is anyone in this House who can match the capacity of the hon. member from Calgary for a kind of oozing, shrill, self-righteousness concerning the position of other parties. I can only say how relieved I am that we have come to the part in the debate where he is no longer speaking because it was difficult, I am sure, for anyone with any intelligence to listen to him go on about the nature of borrowing in the private sector as if the customers of Imperial Oil, Gulf or Shell never paid at the pumps or anywhere else for the borrowing by those private corporations and as if it were only when it came to Petro-Canada that such was the case. He demonstrated what many Conservative members demonstrate
Petro-Canada Act
from time to time, that is, a complete blindness to the way in which the private sector operates and to the way in which its costs are passed on to the consumers. However, they only manage to notice that when and if it is true of Crown corporations.
The hon. member went on at great, self-righteous length concerning the fact that the Conservative Party would like to spend more money on health care and would not want to spend all this money on Petro-Canada. He said that the Conservative Party would not want to spend all this money to increase the borrowing authority of Crown corporations, but would rather spend it on health care. We certainly have not seen any evidence of that from the provincial Progressive Conservative governments across this land. I do not see any inclination on their part to spend more money on health care. I did not see the hon. member standing up to object to the $6.5 billion which this government will give to private oil companies under the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, and 1 did not see him standing up to say, "Do not give that money away. Spend it on health care." We did not hear anything about that. It is absolutely sickening, Mr. Speaker.
We are here to discuss Petro-Canada this afternoon. We will not spend any more time on the obvious inadequacies of the hon. member from Calgary West or South, or wherever. He is obviously from Calgary. He might better be described as the member for the oil companies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is a matter of public record that Petro-Canada was first formed as a result of pressure put on the Liberals by the New Democratic Party during the minority Parliament of 1972-74. The NDP put pressure on the Liberals to begin setting up a coherent energy policy for Canada, an energy policy which would see the interests of Canadians served rather than the interests of the private oil companies and the interests of the United States of America. Unfortunately, the Liberals have managed to set up Petro-Canada but have not yet developed a coherent energy policy which serves Canadian interests. They have failed to set up a coherent energy policy because all they have done was to insert Petro-Canada into an otherwise unchanged policy on energy economics and on the role of resource development in the Canadian economy.
This is true in a number of ways.
Basically, Petro-Canada is not the threat to private industry that my Progressive Conservative colleagues have tried to make it out to be. Their position on Petro-Canada is an ideological position. It is sometimes hard to sort out. They have two to three positions on Petro-Canada. We will deal with that later. However, the people of Canada passed their judgment on the Conservative position on Petro-Canada in the federal election campaign of 1980.

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Talk about Saskatchewan now!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the realistic program. Idealism, in the negative sense of idealism, means illusion, and in that sense the idealists are those, like many on my right and indeed many across the way, who think we can go on as we are doing now. They are the ones who are not being realistic.
We in the New Democratic Party would like to see Petro-Can, and for that matter all Crown corporations, set up differently. The present PetroCan board of directors should be replaced with a board of directors selected equally from the north, from environmental organizations, from business, labour, religious groups, consumer groups and other public interest groups. Perhaps the board of directors could be renamed the board of stewards as a way of saying what we want PetroCan to become.
PetroCan and other Crown corporations should be more responsible and accountable to Parliament. Instead we find the Liberals moving even more toward bureaucratic authoritarianism of these issues by wanting to give themselves power to set up new energy corporations without parliamentary approval. In Bill C-102, they want to set up new energy corporations without even coming to Parliament, with no parliamentary debate. We have seen too much of this here. The Progressive Conservatives yelp a lot about it. But in 1980 it was the New Democratic Party which took the Liberals to task for doing something for which it did not have parliamentary approval. That was to build the southern portion of the Alaska gas pipeline. The NDP stood up to the Liberals. The Progressive Conservatives voted with them to do that for which they did not have parliamentary approval. They should think about that the next time they get up and start waxing self-righteous about what the Liberals are doing to Parliament.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who supported them in property rights?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) mentions property rights. That is another way the Progressive Conservatives have of telling only half the truth all the time. They talk about the NDP opposition, including property rights, in the Constitution. They do not talk about all the Progressive Conservative premiers who did not want property rights in the Constitution. You will never, as long as you live, hear that coming out of the mouth of the hon. member for Bow River. He just likes to stick to the portion of the truth that suits his fantasies.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who took it out of the charter?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Having noted the division between the hon. member for Bow River and the Progressive Conservative premiers in this country, maybe it is time to say a bit more about the idealogical chaos in the Progressive Conservative Party. This is something which bears on the debate this afternoon. I would like to know who speaks for the Progressive Conservative Party on some of these issues. [DOT]


Gordon Edward Taylor: We all do.
Petro-Canada Act


John Edward Broadbent: Right on!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. They all do. It is the greatest cacophony and confusion one could imagine because we have, on the one hand, Robert Stanfield saying, "Do not forget the old Tory tradition of the appropriate, positive role of government in the economy," and then we have the member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) thinking that anything that smacks of having at least one Crown corporation exist, still existing, that this is part of the creeping communist conspiracy. Who is speaking for the Conservative Party? Is it Mr. Stanfield or is it the member for York-Peel?


John Edward Broadbent: "We all do."


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Has the Conservative Party been so infiltrated by American neo-conservatives that they cannot even see the value of Crown corporations any more?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is a terrible thing to see them go down the tube like this. Who speaks for the Progressive Conservative Party on foreign affairs?


William James Kempling: What about Saskatchewan?


John Edward Broadbent: What about Manitoba?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where is Allan Blakeney today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The debate is hardly dealing with foreign affairs at this stage. The hon. member might stay with the subject matter of the debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was trying to address what I consider to be a general malaise within the Progressive Conservative Party, and which I think bears on their approach to PetroCan. There are many people, at least I like to think there are, who are not as against Petro-Canada as some of their more right wing ideological friends try to make the party out to be. At least we hope that is the case. We have no indication of it, because they have two or three different positions on PetroCan. Why do they not have the guts to come out and say they do not like PetroCan? Why they do not go right across the country and say that? Of course, they did, Mr. Speaker, and they lost the election. That is what happened.
I was speaking about the ideological malaise within my colleagues to the right. I mentioned foreign affairs only as an analogy to what I am talking about when it comes to PetroCan, and therefore I think it relevant, Mr. Speaker.
We have two different factions speaking for the Progressive Conservative Party all the time. Who speaks for them on foreign affairs? Is it the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), or is the hon. member for York-Peel, or is it the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)? What is going on here? Who speaks on foreign affairs?


John Edward Broadbent: They all do.

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How many bases do they want to touch at one time?


An hon. Member:: One hundred bases.


William James Kempling: Taking it out of the cookie jar again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They take the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) off the subcommittee on foreign affairs and they put on the hon. member for York-Peel, who gets his view of Central America from reading journals from the United Fruit Company in 1955.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is what he is reading.


William James Kempling: At the cookie jar again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I do not want to spend too much time, Mr. Speaker, on the right-wing element of the Progressive Conservative Party which seeks to destroy its leader-and will destroy its party, if it is allowed to continue. So I say, continue, continue, go right ahead, keep on, continue and take over your party. It is the best thing that could happen.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Wishful thinking.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was speaking about Crown corporations, that they ought to be more accountable to Parliament. We find a good example in Norway of how Crown corporations can be made accountable to parliament. Statoil in Norway has to make annual reports to parliament; it has to lay its five-year plan before the parliament of Norway. These are the kinds of things we would like to see. We do not want Crown corporations to be alienated, bureaucratic institutions, any more than anyone else. We want to see them become part of the community, part of our economic life, where people will have more say in what they do where people see them not as distant organizations but as part of the decision-making process and economic life of the community.
When we vote for the expansion of Petro-Canada and for the opportunities that this bill makes possible, we are voting for the idea of PetroCan that we have, because we hope that the day will yet come when we have a government that will make PetroCan the kind of energy corporation that will do a service to the notion of public ownership, rather than the kind of disservice the Liberals have rendered us over the past few years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr.	Friesen)-Petro-Canada-Acquisition	of
Petrofina-collection of tax; (b) Canadian ownership charge; the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-Finance- Projected budget deficit; (b) Foreign aid expenditures- request for referral to committee; the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-External Affairs- Namibia-selection of electoral system; (b) Position taken by South Africa and United States.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Mr. Cosgrove (for Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-101, to amend the Petro-Canada Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We had a rather full debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I will not take much of the time of the House. It is important for Canadian taxpayers and for people who have been viewing us today, or perhaps anyone who has been listening or any member of the press who has been in the gallery, to take a close look at what the member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) said. Anyone who takes a look at it will see a speech written by a researcher in which the researcher laid out the wish of the New Democratic Party for Petro-Canada. There was one real specific wish, that it have a different board of directors, with people from the north on it and with people from labour on it.
Look at the transcript of today's debate, Mr. Speaker. The report reading stage is the time to move amendments. It is the time for a party to indicate clearly to the Canadian people and to members of this Chamber what is wrong with the piece of legislation. It is the time to indicate to the Canada people what you would like to have. What do we get, Mr. Speaker? We got a speech, but we did not get an amendment to vote on. How credible is a political party that says it wants change in legislation but does not have the courage to move amendments that would change that piece of legislation in the direction it claims it wants?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right on!
May 18, 1982


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What kind of political courage does it take to stand up and read a researcher speech and say all kinds of pious, wonderful things that are not followed by action? We find as we get a little older-maybe when we were younger we were swayed more easily by words-that one of the characteristics of getting a little older is that you start to look at what people do, not just what they say.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You are learning.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There is the test. What do they do? In the case of the New Democratic Party, I suggest that the whole speech we have heard, of what they would like, is immediately suspect because they did nothing, they moved no amendments.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: What did the Tories do?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The NDP moved no amendments, they did not try to change the legislation, so how can they say they want it changed? They did not move for a change. Then you look at the speech of the hon. member and find that he ascribes to the Conservative Party of Canada, and to me in particular, all kinds of things which I supposedly believe in. But look at what 1 said, Mr. Speaker. Look at what I did, with amendments. You will find that those things ascribed to me are not things 1 said, they are not things I did, they are simply figments of the imagination of the member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. When a person says one thing and does another and when he says his opponents said something when they did not, I think one might be well advised to conclude that in the future one should not waste one's time even listening, because someone is trying to do a con job.
Let me repeat in summary for the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill why I think his party and Liberal backbenchers should vote against this legislation at third reading. The decision to run for public office carries with it the responsibility to stand and speak out and vote on issues. Frequently they are difficult, but surely we must have the courage to tell Canadians what we believe reality to be and to act in a fashion consistent with our view of reality.
Those who vote for this piece of legislation are voting to increase the costs of everything Canadians use. Every bit of food coming into their homes, every piece of furniture and every trip Canadians take will cost more if this legislation passes, and the money will be used to buy existing businesses, including service stations. This does not have to be. We are not increasing costs to provide more money for education, health care or other things for which many of us came to this chamber to work. We are not making things cost more so that we can create more jobs. We are simply handing money over to a group of appointed people so that they can go around and buy things like service stations. That is the hard public choice. It can be covered in any way we like, but the reality is there.
What else do we accomplish when we increase those costs? I suggest that every single member of the New Democratic Party and the members of the Liberal Party obtain copies of the transcript of the hearings held in the Standing Committee
Petro-Canada Act
on Energy Legislation this morning because what they will find is that the combination of energy policies of this government, including this Petro-Canada bill, have increased the cost of transportation fuels through taxation. The increase has not been in the real cost of gasoline but in taxation. As a result, our fuel costs are higher than those in the United States of America. We are a big nation with very few people in it, and transportation is very important to our economy. When we want to sell our wheat, our lumber or our manufactured products to other nations, we have to transport them, and in Canada that costs more than it does in the United States because of taxation on fuel. We are losing customers for our wheat, our lumber, products from our mines and our manufactured goods because we have a federal government which taxes fuel oils so heavily that our transportation costs are greater than they are in the United States.
Any Canadian who makes a trip to the United States in the near future can ask someone there about gasoline and heating oil costs, and the truth can be found. Two thirds of the price of transportation fuels and home heating oils in Canada is taxation. Only one third is the cost of the commodity. Two thirds is taxation, and that is a choice the Liberal government is making and the New Democratic Party is supporting. They are saying it is all right that our transportation costs are higher than those of our competitors. When people will not buy our lumber, the products of our mines or our manufactured goods, Canadians will be out of work, and they are out of work now.
We may have difficulty seeing the relationship between $5.5 billion for Petro-Canada and people being laid off at a mine in northern Ontario or northern Quebec, but there is that relationship. That relationship is caused by the policy of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). It is a relationship supported by the backbenchers of the Liberal Party and by the members of the New Democratic Party. They might laugh at the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada, at its policy convention and in its caucus, goes out of its way to encourage individual members to speak up and to share ideas, facts and information, but in a free society people of good will who work together and share good information are much more likely to reach good decisions.
To play "follow the leader" blindly and myopically without examining the facts is to invite disaster. I suggest that the entire package of energy legislation is a matter of playing "follow the leader" blindly, It is a disaster for this country, and the first building block is an idiotic proposal to increase the cost of everything we consume for the purpose of buying service stations rather than delivering services to people. I urge every member of this chamber to vote against this piece of legislation.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), in a rather spirited oration, got himself into the field of foreign affairs, at which time he said I was replaced by the Tories in the subcommittee on Latin America. I would like to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, and I ask him to

May 18, 1982
Petro-Canada Act
accept my word as a gentleman-I know he is-that I voluntarily withdrew from that subcommittee on Latin America in order to spend my time on the United Nations disarmament question. I would like that to be clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this debate. I will be closing off the third reading debate on this particular piece of legislation, and I will say at the outset that I will be extremely brief.
I was somewhat concerned that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) should suggest that the Government of Canada is providing too much money for the operation of Petro-Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) mentioned that members of the Conservative Party have not stood in the House of Commons or, indeed, in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation and said they were against money being offered under the Petroleum Incentives Program. If the hon. member for Calgary West is so clear and so certain of his policies as they relate to Petro-Canada, then I cannot understand why he and his colleagues would not have placed a resolution before that party's policies convention which was recently held in Toronto. He did not take that step, and therefore I have to agree with others who have said that the Conservative Party's position on Petro-Canada is seven different positions, depending upon the day.


Mr. Paproski:: You will find out after the next election.


David Charles Dingwall: When private sector companies purchase other companies, members of the Conservative Party refer to these transactions as sound economic business decisions and good investments, but when Petro-Canada takes over another company somehow that is regarded as wrong and not good business. I do not understand the rationale of that. It is important for Petro-Canada to increase its authorized capital so that it will continue to do the work we all want it to do.
The legislation before the House is an extremely important part of the government National Energy Program. During the 1980 election campaign the Liberal Party promised to strengthen and expand Petro-Canada as an instrument of energy policy. The government is committed to delivering on that promise which was formally repeated in the Speech from the Throne, and the importance of Petro-Canada was also mentioned in the National Energy Program. Bill C-101 will give effect to this particular promise, Mr. Speaker.
The bill was the subject of thorough and extensive examination in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation. Many witnesses appeared before the committee, including officials of Petro-Canada, the committee to Canadianize the petroleum industry, Canertech, Petro Canada International Assistance
Corporation and the Canadian Federation of Independent Petroleum Marketers. The committee recommended no amendments to the bill.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Cosgrove for Mr. Lalonde) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 176)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Cote (Mrs.)	GauthierAlthouse	Cousineau	GendronAnguish	Cullen	GingrasAppolloni	Cyr	Gourd(Mrs.)	Daudlin	(Argenteuil-Papineau)Axworthy	Dawson	GourdeBaker	de Corneille	(Levis)(Gander-Twillingate)	de Jong	GrayBenjamin	Demers	GuilbaultBerger	Deniger	HarquailBlackburn	Desmarais	HendersonBlaikie	Dingwall	HerbertBlais	Dion	Hervieux-PayetteBloomfield	Dionne	(Mrs.)Bockstael	(Northumberland-	HopkinsBossy	Miramichi)	HudeckiBreau	Dubois	IrwinBroadbent	Duclos	IsabelleBurghardt	Dupont	Jewett (Miss)Bussieres	Dupras	JohnstonCaccia	Duquet	JoyalCampbell	Erola (Mrs.)	Kaplan(Miss)	Ethier	Keeper(South West Nova)	Evans	KellyCampbell	Ferguson	Killens (Mrs.)(Cardigan)	Fisher	KristiansenChretien	Fleming	LachanceCollenette	Flis	LajoieComtois	Foster	LalondeCorbin	Fox	LamontagneCorriveau	Francis	LangCosgrove	Frith	Laniel
May 18, 1982

Messrs.
Lapierre	Murphy	RooneyLapointe	Nicholson	Rose(Charlevoix)	(Miss)	RossiLeduc	Nystrom	RoyLefebvre	Olivier	SargeantLumley	Orlikow	SavardMacBain	Ostiguy	SchroderMacEachen	Ouellet	SimmonsMackasey	Parent	SkellyMacLaren	Parker	SmithMacLellan	Pelletier	TardifMalepart	Penner	TessierMaltais	Pepin	TobinManly	Peterson	TousignantMarceau	Pinard	TrudeauMasse	Prud'homme	TurnerMasters	Regan	WaddellMcRae	Reid	WatsonMiller	(Kenora-Rainy River)	WeatherheadMitchell	Riis	Whelan(Mrs.)	Robinson	YanakisMunro (Hamilton East)	(Burnaby) Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
NAYS Messrs.	Young-148.Andre	Gilchrist	McKinnonBaker	Greenaway	McKnight(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday	McLeanBeatty	Hamilton	McMillanBlenkarn	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MunroBosley	Mountain)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Bradley	Hargrave	MurtaCardiff	Hawkes	NeilCarney (Miss)	Hees	NickersonClark	Hnatyshyn	Nielsen(Yellowhead)	Howie	OberleClarke	Huntington	Paproski(Vancouver Quadra)	Jarvis	PattersonCooper	Jelinek	ReidCorbett	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Crosbie	King	Roche(St. John's West)	Korchinski	ScottCrouse	Kushner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	La Salle	ScottDarling	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dick	Lewis	ShieldsDinsdale	MacDonald	StevensDomm	(Miss)	StewartEllis	Mazankowski	TaylorElzinga	McCain	TowersEpp	McCuish	VankoughnetFennell	McDermid	WilsonFretz	McGrath	WiseFriesen Gamble	McKenzie	Wright-77.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a question of privilege.


George Albert Proud: Thank you, madam Speaker, for recognizing me on a question of privilege. Bombardier Limited-

-Bombardier Limite has just been awarded the largest export manufacturing contract in Canadian history. Could the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) confirm this?
Energy Monitoring Act


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


ENERGY MONITORING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-106, respecting energy monitoring and to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Marc Lalonde: That Bill C-106, respecting energy monitoring and to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 42 of the French version by striking out lines 32 to 37 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"42. Le comite de la Chambre des communes habituellement charge des questions energetiques est saisi d'office de la presenle loi lors de la premiere seance qui suit I'expiration d'un delai de cinq ans a compter de 1'entree en vigueur de celle-ci."


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary, 1 believe, wishes to speak to the amendment.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I just have a brief explanatory statement about this particular amendment. Clause 42 was proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) in committee and it was adopted by the committee. It is essentially the same provision as the one now contained in the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act. There exists, however, a discrepancy between the French and English versions of that provision. Whereas the English version deems the act to be referred to a committee of the House, the French version provides for an order of reference. Our understanding of the intent of this section is that the act is to be automatically referred to the committee. This is what the amendment we proposed at the report stage would do.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would just indicate that we have no objection to that report stage amendment. 1 would certainly recommend to my colleagues, if so desired, that after this stage is completed we move to third reading on this legislation at this point in time. We would be so disposed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there was so much shouting I do not know what the question of privilege by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was about. I would just like to have a clarification as to whether the announcement by the hon. member had anything to do with Dome Petroleum.

May 18, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to this bill, on behalf of the New Democratic Party we would agree to this amendment. It is basically a technical amendment. We are prepared to give our consent and move into third reading tonight, and the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will be our speaker on that part of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I notice the commitment of the Conservative Party this evening, as its members vacate the House with great vigour, concerning the question of maintaining fair prices and adequate supplies for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: Certainly, their performance over the last few months would indicate that this contempt has probably been amply demonstrated so that the electorate of Canada can fully understand the problems here. At any rate, the questions we would like to address concerning this particular piece of legislation relate to the need for a serious monitoring policy of the energy industry and, beyond serious monitoring, the ability to deal effectively with those aspects of it which are not in keeping with the interests of Canadians in general. Basically, in support of the need for this ongoing monitoring, I guess we do not have to look much further than to the issue of the Bertrand inquiry into the state of the competition within the oil industry over a substantial period of time. Of course, just to review very briefly the findings of that commission, they indicated that the Canadian people have been taken to the cleaners to the tune of some $12 billion over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, rather than putting anything in place to deal effectively with that kind of activity, there was a very weak monitoring agency, not an organization designed to
pay attention to the needs of consumers. Over many years, the federal government has advocated amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which would allow for more effective treatment of this kind of activity. In terms of the history of the Combines Investigation Act, it probably goes back to an attempt between 1969 and 1971 to get new legislation before the House. Reactions from large elements of Canadian business, particularly the oil companies, have indicated that they are not interested and would not be prepared to support a government which would put in effective monitoring as well as provisions which protect Canadian consumers. Over the years, we have seen a tremendous failure on the part of the Liberal government to put anything in place which would protect the Canadian people from the colossal rip-offs which have occurred in the oil industry and which, to our own way of thinking, are continuing to take place.
Concerning the present state, 1 would like to deal with just one small facet of the monitoring and kinds of control which should go in. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) stood up to speak the other day. For years, he has continually said that this Parliament is in place to bring in competition legislation. He has watched the merger operations, the concentration of Canadian business, the release of the report on the oil industry, the continued concentration of the newspaper industry, but there has been nothing forthcoming. In terms of that particular aspect of the governments failures, the minister is now promising that maybe next spring or in the fall he will bring in legislation. But ultimately, in terms of the monitoring and the kind of control and roll-backs in price increases which are unjustified, or behaviour which is unjustified as far as competitive aspects are concerned, I doubt that we will see anything from the government.
The legislation before us this afternoon is certainly not the kind of legislation which will protect Canadian consumers or small businesses involved in the energy industry. We will certainly find, under this kind of monitoring, although it is a very small step, the same type of control which the multinational corporations, in particular, have exerted in this country.. The competition legislation is one important aspect, but there are certainly other aspects which need to be considered. The one strange fact is that when we do wind up with examples of tremendous rip-offs of Canadian consumers exploitation of small businesses involved in or related to the energy industry and, beyond the exploitation, actual, concerted attempts to drive them out of business in order to maximize that dollar gleaned from the consumer, we find absolutely no action on the part of the government.
The NDP would like to see a commission or a committee which would have the right to do a thorough study, a complete monitoring of the actions of the energy companies, and which would have the power to roll back unfair prices in cases of blatant abuse. It should have the power to regulate fair
May 18, 1982

business practices. What we would advocate is a much stronger proposition. The government should have the power to monitor the activities of the energy companies. We would like to see additional powers in place to roll back unfair prices and to protect Canadian consumers as well as Canadian business involved in the energy industry.
The critical aspect concerning this particular legislation, as far as we can determine, is that there is a need to put this material in place. However, both the government and the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, have not put this forward as a priority, in our opinion. As a matter of fact, throughout the entire debate on the energy issue, whether with regard to Bill C-48 or the current legislation before us today, the Conservative Party, which has ranted and raved in the House over many of the issues, has really fought on the side of the multinational oil companies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: -on the side of the large oil companies in Canada, advocating higher prices and non-interference in a very concentrated industry in which five major oil companies have pretty well had the run of this country for many years. When it came down to the crunch in the very weak-kneed and, I would say, delicate attempts by this government to provide some additional measures to protect consumers and small business people, the Conservative Party screamed the rafters down, saying that we were ruining the oil companies. Basically, over the years, it has been the oil companies which have caused tremendous problems for the people of Canada, whether concerning supply or pricing.


Mr. Gustafson:: That is because the NDP always aligns with the Liberals!


Raymond John Skelly: I hear hon. members across the way and from the Conservative Party screaming that it is all the fault of the NDP. However, I would suggest to Your Honour that it is very clear, if we look at the voting patterns in this House, that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same philosophy with regard to giving the oil companies exactly what they want and failing to actually put legislation into place. It is certainly not the NDP which stands up to say it does not want competition legislation. The government has failed to bring it in, while the Conservatives have said, "If you bring it in, we will tie it up forever or put it on the back burner," as it were. In terms of what the members of the Conservative Party are saying, it is basically a problem with the Conservatives and Liberals on this.
To go back, the history of Bill C-106 eventually comes out of and has its historical roots in the Canada Oil and Gas Act, Bill C-48. Essentially what we have is a bill which took approximately a year to get through the House. It was fought over, amended, and changed and worked through. It involved a tremendous amount of time. It dealt with taxation proposals, Canadianization proposals, and the industrial strategy attached to the megaprojects in which aspects of the energy
Energy Monitoring Act
legislation would guarantee that the spin-off benefits came to Canadians.
Weak as they were, the members of the Conservative Party hollered, yelled, and fought alongside the New Democratic Party in attempting to get some improvements, especially the industrial strategy. When they departed, they did so to support the oil companies. That was their interest in that legislation. And it carried over into the bell-ringing episode. They turned around in this House when they felt that the energy package laid before them was unacceptable and created an impasse in the House during which the bells rang for an extremely long period of time, and none of the business of the House was done.
When the agreement was finished, did we work these bills for a year? Did we look after the interests of Canadians, consumers and small business people? No. The bills are being shot through with the speed of a rocket.
It is extremely unfortunate that these bills are being allowed to proceed because of a very ill-conceived activity on the part of the Conservative Party. It not only disrupted the House of Commons in an unwarranted, childish and foolish manner, but gave the government the opportunity to bring in this very poorly designed legislation. Because of the inept nature of the Conservatives, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) must be laughing up his sleeve and having a field day.
These bills, which are going through with the speed of light, will have tremendous effects on Canadians and small businesses. These bills are being stuffed through at an incredible pace. This is all part of the deal the Conservative Party put up "to protect" Canadians. I am absolutely astounded, considering the work that was done regarding Bill C-48. For them to think that they have somehow created a deal for Canadians is a sad mistake. They have shortchanged the Canadian people.
The beneficiaries will continue to be the oil companies. It is unfortunate that we are not taking more time considering that this is extremely important to the country.
I would like to dwell for a moment on a comment that came from a member opposite, that this was some kind of nefarious plot between the Liberals and the NDP. The only aspect we take any solace in goes back to the days when the minority government was in place, from 1972 to 1974. Then there was a great deal of pressure from this party to create PetroCan.
In terms of monitoring, we not only need effective competition legislation but an organization that is capable of carrying out effective monitoring, the ability to roll back unfair prices, and to terminate and modify practices which are unfair. In addition, we need a window on the industry, the PetroCan concept, the development of a Canadian-owned petroleum corporation, one that gives us access to the information, skills and expertise. It will give us fair information. It will not come along and say that we will have oil supplies for 900 years and therefore we should export all the surplus and then suddenly, as prices go up, withhold it from the market and say that we

May 18, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
do not have enough oil to carry us through to the end of the century.
With that kind of monitoring capability, effective competition legislation, a fair prices commission to evaluate pricing of the commodity and the ability to roll back unfair practices and prices, and a window on the industry, the Canadian people would be in exceptionally good shape.
Canadians ask themselves where this protection is that has obviously been needed over the years. In any library in any city of Canada there is literature accumulating on the rip-off not only of the Canadian people but of people in other nations who have been ripped off just as heavily as Canadians. It indicates that these problems were well known years ago. The only conclusion anyone can reach is that the Conservative Party is in full support of the continued unimpeded actions of the oil companies. It will be interesting to hear their critics comment on the need for effective monitoring of the behaviour of those companies, if they have the courage to do so.
Second, it will be interesting for the government or the Conservative Party to stand up and state their position on the competition legislation. That again would protect small businesses in particular which have been torn to pieces by the major oil companies.
If the question is not asked as to why they do not stand up to talk about these and other areas of protection and monitoring, it is because we know where they stand. The Conservative Party was totally opposed to PetroCan. It told Canadians that our interests are in the operations of Imperial Oil, that Imperial Oil knows what is good for Canada and therefore we should not pass laws regulating what the oil companies will do.
On the other side of the coin, when the Liberal government in 1973 had the opportunity to put the petroleum corporation legislation in place, it did absolutely nothing. It stood still for years. It never took hold of the opportunities and the mandate required by many people in Canada. For years it sat and spun its wheels.
That was the fault of the Liberal government. I suspect it was working on the same operating philosophy as the Conservative Party, but was a little more crafty than the organization to my right. On one hand its members said they had to put in something so that they could say to the people that they were attempting to offer some protection and monitoring, some opportunities to have a window on the industry. On the other hand they were putting forward a program that the energy corporations, especially the multinationals, were quite capable of living with and operating within the framework in which they had operated for so many years.
Basically we have a party that is honest enough to say that it is opposed to PetroCan, that it should be sold off, that it is opposed to monitoring, price roll-backs and competition legislation which would prevent some of the business practices in which those energy corporations were involved for so many years. That party made those kinds of statements and sits forever in the opposition.
Unfortunately the party across the way, in conducting the business of the nation in the best interests of the people, has come in second rate. It partially does what is required, but never goes the full distance. Therefore we have this energy legislation before this House. This bill is one example. The entire energy package falls far short of what should be done. But they sit back and say, "What a great group are we!" Given the polls, and by talking to people on the street, we know what is going to happen to that party. Unfortunately, we have the situation where this legislation is going through because at the present time the government has a majority in the House. That majority will put legislation on the books that will fail to conduct the energy business in the best interests of Canadians.
Unfortunately the opposition has not come forward with a constructive policy. At every turn they have criticized intervention in that industry, intervention designed to protect Canadian consumers, that would give the people information about the operation of oil companies so that they could make judgments as to what is not good just for Imperial Oil, or Shell Oil, or Texaco, but what is in the interests of the people. That information is vitally important, and the access to that information provides the ability to interfere in an effective way to protect people. We do not have the effective power today to roll back prices, to terminate unfair business practices effectively, to prosecute those who commit offences. One needs only to look at the record to see how poorly these things are done and really it is poor in terms of the needs of the Canadian people. What we essentially need to have happen in this House is for the government to make a commitment to strengthen this kind of legislation and so ensure that it is enforced vigorously.
On the other hand, we see the Conservative Party members and their performance in this House over the Constitution debate. They were down on the floor of the House, hollering and yelling, fighting irrationally. If we go to the housing bill debate, we notice that kind of irrational behaviour where a tremendous battle was put up, and then they voted for the bill. Again, there was the bell ringing episode, at a time when these bills should have been given a very thorough exhaustive consideration. Yet the Conservatives got themselves into a Mexican stand-off with the government, standing here and both of them ringing the bells.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We got the bill divided and you did nothing except collaborate with them. Remember Saskatchewan!


Raymond John Skelly: I have been invited by one hon. member to remember Saskatchewan.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Remember what happened to the Liberal Party out west.


Raymond John Skelly: I remember the night when we sat in this House and sent the Conservative government to its just desserts.


Harvie Andre: So did the people of Saskatchewan.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right on.
May 18, 1982


Raymond John Skelly: I certainly respected the right of that previous Conservative government to put forward energy policies, with higher energy prices, which created that situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: They created a situation in which they would get rid of PetroCan, and also created the high interest rate policy that clearly would have destroyed the Canadian economy, in the same way that the Liberal Party has destroyed the economy of the country. I suppose that the Conservative government would have done it much more quickly; that is all.
Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to go into a reasonable electoral position, if the parties would recognize clearly the problem, that we are not here to defend the multinational companies or the oil companies-we are basically here to ensure fair play for the people. That fair play has to be for all, not just for the oil companies, those the Conservative Party has represented entirely in the debate. It has to be fair play for the consumers and for the small businesses. Conservatives really need to take the time to think the problem through, to support and encourage the development of strong legislation. That includes improvements in Bill C-106, and improvements in the general energy policy, not just to protect the oil companies and the oil barons who have ripped us off before and who have driven businesses into bankruptcy. Such a bill would effectively monitor the activities of those companies that are so important, not just in the areas of oil and gas but also in other sources of energy.
We need to deal with the entire energy program, so that we have it controlled here at home, to see that it is developed in a rational manner. Monitoring is extremely important. But beyond the monitoring function, what we really need is legislation that would give effect to interference or interception of the negative business practices that harm people. We also need the competition legislation that has been promised for so long, to stop those practices that have been so harmful to the Canadian economy. We need to have the ability to punish those offenders who have harmed Canadian businesses and the Canadian consumers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the ability to roll back unfair prices and to give Canadians a fair price for their energy and a fair access to supplies. I challenge speakers in the Conservative Party, who have done so much to disrupt this House, and who have done so little to provide constructive alternatives, to get up and speak on this and tell us what they are prepared to do to protect consumers, and to protect small business which depend on us in this area.
1 would also challenge government members to stand up and indicate their real interest in protecting consumers and small businesses, rather than placing before us the kind of legislation we see here today in Bill C-106. With that challenge, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to put some of my points forward.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You talk one way and vote the other.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, listening to the New Democratic member speaking reminded me of that
Energy Monitoring Act
saying "Partial knowledge in the hands of a fool is extremely dangerous." On the one hand, he said that this legislation is going through too fast, that it is terrible and should be looked at closely. On the other hand, he decried the episode of the bells. We wonder what planet he was living on during that period.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He went home to his riding and went to sleep.


Harvie Andre: Does he not recognize that if it had not been for the bells there would have been one piece of legislation which would have been passed by now, one law? It would never have got to committee. There would have been no opportunity for outside experts to appear. Since then they have appeared, although that member has not been in the committee to hear them. If he had been there he might have learned something. Without the bells episode, he would not even have had this opportunity to make his speech on this bill and talk about the wonderful things that would happen through monitoring. It is only through monitoring, he says, that the government could know what is going on in this evil conspiracy in the private sector, the corporations! It seems that terrible things happen to people when they work for a corporation. They become conspiratorial, they become evil, they want to rip off people, they are certainly not full-fledged Canadians, they cannot be trusted, they are just terrible people. But the people who work for governments, now they are pure, saintly; they are trustworthy, they are honourable, they care about people.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And they hire architects.


Harvie Andre: Yes, they hire architects. What you want is to put these people who work for governments, who are pure, honourable, outstanding, marvellous, sincere, wonderful people, in charge of these awful, rotten people, these unCanadians who work for corporations. If they work for corporations in the oil business, they are really vicious, Mr. Speaker-they are the most despicable people! These are the kind of people who get together in conspiracies to defraud, to cheat, to rip off. They are just awful people, these people who work for corporations. We must put them under the control of the people who work for governments! That is the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. Their philosophy is that we need a window on the industry. We need to know what it is doing.
I suppose if the government owned all of the industry in the country and all the means of production, it would know everything, and then we would have the kind of perfection they have in Warsaw, Moscow and all those other places where the window is wide open! Government knows everything in those countries because there is nothing else to know but government. The New Democratic Party says that is perfection and that under that system we would have a beautiful society. Members of the New Democratic Party say that when government knows everything, everyone lives happily and well

May 18, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
clothed. Everyone is super happy in a society like that. It is marvellous! I think the New Democratic Party has a great idea!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: As a matter of fact they ought to move to Russia.


Harvie Andre: It is just a little ridiculous to listen to the hon. member and his conspiracy theories, but what is sad is the fundamental belief he probably has that in fact the conspiracy is real and that somehow people in the oil industry and people who work for corporations are conspiring against poor, honest citizens.
It surely is one of the weaknesses of human nature that we so easily accept conspiracy theories to explain what is wrong. If there is a problem in rents or housing, it is a conspiracy of landlords or developers. If there is a problem with the German economy, it is a conspiracy of the Jews. If there is a problem with the oil industry, it is a conspiracy of oil companies. We should not so easily and willingly accept these conspiracy theories. Those who do not take responsibility very seriously very quickly utilize conspiracy theories to try to explain all the difficulties which are encountered. I think it is a sad commentary on human nature that we so willingly accept conspiracy theories. The hon. member would be serving his country better if he were to back up his accusations of conspiracy with some evidence. He was not serving this institution or this country well by making the blind accusations he made throughout his speech.
This bill is a bill written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats. It provides nothing more for Canada than red tape and paper work. I asked the proponents of this bureaucratic invention whether they performed a cost benefit analysis to find out what benefits would accrue from this, given that there is a cost associated with it. The forms which have to be filled out are several pages long, and there are many little squares which have to be filled with numbers. Accountants and administrative staff will have to be hired to provide all this information.
Presumably this information is to be collected for some purpose so it can be assessed and a value attached to it. As a matter of fact, the bureaucrats do not do that. They could not name anyone who uses the information. They were unable to tell me what happens to the information once it is gathered. They were unable to tell me who uses it, how much it costs to gather it, and what is the cost-benefit. It provides jobs for some civil servants who have to collect these forms and compile them and assemble them. Then they produce a report. That provides jobs for some administrative people in the industry who have to fill out forms, but the net benefit to Canada is sweet nothing, and the cost to Canada is several hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Consumers do not benefit. The industry does not benefit. The taxpayers do not benefit. What happens is that our productivity as a nation decreases that little bit again because the people doing this are contributing nothing to the productivity of Canada.
It always amazes me how people in this institution and elsewhere will stand up and say we need this and we need that, and that it would be nice to have certain information. They say we need more laws, more regulations, and more civil servants to shuffle paper and so forth, but then the next day they say our problem is productivity. They say we have to address our productivity problem in Canada. By passing this legislation what we are doing is contributing to Canada's poor productivity performance in terms of the rest of the world. Let there be no mistake about that; that is exactly what we are doing.
This act has been in place for a number of years. The agency has been in place for a number of years. Presumably the information collected was available to the people who designed the National Energy Program and the other parts of the energy security package, which the hon. member in the New Democratic Party who just spoke decried as being ineffective in terms of the needs of the country.
The petroleum monitoring agency is in place. It has been gathering information. These are the wonderful people the hon. member feels are honourable and outstanding and much more concerned about Canadians than people who work for corporations. Why, with the benefit of this information, do they produce such a crummy package? I wonder why the hon. member cannot draw that simple distinction.
The reality is what I indicated-partial knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous, and that is exactly what has happened. The officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources produced a scenario for the minister of what was happening in energy development in Canada. I saw that description of the energy industry and of what was happening. It was wrong. It was fundamentally wrong in its assumptions and in its data. It had some incredible factual mistakes in it. One would wonder if in fact it was not cooked in order to create the atmosphere which would allow the authors to promote their program in such a way as to be acceptable to the minister.
This entire year and a half of chaos in energy is the result of a program designed to cure a problem which did not previously exist. A problem was created, or designed, by bureaucrats in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, based on fallacious assumptions and material. Had the description of the industry and the energy situation in Canada which the bureaucrats provided been true, then the National Energy Program would probably have been appropriate, and certainly more than it is. However, the National Energy Program was designed to cure a problem which never existed. It was a poor design for a non-existent problem. That is why we have chaos. That is why some $20 billion of capital left the country last year. That is why half our drilling capacity is idle and tens of thousands of Canadians are unemployed.
The information this bill seeks to acquire is downright dangerous in the wrong hands, and it is certainly in the wrong hands if it is in the hands of those officials. In ordinary circumstances if this truly were an elective body which could legislate, as opposed to being a rubber stamp for whatever
May 18, 1982

those officials decide needs approving, then indeed my colleagues and I would be examining this with a much finer-toothed comb. We would be trying to amend it and improve it to make its impact on the country less onerous and make its results more beneficial to Canadians. We do not have a parliamentary democracy, however. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wrote in his book "Federalism and the French Canadian", backbench Liberals are trained donkeys whose role is to say "aye, sir, aye" to whatever cabinet proposes, and that, of course, is whatever the bureaucracy writes. That is the situation we live in and there is not much use beating our heads against the wall.
This legislation was designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, and it contributes nothing to Canada. It is the bureaucrats who run this place, and in this instance, I for one, concede defeat. If the bureaucrats want it, let them have it. I hope that enough Canadians appreciate what is happening so that at some future date they will provide an opportunity for parliamentary democracy to be restored, so that members may represent their constituents in this House and not just be rubber stamps for the bureaucracy's proposals.
According to the New Democratic Party the bureaucracy should be running things. We are opposed to that philosophy and welcome the opportunity to present these alternate philosophies to the people of Saskatchewan, of British Columbia, of Ontario, or any other province. The NDP should have the integrity to come out and honestly state their position in that regard.
We do not find the legislation extremely damaging, but it certainly will not help. It is one more piece of bureaucratic red tape, and we already have an enormous pile of paper to deal with. It is unfortunate that the office which was established to cut the paperwork burden cannot seem to cut into this pile of paper. I guess the way to perpetuate oneself in government is by creating new institutions, new programs, new agencies, and even more paperwork by having people fill out forms. That is the way to get government to grow and to get cities to grow and, if the rest of the country is in recession, then that is just the way things go.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating was the subject of a thorough and extensive examination by the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation. As a result of the committee discussions, a number of amendments to Bill C-106 are recommended. First, with respect to the Energy Monitoring Act, the committee recommended the addition of clause 42, which would have the effect of referring this act back to Parliament for consideration five years after its coming into force. This clause is identical to one which was contained in the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act, 1978. 1 feel confident that hon. members will agree with me that the reference back to Parliament is a desirable addition to the act.
In order to correct an inconsistency that we have since discovered between the English and French versions of that
Energy Monitoring Act
clause, we are now moving an amendment to the French version.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to summarize for the House some of the salient aspects of the legislation contained in Bill C-106. The Energy Monitoring Act gives the Petroleum Monitoring Agency the authority to collect data required to prepare reports on the oil and gas sector. A broad data collection authority is provided in the act so that the Government of Canada and Canadians generally can have a comprehensive overview of the activities and financial performance of the petroleum industry in Canada.
The regular monitoring surveys published by the Petroleum Monitoring Agency are an important component of the information required for Canadians generally to assess the effectiveness of government policies for the management of Canada's energy supplies and resources. For example, the monitoring surveys will indicate the amounts of capital expenditures being undertaken by the petroleum industry for exploration and development activities, and the amount of government Petroleum Incentive Program, PIP, grants associated with these expenditures. Thus, Canadians will be able to assess the large public investments being made to ensure Canada's energy future. Similarly, the regular monitoring surveys indicate the level of Canadian ownership and control of the petroleum industry in Canada. This will allow Canadians to judge the rate of progress made toward the Canadianization objectives for the industry as outlined in the NEP.
I think that my earlier comments have made clear the purpose of the Energy Monitoring Act. The energy sector, particularly the oil and gas industry, is of vital importance to the country's economy. Therefore it is essential that all concerned-Parliament, the public, the industry, as well as government-have available timely and comprehensive information of a factural nature to permit an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various initiatives within the NEP, on an ongoing basis. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency, by providing independent comment on data and information collected under the authority of the Energy Monitoring Act, will allow Canadians to judge for themselves the effectiveness of the government's energy policies.
As I indicated during my speech on second reading, the government is anxious to minimize the reporting burden faced by the industry. In this connection I would make two comments. First, only those enterprises with over $10 million in gross revenues or $10 million in assets must report. This relieves smaller companies of the administrative burden of completing questionnaires. The legislation has a provision which would permit the reporting threshold to be raised in the future. Second, a significant part of the data required under the act that relates to research and development activities, international flow of funds, and ownership and control, is being provided, with the permission of reporting companies, by Statistics Canada. Accordingly, these data requirements do not represent an increase in reporting requirements.

May 18, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
The Energy Monitoring Act contains provisions to extend, at some future date, monitoring activities to encompass coal, thorium and uranium, or any of these, should this prove necessary in the national interest. In its various states, coal is expected to become increasingly important as an energy commodity so that information about the industry's costs of production, profitability, ownership structure and reinvestment behavior may become necessary for public policy purposes. Uranium and thorium, of course, are important inputs into the production of nuclear energy.
I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. As I pointed out during the debate on second reading, the amendments being sought are to a large extent of a housekeeping nature. They include a broadening of the definition of wholesale customer, an increase in the board's authority to delegate its workload, and other changes to help the board react efficiently to its mandate.
Some questions were asked at the committee stage as to whether, in working out an allocation program, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board might not be prone to some unintentional bias as a result of the background of members of the Board. I believe that these concerns were answered most completely by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Harry Stevenson, who gave evidence regarding his own background as well as that of other members of the board.
I feel that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board has done and is continuing to do an excellent job. It has worked with the industry, essentially on a volunteer basis, and has benefited from tremendous co-operation by the various sectors of the industry and other groups in Canada. As a result, if we are faced with a supply emergency in the future, I am confident it will be dealt with as quickly and fairly as advance planning can make possible.
The final group of proposed amendments contained in Bill C-106 relate to the Oil Substitution Conservation Act. One of the main purposes of these amendments is to ensure that sufficient parliamentary authority exists for the government to use the market development incentive payment which Alberta has agreed to pay under the September and November, 1981 agreements. These payments may generally be used for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the expansion of markets east of Alberta for Alberta-produced gas. At the same time they will ensure that similar incentives may be offered out of the consolidated revenue fund to gas distributors in British Columbia and to encourage and assist other types of oil substitution measures across Canada. The amendments will serve to maintain and increase the momentum achieved to date by our off-oil program.
There has been a reduction of some 7 per cent in oil consumption in Canada in the last year. Part of this is of course due to economic circumstances, but we estimate about two thirds is due to conservation and substitution. Although the
exact figures have not been refined as of yet, a good estimate is that about five million barrels of oil were displaced in the first year of the substitution program. This leads us to conclude we have an extremely cost-effective program even in the first year. The benefits will continue year after year, and the proposed amendments will enable us to expand this very important element of our goal of obtaining energy self-sufficiency. I hope all hon. members will concur in passing this particular piece of legislation on this, its final and third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, due to an error in the Orders of the Day which would bring Bill C-105 forward on May 19, there must be unanimous consent to proceed with that bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed with report stage of Bill C-105?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-105, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Paul James Cosgrove: That Bill C-105, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 5 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(fl) in the case of a constraint in respect of a class, the shares of the class, or
(b) in the case of a constraint in respect of a series, the shares of the series are
already subject to a con-".


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I shall give just a brief explanation of this amending motion before we proceed. It is primarily technical in nature and would not in any way change the effect of Clause 9 (1.1) which was inserted to ensure that existing classes of shares not constrained under the new constraint provisions, or new classes of shares not constrained under those same provisions, at the time of issue, could not be constrained under the new provisions. The sole
May 18, 1982

purpose of the amendment is to clarify the drafting of that particular clause so that it is clear that both a class and a series of shares can be constrained.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is one we certainly would support but it points out the faulty nature of the drafting of this legislation. This bill should be called "the Dome Petroleum Bill". The drafters of the bill, in their eagerness to interfere with corporate law generally, and without understanding the share structure of companies and the fact that companies can have classes of shares, have left us with a situation where at the last minute the government has to come in with this particular amendment. I will have more to say about the bill itself on third reading, but this amendment just points out the poor attitude of the government with respect to some very serious legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Campbell (Cardigan) (for Mr. Lalonde) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Coline M. Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an unnecessary, poorly drafted and thought-out amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act. In 1975, after a great deal of discussion by the Canadian Bar Association and other people involved in business corporations, this House finally passed the Canada Business Corporations Act. That act was at least ten years in the drafting stage. That act made it easier for companies to raise money. It made it easier to incorporate companies. It gave minority shareholders, and shareholders generally, remedies against directors so that they could not be abused as they had been in the past. Generally speaking there was a modernization of our corporate law.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that act was thought out, drafted, and redrafted. It was presented as a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with how we organize business corporations on a national basis. But this is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is now presented to us as part of the national energy package.
Canada Business Corporations Act
I want to say to members of this House that while they may think they are passing a piece of legislation that has something to do with energy, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with national energy or energy policy. This bill allows changes in the basic structure of corporate law. It will seriously hurt the raising of capital on the stock markets. It will seriously hurt companies in all sorts of deals other than energy; in transportation; in banking; in trust companies; in the distribution of liquor or of beer. It will seriously hurt all sorts of activities yet to be devised, and perhaps land holdings. It will hurt the development of business in Canada and the raising of capital in Canada. The bill does not just apply to oil. It applies to any company where the laws of Canada, or any province, make it more advisable for a company to have shares held by Canadians. If the particular business in which the company is involved falls within that ambit and there is a prescription of that type of company, it can take advantage of the provisions of this act.
Briefly, its provisions provide that a company can first deal in its own shares by buying shares on the stock market and reselling them, allegedly to Canadianize itself. Or a company can do one thing further. It can issue shares that are constrained with respect to ownership. It can then sell those shares and, at some future date, call in those shares in proportion as it feels best. It can take the shares of people who may not be Canadian that are allegedly constrained and it can sell those shares for what can be obtained on the marketplace, giving those shareholders who happen to be investors in Canadian corporations the net proceeds from the sale of that stock.
The bill demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the market system works. I want to deal with the issues in the bill as two separate portions and how those issues affect the entirety of corporate law in the country. The first portion of the bill, Clause 2, deals with the situation where a board of directors finds that it would be advantageous to a company to be Canadian, so to speak, gets designated in that fashion by the minister, then goes into the market, purchases its own shares and resells them. In other words, the company wheels and deals its own shares.
When the Canada Business Corporations Act was passed in 1975, for the first time in our corporate history we gave companies the right to be able to buy their own shares as an investment. That gave companies in Canada a great deal of flexibility. It meant that they could buy out shareholders and pay them off for their share of the equity in companies. We must remember when looking at the ownership of a company that the equity in a company is basically held by the common shareholders. They may not be common shareholders, but equity shareholders of some kind, some of whom may or may not have a vote. But the equity in a company is what we will call for argument's sake the common shareholders' share. That equity represents what was originally subscribed for the shares in the first place from treasury together with the built-up profits or surplus, after tax, reflected in the corporate balance

May 18, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
sheet. By dividing the equity among the shareholders, you find out the book value of what each share is worth. If there is a reduction in the number of shares by the company buying some of its own shares, then there is no damage to the balance of the remaining shareholders. However, if we allow that to take place, there is no damage and it is good for business.
But what we have here is a situation where the officers and directors of a corporation are entitled by the provisions of this bill to go to the marketplace, buy up shares with the treasury of the company, using all shareholders' money, but instead of leaving the benefit to the remaining shareholders as is presently the law, turning around and giving that benefit away to whomever they wish in any kind of a deal they wish, as long as they stay within the purposes of Section 31(1), which presumably is to increase Canadianization of a particular company.
I say to you, Sir, if we were really necessarily Canadianizing companies this way, some people in an ultranationalistic fashion might say that is appropriate. But what happens and what is contemplated under the statute is that shares openly traded on the market might be purchased by the company without notification-because there is no provision for notification in the act-and sold out to someone else. In other words, the shareholders' money, the equity in the company, can be used by the directors in the company to speculate in its own stock to buy and sell that stock. In the name of Canadianization, it is an open door for scoundrels to wheel and deal at tlje expense of shareholders. Indeed, the wheeling and dealing can take place at the expense of Canadian shareholders, not just of foreign shareholders.
May I remind you that in an open market situation, in the average well-traded corporation, the majority of shares are held by people who have no intention-certainly for some considerable period of time-of trading those shares. Under normal conditions it is easy to determine the ownership or the citizenship of those shares. But some of the shares represent shares which are often held in the hands of brokers in street form. Those are the shares on which the day-to-day trade back and forth determines the market value listed in the daily newspapers.
Now, what has happened? Under this bill the corporation is entitled, if it is prescribed, to go into the marketplace to wheel and deal in the trading of shares of the company. The corporation does not know, when it wheels and deals, whether the shares are held for Mr. Speaker, for example, in his broker's name. They could be held for Mr. Speaker in his broker's name in street form so that they can be easily transferred- and he is a Canadian-or they could be held for someone else in the broker's name. Who knows whose shares are whose? Shares in that form do not carry a passport or a birth certificate. They are shares which are open and being traded. Some of them may be held that way for weeks, for months or indeed for years. Some of them may be traded overnight or day to day. They never hit the registry again until someone says to the broker: "I want them registered in my name." Then one might be able to find out who is the citizen; but until that occurs one has no idea who the citizen is who owns the shares.
The government, the minister and his departmental officials have some idea that market shares held in street form should carry a passport with them. The clear indication in any market is that they do not. The only company mentioned in the public hearings which could even possibly want this legislation was Dome Petroleum. When its directors decide to go into the marketplace, they might buy Mr. Speaker's shares, the shares of some other member or the shares of a foreigner. It would not matter whether they bought in New York, Toronto or Vancouver because they would not know whose shares they were buying. When, Mr. Speaker, you buy a share in the stock market, you do not know whether you are buying a Canadian, an American or a Greek share. You buy a share, you pay the market price and you pay the broker's fee. In effect, this bill will allow the company to use corporate money which belongs to shareholders allegedly to Canadianize and to go into the open market to buy shares. I say that they could well be buying only Canadian shares and that only Canadians will be defrauded by the misuse of the equity in their company.
Does the minister pay attention to that? No, he is so set in his ways to get this bill through that he refuses to take a look at what the bar, the stockmarket, or life insurance companies and pension funds say on the matter. He says, "I am going to Canadianize." Somehow he now wants to go one step further and change basic corporate law. In committee we pointed out to the minister that it would be very simple, if he wanted, to provide for a company to make a general offering to foreign shareholders to purchase their shares at a specified offer or tender form. That would reduce foreign shareholdings and that would be fair. Foreign shareholders could take their shares and tender them to the company for transfer or cancellation. We would know that we were buying foreign shares at the offered price. The minister would have none of that because presumably it would mess up the trading activities he had in mind. One wonders whether the minister really has Canadianization in mind or whether it will be an opportunity for those who are directors of energy corporations or other corporations, where some conceivable benefit might be available from Canadian ownership, to wheel and deal in the marketplace. This wheeling and dealing in the marketplace concerns us a great deal.
We are a country which needs to raise equity capital, not just from Canadians but from anywhere we can. We are talking about raising risk capital for risk investments. We must ensure that our market is as broad, fair, honest and straightforward as possible. When we allow a situation to exist where it is possible under our corporate law for a shareholder somehow to be diddled by the directors of the corporation, when there is a fear that he could be diddled or bought out with his own money and not know it, we put into the investment climate of the country uncertainty and a feeling that perhaps the game is not fair or honest.
I say to hon. members on the government benches-and there are few of them here-that this is a piece of legislation which should not be passed. When I asked the minister and his
May 18, 1982

officials in committee who made representations to them and said that they needed this piece of legislation to Canadianize the oil industry, they could not answer. Finally, at the last meeting of the committee before the bill was rammed through with the usual government majority-ready, aye, ready-they told me as the member of the official opposition who was there-and no member of the New Democratic Party bothered to come-that they could only find one company which made representations, Dome Petroleum. They said that maybe it would affect Norcen, that maybe Norcen could take advantage of it, but that Dome Petroleum could use it. I think the bill should really be amended to read, "An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act for Dome Petroleum Limited or Dome Resources". We could call it the Dome bill. When the basic corporate law is changed because of the representation of one widely-held energy corporation that might like to Canadianize or might do better if it could Canadianize in full, there is something wrong.
I should like to go on to other portions of the bill which do not necessarily deal with the business of wheeling and dealing in stock but deal with another serious issue, and that is the issue of constrained shares. The bill, in its amendments to the act, provides that a corporation can issue classes of constrained shares, constrained as to ownership. I have no objection to that other than the fact that if shares are constrained as to ownership, 1 am not at all sure that we have not somewhere along the line breached the recently passed Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained in the Constitution. Surely the constraint we are talking about here is not that of preventing non-citizens from owning shares. It constrains Canadians, because the concept of "constraint" is Canadians who happen to be citizens of this country or landed immigrants living in this country.
What happens if you are a Canadian citizen posted abroad with our armed forces, or posted abroad in the foreign service, or a Canadian working for Petro-Canada International off the coast of China where we are drilling oil wells? In those cases you have broken the constraint. You are not a Canadian any more! Another example is those Canadians who have retired after working hard in this country for all their working lives and have moved to a warmer climate. They are no longer Canadian.
When asked about that the minister said that there are people who take their shares out of the country because they do not want to pay taxes in Canada. So he concludes that if you do not live in the country you cannot own oil company shares because those oil companies could get the advantage of PIP grants. What kind of minister, what kind of party, what kind of government is it that tells Canadians that they are no longer Canadians at some point but are relegated to second class because they have retired to Florida or the Bahamas? What kind of government is it that tells a person he is not Canadian any more because he is asthmatic and had to move to Arizona? Because a person works for the Government of Canada in an embassy or trade commission abroad, he is not a Canadian any more. Or since a person is a member of our Armed Forces in Europe, he is no longer a Canadian according
Canada Business Corporations Act
to these statutes. That is the effect of this act on those Canadians. This is what the government is supporting.
Let us consider further the question of constrained shares. These shares can be constrained in regard to what kind of Canadian is resident in Canada, but for some strange reason they can be bought and held by people who are not Canadians resident in Canada. The exception is that if a Canadian should ever move out of the country, or if a foreigner should ever acquire shares, there is provision in the bill whereby the directors have the option to select any particular owner of these constrained shares and take the shares from some but not from others, sell the shares and give the owner the net proceeds. That shareholder does not receive what the shares are worth but only the net proceeds. In addition, this does not apply to every person who holds constrained shares but only to those who the company wants to place that constraint on. In other words, if you are a Canadian who lives outside the country the government might not acquire your shares but could take someone else's. If you have a friend who is on the board, you may be able to hold on to these constrained shares while living outside the country. However, someone else might end up being expropriated in the worst possible way. That is, the company takes your shares and after it deducts whatever it costs for their sale, seizure or trusteeship, you receive whatever proceeds are left.
The reason the legislation is written in this manner is due to poor draftsmanship. The law was intended to be much more serious to enable the company to deal with any class of shares. The intention was that the company could constrain shares after they were issued and do it all over again. However, the act was amended in that respect. All the other cumbersome clauses dealing with trusteeship, seizure of some shares and not others, and the sale and payment of net receipts were left in. When we asked the officials and the minister why these provisions remained unchanged, we did not get an answer in committee. The minister and the officials did not know the answer, though I suppose Dome Petroleum did not know the answer.
This statute which we are discussing is being presented as an energy bill. Members of the official opposition are told that the only company which ever made representations with respect to some changes in the Canada Business Corporations Act was Dome Petroleum. The act deals with more than just the oil and gas industry. It affects anyone with respect to any federal or provincial laws who wish to receive licences, permits, grants, payments or benefits by reason of obtaining and maintaining a specified level of Canadian ownership or control. This is a poor piece of legislation and this House will be doing a great disservice to Canada, to corporate law, to the development of our resources and the development of equity markets in our country if it is passed.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to debate Bill C-105, which is part of what used to be the omnibus Bill C-93 which
80114 36

May 18, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
caused the bell-ringing incident in the House when the Conservative Party refused to return to the house until the bill was split. We agreed with the Conservatives that parts of the bill should not have been grouped together because we had different views on various sections of the bill. The eventual beneficial outcome of that incident was the splitting up of the bill. It has been split up into eight different bills up until this point in time.
What we disagreed with, however, was the mockery which was made of Parliament in order to arrive at that solution. I believe it showed the archaic institution we have in Parliament and the need for some kind of parliamentary reform. I would like to say a few words about that before I begin my remarks on Bill C-105. Since this is my first experience as a Member of Parliament, I have been very disillusioned by how this institution operates. Sometimes I feel frustrated and at other times I feel angry about the way business is conducted in the House. I would not want to be considered as a long-term planner at any stage of my life. 1 have worked as a public employee and I have also had my own business in Saskatchewan where I have lived for most of my life. Both as a public employee and as a small businessman I have some appreciation for what the government should do for the people we represent as members of Parliament. However, both in business and as a public employee I had to do some planning in order to decide what should happen in the future. I had to decide priorities for myself and for my family, for my business and for the government which I represent as a public employee. However, here I find that any kind of planning, short-term or long-term, is almost impossible because of the way this institution operates. I find that one cannot plan for a year ahead of time, or even a month ahead of time. In fact, sometimes things happen in this institution from hour to hour. It is very difficult to plan one's time to make the most constructive use of one's faculties and time. Therefore, in relation to this bill, I speak of the frustration I am sure many people across Canada feel with regard to the old forms and rules under which we are operating.
I would urge all hon. members in this House to work toward parliamentary reform. That should be of utmost concern in the minds of parliamentarians as we deal with future pieces of legislation. I know that the docket is fairly full now. There are many items on the Order Paper with which we should be dealing as they are important to the wellbeing of our economy and to our country as a whole. However, I would urge Members of Parliament to look at parliamentary reform at their earliest possible convenience as reform is so necessary in order for this House, this institution, to operate more efficiently than it presently operates.
It saddens me to think of the opinion held by the people of Canada in general concerning what this Parliament and parliamentarians do for the country. I assume hon. members that that opinion is not very high at this point in time. That is why I urge hon. members of this House to get on with parliamentary reform at the earliest possible time and help the
people of this country so that they can have a little more certainty about their lives and their futures.
I do not want to dwell on that subject because it is not the subject of debate this evening, which is Bill C-105, dealing with the Canada Business Corporations Act. As I understand it, it is a bill which encourages Canadian investment in the energy industry. That is a laudable cause. There should be more Canadian investment in all sectors of the Canadian economy. We have been dependent for far too long upon the policies, economies and whims of other countries. Small things affecting other countries sometimes carry over into Canada.
I feel that if we had more control over our own destiny through parliamentary reform and also over our own economy through greater Canadian ownership, we would be all the better for it. I often think of Canadian ownership in the same light as the Potash Corporation in the province of Saskatchewan. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan was formed some years ago, in the early 1970s when the NDP government defeated Ross Thatcher's government. The idea came into being that we should have more control over our own resources. Part of the reason for this wish was the fact that in 1971, the last year of the Liberal administration in the province of Saskatchewan, we took in something like $14.7 million in resource revenues. I stand to be corrected on the figure, but it is fairly close. The people of the province of Saskatchewan said; "That is not adequate; we do not think the holders of the resources in this province are paying their fair share to the people of Saskatchewan and we would like to see this situation changed." The newly elected NDP government in Saskatchewan went to the potash corporations and said, "We will increase the rate of taxation against your industry in the province of Saskatchewan". Some of the potash corporations, all of the privately-owned ones, said, "We think the tax is a little unreasonable. It is much higher than we have previously been paying, but we are willing to pay that to the province of Saskatchewan because we enjoy operating in the province. You have a commodity that is of interest to us and we can resell it at a profit, so we will pay that higher rate of taxation and remain in the province of Saskatchewan."
However, in the meantime there were other potash companies in the province of Saskatchewan which said: "That rate is unfair and we will not pay the new increased rate of taxation; we will refuse to pay it." The province of Saskatchewan replied, "Well, that is fine. We think we represent the people of Saskatchewan with a fairly strong mandate and we think the taxation rate is fair. However, if you open up your books to us and show us that you are not making a good profit, a good return on your investment, then we are willing to reduce that rate of taxation." Some of the companies opened their books to the province and showed the returns they were making, not only in their own company but sometimes in their mother company, which might be in Pittsburgh, or in Johannesburg, South Africa. Many of the potash company owners, in the early years before the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan came along, were owned by foreign investors.
May 18, 1982

This speaks to the point of Bill C-105, which is to encourage Canadian investment. We needed that. However, other companies would not open up their books at that time in Saskatchewan. Accordingly, the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan was set up as a publicly-owned Crown corporation. This illustration extends beyond the boundaries of Saskatchewan. It could have been Canadian people investing in Canadian business; it does not have to be on a provincial scale. However, through the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, the people of Saskatchewan invested in the potash resource there.
As someone who has been involved in small business, I would not have minded had some private investors from Saskatchewan bought into some of those potash companies. But for the life of me, I cannot find that there were people in Saskatchewan with the millions of dollars in venture capital it would have taken to go into the potash mines. I therefore thought to myself that it was better that the people of Saskatchewan owned the resource than some outside interests from the United States, South Africa or other countries throughout the world. In Saskatchewan there were not the private investors with the kind of capital necessary to invest in some of the potash companies. Some of the small business people could not form together as co-operatives. Even the larger businesses in that province could not. I say that it holds true throughout the country that there was not enough capital to go into that industry.
When the Potash Corporation was set up, its objective was to buy the controlling interest in potash production in the province. It succeeded in that objective. But the beauty of the potash industry is that not only is it a publicly-owned Crown corporation, the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, based on the profit motive for the people of that province, but there are also privately-owned corporations still mining potash in the province. 1 think of Noranda, Central Canada Potash and Kalium Chemicals between Moose Jaw and Regina. These companies are happy to be private sector investors in the potash industry in Saskatchewan, which will continue to expand the economy for many years to come.
It remains to be seen what will happen with the new government, whether it will retain that very valuable Crown corporation or sell it off to the private sector. I think the new government will likely keep that Crown corporation. It brings a great deal of money into the coffers of the province of Saskatchewan. As a result, the many social programs there do not have to be taxed directly to the people and taken out of their pockets. Every year the potash corporation puts a great deal of money into the provincial coffers. I would speculate that the new Saskatchewan Conservative government, which, having been democratically elected and having majority in that province, deserves to be given a chance, will not sell that Crown corporation because of the benefit it gives to the people of that province.
As I said earlier, the resource funds which flowed into the provincial coffers in 1971 amounted to $14.7 million. That was under a Liberal administration. Some ten short years later, an
Canada Business Corporations Act
NDP administration under the very capable and undisputed leadership of Allan Blakeney was able to turn around that resource revenue to the point that in 1981 the province of Saskatchewan received $1 billion in resource revenue. That is one thousand million dollars in 1981 under an NDP administration compared to $14.7 million ten years previous under a Liberal administration.
Bill C-105, which encourages Canadians to invest in the energy industry, is good because of the fact that it encourages Canadians to invest. However, we do not believe that Bill C-105 will accomplish that. We think that such things as the resource sector should be heavily owned by the public sector and should have the strongest interest of Canadians at heart. Resources, whether it be energy, hydrocarbons, potash or any other non-renewable resource, will not be there forever.
The interests of the Canadian people who own the resources should be protected. We in the NDP believe that people within a province or country own the resources that are upon or beneath their soil. To keep something that is not renewable in the best interests of the people, there must be very heavy public sector involvement. The profit motive, which most Canadians have because they want to feed their families and provide them with a good lifestyle in appreciation of the high standard of living we have had and want to continue to have, requires public sector involvement to ensure that it is good for all people in the country.
We in the New Democratic Party feel that over the years the Liberal Party and Conservative Party have not had the best interests of Canadians at heart. I do not say the Liberals and Conservatives are not interested in the Canadian people, I believe they are; but the route they are taking is the wrong one. I do not think private sector involvement alone in the energy industry or with regard to any non-renewable resource is in the best interest of the Canadian people.
We in the New Democratic Party intend to vote against Bill C-105 because it is not going to benefit Canadians as a whole. We would like to see Canada prosper more than it is now.
We have what is even worse than a stagnant economy. It is going downhill every day. One need only watch the news reports each evening. If it is not the disastrous world situation where people are afraid of a nuclear holocaust or another world war breaking out, it is the disastrous economic condition of our country. We have an abundance of natural resources and well-trained people in terms of our academic and technical skills. We have come too far to give away what we now have.
I thank the House for listening to my input in this debate. I believe that Canadians will gain further through public sector involvement in the resource industries of this country. We should have a public sector involvement which will guard the interests of Canadian people.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps fitting that I have an opportunity to speak on this rather important bill immediately following the remarks of our socialist friend, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow

May 18, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
Lake (Mr. Anguish). I found it very interesting to listen to his remarks with regard to the wonderful things done in the name of socialism in the province of Saskatchewan. However, he did not seem to hit on what I thought was a very critical question. If there was such a breakthrough in that province as he told us occurred under the leadership of Mr. Blakeney, why did the people there vote out not only Mr. Blakeney but his government with such vengeance in the last election?
As perhaps those who have been students of politics know, what we are evidencing in the New Democratic Party is the throwback they still linger with from what they were taught in university, the London School of Economics or some other school of socialism many, many years ago as a concept which at that time was thought perhaps to be workable.
As a result, we find that these poor souls are still resurrecting things which were taught to them by certain professors and teachers in their school days. After two decades of various countries and provinces experimenting with these theories, and in spite of the fact they have proven in all instances to be unworkable in the production of wealth in the country or province concerned, they still feel that somehow they are going to work in the future.
After talking about what he thought were credible advances of his socialist cousins in Saskatchewan, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake then came back and said how sad he found it that we lacked, as he called it, prosperity in this country. He would like to see more prosperity. That hon. member did not seem to link the cause and effect of what the type of socialism that he is espousing has led Canada into, as we have witnessed over the past ten years.
In short, that hon. member does not seem to recognize that if you permit the government-type of intervention, the government spending, the loading on to the people of not only taxation but more and more regulation, you have the cause and effect we are now living with as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. You will have an overinflated demand and consumerism running ahead of production, with the net result that you will have the twin demons of inflation and unemployment. That is due to socialist thinking, and let there be no doubt about it. To the degree that this Trudeau Liberal government, in the 14 years it has been able to guide this country, has followed those socialistic principles, they have seeded the problems we are now living with.
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we stopped pretending that the various policies advocated, and to some extent even implemented, by the emperor, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), do not have an effect on the economy that is most adverse.


Mr. Riis:: Whom would you use as a model, Margaret Thatcher?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I see, Mr. Speaker, that I have the NDPers starting to heckle. That is good news because it is time that we
got them at least asking questions, at least thinking a bit about the subject before us.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am not clear, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have to speak. There are various matters I want to cover. If there is time at the end of my remarks, I would be more than pleased to receive a question from my socialist friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I am only sorry that the vicepresident of Socialist International himself, the member from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), is not with us tonight. If he were here, he might join in this debate and tell us the view of Socialist International concerning Bill C-105. I know that those in that organization are very interested in various international affairs, including things that happen in Central America and in various other areas of the world. Undoubtedly he would have a view concerning the international implications of the bill before us.
I was only making a few comments on the remarks of our socialist friend. I did not intend to spend all my time questioning the role of the NDP and the sad state of our economy. We know that they have been making the snowballs over the years to be thrown at the Canadian public by the Prime Minister. In short, it is their concept, their philosophy, that breaks the ground.
We know that the hotbed, the seed area for much of what is spread throughout Canada in the form of socialist thinking, came from Saskatchewan. I am very pleased that the good citizens of Saskatchewan have chosen to stamp out this socialistic government that was so permeating the Canadian political scene.
My colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has spelled out, as only he could do, the implications of Bill C-105. I believe that members who choose not to participate in this debate are overlooking some very serious matters. As my colleagues have stated, this is a bill that in no way can be called an energy bill. The only reason it was drawn into this package was that the government ran into certain difficulties in implementing some of the share provisions and standards and that type of thing that they felt was essential to their National Energy Program.
As we know, instead of dealing, as with a rifle shot, specifically with what they felt was their problem, they have chosen to amend the entire corporate law of Canada, namely, the Canada Business Corporations Act. That act is the act that all corporations that are formed under the laws of Canada are guided by. What have they done in order to satisfy a problem that exists perhaps more with Dome Petroleum Limited than with any other company? What they have done concerns something that could happen to any corporation in Canada potentially. If you use the wording of the new Section 43.1 of the act, it will:
-assist the corporation or any of its affiliates or associates to qualify under any prescribed law of Canada or a province to receive licences, permits, grants,
May 18, 1982

payments or other benefits by reason of attaining or maintaining a specified level of Canadian ownership or control-
In short, rather than concentrate simply on solving whatever problem Dome Petroleum Limited lives with, or any other similar problem that companies such as that may need to qualify under the new National Energy Program, they have chosen to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. In the case of any corporation now incorporated under that act which wants to qualify for some type of licensing or to meet some regulation standards-such as the broadcasting companies or the banks-the government has said now that in future if, in qualifying for whatever licensing and so on they are looking for, it turns out that they have a share ownership problem-in the sense that they have too many foreign shareholders-under the new provisions of the act, under certain circumstances, it will be possible for the directors of that company to sell out those foreign shareholders as if, as the act says, the directors themselves were those shareholders. They take the proceeds; and the only right that that former shareholder of that company has is to get those proceeds at a later date. He has no further voting right. Presumably he has no right to litigate. He has just been sold out.
The reason we believe that this is a very serious precedent that is being set here is that, generally, when laws are made they are copied. Provinces may decide certainly if they are socialistic in nature as my friend to the left here knows, to follow this type of legislation with regard to their own companies' legislation.
Mir. Anguish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have a quorum in the House. 1 am asking for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker.
Mir. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, if I may speak to it, 1 think the hon. member's intervention just demonstrates that these socialists will go to no end to silence any type of adverse comment concerning their activities. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -that this is so typical of their thinking.


Douglas Keith Anguish: On a point of order, I maintain that this demonstrates the archaic institution we have here, which cannot even keep a quorum in this House at any point in time. 1 called for a quorum count and they come in like snakes out of the bushes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 asked for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker, and I expect to have that quorum count conducted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Desmarais):: Very well. I would ask the Clerk for a quorum count.
Canada Business Corporations Act
And the Clerk having taken a count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Desmarais):: There are more than 20 members in the House. The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has the floor.


Douglas Keith Anguish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that members who came in after the quorum count was called should not be counted. Also, members who are not in their seats should not be counted as being present in the House this evening, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Desmarais):: Order, please. Hon. members can enter this House at any time and stay as long as they wish. I recognize the hon. member for York-Peel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker-
[ Translation]


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, most of us were present, since we are here. I think the hon. member could at least have the courtesy-


An hon. Member:: The decency!


George Albert Proud: No, I do not want to start a debate. [English]
I do not want to be rough, so I will be-


An hon. Member:: Be nice.


George Albert Proud: I think the hon. member knows he called Members of Parliament snakes. I do not think that is parliamentary. I have no objection because he did not name any of us, but I do not think he would like us to call him all kinds of names. The rules are very clear.


Marc Lalonde: Don't call him what he is.


George Albert Proud: The rules are very clear.


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


George Albert Proud: Hon. members do not need to be sitting in their places to be counted.


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


George Albert Proud: That rule is clear.


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


Douglas Keith Anguish: Show some respect for the institution.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the people of Saskatchewan clearly know how to handle socialists. Given another opportunity, I am sure the people of Canada will deal with them in the way they deserve.

May 18, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Twenty-seven years out of thirty-four isn't bad.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was simply saying that Bill C-105 is designed to help, in the main, Dome Petroleum Limited. Unfortunately, this bill has been brought in in a form which modifies the Canada Business Corporations Act to such a degree that I think a dangerous precedent is being set. We are now being asked to accept the concept that directors, who notionally are simply trustees for shareholders, may, if it suits their purpose to qualify for a certain licence or that type of thing, reach out and sell out those who are deemed to be foreign shareholders.
I said that Dome Petroleum is the particular company which had a problem. If we check the share ownership of Dome Petroleum, we will find that there is a rather interesting share ownership between Dome Mines Limited and Dome Petroleum Limited. Dome Mines owns 25.7 per cent of Dome Petroleum Limited-as of 1981, in any event-and in turn Dome Petroleum holds 39.5 per cent of Dome Mines. Dome Mines shares trade at various stock exchanges-including, I notice, the one in Paris-and generally are very actively traded in international markets, as are the shares of Dome Petroleum Limited. The simple problem is that it is very difficult to define at any particular time what in fact is the Canadian content, as far as share ownership is concerned, in Dome Petroleum, which is partly owned by Dome Mines, which has foreign shareholders and in turn is partly owned by Dome Petroleum.
Let us bear in mind that international investors are fickle. They buy and sell shares as the marketplace allows them to do that, and at any particular time foreigners might get enthusiastic about Dome Petroleum stock. They might buy it at one time and at another time sell it, and there might be a great number of Canadian owners-or certainly non-foreign owners-of Dome Petroleum shares. As I understand the situation as it is now, the directors of Dome Petroleum have no effective way of knowing exactly what the Canadian ownership content is unless they have some kind of mechanism whereby, if the Canadian ownership content falls below a certain level, they can come in and start buying up foreign shareholders' interests.
Hon. members might ask what is wrong with that. I do not think there is anything wrong with favouring Canadian owners, but 1 suggest what we should consider before we vote on this bill is whether it is right to support the concept the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) proposes in this bill. As I have indicated, rather than zero in with a rifle shot to try to help Dome Petroleum-if that is where the minister feels the main problem is-he has decided to change our whole Canadian corporate law. He is now making it possible for the directors of any corporation incorporated under federal jurisdiction to sell shareholders out just because they decide they want to qualify for some type of licensing, either of a provincial or a federal nature, which requires a certain Canadian content.
That is a dangerous precedent in itself, but what I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members, especially the socialists to my left who like to cry crocodile tears periodically for the old and the poor, is that this type of provision hurts the very people they like to pretend they are protecting. It is often overlooked that the main shareholders of corporations in North America are not institutions but the average people we meet every day.


David Orlikow: Widows and orphans.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They are the people who are working in our factories and in the civil service. They are labourers. They are the labour force, be it Canadian or American.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is flim-flam and you know it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Socialists call that flim-flam because they do not like to hear about the effects of their type of thinking.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Maybe "balderdash" is a better term.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps when my friend from Winnipeg asks his question, he will bear the following in mind. Have hon. members to my left ever taken a look at the portfolios of pension funds?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, many times.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I refer to the pension funds set up to provide a decent living to the people who are working today and who should be able to expect decent returns when they choose to retire. One of the things our socialist friends and, of course, their cousins opposite, the Trudeau Liberals, overlook is that one of the few ways investment people feel they can hedge against future inflation is by investing in equity stocks of corporations. Many pension funds choose to put a certain amount-perhaps not more than 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent-of their total assets into equity investments in the hope that as inflation goes up the value of those stocks will also increase. It is a hedge, if you like, against inflation in preparing for the retirement days of the workers to whom I have referred. The net result is that the growing-and perhaps the largest-pool of funds in North America today buying the shares of companies are pension funds. Those funds are being held in trust for the workers of North America, the workers for whom the socialists pretend to be the great protectors. 1 suggest that the truth is the reverse. In fact, they are not protectors. Through their policies and their thinking they are selling those workers down the road every day of the week.
This again is another reason to be cautious about supporting this bill. I do not think it matters whether the worker whose shares we are taking lives in the United States or in Canada because he is still a worker. He is still a person trying to make provision for his retirement, and yet we have a government which in effect is saying that provided he is technically across the border or in some other country, directors, at their will, should have the right to sell him out and to simply say, "You have no further rights with respect to your Canadian investment." Is that a fair way to treat people who in good faith decided to invest in Canadian corporations? But that will be
May 18, 1982

the effect of this legislation when it becomes operative, Mr. Speaker.
My friend from the socialist left who spoke just before me made a point of saying that in Saskatchewan there was not sufficient equity money to buy into various corporations, and asked if it was not almost a great salvation that the state set up one or more joint ventures, as he calls them, in that province.
Let us look at Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. Is that the alternative? Is that really what the government has in mind- that as a temporary expedient you can force-sell people from their share holdings and eventually adopt a Crown corporation approach?
We have an example of one of those corporations in operation. Only at six o'clock tonight did we learn of the quarterly report of Air Canada. It turns out that it lost $27 million in the last three months. Projected, that would be $100 million per year. What does that mean to the Canadian public? This is a Crown corporation which has suffered the loss but it automatically has to be shared by every Canadian now, whether they like it or not.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It sounds like Braniff.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My socialist friend says it sounds like Braniff. Perhaps he has put his finger on the essential difference between state ownership and private ownership. In the case of Braniff the losers are the shareholders who have to pay the price for whatever made that company go under. With Air Canada, the losers are not the management of Air Canada, not the bureaucracy and not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who is in charge of Air Canada, but the average Canadian who has to pick up the tab whether he likes it or not. That is where state ownership comes apart. Unfortunately, when a Crown corporation loses money, the bottom line is the people of Canada. When a private company loses money, the bottom line is generally the shareholders and they alone have to cry about the loss.
I say this because I find it remarkable that Air Canada, which is given the most privileged position of any airline in North America, which is given preferential treatment for landing locations for routes and is still operating under a regulated transport system, should incur such a loss.
The odd situation is that if you fly from Toronto to New York today, for example, the fare is $125 one way or $250 return. Recently when I was in New York I noticed a billboard advertisement for U.S. Air offering a one-way trip to Buffalo for $19. I checked with the U.S. Air counter and was told that this was correct; after nine o'clock at night the fare was $19. I asked how much more it would cost to continue to Toronto. I was told that as Canada was still subject to regulation, the fare would be $125. So, Mr. Speaker, it costs over $100 more to get from Buffalo to Toronto. The reason is that one airline is subject to regulation and the other operates in an open, competitive system.
Canada Business Corporations Act
Our socialists to my left tell us that that is their standard and that we need more state ownership in this country. Yet Air Canada, given such a comfortable position in North America, has ended up with a loss which will amount to something like $100 million this year if the present trend continues.
I think this is bad legislation for the reasons I have given and it should be challenged. Unfortunately, the people who will be hurt by it are not the fat cats the socialists talk about but the ordinary worker who is preparing for retirement, be he in the U.S. or in some other country.
I mention this because I think the real effect of this legislation will be further to discourage investment in Canada. It will underline the feeling that some people have that Canada cannot be trusted as the investment haven it used to be and that there are better places in the world to invest. That is a shocking development to witness when Canada should be one of the most ideal areas of the world in which to invest. It has often been said that we have everything going for us in this country, but unfortunately our drift to the socialistic state interventionist approach has helped kill off the potential we could have realized.
This bill is another contribution to our sad plight. The socialists like to say on the one hand that they do not know what is causing this malaise without realizing it is because the Liberal government has implemented many of their ideas and this is causing inflation, unemployment and a lack of growth in this country. All those things could be relieved if we could regain confidence in the marketplace that created the prosperity all Canadians share in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would be pleased to.


David Orlikow: The hon. member spent a good part of his time condemning members of the New Democratic Party for their socialist ideas. When he got near the end of his speech and was explaining what he did not like about those socialist ideas, it turned out that it was our belief that in some sectors of the economy there is a place for public ownership. The hon. member made it clear that he does not think public ownership can be as efficient as private ownership.
I want to ask the hon. member why it is that in Ontario, which has had a Conservative government for most of the last 65 years, there is a publicly-owned hydroelectric system which was established by a Conservative government, and recently the Conservative government of Ontario bought a substantial share in Sun Oil. The present Conservative government of Alberta bought 100 per cent Pacific Western Airlines, and it owns a substantial share of Ipsco and of Nova.
Would the hon. member explain why it is permissible and advisable for Conservative governments to run corporations owned by the state but not for anybody else?

May 18, 1982
Canadian Business Corporations Act


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is obvious. My time has been so occupied with trying to keep track of what those socialists are up to here in Ottawa, aided and abetted by their cousins across the floor, that I have no time to keep up to date with what he has been talking about. Certainly I do not, unlike the earlier speaker, purport to speak for the Premier of Alberta or the Premier of Ontario. They are very capable of speaking for themselves.
IVf*. Thacker: What is more, Mr. Speaker, 467 federal Crown corporations do not pay provincial income tax


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Marc Lalonde: May 18, 1982

That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"and Resources may, where the Governor in Council by order so approves,". [English]


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a brief explanation of this amendment. It is to clarify that the approval of the governor in council is expressed by the order, and therefore to clarify that the order tabled in Parliament for the proposed affirmative or negative resolution is the order expressing the approval of the governor in council. Mr. Speaker, it is strictly a technical amendment and I just make those comments to clarify it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be able to wear two hats this evening. One is as spokesman for our party. I am indicating that our party supports the changes being made. Secondly, as joint chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, I would like to indicate another reason which was not enunciated by the parliamentary secretary. There is a long standing dispute between the standing joint committee and the Department of Justice concerning the so-called magic formula.
The position has been taken by the Department of Justice for some years now that when a statutory instrument is being proposed, unless it says expressly in the statute that the governor in council may do something by order, the Department of Justice takes the opinion that the matter is not properly before the statutory instruments committee and in some instances need not even be published. Mr. Speaker, what this does is to ensure that the matter will be brought before the regulations and other statutory instruments committee, and that it is deemed to be a bona fide order.
As far as the members of the standing joint committee were concerned, it is our position that all orders in council, whether it says "by order" or not, should be deemed to be properly before the committee and should be deemed to be publishable. But if the government choses to do this for greater certainty, then we welcome this sign of good intentions on the part of the government and we support it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in committee both our party and the Conservative Party, and in the House the member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and particularly the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), have been pressing to make this terrible bill really, in terms of parliamentary procedure, somewhat better. We are prepared to agree to this technical amendment, although we hope that the government will come up with some more amendments that will make the bill one that will fit in with parliamentary tradition as we understand it.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there have been discussions among the various parties and that there
Energy, Mines and Resources
would be unanimous consent for me to move a motion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This could be done with the unanimous consent of the House? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page 2 and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the amendment by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if I were to explain to the House what we are voting on before we take the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The amendment will have to be put to the House. Mr. Beatty, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moves:
That Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page 2 and by renumbering the subsequent subciauses accordingly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is germane for me to spend a few minutes discussing this, because I consider this the single, most important amendment to this bill that will be dealt with in the discussion of Bill C-102.
The amendments that we will be moving on this side to this bill are not to be deemed, even if they pass, as to warrant support by this party and this House for the bill. The amendments we are proposing tonight are simply a means of damage control, of trying to limit the amount of damage that is being done to the public interest by the bill before us. Let us make no mistake about it; it is a bad bill. It is a bill that does not deserve the support of the members of the House of Commons. It is a bill that is injurious to the interests of the people of Canada.
In no area is this bill a worse bill than the provision in the bill that would automatically accord agent of Her Majesty status to all new Crown corporations incorporated under this legislation. I am delighted that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is here tonight, because it is the President of the Treasury Board who has the responsibility in government for drawing up comprehensive Crown corporation policy. It is very important that he participate in this debate as well to explain his position as President of the Treasury Board and whether he believes that automatically all new Crown corporations incorporated under this bill should be given special privileges.

May 18, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
The privileges which would come from this provision are very significant ones. Most Canadians are not aware of what "agent of Her Majesty" means. It is an expression which appears very Archaean and innocuous, but it conveys very significant privileges.
Perhaps the best way for me to explain to members of the House is to refer them to the uranium cartel case which is currently before the courts. I will not comment on the merits of the case. Hon. members on this side of the House have raised them on a number of occasions, but suffice it to say that the government finally agreed that a number of uranium companies should be charged with price-fixing for contravening the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. That is a criminal offence, and the case included both private sector companies and two companies which were owned by the Government of Canada. One of them was Eldorado Nuclear, and the other was Uranium Canada.
When that matter came before the courts, the two Crown corporations pleaded in their case that they could not be charged because, as agents of Her Majesty, they were immune from the criminal law. Indeed, in a decision made by the Ontario Supreme Court on this case, the court found as follows:
It is clear that the long-standing historical immunity of the Crown or its agent is not to be lightly dispensed with. Section 16 of the Interpretation Act was in force before the commencement of the period specified in the charge, prior to the incorporation of U.C. and prior to the inclusion of Eldorado under the protection granted by section 3 of the Government Companies Act. Whatever the intention of Parliament relating to the application of the Combines Investigation Act to these companies, adequate time has expired to permit this to be done. Nothing has been done and at present there is no language in the Combines Investigation Act which purports to make that statute binding upon Her Majesty or to affect Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner. The language of section 16 is, on the other hand, clear and unambiguous. (See The Canadian Broadcasting Company and The Attorney-General for Ontario, supra, particularly the judgment of Rand J. at pages 198 and 199).
The judge said:
In my opinion then, section 16 is a complete answer to all submissions made by the Attorney General here, and I find that the Combines Investigation Act is not binding upon either of the applicants. In this regard, the conduct complained of in these charges, assuming it is capable of proof, cannot be characterized as criminal and there exists no foundation upon which these charges could be validly laid or prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act.
What does this mean? This means that when the government includes a provision for automatically granting agent of Her Majesty status to these Crown corporations, it sets two standards. There is one standard for the private sector and for all ordinary Canadians and another standard entirely for the government. It says that federal corporations which operate as agents of Her Majesty are above the combines law and that they can engage in price-fixing. They can engage in the sort of manipulation which would lead to charges being laid in the private sector. In other instances they could engage in false and misleading advertising. A Crown corporation can be exempt from prosecution under statutes dealing with false and
misleading advertising. They can be immune from other criminal prosecution as agents of Her Majesty.
It is intolerable to any Member of Parliament who is concerned about respect for the rule of law to accept a situation whereby automatically all new Crown corporations incorporated under this bill would automatically be given that immunity. There must be one standard of law in Canada, and if the government chooses to put in place combines legislation designed to ensure that price fixing does not exist, designed to ensure that one cannot engage in false and misleading advertising and designed to ensure that practices in the marketplace are fair and scrupulous, how can it with any justification seek to exempt its own companies from maintaining the same standards of behaviour we would expect of private sector companies? If private sector companies violate the Combines Investigation Act or if they violate other criminal legislation, charges are laid against them and they are prosecuted in the courts. Yet what we find in the Eldorado and Uranium Canada case is that the government using the fact that the two Crown corporations were agents of Her Majesty, and the corporations have declared themselves immune from the application of the criminal law.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is baloney. Come off it! You know better.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If he says that, the hon. member clearly has not read the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell that to Peter Lougheed and Bill Davis.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I regret that the hon. member would make such an attack on the Ontario Supreme Court. Surely it is incumbent upon a Member of Parliament, including the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), to respect a decision by the Ontario Supreme Court which very explicitly says what the law of the land is today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Humbug.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It may very well be that the hon. member for Regina West believes that Crown corporations should be above the law and should be able to engage in improper and illegal activities with impunity and immunity.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: None is above the law.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Unlike government members, members of the Progressive Conservative Party in the opposition believe such behaviour is intolerable.
The position we put forward to the House tonight is that when the government enters into the marketplace of the country, the government should not ask for standards of its own behaviour which were more lax than the standards which apply to everyone else. The government should be prepared to set an example which goes well beyond the standards of behaviour expected of everyone else. How can we expect to see respect for the rule of law in this country if the government says: "What we do is all right, but if you engage in the same sort of behaviour, we will lay criminal charges against you?"
May 18, 1982

For that reason alone it would be wrong automatically to confer agent of Her Majesty status in these instances on these companies which, by and large, will be operating as competitors in the marketplace. However, the privileges and immunities which are conferred by the granting of agent of Her Majesty status goes well beyond simply the ability to thumb one's nose at the Combines Investigation Act.
Equally important and equally odious is the fact that these companies operating in the marketplace would not raise money on their own credit rating. They would not have to establish that they were credit worthy, that they were well managed, that they were good companies or that they were worthy companies to which to lend money. When an agent of Her Majesty enters into markets and tries to raise money, an agent of Her Majesty does so with the credit rating of the Government of Canada. That means these companies automatically have a triple A credit rating. Their competitors in the marketplace have to raise money on the basis of their own credit rating. These Crown corporations, being granted agent of Her Majesty status, will automatically be able to do so with the best terms possible, that is, the best commercial terms available to the Government of Canada.
It goes one step beyond that. In cases where these companies are ill-managed and where ultimately we find they go bankrupt and there are massive losses incurred, as was the case with Consolidated Computer in which $125 million was poured down the drain, what happens in the case of an agent of Her Majesty? In a case where an agent of Her Majesty has incurred debts and goes bankrupt, those debts are automatically charges upon the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Parliament does not have any discretion in a case like that. The people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, are automatically responsible for any debts which are incurred by these Crown corporations.
No one knows-and if the President of the Treasury Board in any way disputes this, I invite him to participate in the debate-what the potential liability of agents of Her Majesty is or how much the taxpayers of Canada could ultimately be charged for mismanagement by Crown corporations which are agents of Her Majesty. Nor do we know when we are asked to pass this legislation tonight how many Crown corporations will be created, what will be their scope, what will be their size and what sort of debts they will be running up for which the taxpayers of Canada would be responsible. If tonight we grant automatic agent of Her Majesty status, we will be giving an unlimited credit card drawn on the account of the people of Canada to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to be used by any new Crown corporation in the energy field which he chooses to set up. How could members of this House of Commons do that? How could anyone who witnessed the fiasco of the Consolidated Computer case and the loss of $125 million because of the negligence of the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues accept that as a practice which would be tolerable for Members of Parliament? Clearly we have a responsibility on us, and clearly the President of the Treasury Board has a direct responsibility on him, to ensure that we do not give this unlimited ability to
Energy, Mines and Resources
Crown corporations to run up debts on behalf of the people of Canada beyond the control of Parliament.
I should make one thing clear, and that is that the government already has the capability through other legislation to confer agent of Her Majesty status on any Crown corporation it chooses. The government can do that today. The issue is not whether in some instances it will be appropriate in the future to confer agent of Her Majesty status on some Crown corporations. The issue is whether Parliament today should be saying for all time that all Crown corporations created under this legislation will automatically be given agent of Her Majesty status. By doing so we will automatically be granting them immunity from combines investigation legislation, will automatically be granting them immunity from some taxes and will automatically be giving them privileges in terms of raising money that their competitors do not have. They will automatically be able to borrow on the government's credit rating and to hold the taxpayers of Canada responsible for their debts, if they are ill-managed.
If the hon. member for Regina West is prepared to do some homework, I would invite him to consider the reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Crown corporations. That committee found that it was essential to bring some control and accountability to Crown corporations. This was after a succession of scandals during the sixties and seventies that involved Crown corporations and the misuse of public funds. I would invite him to look into the Estey report on Air Canada which found there were inadequate controls on these Crown corporations. I would invite him to look at the report of the Lambert Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability which recommended that controls be put in place. 1 would invite him to read the successive reports of the Auditor General of Canada to Parliament which said it was essential to bring in legislation that would ensure that the taxpayers of Canada are protected and that the sort of fiascos that occur when Crown corporations run up unlimited bills and pick the pocket of the taxpayer to pay for them could not happen in the future.
These are not partisan authorities, Mr. Speaker. The public accounts committee represents all parties in this House, and the Auditor General of Canada, a royal commission and a judicial inquiry have some standing. The hon. member for Regina West may scoff at those authorities, but there are some members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who believe they have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. There are some who believe that when they are dealing with billions of dollars they have a responsibility as custodians to ensure that the money is well spent and is not simply poured down the drain.
I have constituents who are smarting because of the present financial situation, who desperately need the money that is being taken from them in taxes, who need assistance from the government. If money is not available to my farmers in the form of assistance but is poured down the drain because of the

May 18, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
mismanagement of a Crown corporation which has been granted agent of Tier Majesty status, then I have not done my job as a Member of Parliament.
If constituents of the hon. member for Regina West who are having a hard time paying their mortgages, who find there is no assistance available to them from the government, are being forced to pay taxes as a result of the mismanagement of Crown corporations because the hon. member has decided that the liabilities of Crown corporations automatically become liabilities of his constituents, then I say he is not doing his job either.
I will return to my first point, Mr. Speaker. Even if it were not enough that Parliament had a responsibility to exercise some prudence and to show some concern about the management of the moneys we hold in trust for the people of Canada, surely when the Canadian people are beginning to lose respect for their institutions and when respect for the rule of law is being lost, the government should act to restore respect for the rule of law. It should not take actions which would create a new group of companies operating in the marketplace which would be immune to criminal legislation and would be able to take the law into their own hands and disregard law passed by Parliament to protect consumers.
This is not the time to slacken laws; it is the time to ensure that the government meets the most stringent standards and sets an example that can be respected by the people of Canada.
At the present time some 50 Crown corporations operate in the marketplace as agents of Her Majesty. This bill would give the government authority to incorporate an unlimited number of new Crown corporations, every one of which would automatically be agents of Her Majesty.
To go a step further, because they would be incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, these corporations would have the ability to incorporate subsidiaries and those subsidiaries yet further subsidiaries in Canada and outside Canada, under federal companies legislation, under provincial companies legislation, and under international legislation. All of these would automatically be agents of Her Majesty and would automatically have the ability to stick the Canadian taxpayer with any bill incurred because of mismanagement.
There have been a number of instances where mismanagement has existed.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Consolidated Computer. The hon. member is unaware of the fact that $125 million of taxpayers' money was squandered in this way. How many instances do we need before members of the House, and particularly members of the NDP, are prepared to show respect for taxpayers' money, money which is coerced from their constituents?
This is a crucial issue, Mr. Speaker. If Parliament defaults tonight and allows two standards to be set, if Parliament allows the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to sign
the wallets of the taxpayers over to these Crown corporations, then I say that as members we have no right to take pride in the way we have conducted ourselves.
This bill is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. My amendment would simply reduce some of that danger. I would ask the people of Canada to judge members of the House on the way they vote for this bill. All the amendment would do would be to provide that all these Crown corporations would not automatically become agents of Her Majesty. The government would still have the right, as it does today, to make any Crown corporation it chooses an agent of her Majesty.
The only thing that we are asking the government to do tonight with this amendment is to confer that authority on a case by case basis and not by a blanket grant. Surely the people of Canada have a right to expect no less from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a few quick lessons for the expert on Crown corporations who does not even listen to members of his own party in the provinces.
In the first place, a Crown corporation is automatically an instrument of Her Majesty the Queen, no matter how you slice it, in any province or in the federal government.
Second, the hon. member mentioned credit ratings for Crown corporations as if they had somehow earned an advantage. Credit ratings have always had to be earned, whether in the provinces, under the federal government, in the United States or in Europe. They have had to be earned by the way a Crown corporation was administered. I invite the hon. member to ask the Premier of Ontario or of British Columbia or of Alberta about that little item.
I gather from the hon. member's remarks that he feels a number of Crown corporations have always been above the law. If that is true, it means that all of us, and particularly the hon. gentleman, have not been doing our job.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why would the hon. gentleman condemn Crown corporations because members of this House have not been doing a good job?


Charles Joseph Clark: Because he has read the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: His logic escapes me. The hon. member also held that massive losses or massive investments are borne by taxpayers. I invite the hon. gentleman to explain the difference, because I am just an innocent country boy from the prairies. For instance, if $1 billion is invested by citizens in a private corporation, that corporation pays dividends or interest. If they lose money, they do not pay dividends. If they make money, they pay taxes. I thought that was just pure and simple grade nine stuff. But the costs of that investment are borne not only by the investor but also by the consumers of the company's product. If I am wrong, I hope the free enterprisers
May 18, 1982

on both sides of the House will convince me that the consumer does not bear that cost in the price he pays for the product. It does not matter whether it is a Crown corporation or a private corporation; both have to recover the cost of their borrowings. If I am wrong about that, I hope someone gets up and tells me.


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The other things I would like these private enterprisers on both sides of the House to show me is one instance where a private company returned part of its profit to the consumer and not just the shareholders. I would like all these big-wheel private enterprisers and barefoot boys from Bay Street to show me an instance where a lovey-dovey finance company, which built into their charges the cost of borrowing on which they made a profit, returned to their customers a share of that profit. I am willing to be converted, Mr. Speaker, if they can show me-


Mr. Ellis:: Stay where you are!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -where that happened. Go to an "anal" meeting of Cominco, Inco or the CPR and listen to all these beautiful free enterprise investors. Does the little old lady in running shoes from the local Tory convention with her $100 worth of shares have any say? It is like the Tory convention last weekend where they brought in a bunch of foreigners who had all the say, and it was to hell with policy, let us just play politics. Go to the annual meeting of a corporation and see how much say the average shareholder has in the operation of that company. The truth of the matter is, none whatsoever. At least, Mr. Speaker, with a Crown corporation we have a chance to get back at them. I invite my hon. friend to buy one share in Canadian Pacific and go to their next "anal" meeting and see how far he gets with a motion from the floor. He will not get anywhere. He will be ruled out of order; it is all decided by five or ten people. At least with a Crown corporation whether it is owned by the federal or provincial government, we can call it to account.


Mr. Gamble:: Where?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right in here.


Mr. Huntington:: How?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where have you guys been? You have had lots of opportunity. When we were in committee and dealt with annual reports of Crown corporations, where were these free enterprisers? All they want to know is how to get rid of them; they do not ask about accountability.


John Albert Gamble: What meeting have you ever attended?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you watch some of these right-wing nitwits from the two so-called major parties, when they have an opportunity to do something about the accountability of a
Adjournment Debate
Crown corporation, they blow it. Then they come in here and condemn the principle of Crown corporations.
The hon. member called into question the fact that a Crown corporation is in the name of Her Majesty. He better check the laws of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By the way, we are going to vote with the official opposition on this one, but for different reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for any hon. member to suggest that this legislation is going to give something automatically and for all time is either sheer ignorance or sheer stupidity. There is no such thing. The hon. member should know better than to make those kinds of statements instead of appealing to the worst-


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -in people, instead of appealing to other people to agree with his ignorance.


Charles Joseph Clark: What day is it, Les?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman makes no protest about massive losses in private corporations when tens of thousands of consumers are hit and thousands of shareholders lose everything; but when a Crown corporation does, he gets up and says they are bad.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I had the occasion to ask two questions of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). The first dealt with the serious deteriorating nature of our current deficit. I made reference to the fact that the deficit was originally projected six months ago to stand in the amount of $10.49 billion. I asked the Minister of State for Finance whether the Department of Finance had prepared new projections as to what the deficit for the current year would be. The question was founded upon the presumption, logically arrived at, that having regard to the massively increased costs incurred by the government as a consequence

May 18, 1982
Adjournment Debate
of the failing economy and the known reduction in revenues generated, it was anticipated that the deficit would increase and increase substantially.
The uncertainty as to the quantum of that increase, however, has led in my view to a serious undermining of the value of our currency. That decline has been rectified in part by the traditional practice followed by this government of shoring up the value of our dollar by increasing interest rates in Canada using the agency of the Bank of Canada. The increase in interest rates has triggered a negative response to the government's alleged attack on inflation, the declared enemy. At the same time it has forced more businesses out of business and it has exacerbated the amount of unemployment suffered in the country. Currently we have at least 1.5 million working Canadians who are no longer working as a result of this foolhardy policy adopted by the current government.
It seems appropriate, in the event the decline of our dollar with all of the consequential effects to which I have made reference is to be stemmed, for the government to disclose a new set of financial figures indicating exactly the nature of the deficit that we may anticipate for the current year.
The government's response to this significant issue has been to lay blame for our economic plight upon the government of the United States. I pause to ask if, indeed, our entire financial position as a nation is to be determined by actions of another government, why do we need a Minister of Finance? Why do we need a Department of Finance and why do we need a Minister of State for Finance if all they can do is come into this House and explain to the people of Canada that we must await some measure of improvement to come from a foreign country.
If I had any doubt as to the need for the Minister of State for Finance, that doubt was rather rapidly resolved by his response to my second question. I asked, in light of current economic circumstances in this country, whether it would not be appropriate, having regard to our massive foreign aid program which currently in terms of direct funding exceeds $1,724 million, to refer the issue of the quantum of foreign aid to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for examination. The minister's response to me was as follows:
Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could stop staring at his navel-
1 asked that question in all seriousness.
I am not familiar with the constituency represented by the Minister of State for Finance, but I can tell the House that somewhere within his constituency there are some of those businesses which have gone bankrupt that are represented by the 39 per cent increase in insolvencies in the country in the first quarter of this year over last year. Somewhere in his constituency there are farmers who have become insolvent and are represented by the 70 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies. Somewhere in his constituency there are some of those unemployed persons who are now forming an army.
Canadians are angry, and I am angry, with the flippant, arrogant response which the minister presented to me and to the House. Surely it is time that the government came to recognize that the people of Canada will no longer accept this kind of abuse. The government must begin to have some regard for the welfare of the people of Canada and adopt policies-if not this one, then surely some other-which will bring some relief to hard-pressed citizens of Canada.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had an opportunity to visit the Caribbean Development Bank, an institution which serves the small islands running through the Caribbean Commonwealth area, the areas we think of whenever we think about a Caribbean vacation in the middle of the winter. All through that area, Canada has contributed magnificently in very practical ways to schools, fishery projects, forestry projects, airports and in a myriad of practical ways which enormously help the people in those countries. We are proud of our contributions in that area. I saw them with my own eyes. I saw how those projects improved the standard of living of those people. But I also saw, which the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) will never admit, how those projects improved Canada's reputation abroad, improved our trade and how, in turn, they improved the ability of the people in those areas to rely on their own capacity and their own strength. We can be proud of those kinds of contributions. Those are the ideals which many of us who look higher than our navel will find are possible in the world.
The hon. member for York North plays on the opposite. He plays on the stingy and mean-mindedness in all of us. He tries to drag us down to a small ideal. He implies that we are all suffering some kind of enormous economic damage because of an act of generosity to other people around the world. His comments tonight carry these ideals to an extreme. He is telling us that building schools, airport hangars and forestry projects are leading to business and farm bankruptcies. The hon. member claims to be a practical man. He should in fact try that claim out on a few of his constituents, where he would be laughed out of the hall.
Let me give one simple example. Canada has said that it will increase its official development assistance to other countries to 0.5 per cent of our gross national product, hardly an extreme case, hardly an excess which will lead to suffering or damage in the economy. Instead, it is a universally recognized, humanitarian level which also helps our businesses, our selfreliance and our trade patterns around the world. We benefit as much as the people who receive this money.
As a final note, I will tell the House that when I listened to the people at the Caribbean Development Bank talking about the money we were using in that bank, they talked about good management, good project evaluation, increased purchases from Canada, streamlined loan administration and constant management review, ideals which I support.
May 18, 1982

Adjournment Debate
[Translation]	adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two
o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The At 10:10 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been pursuant to Standing Order.
HHi

Wednesday, May 19, 1982